2,2,6-Trimethylcyclohexanone is a minor ketonic aroma constituent best documented in fragrance, flavor, and botanical volatile analysis rather than in direct human pharmacology. Archive-ready evidence supports it as a chemically defined alicyclic ketone found in cistus-related materials and in some food aroma systems, where studies describe it as a contributor to floral-fruity or rockrose-like odor character. The present evidence base is useful for identity, occurrence, odor role, and high-level safety-assessment tracking, but it is thin for mechanism or wellness-style claims and should be labeled accordingly.
Chemical identity and composition
PubChem lists CID 17000, molecular formula C9H16O, and IUPAC name 2,2,6-trimethylcyclohexan-1-one. Synonym sets also include 2,6,6-trimethylcyclohexanone and the perfumery-facing name cistus cyclohexanone.
Aroma and practical use
- Use the recorded floral-fruity, woody-ambery, rockrose-like, tea-like descriptors to explore a blend's scent character; perceived strength also depends on the other ingredients.
- Read the route, preparation and experimental context before using a study finding to choose an oil.
Reported benefits and effects
Findings retain their study context. An animal or laboratory result describes that experiment.
A 2025 Foods study on floral-fruity Pu-erh tea identified 2,2,6-trimethylcyclohexanone among ten key active-aroma compounds, and the aroma recombination and omission workflow supported its contribution to the characteristic profile.
A 2025 Foods study on floral-fruity Pu-erh tea identified 2,2,6-trimethylcyclohexanone among ten key active-aroma compounds, and the aroma recombination and omission workflow supported its contribution to the characteristic profile.
This reference does not establish a therapeutic result or a safe use level for a custom oil blend.
A 2025 review on Cistus ladanifer essential oils and volatiles supports cistus materials as a documented occurrence context for this constituent, although alpha-pinene and viridiflorol dominate the broader profile.
A 2025 review on Cistus ladanifer essential oils and volatiles supports cistus materials as a documented occurrence context for this constituent, although alpha-pinene and viridiflorol dominate the broader profile.
This reference does not establish a therapeutic result or a safe use level for a custom oil blend.
Use concerns and concentration limits
Sensitization concernNot flagged
Not flagged in the current model. This is not proof of absence or unrestricted safety.
Phototoxicity concernNot flagged
Not flagged in the current model. This is not proof of absence or unrestricted safety.
Oxidation concernNot flagged
Not flagged in the current model. This is not proof of absence or unrestricted safety.
Penetration enhancementNot flagged
Not flagged in the current model. This is not proof of absence or unrestricted safety.
A recorded constituent reference, not a recommended oil dilution. Product category, source applicability and all contributing oils must be checked before use.
unverified reference · No source provenance attachedA dedicated RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment exists for this constituent, which is useful as a safety anchor, but the accessible abstract did not expose a numeric dermal threshold or a concise hazard conclusion that could be transcribed responsibly here.
The source assessment applies to its specified exposure and preparation; this entry is not an unrestricted-use clearance.
No archive-safe constituent-level medical or topical-use claim should be made from the currently retrieved evidence; safety handling should stay in fragrance-ingredient and research-material territory unless fuller toxicology documents are reviewed.
This reference does not establish a therapeutic result or a safe use level for a custom oil blend.
No direct public citation is attached to this entry.
Constituents it may interact with
No constituent-pair interaction is recorded for this identity. The report does not assume either amplification or incompatibility.
What this report cannot establish
- A reported constituent percentage does not establish an effective human therapeutic dose or the amount absorbed into the body.
- The presence of a constituent does not guarantee a clinical benefit, rash treatment or sleep improvement from a custom blend.
- An unflagged concern or missing use limit does not establish safety for ingestion, inhalation, skin exposure or a particular person.
- A candidate constituent interaction does not establish that two oils amplify one another at the selected proportions.
- Constituent descriptors alone do not establish a precise top, heart or base lifetime in a finished blend.
Known data gaps (5)
- Direct pharmacology or mechanism literature specific to 2,2,6-trimethylcyclohexanone was not located in this pass beyond aroma-role and safety-assessment references.
- The accessible RIFM abstract did not expose the detailed toxicology conclusion, so no numeric dermal cap or hazard class is asserted here.
- Most usable evidence is odor-function or occurrence data, not human outcome data.
- The numeric dermal reference lacks source provenance; a verified flag alone is insufficient.
- Some findings do not record an explicit exposure route; consult the linked study before applying them to a use.