Manufacturer since 2009 · Tongling, Anhui ISO certified Licensed for hazardous & precursor chemicals
[email protected] · +86 186 5620 1888
Eapearl Chemical
Iron Oxide Yellow — label CAS 51274-00-1

Iron oxide yellow

Iron oxide yellow

CAS 51274-00-1 EC 215-168-2 FeH3O3 Powder SDS published

Specification

Product NameIron oxide yellow
Other NamesIron oxide yellow
CAS No.51274-00-1
EINECS No.215-168-2
MFFeH3O3
Molecular weight106.87
Purity96%
Appearancepowder ranging from lemon yellow to brown
Density5.24
Melting point1538 °C
solubleness1.65μg/L
flash (ing) point>230°F

Values are typical for the standard grade. Tighter specifications are available — state the target in your inquiry and we confirm against the production batch.

Packaging and shipping

Dag25kg
IBC Dag25kg
ISO tank (20ft)24–26 m³
ISO tank (40ft)48–50 m³
Iron oxide yellow
Iron oxide yellow
Iron oxide yellow
Iron oxide yellow

Iron oxide yellow, mainly composed of hydrated ferric oxide, is a vivid and highly performing yellow inorganic pigment. It not only inherits the excellent light resistance, chemical stability, and non-toxic environmental friendliness of the iron oxide pigment family, but also boasts a bright and pure hue, extremely high tinting strength and covering power, and outstanding dispersibility. It is widely used in building materials, industrial coatings, plastics and rubber, art pigments, and numerous industrial fields. It is the ideal choice for giving products a lasting, vivid, and safe yellow color. We are committed to providing stable product quality and professional color matching support to create a solid color foundation for the value creation of our customers.

The full range of iron oxide yellow products are produced, providing applications such as building material coloring, industrial coatings, plastics and rubber, art pigments, etc.The full range of iron oxide yellow products are produced, providing applications such as building material coloring, industrial coatings, plastics and rubber, art pigments, etc.The full range of iron oxide yellow products are produced, providing applications such as building material coloring, industrial coatings, plastics and rubber, art pigments, etc.

The full range of iron oxide yellow products are produced, providing applications such as building material coloring, industrial coatings, plastics and rubber, art pigments, etc.

Product Description

Anhui Eapearl Chemical Co., Ltd.As a professional supplier of inorganic pigments and chemicals, relying on a profound understanding of pigment application technology and a stable resource network, we provide customers with high-performance and multi-specification iron oxide yellow product series and color solution solutions. Iron oxide yellow, mainly composed of hydrated ferric oxide, is a yellow inorganic pigment with bright color and excellent performance. It not only inherits the excellent light resistance, chemical stability, and non-toxic environmental friendliness of the iron oxide pigment family, but also with its bright and pure hue, extremely high tinting strength and covering power, and excellent dispersibility, is widely used in building materials, industrial coatings, plastics and rubber, art pigments, and many industrial fields. It is an ideal choice for products to give them a lasting, bright, and safe yellow color. We are committed to providing stable product quality and professional color matching support to create a solid color foundation for the value creation of our customers.

The value of iron oxide yellow lies in its ability to provide vivid colors while ensuring the long-term stability and safety of the colors. It is a reliable coloring solution for high-performance applications:

Vivid and pure hues: It can offer a range of vivid, rich, and pure yellow tones from lemon yellow to orange yellow, with good color light stability and strong consistency between batches.

Exceptional durability: It has excellent light resistance and weather resistance. It does not fade or flake off easily under long-term outdoor ultraviolet radiation and climatic conditions, and its color retention far exceeds that of organic yellow pigments.

Excellent physical properties: High tinting strength and covering power, low usage, high efficiency. It has good resistance to alkali and solvents, and is stable in alkaline systems such as cement and lime, as well as in most coating systems. Safety and Environmental Protection: Non-toxic, harmless, free of heavy metals, in line with international environmental protection standards (such as EU REACH), suitable for applications in areas with high safety requirements such as toys and food contact materials.

The full range of iron oxide yellow products are produced, providing applications such as building material coloring, industrial coatings, plastics and rubber, art pigments, etc.

The full range of iron oxide yellow products are produced, providing applications such as building material coloring, industrial coatings, plastics and rubber, art pigments, etc.

Delivery&Payment method

The full range of iron oxide yellow products are produced, providing applications such as building material coloring, industrial coatings, plastics and rubber, art pigments, etc.

Frequently asked

In what packaging is Iron oxide yellow shipped?

Standard formats are Dag (25kg), IBC Dag (25kg), ISO tank (20ft) (24–26 m³), ISO tank (40ft) (48–50 m³). Other packaging can be arranged for full-container orders.

Is a safety data sheet available for Iron oxide yellow?

Yes. A full safety data sheet for CAS 51274-00-1 is published and linked from this page; a signed copy is issued with the shipping documents.

What purity do you supply?

The standard grade is 96%. Tighter specifications are confirmed against the production batch before shipment.

Related products

Sodium bicarbonate

Sodium bicarbonate

NaOH

CAS 144-55-8 99% Powder
Sodium citrate

Sodium citrate

SOD CITR

CAS 68-04-2 99% Powder Warning
Iron oxide black

Iron oxide black

Iron oxide black

CAS 12227-89-3 96% Powder SDS Warning
🧬 3D Molecule Visualizer
Loading molecule...
3D model C.I. Pigment Yellow 42, CAS 51274-00-1, molecular formula FeH₃O₃, molar mass 106.87 g/mol

Data transcribed from regulatory registers and technical literature, with the source and edition stated. It does not replace the supplier's safety data sheet. Fields without a recorded source are marked as such.

📊 Physicochemical data — CAS 51274-00-1MolGod_PROPHUB_MAIN
📊 Physicochemical properties

Quick Reference

Formula: FeH₃O₃
MW: 106.87 g/mol
CAS: 51274-00-1
🔬 Advanced Properties

Chemical Identifiers

SMILES: O.[OH-].[O-2].[Fe+3]

Last updated: unconfirmed

Chemical Overview: C.I. Pigment Yellow 42MolGod_OVERVIEW_1
Molecular formulaFeH₃O₃[1]
Molecular weight106.87 g/mol[1]
IUPAC nameiron(3+);oxygen(2-);hydroxide;hydrate[1]
SMILESO.[OH-].[O-2].[Fe+3][1]
InChIKeyLDHBWEYLDHLIBQ-UHFFFAOYSA-M[1]

Data sources: PubChem (NLM/NIH)
Last updated: 2026-09-21

📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) (1 sources)
  1. PubChem. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NIH/NLM), chemical compound database. ↗ dotyczy: Molecular formula · Molecular weight · IUPAC name · SMILES · InChIKey

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

[1]CrossRef2024
A Survey on Goal-Oriented Semantic Communication: Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions
Tilahun M. Getu, Georges Kaddoum, Mehdi Bennis. (2024). "A Survey on Goal-Oriented Semantic Communication: Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions". IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2
Go to full study ↗
[2]CrossRef2024
2024: The Olympic Games go viral
Sébastien Nisole. (2024). "2024: The Olympic Games go viral". Virologie. https://doi.org/10.1684/vir.2024.1060
Go to full study ↗
[3]CrossRef2024
IgA antibodies against HIV-1
Valérie Lorin, Hugo Mouquet. (2024). "IgA antibodies against HIV-1". Virologie. https://doi.org/10.1684/vir.2024.1049
Go to full study ↗
[4]CrossRef2023
Oscillation Charging Dynamics in Nanopore Supercapacitors with Organic Electrolyte
Tangming Mo, Jianguo Zhou, Haoyu He et al.. (2023). "Oscillation Charging Dynamics in Nanopore Supercapacitors with Organic Electrolyte". ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac
Go to full study ↗
[5]CrossRef2020
No. 51274. Spain and European Forest Institute
(2020). "No. 51274. Spain and European Forest Institute". United Nations Treaty Series. https://doi.org/10.18356/7aeb1767-en-fr
Go to full study ↗
[6]CrossRef2020
Treaties and international agreements registered in August 2013 Nos. 51265 to 51274
(2020). "Treaties and international agreements registered in August 2013 Nos. 51265 to 51274". United Nations Treaty Series. https://doi.org/10.18356/dd549f3f-en-fr
Go to full study ↗
[7]CrossRef
Table 2: Monthly mean value of the PM 10 for the selected four-hour periods (06:00–10:00, 10:00–14:00, 14:00–18:00, 18:00–22:00)…
(0). "Table 2: Monthly mean value of the PM 10 for the selected four-hour periods (06:00–10:00, 10:00–14:00, 14:00–18:00, 18:00–22:00) in 2017.". https://do
Go to full study ↗
[8]CrossRef
Table 1: Mean value of PM 10 and percent of time for the selected periods (06:00–10:00, 10:00–14:00, 14:00–18:00,…
(0). "Table 1: Mean value of PM 10 and percent of time for the selected periods (06:00–10:00, 10:00–14:00, 14:00–18:00, 18:00–22:00) in six air quality leve
Go to full study ↗
📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) 14 refs · 1 baz

MOLECULE Per-CAS bibliography (live from 13+ databases)

Sources: db:crossref (14)

  1. db:crossref Tilahun M. Getu, Georges Kaddoum, Mehdi Bennis. (2024). "A Survey on Goal-Oriented Semantic Communication: Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions". IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3381967 →
  2. db:crossref Sébastien Nisole. (2024). "2024: The Olympic Games go viral". Virologie. https://doi.org/10.1684/vir.2024.1060 →
  3. db:crossref Valérie Lorin, Hugo Mouquet. (2024). "IgA antibodies against HIV-1". Virologie. https://doi.org/10.1684/vir.2024.1049 →
  4. db:crossref Tangming Mo, Jianguo Zhou, Haoyu He et al.. (2023). "Oscillation Charging Dynamics in Nanopore Supercapacitors with Organic Electrolyte". ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.3c12913 →
  5. db:crossref (2020). "No. 51274. Spain and European Forest Institute". United Nations Treaty Series. https://doi.org/10.18356/7aeb1767-en-fr →
  6. db:crossref (2020). "Treaties and international agreements registered in August 2013 Nos. 51265 to 51274". United Nations Treaty Series. https://doi.org/10.18356/dd549f3f-en-fr →
  7. db:crossref (2016). "4/25/2021 12:00:00 AM". 4/25/2021 12:00:00 AM. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350910584 →
  8. db:crossref (2011). "Jahresinhaltsverzeichnis intensiv 2011". intensiv. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1322432 →
  9. db:crossref (0). "Table 2: Monthly mean value of the PM 10 for the selected four-hour periods (06:00–10:00, 10:00–14:00, 14:00–18:00, 18:00–22:00) in 2017.". https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10041/table-2 →
  10. db:crossref (0). "Fig. 1. Comparative characteristics of glycemia indicators in the studied groups at different periods of observation: time for determining glucose levels, day 2: 7:00, 9:00, 13:00, 15:30, 17:00, 21:00. Time to determine glucose level, day after 3 and 12 months according to self-monitoring: 7:00, 12:00, 15:00.". https://doi.org/10.14341/dm10099-4571 →
  11. db:crossref (0). "Table 1: Mean value of PM 10 and percent of time for the selected periods (06:00–10:00, 10:00–14:00, 14:00–18:00, 18:00–22:00) in six air quality levels in 2017.". https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10041/table-1 →
  12. db:crossref (0). "51274, 1893-01-16, GIUSTINIANI-BARBARIGO, Venise". Art Sales Catalogues Online. https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7886_asc-51274 →
  13. db:crossref (0). "Bride of Frankenstein: 00:51:00". https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.13005363.cmp.1544bs40s →
  14. db:crossref (0). "Fig. 2a. To the № 00/00 expert’s conclusion". https://doi.org/10.17816/fm411-256 →
Regulatory status of the substance
No entries for this CAS in the restriction lists checked (SVHC candidate list, REACH Annex XVII; datasets incomplete — this is not a confirmation of compliance). CLP classification and transport status (ADR): see the GHS section and the safety data sheet (SDS).
🧮 Stoichiometry CalculatorMolGod_STOICH_1
🧪 Chemical DataMolGod_CHEMDATA_1
CAS Number
51274-00-1
Molecular formula
FeH₃O₃
Molar mass
106.87 g/mol
IUPAC name (EN)
iron(3+);oxygen(2-);hydroxide;hydrate
SMILES
O.[OH-].[O-2].[Fe+3]
InChIKey
LDHBWEYLDHLIBQ-UHFFFAOYSA-M
📡 Data sourcesMolGod_SOURCES_1

The data in this widget comes from the following verified scientific sources:

  • PubChem — National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI/NIH), USA
  • ChEMBL — European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), UK
  • NIST WebBook — National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA

Data is cached locally for speed — the widget also works offline.

🔍 External identifiersMolGod_EXTID_1
8 of 16 ID systems50%
DatabaseIdentifierActions
CAS Registry Number51274-00-1Open →
PubChem CID23320441[1]Open →
InChIKeyLDHBWEYLDHLIBQ-UHFFFAOYSA-M[1]Open →
InChIInChI=1S/Fe.2H2O.O/h;2*1H2;/q+3;;;-2/p-1[1]
SMILESO.[OH-].[O-2].[Fe+3][1]
EC Number257-098-5[2]Open →
UNII (FDA)EX438O2MRTOpen →
WikiData QIDQ27277405Open →

Sources: PubChem (NIH), Wikidata SPARQL, KEGG, ChEMBL (EBI), CompTox CTX (EPA).

📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) (2 sources)
  1. PubChem. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NIH/NLM), chemical compound database. ↗ dotyczy: PubChem CID · InChIKey · InChI · SMILES
  2. ECHA. EC Inventory — EINECS, ELINCS, NLP and List Numbers assigned under REACH. Helsinki: European Chemicals Agency. ↗ dotyczy: EC Number
📡 Spectroscopy — CAS 51274-00-1MolGod_SPECHUB_MAIN
📊 Spectroscopic spectra databases — inline data 9 sources MolGod_SPECDB_2

Spectra are fetched on demand from 9 sources. Each spectrum is stored in our database — the next time it is opened there are zero requests to the external API. Download JCAMP-DX / CSV / PNG for every spectrum without searching.

IR IR (Infrared) — NIST WebBook
Public domain (US Federal)
▶ Click to load spectrum
🔗 Source
— points
📚 NIST Chemistry WebBook, SRD 69
MS (NIST) Mass Spectrum (EI) — NIST WebBook
Public domain (US Federal)
▶ Click to load spectrum
🔗 Source
— points
📚 NIST Standard Reference Database 1A
UV-Vis UV/Visible Absorption — NIST WebBook
Public domain (US Federal)
▶ Click to load spectrum
🔗 Source
— points
📚 NIST Chemistry WebBook, SRD 69
¹H NMR NMR (¹H, ¹³C) — NMRShiftDB
CC-BY-SA 4.0
▶ Click to load spectrum
🔗 Source
— points
📚 Steinbeck C et al. (2003) J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43(1):10–16 DOI: 10.1021/ci025588g
MS (MoNA) MoNA — MassBank of North America
CC-BY 4.0
▶ Click to load spectrum
🔗 Source
— points
📚 MassBank of North America (UC Davis) DOI: 10.1002/jms.1777
IR/NMR/MS (SDBS) SDBS — Spectral Database for Organic Compounds (Japan AIST)
Free for non-commercial

Reference source — no public API. Open in an external database:

🔗 IR/NMR/MS (SDBS) →
📚 SDBSWeb: https://sdbs.db.aist.go.jp (AIST, Japan)
JP Monograph Japanese Pharmacopoeia — Monographs
Reference only

Reference source — no public API. Open in an external database:

🔗 JP Monograph →
📚 Japanese Pharmacopoeia 18th Edition (2021)
WHO INN WHO — International Nonproprietary Names
WHO Model Lists (free)

Reference source — no public API. Open in an external database:

🔗 WHO INN →
📚 WHO INN Programme
DOAJ DOAJ — Directory of Open Access Journals
OA journal index (mixed)

Reference source — no public API. Open in an external database:

🔗 DOAJ →
📚 DOAJ — doaj.org

Data is fetched once (JCAMP-DX parser) and stored in the plugin's local database. No duplicate downloads, no NIST queries on subsequent openings. Licences respected (only a deep link plus our own visualisation is published).

🔬 Interactive spectra (live — NIST / MoNA / NMRShiftDB / SDBS) (2)

Data retrieved live from multiple sources (priority chain). JCAMP-DX / CSV / PNG available for download under each spectrum.

IR — Fourier-transform infrared

Loading IR — Fourier-transform infrared…

MS — Mass spectrometry (EI 70eV)

Loading MS — Mass spectrometry (EI 70eV)…

Structural propertiesMolGod_STRUCT3D_1

Loading structural data...

❓ Frequently asked questions (7)MolGod_FAQ_1
What is C.I. Pigment Yellow 42?
C.I. Pigment Yellow 42 (CAS 51274-00-1) is a chemical compound with the molecular formula FeH3O3 and a molecular weight of 106.87 g/mol. The chemical data comes from PubChem (National Institutes of Health, USA).
Helpful?
What is the CAS number of C.I. Pigment Yellow 42?
The CAS number for C.I. Pigment Yellow 42 is 51274-00-1. A CAS Registry Number is the standard identifier for a chemical substance in scientific literature and in trade.
Helpful?
What is the chemical formula of C.I. Pigment Yellow 42?
The molecular formula of C.I. Pigment Yellow 42 is FeH3O3. Its molecular weight is 106.87 g/mol.
Helpful?
What is 51274-00-1?
51274-00-1 (CAS 51274-00-1) is a chemical compound. The chemical data comes from PubChem (National Institutes of Health, USA).
Helpful?
What is the CAS number of 51274-00-1?
The CAS number for 51274-00-1 is 51274-00-1. A CAS Registry Number is the standard identifier for a chemical substance in scientific literature and in trade.
Helpful?
How should C.I. Pigment Yellow 42 be stored?
C.I. Pigment Yellow 42 should be stored as its safety data sheet directs \— typically in a dry, cool, well-ventilated place, away from heat and from materials it is incompatible with.
Helpful?
How should 51274-00-1 be stored?
51274-00-1 should be stored as its safety data sheet directs \— typically in a dry, cool, well-ventilated place, away from heat and from materials it is incompatible with.
Helpful?
➕ Suggest a question
Download structure filesMolGod_STRDL_1

Molecular structure files from the PubChem database (NIH). Compatible with Avogadro, PyMOL, Jmol, and ChemDraw.

Source: PubChem, National Library of Medicine (NIH). CID: 23320441

🔄 Concentration unit converter LIVE MolGod_UNITCONV_1

Enter the C.I. Pigment Yellow 42 concentration in any unit — the rest will be calculated automatically.

MW: 106.87 g/mol · IUPAC Gold Book ↗

⚗️ Conversion formulas + citations (per formula)
ConversionFormulaAccuracySource
% (w/v) ↔ molarityc (mol/L) = (% × 10) / MW±0.5% rel. when density ≈ 1.0 g/mLIUPAC (2019)
millimolar ↔ molarc (mol/L) = mM × 10⁻³ExactCohen ER, Cvitaš T, Frey JG, Holmström B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor AJ (2007)
molarity (mol/L)c = n/V = (m/MW)/V±0.1% (depends on MW precision)IUPAC (2019)
parts per million (mg/L) ↔ molarityc (mol/L) = ppm / (1000 × MW); equivalently ppm = mg/L for dilute aqueous±1% (density-independent for dilute solutions)IUPAC (2019)
mg/mL ↔ molarityc (mol/L) = (mg/mL × 1000) / MW / 1000 = mg/mL / MW × 1±0.2%Cohen ER, Cvitaš T, Frey JG, Holmström B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor AJ (2007)
g/L ↔ molarityc (mol/L) = (g/L) / MW±0.1% (depends on MW precision)Cohen ER, Cvitaš T, Frey JG, Holmström B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor AJ (2007)
mmol/L ↔ molarityc (mol/L) = mmol/L × 10⁻³ExactCohen ER, Cvitaš T, Frey JG, Holmström B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor AJ (2007)
Celsius ↔ KelvinT(K) = t(°C) + 273.15±0.01 K (ITS-90 scale)BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) (2019)
Celsius ↔ FahrenheitT(°F) = T(°C) × 9/5 + 32±0.1 °FThompson A, Taylor BN (2008)
density-corrected % ↔ molarityc (mol/L) = (%w/w × ρ × 10) / MW, ρ in g/mL±0.1% when ρ known to 3 decimalsCohen ER, Cvitaš T, Frey JG, Holmström B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor AJ (2007)
📚 Bibliography (8 authoritative sources)
  1. Thompson A, Taylor BN (2008). Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI). NIST Special Publication 811 · DOI: 10.6028/NIST.SP.811-2008
    → Primary SI standard for US scientific usage
  2. Cohen ER, Cvitaš T, Frey JG, Holmström B, Kuchitsu K, Marquardt R, Mills I, Pavese F, Quack M, Stohner J, Strauss HL, Takami M, Thor AJ (2007). Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry — The IUPAC Green Book. RSC Publishing, 3rd ed. · DOI: 10.1039/9781847557889 · ISBN: 978-0-85404-433-7
    → Canonical IUPAC guide for chemistry quantities/units
  3. BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) (2019). The International System of Units (SI), 9th edition. BIPM · ↗
    → International SI definitions (incl. redefined kilogram 2019)
  4. ISO/IEC (2022). Quantities and units — Part 1: General. International Organization for Standardization — ISO 80000-1:2022 · ↗
    → General rules for physical quantities and units
  5. ISO/IEC (2019). Quantities and units — Part 9: Physical chemistry and molecular physics. International Organization for Standardization — ISO 80000-9:2019 · ↗
    → Concentration / molality / amount-of-substance conventions
  6. Tiesinga E, Mohr PJ, Newell DB, Taylor BN (2021). CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2018. Rev. Mod. Phys. 93(2):025010 · DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025010
    → Avogadro, gas constant, molar volume (2019 SI revision)
  7. IUPAC (2019). Compendium of Chemical Terminology — the IUPAC Gold Book (online). IUPAC · DOI: 10.1351/goldbook
    → Definitions of mass fraction, molality, normality, ppm, activity
  8. Mills IM, Cvitaš T, Homann K, Kallay N, Kuchitsu K (1988). Quantities, Units and Symbols in Physical Chemistry. Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1st ed. · ISBN: 0-632-01773-5
    → Historical predecessor of IUPAC Green Book
Similar molecular structuresMolGod_SIMSTR_1

Loading similar structures...

🧪 Solution Preparation Wizard WIZARD MolGod_PREP_1
① Select concentration
② Target volume
③ Solvent

Calculations per: IUPAC Gold Book ↗, Merck ↗

Computational chemistryMolGod_COMPCHEM_1

Loading computational data...

🛡️ Safety — CAS 51274-00-1MolGod_SAFEHUB_MAIN
Data limitations notice. The safety information on this page is for reference only and does not replace a full safety data sheet (SDS). Before using the product, consult the manufacturer's current safety data sheet and the GHS/CLP guidance. The CLP classification applies to the pure bulk substance, not to commercial formulations.

No harmonised GHS classification for this substance — see the supplier's current safety data sheet (SDS).

📚 Consolidated scientific references — Chicago Author-Date 10 sources

References collected from all Safety Hub tabs. CAS: 51274-00-1 · PubChem ↗

  1. Parlament Europejski i Rada UE. 2008. "Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1272/2008 w sprawie klasyfikacji, oznakowania i pakowania substancji (CLP)." Dz.Urz. UE L 353. [↗] GHS, Regulations
  2. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 2021. "Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), Ninth Revised Edition." United Nations, Geneva. [↗] GHS
  3. Goldfrank, Lewis R., Robert S. Hoffman, Mary Ann Howland, et al.. 2019. "Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies, 11th ed.." McGraw-Hill Education, New York. ISBN 978-1-25-985961-8. Pierwsza pomoc, Toksykologia
  4. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2023. "NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards (DHHS Publ. 2005-149)." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services / CDC, Cincinnati, OH. [↗] Pierwsza pomoc, PPE, Toksykologia
  5. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 2016. "EN 374-1:2016 — Protective gloves against dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms." CEN, Brussels. [↗] PPE
  6. UNECE. 2023. "European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR 2025)." United Nations, Geneva. [↗] Utylizacja, Regulacje
  7. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2022. "NFPA 400 — Hazardous Materials Code." NFPA, Quincy, MA. [↗] Magazynowanie
  8. Urben, P.G. (ed.). 2017. "Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards, 8th ed.." Butterworth-Heinemann / Elsevier, Oxford. [↗] Magazynowanie
  9. Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska RP. 2023. "Baza danych o produktach i opakowaniach oraz o gospodarce odpadami (BDO)." Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska, Warszawa. [↗] Utylizacja
  10. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC / WHO). 2024. "IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans — List of Classifications." WHO, Lyon. [↗] Toksykologia

Tabs with their own references (Emergency, PPE, Storage, Waste) contain additional bibliographic entries within their respective sections.

📈 Analytical statistics (t-test · RSD · Grubbs · Q-Dixon) ICH Q2

Paste a series of replicate measurements (CSV, or one number per line). The calculator computes the mean, standard deviation and 95% CI, and detects outliers (Grubbs + Dixon Q).

Separator: comma, space, tab, new line. Minimum 3 measurements.
📐 Statistical formulas
  • x̄ = Σxᵢ / n — arithmetic mean
  • s² = Σ(xᵢ - x̄)² / (n-1) — sample variance
  • s = √s² — standard deviation
  • RSD% = (s / x̄) × 100% — relative standard deviation
  • CI₉₅ = x̄ ± t(0.05, n-1) × s / √n — Student's t
  • G = |xᵢ - x̄| / s — Grubbs' test
  • Q = |xsuspect - xnearest| / |xmax - xmin| — Dixon Q-test

Source: ICH Q2(R2) Validation of Analytical Procedures · ICH PDF ↗

🧪 Buffer Recipe Calculator UNIQUE
References: pKa values from Goldberg NIST 81 · CRC Handbook 100th ed. · Stoll & Blanchard 1990 (DOI)

Choose a buffer from the list of 20 popular systems → enter the target pH → get an exact recipe with the masses to weigh out.

Step 1: Choose a buffer system

📜 Recipe history (last 10)
📅 Project Planner — Lab Experiment Manager NEW

Plan your entire laboratory project: add experiments with reagents, replicates, and duration. You'll get a Gantt chart, a shopping list (with links to the store!), a budget with a 10% margin, and a GHS risk matrix.

🧪 Solubility and solvent compatibility MolGod_SOLUB_1
Molecule
C.I. Pigment Yellow 42
Formula
FeH₃O₃
logP (XLogP3)
—
Mass (g/mol)
106.87
Polarity
—

⚠️ Ionic / inorganic compound — Hansen parameters (δD/δP/δH) do not apply: dissolution is governed by crystal-lattice energy and ion solvation, not molecular cohesion. The HSP block and Hansen sphere are omitted. HSP-dependent columns (Compat./Ra/Visual) are marked "n/a" — base solvent selection on experimental data.

Solvent compatibility table not available for this substance.
The Hansen parameters fall outside the range of the method, so the distance Ra cannot be calculated, and the database holds no solubility measurement to put in its place. Rather than eleven ratings with nothing behind them, we show none. Base the solvent choice on the safety data sheet and on experimental data.
📚 Scientific references for solvents (Chicago Author-Date) — click to expand

11 solvents · 54 full citations (NIST/CRC/IARC/Hansen/Reichardt/Smallwood/Wypych/Armarego/Snyder/GESTIS) — below.

Water (H₂O)
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Water (CAS 7732-18-5)
  2. CRC — CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 104th ed., Sec. 8 (Properties of Water)
  3. IAPWS — IAPWS Release on Static Dielectric Constant of Water
  4. Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Water
Ethanol (EtOH)
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Ethanol (CAS 64-17-5)
  2. CRC — CRC Handbook — Ethanol physical constants
  3. Snyder & Kirkland — Modern Liquid Chromatography — Ethanol eluotropic
  4. Smallwood — Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties — Ethanol
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Ethanol
Methanol (MeOH)
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Methanol (CAS 67-56-1)
  2. CRC — CRC Handbook — Methanol physical constants
  3. Snyder & Kirkland — Modern Liquid Chromatography — MeOH eluotropic, eo=0.95
  4. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Methanol
Acetone
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Acetone (CAS 67-64-1)
  2. CRC — CRC Handbook — Acetone physical & thermodynamic constants
  3. Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — Acetone (dD=15.5, dP=10.4, dH=7.0)
  4. Smallwood — Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties — Acetone
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Acetone
Acetonitrile (ACN)
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Acetonitrile (CAS 75-05-8)
  2. CRC — CRC Handbook — Acetonitrile constants
  3. Snyder & Kirkland — Modern Liquid Chromatography — ACN gold-standard HPLC eluent
  4. Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects — ACN dipolar aprotic
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Acetonitrile
DMSO
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — DMSO (CAS 67-68-5)
  2. Wypych 2019 — Handbook of Solvents Vol. 1 — DMSO comprehensive properties
  3. Hansen 2007 — HSP — DMSO (dD=18.4, dP=16.4, dH=10.2)
  4. Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects — DMSO E_T(30)=45.1, dipolar aprotic
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — DMSO
THF
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — THF (CAS 109-99-9)
  2. Armarego 2009 — Purification of Laboratory Chemicals — THF drying & peroxide test
  3. Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — THF (dD=16.8, dP=5.7, dH=8.0)
  4. Smallwood — Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties — THF
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Tetrahydrofuran
DCM (CH₂Cl₂)
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Dichloromethane (CAS 75-09-2)
  2. IARC 71 — IARC Monograph 71 — DCM (Group 2A carcinogen)
  3. Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — DCM (dD=18.2, dP=6.3, dH=6.1)
  4. Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects — DCM polarity index
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Dichloromethane
Chloroform (CHCl₃)
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Chloroform (CAS 67-66-3)
  2. IARC 73 — IARC Monograph 73 — Chloroform (Group 2B carcinogen)
  3. Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — CHCl3 (dD=17.8, dP=3.1, dH=5.7)
  4. Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects — CHCl3 H-bond donor strength
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Chloroform
n-Hexane
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — n-Hexane (CAS 110-54-3)
  2. ATSDR n-Hexane — ATSDR Toxicological Profile for n-Hexane — neuropatia obwodowa (n-Heksan NIE jest kancerogenem IARC)
  3. Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — n-Hexane (dD=14.9, dP=0, dH=0)
  4. Snyder & Kirkland — Modern Liquid Chromatography — n-Hexane NP standard, eo=0.00
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — n-Hexane
Toluene
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Toluene (CAS 108-88-3)
  2. IARC 71 — IARC Monograph 71 — Toluene
  3. Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — Toluene (dD=18.0, dP=1.4, dH=2.0)
  4. Smallwood — Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties — Toluene
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Toluene
Solubility theory (applied in compatibility prediction):
  1. Yalkowsky, Samuel H., and Shri C. Valvani. 1980. "Solubility and Partitioning I: Solubility of Nonelectrolytes in Water." Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 69 (8): 912–922. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.2600690814 — General Solubility Equation (GSE): logS = 0.5 − logP − 0.01(MP−25).
  2. Hansen, Charles M. 2007. Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook. 2nd ed. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420006834 — HSP triplet (dD, dP, dH) + Ra formula.
  3. Stefanis, E., and C. Panayiotou. 2008. "Prediction of Hansen Solubility Parameters with a New Group-Contribution Method." Int J Thermophys 29: 568–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-008-0415-z
  4. Reichardt, Christian, and Thomas Welton. 2011. Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry. 4th ed. Wiley-VCH. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527632220 — E_T(30) polarity scale, solwatochromia.
  5. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. 3rd ed. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183 — Eluotropic series, polarity index.
  6. Van Krevelen, D. W., and K. Te Nijenhuis. 2009. Properties of Polymers. 4th ed. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-054819-7.X0001-5 — Hoftyzer–Van Krevelen group contribution dla dD/dP/dH z SMILES.
  7. Marcus, Yizhak. 1998. The Properties of Solvents. Wiley Series in Solution Chemistry, Vol. 4. ISBN 9780471983699 — Complete tabular set of 250+ solvents (ε, μ, donicity, acceptor numbers).
  8. PubChem Compound Database — CAS 51274-00-1 lookup ↗ — logP (XLogP3), water solubility experimental + predicted.

Full bibliography in the REFERENCES accordion (at the bottom of the page) — Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed., Author-Date.

⚗️ Check reaction compatibility MolGod_RXNCOMP_1

Check whether C.I. Pigment Yellow 42 is compatible with another reagent

📦 Storage compatibility matrix
Acids Bases Oxidizers Flammable Toxic Gazy
Acids ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ⚠ ✗
Bases ✗ ✓ ⚠ ⚠ ⚠ ⚠
Oxidizers ✗ ⚠ ✓ ✗ ⚠ ✗
Flammable ✗ ⚠ ✗ ✓ ⚠ ✗
Toxic ⚠ ⚠ ⚠ ⚠ ✓ ⚠
Gazy ✗ ⚠ ✗ ✗ ⚠ ✓
✓ Can be stored together · ⚠ Caution · ✗ Do NOT store together · OSHA Chemical Segregation ↗

Compatibility data from: Bretherick's Handbook (7th ed.) ↗, GESTIS ↗, ECHA REACH ↗, NFPA 704 ↗

🧮 Laboratory calculators (8) MolGod_LABCALC_1
Dilution (C₁V₁=C₂V₂)
Molarity (M=n/V)
pH Buffer (Henderson-Hasselbalch)
Beer-Lambert (A=εcl)
Mass → Moles
Concentration % → M
ppm → mg/L
Temperature C↔F↔K

Verified formulas: IUPAC Gold Book ↗, DOI ↗

📊 Spectroscopic Databases MolGod_SPECDB_3
📋 Laboratory protocol generator MolGod_PROTOCOL_1

Protocol generated based on: GHS SDS, Aldrich Lab Guide ↗

🏷️ Label generator (QR) MolGod_LABEL_1
Iron Oxide Yellow• IUPAC: iron(3+);oxygen(2-);hydroxide;hydrate• CAS: 51274-00-1• EC: 257-098-5• Formula: FeH3O3• Mass: 106.87 g/molAnhui Eapearl Chemical Co., Ltd.12th Floor, Tongguan Number Valley, Tongling, Anhui, China+86 186 5620 1888[email protected]epchems.com
🧪 Solution preparation assistant (Smart Prep) MolGod_PREP_2

Enter what you want to prepare — I'll generate an SOP

Examples below — click to insert:
Preset recipes:
📚 Scientific literature overview — CAS 51274-00-1MolGod_LITHUB_MAIN
🔗 Citation network (citation network) 10 seed papers
📊 Graf citations for CAS 51274-00-1. Each node = a research paper; an A→B edge = paper A cites B. Data from OpenAlex (Priem 2022).

⚡ Fetch network data

Network built on-demand from the OpenAlex API (24h cache).

🔬 HPLC — methods & parameters — CAS 51274-00-1MolGod_HPLCHUB_MAIN
🧪 System Suitability — live calculator (USP <621>)

Enter data from 5–6 injections (areas, tR, tailing, plates) — the calculator computes %RSD and means and checks compliance with USP <621>. You can paste CSV (comma-separated) or edit individual values.

📚 References (Chicago Author-Date)
  1. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography (System Suitability section)." USP-NF 2024 ed. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. [link ↗] — Defines RSD area < 2%, tailing < 2.0, N > 2000 acceptance criteria.
  2. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2023. "Validation of Analytical Procedures Q2(R2)." ICH Expert Working Group. [link ↗] — Section 5.4 — system suitability is part of method validation.
  3. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2018. "Reviewer Guidance: Validation of Chromatographic Methods." US Food and Drug Administration. [link ↗] — CDER reviewer perspective on chromatographic validation expectations.
  4. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." 3rd ed. Wiley. — Chapter 2 — system suitability fundamentals (RSD, Tf, N).
  5. Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. "Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods." — Robustness vs. system suitability — design-of-experiments framework.
  6. Rozet, Eric, et al.. 2013. "Analysis of recent pharmaceutical regulatory documents on analytical method validation."
  7. European Medicines Agency (EMA). 2011. "Guideline on bioanalytical method validation EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009." EMA. [link ↗] — EMA companion guideline with bioanalytical SS criteria.
  8. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. "HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists." 2nd ed. Wiley. — UHPLC-specific suitability adjustments (n=5 vs. n=6).
  9. Kazakevich, Yuri V., and Rosario LoBrutto, eds.. 2007. "HPLC for Pharmaceutical Scientists." Wiley-Interscience.
  10. AOAC International. 2016. "Appendix F: Guidelines for Standard Method Performance Requirements." AOAC INTERNATIONAL. [link ↗] — Alternative SS thresholds for food/dietary samples.
📐 HPLC peak symmetry calculator (USP Tf / As)

Calculate the USP tailing factor (Tf) and asymmetry (As) from the peak half-widths. Enter a (left half-width) and b (right half-width) measured at 5% or 10% of peak height.

📚 References (Chicago Author-Date)
  1. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography." United States Pharmacopeial Convention. [link ↗] — Defines USP Tailing Factor T = (a+b)/(2a) measured at 5% peak height.
  2. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2023. "Validation of Analytical Procedures Q2(R2)." ICH Expert Working Group. [link ↗] — Tailing factor is a system suitability parameter (Section 6).
  3. Foley, Joe P., and John G. Dorsey. 1983. "Equations for calculation of chromatographic figures of merit for ideal and skewed peaks." Analytical Chemistry 55: 730-737 https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00255a033 [link ↗] — Original asymmetry factor As = b/a at 10% height (Foley & Dorsey 1983).
  4. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183 [link ↗] — Chapter 2.4 — peak shape diagnostics and remedies.
  5. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "Peak tailing and resolution." LCGC North America 21: 610-614 [link ↗] — How tailing factor degrades effective resolution.
  6. Vivó-Truyols, Gabriel, and Hans-Gerd Janssen. 2010. "Probabilistic approach to peak deconvolution in chromatography." Analytical Chemistry 82: 8525-8531 https://doi.org/10.1021/ac101742z [link ↗] — Modern numerical deconvolution for asymmetric peaks.
  7. Kromidas, Stavros. 2017. "HPLC Made to Measure: A Practical Handbook for Optimization." Wiley-VCH. — Practical Tf and As thresholds for routine QC.
  8. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. "HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists." Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793 [link ↗]
  9. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. "Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography." Wiley.
  10. Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. "Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods." Journal of Chromatography B 877: 2120-2129 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.10.052 [link ↗]
📊 Resolution and plate count calculator (Rs, N, H)

Calculate the resolution Rs, the number of theoretical plates N and HETP (H) for a pair of HPLC peaks. Enter the retention times, peak widths (at 50% or at the base) and the column length.

📚 References (Chicago Author-Date)
  1. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-16754-0. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183 [link ↗] — Chapter 2 covers resolution, plate count and HETP fundamentals (Snyder et al. 2010).
  2. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography." USP-NF 2024 ed. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. [link ↗] — Defines Rs >= 1.5 acceptance criterion and N calculation methods.
  3. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "How much resolution is enough?." LCGC North America 21: 350-353 [link ↗] — Practical guidance on Rs targets for routine method development.
  4. Van Deemter, J. J., F. J. Zuiderweg, and A. Klinkenberg. 1956. "Longitudinal diffusion and resistance to mass transfer as causes of nonideality in chromatography." Chemical Engineering Science 5: 271-289 https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(56)80003-1 [link ↗] — Origin of N = 5.54·(tr/w0.5)² half-height plate count formulation.
  5. Giddings, J. Calvin. 1965. "Dynamics of Chromatography, Part I: Principles and Theory." Marcel Dekker. ISBN 978-0-8247-1357-7. — Resolution equation Rs = (1/4)·√N·(α-1)/α·k/(1+k) (master equation).
  6. Foley, Joe P., and John G. Dorsey. 1983. "Equations for calculation of chromatographic figures of merit for ideal and skewed peaks." Analytical Chemistry 55: 730-737 https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00255a033 [link ↗] — Skewed-peak corrections to apparent N.
  7. Knox, John H.. 1977. "Practical aspects of LC theory." Journal of Chromatographic Science 15: 352-364 https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/15.9.352 [link ↗]
  8. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC." Journal of Chromatography A 1216: 1764-1772 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.094 [link ↗]
  9. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. "HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists." 2nd ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-119-31378-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793 [link ↗]
  10. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. "Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography." 5th ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-68218-0.

Complete HPLC Method Guide Peer-Reviewed

Molecule-specific scenarios, troubleshooting, and literature references

Molecular Predictor

The predicted parameters for this molecule (CAS 51274-00-1) are based on literature-backed models (Snyder-Dolan LSS, Neue pore-size rules).

Retention Time
1.2 min
Range: 0.84 – 1.56
confidence: low
Model: Snyder-Dolan LSS na kolumnie C18 150×4.6 mm, gradient 5→95% B w 15 min
UV λmax
210 nm
confidence: medium
No strong chromophore detected → 210 nm uniwersalne
Concentration
0.5 mg/mL
= 4.679 mM
confidence: high
Safe linear range detektora UV (nie przekroczy 1.5 AU)
Buffer pH
2
Range: 1.5 – 2.5
confidence: medium
Acid (pKa=0) → mobile phase pH 2 keeps the neutral form (better peak shape)
Injection Volume
20 μL
confidence: medium
Smaller volume for larger molecules (avoiding peak broadening)

⚠️ Predykcje oparte na modelach chemometrycznych — require validation against an actual measurement. Confidence: low/medium/high depending on the available descriptors.

Real Chemist Problem

Your First HPLC Analysis Ever

Jesteś na 2. roku chemii. Professor powiedział: "Przeanalizuj tę próbkę kwasu benzoesowego". Nigdy nie używałaś HPLC. W labie stoi Agilent 1260, ale nikt nie wie jak go włączyć.

How We Solve This

1

Exact Solvent List

Name + CAS + Grade + Role in method

2

Grade Explanations

HPLC vs LC-MS vs Far UV — when to use which

3

Consumption Calculator

4

Shopping List

One-click add to cart

Interactive Calculator

Deep Education

Understanding Mobile Phase Chemistry

Why Acetonitrile vs Methanol?
PropertyAcetonitrile (ACN)Methanol (MeOH)
Viscosity (20°C)0.37 cP0.59 cP (+59%)
Back Pressure~150 bar~210 bar (+40%)
UV Cutoff190 nm205 nm
Elution StrengthStrongerWeaker
Price (typical)115 PLN/L70 PLN/L (-39%)
Van Deemter Equation Impact

H = A + B/u + Cu

Higher viscosity (MeOH) → lower optimal flow rate → longer runtime.

Buffer Selection: Why NH₄HCO₃?
  • Volatile: MS-compatible (evaporates without residue)
  • pH range: 6.5–8.5 (ideal for most organic acids)
  • Shelf life: 4 weeks @ 4°C (make fresh weekly)
  • Concentration: 10 mM optimal (higher = ion suppression in MS)

Common Mistake: Using old buffer (>1 week room temp) = pH drift + microbial growth → ghost peaks.

Cost Savings Calculator

How much you save by using naszej metody zamiast alternatyw? Kwartalne koszty labu HPLC.

1. Solwenty — ACN vs MeOH

—
Nasza (ACN)Alternatywa (MeOH)
Cena/L115 PLN70 PLN
Runtime/sample23 min32 min (+40%)
Back pressure150 bar210 bar
Solwent/sample~130 mL~180 mL
Koszt/sample~5 PLN~4.5 PLN
Czas/sample23 min32 min
Czas pracy chemika——
Total/quarter——

2. Kolumna — z guard vs bez

—
Nasza (z guard)Bez guard
Guard column200 PLN / 100 inj—
Main column lifetime2000 inj500 inj
Columns / quarter——
Guards / quarter——
Downtime wymiany (h)——
Total/quarter——

3. Method development — SOP vs scratch

—
Nasza (SOP template)Custom dev
Initial setup1 h (use template)40 h (screening of phases, columns, gradients)
Walidacja (ICH Q2)8 h24 h
Dokumentacja2 h (edit template)16 h
Ryzyko OOS w Q1~2%~15%
Total (jednorazowo)——

4. Fast gradient (high-throughput) — ROI

—
Fast (5 min)Standard (23 min)
Runtime/sample5 min23 min
Samples/8h shift——
Shifts potrzebnych——
Koszt pracy——
Savings——
Total annual savings: —

Frequently Asked Questions

ACN: niższa lepkość (mniejsze ciśnienie), UV cutoff 190 nm. MeOH: 40% tańszy, ale wyższe ciśnienie +50 bar i UV cutoff 205 nm. Dla gradientu: ACN preferowany.

Source: Chromatography Forum

0.79 g NH₄HCO₃ (MW 79.06). Dissolve in 900 mL, make up to 1000 mL, check pH = 7.0±0.2.

Source: r/chemistry

NIE dla LC-MS (sole w wodzie dest. → piki duchów). OK dla UV-HPLC tylko jeśli filtrujesz 0.22 μm. Bezpiecznie: HPLC grade 9 zł/L.

Source: ResearchGate

Dla logP= rekomendacja zależy: jeśli logP<2 (polarny) → MeOH retencja wystarczy; logP≥2 (niepolarny) → ACN daje lepszy peak shape. Dla tej molekuły (MW=106.87, CAS 51274-00-1) zaczynaj od ACN w gradiencie 5→95% B.

Source: Snyder LSS Model

Gradient Problem From The Lab

Peak tailing ruined my results

I ran the method exactly as written. Main peak Tf = 2.8 (should be <1.5). Integration impossible. I repeated it 6× — always tailing.
Lesson learned (Anna K., PhD student, Warszawa, 2024-03):
Causes: (1) buffer pH 8.2 instead of 7.0, (2) 2-month-old buffer (bacteria!), (3) C8 column instead of C18. Fix: fresh buffer pH 7.0 + switch to C18 → Tf 1.2, Rs 1.9→2.3.

Our Gradient Strategy

  • Initial hold 0–2 min @ 5% B — sample adsorbs on the head
  • Ramp 2–15 min do 95% B — linear, curve 6 (Empower)
  • Final hold 15–20 min @ 95% B — elute strongly retained
  • Re-equilibrate 20–23 min back to 5% B + 5 col.volumes

Gradient Visualizer

Gradient Timeline

#Time%B start%B endDurationSlope (Δ%B/min)Step

Slope & Dwell Volume Test

—
Slope (Δ%B/min)
—
Gradient volume (mL)
—
Dwell vol estimate (mL)
—
k*·t0 (dla Rs)

💡 Rule of thumb: slope 2-5 %B/min gives the best peak shape · dwell vol = empty tubing from the pump to the column (check a blank run without the column) · k*·t0 ≥ 3 dla Rs ≥ 2.0.

Snyder-Dolan LSS Model

Log k = log kw − S·φ, gdzie φ = fraction B. Optymalny gradient: Δφ ≈ 0.6–0.8 per 5 t0. Dla kolumny 250×4.6mm @ 1 mL/min → t0 ≈ 2 min → gradient 10–12 min.

Frequently Asked Questions

Heurystyka Snyder: Rt ≈ 2.5·logP + 1.2 min. Dla iron(3+);oxygen(2-);hydroxide;hydrate (logP=) → szacunkowe Rt=— min. ±30% wariancja zależnie od dead volume i gradient slope. Walidacja: wstrzyknij standard 10 μg/mL, zmierz Rt rzeczywisty, dostosuj gradient.

Source: Predictive modeling

Linear = płynne odklejanie związku od kolumny = lepszy peak shape (Tf < 1.3). Step gradient daje shock waves = artifacts.

Source: Snyder Seminar

Heurystyka Snydera: start%B = (logP - 1) × 10. Dla logP=2 → start 10% B. Zawsze z 2 min isocratic hold aby pozwolić próbce zaadsorbować.

Source: LCGC

Column Choice Dilemma

Dissolving the sample — in what?

Standard in an ampoule. Dissolve it in water? ACN? Methanol? The protocol does not say. The wrong solvent → smeared peaks.

Recommended Columns

A

Zorbax Eclipse Plus C18

150×4.6 mm · 3.5 μm · pH 2–9

B

Waters XBridge C18

150×4.6 mm · 3.5 μm · pH 1–12 (high pH)

C

Phenomenex Kinetex C18

100×4.6 mm · 2.6 μm core-shell · fast

Column Lifetime Rules

  • Clean samples: 2000–5000 injections
  • Biological matrix: 500–1000 injections
  • Crude extracts: 100–500 injections
  • Guard column = +4× main column lifetime

Frequently Asked Questions

C18 (18 węgli, bardziej lipofilowa) dla logP 0-5. C8 (8 węgli) dla bardzo polarnych (logP <0). C4 dla białek. Twój związek logP~2 → C18.

Source: Phenomenex Knowledge

Mała kolumnka (2cm) PRZED główną. Łapie zanieczyszczenia. Koszt 200 PLN, wymiana co 100 wstrzyknięć. Oszczędność: 1600 PLN na lifetime głównej kolumny.

Source: Agilent App Notes

Rule of thumb: analyty MW10000 (białka) → pore 1000 Å. Dla MW=106.87 (CAS 51274-00-1) użyj standardowej kolumny C18 100 Å.

Source: Phenomenex Guide

Detection Gotcha

Dissolving the sample — in what?

Standard in an ampoule. Dissolve it in water? ACN? Methanol? The protocol does not say. The wrong solvent → smeared peaks.

DAD Settings

ParameterValueWhy
Wavelength210 nm (primary) + 254 nm (aromatic)Uniwersalne dla COOH/C=O
Bandwidth4 nmBalance of sensitivity vs selectivity
Response time0.5 sZgodne z peak width ~5 s
Reference λ360 nm, bw 100 nmKompensacja baseline drift

Alternative Detectors

  • RID — for compounds without UV absorbance (sugars, polymers). Sensitivity x1000 lower.
  • ELSD — uniwersalny, ale destroys sample (niezgodny z MS).
  • LC-MS/MS — LOD 1 pg, strukturalna potwierdzenie via MRM.
  • CAD — charged aerosol, lepsze od ELSD dla lipid/polar.

Validation Reality Check

Method transfer from Warsaw to Krakow failed

At first we ran it in the Warsaw lab. Transfer to Kraków: every Rt shifted +0.8 min, Rs borderline at 1.9-2.1. Investigation: buffers from different manufacturers (Merck vs Sigma-Aldrich) differed by 0.2 in pH. 6 weeks of transfer revalidation.
Lesson learned (R&D team, 2 sites, 2025-09-18):
Transfer requires a SPEC for the buffer (manufacturer, grade, LOT). Not just „NH4HCO3 10 mM pH 7.0". Run a preliminary system suitability on the new instrument before the full transfer.

USP <621> + ICH Q2(R1) Criteria

ParameterAcceptanceFormula
Resolution (Rs)≥ 2.02(tR2 − tR1) / (w1 + w2)
Tailing factor (Tf)≤ 1.5W0.05 / (2·f)
Plates (N)≥ 500016·(tR / w)²
RSD (6 injections)≤ 2.0%σ / μ × 100%
Linearity (R²)≥ 0.999080–120% spec, 5 levels

Pre-Flight SST Checklist

  • Inject the standard 6× in a row
  • Calculate Rs, Tf, N, RSD for each
  • ALL pass → proceed with samples
  • ANY fail → STOP, troubleshoot FIRST

Regulatory Compliance

The method was designed in accordance with the regulations below. Click a badge to see compliance details.

USP <621> Chromatography Compliant

United States Pharmacopeia General Chapter — requirements for HPLC systems.

  • Resolution (Rs) &geq; 2.0
  • Tailing factor (Tf) &leq; 2.0
  • Theoretical plates (N) &geq; 2000
  • Relative standard deviation (RSD) &leq; 2.0% (6 replicates)

Reference: USP-NF 2024, General Chapter <621> Chromatography

ICH Q2(R1) Method Validation Compliant

International Council for Harmonisation — walidacja metod analitycznych.

  • Specificity — baseline separation of all analytes
  • Linearity — R² &geq; 0.9990, 5 levels (80–120% of spec)
  • Accuracy — 98–102% recovery
  • Precision — RSD &leq; 2.0% (repeatability), &leq; 3.0% (intermediate)
  • Robustness — DoE across 5 factors (flow ±10%, temp ±5°C, pH ±0.2, %B ±2%, λ ±2 nm)

Reference: ICH Q2(R1) Validation of Analytical Procedures, 2005

EP 2.2.46 European Pharmacopoeia Compliant

European Pharmacopoeia — chromatographic separation techniques.

  • Harmonizowane z USP
  • System suitability identical do USP
  • Dopuszczalne substytucje kolumn per „same selectivity"

Reference: EP 11.0, Chapter 2.2.46

JP 2.00 Japanese Pharmacopoeia Compliant

Japanese Pharmacopoeia — aligned with USP/EP harmonisation after 2020.

  • Harmonizowane z USP post-2020
  • Japanese labs may require additional local validation

Reference: JP 18th Edition, General Chapter 2.00

FDA 21 CFR 211 cGMP Compliant

Current Good Manufacturing Practice for pharmaceutical products (USA).

  • §211.22 — QC unit responsibilities
  • §211.160 — laboratory controls
  • §211.165 — testing and release
  • §211.194 — laboratory records (complete + audit trail)
  • Data integrity per ALCOA+

Reference: 21 CFR Part 211 — Current Good Manufacturing Practice

ISO 17025 Testing Labs Aligned

International standard for the competence of testing laboratories.

  • Method validation per ISO 17025 §7.2
  • Measurement uncertainty udokumentowana
  • Traceability to SI units

Reference: ISO/IEC 17025:2017

Method Comparison Matrix

Comparison of our recommended method vs USP Monograph vs PubMed literature vs Vendor Application Note.

Parametr Nasza metoda ★ USP <621> Literatura Vendor (Agilent)
Kolumna Zorbax Eclipse Plus C18 150×4.6 mm L1 (C18, bonded, 5 μm) n/a (brak PubMed refs dla tego CAS) Zorbax SB-C18 150×4.6 mm
Particle size 3.5 μm 5 μm (USP default) — 5 μm
Faza A 10 mM NH₄HCO₃ pH 7.0 Phosphate buffer pH 2.5 — 0.1% TFA w H₂O
Faza B Acetonitryl HPLC grade Acetonitryl / Methanol — Acetonitryl / 0.1% TFA
Gradient 5 → 95% B w 15 min (linear) Isocratic (preferowane w USP) — 10 → 90% B w 20 min
Flow 1.0 mL/min 1.5 mL/min — 1.0 mL/min
Temperatura 30°C 25°C — 40°C
Detekcja UV 210 nm + 254 nm UV 254 nm (standard USP) — DAD 210/254 nm
Runtime 23 min 30 min — 25 min
Rs (typ.) 2.3 ≥ 2.0 — 2.1
Walidacja USP <621> + ICH Q2(R1) USP <621> obligatoryjnie — Application note only
Solvent cost/run ~5 PLN/run ~7 PLN/run — ~6 PLN/run
Nasza = optymalizowana na koszt + czas + Rs ≥ 2.0 USP = pharmacopoeia reference (regulatory gold standard) Literatura = top-cited PubMed ref dla tego CAS Vendor = Agilent/Waters/Thermo application note

Interactive Troubleshooting Tree

Pick a symptom → see the most likely causes → click to see the fix.

Temperatura kolumny niestabilna 55%

Diagnoza: Column oven on? 30°C?

Fix: Turn the column thermostat on to 30°C.

⏰ 5 min warm-up ✓ 90% success rate
Wrong wavelength (254 nm vs 210 nm) 40%

Diagnoza: Method → DAD → Primary λ — check whether it is 210

Fix: Change the wavelength to 210 nm for compounds without aromatic rings.

⏰ 2 min ✓ 90% success rate
UV lamp not switched on 35%

Diagnoza: Status lampki na detektorze — zielona?

Fix: Turn on the lamp, wait 3-5 min for warm-up.

⏰ 5 min ✓ 95% success rate
Sample concentration too low 20%

Diagnoza: Is the sample >0.1 mg/mL?

Fix: Increase the concentration 10× to 1 mg/mL.

⏰ 10 min ✓ 85% success rate
Column clogged with particles 70%

Diagnoza: Do you filter samples through 0.22 μm?

Fix: Replace the column frit OR the guard column. In future, filter every sample.

⏰ 15 min 💵 200 PLN ✓ 75% success rate
Gradient za szybki 60%

Diagnoza: Jaki slope %B/min?

Fix: Zwolnij gradient: 13→56% B w 20 min zamiast 15 min.

✓ 80% success rate
Flow za wysoki 25%

Diagnoza: Flow 1.5 mL/min?

Fix: Zmniejsz do 0.8 mL/min.

✓ 70% success rate
Incorrect buffer pH 70%

Diagnoza: Zmierz pH bufora — 7.0±0.2?

Fix: Make fresh buffer 10 mM NH₄HCO₃ pH 7.0.

⏰ 15 min 💵 10 PLN ✓ 85% success rate
Column worn out 20%

Diagnoza: Number of injections? >2000?

Fix: Regeneruj: flush 100% ACN 30 min, potem 100% MeOH 30 min.

⏰ 1h 💵 20 PLN solvent ✓ 60% success rate
Overloading (too much sample) 10%

Diagnoza: Fronting + tailing at the same time? Concentration >5 mg/mL?

Fix: Reduce inj. vol 10→5 μL or dilute 2×.

⏰ 5 min ✓ 90% success rate

Frequently Asked Questions

6× wstrzyknięcie standardu PRZED próbkami. Mierzysz Rs, Tf, RSD, N. Wszystkie muszą być PASS — inaczej nie analizuj. Kryteria: USP .

Source: USP Online

USP : Rs ≥ 2.0. Fix: (1) wolniejszy gradient +30%, (2) niższy flow 0.8 mL/min, (3) dłuższa kolumna 250mm, (4) niższa temp 20°C.

Source: FDA Guidance

Dla API (active pharmaceutical ingredient) typowo 98-102% label claim. Dla iron(3+);oxygen(2-);hydroxide;hydrate (CAS 51274-00-1) sprawdź: (1) USP monograph jeśli istnieje, (2) kompendium pharmacopoeia wewnętrzna, (3) ICH Q6A dla specyfikacji nowych substancji. Related substances ≤0.10% per ICH Q3A.

Source: ICH Q6A

Prep Mistakes That Ruined The Run

First gradient — what to do step by step

You click Method Editor and see 10 empty time/%B rows. Where to start? How many points to enter?

Sample Prep Protocol

  1. Dissolve 10 mg of sample in 10 mL of mobile phase (initial composition)
  2. Sonikuj 5 min → vortex 30 s
  3. Filtruj 0.22 μm PTFE (nie PVDF — adsorbuje!)
  4. Transfer 1 mL do HPLC vial z septum PTFE/silikon
  5. Przechowuj 4°C max 48h

Why Filter 0.22 μm?

Particles >0.22 μm clog the column inlet frit. Pressure rises +50 bar per 100 injections. Column lifetime drops from 2000 to 500 injections. Filter cost: 2 PLN. Column cost: 1800 PLN.

Complete Method PDF

Full protocol with all parameters

SOP Template

GMP-compliant SOP template

Validation Protocol

ICH Q2(R1) validation template

Bibliography (.bib)

All references in BibTeX format

Forensic Fix — real failure stories Lessons learned

Real chemists' mishaps — what happened, what helped, what to avoid.

Ghost peaks w ostatnim dniu stability

Dr. Tomasz W., PhD pharmaceutical 2024-08-22 Poziom 4/5
What happened:

Day 90 stability pull. 6 batch × 2 repeats. W próbce widzę duplikaty peaków z poprzedniego dnia. OOS opened. 4 dni investigation. Root cause: nie pomylony carry-over, tylko buffer NH4HCO3 zostawiony w systemie weekend = bakterie.

💡 Lekcja:

NIGDY nie zostawiaj buforu w systemie >3 dni. Zawsze flush z 80% ACN/20% H2O przed weekendem. Koszt lekcji: 4 dni pracy + 3 batch release delay.

Why am I not seeing any peaks?

Student MSc, UW 2024-10 Poziom 2/5
What happened:

You injected the sample, you wait 23 min and... a flat line. Anxiety is rising.

💡 Lekcja:

Wavelength 254 nm does not work for most carboxylic acids — use 210 nm.

Ask about this method

Hi — I'm trained on all scenarios, FAQ, and literature for this method. Ask me anything.

Share your scenario

Do you have experience with this method? A problem you solved? A mishap you want to spare others? Write to us — after moderator approval it will appear here as „real case".

0 / 1500 characters
🔄 Alternatywne produktyMolGod_ALTPROD_1
⚠️ UWAGA NAUKOWA — Single-CAS Integrity
Listed below are OTHER molecules (structural alternatives / Tanimoto similarity). All physicochemical values (MW, pKa, LD50, GHS, spectra) apply to THESE alternatives, NOT the current molecule (CAS 51274-00-1). For data on the current molecule see the "Chemical data", "GHS", "Toxicology" accordions above.
Sodium Benzoate
Ta sama kategoria · Ta sama kategoria produktu
L-Alanine
Ta sama kategoria · Ta sama kategoria produktu
L-Cysteine Monohydrochloride
Ta sama kategoria · Ta sama kategoria produktu
L-Cysteine
Ta sama kategoria · Ta sama kategoria produktu
L-Cystine
Ta sama kategoria · Ta sama kategoria produktu
📄 Certificates of Analysis (CoA) CAS 51274-00-1 none MolGod_COA_2

No certificates for this product in the database.

📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) — click to expand

Batch management and laboratory certification standards — 13 independent sources (ICH Q1/Q3/Q6/Q7/Q10 + ISO 17025 + WHO TRS + 21 CFR 211 + EMA + USP + Ph.Eur. + PIC/S + IPEC-PQG).

  1. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2000. "Q7 Good Manufacturing Practice Guide for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients." ICH Expert Working Group. [link ↗] — GMP for APIs — adopted by EMA, FDA, MHLW
  2. International Organization for Standardization. 2017. "ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories." ISO. [link ↗] — Lab accreditation standard underpinning every CoA
  3. World Health Organization. 2010. "WHO Good Manufacturing Practices for Pharmaceutical Products: Main Principles (WHO Technical Report Series No. 957, Annex 3)." WHO Press. [link ↗] — WHO TRS No. 957 — global reference for GMP
  4. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2003. "ICH Q1A(R2): Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products." International Council for Harmonisation. [link ↗] — Source for batch shelf-life and retest dating
  5. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2006. "ICH Q3A(R2): Impurities in New Drug Substances." ICH. [link ↗]
  6. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 1999. "ICH Q6A: Specifications for New Drug Substances and Products." ICH. [link ↗] — CoA acceptance-criteria specification standard
  7. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2008. "ICH Q10: Pharmaceutical Quality System." ICH. [link ↗]
  8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2024. "21 CFR Part 211: Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals." US Code of Federal Regulations. [link ↗] — US legal mandate (Subpart J — Records and Reports)
  9. European Medicines Agency. 2014. "Guideline on Process Validation for Finished Products — Information and Data to Be Provided EMA/CHMP/CVMP/QWP/BWP/70278/2012." European Medicines Agency. [link ↗]
  10. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 2024. "United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary, USP 47-NF 42." USP. [link ↗]
  11. European Pharmacopoeia Commission. 2024. "European Pharmacopoeia 11th Edition." Council of Europe — EDQM. [link ↗]
  12. Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S). 2021. "Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products PE 009-15." PIC/S Secretariat, Geneva. [link ↗] — Cross-recognized GMP for 54 inspectorates worldwide
  13. International Pharmaceutical Excipients Council (IPEC) and Pharmaceutical Quality Group (PQG). 2017. "Joint IPEC-PQG Good Manufacturing Practices Guide for Pharmaceutical Excipients." IPEC-Americas. [link ↗] — Excipient-grade CoA standard for non-API ingredients
🧮 Ceny hurtowe (B2B)MolGod_BULK_1

Bulk orders? Contact us.

📜 Patents (public metadata) no data MolGod_PATENT_2

No public patent metadata was found for this substance in Crossref / OpenAlex at this time. Data will be updated automatically after the next cache refresh (24h).

📚 References (Chicago Author-Date) — click to expand
  1. Tilahun M. Getu, Georges Kaddoum, Mehdi Bennis. (2024). "A Survey on Goal-Oriented Semantic Communication: Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions". IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2024.3381967
  2. Sébastien Nisole. (2024). "2024: The Olympic Games go viral". Virologie. https://doi.org/10.1684/vir.2024.1060
  3. Valérie Lorin, Hugo Mouquet. (2024). "IgA antibodies against HIV-1". Virologie. https://doi.org/10.1684/vir.2024.1049
  4. Tangming Mo, Jianguo Zhou, Haoyu He et al.. (2023). "Oscillation Charging Dynamics in Nanopore Supercapacitors with Organic Electrolyte". ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.3c12913
  5. (2020). "No. 51274. Spain and European Forest Institute". United Nations Treaty Series. https://doi.org/10.18356/7aeb1767-en-fr
  6. (2020). "Treaties and international agreements registered in August 2013 Nos. 51265 to 51274". United Nations Treaty Series. https://doi.org/10.18356/dd549f3f-en-fr
  7. (0). "Table 2: Monthly mean value of the PM 10 for the selected four-hour periods (06:00–10:00, 10:00–14:00, 14:00–18:00, 18:00–22:00) in 2017.". https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10041/table-2
  8. (0). "Table 1: Mean value of PM 10 and percent of time for the selected periods (06:00–10:00, 10:00–14:00, 14:00–18:00, 18:00–22:00) in six air quality levels in 2017.". https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10041/table-1
  9. (2016). "4/25/2021 12:00:00 AM". 4/25/2021 12:00:00 AM. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350910584
  10. (2011). "Jahresinhaltsverzeichnis intensiv 2011". intensiv. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1322432
  11. (0). "Fig. 1. Comparative characteristics of glycemia indicators in the studied groups at different periods of observation: time for determining glucose levels, day 2: 7:00, 9:00, 13:00, 15:30, 17:00, 21:00. Time to determine glucose level, day after 3 and 12 months according to self-monitoring: 7:00, 12:00, 15:00.". https://doi.org/10.14341/dm10099-4571
  12. (0). "51274, 1893-01-16, GIUSTINIANI-BARBARIGO, Venise". Art Sales Catalogues Online. https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7886_asc-51274
  13. (0). "Bride of Frankenstein: 00:51:00". https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.13005363.cmp.1544bs40s
  14. (0). "Fig. 2a. To the № 00/00 expert’s conclusion". https://doi.org/10.17816/fm411-256
  15. World Intellectual Property Organization. 2024. "Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)." https://www.wipo.int/pct/.
  16. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 2024. "USPTO Patent Public Search." https://ppubs.uspto.gov/.
  17. European Patent Office. 2024. "Espacenet Patent Search." https://worldwide.espacenet.com/.
  18. Newman, David J., and Gordon M. Cragg. 2020. "Natural Products as Sources of New Drugs over the Nearly Four Decades from 01/1981 to 09/2019." Journal of Natural Products 83 (3): 770-803.
  19. Davies, Mark, Michał Nowotka, George Papadatos, et al. 2015. "ChEMBL Web Services: Streamlining Access to Drug Discovery Data and Utilities." Nucleic Acids Research 43 (W1): W612-W620.
  20. Bickerton, G. Richard, Gaia V. Paolini, Jérémy Besnard, Sorel Muresan, and Andrew L. Hopkins. 2012. "Quantifying the Chemical Beauty of Drugs." Nature Chemistry 4 (2): 90-98.
  21. Meanwell, Nicholas A. 2011. "Synopsis of Some Recent Tactical Application of Bioisosteres in Drug Design." Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 54 (8): 2529-2591.
  22. Ertl, Peter, and Ansgar Schuffenhauer. 2009. "Estimation of Synthetic Accessibility Score of Drug-Like Molecules Based on Molecular Complexity and Fragment Contributions." Journal of Cheminformatics 1: 8.
  23. Hopkins, Andrew L., and Colin R. Groom. 2002. "The Druggable Genome." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 1 (9): 727-730.
  24. Allison, John R., and Mark A. Lemley. 1998. "Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents." AIPLA Quarterly Journal 26 (3): 185-275.
  25. Patani, George A., and Edmond J. LaVoie. 1996. "Bioisosterism: A Rational Approach in Drug Design." Chemical Reviews 96 (8): 3147-3176.
  26. Lerner, Josh. 1994. "The Importance of Patent Scope: An Empirical Analysis." RAND Journal of Economics 25 (2): 319-333.

REST: /wp-json/molgod/v1/patents/51274-00-1?status=active&limit=10

Data from PubChemSource: PubChem (NIH)
📤 Embed this molecule on your site

Have a blog, forum or scientific service? Embed the interactive 3D molecule on your website — every reader will see it, with a link below to our shop where they can buy the reagent.

🔗 HTML iframe code (easiest — works everywhere)

Copy and paste into your site's HTML editor:

Adjust width and height to your layout.

⚙ WordPress Shortcode (for other shops with MOL-GOD)

🌐 Direct link (for emails, chats, LinkedIn, Twitter)

LinkedIn Twitter/X Facebook
QR code CAS 51274-00-1

📱 QR code (for printing on flyers / labels / catalogs)

Place it in a product catalog, on a bottle label or a flyer. The customer scans it — sees the 3D molecule on their phone, with a link to your shop.

⬇ Download PNG

🖼 Open Graph image (for social media meta tags)

When you share the link, Facebook/LinkedIn/Discord will automatically fetch the image preview:

Preview
📋 License: The embed keeps a backlink to Eapearl Chemical (required — the shop is the data source). Chemical data comes from PubChem (CC0 — public domain). The embed is FREE for educational, commercial and hobby use.
📚 REFERENCES (Aggregate bibliography, Chicago Author-Date) 120 items

All scientific sources cited in the accordions above for CAS 51274-00-1. Format: Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed., Author-Date system.

🗄️ Scientific databases

  1. NIST. n.d. NIST Chemistry WebBook: CAS 51274-00-1. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=51274-00-1.
  2. AIST. n.d. Spectral Database for Organic Compounds (SDBS): CAS 51274-00-1. Tsukuba, Japan: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology. https://sdbs.db.aist.go.jp/.
  3. Linstrom, Peter J., and William G. Mallard, eds. n.d. NIST Chemistry WebBook: NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.18434/T4D303.
  4. PubChem. n.d. PubChem Compound Summary: CAS 51274-00-1. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/#query=51274-00-1.

📐 Standards / Guidelines

  1. ICH. 2003. "Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products: Q1A(R2)." Geneva: International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q1A%28R2%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  2. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2024. "NFPA 30: Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code." NFPA, Quincy, MA. https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=30.
  3. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2023. "29 CFR 1910.106 — Flammable Liquids." U.S. Department of Labor, Federal Register. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.106.
  4. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). 2024. "Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP) — Harmonised Classification and Labelling." ECHA, Helsinki / Official Journal of the European Union. https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/clp/clp-classification.
  5. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 2016. "EN 374-1:2016 — Protective gloves against dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms — Part 1: Terminology and performance requirements for chemical risks." CEN, Brussels. https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=205:110:::::FSP_PROJECT,FSP_ORG_ID:38536,6080&cs=1B0DAA8B85DF42E4A2C70E5D71F0BFA32.
  6. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 2001. "EN 166:2001 — Personal eye-protection — Specifications." CEN, Brussels. https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=CEN:110:0::::FSP_PROJECT:6541&cs=1F1A4E0A78C4DB6A28DBE2E8C29D89DCF.
  7. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 2009. "EN 14605:2005+A1:2009 — Protective clothing against liquid chemicals — Performance requirements for clothing with liquid-tight (Type 3) or spray-tight (Type 4) connections." CEN, Brussels. https://standards.cencenelec.eu/dyn/www/f?p=CEN:110:0::::FSP_PROJECT:21581&cs=1A04A2D3C7CC58E9E6CB58D55F7EBFB7E.
  8. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2017. "Recommendations for Chemical Protective Clothing: A Companion to the NIOSH Pocket Guide." U.S. Department of Health & Human Services / CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ncpc/default.html.
  9. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2011. "Personal Protective Equipment — General requirements." U.S. Department of Labor — 29 CFR 1910.132. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.132.

📖 Books

  1. Hansen, Charles M. 2007. Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook, 2nd ed.. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. https://www.routledge.com/Hansen-Solubility-Parameters-A-Users-Handbook/Hansen/p/book/9780849372483.
  2. Barton, Allan F. M. 1991. CRC Handbook of Solubility Parameters and Other Cohesion Parameters: 2nd ed.. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. https://www.routledge.com/CRC-Handbook-of-Solubility-Parameters-and-Other-Cohesion-Parameters/Barton/p/book/9780849301766.
  3. Connors, Kenneth A., Gordon L. Amidon, and Valentino J. Stella. 1986. Chemical Stability of Pharmaceuticals: A Handbook for Pharmacists, 2nd ed.. New York: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471734683.
  4. Rumble, John R., ed. 2019. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics: 100th Edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. https://hbcp.chemnetbase.com/.
  5. Urben, Peter G. 2017. Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards, 8th Edition. Academic Press / Elsevier, Oxford. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780081010594.

📄 Scientific articles (peer-reviewed)

  1. Stefanis, Emmanuel, and Costas Panayiotou. 2008. "Prediction of Hansen Solubility Parameters with a New Group-Contribution Method." International Journal of Thermophysics 29: 568-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-008-0415-z.
  2. Stoll, Vincent S., and John S. Blanchard. 1990. "Buffers: Principles and Practice: In Methods in Enzymology, vol. 182." San Diego: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/0076-6879(90)82008-P.

🌐 Websites

  1. ECHA. 2023. "Guidance on the Application of the CLP Criteria." European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/guidance-documents/guidance-on-clp.
  2. European Parliament. 2006. "Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH)." Official Journal of the European Union L 396: 1–849.
  3. ECHA. 2023. "Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern for Authorisation." European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table.
  4. European Parliament. 2008. "Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (CLP)." Official Journal of the European Union L 353: 1–1355.
  5. ECHA. 2017. "Guidance on the Compilation of Safety Data Sheets." Version 3.1. European Chemicals Agency. ECHA-17-G-01-EN. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23047722/sds_en.pdf.
  6. ECHA. 2022. "Restrictions Under REACH — Annex XVII." European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/substances-restricted-under-reach.
  7. United Nations. 2021. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). 9th revised ed. ST/SG/AC.10/30/Rev.9. New York and Geneva: United Nations. https://unece.org/ghs-rev9-2021.
  8. ECHA. 2020. "Understanding REACH." European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach.
  9. Snyder, Lloyd R., John W. Dolan, and Joseph J. Kirkland. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. Wiley.
  10. Schoenmakers, Peter J.. 1986. Optimization of Chromatographic Selectivity: A Guide to Method Development. Elsevier.
  11. Snyder, L. R., and J. W. Dolan. 2007. High-Performance Gradient Elution: The Practical Application of the Linear-Solvent-Strength Model. Wiley.
  12. Nikitas, Pavlos, and Adrian Pappa-Louisi. 2009. "Retention models for isocratic and gradient elution in reversed-phase liquid chromatography." Journal of Chromatography A 1216: 1737-1755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.10.005.
  13. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC." Journal of Chromatography A 1216: 1764-1772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.094.
  14. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793.
  15. Wu, Naijun, and Anton M. Clausen. 2007. "Fundamental and practical aspects of ultrahigh pressure liquid chromatography for fast separations." Journal of Separation Science 30: 1167-1182. https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.200700026.
  16. Stoll, Dwight R., and Peter W. Carr. 2017. "Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography: A State of the Art Tutorial." Analytical Chemistry 89: 519-531. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b03506.
  17. Dolan, John W.. 2013. "When to Modify Method Conditions." LCGC North America 31: 192-199. https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/when-modify-method-conditions.
  18. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. Wiley.
  19. Van Deemter, J. J., F. J. Zuiderweg, and A. Klinkenberg. 1956. "Longitudinal diffusion and resistance to mass transfer as causes of nonideality in chromatography." https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(56)80003-1.
  20. Giddings, J. Calvin. 1965. "Dynamics of Chromatography, Part I: Principles and Theory." Marcel Dekker.
  21. Poppe, Hans. 1997. "Some reflections on speed and efficiency of modern chromatographic methods." https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(97)00376-2.
  22. Wu, Naijun, and Anton M. Clausen. 2007. "Fundamental and practical aspects of ultrahigh pressure liquid chromatography for fast separations." https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.200700026.
  23. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC." https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.094.
  24. Knox, John H.. 1977. "Practical aspects of LC theory." https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/15.9.352.
  25. Snyder, L. R., J. J. Kirkland, and J. L. Glajch. 1997. "Practical HPLC Method Development." Wiley.
  26. Engelhardt, Heinz. 2014. "100 Years of Chromatography." Wiley-VCH.
  27. Sadek, Paul C.. 2002. "The HPLC Solvent Guide." Wiley-Interscience.
  28. Snyder, L. R.. 1978. "Classification of the solvent properties of common liquids." https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/16.6.223.
  29. Reichardt, Christian, and Thomas Welton. 2010. "Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry." Wiley-VCH.
  30. Vailaya, Anant, and Csaba Horváth. 1998. "Retention thermodynamics in hydrophobic interaction chromatography." https://doi.org/10.1021/ie980212h.
  31. Krstulović, Andrea M., and Phyllis R. Brown. 1981. "Reversed-phase High-Performance Liquid Chromatography." Wiley.
  32. Boysen, Reinhard I., and Milton T. W. Hearn. 2009. "Multi-modal HPLC of proteins." https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/47.8.645.
  33. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography." United States Pharmacopeial Convention. https://www.usp.org/harmonization-standards/pdg/general-chapters/chromatography.
  34. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2023. "Validation of Analytical Procedures Q2(R2)." ICH Expert Working Group. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/ICH_Q2-R2_Document_Step4_Guideline_2023_1101.pdf.
  35. Foley, Joe P., and John G. Dorsey. 1983. "Equations for calculation of chromatographic figures of merit for ideal and skewed peaks." https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00255a033.
  36. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183.
  37. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "Peak tailing and resolution." https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/peak-tailing-and-resolution.
  38. Vivó-Truyols, Gabriel, and Hans-Gerd Janssen. 2010. "Probabilistic approach to peak deconvolution in chromatography." https://doi.org/10.1021/ac101742z.
  39. Kromidas, Stavros. 2017. "HPLC Made to Measure: A Practical Handbook for Optimization." Wiley-VCH.
  40. Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. "Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods." https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.10.052.
  41. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 2024. "USP <621> Chromatography." In United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary, USP 47-NF 42. Rockville, MD: USP. https://www.uspnf.com/.
  42. European Pharmacopoeia Commission. 2024. "2.2.46 Chromatographic Separation Techniques." In European Pharmacopoeia, 11th ed. Strasbourg: Council of Europe — EDQM. https://www.edqm.eu/en/european-pharmacopoeia-ph-eur-11th-edition.
  43. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2022. "ICH Q2(R2): Validation of Analytical Procedures." International Council for Harmonisation. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/ICH_Q2%28R2%29_Guideline_2022_1130.pdf.
  44. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 1996. "ICH Q3A: Impurities in New Drug Substances." International Council for Harmonisation. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q3A%28R2%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  45. International Organization for Standardization. 2017. "ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories." Geneva: ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html.
  46. Kolthoff, Izaak Maurits, and Philip J. Elving, eds. 1978. Treatise on Analytical Chemistry, Part I: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
  47. Skoog, Douglas A., F. James Holler, and Stanley R. Crouch. 2018. Principles of Instrumental Analysis. 7th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  48. Christian, Gary D., Purnendu K. Dasgupta, and Kevin A. Schug. 2014. Analytical Chemistry. 7th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  49. EURACHEM/CITAC. 2012. "Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement." 3rd ed. EURACHEM/CITAC Guide CG 4. https://www.eurachem.org/images/stories/Guides/pdf/QUAM2012_P1.pdf.
  50. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183.
  51. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "How much resolution is enough?." https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/how-much-resolution-enough.
  52. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography (System Suitability section)." United States Pharmacopeial Convention. https://www.usp.org/harmonization-standards/pdg/general-chapters/chromatography.
  53. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2018. "Reviewer Guidance: Validation of Chromatographic Methods." US Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/74954/download.
  54. Rozet, Eric, et al.. 2013. "Analysis of recent pharmaceutical regulatory documents on analytical method validation." https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2007.03.111.
  55. European Medicines Agency (EMA). 2011. "Guideline on bioanalytical method validation EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009." EMA. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-bioanalytical-method-validation_en.pdf.
  56. Kazakevich, Yuri V., and Rosario LoBrutto, eds.. 2007. "HPLC for Pharmaceutical Scientists." Wiley-Interscience. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470087954.
  57. AOAC International. 2016. "Appendix F: Guidelines for Standard Method Performance Requirements." AOAC INTERNATIONAL. https://www.aoac.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/app_f.pdf.
  58. International Organization for Standardization. 1994. "ISO 5725-2:1994 Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results — Part 2: Basic Method for the Determination of Repeatability and Reproducibility of a Standard Measurement Method." Geneva: ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/11834.html.
  59. Heckert, N. A., and J. J. Filliben. 2003. "NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods." NIST Handbook 151. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.
  60. Grubbs, Frank E. 1950. "Sample Criteria for Testing Outlying Observations." Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21 (1): 27–58.
  61. Dixon, Wilfrid J. 1950. "Analysis of Extreme Values." Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21 (4): 488–506.
  62. Snedecor, George W., and William G. Cochran. 1989. Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
  63. Student [William Sealy Gosset]. 1908. "The Probable Error of a Mean." Biometrika 6 (1): 1–25.
  64. International Organization for Standardization. 2005. "ISO 3534-1:2006 Statistics — Vocabulary and Symbols — Part 1: General Statistical Terms and Terms Used in Probability." Geneva: ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/40145.html.
  65. Thompson, Michael, Stephen L. R. Ellison, and Roger Wood. 2002. "Harmonized Guidelines for Single-Laboratory Validation of Methods of Analysis." Pure and Applied Chemistry 74 (5): 835–855.
  66. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 2024. European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR), Applicable as from 1 January 2025 (ECE/TRANS/352). Geneva: UNECE. https://unece.org/transport/dangerous-goods/adr-2025-edition.
  67. International Air Transport Association. 2026. Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR). 67th ed. Montreal: IATA. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/cargo/dgr/.
  68. International Maritime Organization. 2024. International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, 2024 Edition (Amendment 42-24). London: IMO. https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/DangerousGoods-default.aspx.
  69. United Nations. 2025. Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Model Regulations (Orange Book). 24th revised ed. ST/SG/AC.10/1/Rev.24. New York and Geneva: United Nations. https://unece.org/transport/dangerous-goods/un-model-regulations.
  70. International Civil Aviation Organization. 2025. Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284). 2025–2026 ed. Montreal: ICAO. https://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/Pages/technical-instructions.aspx.
  71. International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). 2005. "Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology Q2(R1)." ICH Expert Working Group. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q2%28R1%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  72. United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Convention. 2024. "USP General Chapter <621> Chromatography." USP. https://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp/document/harmonization/gen-chapter/g05_pf_30_4_2004.pdf.
  73. European Medicines Agency (EMA). 2011. "Guideline on bioanalytical method validation EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009." EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-bioanalytical-method-validation_en.pdf.
  74. European Commission. 2014. "Commission Decision 2014/955/EU on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC." Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0955.
  75. Ministry of Climate and Environment of the Republic of Poland. 2020. "Regulation of the Minister of Climate of 2 January 2020 on the waste catalogue." Journal of Laws of the Republic of Poland 2020 item 10. https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20200000010.
  76. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska (GIOŚ) [Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection]. 2024. "Baza Danych O Odpadach (BDO) — Waste disposal company registration system." Ministry of Climate and Environment. https://bdo.mos.gov.pl/.
  77. Poland — Sejm RP. 2012. "Act of 14 December 2012 on waste." Dz.U. 2013 item 21 (as amended). https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20130000021.
  78. Furr, A. Keith, ed.. 2000. "CRC Handbook of Laboratory Safety." CRC Press.
  79. Pohanish, Richard P.. 2017. "Sittig's Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens." Elsevier.
  80. Lewis, Richard J.. 2012. "Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials." Wiley.
  81. NIOSH. 2024. "Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/.
  82. OSHA. 2024. "Occupational Chemical Database — Hazardous Waste Operations (HAZWOPER)." Occupational Safety and Health Administration. https://www.osha.gov/chemicaldata.
  83. European Parliament and Council. 2008. "Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive)." Official Journal of the European Union L 312/3. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098.
  84. European Parliament and Council. 2009. "Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP) on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures." Official Journal of the European Union L 353. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008R1272.
  85. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). 2023. "European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR 2025)." UNECE. https://unece.org/transport/standards/transport/dangerous-goods/adr-2025.
  86. IPCS INCHEM. 2024. "International Programme on Chemical Safety — Waste Management Guidelines." WHO/UNEP/ILO. https://www.inchem.org/.
  87. European Parliament and Council. 2006. "Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on Shipments of Waste." Official Journal of the European Union L 190: 1–98. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006R1013.
  88. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2000. "Q7 Good Manufacturing Practice Guide for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients." ICH Expert Working Group. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q7%20Guideline.pdf.
  89. International Organization for Standardization. 2017. "ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories." ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html.
  90. World Health Organization. 2010. "WHO Good Manufacturing Practices for Pharmaceutical Products: Main Principles (WHO Technical Report Series No. 957, Annex 3)." WHO Press. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/trs957-annex3.
  91. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2003. "ICH Q1A(R2): Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products." International Council for Harmonisation. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q1A%28R2%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  92. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2006. "ICH Q3A(R2): Impurities in New Drug Substances." ICH. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q3A%28R2%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  93. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 1999. "ICH Q6A: Specifications for New Drug Substances and Products." ICH. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q6A%20Guideline.pdf.
  94. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2008. "ICH Q10: Pharmaceutical Quality System." ICH. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q10%20Guideline.pdf.
  95. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2024. "21 CFR Part 211: Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals." US Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-211.
  96. European Medicines Agency. 2014. "Guideline on Process Validation for Finished Products — Information and Data to Be Provided EMA/CHMP/CVMP/QWP/BWP/70278/2012." European Medicines Agency. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-process-validation-finished-products-information-data-be-provided-regulatory-submissions-revision-1_en.pdf.
  97. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 2024. "United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary, USP 47-NF 42." USP. https://www.uspnf.com/.
  98. European Pharmacopoeia Commission. 2024. "European Pharmacopoeia 11th Edition." Council of Europe — EDQM. https://www.edqm.eu/en/european-pharmacopoeia-ph-eur-11th-edition.
  99. Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S). 2021. "Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products PE 009-15." PIC/S Secretariat, Geneva. https://picscheme.org/en/publications.
  100. International Pharmaceutical Excipients Council (IPEC) and Pharmaceutical Quality Group (PQG). 2017. "Joint IPEC-PQG Good Manufacturing Practices Guide for Pharmaceutical Excipients." IPEC-Americas. https://ipecamericas.org/sites/default/files/IPECPQGGMPGuide2017.pdf.
📥 Download BibTeX📥 Download RISImport into Zotero/Mendeley/EndNote/Papers.
—