What is Sodium persulfate?

Sodium persulfate (CAS 7775-27-1) is a chemical compound with the molecular formula Na₂O₈S₂ and a molar mass of 238.11 g/mol. Chemical data from PubChem (National Institutes of Health, USA).

What is the CAS number of Sodium persulfate?

The CAS number (Chemical Abstracts Service) for Sodium persulfate is 7775-27-1.

What is the chemical formula of Sodium persulfate?

The molecular formula of Sodium persulfate is Na₂O₈S₂. IUPAC name: disodium;sulfonatooxy sulfate.

Where to buy Sodium persulfate (CAS 7775-27-1)?

Sodium persulfate (CAS 7775-27-1) is available at Eapearl Chemical: https://epchems.online/products/sodium-persulfate/. Current price and availability information can be found on the product page.

Sodium persulfate

SPS

CAS 7775-27-1 EC 231-892-1 Na2O8S2 Powder SDS published CLP Danger

📄 Download SDS Card (PDF)

MolGod_SDSCARD_1

REACH 2020/878

v2 · 08.09.2026

Specification

Product Name	Sodium persulfate
Other Names	SPS
CAS No.	7775-27-1
EINECS No.	231-892-1
MF	Na2O8S2
Molecular weight	238.1
Purity	99.2%
Appearance	White crystals or powder
Density	2,4 g/cm3
Melting point	without
solubleness	100 °C
water solubility	550 g/L (20 ºC)

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

Hazard classification

Danger

Classification source — PubChem C&L (consensus filter, not harmonised)

No harmonised entry exists for this substance; the classification shown is the supplier consensus reported to ECHA and should be confirmed for your intended use.

H272 May intensify fire; oxidiser
H302 Harmful if swallowed
H315 Causes skin irritation
H317 May cause an allergic skin reaction
H319 Causes serious eye irritation
H334 May cause allergy or asthma symptoms or breathing difficulties if inhaled
H335 May cause respiratory irritation
H371 May cause damage to organs
H316 Causes mild skin irritation
H320 Causes eye irritation

Precautionary statements (2)

P210 Keep away from heat, hot surfaces, sparks, open flames and other ignition sources. No smoking
P233 Keep container tightly closed

Full safety data sheet CLP label (EN)

Substance identity verified against the registry entry on 2026-09-02.

Packaging and shipping

Dag25kg

IBC Dag25kg

ISO tank (20ft)24–26 m³

ISO tank (40ft)48–50 m³

Sodium per sulfate is a powerful and stable inorganic peroxide with the chemical formula Na₂S₂O₈. It is renowned for its extremely strong oxidation potential, excellent water solubility, the ability to generate sulfate radicals (SO₄⁻·) through thermal decomposition, and relatively good storage stability. These characteristics make it an indispensable and highly efficient chemical tool in modern industries such as polymer reaction initiation, electronic circuit etching, advanced oxidation treatment, and special bleaching and disinfection. We are committed to providing stable and reliable oxidation power and initiation sources for our customers’ critical processes under strict safety and compliance management.

Sodium per sulfate, raw material manufacturer, | Provides applications such as polymerization initiation, PCB etching, wastewater treatment, hair bleaching, disinfection and cleaning

Product Description

Anhui Eapearl Chemical Co., Ltd.As a professional supplier of specialty chemicals and high-performance oxidants, relying on a rigorous quality control system and stable supply channels, we provide customers with high-purity and multi-specification persulfate sodium products and professional application solutions. Persulfate sodium is a powerful and stable inorganic peroxide with the chemical formula Na₂S₂O₈. It is characterized by its extremely strong oxidation potential, excellent water solubility, the ability to generate sulfate radicals (SO₄⁻·) through thermal decomposition, and relatively good storage stability. As a result, it has become an indispensable efficient chemical tool in modern industries such as polymer reaction initiation, electronic circuit etching, advanced oxidation treatment, and special bleaching and disinfection. We are committed to providing stable and reliable oxidation power and initiation sources for customers’ critical processes under strict safety and compliance management.

The core value of sodium per sulfate lies in its dual roles as a “free radical generator” and a “strong oxidant”. It can be activated under mild conditions, thereby initiating chain reactions or achieving deep oxidation:

High oxidation potential: The standard redox potential is as high as 2.01V, making it more powerful than common oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate.

Free radical initiation mechanism: Through activation by heat, light, transition metal ions, etc., it generates highly reactive sulfate radical (SO₄⁻·), suitable for polymerization and advanced oxidation processes requiring free radical reactions.

Good water solubility and storage stability: Compared to other peroxides, it has better storage stability in a dry state, facilitating transportation and operation, and has good water solubility, making it easy to prepare working solutions. Reaction selectivity: In certain systems, the free radical reaction pathways exhibit unique chemical selectivity.

Sodium per sulfate, raw material manufacturer, | Provides applications such as polymerization initiation, PCB etching, wastewater treatment, hair bleaching, disinfection and cleaning

Delivery&Payment method

Sodium per sulfate, raw material manufacturer, | Provides applications such as polymerization initiation, PCB etching, wastewater treatment, hair bleaching, disinfection and cleaning

Frequently asked

In what packaging is Sodium persulfate 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 Sodium persulfate?

Yes. A full safety data sheet for CAS 7775-27-1 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 99.2%. Tighter specifications are confirmed against the production batch before shipment.

Related products

Sodium Tripolyphosphate

STPP

CAS 7758-29-4 96% Powder

L-Threonine

C4H9NO3 · 119.12 g/mol · specification on request

CAS 72-19-5 Powder

L-Aspartic acid

CAS 56-84-8 99% Powder

🧬 3D Molecule Visualizer

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 7775-27-1MolGod_PROPHUB_MAIN

📊 Physicochemical properties

Quick Reference

Formula: Na₂O₈S₂

MW: 238.11 g/mol

CAS: 7775-27-1

🔬 Advanced Properties

Chemical Identifiers

SMILES: [O-]S(=O)(=O)OOS(=O)(=O)[O-].[Na+].[Na+]

Last updated: unconfirmed

Property	Value	Unit	Conditions	Source
Water solubility	556 ^[1]	g/L	25°C	PubChem PUG-View (2026)
Density (ρ)	1.1 ^[1]	g/cm³		PubChem PUG-View (2026)

Chemical Overview: Sodium PersulfateMolGod_OVERVIEW_1

Molecular formula	Na₂O₈S₂^[1]
Molecular weight	238.11 g/mol^[1]
Density	1.1 g/cm³^[1]
IUPAC name	disodium;sulfonatooxy sulfate^[1]
SMILES	`[O-]S(=O)(=O)OOS(=O)(=O)[O-].[Na+].[Na+]`^[1]
InChIKey	`CHQMHPLRPQMAMX-UHFFFAOYSA-L`^[1]

Synonyms: Sodium persulfate · 7775-27-1 · Sodium peroxydisulfate · Sodium peroxodisulfate · Peroxydisulfuric acid, disodium salt

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

📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) (1 sources)

PubChem. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NIH/NLM), chemical compound database. ↗ dotyczy: Molecular formula · Molecular weight · Density · IUPAC name · SMILES · InChIKey

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

[1]PubMed2024

Acesulfame degradation by thermally activated persulfate: Kinetics, transformation products and estimated toxicity.

Lalas K, Arvaniti OS, Panagopoulou EI et al.. (2024). "Acesulfame degradation by thermally activated persulfate: Kinetics, transformation products and estimated toxicity.". Chemosphere. https://doi.or

[2]PubMed2024

Structure-dependent degradation of phthalate esters with persulfate oxidation activated by thermal in soil.

Liu F, Hu N, Wang A et al.. (2024). "Structure-dependent degradation of phthalate esters with persulfate oxidation activated by thermal in soil.". Environmental research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.env

[3]PubMed2023

Kinetics, mechanism, and application of sodium persulfate activated by sodium hydroxide for removing 1,2-dichloroethane from groundwater.

Xie T, Dang Z, Zhang Q et al.. (2023). "Kinetics, mechanism, and application of sodium persulfate activated by sodium hydroxide for removing 1,2-dichloroethane from groundwater.". Environmental resear

[4]PubMed2023

Modeling of NO mass transfer characteristics absorbed in sodium persulfate solution with a bubble reactor.

Liu J, Li C, Zhang X et al.. (2023). "Modeling of NO mass transfer characteristics absorbed in sodium persulfate solution with a bubble reactor.". Journal of environmental science and health. Part A,

[5]PubMed2023

Coupling iron-carbon micro-electrolysis with persulfate advanced oxidation for hydraulic fracturing return fluid treatment.

Luo M, Yang H, Wang K et al.. (2023). "Coupling iron-carbon micro-electrolysis with persulfate advanced oxidation for hydraulic fracturing return fluid treatment.". Chemosphere. https://doi.org/10.101

[6]PubMed2022

Rhamnolipid-Enhanced ZVI-Activated Sodium Persulfate Remediation of Pyrene-Contaminated Soil.

Wang W, Wang X, Zhang H et al.. (2022). "Rhamnolipid-Enhanced ZVI-Activated Sodium Persulfate Remediation of Pyrene-Contaminated Soil.". International journal of environmental research and public heal

[7]PubMed2016

Electrokinetic delivery of persulfate to remediate PCBs polluted soils: Effect of different activation methods.

Fan G, Cang L, Gomes HI et al.. (2016). "Electrokinetic delivery of persulfate to remediate PCBs polluted soils: Effect of different activation methods.". Chemosphere. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemos

[8]PubMed2013

Carbon isotope fractionation of 1,1,1-trichloroethane during base-catalyzed persulfate treatment.

Marchesi M, Thomson NR, Aravena R et al.. (2013). "Carbon isotope fractionation of 1,1,1-trichloroethane during base-catalyzed persulfate treatment.". Journal of hazardous materials. https://doi.org/1

📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) 11 refs · 1 baz

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

Sources: db:pubmed (11)

db:pubmed Lalas K, Arvaniti OS, Panagopoulou EI et al.. (2024). "Acesulfame degradation by thermally activated persulfate: Kinetics, transformation products and estimated toxicity.". Chemosphere. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.141260 →
db:pubmed Liu F, Hu N, Wang A et al.. (2024). "Structure-dependent degradation of phthalate esters with persulfate oxidation activated by thermal in soil.". Environmental research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2024.119167 →
db:pubmed Xie T, Dang Z, Zhang Q et al.. (2023). "Kinetics, mechanism, and application of sodium persulfate activated by sodium hydroxide for removing 1,2-dichloroethane from groundwater.". Environmental research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.114694 →
db:pubmed Liu J, Li C, Zhang X et al.. (2023). "Modeling of NO mass transfer characteristics absorbed in sodium persulfate solution with a bubble reactor.". Journal of environmental science and health. Part A, Toxic/hazardous substances & environmental engineering. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2023.2206354 →
db:pubmed Luo M, Yang H, Wang K et al.. (2023). "Coupling iron-carbon micro-electrolysis with persulfate advanced oxidation for hydraulic fracturing return fluid treatment.". Chemosphere. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137415 →
db:pubmed Wang W, Wang X, Zhang H et al.. (2022). "Rhamnolipid-Enhanced ZVI-Activated Sodium Persulfate Remediation of Pyrene-Contaminated Soil.". International journal of environmental research and public health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811518 →
db:pubmed Fan G, Cang L, Gomes HI et al.. (2016). "Electrokinetic delivery of persulfate to remediate PCBs polluted soils: Effect of different activation methods.". Chemosphere. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.08.074 →
db:pubmed Marchesi M, Thomson NR, Aravena R et al.. (2013). "Carbon isotope fractionation of 1,1,1-trichloroethane during base-catalyzed persulfate treatment.". Journal of hazardous materials. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.05.011 →
db:pubmed Li B, Li L, Lin K et al.. (2013). "Removal of 1,1,1-trichloroethane from aqueous solution by a sono-activated persulfate process.". Ultrasonics sonochemistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2012.11.014 →
db:pubmed Diaz Kirmser EM, Mártire DO, Gonzalez MC et al.. (2010). "Degradation of the herbicides clomazone, paraquat, and glyphosate by thermally activated peroxydisulfate.". Journal of agricultural and food chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf103054h →
db:pubmed Pang S, Fiume MZ. (2001). "Final report on the safety assessment of Ammonium, Potassium, and Sodium Persulfate.". International journal of toxicology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10915810152630710 →

Regulatory status of the substance

This substance is subject to regulatory requirements: hazardous waste management (BDO register). Details in the \"Regulatory Status (REACH/ECHA/CLP)\" section and on the SDS. Regulatory information — does not restrict purchase in this store.

🧮 Stoichiometry CalculatorMolGod_STOICH_1

🧪 Chemical DataMolGod_CHEMDATA_1

CAS Number: 7775-27-1
Molecular formula: Na₂O₈S₂
Molar mass: 238.11 g/mol
IUPAC name (EN): disodium;sulfonatooxy sulfate
SMILES: [O-]S(=O)(=O)OOS(=O)(=O)[O-].[Na+].[Na+]
InChIKey: CHQMHPLRPQMAMX-UHFFFAOYSA-L

📡 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.

⚗️ Physicochemical propertiesMolGod_PHYSTAB_2

Density: 1.75

Source: PubChem, NIST WebBook. Last updated: date not confirmed

🔍 External identifiersMolGod_EXTID_1

9 of 16 ID systems56%

Database	Identifier	Actions
CAS Registry Number	7775-27-1	Open →
PubChem CID	62655^[1]	Open →
InChIKey	CHQMHPLRPQMAMX-UHFFFAOYSA-L^[1]	Open →
SMILES	[O-]S(=O)(=O)OOS(=O)(=O)[O-].[Na+].[Na+]^[1]
EC Number	231-892-1^[2]	Open →
ChEMBL	CHEMBL502764^[3]	Open →
ChemSpider	56406^[4]	Open →
UNII (FDA)	J49FYF16JE	Open →
WikiData QID	Q419438	Open →

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

📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) (4 sources)

PubChem. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NIH/NLM), chemical compound database. ↗ dotyczy: PubChem CID · InChIKey · SMILES
ECHA. EC Inventory — EINECS, ELINCS, NLP and List Numbers assigned under REACH. Helsinki: European Chemicals Agency. ↗ dotyczy: EC Number
ChEMBL. European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), bioactivity database. ↗ dotyczy: ChEMBL
ChemSpider. Royal Society of Chemistry, chemical structure database. ↗ dotyczy: ChemSpider

📡 Spectroscopy — CAS 7775-27-1MolGod_SPECHUB_MAIN

📊 Spectroscopic spectra databases — inline data 8 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

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

🔬 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 (3)MolGod_FAQ_1

What is 7775-27-1?

7775-27-1 (CAS 7775-27-1) is a chemical compound. The chemical data comes from PubChem (National Institutes of Health, USA).

Helpful?

What is the CAS number of 7775-27-1?

The CAS number for 7775-27-1 is 7775-27-1. A CAS Registry Number is the standard identifier for a chemical substance in scientific literature and in trade.

Helpful?

How should 7775-27-1 be stored?

7775-27-1 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.

📄 .SDF 📄 .MOL 📈 3D JSON 🌐 More formats (PubChem)

Source: PubChem, National Library of Medicine (NIH). CID: 62655

🔄 Concentration unit converter LIVE MolGod_UNITCONV_1

Enter the Sodium Persulfate concentration in any unit — the rest will be calculated automatically.

MW: 238.11 g/mol · IUPAC Gold Book ↗

⚗️ Conversion formulas + citations (per formula)

Conversion	Formula	Accuracy	Source
% (w/v) ↔ molarity	c (mol/L) = (% × 10) / MW	±0.5% rel. when density ≈ 1.0 g/mL	IUPAC (2019)
millimolar ↔ molar	c (mol/L) = mM × 10⁻³	Exact	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)
molarity (mol/L)	c = n/V = (m/MW)/V	±0.1% (depends on MW precision)	IUPAC (2019)
parts per million (mg/L) ↔ molarity	c (mol/L) = ppm / (1000 × MW); equivalently ppm = mg/L for dilute aqueous	±1% (density-independent for dilute solutions)	IUPAC (2019)
mg/mL ↔ molarity	c (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 ↔ molarity	c (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 ↔ molarity	c (mol/L) = mmol/L × 10⁻³	Exact	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)
Celsius ↔ Kelvin	T(K) = t(°C) + 273.15	±0.01 K (ITS-90 scale)	BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) (2019)
Celsius ↔ Fahrenheit	T(°F) = T(°C) × 9/5 + 32	±0.1 °F	Thompson A, Taylor BN (2008)
density-corrected % ↔ molarity	c (mol/L) = (%w/w × ρ × 10) / MW, ρ in g/mL	±0.1% when ρ known to 3 decimals	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)

📚 Bibliography (8 authoritative sources)

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
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
BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) (2019). The International System of Units (SI), 9th edition. BIPM · ↗
→ International SI definitions (incl. redefined kilogram 2019)
ISO/IEC (2022). Quantities and units — Part 1: General. International Organization for Standardization — ISO 80000-1:2022 · ↗
→ General rules for physical quantities and units
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
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)
IUPAC (2019). Compendium of Chemical Terminology — the IUPAC Gold Book (online). IUPAC · DOI: 10.1351/goldbook
→ Definitions of mass fraction, molality, normality, ppm, activity
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 7775-27-1MolGod_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.

GHS/CLP classification — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 + UN GHS Rev. 9 (2021).

⚠️ Danger

GHS03 Oxidizing

GHS07 Irritant / harmful

GHS08 Health hazard

🚨 Hazard statements (H)

H272 — May intensify fire; oxidiser
H302 — Harmful if swallowed
H315 — Causes skin irritation
H317 — May cause an allergic skin reaction
H319 — Causes serious eye irritation
H334 — May cause allergy or asthma symptoms or breathing difficulties if inhaled
H335 — May cause respiratory irritation
H371 — May cause damage to organs
H316 — Causes mild skin irritation
H320 — Causes eye irritation

🛡 Precautionary statements (P)

P210 — Keep away from heat, hot surfaces, sparks, open flames and other ignition sources. No smoking
P233 — Keep container tightly closed

⚠ Classification based on a consensus of sources (PubChem / supplier notifications) — not verified against the harmonised classification in Annex VI (CLP). The scope of hazards may be broader than the official classification; verify against the supplier's current safety data sheet before use.

Translations: CLP Regulation (EC) 1272/2008, Annexes III and IV. Data: PubChem/NLM.

📚 Consolidated scientific references — Chicago Author-Date 10 sources

References collected from all Safety Hub tabs. CAS: 7775-27-1 · PubChem ↗

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
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
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
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
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 2016. "EN 374-1:2016 — Protective gloves against dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms." CEN, Brussels. [↗] PPE
UNECE. 2023. "European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR 2025)." United Nations, Geneva. [↗] Utylizacja, Regulacje
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2022. "NFPA 400 — Hazardous Materials Code." NFPA, Quincy, MA. [↗] Magazynowanie
Urben, P.G. (ed.). 2017. "Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards, 8th ed.." Butterworth-Heinemann / Elsevier, Oxford. [↗] Magazynowanie
Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska RP. 2023. "Baza danych o produktach i opakowaniach oraz o gospodarce odpadami (BDO)." Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska, Warszawa. [↗] Utylizacja
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).

Measurement results:

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

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)

Pharmacological Status

Prekliniczny

Phase I

Phase II

Phase III

Approved

Preclinical — no human study data.

ChEMBL CHEMBL502764 ↗

🚚 Transport classification (ADR / IATA / IMDG) UN 1505

UN Number

UN 1505

UN number per the indicated source. Verify the transport class and packing group in ADR Table A / UN Model Regulations before shipment. Sugerowana z klasyfikacji GHS — WYMAGA WERYFIKACJI.

Source: Karta SDS sek.14 (kanon zmaterializowany)

🛣️ ADR Road Transport

Class:
Packing Group:
Shipping name:

Sources: ADR 2025 ↗ · IATA DGR ↗ · IMDG Code ↗

📅 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

Sodium Persulfate

Formula

Na₂O₈S₂

logP (XLogP3)

—

Mass (g/mol)

238.11

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.

Ra < R₀ = good miscibility · Ra < 1,5×R₀ = borderline · above = poor (R₀ — radius of the Hansen sphere of this molecule)

Solvent	Compat.	Ra	Visual	GC-MS	HPLC	Applications	References
Water (H₂O)	n/d	—	not applicable	✗ Nie	A (aqueous) (RP)	buffercell cultureanalyticalextraction (hydrophilic)	Hansen (2007) ↗NIST ↗CRC ↗IAPWS ↗Reichardt 2011 ↗GESTIS ↗
Ethanol (EtOH)	n/d	—	not applicable	✗ Nie	A/B modifier (RP/NP)	extractionspectroscopy (UV-Vis)synthesisHPLC modifier	Hansen (2007) ↗NIST ↗CRC ↗Snyder & Kirkland ↗Smallwood ↗GESTIS ↗
Methanol (MeOH)	n/d	—	not applicable	✗ Nie	A/B (RP) (RP)	HPLC (eluent)LC-MSKarl FischerUV-transparent to 205 nm	Snyder & Kirkland ↗NIST ↗CRC ↗Snyder & Kirkland ↗GESTIS ↗
Acetone	n/d	—	not applicable	✗ Nie	B modifier (NP)	GC headspacecrystallisationdegreasingsynthesis	Reichardt (2011) ↗NIST ↗CRC ↗Hansen 2007 ↗Smallwood ↗GESTIS ↗
Acetonitrile (ACN)	n/d	—	not applicable	✗ Nie	B (RP) (RP)	HPLC eluent (gold standard)LC-MS (low UV cut-off, 190 nm)peptide analysis	Aguilar, M.I. ↗NIST ↗CRC ↗Snyder & Kirkland ↗Reichardt 2011 ↗GESTIS ↗
DMSO	n/d	—	not applicable	✗ Nie	N/A (N/A)	NMR (d6-DMSO)cell biology (cryopreservation)drug deliverysynthesis	Wypych, G. ↗NIST ↗Wypych 2019 ↗Hansen 2007 ↗Reichardt 2011 ↗GESTIS ↗
THF	n/d	—	not applicable	✗ Nie	B (NP) (NP)	GPC/SEC (polymer analysis)Grignard synthesisorganometallics	Armarego (2009) ↗NIST ↗Armarego 2009 ↗Hansen 2007 ↗Smallwood ↗GESTIS ↗
DCM (CH₂Cl₂)	n/d	—	not applicable	✓ Tak	B (NP) (NP)	extractionNP-HPLCGC-MScrystallisation (anti-solvent)	NIST WebBook ↗NIST ↗IARC 71 ↗Hansen 2007 ↗Reichardt 2011 ↗GESTIS ↗
Chloroform (CHCl₃)	n/d	—	not applicable	✓ Tak	N/A (toxic) (N/A)	NMR (CDCl3)lipid extraction (Folch method)NP-TLC	IARC Monographs ↗NIST ↗IARC 73 ↗Hansen 2007 ↗Reichardt 2011 ↗GESTIS ↗
Hexane	n/d	—	not applicable	✓ Tak	A (NP) (NP)	NP-HPLCoil extraction (lipids)GC-MSTLC (NP)	Dass, C. (2011) ↗NIST ↗ATSDR n-Hexane ↗Hansen 2007 ↗Snyder & Kirkland ↗GESTIS ↗
Toluene	n/d	—	not applicable	✓ Tak	B (NP) (NP)	NMR (d8-toluene)synthesisazeotropic drying (Dean-Stark)	GESTIS DGUV ↗NIST ↗IARC 71 ↗Hansen 2007 ↗Smallwood ↗GESTIS ↗

Sources: PubChem (NIH) · Hansen Solubility Database

📚 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)

NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Water (CAS 7732-18-5)
CRC — CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 104th ed., Sec. 8 (Properties of Water)
IAPWS — IAPWS Release on Static Dielectric Constant of Water
Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry
GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Water

Ethanol (EtOH)

NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Ethanol (CAS 64-17-5)
CRC — CRC Handbook — Ethanol physical constants
Snyder & Kirkland — Modern Liquid Chromatography — Ethanol eluotropic
Smallwood — Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties — Ethanol
GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Ethanol

Methanol (MeOH)

NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Methanol (CAS 67-56-1)
CRC — CRC Handbook — Methanol physical constants
Snyder & Kirkland — Modern Liquid Chromatography — MeOH eluotropic, eo=0.95
GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Methanol

Acetone

NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Acetone (CAS 67-64-1)
CRC — CRC Handbook — Acetone physical & thermodynamic constants
Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — Acetone (dD=15.5, dP=10.4, dH=7.0)
Smallwood — Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties — Acetone
GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Acetone

Acetonitrile (ACN)

NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Acetonitrile (CAS 75-05-8)
CRC — CRC Handbook — Acetonitrile constants
Snyder & Kirkland — Modern Liquid Chromatography — ACN gold-standard HPLC eluent
Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects — ACN dipolar aprotic
GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Acetonitrile

DMSO

NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — DMSO (CAS 67-68-5)
Wypych 2019 — Handbook of Solvents Vol. 1 — DMSO comprehensive properties
Hansen 2007 — HSP — DMSO (dD=18.4, dP=16.4, dH=10.2)
Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects — DMSO E_T(30)=45.1, dipolar aprotic
GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — DMSO

THF

NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — THF (CAS 109-99-9)
Armarego 2009 — Purification of Laboratory Chemicals — THF drying & peroxide test
Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — THF (dD=16.8, dP=5.7, dH=8.0)
Smallwood — Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties — THF
GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Tetrahydrofuran

DCM (CH₂Cl₂)

NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Dichloromethane (CAS 75-09-2)
IARC 71 — IARC Monograph 71 — DCM (Group 2A carcinogen)
Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — DCM (dD=18.2, dP=6.3, dH=6.1)
Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects — DCM polarity index
GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Dichloromethane

Chloroform (CHCl₃)

NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Chloroform (CAS 67-66-3)
IARC 73 — IARC Monograph 73 — Chloroform (Group 2B carcinogen)
Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — CHCl3 (dD=17.8, dP=3.1, dH=5.7)
Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects — CHCl3 H-bond donor strength
GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Chloroform

n-Hexane

NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — n-Hexane (CAS 110-54-3)
ATSDR n-Hexane — ATSDR Toxicological Profile for n-Hexane — neuropatia obwodowa (n-Heksan NIE jest kancerogenem IARC)
Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — n-Hexane (dD=14.9, dP=0, dH=0)
Snyder & Kirkland — Modern Liquid Chromatography — n-Hexane NP standard, eo=0.00
GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — n-Hexane

Toluene

NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Toluene (CAS 108-88-3)
IARC 71 — IARC Monograph 71 — Toluene
Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — Toluene (dD=18.0, dP=1.4, dH=2.0)
Smallwood — Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties — Toluene
GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Toluene

Solubility theory (applied in compatibility prediction):

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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
PubChem Compound Database — CAS 7775-27-1 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

Health: 2/4

Flammability: 0/4

Reactivity: 0/4

Special: OX

Per NFPA 704 / calculated from H-codes

Check whether Sodium Persulfate 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

ppm → mg/L

Temperature C↔F↔K

Verified formulas: IUPAC Gold Book ↗, DOI ↗

📊 Spectroscopic Databases MolGod_SPECDB_3

¹H NMR NMRShiftDB ↗ IR NIST WebBook ↗ MS MoNA ↗ UV-Vis SDBS Japan ↗ MS (NIST) NIST MS ↗ NMR (SDBS) SDBS NMR ↗ JP Monograph Farmacopea JP ↗ WHO INN WHO Model ↗ DOAJ Open Access ↗

📋 Laboratory protocol generator MolGod_PROTOCOL_1

Target concentration

Volume (mL)

Initials

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

🏷️ Label generator (QR) MolGod_LABEL_1

Concentration

Preparation Date

Initials

🧪 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 7775-27-1MolGod_LITHUB_MAIN

⭐ Key findings (scientific literature) 11 publications

🏆 CAS 7775-27-1 — multi-criteria ranking (W12): 30% citations · 20% recency · 20% topic · 15% historical · 15% open access.

#1

Kinetics, mechanism, and application of sodium persulfate activated by sodium hydroxide for removing 1,2-dichloroethane from groundwater.

Xie T, Dang Z, Zhang Q et al. (2023) · Environmental research

Why it matters: Recent (2023)

SCORE 5.5 Mechanism DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
#2

Sulfaquinoxaline oxidation by UV-C activated sodium persulfate: Degradation kinetics and toxicological evaluation.

Boudriche L, Safaei Z, Ramasamy D et al. (2019) · Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation

Why it matters: Selected by multi-criteria score (citations + recency + topic + historical + OA).

SCORE 4.3 Mechanism DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
#3

Degradation of antibiotic ampicillin on boron-doped diamond anode using the combined electrochemical oxidation - Sodium persulfate process.

Frontistis Z, Mantzavinos D, Meriç S (2018) · Journal of environmental management

Why it matters: Selected by multi-criteria score (citations + recency + topic + historical + OA).

SCORE 4 Industrial DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
#4

A method for the titrimetric determination of sulfate using the disodium salt of ethylenediamine-tetra-acetic acid

R. Sidjerius (1954) · Analytica Chimica Acta

Why it matters: Historical paper (1954)

SCORE 3.92 Historical Citations: 10 DOI ↗
#5

Modeling of NO mass transfer characteristics absorbed in sodium persulfate solution with a bubble reactor.

Liu J, Li C, Zhang X et al. (2023) · Journal of environmental science and health. Part A, Toxic/hazardous substances & environmental engineering

Why it matters: Recent (2023)

SCORE 3.9 Mechanism DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
#6

Oxidation of nine petroleum hydrocarbon compounds by combined hydrogen peroxide/sodium persulfate catalyzed by siderite.

Li Y, Zhao L, Chen F et al. (2020) · Environmental science and pollution research international

Why it matters: Selected by multi-criteria score (citations + recency + topic + historical + OA).

SCORE 3.8 Mechanism DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
#7

Overestimate of remediation efficiency due to residual sodium persulfate in PAHs contaminated soil and a solution.

He L, Tong J, Yang Y et al. (2022) · Journal of environmental sciences (China)

Why it matters: Selected by multi-criteria score (citations + recency + topic + historical + OA).

SCORE 3.6 Mechanism DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
#8

Evaluation of alkaline activated sodium persulfate sustained release rod for the removal of dissolved trichloroethylene.

Liang C, Weng CY (2022) · Journal of hazardous materials

Why it matters: Selected by multi-criteria score (citations + recency + topic + historical + OA).

SCORE 3.6 Mechanism DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
#9

Gypsum, disodium pentacalcium sulfate, and anhydrite solubilities in concentrated sodium chloride solutions

D. N. Glew, D. A. Hames (1970) · Canadian Journal of Chemistry

Why it matters: Selected by multi-criteria score (citations + recency + topic + historical + OA).

SCORE 3.44 Mechanism Citations: 13 DOI ↗
#10

The transformation behaviors of heavy metals and dewaterability of sewage sludge during the dual conditioning with Fe(2+)-sodium persulfate oxidation and rice husk.

Xiong Q, Zhou M, Liu M et al. (2018) · Chemosphere

Why it matters: Selected by multi-criteria score (citations + recency + topic + historical + OA).

SCORE 3.2 Mechanism DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
#11

Raman spectroscopic technique towards understanding the degradation of phenol by sodium persulfate in hot compressed water.

Wang J, Zheng W, Zhang Y et al. (2020) · Chemosphere

Why it matters: Selected by multi-criteria score (citations + recency + topic + historical + OA).

SCORE 3 Analytics DOI ↗ PubMed ↗

Tag	TF	DF	IDF	Score
oxidation	4	4	1.875	7.502
activated	3	3	2.099	6.296
degradation	3	3	2.099	6.296
disodium	2	2	2.386	4.773
sulfate	2	2	2.386	4.773
solution	2	2	2.386	4.773
kinetics	2	2	2.386	4.773
combined	2	2	2.386	4.773

🔬 HPLC — methods & parameters — CAS 7775-27-1MolGod_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)

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.
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.
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.
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).
Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. "Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods." — Robustness vs. system suitability — design-of-experiments framework.
Rozet, Eric, et al.. 2013. "Analysis of recent pharmaceutical regulatory documents on analytical method validation."
European Medicines Agency (EMA). 2011. "Guideline on bioanalytical method validation EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009." EMA. [link ↗] — EMA companion guideline with bioanalytical SS criteria.
Dong, Michael W.. 2019. "HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists." 2nd ed. Wiley. — UHPLC-specific suitability adjustments (n=5 vs. n=6).
Kazakevich, Yuri V., and Rosario LoBrutto, eds.. 2007. "HPLC for Pharmaceutical Scientists." Wiley-Interscience.
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)

USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography." United States Pharmacopeial Convention. [link ↗] — Defines USP Tailing Factor T = (a+b)/(2a) measured at 5% peak height.
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).
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).
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.
Dolan, John W.. 2003. "Peak tailing and resolution." LCGC North America 21: 610-614 [link ↗] — How tailing factor degrades effective resolution.
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.
Kromidas, Stavros. 2017. "HPLC Made to Measure: A Practical Handbook for Optimization." Wiley-VCH. — Practical Tf and As thresholds for routine QC.
Dong, Michael W.. 2019. "HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists." Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793 [link ↗]
Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. "Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography." Wiley.
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.

tR₁ (retention time 1) tR₂ (retention time 2) Method w₁ (width 1) w₂ (width 2) Column length (mm)

📚 References (Chicago Author-Date)

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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 ↗]
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 ↗]
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 ↗]
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

Predicted parameters for this molecule (CAS 7775-27-1) 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 λ_max

210 nm

confidence: medium

No strong chromophore detected → 210 nm uniwersalne

Concentration

0.5 mg/mL

= 2.1 mM

confidence: high

Safe linear range detektora UV (nie przekroczy 1.5 AU)

Buffer pH

Range: 1.5 – 2.5

confidence: medium

Acid (pKa=0) → mobile phase pH 2 keeps the neutral form (better peak shape)

Injection Volume

10 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.

1. Mobile Phase Selection Solvents, grades, shopping list

Real Chemist Problem

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?

How We Solve This

Exact Solvent List

Name + CAS + Grade + Role in method

Grade Explanations

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

Consumption Calculator

Number of Samples:

Flow Rate (mL/min):

Runtime (min):

Solvent	Per Sample	Total Needed	Buy (bottles)	Cost
TOTAL COST:	0 PLN

Shopping List

One-click add to cart

Interactive Calculator

Number of Samples:

Flow Rate (mL/min):

Runtime (min):

Solvent	Per Sample	Total Needed	Buy (bottles)	Cost
TOTAL COST:	0 PLN

Deep Education

Understanding Mobile Phase Chemistry

Why Acetonitrile vs Methanol?

Property	Acetonitrile (ACN)	Methanol (MeOH)
Viscosity (20°C)	0.37 cP	0.59 cP (+59%)
Back Pressure	~150 bar	~210 bar (+40%)
UV Cutoff	190 nm	205 nm
Elution Strength	Stronger	Weaker
Price (typical)	115 PLN/L	70 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.

Samples per quarter

Chemist hourly rate (PLN)

Column price (PLN)

1. Solwenty — ACN vs MeOH

—

	Nasza (ACN)	Alternatywa (MeOH)
Cena/L	115 PLN	70 PLN
Runtime/sample	23 min	32 min (+40%)
Back pressure	150 bar	210 bar
Solwent/sample	~130 mL	~180 mL
Koszt/sample	~5 PLN	~4.5 PLN
Czas/sample	23 min	32 min
Czas pracy chemika	—	—
Total/quarter	—	—

2. Kolumna — z guard vs bez

—

	Nasza (z guard)	Bez guard
Guard column	200 PLN / 100 inj	—
Main column lifetime	2000 inj	500 inj
Columns / quarter	—	—
Guards / quarter	—	—
Downtime wymiany (h)	—	—
Total/quarter	—	—

3. Method development — SOP vs scratch

—

	Nasza (SOP template)	Custom dev
Initial setup	1 h (use template)	40 h (screening of phases, columns, gradients)
Walidacja (ICH Q2)	8 h	24 h
Dokumentacja	2 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/sample	5 min	23 min
Samples/8h shift	—	—
Shifts potrzebnych	—	—
Koszt pracy	—	—
Savings	—	—

Total annual savings: —

Frequently Asked Questions

Dla disodium;sulfonatooxy sulfate (logP=) — ACN czy MeOH? +

Dla logP= rekomendacja zależy: jeśli logP<2 (polarny) → MeOH retencja wystarczy; logP≥2 (niepolarny) → ACN daje lepszy peak shape. Dla tej molekuły (MW=238.11, CAS 7775-27-1) zaczynaj od ACN w gradiencie 5→95% B.

Source: Snyder LSS Model

ACN vs MeOH — which to choose? +

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

How much buffer to add to 1 L of water for 10 mM NH₄HCO₃? +

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

Can I use distilled water instead of HPLC grade? +

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

2. Gradient Optimization Timeline, slope, retention control

Gradient Problem From The Lab

Incorrect integration — publication rejected

Submission to JPBA. Reviewer 2: „Peak at 12.4 min shows manual integration, but baseline slope suggests co-elution". I had to revalidate the whole method. 3 months of delay.

Lesson learned (Kasia M., PhD Analytical Chemistry, UJ, 2025-06-03):
Manual integration = a red flag for reviewers. Solve CO-ELUTION in methods dev, not in integration. Optimise the gradient instead of force-fitting the peak.

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 end	Duration	Slope (Δ%B/min)	Step

Slope & Dwell Volume Test

Flow rate (mL/min)

Gradient time (min)

%B start

%B end

—

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 k_w − 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

Dlaczego linear gradient a nie step? +

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

Source: Snyder Seminar

Jakie Rt przewidywane dla disodium;sulfonatooxy sulfate na kolumnie C18 150mm? +

Heurystyka Snyder: Rt ≈ 2.5·logP + 1.2 min. Dla disodium;sulfonatooxy sulfate (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

How to set the starting %B in the gradient? +

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

3. Column Selection C18, particle size, dimensions

Column Choice Dilemma

Pressure too high — what next?

Pressure rises to 400 bar (max 300 for this column). The system is blaring an alarm. Do you shut the pump down? Yes/no?

Recommended Columns

Zorbax Eclipse Plus C18

150×4.6 mm · 3.5 μm · pH 2–9

Waters XBridge C18

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

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 vs C8 — which one when? +

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

Co to guard column i czy warto? +

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

Dla MW=238.11 — jaka porozumienie kolumny (pore size)? +

Rule of thumb: analyty MW10000 (białka) → pore 1000 Å. Dla MW=238.11 (CAS 7775-27-1) użyj standardowej kolumny C18 100 Å.

Source: Phenomenex Guide

4. Detection Settings UV wavelength, bandwidth, response

Detection Gotcha

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.

DAD Settings

Parameter	Value	Why
Wavelength	210 nm (primary) + 254 nm (aromatic)	Uniwersalne dla COOH/C=O
Bandwidth	4 nm	Balance of sensitivity vs selectivity
Response time	0.5 s	Zgodne z peak width ~5 s
Reference λ	360 nm, bw 100 nm	Kompensacja 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.

5. Method Validation SST, precision, accuracy, robustness

Validation Reality Check

Stability program — 18 timepoints × 6 batches

New API. 3 conditions (25°C/60%, 30°C/65%, 40°C/75%) × 6 timepoints × 6 batches = 324 injections/quarter.

USP <621> + ICH Q2(R1) Criteria

Parameter	Acceptance	Formula
Resolution (Rs)	≥ 2.0	2(t_R2 − t_R1) / (w₁ + w₂)
Tailing factor (Tf)	≤ 1.5	W_0.05 / (2·f)
Plates (N)	≥ 5000	16·(t_R / w)²
RSD (6 injections)	≤ 2.0%	σ / μ × 100%
Linearity (R²)	≥ 0.9990	80–120% 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 (R_s) &geq; 2.0
Tailing factor (T_f) &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

What if Rs=1.9 (fail)? +

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

Co to system suitability test (SST)? +

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

Source: USP Online

Spec limits for disodium;sulfonatooxy sulfate — how to establish? +

Dla API (active pharmaceutical ingredient) typowo 98-102% label claim. Dla disodium;sulfonatooxy sulfate (CAS 7775-27-1) 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

6. Sample Preparation Dilution, filtration, storage

Prep Mistakes That Ruined The Run

48 godzin stracone na niewidoczne piki

Day 1 — I prepared the sample, injected it, baseline flat. Day 2 — I repeated it 6× with different samples. Nothing. Wave check? Professor: "Take a look at the DAD scan". λ_max = 214 nm, and I had 254 nm set.

Lesson learned (Anna K., studentka 2. rok, PW, 2024-11-15):
ALWAYS run a UV scan of an unknown compound BEFORE the method. 254 nm = aromatics only. 210 nm = universal. Time saved: 2 days of work.

Sample Prep Protocol

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

7. Downloads & Resources PDF method, SOP template, validation protocols

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.

48 godzin stracone na niewidoczne piki

Anna K., studentka 2. rok, PW 2024-11-15 Poziom 2/5

What happened:

💡 Lekcja:

ALWAYS run a UV scan of an unknown compound BEFORE the method. 254 nm = aromatics only. 210 nm = universal. Time saved: 2 days of work.

10 columns in 2 months — wrong filter

Marta K., QC supervisor, pharma company 2025-02-10 Poziom 4/5

What happened:

Q1 audit: column cost +340% vs Q4. QA blamed the lab. Investigation: a new operator was using a 0.45 μm filter instead of 0.22 μm. Microparticles got through the guard and were killing the main columns by the 100th injection.

💡 Lekcja:

The filter SOP must be WRITTEN and checked every batch. 0.22 μm is the standard per USP . Cost of the error: 10 columns × 1800 PLN = 18,000 PLN + audit finding.

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".

🔄 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 7775-27-1). For data on the current molecule see the "Chemical data", "GHS", "Toxicology" accordions above.