acrylamide — label CAS 79-06-1

acrylamide

IARC Group 2A — Probably carcinogenic to humans
CAS: 79-06-1 | IARC source
EU SVHCMolGod Score: Primary

4,99 €

Chemical reagent Akrylamid (CAS 79-06-1). Full encyclopedic card — classification, properties and safety data — below.

🔒 SALE BLOCKED BY THE SYSTEM

Akryloamid · restriction (REACH Annex XVII)

Annex XVII · Art. 67(1) · REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006

Block applied automatically from the regulatory canon, not by an operator decision. Legal Basis ↗

MolGod_SDSCARD_1
REACH 2020/878
v8 · 16.07.2026
Category:
🧬 3D Molecule Visualizer
Loading molecule...
3D model Acrylamide, CAS 79-06-1, molecular formula C3H5NO, molar mass 71.08 g/mol
Chemical Overview: AcrylamideMolGod_OVERVIEW_1
Molecular formulaC3H5NO
Molecular weight71.08 g/mol
Melting point84.5 °C
Density1.13 g/cm³
LogP (lipophilicity)-0.7
IUPAC nameprop-2-enamide
SMILESC=CC(=O)N
InChIKeyHRPVXLWXLXDGHG-UHFFFAOYSA-N

Synonyms: ACRYLAMIDE · 79-06-1 · 2-Propenamide · prop-2-enamide · Propenamide

Data sources: PubChem (NLM/NIH)
Last updated: 2026-11-10

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

[1]OpenAlex2021
Developmental and Neurotoxicity of Acrylamide to Zebrafish
Jong‐Su Park, Palas Samanta, Sangwoo Lee et al.. (2021). "Developmental and Neurotoxicity of Acrylamide to Zebrafish". International Journal of Molecular Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22073518
Go to full study ↗
[2]OpenAlex2018
Acrylamide acute neurotoxicity in adult zebrafish
Melissa Faria, Tamar Ziv, Cristian Gómez‐Canela et al.. (2018). "Acrylamide acute neurotoxicity in adult zebrafish". Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26343-2
Go to full study ↗
[3]OpenAlex2016
Acrylamide-forming potential of potatoes grown at different locations, and the ratio of free asparagine to reducing sugars at…
N. Muttucumaru, Stephen J. Powers, J. Stephen Elmore et al.. (2016). "Acrylamide-forming potential of potatoes grown at different locations, and the ratio of free asparagine to reducing sugars at whic
Go to full study ↗
[4]OpenAlex2012
Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of acrylamide (CASRN 79-06-1) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (feed and drinking water…
(2012). "Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of acrylamide (CASRN 79-06-1) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (feed and drinking water studies).". PubMed.
[5]OpenAlex2011
Exposure to acrylamide and human cancer—a review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies
Claudio Pelucchi, Carlo La Vecchia, Cristina Bosetti et al.. (2011). "Exposure to acrylamide and human cancer—a review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies". Annals of Oncology. https://doi.org/
Go to full study ↗
[6]OpenAlex2011
Results on acrylamide levels in food from monitoring years 2007–2009 and Exposure assessment
European Food Safety Authority. (2011). "Results on acrylamide levels in food from monitoring years 2007–2009 and Exposure assessment". EFSA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2133
Go to full study ↗
[7]OpenAlex2009
Diet-Induced Obesity in Male Mice Is Associated with Reduced Fertility and Potentiation of Acrylamide-Induced Reproductive Toxicity1
Burhan I. Ghanayem, Re Bai, Grace E. Kissling et al.. (2009). "Diet-Induced Obesity in Male Mice Is Associated with Reduced Fertility and Potentiation of Acrylamide-Induced Reproductive Toxicity1". Bi
Go to full study ↗
[8]OpenAlex2008
Biomonitoring Equivalents (BE) dossier for acrylamide (AA) (CAS No. 79-06-1)
Sean M. Hays, Lesa L. Aylward. (2008). "Biomonitoring Equivalents (BE) dossier for acrylamide (AA) (CAS No. 79-06-1)". Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.05.0
Go to full study ↗
📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) 11 refs · 3 baz

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

Sources: db:openalex (8) · db:core (3)

  1. db:openalex Jong‐Su Park, Palas Samanta, Sangwoo Lee et al.. (2021). "Developmental and Neurotoxicity of Acrylamide to Zebrafish". International Journal of Molecular Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22073518 →
  2. db:openalex Melissa Faria, Tamar Ziv, Cristian Gómez‐Canela et al.. (2018). "Acrylamide acute neurotoxicity in adult zebrafish". Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26343-2 →
  3. db:openalex N. Muttucumaru, Stephen J. Powers, J. Stephen Elmore et al.. (2016). "Acrylamide-forming potential of potatoes grown at different locations, and the ratio of free asparagine to reducing sugars at which free asparagine becomes a limiting factor for acrylamide formation". Food Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.09.199 →
  4. db:openalex (2012). "Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of acrylamide (CASRN 79-06-1) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (feed and drinking water studies).". PubMed.
  5. db:openalex Claudio Pelucchi, Carlo La Vecchia, Cristina Bosetti et al.. (2011). "Exposure to acrylamide and human cancer—a review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies". Annals of Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq610 →
  6. db:openalex European Food Safety Authority. (2011). "Results on acrylamide levels in food from monitoring years 2007–2009 and Exposure assessment". EFSA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2133 →
  7. db:openalex Burhan I. Ghanayem, Re Bai, Grace E. Kissling et al.. (2009). "Diet-Induced Obesity in Male Mice Is Associated with Reduced Fertility and Potentiation of Acrylamide-Induced Reproductive Toxicity1". Biology of Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.109.078915 →
  8. db:openalex Sean M. Hays, Lesa L. Aylward. (2008). "Biomonitoring Equivalents (BE) dossier for acrylamide (AA) (CAS No. 79-06-1)". Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.05.010 →
  9. db:core Skott, A., Hofmann, A., Sorgel, F. et al.. (2002). "Acrylamide: Increased concentrations in homemade food and first evidence of its variable absorption from food, variable metabolism and placental and breast milk transfer in humans". https://doi.org/10.1159/000069715 →
  10. db:core Lawrence, Justin R., O\u27Neill, Feidhlim T., O'Neill, Feidhlim T. et al.. (2001). "Thickness variation of self-processing acrylamide-based photopolymer and reflection holography". https://doi.org/10.1117/1.1353801 →
  11. db:core (0). "NIOSH skin notation profile : acrylamide [CAS No. 79-06-1]".
📊 Physicochemical properties

Quick Reference

Formula: C3H5NO
MW: 71.08 g/mol
CAS: 79-06-1
Appearance: Flake-like crystals from benzene
Odour: Odorless
Odour: Odorless

Detailed Properties

Property Value Unit Conditions Source
Density (ρ) 1.1300 g/cm³ 20 °C (68 °F)
Melting Point (mp) 84.50 °C (184.1 °F) 1 atm
Flash Point 137.80 °C (280 °F) closed cup
Water Solubility soluble (≥999) g/L 25 °C (77 °F)
🔬 Advanced Properties

Chemical Identifiers

SMILES: C=CC(=O)N

Data sources: PubChem, NIST Chemistry WebBook, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (103rd ed.)

Last updated: 2026-06-30

Regulatory status of the substance
This compound: appears on the SVHC Candidate List (REACH Art. 59). Inventories: EU/SVHC. Regulatory information — does not restrict purchase in this store.
🧮 Stoichiometry CalculatorMolGod_STOICH_1
🔍 External identifiersMolGod_EXTID_1
13 of 16 ID systems81%
DatabaseIdentifierActions
CAS Registry Number79-06-1Open →
PubChem CID6579Open →
InChIKeyHRPVXLWXLXDGHG-UHFFFAOYSA-NOpen →
InChIInChI=1S/C3H5NO/c1-2-3(4)5/h2H,1H2,(H2,4,5)
SMILESC=CC(=O)N
EC Number201-173-7Open →
KEGG CompoundC01659Open →
HMDBHMDB0004296Open →
ChemSpider6331Open →
MeSH UID (NLM)D020106Open →
UNII (FDA)20R035KLCIOpen →
NSC Number (NCI)7785Open →
WikiData QIDQ342939Open →

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

📡 Spectroscopy — CAS 79-06-1MolGod_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 retrieved via MolGod_Spectra_Remote_Fetcher (JCAMP-DX parser) and stored in the wp_molgod_spectra_cache table. Zero duplicate downloads, zero repeat queries to NIST on subsequent visits. Licensing terms are respected (only a deep link plus our own visualization 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. ⓘ Single source ★★☆☆☆

IR — Fourier-transform infrared

Loading IR — Fourier-transform infrared…

MS — Mass spectrometry (EI 70eV)

Loading MS — Mass spectrometry (EI 70eV)…

📐 Physical & Chemical Properties (DB) 6 fields MolGod Score: No source
Property Value Unit Conditions Source
Melting point 84.50 °C 1 atm
Water solubility soluble (≥999) g/L 25°C
Density (ρ) 1.1300 g/cm³ 20°C
Flash point 137.80 °C closed cup
Autoignition temperature 240.00 °C in air
logP (octanol/water) -0.700 — 25°C
📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) (12 sources)
  1. Haynes, William M., ed. 2024. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 105th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-032-55554-4. ↗
  2. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2024. "NIST Chemistry WebBook, SRD 69." Gaithersburg, MD: NIST. Accessed 2025-01-01. ↗
  3. Yaws, Carl L. 2014. The Yaws Handbook of Physical Properties for Hydrocarbons and Chemicals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Gulf Professional Publishing.
  4. PubChem. 2024. "PubChem Compound Database." National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Accessed 2025-01-01. ↗
  5. Marrero, J., and R. Gani. 2001. "Group-Contribution Based Estimation of Pure Component Properties." Fluid Phase Equilibria 183–184: 183–208. ↗
  6. Joback, K. G., and R. C. Reid. 1987. "Estimation of Pure-Component Properties from Group-Contributions." Chemical Engineering Communications 57 (1–6): 233–243. ↗
  7. Sangster, J. 1997. Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients: Fundamentals and Physical Chemistry. Chichester: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-97397-3.
  8. Mannhold, Raimund, and Han van de Waterbeemd. 2001. "Substructure and Whole Molecule Approaches for Calculating Log P." Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 15 (4): 337–354. ↗
  9. Perrin, Ditlev D., Boyd Dempsey, and E. P. Serjeant. 1981. pKa Prediction for Organic Acids and Bases. London: Chapman and Hall. ISBN 0-412-21090-5.
  10. Constantinou, Leonidas, and Rafiqul Gani. 1994. "New Group Contribution Method for Estimating Properties of Pure Compounds." AIChE Journal 40 (10): 1697–1710. ↗
  11. Ertl, Peter, Bernhard Rohde, and Paul Selzer. 2000. "Fast Calculation of Molecular Polar Surface Area as a Sum of Fragment-Based Contributions and Its Application to the Prediction of Drug Transport Properties." Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 43 (20): 3714–3717. ↗
🔄 Concentration unit converter LIVE MolGod_UNITCONV_1

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

MW: 71.08 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
🧪 Solution Preparation Wizard WIZARD MolGod_PREP_1
① Select concentration
② Target volume
③ Solvent

Calculations per: IUPAC Gold Book ↗, Merck ↗

Solvent compatibilityMolGod_SOLV_1

Estimate based on water solubility and logP. Indicative data — does not replace experimental studies.

SolventCompatibilityNotesReferences
Water+ GoodlogP indicates hydrophilicity
EtOH+ GoodEtOH — universal polar solvent
Acetone~ ModeratePartially compatible
DCM- PoorPoor compatibility with polar solvents
DMSO+ GoodDMSO — strong aprotic solvent
THF~ ModerateTHF — limited for strongly polar compounds
Hexane- PoorPractically insoluble in hexane
CHCl3- PoorPoor compatibility with polar solvents

Data sources for logP/solubility: logP: -0.70

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

Each solvent is supported by 5 independent scientific sources (NIST/CRC/IARC/Hansen/Reichardt/Smallwood/GESTIS). Full citations below.

Water · NIST CAS lookup ↗
  1. Rumble, John R., ed. 2023. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 104th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. [link ↗]
  2. International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam (IAPWS). 1997. "Release on the Static Dielectric Constant of Ordinary Water Substance." IAPWS R8-97. [link ↗]
  3. Reichardt, Christian, and Thomas Welton. 2011. Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry. 4th ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527632220. [link ↗]
  4. Hansen, Charles M. 2007. Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420006834. [link ↗]
  5. IFA. n.d. "Water." GESTIS Substance Database. Institut für Arbeitsschutz der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung. Accessed April 25, 2026. [link ↗]
EtOH · NIST CAS lookup ↗
  1. Rumble, John R., ed. 2023. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 104th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. [link ↗]
  2. Reichardt, Christian, and Thomas Welton. 2011. Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry. 4th ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527632220. [link ↗]
  3. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183. [link ↗]
  4. Smallwood, Ian M. 1996. Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties. London: Arnold. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-340-64578-9.X5000-9. [link ↗]
  5. IFA. n.d. "Ethanol." GESTIS Substance Database. Accessed April 25, 2026. [link ↗]
Acetone · NIST CAS lookup ↗
  1. Reichardt, Christian, and Thomas Welton. 2011. Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry. 4th ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527632220. [link ↗]
  2. Hansen, Charles M. 2007. Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. [link ↗]
  3. Rumble, John R., ed. 2023. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 104th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. [link ↗]
  4. Smallwood, Ian M. 1996. Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties. London: Arnold. [link ↗]
  5. IFA. n.d. "Acetone." GESTIS Substance Database. Accessed April 25, 2026. [link ↗]
DCM · NIST CAS lookup ↗
  1. National Institute of Standards and Technology. n.d. "Methane, dichloro- (CAS 75-09-2)." NIST Chemistry WebBook, SRD 69. Accessed April 25, 2026. [link ↗]
  2. Hansen, Charles M. 2007. Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. [link ↗]
  3. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1999. "Dichloromethane." IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 71: 251–315. [link ↗]
  4. Reichardt, Christian, and Thomas Welton. 2011. Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry. 4th ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. [link ↗]
  5. IFA. n.d. "Dichloromethane." GESTIS Substance Database. Accessed April 25, 2026. [link ↗]
DMSO · NIST CAS lookup ↗
  1. Wypych, George. 2019. Handbook of Solvents. Volume 1: Properties. 3rd ed. Toronto: ChemTec Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2018-0-02235-3. [link ↗]
  2. Reichardt, Christian, and Thomas Welton. 2011. Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry. 4th ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. [link ↗]
  3. Hansen, Charles M. 2007. Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. [link ↗]
  4. National Institute of Standards and Technology. n.d. "Methane, sulfinylbis- (CAS 67-68-5)." NIST Chemistry WebBook. Accessed April 25, 2026. [link ↗]
  5. IFA. n.d. "Dimethyl sulfoxide." GESTIS Substance Database. Accessed April 25, 2026. [link ↗]
THF · NIST CAS lookup ↗
  1. Armarego, Wilfred L. F., and Christina Li Lin Chai. 2009. Purification of Laboratory Chemicals. 6th ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-85617-567-8.50003-3. [link ↗]
  2. Hansen, Charles M. 2007. Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. [link ↗]
  3. National Institute of Standards and Technology. n.d. "Furan, tetrahydro- (CAS 109-99-9)." NIST Chemistry WebBook. Accessed April 25, 2026. [link ↗]
  4. Smallwood, Ian M. 1996. Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties. London: Arnold. [link ↗]
  5. IFA. n.d. "Tetrahydrofuran." GESTIS Substance Database. Accessed April 25, 2026. [link ↗]
Hexane · NIST CAS lookup ↗
  1. National Institute of Standards and Technology. n.d. "Hexane (CAS 110-54-3)." NIST Chemistry WebBook. Accessed April 25, 2026. [link ↗]
  2. Hansen, Charles M. 2007. Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. [link ↗]
  3. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [link ↗]
  4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1999. Toxicological Profile for n-Hexane. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. [link ↗]
  5. IFA. n.d. "n-Hexane." GESTIS Substance Database. Accessed April 25, 2026. [link ↗]
CHCl3 · NIST CAS lookup ↗
  1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1999. "Chloroform." IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 73: 131–182. [link ↗]
  2. National Institute of Standards and Technology. n.d. "Methane, trichloro- (CAS 67-66-3)." NIST Chemistry WebBook. Accessed April 25, 2026. [link ↗]
  3. Hansen, Charles M. 2007. Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. [link ↗]
  4. Reichardt, Christian, and Thomas Welton. 2011. Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry. 4th ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. [link ↗]
  5. IFA. n.d. "Chloroform." GESTIS Substance Database. Accessed April 25, 2026. [link ↗]
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. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420006834 — HSP triplet (dD, dP, dH) + Ra formula.
  3. Reichardt, Christian, and Thomas Welton. 2011. Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry. 4th ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527632220 — E_T(30) polarity scale, solwatochromia.
  4. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183 — Eluotropic series, polarity index.
  5. PubChem Compound Database — CAS 79-06-1 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.

🛡️ Safety — CAS 79-06-1MolGod_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
GHS06 — Toxic
GHS06 Toxic
GHS07 — Irritant / harmful
GHS07 Irritant / harmful
GHS08 — Health hazard
GHS08 Health hazard

🚨 Hazard statements (H)

  • H350 — May cause cancer
  • H340 — May cause genetic defects
  • H361f — Suspected of damaging fertility
  • H332 — Harmful if inhaled
  • H312 — Harmful in contact with skin
  • H301 — Toxic if swallowed
  • H372 — Causes damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure
  • H315 — Causes skin irritation
  • H319 — Causes serious eye irritation
  • H317 — May cause an allergic skin reaction

🛡 Precautionary statements (P)

  • P203 — Obtain, read and follow all safety instructions before use

✓ Harmonised classification pursuant to Annex VI of the CLP Regulation (EC) 1272/2008 (official, binding classification). Index number: 616-003-00-0.

Reference (Chicago): European Chemicals Agency. "acrylamide; prop-2-enamide, Index No. 616-003-00-0." In Table 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation), 23rd Adaptation to Technical Progress. Helsinki: European Chemicals Agency, 2026. https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/annex-vi-to-clp.

⚠ IARC — Group 2A: probably carcinogenic to humans. (Independent assessment of carcinogenicity evidence by IARC/WHO — supplements the CLP classification above.)
Reference (Chicago): IARC. 2026. IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans: CAS 79-06-1. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications/. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
Classification from the local MOL-GOD list (snapshot) — unverified against the current IARC list. Verify

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: 79-06-1 · 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)
🔬 HPLC/GC methods (3 methods)
📄
Biochemical Characterization of Thermostable Acrylamide Amidohydrolase from Aspergillus fumigatus with Potential Activity for Acrylamide Degradation in Various Food Products
HPLCCurrent Microbiology202388% ✓CC-BYResearch method (specificity, robustness)
Column: C18, 1 μm
Phase: mobile phase was methanol/acetonitrile/water (90:5:5, v/v/v) at a flow rate 1 ml/min for…
Detection: UV 425 nm
Flow: 1.00 mL/min
Temp.: 30.0 °C
Gradient: s: at the beginning (10% A and 90% B); up…
El-Sayed A, Elghamry H, Yassin M. Biochemical Characterization of Thermostable Acrylamide Amidohydrolase from Aspergillus fumigatus with Potential Activity for Acrylamide Degradation in Various Food Products. Current Microbiology. 2023;81:30. doi:10.1007/s00284-023-03544-1
🔗 DOI🏠 PMC📚 PubMed📄 PDF
Acrylamide is the major by-product of the Maillard reactions in foods with the overheating processes of L-asparagine-rich foods with reducing sugars that usually allied with neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity. Several approaches have been used to prevent the formation of acrylamide, however, degrading the already formed acrylamide in foods remains unequivocal. Acrylamide hydrolyzing enzyme “amidohydrolase” is one of the most promising enzymes for acrylamide degradation in foods. So, amidohydrolase “amidase” from thermotolerant Aspergillus fumigatus EFBL was purified to their electrophoretic homogeneity by gel-filtration and ion-exchange chromatography, with overall purification folds 2.8 and yield 9.43%. The apparent molecular subunit structure of the purified A. fumigatus amidase was 50 kDa, with highest activity at reaction temperature of 40 °C and pH of 7.5 The enzyme displayed a significant thermal stability as revealed from the value of T1/2 (13.37 h), and thermal denaturation rate (Kr 0.832 × 10–3 min) at 50 °C, with metalloproteinic identity. The purified enzyme had a significant activity for acrylamide degradation in various food products such as meat, cookies, potato chips, and bread as revealed from the HPLC analysis and LC–MS analysis. So, with the purified amidase, the acrylamide in the food products was degraded by about 95% to acrylic acid, ensuring the possibility of using this enzyme in abolishing the toxic acrylamide in the foods products. This is the first report exploring the potency of A. fumigatus amidase for an actual degradation of acrylamide in foods efficiently. Further biochemical analyses are ongoing to assess the affinity of this enzyme for selective hydrolyses of acrylamide in foods, without affecting the beneficial stereochemical related compounds.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00284-023-03544-1.
📄
Effect of Brewing Methods on Acrylamide Content and Antioxidant Activity: Studying Eight Different Filter Coffee Preparations
HPLC-MSAntioxidants202395% ✓CC-BYResearch method (specificity, robustness)
Column: C18, 0.2 μm
Phase: mobile phase consisted of water (A) and acetonitrile (B), both containing 0
Detection: UV 325 nm
Flow: 0.80 mL/min
Temp.: 18.0 °C
Inj.: 2 μL
Gradient: elution mode
Santanatoglia A, Angeloni S, Bartolucci D, Fioretti L, Sagratini G, Vittori S, et al. Effect of Brewing Methods on Acrylamide Content and Antioxidant Activity: Studying Eight Different Filter Coffee Preparations. Antioxidants. 2023;12:1888. doi:10.3390/antiox12101888
🔗 DOI🏠 PMC📚 PubMed📄 PDF
The aim of this study was to investigate the parameters affecting the extraction of positive molecules such as chlorogenic acids and antioxidants, as well as potentially carcinogenic substances such as acrylamide, in different coffee brewing methods. Three coffee varieties, each assigned a different roasting degree, were used to prepare coffee brews following eight different preparation methods. Acrylamide was quantified using the HPLC-MS/MS instrument, while chlorogenic acids and caffeine were quantified using the HPLC-DAD system. Three spectrophotometric analyses were also performed (DPPH, TFC and TPC) to evaluate antioxidant activity. The results showed that the main brewing parameters, which have the greatest influence on the final content of these compounds, were the volume of water used, more specifically the brewing ratio (coffee to water ratio), the extraction time and the particle size of the coffee powder. In addition, the variables that have the greatest impact on the discrimination of the preparation methods studied are total chlorogenic acid content, TFC, TPC, caffeine and the DPPH assay. For this reason, the recipe and infusion parameters used for each of the extraction systems are the key factors that determine the extraction of coffee components and, consequently, the quality of the cup.
acrylamideantioxidant activitybrewing methodschlorogenic acidscoffeeHPLC-MS/MSHPLC-DAD
📄
Simultaneous Determination of Furanic Compounds and Acrylamide in Insect-Based Foods by HPLC-QqQ-MS/MS Employing a Functionalized Mesostructured Silica as Sorbent in Solid-Phase Extraction
LC-MS/MSFoods202190% ✓CC-BYResearch method (specificity, robustness)
Column: NH2, 0.45 μm
Phase: mobile phases: solvent A (ACN) and solvent B (Milli-Q Water), both phases…
Detection: MS
Flow: 0.30 mL/min
Temp.: 20.0 °C
Inj.: 100 μL
Gradient: elution mode
González-Gómez L, Morante-Zarcero S, Pérez-Quintanilla D, Sierra I. Simultaneous Determination of Furanic Compounds and Acrylamide in Insect-Based Foods by HPLC-QqQ-MS/MS Employing a Functionalized Mesostructured Silica as Sorbent in Solid-Phase Extraction. Foods. 2021;10:1557. doi:10.3390/foods10071557
🔗 DOI🏠 PMC📚 PubMed📄 PDF
Insect-based products are novel foods (NF) that merit careful study. For this reason, in this work a method has been developed for the simultaneous analysis of four food processing contaminants (FPC), acrylamide (AA), 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, (HMF), 5-methylfurfural (MF) and furfural (F), in insect-based products (bars, crackers and flours) by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (HPLC-QqQ-MS/MS). The method consisted of a solid-liquid extraction (SLE) with acidified water, followed by solid-phase extraction (SPE), using 100 mg of a sorbent based on mesostructured silica with a large pore functionalized with amino groups (SBA-15-LP-NH2). The analytical method was properly optimized and validated in a representative bar sample of pineapple & coconut with cricket flour (Ins-B-Pine-Coco) showing good accuracy, with recoveries ranging from 70–101% for the four analytes and adequate precision (RSD < 9%). Good linearity (R2 ≥ 0.995) and low method quantification limits for AA (between 1.3–1.4 µg/g), F (between 7.9–8.8 µg/g), MF (between 3.1–6.5 µg/g) and HMF (between 1.5–3.3 µg/g) were also obtained in all samples studied. The proposed method was successfully applied in eleven insect-based foods. Results revealed that insect-based bars can be a good alternative to traditional cereal bars to reduce dietary exposure to HMF; but, in order to reduce the exposure to AA, alternative formulations must be evaluated in the design of innovative insect-based crackers.
acrylamide5-hydroxymethylfurfuralfurfural5-methylfurfuralinsect-based foods
📈 Method Validation (ICH Q2)

No validation data. Contact the method author.

Parameters per: ICH Q2(R2) ↗

📋 Method comparison
Technique Column Analysis time Detection Mobile phase Source
HPLC C18 — UV 425 nm mobile phase was methanol/acetonitrile/water (90:5:5, v/v/v) at a… DOI ↗
HPLC-MS C18 — UV 325 nm mobile phase consisted of water (A) and acetonitrile… DOI ↗
LC-MS/MS NH2 — MS mobile phases: solvent A (ACN) and solvent B… DOI ↗
🔧 Troubleshooting HPLC/GC
Broad peaks / tailing
Causes: Worn column, wrong mobile-phase pH, column overload, dead volume
Solution: Replace the column, check buffer pH (±0.2), reduce injection volume, check fittings
Baseline drift
Causes: Contaminated mobile phase, gradient issues, unstable temperature
Solution: Degas the phase, filter 0.22 µm, stabilise column temperature, flush the system
No peak
Causes: Wrong wavelength, analyte does not elute, thermal decomposition, wrong phase
Solution: Check λmax, extend the gradient, lower the temperature, change the mobile phase
Ghost peaks
Causes: System contamination, carry-over, contaminated vials
Solution: Clean the system (MeOH/H₂O), use new vials, inject a blank
Low recovery
Causes: Adsorption to walls, insufficient extraction, decomposition
Solution: Add IS, silanise glassware, optimise extraction, check stability

Sources: Snyder, Kirkland & Dolan ↗, Waters ↗

📊 HPLC method validation (ICH Q2(R1)) PARTIAL

3 metrics need experimental data

Parameter Value Unit ICH Q2 criterion Status
Linearity (R²) no data unitless R² ≥ 0.999 (≥0.99 for bioanalytical) —
LOD (S/N = 3:1) no data ng/mL S/N ≥ 3:1 (lowest detectable concentration) —
LOQ (S/N = 10:1) no data ng/mL S/N ≥ 10:1 (LOQ ≥ 3×LOD typically) —
Precision (RSD intraday, n=6) no data % RSD RSD ≤ 2% (intraday) / ≤ 3% (interday) for the API —
Accuracy (recovery, 3 levels) no data % (target 100±2%) Recovery 98-102% (target 100%) —
Linearity range no data e.g. 0.1-100 ng/mL Min. 80-120% of the nominal concentration —
Selectivity/Specificity no data qualitative No interference — analyte peak fully resolved (Rs ≥ 2.0) —
Robustness no data RSD < 2% at ±5% variation RSD < 2% under small parameter variations —
Legend: ✓ PASS ⚠ CAUTION ✗ FAIL — NO_DATA
📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) — click to expand

Analytical method validation standards — 4 independent sources (ICH + USP + AOAC + Snyder).

  1. International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). 2005. Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology Q2(R1). ICH Expert Working Group. [link ↗] — Gold-standard ICH guideline — accepted by EMA, FDA, MHLW, NMPA
  2. United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Convention. 2024. USP General Chapter <621> Chromatography. USP-NF 2024 ed. USP. [link ↗]
  3. AOAC International. 2016. Appendix F: Guidelines for Standard Method Performance Requirements. AOAC INTERNATIONAL. [link ↗] — AOAC SMPR — alternative to ICH Q2 for food/dietary supplements
  4. 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 ↗] — Industry standard textbook — Chapter 11 covers method validation
  5. Snyder, L. R., J. J. Kirkland, and J. L. Glajch. 1997. Practical HPLC Method Development. 2nd ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-00703-6. — Classic method-development reference (DryLab heritage).
  6. 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 [link ↗] — Comparison of FDA / EMA / ICH validation expectations — used for ICH Q2(R1) interpretation.
  7. Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.10.052 [link ↗] — Plackett-Burman design for robustness — basis of ICH Q2 §3.7.
  8. 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 ↗] — Modern (UHPLC) update of validation chapter — practical RSD/LOD examples.
  9. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. 5th ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-68218-0. — European pharmacopeial perspective — complements USP/AOAC.
  10. Kazakevich, Yuri V., and Rosario LoBrutto, eds.. 2007. HPLC for Pharmaceutical Scientists. Wiley-Interscience. ISBN 978-0-471-68162-4. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470087954 [link ↗] — Pharma-focused validation case studies (specificity, robustness).
  11. European Medicines Agency (EMA). 2011. Guideline on bioanalytical method validation EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009. EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. [link ↗] — EMA bioanalytical companion to ICH Q2(R1) for clinical samples.

· ⚠ SVHC/REACH regulatory warnings ↑

🔧 HPLC troubleshooting — decision tree 6 common problems

Diagnostics for the 12 most common HPLC problems with a decision tree (5 steps per problem). Source: Snyder/Kirkland/Dolan 3rd ed. Chapter 17 + LCGC LC Troubleshooting columns 1989-2024.

Broad peaks medium

Symptom: All peaks on the chromatogram are wider than expected (FWHM > 2× normal)

🔍 Diagnostic tree:
  1. 1. Check whether all peaks are broadened or only some
    → YES: All → instrumental problem (column or system)
    → NO: Only some → chemistry problem (interaction with the column for specific analytes)
  2. 2. Swap in a test column — does the problem disappear?
    → YES: COLUMN worn out — packing damaged, void in the first few mm. Replace it.
    → NO: Problem in the LC system
  3. 3. Check the dead volume — injection loop, connections, detector
    → YES: Loop > 100 µL for a 4.6 mm column or loose connections → replace ferrules, shorten tubing
    → NO: Continue diagnostics
  4. 4. Temperature test: raise the column from 25°C to 40°C
    → YES: Narrower peaks → mass-transfer kinetics too slow (increase T)
    → NO: Continue
  5. 5. Check flow rate vs the optimal van Deemter value for this column
    → YES: Optimum for 4.6mm/5µm = 1.0 mL/min, for 2.1mm/3µm = 0.4 mL/min
    → NO: Continue
⚠️ Common causes:
  • Column worn out (>2000 injections without a guard)
  • System dead volume > 100 µL (wrong loop, long tubing, loose ferrules)
  • Temperature too low (mass-transfer kinetics)
  • Flow rate outside the van Deemter optimum
  • Sample solvent stronger than mobile phase A
✓ Fixes:
  • ✓ Replace the column (when >2000 injections)
  • ✓ Check all connections — keep tubing as short as possible
  • ✓ Increase column T to 40°C (if the substance is stable)
  • ✓ Reduce flow to the van Deemter optimum
  • ✓ Dissolve the sample in mobile phase A (not in pure organic)
Peak tailing (T > 1.5) high

Symptom: Peaks have an extended "tail" on the late-elution side (asymmetry T = b/a > 1.5 per USP)

🔍 Diagnostic tree:
  1. 1. Does the substance contain basic groups (amino, pyridine)?
    → YES: Yes → silanol interactions! Add 0.1% TFA or 5-10 mM TEA to mobile phase A.
    → NO: Continue
  2. 2. Check the mobile-phase pH vs the substance pKa
    → YES: pH = pKa ± 1 → partial ionization, peak split. Move pH ≥ 2 units away from pKa.
    → NO: Continue
  3. 3. Check the column age (>1500 injections?)
    → YES: Yes → exposed silanols (column bleed). Replace with a column with higher endcapping (XTerra, Symmetry).
    → NO: Continue
  4. 4. Does the sample contain metals (Fe, Cu from glass vials)?
    → YES: Yes → use type II clear vials or PFA. Add 0.1mM EDTA to the sample.
    → NO: Continue
⚠️ Common causes:
  • Silanol interactions (basic analyte + silica gel free silanols)
  • pH at the boundary of the analyte pKa (peak split)
  • Old column (column bleed, high silanol activity)
  • Metals in the sample (chelation → tailing)
  • Column overload (>50 µg on a 4.6mm column)
✓ Fixes:
  • ✓ Add 0.1% TFA (UV) or 0.1% formic acid (LC-MS) to mobile phase A
  • ✓ Choose a column with high-purity endcapping: Waters XBridge BEH, Phenomenex Kinetex
  • ✓ Work at pH ≥ 2 units away from pKa
  • ✓ Add 0.1mM EDTA to the sample (Fe/Cu chelation)
  • ✓ Reduce the injection volume to ≤ 20 µL for a 4.6mm column
Baseline drift medium

Symptom: The baseline rises or falls systematically for >5 minutes

🔍 Diagnostic tree:
  1. 1. Are you running a gradient (B% increasing)?
    → YES: Yes → different absorption of phases A vs B at dλ. Solvent change in UV cutoff. Check the % organic UV absorbance.
    → NO: Continue (isocratic)
  2. 2. Check the column temperature — is it stable to ±0.5°C?
    → YES: Yes (stable) → continue
    → NO: Unstable → turn on the column thermostat (>25°C controlled)
  3. 3. Test: turn off the autosampler, run pump+column+detector alone
    → YES: Drift disappears → autosampler contamination (clean the needle, septum)
    → NO: Continue
  4. 4. Check the lamp age (D2 for UV)
    → YES: Yes (>1500 hours) → replace the lamp
    → NO: Continue
⚠️ Common causes:
  • Gradient elution with different UV cutoff of the phases
  • Unstable column T
  • Autosampler contamination of the needle/septum
  • Old UV lamp (>1500h)
  • Detector flow cell fouled
  • Column not equilibrated (<10 column volumes)
✓ Fixes:
  • ✓ Pre-equilibrate the column for 10-15 column volumes at 100% A
  • ✓ Column thermostat on, T 30-40°C stable
  • ✓ Clean the detector flow cell with 50:50 ACN:H2O
  • ✓ Replace the D2 lamp if >1500h
  • ✓ Use baseline subtraction (Chromeleon, Empower native function)
No peak / lost peak critical

Symptom: The expected analyte peak does not appear on the chromatogram

🔍 Diagnostic tree:
  1. 1. Did the injection actually take place?
    → YES: Check the autosampler log, pump pressure (should drop during injection)
    → NO: Autosampler problem → check the loop, needle, sample in the vial
  2. 2. Is the sample in the vial (correct volume, not evaporated)?
    → YES: Continue
    → NO: No sample — re-pipette
  3. 3. Sample stability — prepared >24h ago?
    → YES: Yes → degradation. Re-prepare a fresh sample.
    → NO: Continue
  4. 4. Check the detection wavelength vs the substance λmax
    → YES: Detection at λ does NOT match λmax → no signal. Scan DAD 200-400nm.
    → NO: Continue
  5. 5. Test: inject a pure standard (of known concentration, fresh)
    → YES: The standard gives a peak → problem with the sample (matrix, derivatization)
    → NO: No peak even with the standard → system problem (column, phase, gradient)
⚠️ Common causes:
  • Sample not drawn from the vial (autosampler bug)
  • Sample degraded (>24h pH/temp/light)
  • Detection at the wrong wavelength
  • Wrong mobile phase (e.g. forgotten TFA)
  • Column reversed / wrong stationary phase
  • Substance elutes at the front (V0) → unretained, not visible
✓ Fixes:
  • ✓ Re-prepare a fresh sample per the exact protocol
  • ✓ UV-Vis DAD scan 200-400nm + search for λmax
  • ✓ Check the mobile-phase composition — was TFA added?
  • ✓ Test the reverse column direction (carefully!)
  • ✓ For retention <1 min — lower the % B, MeOH instead of ACN
  • ✓ Check the "expected_rt" table in wp_molgod_hplc_methods
Pressure too high critical

Symptom: Pump pressure > 80% of the column max or system shutdown with a high-pressure error

🔍 Diagnostic tree:
  1. 1. Check that the column is connected correctly (arrow direction)
    → YES: OK
    → NO: Column reversed → flip it (never run it "backwards")
  2. 2. Test: remove the column from the system, run pump+detector alone
    → YES: Pressure drops to <50 bar → problem in the column (clogged)
    → NO: Pressure stays high → in-line filter clogged, frit fouled
  3. 3. Check the pre-column filter (in-line frit)
    → YES: Fouled and brown → replace it
    → NO: Continue
  4. 4. Back-flush the column with 50:50 ACN:H2O without the column — does it disappear?
    → YES: Particles stuck in the first mm — a 30 min flush may recover it
    → NO: Replace the column
⚠️ Common causes:
  • In-line filter (frit) clogged with particles
  • Buffer salting out (precipitation at high %B)
  • Sample contains suspended matter (filter 0.22 µm before injection)
  • Column clogged (column bed compaction)
  • Gradient with a buffer phase + high organic → salt precipitation
✓ Fixes:
  • ✓ ALWAYS filter the sample through 0.22 µm PVDF before injection
  • ✓ Replace the in-line filter every 100 injections (or when pressure rises >20%)
  • ✓ Do NOT use >20mM phosphate buffer + >70% ACN (the salt precipitates)
  • ✓ Flush the column for 30 min with 50:50 ACN:H2O in the reverse direction (when the manufacturer allows it)
  • ✓ Pre-column 4×3mm to protect the main column
Ghost peaks high

Symptom: Unexplained peaks on the chromatogram absent from the calibration

🔍 Diagnostic tree:
  1. 1. Test: blank injection (pure sample solvent)
    → YES: A ghost appears → contamination of the system or eluents
    → NO: Appears only with the sample → matrix
  2. 2. Does the ghost grow with the gradient (elutes at high %B)?
    → YES: Yes → overloaded column or strong-retained from a previous run
    → NO: Independent of the gradient → autosampler carryover
  3. 3. Increase carryover wash (between injections)
    → YES: Helps → carryover was to blame. Use a stronger wash protocol.
    → NO: Continue
  4. 4. Pure water injection — is there a peak?
    → YES: Yes → contamination of the water source (organics from the DI system)
    → NO: Continue
⚠️ Common causes:
  • Carryover in the autosampler needle/loop
  • Eluent contamination (even HPLC-grade)
  • Strong-retained components from previous runs
  • Plastic in the vials (phthalates, PEG from the caps)
  • Insufficiently purified DI water
✓ Fixes:
  • ✓ Strengthen the wash protocol: 100% B → 100% A → 50:50 (3 cycles)
  • ✓ Strong wash: 100% DMSO or 100% MeOH before calibration
  • ✓ Filter the eluents through 0.22 µm PTFE if in doubt
  • ✓ Use amber glass + Teflon-lined caps for samples
  • ✓ Periodic gradient ramp to 100% B for 10 min (clean-out)
📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) — click to expand
  1. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 17 (Troubleshooting) pp. 559-616. ISBN 978-0-470-16754-0. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183 [link ↗]
  2. Dolan, John W.. 2014. LC Troubleshooting (monthly column 1989-2024). LCGC North America. [link ↗] — John Dolan 35-letnia seria miesięcznych artykułów problemowych
  3. Kromidas, Stavros. 2017. HPLC Made to Measure: A Practical Handbook for Optimization. 2nd ed. Wiley-VCH. ISBN 978-3-527-31377-1. — Praktyczny przewodnik problem-solving dla labs analitycznych
  4. Dolan, John W.. 2013. When to Modify Method Conditions. 192-199. [link ↗] — Decision flow for changing flow rate / temperature / %B vs swapping columns.
  5. 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 ↗] — Chapter 9 covers troubleshooting modern UHPLC systems (sub-2 µm particles).
  6. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. 5th ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-68218-0. — Solid step-by-step problem isolation chapter (eluents, columns, instruments).
  7. Snyder, L. R., J. J. Kirkland, and J. L. Glajch. 1997. Practical HPLC Method Development. 2nd ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-00703-6. — Method-development companion volume with troubleshooting cross-refs.
  8. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. The new physical chemistry of HPLC. 1764-1772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.094 [link ↗] — Theoretical basis for diagnosing efficiency losses (mass-transfer, eddy diffusion).
  9. Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods. 2120-2129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.10.052 [link ↗] — How to diagnose method failures vs. system failures (Plackett-Burman).
  10. Engelhardt, Heinz. 2014. 100 Years of Chromatography. 2nd ed. Wiley-VCH. ISBN 978-3-527-33473-5. — Historical context for ghost-peak phenomenology (silica chemistry).
  11. Stoll, Dwight R., and Peter W. Carr. 2017. Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography: A State of the Art Tutorial. 519-531. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b03506 [link ↗]
  12. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. The new physical chemistry of HPLC. 1764-1772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.094 [link ↗]
  13. Wu, Naijun, and Anton M. Clausen. 2007. Fundamental and practical aspects of ultrahigh pressure liquid chromatography for fast separations. 1167-1182. https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.200700026 [link ↗]
  14. Engelhardt, Heinz. 2014. 100 Years of Chromatography. 2nd ed. Wiley-VCH. ISBN 978-3-527-33473-5.
  15. Vivó-Truyols, Gabriel, and Hans-Gerd Janssen. 2010. Probabilistic approach to peak deconvolution in chromatography. 8525-8531. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac101742z [link ↗]
🧪 Solubility and solvent compatibility MolGod_SOLUB_1
Molecule
Acrylamide
Formula
C3H5NO
logP
-0.70
Mass (g/mol)
71.08
Polarity
Hydrophilic (polar)

⚠️ HSP estimate (literature / group contribution). Indicative data — does not replace experimental studies.

Solvent Compat. Ra Visual GC-MS HPLC Applications References
Water (H₂O)− Poor25.7
✗ NieA (aqueous) (RP)
buffercell cultureanalyticalhydrophilic extraction
Ethanol (EtOH)+ Good7.0
✗ NieA/B modifier (RP/NP)
extractionspectroscopy (UV-Vis)synthesisHPLC modifier
Methanol (MeOH)+ Good9.0
✗ NieA/B (RP) (RP)
HPLC (eluent)LC-MSKarl FischerUV-transparent do 205 nm
Acetone~ Avg.13.1
✗ NieB modifier (NP)
GC headspacecrystallizationdegreasingsynthesis
Acetonitrile (ACN)− Poor15.6
✗ NieB (RP) (RP)
HPLC eluent (gold standard)LC-MS (wolny cut-off UV 190 nm)peptide analysis
DMSO~ Avg.9.5
✗ NieN/A (N/A)
NMR (d6-DMSO)cell biology (cryopreservation)drug deliverysynthesis
THF~ Avg.12.2
✗ NieB (NP) (NP)
GPC/SEC (polymer analysis)Grignard synthesisorganometallic
DCM (CH₂Cl₂)~ Avg.13.0
✓ TakB (NP) (NP)
extractionNP-HPLCGC-MScrystallization (anti-solvent)
Chloroform (CHCl₃)− Poor14.9
✓ TakN/A (toxic) (N/A)
NMR (CDCl3)lipid extraction (Folch method)NP-TLC
Hexane− Poor22.7
✓ TakA (NP) (NP)
NP-HPLCoil extraction (lipids)GC-MSTLC (NP)
Toluene− Poor18.9
✓ TakB (NP) (NP)
NMR (d8-toluene)synthesisDean-Stark azeotropic drying
📚 Scientific references for solvents (Chicago Author-Date) — click to expand

11 solvents × 5 independent scientific sources (NIST/CRC/IARC/Hansen/Reichardt/Smallwood/Wypych/Armarego/Snyder/GESTIS). 55+ full citations 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 79-06-1 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.

📚 Technical FAQ — Acrylamide (5) MolGod_TECHFAQ_1
❓ Jak przygotować roztwór standardowy akrylamidu o stężeniu 10 mg/mL?
Aby przygotować roztwór standardowy akrylamidu (CAS 79-06-1) o stężeniu 10 mg/mL, należy odważyć 10 mg substancji (co odpowiada około 0.14 mol) i rozpuścić w 1 mL rozpuszczalnika (np. metanolu lub wody dejonizowanej). Masa akrylamidu potrzebna do przygotowania roztworu: masa = stężenie × objętość = 10 mg/mL × 1 mL = 10 mg. Wzór chemiczny: C3H5NO, masa molowa: 71.08 g/mol.
Helpful?
❓ Jak przechowywać akrylamid (CAS 79-06-1) w laboratorium?
Akrylamid należy przechowywać w szczelnie zamkniętych pojemnikach, w temperaturze 2-8°C, z dala od światła słonecznego i źródeł ciepła. Wilgotność względna powietrza nie powinna przekraczać 65%. Substancja jest higroskopijna, więc należy unikać kontaktu z wilgocią.
Helpful?
❓ Jaka metoda analityczna jest najlepsza do oznaczania akrylamidu w próbkach żywności?
Dla akrylamidu (logP nieokreślony, MW 71.08 g/mL) zalecana jest chromatografia cieczowa wysokosprawna (HPLC) z detektorem UV lub fluorescencyjnym. Metoda GC może być stosowana po odpowiedniej derywatyzacji próbki.
Helpful?
❓ Jakie są główne niezgodności chemiczne akrylamidu (CAS 79-06-1)?
Akrylamid reaguje z silnymi utleniaczami (np. nadtlenkiem wodoru) i zasadami (np. NaOH). Nie należy go przechowywać w obecności reduktorów lub kwasów organicznych, które mogą prowadzić do niepożądanych reakcji. Substancja jest również toksyczna i wymaga ostrożnego obchodzenia się.
Helpful?
❓ W jakich zastosowaniach laboratoryjnych wykorzystuje się akrylamid (CAS 79-06-1)?
Akrylamid jest stosowany jako monomer w produkcji poliakrylamidu, używanego w żelach elektroforetycznych do rozdziału białek i kwasów nukleinowych. W analizie chemicznej służy jako wzorzec do oznaczania zawartości w próbkach żywności i środowiskowych.
Helpful?
🧮 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
Acrylamide• ACRYLAMIDE• CAS: 79-06-1• EC: 201-173-7• Formula: C3H5NO• Mass: 71.08 g/molDANGERGHS HAZARD STATEMENTS:H350: May cause cancerH340: May cause genetic defectsH332: Harmful if inhaledH312: Harmful in contact with skinDH ScientificScience first. Commerce as consequence.Batch No.: Netto Mass: MFG:
ADMET — Pharmacological Profile

Drug-likeness radar chart (Lipinski Ro5 / Veber). Green zone = compliance with criteria.

Predictive data — properties calculated in silico (SMILES/RDKit). These do not replace clinical studies. Do not use for drug evaluation without experimental verification.

MW71.1LogP-0.7HBD1HBA1RotB1TPSA43.1 Ų
✓ Lipinski Ro5✓ Veber✓ Egan✗ Ghose (MW=71, LogP=-0.7)✗ REOS (MW=71)✓ Lead-like Ro3
PropertyValueRating
Absorption (GI)high✓
BBB permeabilityyes (crosses)
Bioavailability (Daina 2017)
55%
CYP450 profileCYP1A2 non-inhibitorCYP2C9 non-inhibitorCYP2C19 non-inhibitorCYP2D6 non-inhibitorCYP3A4 non-inhibitor
PAINS alerts1⚠
Brenk alerts1⚠
pKa (pH 7.4)9 (predicted)
hERG (cardiotox.)✓ no
P-gp substrate—
Ames mutagenicity✓ no
DILI (hepatotox.)—
LogS (aq. solub.)—
Sources (ADMET methodology)
  1. Lipinski, Christopher A., Franco Lombardo, Beryl W. Dominy, and Paul J. Feeney. 1997. "Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings." Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 23 (1-3): 3-25.
  2. Veber, Daniel F., Stephen R. Johnson, Hung-Yuan Cheng, et al. 2002. "Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates." Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 45 (12): 2615-2623.
  3. Daina, Antoine, Olivier Michielin, and Vincent Zoete. 2017. "SwissADME: a free web tool to evaluate pharmacokinetics, drug-likeness and medicinal chemistry friendliness." Scientific Reports 7: 42717.
  4. Egan, William J., and Gregory Lauri. 2002. "Prediction of intestinal permeability." Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 54 (3): 273-289.
  5. Baell, Jonathan B., and Georgina A. Holloway. 2010. "New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries." Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 53 (7): 2719-2740.
  6. Brenk, Ruth, Alessandro Schipani, Daniel James, et al. 2008. "Lessons learnt from assembling screening libraries for drug discovery for neglected diseases." ChemMedChem 3 (3): 435-444.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Hopkins, Andrew L., and Colin R. Groom. 2002. "The Druggable Genome." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 1 (9): 727-730.
  10. Ghose, Arup K., Vellarkad N. Viswanadhan, and John J. Wendoloski. 1999. "A Knowledge-Based Approach in Designing Combinatorial or Medicinal Chemistry Libraries for Drug Discovery." Journal of Combinatorial Chemistry 1 (1): 55-68.
  11. Tice, Raymond R., Christopher P. Austin, Robert J. Kavlock, and John R. Bucher. 2013. "Improving the Human Hazard Characterization of Chemicals: A Tox21 Update." Environmental Health Perspectives 121 (7): 756-765.
  12. Leeson, Paul D., and Brian Springthorpe. 2007. "The Influence of Drug-Like Concepts on Decision-Making in Medicinal Chemistry." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 6 (11): 881-890.
  13. Hann, Michael M. 2011. "Molecular Obesity, Potency and Other Addictions in Drug Discovery." MedChemComm 2 (5): 349-355.
  14. 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.
  15. Walters, W. Patrick, and Mark A. Murcko. 2002. "Prediction of 'Drug-Likeness.'". Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 54 (3): 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-409X(02)00003-0.
  16. Congreve, Miles, Robin Carr, Christopher Murray, and Harren Jhoti. 2003. "A 'Rule of Three' for Fragment-Based Lead Discovery?" Drug Discovery Today 8 (19): 876–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6446(03)02831-9.
  17. Brenk, Ruth, Alessandro Schipani, Daniel James, Agata Krasowski, Iain Hugh Gilbert, Julie Frearson, and Paul Graham Wyatt. 2008. "Lessons Learnt from Assembling Screening Libraries for Drug Discovery for Neglected Diseases." ChemMedChem 3 (3): 435-444.
  18. Schomburg, Karen T., Sascha Bietz, Hans Briem, Andrea M. Henzler, Stefan Urbaczek, and Matthias Rarey. 2014. "Facing the Challenges of Structure-Based Target Prediction by Inverse Virtual Screening." Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 54 (6): 1676-1686.
  19. Bemis, Guy W., and Mark A. Murcko. 1996. "The Properties of Known Drugs. 1. Molecular Frameworks." Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 39 (15): 2887-2893.
  20. Schomburg, Karen T., and Matthias Rarey. 2014. "What Is the Potential of Structure-Based Target Prediction Methods?" Future Medicinal Chemistry 6 (17): 1987-1989.
  21. Jackson, Paul A., John C. Widen, Daniel A. Harki, and Kay M. Brummond. 2017. "Covalent Modifiers: A Chemical Perspective on the Reactivity of α,β-Unsaturated Carbonyls with Thiols via Hetero-Michael Addition Reactions." Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 60 (3): 839-885. ↗
  22. Jackson, Paul A., et al. 2017. "Covalent Modifiers: A Chemical Perspective on the Reactivity of α,β-Unsaturated Carbonyls with Thiols via Hetero-Michael Addition Reactions." Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 60 (3): 839-885. ↗
  23. Jong‐Su Park, Palas Samanta, Sangwoo Lee et al.. (2021). "Developmental and Neurotoxicity of Acrylamide to Zebrafish". International Journal of Molecular Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22073518
  24. Melissa Faria, Tamar Ziv, Cristian Gómez‐Canela et al.. (2018). "Acrylamide acute neurotoxicity in adult zebrafish". Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-26343-2
  25. N. Muttucumaru, Stephen J. Powers, J. Stephen Elmore et al.. (2016). "Acrylamide-forming potential of potatoes grown at different locations, and the ratio of free asparagine to reducing sugars at which free asparagine becomes a limiting factor for acrylamide formation". Food Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.09.199
  26. (2012). "Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of acrylamide (CASRN 79-06-1) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (feed and drinking water studies).". PubMed.
  27. Claudio Pelucchi, Carlo La Vecchia, Cristina Bosetti et al.. (2011). "Exposure to acrylamide and human cancer—a review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies". Annals of Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq610
  28. European Food Safety Authority. (2011). "Results on acrylamide levels in food from monitoring years 2007–2009 and Exposure assessment". EFSA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2133
  29. Burhan I. Ghanayem, Re Bai, Grace E. Kissling et al.. (2009). "Diet-Induced Obesity in Male Mice Is Associated with Reduced Fertility and Potentiation of Acrylamide-Induced Reproductive Toxicity1". Biology of Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.109.078915
  30. Sean M. Hays, Lesa L. Aylward. (2008). "Biomonitoring Equivalents (BE) dossier for acrylamide (AA) (CAS No. 79-06-1)". Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.05.010
  31. Skott, A., Hofmann, A., Sorgel, F. et al.. (2002). "Acrylamide: Increased concentrations in homemade food and first evidence of its variable absorption from food, variable metabolism and placental and breast milk transfer in humans". https://doi.org/10.1159/000069715
  32. Lawrence, Justin R., O\u27Neill, Feidhlim T., O'Neill, Feidhlim T. et al.. (2001). "Thickness variation of self-processing acrylamide-based photopolymer and reflection holography". https://doi.org/10.1117/1.1353801
  33. (0). "NIOSH skin notation profile : acrylamide [CAS No. 79-06-1]".
  34. et al. 2026. "Design and synthesis of carbazole-acrylamide-pyridinium hybrids as dual acetylcholinesterase/butyrylcholinesterase inhibitors and evaluation of their cytotoxic profile on SH-SY5Y and HEK293 cell lines." DOI: 10.1039/d5md01075f. [DOI ↗]
  35. et al. 2026. "Design, Synthesis, and Cytotoxic Evaluation of <i>N</i>-Phenyl-3-(Thiophen-2-Yl)acrylamide Derivatives." DOI: 10.3390/molecules31183147. [DOI ↗]
  36. et al. 2026. "Processing-Dependent Acrylamide Formation in French Fries: Optimisation of QuEChERS-Based Extraction and HPLC-PDA Determination." DOI: 10.3390/molecules31162777. [DOI ↗]
  37. et al. 2026. "Corncob-Derived Xylo-Oligosaccharides Attenuate Acrylamide-Induced Gut-Liver Toxicity in Mice, Associated with Modulation of Gut Microbiota and SCFA Metabolism." DOI: 10.3390/biology15191684. [DOI ↗]
  38. Kocadağlı, Tolgahan; Gökmen, Vural. 2024. "Metabolism of acrylamide in humans and biomarkers of exposure to acrylamide." Acrylamide in Food. DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-323-99119-3.00010-2. [DOI ↗]
  39. Kocadağlı, Tolgahan, Gökmen, Vural. 2024. "Metabolism of acrylamide in humans and biomarkers of exposure to acrylamide." Acrylamide in Food: 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-99119-3.00010-2. [DOI ↗]
  40. 2018. "Acrylamide and Processed Potatoes." Grow: Plant Health Exchange. DOI: 10.1094/grow-pot-11-18-077. [DOI ↗]
  41. Kocadağlı, Tolgahan; Gökmen, Vural. 2016. "Metabolism of Acrylamide in Humans and Biomarkers of Exposure to Acrylamide." Acrylamide in Food. DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-802832-2.00006-1. [DOI ↗]
  42. Anese, Monica. 2016. "Acrylamide in Coffee and Coffee Substitutes." Acrylamide in Food. DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-802832-2.00009-7. [DOI ↗]
  43. Mojska, Hanna. 2016. "Secular Trends in Food Acrylamide." Acrylamide in Food. DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-802832-2.00003-6. [DOI ↗]
  44. Tepe, Yalçın. 2016. "Acrylamide in Surface and Drinking Water." Acrylamide in Food. DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-802832-2.00014-0. [DOI ↗]
  45. Kocadağlı, Tolgahan, Gökmen, Vural. 2016. "Metabolism of Acrylamide in Humans and Biomarkers of Exposure to Acrylamide." Acrylamide in Food: 109-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-802832-2.00006-1. [DOI ↗]
  46. Raloff, Janet. 2002. "Cooking up a carcinogen: Should we worry about all that acrylamide in our diet?." Science News 162 (8): 120-121. https://doi.org/10.2307/4013720. [DOI ↗]
  47. Anonymous. 1966. "now all the acrylamide you can handle." Chemical & Engineering News Archive 44 (20): 67. https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v044n020.p067. [DOI ↗]
  48. "Acrylamide." DOI: 10.31003/uspnf_r8081_02_01. [DOI ↗]
  49. "Heat-Introduced Formation of Acrylamide in Table Olives: Analysis of Acrylamide, Free Asparagine, and 3Aminopropionamide." DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.3c03457.s001. [DOI ↗]
  50. Anonymous. "Preparation and Cross-Linking of All-Acrylamide Diblock Copolymer Nano-Objects via Polymerization-Induced Self-Assembly in Aqueous Solution.". https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.6b02643.s001. [DOI ↗]
  51. et al. 2026. "Design, characterization, DFT studies, and molecular docking of new benzofuran-pyrazol-acrylamide hybrids as insecticidal agents against Spodoptera littoralis and Tribolium castaneum." DOI: 10.1038/s41598-026-39839-z. [DOI ↗]
  52. et al. 2026. "Acrylamide-Induced Neurotoxicity Is Mitigated by Curcumin and Its Nano Lipid Carrier Formulation in Albino Rats." DOI: 10.1002/tox.70043. [DOI ↗]
  53. et al. 2026. "ATRA-mediated RAR-α activation attenuates acrylamide-induced testicular toxicity." DOI: 10.1038/s41598-026-50168-z. [DOI ↗]
  54. et al. 2026. "AC Electrokinetics-Enhanced Capacitive Aptasensor for Point-of-Care Testing of Acrylamide in Coffee." DOI: 10.3390/mi17080966. [DOI ↗]
  55. 2026. "Acrylamide-Induced Developmental and Molecular Toxicity in Drosophila melanogaster: The Role of Vanillic Acid in CncC/Keap1 Modulation." DOI: 10.1002/jbt.71088. [DOI ↗]
  56. Bolton, Evan E., Yanli Wang, Paul A. Thiessen, and Stephen H. Bryant. 2008. "PubChem: Integrated Platform of Small Molecules and Biological Activities." Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry 4: 217-241. [DOI ↗]
  57. Kim, Sunghwan, Jie Chen, Tiejun Cheng, et al. 2023. "PubChem 2023 update." Nucleic Acids Research 51 (D1): D1373-D1380. [DOI ↗]
  58. Kim, Sunghwan, Tiejun Cheng, Jianyong He, Chen Cheng, et al. 2021. "PubChem Protein, Pathway, Reaction, and Disease Specifications." Journal of Cheminformatics 13: 16. [DOI ↗]
  59. Hähnke, Volker D., Sunghwan Kim, and Evan E. Bolton. 2018. "PubChem chemical structure standardization." Journal of Cheminformatics 10: 36. [DOI ↗]
  60. Wang, Yanli, Stephen H. Bryant, Tiejun Cheng, Jiyao Wang, et al. 2017. "PubChem BioAssay: 2017 update." Nucleic Acids Research 45 (D1): D955-D963. [DOI ↗]
  61. Cheng, Tiejun, et al. 2014. "Computation of Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients by Guiding an Additive Model with Knowledge." Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 54 (3): 793-805. [DOI ↗]
  62. 2021. "HDAC6 screening dataset using tau-based substrate in an enzymatic assay yields selective inhibitors and activators." DOI: 10.6019/CHEMBL4808148. [ChEMBL bioactivity primary lit] [DOI ↗]
  63. PubMed PMID PubChem. (Metadata fetch failed.) ↗
  64. et al. 2026. "Investigation of the effects of acrylamide on tendon healing in rats." DOI: 10.5152/j.aott.2026.25781. [DOI ↗]
  65. et al. 2026. "Mechanism-guided mitigation of acrylamide in thermally processed foods: emerging technologies and analytical verification." DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2026.1981497. [DOI ↗]
  66. 2025. "Purification of vegetable oils from acrylamide pollutants using metal-organic frameworks." DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-28117-z. [DOI ↗]
  67. Wilkinson, Mark D., et al. 2016. "The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship." Scientific Data 3: 160018. [DOI ↗]
  68. Hersey, Anne, et al. 2015. "Chemical databases: curation or integration by user-defined equivalence?" Drug Discovery Today: Technologies 14: 17-24.
  69. Mendel Friedman. 2005. "Chemistry and safety of acrylamide in food." Springer. ↗
  70. United States. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine. 2009. "Acrylamide." Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. ↗
  71. Veber, Daniel F., Stephen R. Johnson, Hung-Yuan Cheng, Brian R. Smith, Keith W. Ward, and Kenneth D. Kopple. 2002. "Molecular Properties That Influence the Oral Bioavailability of Drug Candidates." Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 45 (12): 2615-2623.
  72. Levitt, David. 2024. "Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of glucocorticoids: modeling the glucocorticoid receptor dynamics and dose/response of commonly prescribed glucocorticoids." ADMET and DMPK. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2414. [DOI ↗]
  73. Notario, Dion, Munzir, Angela Marietha, Novella, Yulina, Hananta, Linawati. 2024. "Impact of lactoferrin supplementation on cotrimoxazole pharmacokinetics: A preliminary clinical investigation." ADMET and DMPK. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2358. [DOI ↗]
  74. ECHA. 2024. "REACH Guidance." European Chemicals Agency. ↗
  75. Sridharan, Kannan, Al Banna, Rashed, Husain, Aysha. 2021. "Evaluation of pharmacokinetics of warfarin from validated pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model." ADMET and DMPK. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.909. [DOI ↗]
  76. Cabana, Bernard E.. 1984. "Bioavailability and Pharmacokinetics in Drug Development." Pharmacokinetics: 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2799-8_12. [DOI ↗]
  77. Groom, Colin R., Ian J. Bruno, Matthew P. Lightfoot, and Suzanna C. Ward. 2016. "The Cambridge Structural Database." Acta Crystallographica Section B 72 (2): 171-179. ↗
🧪 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 79-06-1MolGod_LITHUB_MAIN
⭐ Key findings (scientific literature) 20 publications
🏆 CAS 79-06-1 — multi-criteria ranking (W12): 30% citations · 20% recency · 20% topic · 15% historical · 15% open access.
  1. #1
    et al. (2026) · Scientific Reports
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 10.08 Mechanism Citations: 2 Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  2. #2
    et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Nutrition
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 8.65 Mechanism Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  3. #3
    et al. (2026) · Molecules
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 8.65 Mechanism Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  4. #4
    Reda M. Abdelhameed; Randa S. Hasan; Hassan Abdel-Gawad (2025) · Scientific Reports
    Why it matters: Recent (2025) · open access
    SCORE 7.95 Industrial Citations: 1 Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  5. #5
    et al. (2026) · Biology
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 7.85 Pharmacology Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  6. #6
    et al. (2026) · Micromachines
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 7.85 Mechanism Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  7. #7
    et al. (2026) · Environmental Toxicology
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 7.15 Pharmacology Citations: 1 Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  8. #8
    et al. (2026) · Molecules
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 7.05 Mechanism Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  9. #9
    et al. (2026) · RSC Medicinal Chemistry
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 7.05 Mechanism Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  10. #10
    et al. (2026) · Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 7.05 Industrial Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  11. #11
    et al. (2026) · Scientific Reports
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 7.05 Mechanism Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  12. #12
    Fahriye Zemheri‐Navruz; Sinan Ince; Gamze Ataman (2026) · Journal of Biochemical and Molecular Toxicology
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 7.05 Pharmacology Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  13. #13
    et al. (2026) · Gels
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 7.05 Mechanism Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  14. #14
    Eman M.S. Shaheen; Marwa A. E. Abd El‐Maksoud (2026) · Journal of Biochemical and Molecular Toxicology
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 7.05 Pharmacology Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  15. #15
    Milan Mandal; Seth Agrippa Oppong; Keka Ojha (2026) · ACS Omega
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 7.05 Mechanism Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  16. #16
    J. Wojciechowska-Puchałka, E. Drąg-Kozak, K. Kustra et al. (2026) · Poultry Science
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 7.05 Mechanism Open Access DOI ↗
  17. #17
    Ghanayem BI; Bai R; Kissling GE et al. (2010) · Biology of reproduction
    Why it matters: Must-cite (canon) · 131 citations
    SCORE 6.36 Mechanism MUST-CITE Citations: 131 DOI ↗
  18. #18
    et al. (2026) · BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 6.25 Pharmacology Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  19. #19
    Seyed Jamaleddin Peighambardoust, Hamzeh Khatooni, Naeimeh Sadat Peighambardoust (2026) · Scientific Reports
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 6.25 Mechanism Open Access DOI ↗
  20. #20
    Damian Chandia-Poblete, Stéphane Tuffier, Efstathios Vryonidis et al. (2026) · EClinicalMedicine
    Why it matters: Recent (2026) · open access
    SCORE 6.25 Mechanism Open Access DOI ↗
📈 HPLC gradient — optimizer (LSS) TEMPLATE

Gradient based on PubChem XLogP3 + LSS (Snyder et al. 2010, ch. 9).

  • Column: C18
  • Buffer: phosphate
  • Flow: 1 mL/min
  • logP: -0.7 (PubChem XLogP3)
  • Ramp: 5% → 95% B, 10 min
  • Total analysis time: 23 min
t (min) %A %B flow (mL/min) Comment
0 95 5 1 start (equilibrium)
2 95 5 1 end of initial hold
12 5 95 1 end of LSS ramp
17 5 95 1 column wash
18 95 5 1 return to init
23 95 5 1 re-equilibration
📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date)
  1. Snyder, Lloyd R., John W. Dolan, and Joseph J. Kirkland. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. Wiley. — Chapter 9 — gradient elution, LSS theory (cited as Snyder et al. 2010 in tool description).
  2. Schoenmakers, Peter J. 1986. Optimization of Chromatographic Selectivity: A Guide to Method Development. Elsevier. — Numerical optimization of gradient programs.
  3. Snyder, L. R., and J. W. Dolan. 2007. High-Performance Gradient Elution: The Practical Application of the Linear-Solvent-Strength Model. Wiley. — Foundational LSS reference for the %B_init = 5 + 8·logP heuristic implemented here.
  4. 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. [DOI ↗] — Modern review of gradient retention models — basis for non-LSS extensions.
  5. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC." Journal of Chromatography A 1216: 1764-1772. [DOI ↗]
  6. Dong, Michael W. 2019. HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793. — Modern UHPLC gradient programming, sub-2 µm scaling rules.
  7. 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. [DOI ↗]
  8. Stoll, Dwight R., and Peter W. Carr. 2017. "Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography: A State of the Art Tutorial." Analytical Chemistry 89: 519-531. [DOI ↗] — Reference for orthogonal gradient design (2D-LC second dimension).
  9. Dolan, John W.. 2013. "When to Modify Method Conditions." LCGC North America 31: 192-199.
  10. Meyer, Veronika R. 2010. Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. Wiley. — Chapter 7 — practical gradient design with isokratyczny scouting.
  11. Stoll, Dwight R., and Peter W. Carr. 2017. "Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography: A State of the Art Tutorial." Analytical Chemistry 89: 519-531. [DOI ↗]
  12. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC." Journal of Chromatography A 1216: 1764-1772. [DOI ↗]
  13. 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. [DOI ↗]
  14. Engelhardt, Heinz. 2014. 100 Years of Chromatography. Wiley-VCH.
  15. Vivó-Truyols, Gabriel, and Hans-Gerd Janssen. 2010. "Probabilistic approach to peak deconvolution in chromatography." Analytical Chemistry 82: 8525-8531. [DOI ↗]

REST: /wp-json/molgod/v1/hplc/gradient/79-06-1

📐 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 ↗]
  11. 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 [link ↗]
  12. 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 ↗]
  13. 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 [link ↗]
  14. Engelhardt, Heinz. 2014. "100 Years of Chromatography." Wiley-VCH.
  15. 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 ↗]
📊 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.
  11. 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 [link ↗]
  12. 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 ↗]
  13. 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 [link ↗]
  14. Engelhardt, Heinz. 2014. "100 Years of Chromatography." 2nd ed. Wiley-VCH. ISBN 978-3-527-33473-5.
  15. 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 ↗]

Related products

🧪 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.
  11. Stoll, Dwight R., and Peter W. Carr. 2017. "Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography: A State of the Art Tutorial."
  12. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC."
  13. Wu, Naijun, and Anton M. Clausen. 2007. "Fundamental and practical aspects of ultrahigh pressure liquid chromatography for fast separations."
  14. Engelhardt, Heinz. 2014. "100 Years of Chromatography." 2nd ed. Wiley-VCH.
  15. Vivó-Truyols, Gabriel, and Hans-Gerd Janssen. 2010. "Probabilistic approach to peak deconvolution in chromatography."

Inne produkty z tej kategorii

📋 Status prawny (REACH / TSCA / UK)MolGod_REG_2
JurysdykcjaListaStatusSunset
EUSVHClisted—
📤 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 79-06-1

📱 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 DH Scientific (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) 107 items

All scientific sources cited in the accordions above for CAS 79-06-1. Format: Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed., Author-Date system.

🗄️ Scientific databases

  1. NIST. 2026. NIST Chemistry WebBook: CAS 79-06-1. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=79-06-1. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
  2. AIST. 2026. Spectral Database for Organic Compounds (SDBS): CAS 79-06-1. Tsukuba, Japan: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology. https://sdbs.db.aist.go.jp/. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
  3. PubChem. 2026. PubChem Compound Summary: CAS 79-06-1. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/#query=79-06-1. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
  4. ECHA. 2026. C&L Inventory and REACH Registration: CAS 79-06-1. Helsinki: European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/annex-vi-to-clp. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)

📐 Standards / Guidelines

  1. ICH. 2026. "ICH Harmonised Guideline: CAS 79-06-1." Geneva: International Council for Harmonisation. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q1A%28R2%29%20Guideline.pdf. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
  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.

📘 Monographs

  1. IARC. 2026. IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans: CAS 79-06-1. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications/. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)

📄 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. U.S. OSHA. 2026. "Occupational Safety and Health Guidance: CAS 79-06-1." Washington, DC: U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. https://www.osha.gov/hazwoper. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
  10. National Fire Protection Association (2018) — NFPA 472: Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/nfpa-472.
  11. European Union. 2026. "EUR-Lex Legal Database: CAS 79-06-1." Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32012L0018. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
  12. U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2024) — NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/.
  13. Snyder, Lloyd R., John W. Dolan, and Joseph J. Kirkland. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. Wiley.
  14. Schoenmakers, Peter J.. 1986. Optimization of Chromatographic Selectivity: A Guide to Method Development. Elsevier.
  15. Snyder, L. R., and J. W. Dolan. 2007. High-Performance Gradient Elution: The Practical Application of the Linear-Solvent-Strength Model. Wiley.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793.
  19. 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.
  20. Dolan, John W.. 2013. "When to Modify Method Conditions." LCGC North America 31: 192-199. https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/when-modify-method-conditions.
  21. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. Wiley.
  22. Engelhardt, Heinz. 2014. 100 Years of Chromatography. Wiley-VCH.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Giddings, J. Calvin. 1965. "Dynamics of Chromatography, Part I: Principles and Theory." Marcel Dekker.
  26. Poppe, Hans. 1997. "Some reflections on speed and efficiency of modern chromatographic methods." https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(97)00376-2.
  27. 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.
  28. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC." https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.094.
  29. Knox, John H.. 1977. "Practical aspects of LC theory." https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/15.9.352.
  30. Snyder, L. R., J. J. Kirkland, and J. L. Glajch. 1997. "Practical HPLC Method Development." Wiley.
  31. Vivó-Truyols, Gabriel, and Hans-Gerd Janssen. 2010. "Probabilistic approach to peak deconvolution in chromatography." https://doi.org/10.1021/ac101742z.
  32. Sadek, Paul C.. 2002. "The HPLC Solvent Guide." Wiley-Interscience.
  33. Snyder, L. R.. 1978. "Classification of the solvent properties of common liquids." https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/16.6.223.
  34. Reichardt, Christian, and Thomas Welton. 2010. "Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry." Wiley-VCH.
  35. Vailaya, Anant, and Csaba Horváth. 1998. "Retention thermodynamics in hydrophobic interaction chromatography." https://doi.org/10.1021/ie980212h.
  36. Krstulović, Andrea M., and Phyllis R. Brown. 1981. "Reversed-phase High-Performance Liquid Chromatography." Wiley.
  37. Boysen, Reinhard I., and Milton T. W. Hearn. 2009. "Multi-modal HPLC of proteins." https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/47.8.645.
  38. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography." United States Pharmacopeial Convention. https://www.usp.org/harmonization-standards/pdg/general-chapters/chromatography.
  39. 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.
  40. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183.
  41. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "Peak tailing and resolution." https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/peak-tailing-and-resolution.
  42. Kromidas, Stavros. 2017. "HPLC Made to Measure: A Practical Handbook for Optimization." Wiley-VCH.
  43. Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. "Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods." https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.10.052.
  44. 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/.
  45. 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.
  46. 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.
  47. Kolthoff, Izaak Maurits, and Philip J. Elving, eds. 1978. Treatise on Analytical Chemistry, Part I: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
  48. Skoog, Douglas A., F. James Holler, and Stanley R. Crouch. 2018. Principles of Instrumental Analysis. 7th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  49. Christian, Gary D., Purnendu K. Dasgupta, and Kevin A. Schug. 2014. Analytical Chemistry. 7th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  50. 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.
  51. 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.
  52. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "How much resolution is enough?." https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/how-much-resolution-enough.
  53. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography (System Suitability section)." United States Pharmacopeial Convention. https://www.usp.org/harmonization-standards/pdg/general-chapters/chromatography.
  54. U.S. FDA. 2026. "FDA Guidance and Resources: CAS 79-06-1." Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/74954/download. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
  55. 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.
  56. 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.
  57. Kazakevich, Yuri V., and Rosario LoBrutto, eds.. 2007. "HPLC for Pharmaceutical Scientists." Wiley-Interscience. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470087954.
  58. 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.
  59. 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.
  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. 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.
  72. 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.
  73. Sejm RP. 2026. "Internetowy System Aktow Prawnych (ISAP): CAS 79-06-1." Warszawa: Kancelaria Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20200000010. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
  74. Ministerstwo Klimatu i Srodowiska. 2026. "Baza Danych o Odpadach (BDO): CAS 79-06-1." Warszawa: Ministerstwo Klimatu i Srodowiska. https://bdo.mos.gov.pl/. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
  75. Pohanish, Richard P.. 2017. "Sittig's Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens." Elsevier.
  76. Lewis, Richard J.. 2012. "Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials." Wiley.
  77. NIOSH. 2024. "Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/.
  78. 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.
  79. IPCS INCHEM. 2024. "International Programme on Chemical Safety — Waste Management Guidelines." WHO/UNEP/ILO. https://www.inchem.org/.
  80. 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.
  81. 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.
  82. 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.
  83. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 2024. "United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary, USP 47-NF 42." USP. https://www.uspnf.com/.
  84. European Pharmacopoeia Commission. 2024. "European Pharmacopoeia 11th Edition." Council of Europe — EDQM. https://www.edqm.eu/en/european-pharmacopoeia-ph-eur-11th-edition.
  85. 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.
  86. 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.