Ethen

0,99 €

Etylen, CAS 74-85-1

🔒 Demomodus — dieser Artikel steht nicht zum Verkauf.

Legale Substanz. dhscientific.com ist eine Demonstration der MOL-GOD-Plattform — wir verkaufen nichts und es werden keine Bestellungen ausgeführt. Verbotene Substanzen werden hier automatisch anhand des regulatorischen Kanons blockiert (vgl. z. B. Heptachlor).

Prüfung Ihres Sicherheitsdatenblatts — kostenlos → · Kontakt

MolGod_SDSCARD_1
REACH 2020/878
v4 · 21.07.2026
Category:
🧬 3D-Molekül-Visualisierer
Molekül wird geladen...
3D-Modell Ethylene, CAS 74-85-1, Summenformel C2H4, molare Masse 28.05 g/mol
Chemische Übersicht: EthyleneMolGod_OVERVIEW_1
SummenformelC2H4
Molekulargewicht28.05 g/mol
Schmelzpunkt-169.11 °C
Siedepunkt-103.72 °C
LogP (Lipophilie)1.2
IUPAC-Nameethene
SMILESC=C
InChIKeyVGGSQFUCUMXWEO-UHFFFAOYSA-N

Synonyme: ETHYLENE · Ethene · Acetene · Elayl · Olefiant gas

Datenquellen: PubChem (NLM/NIH)
Zuletzt aktualisiert: 2026-11-10

📊 Physikochemische Eigenschaften

Kurzübersicht

Formel: C2H4
MW: 28.05 g/mol
CAS: 74-85-1
Aussehen: Colorless gas
Geruch: Sweet
Geruch: Sweet

Detaillierte Eigenschaften

Eigenschaft Wert Einheit Bedingungen Quelle
Schmelzpunkt (mp) -169.11 °C (-272.4 °F) 1 atm
Siedepunkt (bp) -103.72 °C (-154.7 °F) 1 atm
Flammpunkt -100.00 °C (-148 °F) closed cup
Wasserlöslichkeit 0.131 g/L 25 °C (77 °F)
🔬 Erweiterte Eigenschaften

Chemische Kennungen

SMILES: C=C

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

Zuletzt aktualisiert: 2026-07-11

Regulatorischer Status der Substanz
Diese Substanz unterliegt regulatorischen Anforderungen: Bewirtschaftung gefährlicher Abfälle (BDO-Register). Details im Abschnitt "Regulatorischer Status (REACH/ECHA/CLP)" und im SDS. Regulatorische Information — schränkt den Kauf in diesem Shop nicht ein.
🧮 Stöchiometrie-RechnerMolGod_STOICH_1
🔍 Externe IdentifikatorenMolGod_EXTID_1
12 von 16 ID-Systemen75%
DatenbankIdentifikatorAktionen
CAS Registry Number74-85-1Öffnen →
PubChem CID6325Öffnen →
InChIKeyVGGSQFUCUMXWEO-UHFFFAOYSA-NÖffnen →
InChIInChI=1S/C2H4/c1-2/h1-2H2
SMILESC=C
EC Number200-815-3Öffnen →
KEGG CompoundC06547Öffnen →
HMDBHMDB0029594Öffnen →
ChemSpider6085Öffnen →
MeSH UID (NLM)C036216Öffnen →
UNII (FDA)91GW059KN7Öffnen →
WikiData QIDQ151313Öffnen →

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

📡 Spektroskopie — CAS 74-85-1MolGod_SPECHUB_MAIN
📊 Spektren (NMR, IR, MS, UV-Vis) (1)

Verfügbare Spektrentypen: IR

IR-Spektrum (KBr, 4000-400 cm⁻¹)

446 Datenpunkte · Quelle: NIST WebBook · NIST ↗ · 📥 JCAMP-DX
📋 Peak-Tabelle (Peak Assignment)
Type Position Intensität Zuordnung
IR 454.01 1 —
IR 461.51 1 —
IR 469.02 1 —
IR 476.53 1 —
IR 484.04 1 —
IR 491.55 1.1 —
IR 499.06 1.1 —
IR 506.57 1.1 —
IR 514.08 1.1 —
IR 521.59 1.1 —
IR 529.1 1.1 —
IR 536.61 1.1 —
IR 544.12 1 —
IR 551.63 1 —
IR 559.14 1 —
IR 566.65 1.1 —
IR 574.16 1.1 —
IR 581.67 1.1 —
IR 589.17 1.1 —
IR 596.68 1.1 —
🎓 Leitfaden zur Spektreninterpretation (für Studierende)
Wie man ein IR-Spektrum liest
  • 3200-3600 cm⁻¹ — O-H-Streckschwingung (breiter Peak = Wasserstoffbrücke)
  • 2850-3000 cm⁻¹ — C-H-Streckschwingung (sp³)
  • 1650-1750 cm⁻¹ — C=O-Streckschwingung (Ketone, Aldehyde, Ester)
  • 1400-1600 cm⁻¹ — Schwingungen des aromatischen Rings
  • 1000-1300 cm⁻¹ — C-O-Streckschwingung (Ether, Alkohole)
  • Keine Absorption = keine funktionelle Gruppe → mit einer Referenz vergleichen

Quellen: LibreTexts ↗, Silverstein (Spectrometric ID) ↗

📚 Wissenschaftliche Referenzen (Chicago Author-Date) (9 Quellen)

📚 Die Buch-Bibliografie wartet auf ihre Erstellung. Kuratierte allgemeine Lehrbücher stehen unten zur Verfügung; CAS-spezifische Google-Books-Titel können über das Administrationspanel abgerufen werden.

  1. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2024. "NIST Chemistry WebBook, SRD 69." Gaithersburg, MD: NIST. Accessed 2025-01-01. ↗
  2. Spectral Database for Organic Structure Determination (SDBS). 2024. National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan. Accessed 2025-01-01. ↗
  3. Ulrich, Eldon L., Hideo Akutsu, John F. Doreleijers, Yoko Harano, Yannis E. Ioannidis, Jundong Lin, Miron Livny, et al. 2008. "BioMagResBank." Nucleic Acids Research 36 (D1): D402–D408. [DOI ↗]
  4. Horai, Hisayuki, Masanori Arita, Shigehiko Kanaya, Yoshito Nihei, Tasuku Ikeda, Kazuhiro Suwa, Yuya Ojima, et al. 2010. "MassBank: A Public Repository for Sharing Mass Spectral Data for Life Sciences." Journal of Mass Spectrometry 45 (7): 703–714. [DOI ↗]
  5. Linstrom, P.J., and W.G. Mallard, eds. 2024. NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. ↗
  6. McDonald, M. Shane, Mike McAvoy, and Ajit Bhalerao. 1988. "JCAMP-DX: A Standard Form for Exchange of Infrared Spectra in Computer Readable Form." Applied Spectroscopy 42 (1): 151–162. [DOI ↗]
  7. PubChem. 2024. "PubChem Compound Database." National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Accessed 2025-01-01. ↗
📐 Physikalisch-chemische Eigenschaften (DB) 6 Felder MolGod-Score: Keine Quelle
Eigenschaft Wert Einheit Bedingungen Quelle
Schmelzpunkt -169.11 °C 1 atm
Siedepunkt -103.72 °C 760 mmHg
Wasserlöslichkeit 0.131 g/L 25°C
Flammpunkt -100.00 °C closed cup
Zündtemperatur 450.00 °C in air
logP (Octanol/Wasser) 1.200 — 25°C
📚 Wissenschaftliche Referenzen (Chicago Author-Date) (12 Quellen)
  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. ↗
🔄 Umrechner für Konzentrationseinheiten LIVE MolGod_UNITCONV_1

Geben Sie die Konzentration Ethylene in einer beliebigen Einheit ein — der Rest wird automatisch berechnet.

MW: 28.05 g/mol · IUPAC Gold Book ↗

⚗️ Umrechnungsformeln + Zitate (pro Formel)
UmrechnungFormelGenauigkeitQuelle
% (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)
📚 Bibliographie (8 autoritative Quellen)
  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
LösungsmittelkompatibilitätMolGod_SOLV_1

Schätzung auf Basis der Wasserlöslichkeit und des logP. Richtwerte — ersetzen keine experimentellen Untersuchungen.

LösungsmittelVerträglichkeitAnmerkungenReferenzen
Water~ MäßigMäßiger logP
EtOH+ GutEtOH — universelles polares Lösungsmittel
Acetone+ GutAceton — gut für mäßig polare Verbindungen
DCM+ GutDCM — gut für unpolare Verbindungen
DMSO+ GutDMSO — starkes aprotisches Lösungsmittel
THF+ GutTHF — breiter Löslichkeitsbereich
Hexane- SchwachGeringe Löslichkeit in Hexan
CHCl3+ GutCHCl3 — gut für mäßig polare und unpolare Verbindungen

Datenquellen für logP/Löslichkeit: logP: 1.20

📚 Wissenschaftliche Referenzen für Lösungsmittel (Chicago Author-Date) — zum Aufklappen klicken

Jedes Lösungsmittel ist durch 5 unabhängige wissenschaftliche Quellen belegt (NIST/CRC/IARC/Hansen/Reichardt/Smallwood/GESTIS). Vollständige Zitate unten.

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 ↗]
Löslichkeitstheorie (angewendet in der Verträglichkeitsvorhersage):
  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-Triplett (dD, dP, dH) + Ra-Formel.
  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 74-85-1 lookup ↗ — logP (XLogP3), water solubility experimental + predicted.

Vollständige Bibliografie im Akkordeon REFERENZEN (am Ende der Seite) — Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed., Author-Date.

🛡️ Sicherheit — CAS 74-85-1MolGod_SAFEHUB_MAIN
Hinweis zu Datenbeschränkungen. Die Sicherheitsinformationen auf dieser Seite dienen nur zur Information und ersetzen kein vollständiges Sicherheitsdatenblatt (SDS). Konsultieren Sie vor der Verwendung des Produkts das aktuelle Sicherheitsdatenblatt des Herstellers sowie die GHS/CLP-Leitlinien. Die CLP-Einstufung bezieht sich auf die reine Bulk-Substanz, nicht auf handelsübliche Zubereitungen.

GHS/CLP-Einstufung — Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1272/2008 + UN GHS Rev. 9 (2021).

⚠️ Gefahr (Danger)
GHS02 — Entzündbar
GHS02 Entzündbar
GHS04 — Gase unter Druck
GHS04 Gase unter Druck
GHS07 — Reizend / gesundheitsschädlich
GHS07 Reizend / gesundheitsschädlich

🚨 Gefahrenhinweise (H)

  • H220 — Extrem entzündbares Gas.
  • H336 — Kann Schläfrigkeit und Benommenheit verursachen.

🛡 Sicherheitshinweise (P)

  • P203 — Vor Gebrauch alle Sicherheitshinweise einholen, lesen und befolgen.

✓ Harmonisierte Einstufung gemäß Anhang VI der CLP-Verordnung (EG) 1272/2008 (amtliche, verbindliche Einstufung). Indexnummer: 601-010-00-3.

Referenz (Chicago): European Chemicals Agency. "ethylene, Index No. 601-010-00-3." 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 — Gruppe 3: nicht einstufbar hinsichtlich der Karzinogenität für den Menschen (von IARC bewertet). (Unabhängige Bewertung der Karzinogenitätsnachweise durch IARC/WHO — ergänzt die obige CLP-Einstufung.)
Referenz (Chicago): IARC. 2026. IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans: CAS 74-85-1. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications/. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
Einstufung aus der lokalen MOL-GOD-Liste (Snapshot) — nicht gegen die aktuelle IARC-Liste verifiziert. Überprüfen

Übersetzungen: CLP-Verordnung (EG) 1272/2008, Anhang III und IV. Daten: PubChem/NLM.

📚 Konsolidierte wissenschaftliche Referenzen — Chicago Author-Date 10 Quellen

Referenzen aus allen Safety-Hub-Registerkarten gesammelt. CAS: 74-85-1 · 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, Vorschriften
  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

Registerkarten mit eigenen Referenzen (Emergency, PPE, Storage, Waste) enthalten zusätzliche bibliografische Einträge in ihren jeweiligen Abschnitten.

📈 Analytische Statistik (t-Test · RSD · Grubbs · Q-Dixon) ICH Q2

Fügen Sie eine Serie von Messwiederholungen ein (CSV oder eine Zahl pro Zeile). Der Rechner berechnet Mittelwert, Standardabweichung und 95% CI und erkennt Ausreißer (Grubbs + Dixon Q).

Trennzeichen: Komma, Leerzeichen, Tab, Zeilenumbruch. Min. 3 Messungen.
📐 Statistische Formeln
  • x̄ = Σxᵢ / n — arithmetisches Mittel
  • s² = Σ(xᵢ - x̄)² / (n-1) — Stichprobenvarianz
  • s = √s² — Standardabweichung
  • RSD% = (s / x̄) × 100% — relative Standardabweichung
  • 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

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

🔬 HPLC/GC-Methoden (3 Methoden)
📄
Identification of Phenolic Compounds in the Invasive Plants Staghorn Sumac and Himalayan Balsam: Impact of Time and Solvent on the Extraction of Phenolics and Extract Evaluation on Germination Inhibition
HPLC-DADPlants202488% ✓CC-BYResearch method (specificity, robustness)
Säule: C18
Phase: mobile phases were used to separate the phenolic compounds: A (0
Detektion: UV 530 nm
Fluss: 0.60 mL/min
Temp.: 20.0 °C
Inj.: 20 μL
Gradient: program described by Mikulic-Petkovsek et al
Mikulic-Petkovsek M, Ravnjak E, Rusjan D. Identification of Phenolic Compounds in the Invasive Plants Staghorn Sumac and Himalayan Balsam: Impact of Time and Solvent on the Extraction of Phenolics and Extract Evaluation on Germination Inhibition. Plants. 2024;13:3339. doi:10.3390/plants13233339
An HPLC-MS-DAD analysis of phenolic compounds was carried out on the extracts of staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina L.) and Himalayan balsam (Impatiens glandulifera Royle). This study focuses on the influence of solvent type and extraction time on the phenolic extraction efficiency from both invasive plants. Methanol extraction resulted in a 4.2 times higher content of hydroxybenzoic acids, a 3.7 times higher content of hydroxycinnamic acids, a 3.2 times higher content of flavanols, a 9.6 times higher content of flavanones, and an 8.7 times higher content of flavonols in the Himalayan balsam extract compared to aqueous extraction. Anthocyanins were only detected in the alcohol-based extraction. In comparison, the aqueous extraction from staghorn sumac resulted in a higher yield of total hydroxybenzoic acids, hydroxycinnamic acids, and flavonols, while the methanol extraction resulted in a 1.4-fold lower total polyphenolic content compared to the aqueous extraction. The type of solvent had no significant effect on the total content of flavanols in staghorn sumac. Extraction time considerably affected the total phenolic content in both plant extracts. After 84 h of extraction, the staghorn sumac extract showed a 3.5-fold increase in the total phenolic content compared to the initial measurement. In contrast, the Himalayan balsam extract showed a 40% decrease in the total phenolic content after 84 h. The Himalayan balsam extract reduced the germination of perennial ryegrass seeds by 55%, while the staghorn sumac extract reduced it by 80%. Both extracts also inhibited shoot and root growth of perennial ryegrass, although the Himalayan balsam extract at a concentration of 0.125 g/mL stimulated root growth of perennial ryegrass. The strategic use of invasive alien plants could be an effective approach to control their spread in the environment, potentially reducing management costs. The effectiveness of this approach depends largely on the type and content of allelochemicals pr...
L.Roylephytochemistryphenolic componentsextraction efficiencyinvasive plant speciesgermination reduction
📄
Standardization of Juniperus macrocarpa Sibt. & Sm. and Juniperus excelsa M. Bieb. Extracts with Carbohydrate Digestive Enzyme Inhibitory and Antioxidant Activities
HPLCIranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research202190% ✓CC-BYResearch method (specificity, robustness)
Säule: CN, 5 μm
Phase: mobile phase contained 10% solvent A (acetonitrile:water: formic acid, 50:50:0
Detektion: UV 735 nm
Fluss: 1.00 mL/min
Temp.: 25.0 °C
Inj.: 20 μL
Gradient: system was started from the mobile phase contained 10% solvent…
Gök H, Orhan N, Özüpek B, Pekacar S, Selvi Ş, Orhan D. Standardization of Juniperus macrocarpa Sibt. & Sm. and Juniperus excelsa M. Bieb. Extracts with Carbohydrate Digestive Enzyme Inhibitory and Antioxidant Activities. Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research : IJPR. 2021;20:441-455. doi:10.22037/ijpr.2021.114838.15055
Juniperus species growing in Turkey are used for various medicinal purposes in traditional folk medicine. We aimed to evaluate in-vitro antidiabetic (α-glucosidase and α-amylase inhibition assays), antiobesity (pancreatic lipase inhibition assay), and antioxidant (ABTS and DPPH radical scavenging activities, ferric reducing activity, metal chelating activity, and phosphomolybdenum assay) activities of the extracts obtained from branches, leaves, and fruits of Juniperus macrocarpa and Juniperus excelsa. The branch (IC50 = 67.1 ± 1.7 µg/mL) and leaf ethyl acetate extracts (IC50 = 83.4 ± 0.8 µg/mL) of J. macrocarpa exhibited the strongest activity on the α-glucosidase enzyme. Besides that, J. excelsa leaf methanol extract exerted remarkable α-amylase inhibitory activity (IC50 = 950.1 ± 3.5 µg/mL). Only J. macrocarpa branch and J. excelsa leaf ethyl acetate extract slightly inhibited pancreatic lipase enzyme with 2963.3 ± 736.4 and 2343 ± 557.8 µg/mL IC50 values, respectively. The RP-HPLC-DAD analysis results demonstrated that the more active J. macrocarpa extracts are richer in agathisflavone, amentoflavone, and umbelliferone than J. excelsa extracts. With this study, it is concluded that J. macrocarpa branch and leaf ethyl acetate extracts may be a new source of α-glucosidase enzyme inhibitory activity and agathisflavone, amentoflavone can be used in the standardization of the extracts.
AntidiabeticantioxidantJuniperus macrocarpaJuniperus excelsaRP-HPLC
📄
Phytochemical Characterization of Saudi Mint and Its Mediating Effect on the Production of Silver Nanoparticles and Its Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activities
HPLCPlants202387% ✓CC-BYResearch method (specificity, robustness)
Säule: C18, 5 μm
Phase: mobile phase, two buffers were used: buffer A (military Q water and…
Detektion: UV 280 nm
Fluss: 0.90 mL/min
Temp.: 30.0 °C
Inj.: 5 μL
Qanash H, Bazaid A, Binsaleh N, Alharbi B, Alshammari N, Qahl S, et al. Phytochemical Characterization of Saudi Mint and Its Mediating Effect on the Production of Silver Nanoparticles and Its Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activities. Plants. 2023;12:2177. doi:10.3390/plants12112177
The green synthesis of nanoparticles (NPs) is attracting enormous attention as a new area of study that encompasses the development and discovery of new agents for their utilization in different fields, such as pharmaceuticals and food. Nowadays, the use of plants, particularly medicinal plants, for the creation of NPs has emerged as a safe, ecofriendly, rapid, and simple approach. Therefore, the present study aimed to use the Saudi mint plant as a medicinal plant for the synthesis of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) and to evaluate the antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of AgNPs compared to mint extract (ME). A phenolic and flavonoid analysis that was conducted by using HPLC indicated the presence of numerous compounds in the ME. Through an HPLC analysis, chlorogenic acid at a concentration of 7144.66 µg/mL was the main detected component in the ME, while catechin, gallic acid, naringenin, ellagic acid, rutin, daidzein, cinnamic acid, and hesperetin were identified in varying concentrations. AgNPs were synthesized by using ME and were confirmed via UV–visible spectroscopy at 412 nm of the maximum absorption. The mean diameter of the synthesized AgNPs was measured by TEM to be 17.77 nm. Spectra obtained by using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy indicated that silver was the main element formation in the created AgNPs. The presence of various functional groups, analyzed by using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), indicated that the mint extract was responsible for reducing Ag+ to Ag0. The spherical structure of the synthesized AgNPs was confirmed by X-ray diffraction (XRD). Furthermore, the ME showed reduced antimicrobial activity (a zone of inhibition of 30, 24, 27, 29, and 22 mm) compared with the synthesized AgNPs (a zone of inhibition of 33, 25, 30, 32, 32, and 27 mm) against B. subtilis, E. faecalis, E. coli, P. vulgaris, and C. albicans, respectively. The minimum inhibitory concentration of the AgNPs was lower than that of the ME for all of t...
Saudi mintplant natural productsilver nanoparticles (AgNPs)antimicrobialantioxidant
📈 Methodenvalidierung (ICH Q2)

Keine Validierungsdaten. Kontaktieren Sie den Methodenautor.

Parameter nach: ICH Q2(R2) ↗

📋 Methodenvergleich
Technik Säule Analysenzeit Detektion Mobile Phase Quelle
HPLC-DAD C18 — UV 530 nm mobile phases were used to separate the phenolic… DOI ↗
HPLC CN — UV 735 nm mobile phase contained 10% solvent A (acetonitrile:water: formic… DOI ↗
HPLC C18 — UV 280 nm mobile phase, two buffers were used: buffer A… DOI ↗
🔧 Fehlerbehebung HPLC/GC
Breite Peaks / Tailing
Ursachen: Verschlissene Säule, falscher pH der mobilen Phase, Säulenüberladung, Totvolumen
Lösung: Säule austauschen, Puffer-pH prüfen (±0,2), Injektionsvolumen verringern, Verbindungen prüfen
Basisliniendrift
Ursachen: Verunreinigte mobile Phase, Gradientenprobleme, instabile Temperatur
Lösung: Phase entgasen, 0,22 µm filtrieren, Säulentemperatur stabilisieren, System spülen
Kein Peak
Ursachen: Falsche Wellenlänge, Substanz eluiert nicht, thermische Zersetzung, falsche Phase
Lösung: λmax prüfen, Gradient verlängern, Temperatur senken, mobile Phase wechseln
Geisterpeaks (ghost peaks)
Ursachen: Systemverunreinigung, Verschleppung (Carry-over), verunreinigte Vials
Lösung: System reinigen (MeOH/H₂O), neue Vials verwenden, Blank injizieren
Geringe Wiederfindung
Ursachen: Adsorption an Wänden, unzureichende Extraktion, Zersetzung
Lösung: IS zugeben, Glas silanisieren, Extraktion optimieren, Stabilität prüfen

Quellen: Snyder, Kirkland & Dolan ↗, Waters ↗

📊 HPLC-Methodenvalidierung (ICH Q2(R1)) PARTIAL

3 metrics need experimental data

Parameter Wert Einheit ICH-Q2-Kriterium Status
Linearität (R²) keine Daten unitless R² ≥ 0.999 (≥0.99 für bioanalytische) —
LOD (S/N = 3:1) keine Daten ng/mL S/N ≥ 3:1 (niedrigste nachweisbare Konzentration) —
LOQ (S/N = 10:1) keine Daten ng/mL S/N ≥ 10:1 (LOQ ≥ 3×LOD typischerweise) —
Präzision (RSD intraday, n=6) keine Daten % RSD RSD ≤ 2% (intraday) / ≤ 3% (interday) für den API —
Richtigkeit (Wiederfindung, 3 Niveaus) keine Daten % (target 100±2%) Recovery 98-102% (target 100%) —
Linearitätsbereich keine Daten z. B. 0.1-100 ng/mL Mind. 80-120% der Nominalkonzentration —
Selektivität/Spezifität keine Daten qualitative Keine Interferenz — Analyt-Peak vollständig aufgelöst (Rs ≥ 2.0) —
Robustheit (Robustness) keine Daten RSD < 2% bei ±5% Variation RSD < 2% bei kleinen Parametervariationen —
Legende: ✓ PASS ⚠ CAUTION ✗ FAIL — NO_DATA
📚 Wissenschaftliche Referenzen (Chicago Author-Date) — zum Aufklappen klicken

Standards für die Validierung analytischer Methoden — 4 unabhängige Quellen (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.

· ⚠ Regulatorische Warnungen SVHC/REACH ↑

🔧 Fehlerbehebung HPLC — Entscheidungsbaum 6 häufige Probleme

Diagnose der 12 häufigsten HPLC-Probleme mit Entscheidungsbaum (5 Schritte pro Problem). Quelle: Snyder/Kirkland/Dolan 3rd ed. Chapter 17 + LCGC LC Troubleshooting columns 1989-2024.

Verbreiterte Peaks (broad peaks) medium

Symptom: Alle Peaks im Chromatogramm sind breiter als erwartet (FWHM > 2× normal)

🔍 Diagnosebaum:
  1. 1. Prüfen Sie, ob alle Peaks verbreitert sind oder nur einige
    → JA: Alle → instrumentelles Problem (Säule oder System)
    → NEIN: Nur einige → chemisches Problem (Wechselwirkung mit der Säule bei bestimmten Analyten)
  2. 2. Tauschen Sie eine Testsäule ein — verschwindet das Problem?
    → JA: SÄULE verschlissen — Packung beschädigt, Void in den ersten mm. Ersetzen.
    → NEIN: Problem im LC-System
  3. 3. Prüfen Sie das Totvolumen (dead volume) — Injektionsschleife, Verbindungen, Detektor
    → JA: Schleife > 100 µL für eine 4.6-mm-Säule oder lose Verbindungen → Ferrulen ersetzen, Kapillaren kürzen
    → NEIN: Diagnose fortsetzen
  4. 4. Temperaturtest: Erhöhen Sie die Säule von 25°C auf 40°C
    → JA: Schmalere Peaks → Massentransferkinetik zu langsam (T erhöhen)
    → NEIN: Continue
  5. 5. Prüfen Sie die Flussrate gegenüber dem van-Deemter-Optimum für diese Säule
    → JA: Optimum für 4.6mm/5µm = 1.0 mL/min, für 2.1mm/3µm = 0.4 mL/min
    → NEIN: Continue
⚠️ Typische Ursachen:
  • Säule verschlissen (>2000 Injektionen ohne Vorsäule)
  • Totvolumen des Systems > 100 µL (falsche Schleife, lange Kapillaren, lose Ferrulen)
  • Temperatur zu niedrig (Massentransferkinetik)
  • Flussrate außerhalb des van-Deemter-Optimums
  • Probenlösungsmittel stärker als mobile Phase A
✓ Lösungen:
  • ✓ Säule ersetzen (bei >2000 Injektionen)
  • ✓ Alle Verbindungen prüfen — Kapillaren so kurz wie möglich
  • ✓ Säulentemperatur auf 40°C erhöhen (wenn die Substanz stabil ist)
  • ✓ Fluss auf das van-Deemter-Optimum reduzieren
  • ✓ Probe in mobiler Phase A lösen (nicht in reinem Organischem)
Peak-Tailing (Tailing, T > 1.5) high

Symptom: Peaks haben einen verlängerten "Schwanz" auf der Seite der späten Elution (Asymmetrie T = b/a > 1.5 gemäß USP)

🔍 Diagnosebaum:
  1. 1. Enthält die Substanz basische Gruppen (Amino, Pyridin)?
    → JA: Ja → Silanol-Wechselwirkungen! Fügen Sie 0.1% TFA oder 5-10 mM TEA zur mobilen Phase A hinzu.
    → NEIN: Continue
  2. 2. Prüfen Sie den pH der mobilen Phase gegenüber dem pKa der Substanz
    → JA: pH = pKa ± 1 → teilweise Ionisierung, Peak-Split. Gehen Sie pH ≥ 2 Einheiten vom pKa weg.
    → NEIN: Continue
  3. 3. Prüfen Sie das Alter der Säule (>1500 Injektionen?)
    → JA: Ja → freigelegte Silanole (Column Bleed). Ersetzen Sie die Säule durch eine mit höherem Endcapping (XTerra, Symmetry).
    → NEIN: Continue
  4. 4. Enthält die Probe Metalle (Fe, Cu aus Glasfläschchen)?
    → JA: Ja → verwenden Sie klare Typ-II-Fläschchen oder PFA. 0.1mM EDTA zur Probe geben.
    → NEIN: Continue
⚠️ Typische Ursachen:
  • Silanol-Wechselwirkungen (basischer Analyt + freie Silanole des Kieselgels)
  • pH an der Grenze des Analyt-pKa (Peak-Split)
  • Alte Säule (Column Bleed, hohe Silanolaktivität)
  • Metalle in der Probe (Chelatbildung → Tailing)
  • Säulenüberladung (>50 µg auf einer 4.6mm-Säule)
✓ Lösungen:
  • ✓ 0.1% TFA (UV) oder 0.1% Ameisensäure (LC-MS) zur mobilen Phase A hinzufügen
  • ✓ Wählen Sie eine Säule mit hochreinem Endcapping: Waters XBridge BEH, Phenomenex Kinetex
  • ✓ Arbeiten Sie bei pH ≥ 2 Einheiten vom pKa entfernt
  • ✓ 0.1mM EDTA zur Probe (Fe/Cu-Chelatbildung)
  • ✓ Injektionsvolumen auf ≤ 20 µL für eine 4.6mm-Säule reduzieren
Grundliniendrift (Baseline Drift) medium

Symptom: Die Grundlinie steigt oder fällt systematisch über >5 Minuten

🔍 Diagnosebaum:
  1. 1. Verwenden Sie einen Gradienten (B% steigt)?
    → JA: Ja → unterschiedliche Absorption der Phasen A vs. B bei dλ. Lösungsmittelwechsel im UV-Cutoff. Prüfen Sie die UV-Absorption des %-Organik-Anteils.
    → NEIN: Weiter (isokratisch)
  2. 2. Prüfen Sie die Säulentemperatur — ist sie auf ±0.5°C stabil?
    → JA: Ja (stabil) → weiter
    → NEIN: Instabil → Säulenthermostat einschalten (>25°C kontrolliert)
  3. 3. Test: Autosampler ausschalten, nur Pumpe+Säule+Detektor betreiben
    → JA: Drift verschwindet → Autosampler-Kontamination (Nadel, Septum reinigen)
    → NEIN: Continue
  4. 4. Prüfen Sie das Alter der Lampe (D2 für UV)
    → JA: Ja (>1500 Stunden) → Lampe ersetzen
    → NEIN: Continue
⚠️ Typische Ursachen:
  • Gradientenelution mit unterschiedlichem UV-Cutoff der Phasen
  • Instabile Säulentemperatur
  • Autosampler-Kontamination von Nadel/Septum
  • UV-Lampe alt (>1500h)
  • Detektor-Durchflusszelle verschmutzt
  • Säule nicht äquilibriert (<10 Säulenvolumina)
✓ Lösungen:
  • ✓ Säule 10-15 Säulenvolumina bei 100% A voräquilibrieren
  • ✓ Säulenthermostat ein, T 30-40°C stabil
  • ✓ Detektor-Durchflusszelle mit 50:50 ACN:H2O reinigen
  • ✓ D2-Lampe ersetzen, wenn >1500h
  • ✓ Grundlinien-Subtraktion verwenden (Chromeleon, native Empower-Funktion)
Kein Peak / verlorener Peak (no peak) critical

Symptom: Der erwartete Analyt-Peak erscheint nicht im Chromatogramm

🔍 Diagnosebaum:
  1. 1. Hat die Injektion tatsächlich stattgefunden?
    → JA: Prüfen Sie das Autosampler-Log, den Pumpendruck (sollte bei der Injektion abfallen)
    → NEIN: Autosampler-Problem → Schleife, Nadel, Probe im Fläschchen prüfen
  2. 2. Ist die Probe im Fläschchen (korrektes Volumen, nicht verdunstet)?
    → JA: Continue
    → NEIN: Keine Probe — erneut pipettieren
  3. 3. Probenstabilität — vor >24h vorbereitet?
    → JA: Ja → Degradation. Bereiten Sie eine frische Probe vor.
    → NEIN: Continue
  4. 4. Prüfen Sie die Detektionswellenlänge gegenüber dem λmax der Substanz
    → JA: Detektion bei λ entspricht NICHT dem λmax → kein Signal. DAD 200-400nm scannen.
    → NEIN: Continue
  5. 5. Test: Injizieren Sie einen reinen Standard (bekannter Konzentration, frisch)
    → JA: Standard ergibt einen Peak → Problem mit der Probe (Matrix, Derivatisierung)
    → NEIN: Kein Peak auch mit dem Standard → Systemproblem (Säule, Phase, Gradient)
⚠️ Typische Ursachen:
  • Probe nicht aus dem Fläschchen entnommen (Autosampler-Fehler)
  • Probe degradiert (>24h pH/Temp/Licht)
  • Detektion bei falscher Wellenlänge
  • Falsche mobile Phase (z. B. vergessenes TFA)
  • Säule umgekehrt / falsche stationäre Phase
  • Substanz eluiert an der Front (V0) → nicht retendiert, nicht sichtbar
✓ Lösungen:
  • ✓ Frische Probe nach dem exakten Protokoll neu vorbereiten
  • ✓ UV-Vis-DAD-Scan 200-400nm + Suche nach λmax
  • ✓ Zusammensetzung der mobilen Phase prüfen — TFA hinzugefügt?
  • ✓ Umgekehrte Säulenrichtung testen (vorsichtig!)
  • ✓ Bei Retention <1 min — % B verringern, MeOH statt ACN
  • ✓ Prüfen Sie die Tabelle "expected_rt" in wp_molgod_hplc_methods
Druck zu hoch (pressure too high) critical

Symptom: Pumpendruck > 80% des Säulenmaximums oder System-Shutdown mit High-Pressure-Fehler

🔍 Diagnosebaum:
  1. 1. Prüfen Sie, ob die Säule korrekt angeschlossen ist (Pfeilrichtung)
    → JA: OK
    → NEIN: Säule umgekehrt → umdrehen (niemals "rückwärts" betreiben)
  2. 2. Test: Säule aus dem System entfernen, nur Pumpe+Detektor betreiben
    → JA: Druck fällt auf <50 bar → Problem in der Säule (verstopft)
    → NEIN: Druck bleibt hoch → In-Line-Filter verstopft, Fritte verschmutzt
  3. 3. Prüfen Sie den Vorsäulenfilter (In-Line-Fritte)
    → JA: Verschmutzt und braun → ersetzen
    → NEIN: Continue
  4. 4. Säule rückwärts mit 50:50 ACN:H2O spülen, ohne die Säule — verschwindet es?
    → JA: Partikel im ersten mm stecken geblieben — 30 min Spülung kann sie wiederherstellen
    → NEIN: Säule ersetzen
⚠️ Typische Ursachen:
  • In-Line-Filter (Fritte) mit Partikeln verstopft
  • Puffer-Aussalzung (Ausfällung bei hohem %B)
  • Probe enthält Schwebstoffe (0.22 µm vor der Injektion filtrieren)
  • Säule verstopft (Column Bed Compaction)
  • Gradient mit Pufferphase + viel Organik → Salzausfällung
✓ Lösungen:
  • ✓ Probe IMMER durch 0.22 µm PVDF vor der Injektion filtrieren
  • ✓ In-Line-Filter alle 100 Injektionen ersetzen (oder wenn der Druck >20% steigt)
  • ✓ Verwenden Sie NICHT >20mM Phosphatpuffer + >70% ACN (das Salz fällt aus)
  • ✓ Säule 30 min mit 50:50 ACN:H2O in umgekehrter Richtung spülen (wenn vom Hersteller zugelassen)
  • ✓ Vorsäule 4×3mm zum Schutz der Hauptsäule
Geisterpeaks (Ghost Peaks) high

Symptom: Unerklärte Peaks im Chromatogramm, die in der Kalibrierung fehlen

🔍 Diagnosebaum:
  1. 1. Test: Blindinjektion (reines Probenlösungsmittel)
    → JA: Ein Geisterpeak erscheint → Kontamination des Systems oder der Eluenten
    → NEIN: Erscheint nur mit der Probe → Matrix
  2. 2. Wächst der Geisterpeak mit dem Gradienten (eluiert bei hohem %B)?
    → JA: Ja → überladene Säule oder stark retendiert aus einem vorherigen Lauf
    → NEIN: Unabhängig vom Gradienten → Autosampler-Verschleppung
  3. 3. Increase carryover wash (between injections)
    → JA: Hilft → Verschleppung war die Ursache. Stärkeres Waschprotokoll.
    → NEIN: Continue
  4. 4. Reinwasser-Injektion — gibt es einen Peak?
    → JA: Ja → Kontamination der Wasserquelle (Organik aus dem DI-System)
    → NEIN: Continue
⚠️ Typische Ursachen:
  • Verschleppung in Autosampler-Nadel/-Schleife
  • Eluent-Kontamination (auch in HPLC-Qualität)
  • Stark retendierte Komponenten aus vorherigen Läufen
  • Kunststoff in den Fläschchen (Phthalate, PEG aus den Kappen)
  • DI-Wasser unzureichend gereinigt
✓ Lösungen:
  • ✓ Waschprotokoll verstärken: 100% B → 100% A → 50:50 (3 Zyklen)
  • ✓ Starke Wäsche: 100% DMSO oder 100% MeOH vor der Kalibrierung
  • ✓ Eluenten im Zweifelsfall durch 0.22 µm PTFE filtrieren
  • ✓ Braunglas + Teflon-beschichtete Kappen für Proben verwenden
  • ✓ Periodische Gradientenrampe auf 100% B für 10 min (Reinigung)
📚 Wissenschaftliche Referenzen (Chicago Author-Date) — zum Aufklappen klicken
  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 ↗]
📚 Technische FAQ — Ethylene (5) MolGod_TECHFAQ_1
❓ Jak przygotować roztwór standardowy etylenu (C2H4) o stężeniu 1 mM?
Aby przygotować roztwór standardowy etylenu o stężeniu 1 mM, należy obliczyć masę substancji potrzebną do sporządzenia roztworu. Masa molowa etylenu wynosi 28.05 g/mol. Dla 1 litra roztworu (1 dm³) o stężeniu 1 mM (1 mmol/dm³): masa etylenu = 1 mmol * 28.05 g/mol = 0.02805 g. Rozpuścić 0.02805 g etylenu w odpowiednim rozpuszczalniku (np. heksanie) i uzupełnić do objętości 1 litra.
Hilfreich?
❓ Jak przechowywać etylen, aby zachować jego stabilność?
Etylen należy przechowywać w temperaturze poniżej -60°C (np. w ciekłym azocie) lub jako gaz pod ciśnieniem w butlach stalowych, z dala od światła i źródeł ciepła. Wilgotność powietrza nie powinna przekraczać 50%, aby uniknąć reakcji z wodą.
Hilfreich?
❓ Jaka metoda analityczna jest najlepsza do oznaczania etylenu w próbce?
Najlepszą metodą analityczną dla etylenu jest chromatografia gazowa (GC) z detektorem płomieniowo-jonizacyjnym (FID), ze względu na niską masę molową (28.05 g/mol) i lotność substancji. LogP etylenu wynosi około -1, co wskazuje na umiarkowaną rozpuszczalność w fazie stacjonarnej GC.
Hilfreich?
❓ Jakie są główne reakcje i niezgodności chemiczne etylenu?
Etylen jest bardzo reaktywnym alkenem. Reaguje z utleniaczami (np. nadtlenkiem wodoru), tworząc epoksydy, oraz z halogenkami (np. Cl2), dając dihalogenki. Nie należy go przechowywać w obecności silnych kwasów lub zasad, które mogą prowadzić do niepożądanych reakcji addycji.
Hilfreich?
❓ W jakich praktycznych zastosowaniach laboratoryjnych wykorzystuje się etylen?
Etylen jest używany w syntezie organicznej jako substrat do produkcji glikoli, alkoholi i estrów. W laboratoriach stosuje się go również do polimeryzacji (np. etylenu z innymi monomerami) oraz jako gaz nośny w chromatografii gazowej.
Hilfreich?
🧮 Laborrechner (8) MolGod_LABCALC_1
Verdünnung (C₁V₁=C₂V₂)
Molarität (M=n/V)
pH-Puffer (Henderson-Hasselbalch)
Beer-Lambert (A=εcl)
Masse → Mol
Konzentration % → M
ppm → mg/L
Temperatur C↔F↔K

Verifizierte Formeln: IUPAC Gold Book ↗, DOI ↗

📊 Spektroskopische Spektrendatenbanken MolGod_SPECDB_3
🏷️ Etiketten-Generator (QR) MolGod_LABEL_1
Ethen• ETHYLENE / Ethene• CAS: 74-85-1• Formel: C2H4• Masse: 28.05 g/molGEFAHRGHS-GEFAHRENHINWEISE:H220: Extrem entzündbares Gas.H336: Kann Schläfrigkeit und Benommenheit verursachen.P203: Vor Gebrauch alle Sicherheitshinweise einholen, lesen und befolgen.Nur für Laborzwecke!DH ScientificScience first. Commerce as consequence.Charge-Nr.: Nettomasse: Herst.:
ADMET — Pharmakologisches Profil
ADMET-Vorhersagen werden geladen…
Historische Vorfälle (CSB/EPA/Bretherick)

Die Datenbank enthält ausschließlich schwere Industrie- und Laborvorfälle (CSB, EPA RMP, Bretherick). Das Fehlen eines Eintrags bedeutet NICHT, dass die Substanz sicher ist — die Datenbank ist unvollständig.

Historische Vorfälle (1)

  1. 1989-10-23 Pasadena, Texas, USA (Phillips 66 Houston Chemical Complex, HCC) Katastrophal explosion
    Substanzen: Ethylene (high-pressure HDPE feed) (CAS 74-85-1) + Oxygen / atmospheric air ingress (CAS 7782-44-7)
    23 Todesopfer 314 Verletzte

    Podczas konserwacji reaktora HDPE settling leg (rurociag 22") doszlo do otwarcia zaworu DEMCO w trakcie procedury maintenance. Uwolnienie ~38 ton mieszaniny etylen/izobutan/wodor stworzylo chmure gazowo-powietrzna, ktora zaplonila po ~90 sekundach (zrodlo nieustalone definitywnie). VCE o sile 2.4 ton TNT, zniszczyl HDPE complex.

    Grundursache: Single-block valve zamiast double-block-and-bleed. Procedury LO/TO niewlasciwe (compressed air zasilajacy aktuatory zaworow podlaczony do "open" zamiast "close" portow). Brak gas detection w okolicy reactora. Unauthorized work przy non-routine maintenance.
    Erkenntnisse: Double-block-and-bleed valve standard dla high-pressure reactor isolation. Kierunek pneumatic actuators musi byc fail-safe. OSHA PSM standard 29 CFR 1910.119 (1992) jest bezposrednim wynikiem tego incydentu.
    Bibliografie (Chicago Author-Date)
    • U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 1990. The Phillips 66 Company Houston Chemical Complex Explosion and Fire. Washington, DC: OSHA.
    • Atherton, John, and Frederic Gil. 2008. Incidents That Define Process Safety. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-AIChE.
    • Khan, Faisal I., and S. A. Abbasi. 1999. "Major Accidents in Process Industries and an Analysis of Causes and Consequences." Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 12 (5): 361-378.
📚 Datenquellen zu Vorfällen
  1. U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). 2024. "CSB Incident Investigation Reports." Washington, DC: CSB. 🔗
  2. U.S. EPA / NOAA. 2024. "CAMEO Chemicals Database." Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 🔗
  3. BARPI (French Bureau for Analysis of Industrial Risks and Pollutions). 2024. "ARIA Database of Industrial Accident Reports." Saint-Denis: BARPI/DGPR. 🔗
  4. U.S. OSHA. 2024. "OSHA Accident Investigation Reports." Washington, DC: Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 🔗
  5. Urben, Peter G., ed. 2017. Bretherick's Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards. 8th ed. Oxford: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-08-100971-2.
  6. Mannan, Sam, ed. 2005. Lees' Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 3rd ed. Oxford: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-7506-7555-0.
  7. Hollnagel, Erik. 2004. Barriers and Accident Prevention. Aldershot: Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-2271-9.
  8. Kletz, Trevor A. 2003. "Lessons from Disasters — How Organizations Have No Memory and Accidents Recur." Process Safety and Environmental Protection 81 (4): 283–287. 🔗
📚 Überblick über die wissenschaftliche Literatur — CAS 74-85-1MolGod_LITHUB_MAIN
⭐ Wichtigste Erkenntnisse (wissenschaftliche Literatur) 11 Publikationen
🏆 CAS 74-85-1 — multi-criteria ranking (W12): 30% Zitierungen · 20% Aktualität · 20% Thema · 15% historisch · 15% Open Access.
  1. #1
    Marcin Krynski (2026) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
    Warum es wichtig ist: Aktuell (2026) · open access
    SCORE 6.25 Mechanismus Open Access DOI ↗
  2. #2
    Zhang X, Tao J, Huang Y et al. (2026) · Journal of genetics and genomics = Yi chuan xue bao
    Warum es wichtig ist: Aktuell (2026) · Übersichtsarbeit · open access
    SCORE 6.25 Übersicht Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  3. #3
    Zhang J, Liu Z, Farrar EJ et al. (2026) · Nature
    Warum es wichtig ist: Aktuell (2026) · open access
    SCORE 6.25 Mechanismus Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  4. #4
    Chatterjee S, Rankin JA, Farrugia MA et al. (2025) · Biochemistry
    Warum es wichtig ist: Aktuell (2025) · open access
    SCORE 6.25 Mechanismus Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  5. #5
    Wang R, Bowerman AF, Chen Y et al. (2025) · Journal of experimental botany
    Warum es wichtig ist: Aktuell (2025) · open access
    SCORE 6.25 Mechanismus Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  6. #6
    Zhao ZA, Li YR, Lei T et al. (2025) · Scientific reports
    Warum es wichtig ist: Aktuell (2025) · open access
    SCORE 6.25 Mechanismus Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  7. #7
    He K, Xu L, He Q et al. (2024) · Journal of integrative plant biology
    Warum es wichtig ist: Aktuell (2024) · open access
    SCORE 6.25 Mechanismus Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  8. #8
    Irfan M, Kumar P, Datta A (2025) · Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)
    Warum es wichtig ist: Aktuell (2025)
    SCORE 4.8 Industrie DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  9. #9
    Dong Y, Ma H, Shen Y et al. (2025) · The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology
    Warum es wichtig ist: Aktuell (2025)
    SCORE 4 Mechanismus DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  10. #10
    Guo Y, Gong J, Hu R et al. (2025) · The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology
    Warum es wichtig ist: Aktuell (2025)
    SCORE 4 Mechanismus DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  11. #11
    Shukla D (2025) · Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)
    Warum es wichtig ist: Aktuell (2025)
    SCORE 4 Mechanismus DOI ↗ PubMed ↗

Description

Etylen, CAS 74-85-1

Reviews

There are no reviews yet.

Be the first to review “Ethen”
📈 HPLC-Gradient — Optimierer (LSS) VORLAGE

Gradient basierend auf PubChem XLogP3 + LSS (Snyder et al. 2010, Kap. 9).

  • Säule: C18
  • Puffer: phosphate
  • Fluss: 1 mL/min
  • logP: 1.2 (PubChem XLogP3)
  • Rampe: 15% → 95% B, 15 min
  • Gesamtanalysenzeit: 28 min
t (min) %A %B flow (mL/min) Kommentar
0 85 15 1 Start (Gleichgewicht)
2 85 15 1 Ende der Anfangshaltezeit
17 5 95 1 Ende der LSS-Rampe
22 5 95 1 Säulenspülung
23 85 15 1 Rückkehr zu init
28 85 15 1 Reäquilibrierung
📚 Wissenschaftliche Referenzen (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/74-85-1

📐 HPLC-Peaksymmetrie-Rechner (USP Tf / As)

Berechnen Sie den USP-Tailing-Faktor (T) und die Asymmetrie (As) aus den Peak-Halbwertsbreiten. Geben Sie a (linke Halbbreite) und b (rechte Halbbreite) an, gemessen bei 5% oder 10% der Peakhöhe.

📚 Referenzen (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 ↗]
📊 Rechner für Auflösung und Bodenzahl (Rs, N, H)

Berechnen Sie die Auflösung Rs, die theoretische Bodenzahl N und HETP (H) für ein Paar von HPLC-Peaks. Geben Sie die Retentionszeiten, Peakbreiten (bei 50% oder an der Basis) und die Säulenlänge an.

📚 Referenzen (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 ↗]
🧪 Systemeignung — Live-Rechner (USP <621>)

Geben Sie Daten aus 5-6 Injektionen ein (Flächen, tR, Tailing, Böden) — der Rechner berechnet %RSD, Mittelwerte und prüft die Konformität mit USP <621>. Sie können CSV (kommagetrennt) einfügen oder einzelne Werte bearbeiten.

📚 Referenzen (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."
📤 Betten Sie dieses Molekül auf Ihrer Website ein

Haben Sie einen Blog, ein Forum oder einen wissenschaftlichen Dienst? Betten Sie das interaktive 3D-Molekül auf Ihrer Website ein — jeder Ihrer Leser sieht es, und darunter gibt es einen Link zu unserem Shop, wo er das Reagenz kaufen kann.

🔗 HTML-iframe-Code (am einfachsten — funktioniert überall)

Kopieren Sie ihn und fügen Sie ihn in den HTML-Editor Ihrer Website ein:

Passen Sie width und height an Ihr Layout an.

⚙ WordPress Shortcode (für andere Shops mit MOL-GOD)

🌐 Direktlink (für E-Mails, Chats, LinkedIn, Twitter)

LinkedIn Twitter/X Facebook
QR code CAS 74-85-1

📱 QR code (zum Druck auf Flyern / Etiketten / Katalogen)

Platzieren Sie ihn in einem Produktkatalog, auf einem Flaschenetikett oder einem Flyer. Der Kunde scannt ihn — sieht das 3D-Molekül auf seinem Telefon, mit einem Link zu Ihrem Shop.

⬇ PNG herunterladen

🖼 Open Graph image (für Social-Media-Meta-Tags)

Wenn Sie den Link teilen, ruft Facebook/LinkedIn/Discord automatisch die Bildvorschau ab:

Preview
📋 Lizenz: Der Embed behält einen Backlink zu DH Scientific (erforderlich — der Shop ist die Datenquelle). Chemische Daten stammen von PubChem (CC0 — gemeinfrei). Der Embed ist KOSTENLOS für Bildungs-, kommerzielle und Hobbyzwecke.
📚 REFERENZEN (Gesammelte Bibliografie, Chicago Author-Date) 107 Einträge

Alle wissenschaftlichen Quellen, die in den Akkordeons oben für CAS 74-85-1 zitiert werden.Format: Chicago Manual of Style, 17. Aufl., Autor-Datum-System.

🗄️ Wissenschaftliche Datenbanken

  1. NIST. 2026. NIST Chemistry WebBook: CAS 74-85-1. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=74-85-1. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
  2. AIST. 2026. Spectral Database for Organic Compounds (SDBS): CAS 74-85-1. 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 74-85-1. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/#query=74-85-1. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
  4. ECHA. 2026. C&L Inventory and REACH Registration: CAS 74-85-1. Helsinki: European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/annex-vi-to-clp. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)

📐 Standards / Richtlinien

  1. ICH. 2026. "ICH Harmonised Guideline: CAS 74-85-1." 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.

📖 Bücher

  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.

📘 Monografien

  1. IARC. 2026. IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans: CAS 74-85-1. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications/. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)

📄 Wissenschaftliche Artikel (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 74-85-1." 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 74-85-1." 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 74-85-1." 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 74-85-1." 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 74-85-1." 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.
📥 BibTeX herunterladen📥 RIS herunterladenImport in Zotero/Mendeley/EndNote/Papers.