L-menthol — label CAS 2216-51-5

L-menthol

0,99 €

L-Mentol, CAS 2216-51-5

🔒 Demo mode — this item is not for sale.

Legal substance. dhscientific.com is a demonstration of the MOL-GOD platform — we sell nothing and no orders are fulfilled. Banned substances are blocked here automatically from the regulatory canon (compare e.g. Heptachlor).

Audit of your SDS — free → · Contact

MolGod_SDSCARD_1
REACH 2020/878
v2 · 15.07.2026
Kategoria:
🧬 3D Molecule Visualizer
Loading molecule...
3D model (-)-Menthol, CAS 2216-51-5, molecular formula C10H20O, molar mass 156.26 g/mol

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

Chemical Overview: (-)-MentholMolGod_OVERVIEW_1
Molecular formulaC10H20O[1]
Molecular weight156.26 g/mol[1]
Melting point43 °C[1]
Boiling point212 °C[1]
Density0.904 g/cm³[1]
LogP (lipophilicity)3[1]
IUPAC name(1R,2S,5R)-5-methyl-2-propan-2-ylcyclohexan-1-ol[1]
SMILESC[C@@H]1CC[C@H]([C@@H](C1)O)C(C)C[1]
InChIKeyNOOLISFMXDJSKH-KXUCPTDWSA-N[1]

Synonyms: l-Menthol · (-)-menthol · 2216-51-5 · Levomenthol · l-(-)-Menthol

Data sources: PubChem (NLM/NIH)
Last updated: 2026-08-07

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

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

[1]EuropePMC2025
Decoding the Molecular Mechanisms of Menthol Isomer Perception Based on Computational Simulations
Wang M, Wen F, Zhang L, Sun B, Xie J, Sun S, Zhang Y.. 2025. "Decoding the Molecular Mechanisms of Menthol Isomer Perception Based on Computational Simulations." . https://doi.org/10.3390/foods1414249
Beijing Life Science Academy
Go to full study ↗
📊 Physicochemical properties

Quick Reference

Formula: C10H20O
MW: 156.26 g/mol
CAS: 2216-51-5
Appearance: Crystals or granules
Odour: Peppermint odor
🔬 Advanced Properties

Chemical Identifiers

SMILES: C[C@@H]1CC[C@H]([C@@H](C1)O)C(C)C

Last updated: 2026-07-11

Regulatory status of the substance
This substance is subject to regulatory requirements: hazardous waste management (BDO register). Details in the \"Regulatory Status (REACH/ECHA/CLP)\" section and on the SDS. Regulatory information — does not restrict purchase in this store.
🧮 Stoichiometry CalculatorMolGod_STOICH_1
🔍 External identifiersMolGod_EXTID_1
14 of 16 ID systems88%
DatabaseIdentifierActions
CAS Registry Number2216-51-5Open →
PubChem CID16666[1]Open →
InChIKeyNOOLISFMXDJSKH-KXUCPTDWSA-N[1]Open →
InChIInChI=1S/C10H20O/c1-7(2)9-5-4-8(3)6-10(9)11/h7-1…[1]
SMILESC[C@@H]1CC[C@H]([C@@H](C1)O)C(C)C[1]
EC Number218-690-9[2]Open →
ChEMBLCHEMBL470670[3]Open →
DrugBankDB00825Open →
KEGG CompoundC00400Open →
HMDBHMDB0003352Open →
ChemSpider15803[4]Open →
UNII (FDA)BZ1R15MTK7Open →
NSC Number (NCI)62788Open →
WikiData QIDQ407418Open →

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

📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) (4 sources)
  1. PubChem. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NIH/NLM), chemical compound database. ↗ dotyczy: PubChem CID · InChIKey · InChI · SMILES
  2. ECHA. EC Inventory — EINECS, ELINCS, NLP and List Numbers assigned under REACH. Helsinki: European Chemicals Agency. ↗ dotyczy: EC Number
  3. ChEMBL. European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), bioactivity database. ↗ dotyczy: ChEMBL
  4. ChemSpider. Royal Society of Chemistry, chemical structure database. ↗ dotyczy: ChemSpider
📡 Spectroscopy — CAS 2216-51-5MolGod_SPECHUB_MAIN
📊 Spectra (NMR, IR, MS, UV-Vis) (1)

Available spectrum types: IR

IR spectrum (KBr, 4000-400 cm⁻¹)

413 data points · Source: NIST WebBook · NIST ↗ · 📥 JCAMP-DX
🎓 Spectrum interpretation guide (for students)
How to read an IR spectrum
  • 3200-3600 cm⁻¹ — O-H stretch (broad peak = hydrogen bonding)
  • 2850-3000 cm⁻¹ — C-H stretch (sp³)
  • 1650-1750 cm⁻¹ — C=O stretch (ketones, aldehydes, esters)
  • 1400-1600 cm⁻¹ — aromatic ring vibrations
  • 1000-1300 cm⁻¹ — C-O stretch (ethers, alcohols)
  • No absorption = no functional group → compare with a reference

Sources: LibreTexts ↗, Silverstein (Spectrometric ID) ↗

📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) (7 sources)
  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. ↗
📐 Physical & Chemical Properties (DB) 6 fields MolGod Score: Reliable
Property Value Unit Conditions Source
Melting point 43 [1] °C 1 atm PubChem PUG-View
Boiling point 212 [1] °C PubChem PUG-View
Water solubility 0.49 [1] g/L 25°C PubChem PUG-View
Density (ρ) 0.904 [1] g/cm³ 15°C PubChem PUG-View
Flash point 91.1 [1] °C closed cup PubChem PUG-View
logP (octanol/water) 3 [1] — PubChem PUG-View
📚 Scientific references (Chicago Author-Date) (1 sources)
  1. PubChem. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NIH/NLM), chemical compound database. ↗ dotyczy: Melting point · Boiling point · Water solubility · Density (ρ) · Flash point · logP (octanol/water)
🔄 Concentration unit converter LIVE MolGod_UNITCONV_1

Enter the (-)-Menthol concentration in any unit — the rest will be calculated automatically.

MW: 156.26 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 ↗

🛡️ Safety — CAS 2216-51-5MolGod_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).

⚠ Warning
GHS07 — Irritant / harmful
GHS07 Irritant / harmful

🚨 Hazard statements (H)

  • H315 — Causes skin irritation
  • H320 — Causes eye irritation
  • H336 — May cause drowsiness or dizziness
  • H402 — Harmful to aquatic life

🛡 Precautionary statements (P)

  • P264 — Wash thoroughly after handling
  • P280 — Wear protective gloves/protective clothing/eye protection/face protection
  • P302+P352 — IF ON SKIN: Wash with plenty of water
  • P332+P313 — If skin irritation occurs: Get medical advice/attention
  • P501 — Dispose of contents/container to an approved waste collection point

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

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

📚 Consolidated scientific references — Chicago Author-Date 10 sources

References collected from all Safety Hub tabs. CAS: 2216-51-5 · 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 method validation (ICH Q2(R1)) PARTIAL

3 of 3 critical 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 6 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 retention time in the plugin method database
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).
🧪 Solubility and solvent compatibility MolGod_SOLUB_1
Molecule
(-)-Menthol
Formula
C10H20O
logP (XLogP3)
3.00
Mass (g/mol)
156.26
Polarity
Hydrophobic (non-polar)

⚠️ GC estimate (Hoftyzer–Van Krevelen). No literature HSP data for this CAS — precision ±2 MPa½. Verify experimentally.

Ra < R₀ = dobra mieszalność · Ra < 1,5×R₀ = graniczna · powyżej = słaba (R₀ — promień sfery Hansena tej molekuły) Dla tej molekuły R₀ = 8.

Solvent Compat. Ra Visual GC-MS HPLC Applications References
Water (H₂O)0.49 g/L (pomiar)—
✗ NieA (aqueous) (RP)
buffercell cultureanalyticalhydrophilic extraction
Ethanol (EtOH)——brak podstawy✗ NieA/B modifier (RP/NP)
extractionspectroscopy (UV-Vis)synthesisHPLC modifier
Methanol (MeOH)——brak podstawy✗ NieA/B (RP) (RP)
HPLC (eluent)LC-MSKarl FischerUV-transparent do 205 nm
Acetone——brak podstawy✗ NieB modifier (NP)
GC headspacecrystallizationdegreasingsynthesis
Acetonitrile (ACN)——brak podstawy✗ NieB (RP) (RP)
HPLC eluent (gold standard)LC-MS (wolny cut-off UV 190 nm)peptide analysis
DMSO——brak podstawy✗ NieN/A (N/A)
NMR (d6-DMSO)cell biology (cryopreservation)drug deliverysynthesis
THF——brak podstawy✗ NieB (NP) (NP)
GPC/SEC (polymer analysis)Grignard synthesisorganometallic
DCM (CH₂Cl₂)——brak podstawy✓ TakB (NP) (NP)
extractionNP-HPLCGC-MScrystallization (anti-solvent)
Chloroform (CHCl₃)——brak podstawy✓ TakN/A (toxic) (N/A)
NMR (CDCl3)lipid extraction (Folch method)NP-TLC
Hexane——brak podstawy✓ TakA (NP) (NP)
NP-HPLCoil extraction (lipids)GC-MSTLC (NP)
Toluene——brak podstawy✓ TakB (NP) (NP)
NMR (d8-toluene)synthesisDean-Stark azeotropic drying
📚 Scientific references for solvents (Chicago Author-Date) — click to expand

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

Water (H₂O)
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Water (CAS 7732-18-5)
  2. CRC — CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 104th ed., Sec. 8 (Properties of Water)
  3. IAPWS — IAPWS Release on Static Dielectric Constant of Water
  4. Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Water
Ethanol (EtOH)
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Ethanol (CAS 64-17-5)
  2. CRC — CRC Handbook — Ethanol physical constants
  3. Snyder & Kirkland — Modern Liquid Chromatography — Ethanol eluotropic
  4. Smallwood — Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties — Ethanol
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Ethanol
Methanol (MeOH)
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Methanol (CAS 67-56-1)
  2. CRC — CRC Handbook — Methanol physical constants
  3. Snyder & Kirkland — Modern Liquid Chromatography — MeOH eluotropic, eo=0.95
  4. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Methanol
Acetone
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Acetone (CAS 67-64-1)
  2. CRC — CRC Handbook — Acetone physical & thermodynamic constants
  3. Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — Acetone (dD=15.5, dP=10.4, dH=7.0)
  4. Smallwood — Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties — Acetone
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Acetone
Acetonitrile (ACN)
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Acetonitrile (CAS 75-05-8)
  2. CRC — CRC Handbook — Acetonitrile constants
  3. Snyder & Kirkland — Modern Liquid Chromatography — ACN gold-standard HPLC eluent
  4. Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects — ACN dipolar aprotic
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Acetonitrile
DMSO
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — DMSO (CAS 67-68-5)
  2. Wypych 2019 — Handbook of Solvents Vol. 1 — DMSO comprehensive properties
  3. Hansen 2007 — HSP — DMSO (dD=18.4, dP=16.4, dH=10.2)
  4. Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects — DMSO E_T(30)=45.1, dipolar aprotic
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — DMSO
THF
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — THF (CAS 109-99-9)
  2. Armarego 2009 — Purification of Laboratory Chemicals — THF drying & peroxide test
  3. Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — THF (dD=16.8, dP=5.7, dH=8.0)
  4. Smallwood — Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties — THF
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Tetrahydrofuran
DCM (CH₂Cl₂)
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Dichloromethane (CAS 75-09-2)
  2. IARC 71 — IARC Monograph 71 — DCM (Group 2A carcinogen)
  3. Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — DCM (dD=18.2, dP=6.3, dH=6.1)
  4. Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects — DCM polarity index
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Dichloromethane
Chloroform (CHCl₃)
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Chloroform (CAS 67-66-3)
  2. IARC 73 — IARC Monograph 73 — Chloroform (Group 2B carcinogen)
  3. Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — CHCl3 (dD=17.8, dP=3.1, dH=5.7)
  4. Reichardt 2011 — Solvents and Solvent Effects — CHCl3 H-bond donor strength
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Chloroform
n-Hexane
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — n-Hexane (CAS 110-54-3)
  2. ATSDR n-Hexane — ATSDR Toxicological Profile for n-Hexane — neuropatia obwodowa (n-Heksan NIE jest kancerogenem IARC)
  3. Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — n-Hexane (dD=14.9, dP=0, dH=0)
  4. Snyder & Kirkland — Modern Liquid Chromatography — n-Hexane NP standard, eo=0.00
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — n-Hexane
Toluene
  1. NIST — NIST Chemistry WebBook — Toluene (CAS 108-88-3)
  2. IARC 71 — IARC Monograph 71 — Toluene
  3. Hansen 2007 — Hansen Solubility Parameters — Toluene (dD=18.0, dP=1.4, dH=2.0)
  4. Smallwood — Handbook of Organic Solvent Properties — Toluene
  5. GESTIS — GESTIS Substance Database — Toluene
Solubility theory (applied in compatibility prediction):
  1. Yalkowsky, Samuel H., and Shri C. Valvani. 1980. "Solubility and Partitioning I: Solubility of Nonelectrolytes in Water." Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 69 (8): 912–922. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.2600690814 — General Solubility Equation (GSE): logS = 0.5 − logP − 0.01(MP−25).
  2. Hansen, Charles M. 2007. Hansen Solubility Parameters: A User's Handbook. 2nd ed. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420006834 — HSP triplet (dD, dP, dH) + Ra formula.
  3. Stefanis, E., and C. Panayiotou. 2008. "Prediction of Hansen Solubility Parameters with a New Group-Contribution Method." Int J Thermophys 29: 568–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-008-0415-z
  4. Reichardt, Christian, and Thomas Welton. 2011. Solvents and Solvent Effects in Organic Chemistry. 4th ed. Wiley-VCH. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527632220 — E_T(30) polarity scale, solwatochromia.
  5. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. 3rd ed. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183 — Eluotropic series, polarity index.
  6. Van Krevelen, D. W., and K. Te Nijenhuis. 2009. Properties of Polymers. 4th ed. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-054819-7.X0001-5 — Hoftyzer–Van Krevelen group contribution dla dD/dP/dH z SMILES.
  7. Marcus, Yizhak. 1998. The Properties of Solvents. Wiley Series in Solution Chemistry, Vol. 4. ISBN 9780471983699 — Complete tabular set of 250+ solvents (ε, μ, donicity, acceptor numbers).
  8. PubChem Compound Database — CAS 2216-51-5 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.

🧮 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
L-menthol• l-Menthol / (-)-menthol• CAS: 2216-51-5• Formula: C10H20O• Mass: 156.26 g/molWARNINGGHS HAZARD STATEMENTS:(supplier self-classification — non-binding)H315: Causes skin irritationP302+P352 P332+P313 P280 P501 P264FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY!DH ScientificScience first. Commerce as consequence.Batch No.: Netto Mass: MFG:
Deskryptory Lipinskiego (struktura)

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.

MW156.3LogP3HBD1HBA1RotB1TPSA20.2 Ų
✓ Lipinski Ro5✓ Veber✓ Egan✗ Ghose (MW=156)✗ REOS (MW=156)✓ Lead-like Ro3
PropertyValueRating
Absorption (GI)high✓
BBB permeabilityyes (crosses)
Bioavailability (Daina 2017)
55%
CYP450 profileCYP1A2 inhibitorCYP2C9 non-inhibitorCYP2C19 non-inhibitorCYP2D6 inhibitorCYP3A4 non-inhibitor
PAINS alerts0✓
Brenk alerts0✓
pKa (pH 7.4)16 (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. 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 ↗]
  22. Kim, Sunghwan, Jie Chen, Tiejun Cheng, et al. 2023. "PubChem 2023 update." Nucleic Acids Research 51 (D1): D1373-D1380. [DOI ↗]
  23. Kim, Sunghwan, Tiejun Cheng, Jianyong He, Chen Cheng, et al. 2021. "PubChem Protein, Pathway, Reaction, and Disease Specifications." Journal of Cheminformatics 13: 16. [DOI ↗]
  24. Hähnke, Volker D., Sunghwan Kim, and Evan E. Bolton. 2018. "PubChem chemical structure standardization." Journal of Cheminformatics 10: 36. [DOI ↗]
  25. Wang, Yanli, Stephen H. Bryant, Tiejun Cheng, Jiyao Wang, et al. 2017. "PubChem BioAssay: 2017 update." Nucleic Acids Research 45 (D1): D955-D963. [DOI ↗]
  26. 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 ↗]
  27. &NA;. 1993. "Menthol benefits not all in the mind." Inpharma Weekly &NA; (909): 20. https://doi.org/10.2165/00128413-199309090-00053. [DOI ↗]
  28. Wilkinson, Mark D., et al. 2016. "The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship." Scientific Data 3: 160018. [DOI ↗]
  29. Hersey, Anne, et al. 2015. "Chemical databases: curation or integration by user-defined equivalence?" Drug Discovery Today: Technologies 14: 17-24.
  30. 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.
  31. ECHA. 2024. "REACH Guidance." European Chemicals Agency. ↗
  32. 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 2216-51-5MolGod_LITHUB_MAIN
⭐ Key findings (scientific literature) 8 publications
🏆 CAS 2216-51-5 — multi-criteria ranking (W12): 30% citations · 20% recency · 20% topic · 15% historical · 15% open access.
  1. #1
    Xu L; Han Y; Chen X et al. (2020) · Nature communications
    Why it matters: Must-cite (canon) · 114 citations · open access
    SCORE 12.23 Mechanism MUST-CITE Citations: 114 Open Access DOI ↗
  2. #2
    C. Haziza, G. de La Bourdonnaye, A. Donelli et al. (2019) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research
    Why it matters: Open access
    SCORE 11.36 Mechanism Citations: 73 Influential: 2 Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  3. #3
    Vojtěch Štejfa, Ala Bazyleva, Michal Fulem et al. (2018) · The Journal of Chemical Thermodynamics
    Why it matters: Open access
    SCORE 9.98 Mechanism Citations: 59 Open Access DOI ↗
  4. #4
    Mengxue Wang, Fengge Wen, Lili Zhang et al. (2025) · Foods
    Why it matters: Recent (2025) · open access
    SCORE 9.15 Mechanism Citations: 4 Open Access DOI ↗
  5. #5
    Jovana Panić, Maksim Rapaić, Slobodan Gadžurić et al. (2023) · Molecules
    Why it matters: Recent (2023) · open access
    SCORE 8.69 Mechanism Citations: 6 Open Access DOI ↗
  6. #6
    Jih‐Terng Wang, Yiyun Chen, Kwee Siong Tew et al. (2012) · PLoS ONE
    Why it matters: Open access
    SCORE 8.39 Mechanism Citations: 69 Open Access DOI ↗
  7. #7
    et al. (2025) · ChemSusChem
    Why it matters: Recent (2025) · open access
    SCORE 7.05 Mechanism Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
  8. #8
    Mulcahy MJ, Huard SM, Paulo JA et al. (2021) · Journal of neurochemistry
    Why it matters: Open access
    SCORE 5.55 Mechanism Open Access DOI ↗ PubMed ↗
📈 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: 3 (PubChem XLogP3)
  • Ramp: 29% → 95% B, 15 min
  • Total analysis time: 28 min
t (min) %A %B flow (mL/min) Comment
0 71 29 1 start (equilibrium)
2 71 29 1 end of initial hold
17 5 95 1 end of LSS ramp
22 5 95 1 column wash
23 71 29 1 return to init
28 71 29 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.

REST: /wp-json/molgod/v1/hplc/gradient/2216-51-5

📐 HPLC peak symmetry calculator (USP Tf / As)

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

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

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

📚 References (Chicago Author-Date)
  1. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-16754-0. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183 [link ↗] — Chapter 2 covers resolution, plate count and HETP fundamentals (Snyder et al. 2010).
  2. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography." USP-NF 2024 ed. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. [link ↗] — Defines Rs >= 1.5 acceptance criterion and N calculation methods.
  3. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "How much resolution is enough?." LCGC North America 21: 350-353 [link ↗] — Practical guidance on Rs targets for routine method development.
  4. Van Deemter, J. J., F. J. Zuiderweg, and A. Klinkenberg. 1956. "Longitudinal diffusion and resistance to mass transfer as causes of nonideality in chromatography." Chemical Engineering Science 5: 271-289 https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(56)80003-1 [link ↗] — Origin of N = 5.54·(tr/w0.5)² half-height plate count formulation.
  5. Giddings, J. Calvin. 1965. "Dynamics of Chromatography, Part I: Principles and Theory." Marcel Dekker. ISBN 978-0-8247-1357-7. — Resolution equation Rs = (1/4)·√N·(α-1)/α·k/(1+k) (master equation).
  6. Foley, Joe P., and John G. Dorsey. 1983. "Equations for calculation of chromatographic figures of merit for ideal and skewed peaks." Analytical Chemistry 55: 730-737 https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00255a033 [link ↗] — Skewed-peak corrections to apparent N.
  7. Knox, John H.. 1977. "Practical aspects of LC theory." Journal of Chromatographic Science 15: 352-364 https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/15.9.352 [link ↗]
  8. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC." Journal of Chromatography A 1216: 1764-1772 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.094 [link ↗]
  9. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. "HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists." 2nd ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-119-31378-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793 [link ↗]
  10. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. "Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography." 5th ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-68218-0.
🧪 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.
🔄 Analiza chiralna / enancjomery chiralnaMolGod_CHIRAL_1

Stereochemia, skręcalność właściwa i rekomendowana kolumna chiralna HPLC dla CAS 2216-51-5 (CIP per Cahn-Ingold-Prelog 1966).

Predictive data — CIP configuration derived from the SMILES structure. Specific rotation and column selection are estimated values. Verify against ChemSpider/PubChem and a CD spectrum before analytical use.

Centra stereogeniczne
3
Konfiguracja
(R) — konfiguracja absolutna (CIP)
Skręcalność właściwa [α]D20
-50,00°
(−) lewoskrętne • rozp.: EtOH • c=10, 20°C
Enancjomer (para)
CAS 15356-60-2
Rekomendowana kolumna HPLC
Chiraldex G-TA (γ-cyclodextrin GC)
Faza ruchoma (eluent)
GC: H2 carrier, 80-180°C @ 3°C/min
Bibliography (Chicago author-date)
  • Eliel, Ernest L., Samuel H. Wilen, and Lewis N. Mander. 1994. "Stereochemistry of Organic Compounds." New York: Wiley.
  • Cahn, Robert S., Christopher Ingold, and Vladimir Prelog. 1966. "Specification of Molecular Chirality." Angewandte Chemie International Edition 5 (4): 385-415. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.196603851.
  • Subramanian, Ganapathy, ed. 2007. "Chiral Separation Techniques: A Practical Approach." 3rd ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
  • Francotte, Eric, and Wolfgang Lindner, eds. 2006. "Chirality in Drug Research." Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
  • U.S. FDA. 1992. "FDA's Policy Statement for the Development of New Stereoisomeric Drugs." Chirality 4 (5): 338-340. https://doi.org/10.1002/chir.530040513.
  • Patani, George A., and Edmond J. LaVoie. 1996. "Bioisosterism: A Rational Approach in Drug Design." Chemical Reviews 96 (8): 3147-3176.
  • Meanwell, Nicholas A. 2011. "Synopsis of Some Recent Tactical Application of Bioisosteres in Drug Design." Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 54 (8): 2529-2591.
  • 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.
  • Easson, Leslie H., and Edgar Stedman. 1933. "Studies on the relationship between chemical constitution and physiological action: molecular dissymmetry and physiological activity." Biochemical Journal 27 (4): 1257-1266. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0271257.
  • Pirkle, William H., and Thomas C. Pochapsky. 1989. "Considerations of chiral recognition relevant to the liquid chromatography separation of enantiomers." Chemical Reviews 89 (2): 347-362. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr00092a006.
  • Dale, James A., and Harry S. Mosher. 1973. "Nuclear magnetic resonance enantiomer reagents: configurational correlations via nuclear magnetic resonance chemical shifts of diastereomeric mandelate, O-methylmandelate, and α-methoxy-α-trifluoromethylphenylacetate (MTPA) esters." Journal of the American Chemical Society 95 (2): 512-519. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00783a034.
  • Beesley, Thomas E., and Raymond P. W. Scott. 1998. Chiral Chromatography. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Allenmark, Stig G. 1991. Chromatographic Enantioseparation: Methods and Applications. 2nd ed. New York: Ellis Horwood.
  • Wainer, Irving W., ed. 1993. Drug Stereochemistry: Analytical Methods and Pharmacology. 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker.
  • Aboul-Enein, Hassan Y., and Irving W. Wainer, eds. 1997. The Impact of Stereochemistry on Drug Development and Use. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Ahuja, Satinder, ed. 2000. Chiral Separations by Liquid Chromatography. ACS Symposium Series 471. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
  • Maier, Norbert M., Pilar Franco, and Wolfgang Lindner. 2001. "Separation of enantiomers: needs, challenges, perspectives." Journal of Chromatography A 906 (1-2): 3-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(00)00532-X.
  • Schurig, Volker. 2001. "Separation of enantiomers by gas chromatography." Journal of Chromatography A 906 (1-2): 275-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(00)00505-7.
  • Berthod, Alain. 2009. "Chiral recognition mechanisms with macrocyclic glycopeptide selectors." Chirality 21 (1): 167-175. https://doi.org/10.1002/chir.20600.
  • Okamoto, Yoshio, and Eiji Yashima. 1998. "Polysaccharide derivatives for chromatographic separation of enantiomers." Angewandte Chemie International Edition 37 (8): 1020-1043. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-3773(19980504)37:8<1020::AID-ANIE1020>3.0.CO;2-5.
  • Lämmerhofer, Michael. 2010. "Chiral recognition by enantioselective liquid chromatography: mechanisms and modern chiral stationary phases." Journal of Chromatography A 1217 (6): 814-856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2009.10.022.
  • Caner, Hava, Eli Groner, Liron Levy, and Israel Agranat. 2004. "Trends in the development of chiral drugs." Drug Discovery Today 9 (3): 105-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6446(03)02904-0.
  • Agranat, Israel, Hava Caner, and John Caldwell. 2002. "Putting chirality to work: the strategy of chiral switches." Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 1 (10): 753-768. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd915.
  • Crosby, John. 1991. "Synthesis of optically active compounds: a large-scale perspective." Tetrahedron 47 (27): 4789-4846. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-4020(01)80950-6.
  • Nguyen, Lien Ai, Hua He, and Chuong Pham-Huy. 2006. "Chiral drugs: an overview." International Journal of Biomedical Science 2 (2): 85-100.
  • Eriksson, Tommy, Sven Björkman, and Peter Höglund. 2001. "Clinical pharmacology of thalidomide." European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 57 (5): 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002280100320.
  • Evans, Andrew M. 2007. "Comparative pharmacology of S(+)-ibuprofen and (RS)-ibuprofen." Clinical Rheumatology 20 (Suppl 1): S9-S14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03342661.
  • IUPAC. 1996. "Basic terminology of stereochemistry (IUPAC recommendations 1996)." Pure and Applied Chemistry 68 (12): 2193-2222. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac199668122193.
  • Mislow, Kurt, and Jay Siegel. 1984. "Stereoisomerism and local chirality." Journal of the American Chemical Society 106 (11): 3319-3328. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00323a043.
  • Francotte, Eric R. 2001. "Enantioselective chromatography as a powerful alternative for the preparation of drug enantiomers." Journal of Chromatography A 906 (1-2): 379-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(00)00951-1.
  • Welch, Christopher J. 1994. "Evolution of chiral stationary phase design in the Pirkle laboratories." Journal of Chromatography A 666 (1-2): 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9673(94)80367-6.
  • Armstrong, Daniel W., Yibing Tang, Shengsheng Chen, et al. 1994. "Macrocyclic antibiotics as a new class of chiral selectors for liquid chromatography." Analytical Chemistry 66 (9): 1473-1484. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00081a019.
  • Pirkle, William H., Donn W. House, and Jerald M. Finn. 1980. "Broad spectrum resolution of optical isomers using chiral high-performance liquid chromatographic bonded phases." Journal of Chromatography A 192 (1): 143-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9673(80)80043-3.
  • European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare. 2024. European Pharmacopoeia 11.5: Chapter 2.2.7 Optical rotation. Strasbourg: EDQM Council of Europe.
  • United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 2024. USP-NF General Chapter <781> Optical Rotation. Rockville, MD: USP.
  • Gal, Joseph. 2017. "Pasteur and the art of chirality." Nature Chemistry 9 (7): 604-605. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2790.
  • Pasteur, Louis. 1848. "Mémoire sur la relation qui peut exister entre la forme cristalline et la composition chimique, et sur la cause de la polarisation rotatoire." Comptes rendus de l'Académie des sciences 26: 535-538.
  • Le Bel, Joseph A. 1874. "Sur les relations qui existent entre les formules atomiques des corps organiques et le pouvoir rotatoire de leurs dissolutions." Bulletin de la Société Chimique de France 22: 337-347.
  • van 't Hoff, Jacobus Henricus. 1874. "Voorstel tot uitbreiding der tegenwoordige in de scheikunde gebruikte structuur-formules in de ruimte, benevens een daarmede samenhangende opmerking omtrent het verband tusschen optisch actief vermogen en chemische constitutie van organische verbindingen." Utrecht: J. Greven.
Extended bibliography — 1 sources (PubMed/CrossRef/EuropePMC)
  • EURWang M, Wen F, Zhang L, Sun B, Xie J, Sun S, Zhang Y.. 2025. "Decoding the Molecular Mechanisms of Menthol Isomer Perception Based on Computational Simulations." . https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14142494.
📤 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 2216-51-5

📱 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) 126 items

All scientific sources cited in the accordions above for CAS 2216-51-5. Format: Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed., Author-Date system.

🗄️ Scientific databases

  1. NIST. n.d. NIST Chemistry WebBook: CAS 2216-51-5. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=2216-51-5.
  2. AIST. n.d. Spectral Database for Organic Compounds (SDBS): CAS 2216-51-5. Tsukuba, Japan: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology. https://sdbs.db.aist.go.jp/.
  3. Linstrom, Peter J., and William G. Mallard, eds. n.d. NIST Chemistry WebBook: NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.18434/T4D303.
  4. PubChem. n.d. PubChem Compound Summary: CAS 2216-51-5. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/#query=2216-51-5.
  5. U.S. EPA. n.d. CompTox Chemicals Dashboard: CAS 2216-51-5. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical/details/DTXSID1022180.

📐 Standards / Guidelines

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

📖 Books

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

📄 Scientific articles (peer-reviewed)

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

🌐 Websites

  1. ECHA. 2023. "Guidance on the Application of the CLP Criteria." European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/guidance-documents/guidance-on-clp.
  2. European Parliament. 2006. "Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH)." Official Journal of the European Union L 396: 1–849.
  3. ECHA. 2023. "Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern for Authorisation." European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table.
  4. European Parliament. 2008. "Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (CLP)." Official Journal of the European Union L 353: 1–1355.
  5. ECHA. 2017. "Guidance on the Compilation of Safety Data Sheets." Version 3.1. European Chemicals Agency. ECHA-17-G-01-EN. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23047722/sds_en.pdf.
  6. ECHA. 2022. "Restrictions Under REACH — Annex XVII." European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/substances-restricted-under-reach.
  7. United Nations. 2021. Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). 9th revised ed. ST/SG/AC.10/30/Rev.9. New York and Geneva: United Nations. https://unece.org/ghs-rev9-2021.
  8. ECHA. 2020. "Understanding REACH." European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach.
  9. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2024) — 29 CFR 1910.120 — Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) https://www.osha.gov/hazwoper.
  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 Parliament and Council (2012) — Directive 2012/18/EU on the Control of Major-Accident Hazards Involving Dangerous Substances (Seveso III) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32012L0018.
  12. U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2024) — NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/.
  13. European Chemicals Agency (2020) — Guidance on the Compilation of Safety Data Sheets (SDS), Version 3.1 https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23047722/sds_en.pdf.
  14. Snyder, Lloyd R., John W. Dolan, and Joseph J. Kirkland. 2010. Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography. Wiley.
  15. Schoenmakers, Peter J.. 1986. Optimization of Chromatographic Selectivity: A Guide to Method Development. Elsevier.
  16. Snyder, L. R., and J. W. Dolan. 2007. High-Performance Gradient Elution: The Practical Application of the Linear-Solvent-Strength Model. Wiley.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. Dolan, John W.. 2013. "When to Modify Method Conditions." LCGC North America 31: 192-199. https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/when-modify-method-conditions.
  23. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. Wiley.
  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. Engelhardt, Heinz. 2014. "100 Years of Chromatography." Wiley-VCH.
  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. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2023. "Validation of Analytical Procedures Q2(R2)." ICH Expert Working Group. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/ICH_Q2-R2_Document_Step4_Guideline_2023_1101.pdf.
  40. 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.
  41. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183.
  42. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "Peak tailing and resolution." https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/peak-tailing-and-resolution.
  43. Vivó-Truyols, Gabriel, and Hans-Gerd Janssen. 2010. "Probabilistic approach to peak deconvolution in chromatography." https://doi.org/10.1021/ac101742z.
  44. Kromidas, Stavros. 2017. "HPLC Made to Measure: A Practical Handbook for Optimization." Wiley-VCH.
  45. Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. "Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods." https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2008.10.052.
  46. 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/.
  47. 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.
  48. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2022. "ICH Q2(R2): Validation of Analytical Procedures." International Council for Harmonisation. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/ICH_Q2%28R2%29_Guideline_2022_1130.pdf.
  49. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 1996. "ICH Q3A: Impurities in New Drug Substances." International Council for Harmonisation. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q3A%28R2%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  50. 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.
  51. Kolthoff, Izaak Maurits, and Philip J. Elving, eds. 1978. Treatise on Analytical Chemistry, Part I: Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
  52. Skoog, Douglas A., F. James Holler, and Stanley R. Crouch. 2018. Principles of Instrumental Analysis. 7th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning.
  53. Christian, Gary D., Purnendu K. Dasgupta, and Kevin A. Schug. 2014. Analytical Chemistry. 7th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  54. 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.
  55. 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.
  56. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "How much resolution is enough?." https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/how-much-resolution-enough.
  57. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography (System Suitability section)." United States Pharmacopeial Convention. https://www.usp.org/harmonization-standards/pdg/general-chapters/chromatography.
  58. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2018. "Reviewer Guidance: Validation of Chromatographic Methods." US Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/74954/download.
  59. 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.
  60. 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.
  61. Kazakevich, Yuri V., and Rosario LoBrutto, eds.. 2007. "HPLC for Pharmaceutical Scientists." Wiley-Interscience. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470087954.
  62. 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.
  63. 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.
  64. Heckert, N. A., and J. J. Filliben. 2003. "NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods." NIST Handbook 151. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.
  65. Grubbs, Frank E. 1950. "Sample Criteria for Testing Outlying Observations." Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21 (1): 27–58.
  66. Dixon, Wilfrid J. 1950. "Analysis of Extreme Values." Annals of Mathematical Statistics 21 (4): 488–506.
  67. Snedecor, George W., and William G. Cochran. 1989. Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
  68. Student [William Sealy Gosset]. 1908. "The Probable Error of a Mean." Biometrika 6 (1): 1–25.
  69. 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.
  70. 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.
  71. 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.
  72. International Air Transport Association. 2026. Dangerous Goods Regulations (DGR). 67th ed. Montreal: IATA. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/cargo/dgr/.
  73. 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.
  74. 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.
  75. 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.
  76. International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). 2005. "Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology Q2(R1)." ICH Expert Working Group. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q2%28R1%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  77. 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.
  78. 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.
  79. European Commission. 2014. "Commission Decision 2014/955/EU on the list of waste pursuant to Directive 2008/98/EC." Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0955.
  80. Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. 2020. "Rozporządzenie Ministra Klimatu z dnia 2 stycznia 2020 r. w sprawie katalogu odpadów." Dziennik Ustaw RP 2020 poz. 10. https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20200000010.
  81. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska (GIOŚ). 2024. "Baza Danych O Odpadach (BDO) — System rejestracji firm utylizacyjnych." Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska. https://bdo.mos.gov.pl/.
  82. Polska — Sejm RP. 2012. "Ustawa z dnia 14 grudnia 2012 r. o odpadach." Dz.U. 2013 poz. 21 (z późn. zm.). https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20130000021.
  83. Furr, A. Keith, ed.. 2000. "CRC Handbook of Laboratory Safety." CRC Press.
  84. Pohanish, Richard P.. 2017. "Sittig's Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens." Elsevier.
  85. Lewis, Richard J.. 2012. "Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials." Wiley.
  86. NIOSH. 2024. "Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards." U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/.
  87. OSHA. 2024. "Occupational Chemical Database — Hazardous Waste Operations (HAZWOPER)." Occupational Safety and Health Administration. https://www.osha.gov/chemicaldata.
  88. European Parliament and Council. 2008. "Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive)." Official Journal of the European Union L 312/3. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098.
  89. European Parliament and Council. 2009. "Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP) on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures." Official Journal of the European Union L 353. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008R1272.
  90. 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.
  91. IPCS INCHEM. 2024. "International Programme on Chemical Safety — Waste Management Guidelines." WHO/UNEP/ILO. https://www.inchem.org/.
  92. European Parliament and Council. 2006. "Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on Shipments of Waste." Official Journal of the European Union L 190: 1–98. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006R1013.
  93. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2000. "Q7 Good Manufacturing Practice Guide for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients." ICH Expert Working Group. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q7%20Guideline.pdf.
  94. 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.
  95. 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.
  96. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2003. "ICH Q1A(R2): Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products." International Council for Harmonisation. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q1A%28R2%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  97. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2006. "ICH Q3A(R2): Impurities in New Drug Substances." ICH. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q3A%28R2%29%20Guideline.pdf.
  98. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 1999. "ICH Q6A: Specifications for New Drug Substances and Products." ICH. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q6A%20Guideline.pdf.
  99. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2008. "ICH Q10: Pharmaceutical Quality System." ICH. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/Q10%20Guideline.pdf.
  100. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2024. "21 CFR Part 211: Current Good Manufacturing Practice for Finished Pharmaceuticals." US Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-211.
  101. 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.
  102. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. 2024. "United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary, USP 47-NF 42." USP. https://www.uspnf.com/.
  103. European Pharmacopoeia Commission. 2024. "European Pharmacopoeia 11th Edition." Council of Europe — EDQM. https://www.edqm.eu/en/european-pharmacopoeia-ph-eur-11th-edition.
  104. 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.
  105. 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.

Opis

L-Mentol, CAS 2216-51-5

Opinie

Na razie nie ma opinii o produkcie.

Napisz pierwszą opinię o „L-menthol”

Podobne produkty

Inne produkty z tej kategorii