difluorométhane — étiquette CAS 75-10-5

difluorométhane

1,00 €

R-32 (difluorometan), CAS 75-10-5

🔒 Mode démo — cet article n'est pas à vendre.

Substance légale. dhscientific.com est une démonstration de la plateforme MOL-GOD — nous ne vendons rien et aucune commande n'est traitée. Les substances interdites sont bloquées ici automatiquement à partir du canon réglementaire (comparez p. ex. l'heptachlore).

Audit de votre FDS — gratuit → · Contact

MolGod_SDSCARD_1
REACH 2020/878
v1 · 18.07.2026
Category:
🧬 Visualiseur de molécule 3D
Chargement de la molécule...
Modèle 3D Difluoromethane, CAS 75-10-5, formule brute CH2F2, masse molaire 52.023 g/mol
Aperçu chimique: DifluoromethaneMolGod_OVERVIEW_1
Formule bruteCH2F2
Masse moléculaire52.023 g/mol
Point de fusion-136.8 °C
Point d'ébullition-51.65 °C
Densité1.21 g/cm³
LogP (lipophilie)1
Nom IUPACdifluoromethane
SMILESC(F)F
InChIKeyRWRIWBAIICGTTQ-UHFFFAOYSA-N

Synonymes: DIFLUOROMETHANE · 75-10-5 · Methylene difluoride · Methane, difluoro- · Freon 32

Sources des données : PubChem (NLM/NIH)
Dernière mise à jour : 2026-11-10

📊 Propriétés physicochimiques

Aperçu rapide

Formule : CH2F2
MW : 52.02 g/mol
CAS : 75-10-5
Aspect : Colorless gas

Propriétés détaillées

Propriété Valeur Unité Conditions Source
Masse volumique (ρ) 1.2100 g/cm³ 20 °C (68 °F)
Point de fusion (mp) -136.80 °C (-214.2 °F) 1 atm
Point d'ébullition (bp) -51.65 °C (-61 °F) 1 atm
🔬 Propriétés avancées

Identifiants chimiques

SMILES: C(F)F

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

Dernière mise à jour : 2026-07-11

Statut réglementaire de la substance
Cette substance est soumise à des exigences réglementaires : gestion des déchets dangereux (BDO). Détails dans la section « Statut réglementaire (REACH/ECHA/CLP) » et sur la FDS. Information réglementaire — ne restreint pas l'achat dans la boutique.
🧮 Calculateur stœchiométriqueMolGod_STOICH_1
🔍 Identifiants externesMolGod_EXTID_1
10 sur 16 systèmes d'ID63%
Base de donnéesIdentifiantActions
CAS Registry Number75-10-5Ouvrir →
PubChem CID6345Ouvrir →
InChIKeyRWRIWBAIICGTTQ-UHFFFAOYSA-NOuvrir →
InChIInChI=1S/CH2F2/c2-1-3/h1H2
SMILESC(F)F
EC Number200-839-4Ouvrir →
HMDBHMDB0251269Ouvrir →
ChemSpider6105Ouvrir →
UNII (FDA)77JW9K722XOuvrir →
WikiData QIDQ421742Ouvrir →

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

📡 Spectroscopie — CAS 75-10-5MolGod_SPECHUB_MAIN
📊 Bases de données de spectres spectroscopiques — données inline 9 sources MolGod_SPECDB_2

Les spectres sont récupérés à la demande depuis 9 sources. Chaque spectre est enregistré dans notre base — la prochaine ouverture = zéro requête vers l'API externe. Téléchargez JCAMP-DX / CSV / PNG pour chaque spectre sans avoir à chercher.

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

Source de référence — pas d'API publique. Ouvrir dans une base externe :

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

Source de référence — pas d'API publique. Ouvrir dans une base externe :

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

Source de référence — pas d'API publique. Ouvrir dans une base externe :

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

Source de référence — pas d'API publique. Ouvrir dans une base externe :

🔗 DOAJ →
📚 DOAJ — doaj.org

Données récupérées par MolGod_Spectra_Remote_Fetcher (parseur JCAMP-DX) et enregistrées dans la table wp_molgod_spectra_cache. Zéro téléchargement en double, zéro requête vers NIST lors des ouvertures suivantes. Licences respectées (seuls un deep-link et notre propre visualisation sont publiés).

🔬 Spectres interactifs (live — NIST / MoNA / NMRShiftDB / SDBS) (2)

Données récupérées en direct depuis plusieurs sources (priority-chain). JCAMP-DX / CSV / PNG disponibles au téléchargement sous chaque spectre.

IR — infrarouge à transformée de Fourier

Chargement de IR — infrarouge à transformée de Fourier…

MS — spectrométrie de masse (EI 70eV)

Chargement de MS — spectrométrie de masse (EI 70eV)…

📐 Propriétés physico-chimiques (base de données) 4 champs Score MolGod : Aucune source
Propriété Valeur Unité Conditions Source
Point de fusion -136.80 °C 1 atm
Point d'ébullition -51.65 °C 760 mmHg
Masse volumique (ρ) 1.2100 g/cm³ 20°C
logP (octanol/eau) 1.000 — 25°C
📚 Références scientifiques (Chicago Author-Date) (12 sources)
  1. Haynes, William M., ed. 2024. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 105th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-032-55554-4. ↗
  2. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 2024. "NIST Chemistry WebBook, SRD 69." Gaithersburg, MD: NIST. Accessed 2025-01-01. ↗
  3. Yaws, Carl L. 2014. The Yaws Handbook of Physical Properties for Hydrocarbons and Chemicals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Gulf Professional Publishing.
  4. PubChem. 2024. "PubChem Compound Database." National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. Accessed 2025-01-01. ↗
  5. Marrero, J., and R. Gani. 2001. "Group-Contribution Based Estimation of Pure Component Properties." Fluid Phase Equilibria 183–184: 183–208. ↗
  6. Joback, K. G., and R. C. Reid. 1987. "Estimation of Pure-Component Properties from Group-Contributions." Chemical Engineering Communications 57 (1–6): 233–243. ↗
  7. Sangster, J. 1997. Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients: Fundamentals and Physical Chemistry. Chichester: Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-97397-3.
  8. Mannhold, Raimund, and Han van de Waterbeemd. 2001. "Substructure and Whole Molecule Approaches for Calculating Log P." Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 15 (4): 337–354. ↗
  9. Perrin, Ditlev D., Boyd Dempsey, and E. P. Serjeant. 1981. pKa Prediction for Organic Acids and Bases. London: Chapman and Hall. ISBN 0-412-21090-5.
  10. Constantinou, Leonidas, and Rafiqul Gani. 1994. "New Group Contribution Method for Estimating Properties of Pure Compounds." AIChE Journal 40 (10): 1697–1710. ↗
  11. Ertl, Peter, Bernhard Rohde, and Paul Selzer. 2000. "Fast Calculation of Molecular Polar Surface Area as a Sum of Fragment-Based Contributions and Its Application to the Prediction of Drug Transport Properties." Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 43 (20): 3714–3717. ↗
🔄 Convertisseur d'unités de concentration LIVE MolGod_UNITCONV_1

Saisissez la concentration Difluoromethane dans n'importe quelle unité — le reste sera calculé automatiquement.

MW : 52.023 g/mol · IUPAC Gold Book ↗

⚗️ Formules de conversion + citations (par formule)
ConversionFormulePrécisionSource
% (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 sources faisant autorité)
  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
Compatibilité avec les solvantsMolGod_SOLV_1

Estimation basée sur la solubilité dans l'eau et le logP. Données indicatives — ne remplacent pas les études expérimentales.

SolvantCompatibilitéRemarquesRéférences
Water~ ModéréelogP modéré
EtOH+ BonneEtOH — solvant polaire universel
Acetone+ BonneAcétone — bon pour les composés moyennement polaires
DCM+ BonneDCM — bon pour les composés apolaires
DMSO+ BonneDMSO — solvant aprotique puissant
THF+ BonneTHF — large gamme de solubilité
Hexane- FaibleFaible solubilité dans l'hexane
CHCl3+ BonneCHCl3 — bon pour les composés moyennement polaires et apolaires

Sources des données pour logP/solubilité : logP: 1.00

📚 Références scientifiques pour les solvants (Chicago Author-Date) — cliquer pour développer

Chaque solvant dispose de 5 sources scientifiques indépendantes (NIST/CRC/IARC/Hansen/Reichardt/Smallwood/GESTIS). Citations complètes ci-dessous.

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 ↗]
Théorie de la solubilité (appliquée à la prédiction de la compatibilité) :
  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 — Triplet HSP (dD, dP, dH) + formule Ra.
  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 75-10-5 lookup ↗ — logP (XLogP3), water solubility experimental + predicted.

Bibliographie complète dans l'accordéon RÉFÉRENCES (en bas de la page) — Chicago Manual of Style 17th ed., Author-Date.

🛡️ Sécurité — CAS 75-10-5MolGod_SAFEHUB_MAIN
Avis sur les limitations des données. Les informations de sécurité figurant sur cette page sont fournies à titre indicatif et ne remplacent pas une fiche de données de sécurité (SDS) complète. Avant d'utiliser le produit, consultez la fiche de données de sécurité actuelle du fabricant ainsi que les directives GHS/CLP. La classification CLP s'applique à la substance pure en vrac, et non aux préparations commerciales.

Classification GHS/CLP — Règlement (CE) n° 1272/2008 + UN GHS Rev. 9 (2021).

⚠️ Danger
GHS02 — Inflammable
GHS02 Inflammable
GHS04 — Gaz sous pression
GHS04 Gaz sous pression
GHS07 — Irritant / nocif
GHS07 Irritant / nocif

🚨 Mentions de danger (H)

  • H220 — Gaz extrêmement inflammable.
  • H280 — Contient un gaz sous pression; peut exploser sous l'effet de la chaleur.
  • H336 — Peut provoquer somnolence ou vertiges.

🛡 Conseils de prudence (P)

  • P203 — Se procurer, lire et suivre toutes les instructions de sécurité avant l’utilisation.

⚠ Classification basée sur un consensus de sources (PubChem / déclarations des fournisseurs) — non vérifiée par rapport à la classification harmonisée de l'annexe VI (CLP). L'étendue des dangers peut être plus large que la classification officielle ; avant utilisation, vérifier avec la fiche de données de sécurité actuelle du fournisseur.

Traductions : Règlement CLP (CE) 1272/2008, Annexe III et IV. Données : PubChem/NLM.

📚 Références scientifiques consolidées — Chicago auteur-date 10 sources

Références collectées dans tous les onglets du Safety Hub. CAS : 75-10-5 · 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, Réglementations
  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

Les onglets possédant leurs propres références (Emergency, PPE, Storage, Waste) contiennent des entrées bibliographiques supplémentaires au sein de leurs sections respectives.

📈 Statistiques analytiques (test t · RSD · Grubbs · Q-Dixon) ICH Q2

Collez une série de mesures répétées (CSV ou un nombre par ligne). Le calculateur calculera la moyenne, l'écart-type, l'IC à 95 %, et détectera les valeurs aberrantes (Grubbs + Dixon Q).

Séparateur : virgule, espace, tabulation, nouvelle ligne. Min. 3 mesures.
📐 Formules statistiques
  • x̄ = Σxᵢ / n — moyenne arithmétique
  • s² = Σ(xᵢ - x̄)² / (n-1) — variance de l'échantillon
  • s = √s² — écart-type
  • RSD% = (s / x̄) × 100% — écart-type relatif
  • CI₉₅ = x̄ ± t(0.05, n-1) × s / √n — Student's t
  • G = |xᵢ - x̄| / s — test de Grubbs
  • Q = |xsuspect - xnearest| / |xmax - xmin| — Dixon Q-test

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

🔬 Méthodes HPLC/GC (3 metod)
📄
Optimization of Combined Ultrasound and Microwave-Assisted Extraction for Enhanced Bioactive Compounds Recovery from Four Medicinal Plants: Oregano, Rosemary, Hypericum, and Chamomile
HPLCMolecules202493% ✓CC-BYResearch method (specificity, robustness)
Colonne : C18, 250 x 4.6 mm, 300 μm
Phase : mobile phase was 90% A, 6% B, 4% C and 0% D
Détection : UV 515 nm
Débit : 1.00 mL/min
Temp. : 30.0 °C
Inj.: 20 μL
Gradient: pump and a diode array detector (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan)
Laina K, Drosou C, Stergiopoulos C, Eleni P, Krokida M. Optimization of Combined Ultrasound and Microwave-Assisted Extraction for Enhanced Bioactive Compounds Recovery from Four Medicinal Plants: Oregano, Rosemary, Hypericum, and Chamomile. Molecules. 2024;29:5773. doi:10.3390/molecules29235773
🔗 DOI🏠 PMC📚 PubMed📄 PDF
This study presents the synergistic application of ultrasound- and microwave-assisted extraction (UAE–MAE) as a novel and efficient method for recovering bioactive compounds from the medicinal plants oregano, rosemary, Hypericum perforatum, and chamomile. Extraction parameters, including microwave (MW) power, ultrasound (US) power, and extraction time, were optimized using the response surface methodology (RSM), with ethanol as the solvent. Extracts were evaluated for total phenolic content (TPC) via the Folin–Ciocalteu method and antioxidant activity (IC50) using the DPPH assay. High-performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection (HPLC–DAD) identified the main bioactive compounds contributing to their antioxidant and therapeutic potential. The optimized UAE–MAE conditions enhanced phenolic recovery and antioxidant potential across all plants. Notably, Hypericum perforatum exhibited the highest TPC (53.7 mg GAE/g) and strongest antioxidant activity (IC50 29.8 mg extract/g) under 200 W MW, 450 W US, and 12 min, yielding 14.5%. Rosemary achieved the highest yield (23.36%) with a TPC of 26.35 mg GAE/g and an IC50 of 40.75 mg extract/g at 200 W MW, 700 W US, and 8 min. Oregano’s optimal conditions (500 W MW, 700 W US, 12 min) produced a TPC of 34.99 mg GAE/g and an IC50 of 50.31 mg extract/g. Chamomile extracts demonstrated lower phenolic content and antioxidant activity but achieved significant yields under 500 W MW, 700 W US, and 5 min. This study highlights UAE–MAE’s superior efficiency, showcasing its potential to maximize phenolic recovery sustainably, making it a promising technique for industrial and therapeutic applications.
antioxidant activitybioactive compoundsextraction optimizationmedicinal plantsmicrowave-assisted extraction (MAE)oreganophenolic compoundsrosemary
📄
Pesticide Residues and Metabolites in Greek Honey and Pollen: Bees and Human Health Risk Assessment
GC-MSFoods202382% ✓CC-BYResearch method (specificity)
Colonne : C18
Phase : MeOH:H2O and pure acetone, respectively
Détection : MS/MS
Inj.: 20 μL
Kasiotis K, Zafeiraki E, Manea-Karga E, Anastasiadou P, Machera K. Pesticide Residues and Metabolites in Greek Honey and Pollen: Bees and Human Health Risk Assessment. Foods. 2023;12:706. doi:10.3390/foods12040706
🔗 DOI🏠 PMC📚 PubMed📄 PDF
Background: Bees encounter a plethora of environmental contaminants during nectar and pollen collection from plants. Consequently, after their entrance into the beehives, the transfer of numerous pollutants to apicultural products is inevitable. Methods: In this context, during the period of 2015–2020, 109 samples of honey, pollen, and beebread were sampled and analyzed for the determination of pesticides and their metabolites. More than 130 analytes were investigated in each sample by applying two validated multiresidue methods (HPLC-ESI-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS). Results: Until the end of 2020, 40 determinations were reported in honey, resulting in a 26% positive to at least one active substance. The concentrations of pesticides ranged from 1.3 ng/g to 785 ng/g honey. For seven active substances in honey and pollen, maximum residue limits (MRLs) exceedances were observed. Coumaphos, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, amitraz metabolites (DMF and DMPF), and tau-fluvalinate were the predominant compounds detected in honey, while several pyrethroids such as λ-cyhalothrin, cypermethrin, and cyfluthrin were also found. Pollen and beebread, as expected, accumulated a higher number of active substances and metabolites (32 in total), exhibiting almost double the number of detections. Conclusions: Although the above findings verify the occurrence of numerous pesticide and metabolite residues in both honey and pollen, the human risk assessment in the majority of the cases does not raise any concerns, and the same applies to bee risk assessment.
pesticidesmetabolitesLC-MS/MSGC-MS/MShoneypollenrisk assessment
📄
Pulsed electric fields-assisted extraction of valuable compounds from red grape pomace: Process optimization using response surface methodology
HPLC-PDAFrontiers in Nutrition202390% ✓CC-BYResearch method (specificity, robustness)
Colonne : C18, 5 μm
Phase : mobile phase consisted of (A) 100%, v/v acetonitrile, and (B) 10%, v/v…
Détection : UV 700 nm
Débit : 1.00 mL/min
Temp. : 50.0 °C
Inj.: 25 μL
Gradient: consisting of 0–25 min from 2 A to 20% A,…
Carpentieri S, Ferrari G, Pataro G. Pulsed electric fields-assisted extraction of valuable compounds from red grape pomace: Process optimization using response surface methodology. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2023;10:1158019. doi:10.3389/fnut.2023.1158019
🔗 DOI🏠 PMC📚 PubMed📄 PDF
BackgroundThe application of Pulsed electric fields as a mild and easily scalable electrotechnology represents an effective approach to selectively intensify the extractability of bioactive compounds from grape pomace, one of the most abundant residues generated during the winemaking process.ObjectiveThis study addressed the optimization of the pulsed electric fields (PEF)-assisted extraction to enhance the extraction yields of bioactive compounds from red grape pomace using response surface methodology (RSM).MethodsThe cell disintegration index (Zp) was identified as response variable to determine the optimal PEF processing conditions in terms of field strength (E = 0.5–5 kV/cm) and energy input (WT = 1–20 kJ/kg). For the solid-liquid extraction (SLE) process the effects of temperature (20–50°C), time (30–300min), and solvent concentration (0–50% ethanol in water) on total phenolic content (TPC), flavonoid content (FC), total anthocyanin content (TAC), tannin content (TC), and antioxidant activity (FRAP) of the extracts from untreated and PEF-treated plant tissues were assessed. The phenolic composition of the obtained extracts was determined via HPLC-PDA.ResultsResults demonstrated that the application of PEF at the optimal processing conditions (E = 4.6 kV/cm, WT = 20 kJ/kg) significantly enhanced the permeabilization degree of cell membrane of grape pomace tissues, thus intensifying the subsequent extractability of TPC (15%), FC (60%), TAC (23%), TC (42%), and FRAP values (31%) concerning the control extraction. HPLC-PDA analyses showed that, regardless of the application of PEF, the most abundant phenolic compounds were epicatechin, p-coumaric acid, and peonidin 3-O-glucoside, and no degradation of the specific compounds occurred upon PEF application.ConclusionThe optimization of the PEF-assisted extraction process allowed to significantly enhance the extraction yields of high-value-added compounds from red grape pomace, supporting further investigations of thi...
pulsed electric fields (PEF)green extractionred grape by-productsbioactive compoundsresponse surface methodologyHPLC-PDA
📈 Validation de la méthode (ICH Q2)

Aucune donnée de validation. Contactez l'auteur de la méthode.

Paramètres selon : ICH Q2(R2) ↗

📋 Comparaison des méthodes
Technique Colonne Temps d'analyse Détection Phase mobile Source
HPLC C18 — UV 515 nm mobile phase was 90% A, 6% B, 4%… DOI ↗
GC-MS C18 — MS/MS MeOH:H2O and pure acetone, respectively DOI ↗
HPLC-PDA C18 — UV 700 nm mobile phase consisted of (A) 100%, v/v acetonitrile,… DOI ↗
🔧 Dépannage HPLC/GC
Pics larges / traînée
Causes : Colonne usée, mauvais pH de la phase, surcharge de la colonne, volume mort
Solution : Remplacer la colonne, vérifier le pH du tampon (±0.2), réduire le volume d'injection, vérifier les raccords
Dérive de la ligne de base
Causes : Phase mobile contaminée, gradient, température instable
Solution : Dégazer la phase, filtrer à 0.22 µm, stabiliser la température de la colonne, rincer le système
Aucun pic
Causes : Mauvaise longueur d'onde, la substance n'élue pas, décomposition thermique, mauvaise phase
Solution : Vérifiez λmax, allongez le gradient, abaissez la température, changez la phase mobile
Pics fantômes (ghost peaks)
Causes : Contamination du système, effet mémoire (carry-over), flacons contaminés
Solution : Nettoyer le système (MeOH/H₂O), utiliser des flacons neufs, injecter un blanc
Faible récupération
Causes : Adsorption sur les parois, extraction insuffisante, décomposition
Solution : Ajoutez un IS, silanisez la verrerie, optimisez l'extraction, vérifiez la stabilité

Sources : Snyder, Kirkland & Dolan ↗, Waters ↗

📊 Validation de la méthode HPLC (ICH Q2(R1)) PARTIAL

3 metrics need experimental data

Paramètre Valeur Unité Critère ICH Q2 Status
Linéarité (R²) aucune donnée unitless R² ≥ 0.999 (≥0.99 pour la bioanalytique) —
LOD (S/N = 3:1) aucune donnée ng/mL S/N ≥ 3:1 (concentration détectable la plus basse) —
LOQ (S/N = 10:1) aucune donnée ng/mL S/N ≥ 10:1 (LOQ ≥ 3×LOD typiquement) —
Précision (RSD intraday, n=6) aucune donnée % RSD RSD ≤ 2% (intraday) / ≤ 3% (interday) pour l'API —
Justesse (récupération, 3 niveaux) aucune donnée % (target 100±2%) Recovery 98-102% (target 100%) —
Plage de linéarité aucune donnée p. ex. 0.1-100 ng/mL Min. 80-120% de la concentration nominale —
Sélectivité/Spécificité aucune donnée qualitative Aucune interférence — pic d'analyte entièrement résolu (Rs ≥ 2.0) —
Robustesse (robustness) aucune donnée RSD < 2% à ±5% de variation RSD < 2% avec de petites variations de paramètres —
Légende : ✓ PASS ⚠ CAUTION ✗ FAIL — NO_DATA
📚 Références scientifiques (Chicago Author-Date) — cliquez pour développer

Normes de validation des méthodes analytiques — 4 sources indépendantes (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.

· ⚠ Avertissements réglementaires SVHC/REACH ↑

🔧 Dépannage HPLC — arbre de décision 6 problèmes courants

Diagnostic des 12 problèmes HPLC les plus courants avec un arbre de décision (5 étapes par problème). Source : Snyder/Kirkland/Dolan 3rd ed. Chapter 17 + LCGC LC Troubleshooting columns 1989-2024.

Pics élargis (broad peaks) medium

Symptôme : Tous les pics du chromatogramme sont plus larges que prévu (FWHM > 2× la normale)

🔍 Arbre diagnostique :
  1. 1. Vérifiez si tous les pics sont élargis ou seulement certains
    → OUI : Tous → problème instrumental (colonne ou système)
    → NON : Seulement certains → problème de chimie (interaction avec la colonne pour des analytes spécifiques)
  2. 2. Remplacez par une colonne de test — le problème disparaît-il ?
    → OUI : COLONNE usée — garnissage endommagé, void dans les premiers mm. Remplacez-la.
    → NON : Problème dans le système LC
  3. 3. Vérifiez le volume mort (dead volume) — boucle d'injection, connexions, détecteur
    → OUI : Boucle > 100 µL pour une colonne de 4.6 mm ou connexions desserrées → remplacez les ferrules, raccourcissez les tubes
    → NON : Continuer le diagnostic
  4. 4. Test de température : augmentez la colonne de 25°C à 40°C
    → OUI : Pics plus étroits → cinétique de transfert de masse trop lente (augmentez T)
    → NON : Continue
  5. 5. Vérifiez le débit par rapport à l'optimum de van Deemter pour cette colonne
    → OUI : Optimum pour 4.6mm/5µm = 1.0 mL/min, pour 2.1mm/3µm = 0.4 mL/min
    → NON : Continue
⚠️ Causes courantes :
  • Colonne usée (>2000 injections sans précolonne)
  • Volume mort du système > 100 µL (mauvaise boucle, tubes longs, ferrules desserrées)
  • Température trop basse (cinétique de transfert de masse)
  • Débit hors de l'optimum de van Deemter
  • Solvant d'échantillon plus fort que la phase A
✓ Solutions :
  • ✓ Remplacez la colonne (si >2000 injections)
  • ✓ Vérifiez toutes les connexions — tubes aussi courts que possible
  • ✓ Augmentez la T de la colonne à 40°C (si la substance est stable)
  • ✓ Réduisez le débit à l'optimum de van Deemter
  • ✓ Dissolvez l'échantillon dans la phase A (pas dans un solvant organique pur)
Traînée des pics (tailing, T > 1.5) high

Symptôme : Les pics présentent une "traînée" allongée du côté de l'élution tardive (asymétrie T = b/a > 1.5 selon l'USP)

🔍 Arbre diagnostique :
  1. 1. La substance contient-elle des groupes basiques (amino, pyridine) ?
    → OUI : Oui → interactions silanol ! Ajoutez 0.1% de TFA ou 5-10 mM de TEA à la phase A.
    → NON : Continue
  2. 2. Vérifiez le pH de la phase mobile par rapport au pKa de la substance
    → OUI : pH = pKa ± 1 → ionisation partielle, peak split. Placez le pH à ≥ 2 unités du pKa.
    → NON : Continue
  3. 3. Vérifiez l'âge de la colonne (>1500 injections ?)
    → OUI : Oui → silanols exposés (column bleed). Remplacez par une colonne à endcapping supérieur (XTerra, Symmetry).
    → NON : Continue
  4. 4. L'échantillon contient-il des métaux (Fe, Cu provenant des flacons en verre) ?
    → OUI : Oui → utilisez des flacons incolores de type II ou en PFA. EDTA 0.1mM dans l'échantillon.
    → NON : Continue
⚠️ Causes courantes :
  • Interactions silanol (analyte basique + silanols libres du gel de silice)
  • pH à la limite du pKa de l'analyte (peak split)
  • Colonne ancienne (column bleed, activité silanol élevée)
  • Métaux dans l'échantillon (chélation → traînée)
  • Surcharge de la colonne (>50 µg sur une colonne de 4.6mm)
✓ Solutions :
  • ✓ Ajoutez 0.1% de TFA (UV) ou 0.1% d'acide formique (LC-MS) à la phase A
  • ✓ Choisissez une colonne à endcapping haute pureté : Waters XBridge BEH, Phenomenex Kinetex
  • ✓ Travaillez à un pH ≥ 2 unités du pKa
  • ✓ EDTA 0.1mM dans l'échantillon (chélation Fe/Cu)
  • ✓ Réduisez le volume d'injection à ≤ 20 µL pour une colonne de 4.6mm
Dérive de la ligne de base (baseline drift) medium

Symptôme : La ligne de base monte ou descend systématiquement pendant >5 minutes

🔍 Arbre diagnostique :
  1. 1. Utilisez-vous un gradient (B% augmente) ?
    → OUI : Oui → absorption différente des phases A vs B à dλ. Changement de solvant dans la coupure UV. Vérifiez l'absorbance UV du % d'organique.
    → NON : Continuer (isocratique)
  2. 2. Vérifiez la température de la colonne — est-elle stable à ±0.5°C ?
    → OUI : Oui (stable) → continuer
    → NON : Instable → activez le thermostat de colonne (>25°C contrôlé)
  3. 3. Test : coupez l'échantillonneur automatique, faites fonctionner seuls pompe+colonne+détecteur
    → OUI : La dérive disparaît → contamination de l'échantillonneur automatique (nettoyage de l'aiguille, septum)
    → NON : Continue
  4. 4. Vérifiez l'âge de la lampe (D2 pour UV)
    → OUI : Oui (>1500 heures) → remplacez la lampe
    → NON : Continue
⚠️ Causes courantes :
  • Élution en gradient avec coupure UV différente des phases
  • T de colonne instable
  • Contamination de l'aiguille/septum de l'échantillonneur automatique
  • Lampe UV ancienne (>1500h)
  • Cellule à circulation du détecteur encrassée
  • Colonne non équilibrée (<10 volumes de colonne)
✓ Solutions :
  • ✓ Pré-équilibrez la colonne sur 10-15 volumes de colonne à 100% A
  • ✓ Thermostat de colonne activé, T 30-40°C stable
  • ✓ Nettoyez la cellule à circulation du détecteur avec une solution 50:50 ACN:H2O
  • ✓ Remplacez la lampe D2 si >1500h
  • ✓ Utilisez la soustraction de ligne de base (Chromeleon, fonction native d'Empower)
Absence de pic / pic perdu (no peak) critical

Symptôme : Le pic d'analyte attendu n'apparaît pas sur le chromatogramme

🔍 Arbre diagnostique :
  1. 1. L'injection a-t-elle réellement eu lieu ?
    → OUI : Vérifiez le journal du passeur d'échantillons, la pression des pompes (elle devrait chuter lors de l'injection)
    → NON : Problème de passeur d'échantillons → vérifiez la boucle, l'aiguille, l'échantillon dans le flacon
  2. 2. L'échantillon est-il dans le flacon (volume correct, non évaporé) ?
    → OUI : Continue
    → NON : Pas d'échantillon — repipetez
  3. 3. Stabilité de l'échantillon — préparé il y a >24h ?
    → OUI : Oui → dégradation. Préparez un nouvel échantillon frais.
    → NON : Continue
  4. 4. Vérifiez la longueur d'onde de détection par rapport au λmax de la substance
    → OUI : La détection à λ ne correspond PAS au λmax → pas de signal. Scannez le DAD 200-400nm.
    → NON : Continue
  5. 5. Test : injectez un étalon pur (de concentration connue, frais)
    → OUI : L'étalon donne un pic → problème avec l'échantillon (matrice, dérivatisation)
    → NON : Pas de pic même avec l'étalon → problème du système (colonne, phase, gradient)
⚠️ Causes courantes :
  • Échantillon non prélevé du flacon (bug du passeur d'échantillons)
  • Échantillon dégradé (>24h pH/temp/lumière)
  • Détection à la mauvaise longueur d'onde
  • Phase mobile incorrecte (p. ex. TFA oublié)
  • Colonne inversée / phase stationnaire incorrecte
  • La substance est éluée au front (V0) → non retenue, non visible
✓ Solutions :
  • ✓ Préparez un nouvel échantillon frais selon le protocole exact
  • ✓ Scan UV-Vis DAD 200-400nm + recherche du λmax
  • ✓ Vérifiez la composition de la phase mobile — le TFA a-t-il été ajouté ?
  • ✓ Testez le sens inverse de la colonne (prudemment !)
  • ✓ Pour une rétention <1 min — abaissez le % B, MeOH au lieu d'ACN
  • ✓ Vérifiez la table "expected_rt" dans wp_molgod_hplc_methods
Pression trop élevée (pressure too high) critical

Symptôme : Pression des pompes > 80% du maximum de la colonne ou arrêt du système avec une erreur de haute pression

🔍 Arbre diagnostique :
  1. 1. Vérifiez que la colonne est raccordée correctement (sens de la flèche)
    → OUI : OK
    → NON : Colonne inversée → retournez-la (ne jamais l'utiliser "à l'envers")
  2. 2. Test : retirez la colonne du système, faites tourner la pompe+le détecteur seuls
    → OUI : La pression chute à <50 bar → problème dans la colonne (bouchée)
    → NON : La pression reste élevée → filtre en ligne bouché, fritte encrassée
  3. 3. Vérifiez le filtre de pré-colonne (fritte en ligne)
    → OUI : Encrassé et brun → remplacez-le
    → NON : Continue
  4. 4. Rincez la colonne à contre-courant avec 50:50 ACN:H2O sans la colonne — cela disparaît-il ?
    → OUI : Particules coincées dans le premier mm — un rinçage de 30 min peut la récupérer
    → NON : Remplacez la colonne
⚠️ Causes courantes :
  • Filtre en ligne (fritte) bouché par des particules
  • Relargage du tampon (précipitation à un % B élevé)
  • L'échantillon contient des matières en suspension (filtrer à 0.22 µm avant l'injection)
  • Colonne bouchée (column bed compaction)
  • Gradient avec phase tampon + beaucoup d'organique → précipitation de sel
✓ Solutions :
  • ✓ Filtrez TOUJOURS l'échantillon à 0.22 µm PVDF avant l'injection
  • ✓ Remplacez le filtre en ligne toutes les 100 injections (ou lorsque la pression augmente de >20%)
  • ✓ N'utilisez PAS >20mM de tampon phosphate + >70% d'ACN (le sel précipite)
  • ✓ Rincez la colonne 30 min avec 50:50 ACN:H2O en sens inverse (lorsque le fabricant l'autorise)
  • ✓ Pré-colonne 4×3mm pour protéger la colonne principale
Pics fantômes (ghost peaks) high

Symptôme : Pics inexpliqués sur le chromatogramme, absents de la calibration

🔍 Arbre diagnostique :
  1. 1. Test : injection à blanc (solvant pur de l'échantillon)
    → OUI : Un pic fantôme apparaît → contamination du système ou des éluants
    → NON : Apparaît uniquement avec l'échantillon → matrice
  2. 2. Le pic fantôme croît-il avec le gradient (élue à % B élevé) ?
    → OUI : Oui → colonne surchargée ou composé fortement retenu d'un cycle précédent
    → NON : Indépendant du gradient → effet mémoire (carryover) du passeur d'échantillons
  3. 3. Increase carryover wash (between injections)
    → OUI : Cela aide → l'effet mémoire (carryover) était en cause. Protocole de lavage plus puissant.
    → NON : Continue
  4. 4. Injection d'eau pure — y a-t-il un pic ?
    → OUI : Oui → contamination de la source d'eau (organiques provenant du système DI)
    → NON : Continue
⚠️ Causes courantes :
  • Effet mémoire (carryover) dans l'aiguille/la boucle du passeur d'échantillons
  • Contamination de l'éluant (même de qualité HPLC)
  • Composants fortement retenus de cycles précédents
  • Plastique dans les flacons (phtalates, PEG des capuchons)
  • Eau DI insuffisamment purifiée
✓ Solutions :
  • ✓ Renforcez le protocole de lavage : 100% B → 100% A → 50:50 (3 cycles)
  • ✓ Lavage puissant : DMSO 100% ou MeOH 100% avant la calibration
  • ✓ Filtrez les éluants à 0.22 µm PTFE en cas de doute
  • ✓ Utilisez du verre ambré + des capuchons à revêtement Téflon pour les échantillons
  • ✓ Rampe de gradient périodique jusqu'à 100% B pendant 10 min (nettoyage)
📚 Références scientifiques (Chicago Author-Date) — cliquez pour développer
  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 ↗]
📚 FAQ technique — Difluoromethane (5) MolGod_TECHFAQ_1
❓ Jak przygotować roztwór standardowy R-32 (difluorometanu) o stężeniu 10 ppm?
Aby przygotować roztwór standardowy R-32 o stężeniu 10 ppm, należy obliczyć masę substancji potrzebną do rozpuszczenia w określonej objętości rozpuszczalnika. Zakładając, że chcemy przygotować 1 litr roztworu (1000 ml), stężenie 10 ppm oznacza 10 mg R-32 na 1 litr. Masa molowa R-32 wynosi 52.023 g/mol, więc masa potrzebna to: 10 mg / (52.023 g/mol) * (1 g / 1000 mg) = 0.000192 mol. Rozpuszczalnik powinien być niepolarny, np. heksan lub dichlorometan, aby zapewnić dobrą rozpuszczalność R-32.
Utile ?
❓ W jakich warunkach należy przechowywać R-32 (difluorometan) w laboratorium?
R-32 powinien być przechowywany w szczelnie zamkniętych pojemnikach, z dala od źródeł ciepła i otwartego ognia. Optymalna temperatura przechowywania to -10°C do +25°C. Należy unikać ekspozycji na światło słoneczne i wilgotność, ponieważ może to wpłynąć na stabilność substancji. Przechowywanie w ciemnym miejscu jest zalecane.
Utile ?
❓ Jaka metoda analityczna jest najbardziej odpowiednia do analizy R-32 (difluorometanu) i dlaczego?
Najbardziej odpowiednią metodą analityczną dla R-32 jest chromatografia gazowa (GC) ze względu na jego niską masę molową (52.023 g/mol) i lotność. LogP R-32 wynosi około 1.8, co oznacza, że jest umiarkowanie hydrofobowy, ale nadal dobrze nadaje się do analizy GC z odpowiednim detektorem (np. FID lub TCD). HPLC może być stosowana w przypadku mieszanin zawierających R-32 i inne polarne składniki, ale GC jest bardziej powszechna dla czystych związków fluorowanych.
Utile ?
❓ Jakie są potencjalne reaktywności i niezgodności chemiczne R-32 (difluorometanu) w laboratorium?
R-32 jest stosunkowo stabilny, ale może reagować z silnymi utleniaczami lub kwasami fluorowodorowymi. Należy unikać kontaktu z substancjami łatwopalnymi ze względu na jego palność (temperatura zapłonu: -20°C). Niezgodności mogą wystąpić z niektórymi rozpuszczalnikami polarnymi, dlatego zaleca się stosowanie heksanu lub dichlorometanu. Przechowywanie w suchych warunkach jest kluczowe, aby uniknąć hydrolizy.
Utile ?
❓ W jakich praktycznych zastosowaniach laboratoryjnych wykorzystuje się R-32 (difluorometan)?
R-32 jest często używany jako standard kalibracyjny w analizie gazów fluorowanych, np. w pomiarach emisji lub kontroli czystości systemów chłodniczych. Jest również stosowany jako rozpuszczalnik w syntezach organicznych ze względu na swoją niską polarność i zdolność do rozpuszczania związków fluorowanych. W laboratoriach analitycznych służy do walidacji metod GC/HPLC dla innych difluorometanów.
Utile ?
🧮 Calculateurs de laboratoire (8) MolGod_LABCALC_1
Dilution (C₁V₁=C₂V₂)
Molarité (M=n/V)
Tampon pH (Henderson-Hasselbalch)
Beer-Lambert (A=εcl)
Masse → Moles
Concentration % → M
ppm → mg/L
Température C↔F↔K

Formules vérifiées : IUPAC Gold Book ↗, DOI ↗

📊 Bases de spectres spectroscopiques MolGod_SPECDB_3
🏷️ Générateur d'étiquette (QR) MolGod_LABEL_1
Difluorométhane• DIFLUOROMETHANE• CAS: 75-10-5• Formule: CH2F2• Masse: 52.02 g/molATTENTIONMENTIONS DE DANGER GHS :H220: Gaz extrêmement inflammable.H280: Contient un gaz sous pression; peut exploser sous l'effet de la chaleur.H340: Peut induire des anomalies génétiques.H350: Peut provoquer le cancer.DH ScientificScience first. Commerce as consequence.N° de lot: Masse nette: Fabr.:
ADMET — Profil pharmacologique

Diagramme radar de drug-likeness (Lipinski Ro5 / Veber). Zone verte = conformité aux critères.

Données prédictives — propriétés calculées in silico (SMILES/RDKit). Elles ne remplacent pas les études cliniques. Ne pas utiliser pour l'évaluation des médicaments sans vérification expérimentale.

MW52LogP1HBD0HBA2RotB0TPSA0 Ų
✓ Lipinski Ro5✓ Veber✓ Egan✗ Ghose (MW=52)✗ REOS (MW=52)✓ Lead-like Ro3
PropriétéValeurÉvaluation
Absorption (GI)élevée✓
Perméabilité BHEoui (traverse)
Biodisponibilité (Daina 2017)
55%
CYP450 profileCYP1A2 non-inhibitorCYP2C9 non-inhibitorCYP2C19 non-inhibitorCYP2D6 non-inhibitorCYP3A4 non-inhibitor
Alertes PAINS0✓
Alertes Brenk0✓
pKa (pH 7.4)7 (heuristic)
hERG (cardiotox.)✓ non
Substrat de la P-gp—
Mutagénicité Ames✓ non
DILI (hépatotox.)—
LogS (solub. aq.)—
Sources (méthodologie ADMET)
  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. 2007. "Difluoromethane." Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. DOI: 10.1002/9780470114735.hawley05466. [DOI ↗]
  22. Anonymous. 2007. "Difluoromethane." Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary: 426-426. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470114735.hawley05466. [DOI ↗]
  23. 2004. "<scp>N</scp> ‐Fluoroimino Difluoromethane." Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. DOI: 10.1002/0471701343.sdp12584. [DOI ↗]
  24. Kang, Yun Whan; Chung, Kun Yong. 1996. "Vapor−Liquid Equilibria for the Systems Difluoromethane + Chlorodifluoromethane, Difluoromethane + Dichlorodifluoromethane, and Difluoromethane + Chloromethane at 10.0 °C." Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data. DOI: 10.1021/je9502657. [DOI ↗]
  25. Kang, Yun Whan, Chung, Kun Yong. 1996. "Vapor−Liquid Equilibria for the Systems Difluoromethane + Chlorodifluoromethane, Difluoromethane + Dichlorodifluoromethane, and Difluoromethane + Chloromethane at 10.0 °C." Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data 41 (3): 443-445. https://doi.org/10.1021/je9502657. [DOI ↗]
  26. Cauble, Ronald L.; Cady, George H. 1966. "PREPARATION OF BIS(FLUOROXY)DIFLUOROMETHANE." DOI: 10.21236/ad0641218. [DOI ↗]
  27. Cauble, Ronald L., Cady, George H.. 1966. "PREPARATION OF BIS(FLUOROXY)DIFLUOROMETHANE.". https://doi.org/10.21236/ad0641218. [DOI ↗]
  28. "Regioselective Difluoromethane sulfonylation and Triflylation of Resorufin Derivatives." DOI: 10.1021/acs.orglett.1c03192.s001. [DOI ↗]
  29. "Shapes and Noncovalent Interactions of Oligomers: The Rotational Spectrum of the Difluoromethane Trimer." DOI: 10.1021/ja068599b.s001. [DOI ↗]
  30. "First Measurements of the Sorption of Difluoromethane and Pentafluoroethane in Encapsulated Ionic Liquids." DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.3c01745.s001. [DOI ↗]
  31. Anonymous. "Regioselective Difluoromethane sulfonylation and Triflylation of Resorufin Derivatives.". https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.orglett.1c03192.s001. [DOI ↗]
  32. William J. Tikunoff. 1975. "Special Study A: An Ethnographic Study of the Forty Classrooms of the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study Known Sample. BTES Technical Report Series No. 75-10-5."
  33. 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 ↗]
  34. Majid Naseri, Omid Imantalab, Svetlana Pratskova et al. 2025. "Unraveling the effect of Nb content on the microstructure and electrochemical performance of cost-effective [FeNi]75 −xCr15Mn10Nbx (x = 0, 5, 10 at%) high-entropy alloys." Journal of Alloys and Compounds. DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2025.185044. [DOI ↗]
  35. Kim, Sunghwan, Jie Chen, Tiejun Cheng, et al. 2023. "PubChem 2023 update." Nucleic Acids Research 51 (D1): D1373-D1380. [DOI ↗]
  36. Kim, Sunghwan, Tiejun Cheng, Jianyong He, Chen Cheng, et al. 2021. "PubChem Protein, Pathway, Reaction, and Disease Specifications." Journal of Cheminformatics 13: 16. [DOI ↗]
  37. Hähnke, Volker D., Sunghwan Kim, and Evan E. Bolton. 2018. "PubChem chemical structure standardization." Journal of Cheminformatics 10: 36. [DOI ↗]
  38. Wang, Yanli, Stephen H. Bryant, Tiejun Cheng, Jiyao Wang, et al. 2017. "PubChem BioAssay: 2017 update." Nucleic Acids Research 45 (D1): D955-D963. [DOI ↗]
  39. Wei Zhang, Haitao Miao, Yanhui Li et al. 2016. "Glass-forming ability and thermoplastic formability of ferromagnetic (Fe, Co, Ni) 75 P 10 C 10 B 5 metallic glasses." Journal of Alloys and Compounds. DOI: 10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.11.227. [DOI ↗]
  40. Thomas O. Bergmeijer, Udaya S. Tantry, Jurriën M. ten Berg et al. 2014. "The effect of CYP2C19 gene polymorphisms on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of prasugrel 5-mg, prasugrel 10-mg and clopidogrel 75-mg in patients with coronary artery disease." Thrombosis and Haemostasis. DOI: 10.1160/th13-10-0891. [DOI ↗]
  41. 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 ↗]
  42. Leslie A. Guildner. 1975. "Thermal conductivity of gases. III. Some values of thermal conductivities of argon, helium, and nitrogen from 0 C to 75 C at pressures of 1 x 10^5 to 2.5 x 10^7 pascals." Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards Section A Physics and Chemistry. DOI: 10.6028/jres.079a.005. [DOI ↗]
  43. Khaled Parvez, Robyn Worsley, Adriana Alieva et al. 2019. "Water-based and Inkjet Printable Inks made by Electrochemically Exfoliated Graphene." arXiv (1904.08665v1). DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2019.04.047. [DOI ↗]
  44. André Dankert, Parham Pashaei, M. Venkata Kamalakar et al. 2018. "Spin-Polarized Tunneling through Chemical Vapor Deposited Multilayer Molybdenum Disulfide." arXiv (1804.09928v1). DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.7b02819. [DOI ↗]
  45. Akasaka, Ryo. 2013. "Thermodynamic property models for the difluoromethane (R-32)+trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R-1234ze(E)) and difluoromethane+2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R-1234yf) mixtures." Fluid Phase Equilibria. DOI: 10.1016/j.fluid.2013.07.057. [DOI ↗]
  46. Akasaka, Ryo. 2013. "Thermodynamic property models for the difluoromethane (R-32)+trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R-1234ze(E)) and difluoromethane+2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R-1234yf) mixtures." Fluid Phase Equilibria 358: 98-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2013.07.057. [DOI ↗]
  47. PubMed PMID PubChem. (Metadata fetch failed.) ↗
  48. Wilkinson, Mark D., et al. 2016. "The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship." Scientific Data 3: 160018. [DOI ↗]
  49. Kunio Kawamura, Jun Maeda. 2007. "Kinetic Analysis of Oligo(C) Formation from the 5′-Monophosphorimidazolide of Cytidine with Pb(II) Ion Catalyst at 10–75°C." Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. DOI: 10.1007/s11084-006-9063-0. [DOI ↗]
  50. 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.
  51. Levitt, David. 2024. "Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of glucocorticoids: modeling the glucocorticoid receptor dynamics and dose/response of commonly prescribed glucocorticoids." ADMET and DMPK. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2414. [DOI ↗]
  52. Notario, Dion, Munzir, Angela Marietha, Novella, Yulina, Hananta, Linawati. 2024. "Impact of lactoferrin supplementation on cotrimoxazole pharmacokinetics: A preliminary clinical investigation." ADMET and DMPK. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.2358. [DOI ↗]
  53. ECHA. 2024. "REACH Guidance." European Chemicals Agency. ↗
  54. Sridharan, Kannan, Al Banna, Rashed, Husain, Aysha. 2021. "Evaluation of pharmacokinetics of warfarin from validated pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model." ADMET and DMPK. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.909. [DOI ↗]
  55. Cabana, Bernard E.. 1984. "Bioavailability and Pharmacokinetics in Drug Development." Pharmacokinetics: 113-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2799-8_12. [DOI ↗]
  56. 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. ↗
📚 Aperçu de la littérature scientifique — CAS 75-10-5MolGod_LITHUB_MAIN
⭐ Principales découvertes (littérature scientifique) 4 publications
🏆 CAS 75-10-5 — multi-criteria ranking (W12): 30% citations · 20% actualité · 20% thème · 15% historique · 15% open access.
  1. #1
    Bhunia SK; Saha A; Maity AR et al. (2013) · Scientific reports
    Pourquoi c'est important : Citation obligatoire (canon) · 267 citations
    SCORE 8.18 Mécanisme MUST-CITE Citations : 267 DOI ↗
  2. #2
    Guo J; Balić P; Borodkin VS et al. (2024) · Organic letters
    Pourquoi c'est important : Citation obligatoire (canon) · récente (2024)
    SCORE 4.8 Industrie MUST-CITE DOI ↗
  3. #3
    Uno H; Kawai K; Araki T et al. (2022) · Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English)
    Pourquoi c'est important : Citation obligatoire (canon)
    SCORE 4.4 Industrie MUST-CITE DOI ↗
  4. #4
    Special Study A: An Ethnographic Study of the Forty Classrooms of the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study Known Sample. BTES Technical Report Series No. 75-10-5.
    William J. Tikunoff (1975)
    Pourquoi c'est important : Sélectionné par un score multicritère (citations + actualité + thème + historique + OA).
    SCORE 3.61 Mécanisme Citations : 15

Description

R-32 (difluorometan), CAS 75-10-5

Reviews

There are no reviews yet.

Be the first to review “difluorométhane”
📈 Gradient HPLC — optimiseur (LSS) MODÈLE

Gradient basé sur PubChem XLogP3 + LSS (Snyder et al. 2010, chap. 9).

  • Colonne: C18
  • Tampon: phosphate
  • Débit: 1 mL/min
  • logP: 1 (PubChem XLogP3)
  • Rampe: 13% → 95% B, 10 min
  • Temps d'analyse total: 23 min
t (min) %A %B flow (mL/min) Commentaire
0 87 13 1 début (équilibre)
2 87 13 1 fin du palier initial
12 5 95 1 fin de la rampe LSS
17 5 95 1 lavage de la colonne
18 87 13 1 retour à init
23 87 13 1 rééquilibrage
📚 Références scientifiques (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/75-10-5

📐 Calculateur de symétrie de pic HPLC (USP Tf / As)

Calculez le facteur de traînée USP (T) et l'asymétrie (As) à partir des demi-largeurs du pic. Saisissez a (demi-largeur gauche) et b (demi-largeur droite) mesurées à 5% ou 10% de la hauteur du pic.

📚 Références (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 ↗]
📊 Calculateur de résolution et de nombre de plateaux (Rs, N, H)

Calculez la résolution Rs, le nombre de plateaux théoriques N et la HETP (H) pour une paire de pics HPLC. Saisissez les temps de rétention, les largeurs de pic (à 50% ou à la base) et la longueur de la colonne.

📚 Références (Chicago Author-Date)
  1. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-16754-0. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470508183 [link ↗] — Chapter 2 covers resolution, plate count and HETP fundamentals (Snyder et al. 2010).
  2. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography." USP-NF 2024 ed. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. [link ↗] — Defines Rs >= 1.5 acceptance criterion and N calculation methods.
  3. Dolan, John W.. 2003. "How much resolution is enough?." LCGC North America 21: 350-353 [link ↗] — Practical guidance on Rs targets for routine method development.
  4. Van Deemter, J. J., F. J. Zuiderweg, and A. Klinkenberg. 1956. "Longitudinal diffusion and resistance to mass transfer as causes of nonideality in chromatography." Chemical Engineering Science 5: 271-289 https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(56)80003-1 [link ↗] — Origin of N = 5.54·(tr/w0.5)² half-height plate count formulation.
  5. Giddings, J. Calvin. 1965. "Dynamics of Chromatography, Part I: Principles and Theory." Marcel Dekker. ISBN 978-0-8247-1357-7. — Resolution equation Rs = (1/4)·√N·(α-1)/α·k/(1+k) (master equation).
  6. Foley, Joe P., and John G. Dorsey. 1983. "Equations for calculation of chromatographic figures of merit for ideal and skewed peaks." Analytical Chemistry 55: 730-737 https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00255a033 [link ↗] — Skewed-peak corrections to apparent N.
  7. Knox, John H.. 1977. "Practical aspects of LC theory." Journal of Chromatographic Science 15: 352-364 https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/15.9.352 [link ↗]
  8. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC." Journal of Chromatography A 1216: 1764-1772 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.094 [link ↗]
  9. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. "HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists." 2nd ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-1-119-31378-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119313793 [link ↗]
  10. Meyer, Veronika R.. 2010. "Practical High-Performance Liquid Chromatography." 5th ed. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-470-68218-0.
  11. Stoll, Dwight R., and Peter W. Carr. 2017. "Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography: A State of the Art Tutorial." Analytical Chemistry 89: 519-531 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b03506 [link ↗]
  12. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC." Journal of Chromatography A 1216: 1764-1772 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.11.094 [link ↗]
  13. Wu, Naijun, and Anton M. Clausen. 2007. "Fundamental and practical aspects of ultrahigh pressure liquid chromatography for fast separations." Journal of Separation Science 30: 1167-1182 https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.200700026 [link ↗]
  14. Engelhardt, Heinz. 2014. "100 Years of Chromatography." 2nd ed. Wiley-VCH. ISBN 978-3-527-33473-5.
  15. Vivó-Truyols, Gabriel, and Hans-Gerd Janssen. 2010. "Probabilistic approach to peak deconvolution in chromatography." Analytical Chemistry 82: 8525-8531 https://doi.org/10.1021/ac101742z [link ↗]

Related products

🧪 Conformité du système — calculateur en direct (USP <621>)

Saisissez les données de 5-6 injections (aires, tr, traînée, plateaux) — le calculateur calcule le %RSD, les moyennes et vérifie la conformité à l'USP <621>. Vous pouvez coller un CSV (séparé par des virgules) ou modifier des valeurs individuelles.

📚 Références (Chicago Author-Date)
  1. USP General Chapter <621>. 2024. "Chromatography (System Suitability section)." USP-NF 2024 ed. United States Pharmacopeial Convention. [link ↗] — Defines RSD area < 2%, tailing < 2.0, N > 2000 acceptance criteria.
  2. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). 2023. "Validation of Analytical Procedures Q2(R2)." ICH Expert Working Group. [link ↗] — Section 5.4 — system suitability is part of method validation.
  3. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2018. "Reviewer Guidance: Validation of Chromatographic Methods." US Food and Drug Administration. [link ↗] — CDER reviewer perspective on chromatographic validation expectations.
  4. Snyder, Lloyd R., Joseph J. Kirkland, and John W. Dolan. 2010. "Introduction to Modern Liquid Chromatography." 3rd ed. Wiley. — Chapter 2 — system suitability fundamentals (RSD, Tf, N).
  5. Heyden, Yvan Vander, et al.. 2009. "Robustness of pharmaceutical liquid chromatographic methods." — Robustness vs. system suitability — design-of-experiments framework.
  6. Rozet, Eric, et al.. 2013. "Analysis of recent pharmaceutical regulatory documents on analytical method validation."
  7. European Medicines Agency (EMA). 2011. "Guideline on bioanalytical method validation EMEA/CHMP/EWP/192217/2009." EMA. [link ↗] — EMA companion guideline with bioanalytical SS criteria.
  8. Dong, Michael W.. 2019. "HPLC and UHPLC for Practicing Scientists." 2nd ed. Wiley. — UHPLC-specific suitability adjustments (n=5 vs. n=6).
  9. Kazakevich, Yuri V., and Rosario LoBrutto, eds.. 2007. "HPLC for Pharmaceutical Scientists." Wiley-Interscience.
  10. AOAC International. 2016. "Appendix F: Guidelines for Standard Method Performance Requirements." AOAC INTERNATIONAL. [link ↗] — Alternative SS thresholds for food/dietary samples.
  11. Stoll, Dwight R., and Peter W. Carr. 2017. "Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography: A State of the Art Tutorial."
  12. Carr, Peter W.. 2009. "The new physical chemistry of HPLC."
  13. Wu, Naijun, and Anton M. Clausen. 2007. "Fundamental and practical aspects of ultrahigh pressure liquid chromatography for fast separations."
  14. Engelhardt, Heinz. 2014. "100 Years of Chromatography." 2nd ed. Wiley-VCH.
  15. Vivó-Truyols, Gabriel, and Hans-Gerd Janssen. 2010. "Probabilistic approach to peak deconvolution in chromatography."

Inne produkty z tej kategorii

📤 Intégrez cette molécule sur votre site

Vous avez un blog, un forum ou un service scientifique ? Intégrez la molécule 3D interactive sur votre site — chacun de vos lecteurs la verra, avec en dessous un lien vers notre boutique où il peut acheter le réactif.

🔗 Code HTML iframe (le plus simple — fonctionne partout)

Copiez et collez dans l'éditeur HTML de votre site :

Ajustez width et height à votre mise en page.

⚙ WordPress Shortcode (pour d'autres boutiques avec MOL-GOD)

🌐 Lien direct (pour e-mails, chats, LinkedIn, Twitter)

LinkedIn Twitter/X Facebook
QR code CAS 75-10-5

📱 QR code (pour l'impression sur flyers / étiquettes / catalogues)

Placez-le dans un catalogue de produits, sur une étiquette de flacon ou un flyer. Le client le scanne — il voit la molécule 3D sur son téléphone, avec un lien vers votre boutique.

⬇ Télécharger le PNG

🖼 Open Graph image (pour les balises meta des réseaux sociaux)

En partageant le lien, Facebook/LinkedIn/Discord récupérera automatiquement l'aperçu de l'image :

Preview
📋 Licence : L'intégration conserve un lien retour vers DH Scientific (requis — la boutique est la source des données). Les données chimiques proviennent de PubChem (CC0 — domaine public). L'intégration est GRATUITE pour un usage éducatif, commercial et de loisir.
📚 RÉFÉRENCES (Bibliographie agrégée, Chicago Author-Date) 107 éléments

Toutes les sources scientifiques citées dans les accordéons ci-dessus pour le CAS 75-10-5. Format : Chicago Manual of Style, 17e éd., système Auteur-Date.

🗄️ Bases de données scientifiques

  1. NIST. 2026. NIST Chemistry WebBook: CAS 75-10-5. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=75-10-5. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
  2. AIST. 2026. Spectral Database for Organic Compounds (SDBS): CAS 75-10-5. 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 75-10-5. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/#query=75-10-5. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)
  4. ECHA. 2026. C&L Inventory and REACH Registration: CAS 75-10-5. Helsinki: European Chemicals Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23047722/sds_en.pdf. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)

📐 Normes / Lignes directrices

  1. ICH. 2026. "ICH Harmonised Guideline: CAS 75-10-5." 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.

📖 Livres

  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.

📘 Monographies

  1. IARC. 2026. IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans: CAS 75-10-5. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. (Accessed 2026-11-12.)

📄 Articles scientifiques (évalués par les pairs)

  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.

🌐 Sites web

  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 75-10-5." 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 75-10-5." 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 75-10-5." 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 75-10-5." 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 75-10-5." 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.
📥 Télécharger BibTeX📥 Télécharger RISImport dans Zotero/Mendeley/EndNote/Papers.