The path that led to the discovery and growing attention around (2S)-2-(2-Amino-5-Chlorophenyl)-4-Cyclopropyl-1,1,1-Trifluorobut-3-Yn-2-Ol Methanesulfonate (1:1.5) shines a light on the modern hunger for both structural novelty and functional value in pharmaceutical and chemical research. Scientists hunting for targeted molecules that promise improved selectivity and potency started eyeing halogenated phenyl scaffolds with added cyclopropyl and trifluoromethyl touches years ago—mainly as a way to push beyond the boundaries of older, less stable, and less predictable analogues. Chemists noticed certain structural elements seemed to help a compound squeeze through biological membranes, improve metabolic resilience, or bind proteins with extra tenacity. Through plenty of trial, error, and a solid dose of persistence, different teams pieced together a toolkit. This particular molecule stands as a product of those efforts: it’s more than a chemical formula, it’s a marker of how research thinking has moved from broad random-screening to careful, stepwise building. I’ve seen first-hand how breakthroughs only stick around when folks pay attention to those hidden details that give these modern molecules an edge—not by luck, but from rolling with the long, often messy journey of research.
This methanesulfonate salt brings together features many drug designers love: a small cyclopropyl ring bringing rigidity, a strong trifluoromethyl group enhancing lipophilicity and metabolic stability, and the reliable amine and chloro groups on the aromatic ring. The result isn’t just theoretical; this molecule arrives on lab benches as a solid, crystalline salt with real value for development or as a strong intermediate for more complex designs. Its balanced physical properties help it behave predictably, which cuts down the headaches when moving from synthesis to application. For researchers, handling this substance doesn’t feel like walking on eggshells—it gives them a tool that resists unpredictability, stays stable under routine conditions, and keeps reactions moving instead of stalling out with every minor slip in technique.
Most chemists who’ve worked with this compound agree that its solid, white-to-off-white appearance speaks to a degree of purity uncommon in more finicky analogues. With a melting point sitting comfortably in the range of 120-140°C, there’s enough thermal robustness for key operations without losing the flexibility to manipulate it as needed in multi-step synthesis. The compound’s solubility profile gives developers a shot at tailoring solvent selection without endless trial-and-error, emphasizing its trifluoromethyl-cyclopropyl backbone that keeps water solubility low but opens doors in organic systems. The salt form leverages methanesulfonic acid’s knack for crystallization and shelf-stability. Solid state NMR and X-ray values check the boxes for identifying and quantifying the substance, ensuring that every batch delivered to a lab meets required structural parameters with little drama.
Reliable labeling and data sheets give end users what they need: CAS number, purity above 98%, a detailed listing of residual solvents and related impurities, and precautions for temperature and light. Packaging normally involves double-sealed containers that guard against moisture, backed with certificates of analysis and transport info matching international logistics standards. Every gram comes with batch-level traceability, which means if something goes wrong in downstream work, partners can trace the source without a wild goose chase. From my lab experience, the peace of mind that comes with well-documented chemicals can’t be overstated—you spend less time second-guessing the basics and more time focusing on results.
Chemists usually start with commercially available 2-amino-5-chlorobenzene derivatives as the initial building block. After introducing the cyclopropyl group via conventional alkylation routes and bringing in the trifluorobut-3-yn-2-ol backbone through careful addition and protection chemistry, the final methanesulfonate salt forms after a targeted sulfonation and purification step. The overall yield stays in a reasonable range, reflecting how each step leans on robust, well-vetted chemical transformations rather than risky, low-yielding stunts. Scale-up teams value the repeatability of this process—it fits well in both kilo-lab production and trickier pilot plant environments. My own time working on similar salt formations taught me how small tweaks (in water content or temperature) can make or break the whole operation, highlighting how dialed-in process control becomes a non-negotiable for delivering consistent product.
The structural backbone of this molecule opens up a range of downstream chemical manipulations. The terminal alkyne serves as a launching point for click-chemistry conjugations, addition reactions, or cyclizations; meanwhile, the primary amine and chloro substituent on the aromatic ring become hooks for Suzuki, Buchwald, or amide-forming reactions. This flexibility lets medicinal chemists bolt on everything from imaging probes to new functional groups, using the trifluoromethyl and cyclopropyl elements to maintain a handle on metabolic fate. It’s more than a theoretical playground—labs across pharma and biotech make direct use of this versatility right now, sometimes spinning off related compounds as patent-protected candidates for neuropsychiatric and antineoplastic pipelines.
I’ve run into at least half a dozen alternate names for this compound—some from vendors, others from academic publications. Commercial catalogs often list it under slightly tweaked chemical descriptors: you’ll see “trifluorobutynol cyclopropyl aminophenyl methanesulfonate” or similar. Patent filings often shorten this to numerical codes or research series like “BCPF-31Ms” or “CX-1161 mesylate.” Navigating all those synonyms gets tough fast, especially for teams digging through literature or ordering from multiple suppliers. I’ve found that sticking to the most precise IUPAC system helps keep searches—and purchases—straight.
Handling this compound ranks as routine work for trained chemists, yet strict controls on airborne particulates and skin contact are part of every protocol due to the potential for toxicity and the presence of reactive functional groups. Standard practice dictates work within ventilated hoods, double-glove protocols, and full documentation for spills or material loss. Safety data sheets run several pages with acute toxicity reports, recommendations for handling in case of accidental exposure, and warnings for possible decomposition byproducts under high heat. Emergency shower and eyewash stations stand close by in labs using this or similar compounds. Both industry and academia follow tightly regulated disposal schedules, making sure waste storage and removal avoid cross-contamination or unintentional release. Thinking back on my own experience during risk assessment training, I saw how many accidents happen not from unique chemistries but from lapses in basic routine—there’s no substitute for muscle memory around safety habits with tricky intermediates.
Development teams invest heavily in this compound for drug discovery efforts, particularly where central nervous system or oncology targets demand molecules able to cross the blood-brain barrier and dodge rapid metabolic breakdown. Its mix of physicochemical properties—rigidity, lipophilicity, and strong hydrogen bond donors—give lead optimization teams a way to nudge pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in promising directions. Outsourcing partners often request this substance for custom synthesis, taking advantage of its broad applicability for ligand binding studies, receptor mapping, and preclinical animal testing. In the hands of a skilled team, it’s not just a stopgap solution—it’s a springboard for new ideas in therapeutic design, platform development, and diagnostic toolkits.
The compound’s diverse reactivity keeps it on the short list for combinatorial library design, fragment-based screening, and hit-to-lead efforts. Teams building new inhibitors or ligand mimics lean on the trifluoromethyl and cyclopropyl additions to steer selectivity and metabolic fate while retaining synthetic flexibility. Its amine handle allows for fast installation of peptidomimetic or heterocyclic features, and the terminal alkyne streamlines attachment of biotin, PEGs, or other reporter groups for target identification. The steady stream of publications over the last five years attests to its value across research areas, ranging from standard enzyme assays to cell-based phenotype screens. My time collaborating with medicinal chemists made it clear: platforms built with adaptable intermediates like this one outpace those locked behind inflexible building blocks, opening doors for faster iteration and more robust intellectual property creation.
Early preclinical studies of derivatives and analogues flag primary concerns with aromatic halides and trifluoromethyl systems: potential bioaccumulation, off-target activity, and metabolite toxicity. These issues spark parallel efforts in in vitro and animal models to build up a safety database long before any human trials. Acute and chronic dosing in rodents usually shows low-to-moderate toxicity, but longer-term effects, especially on neurotransmitter systems and hepatic metabolism, stay under investigation. Regulatory submissions require substantial genotoxicity, reproductive, and ADME toxicology data, pushing backyard chemistry out of the picture in favor of controlled, professional research. I’ve watched project teams have early enthusiasm tempered by these toxicology results—it serves as a reminder that early promise always faces the harsh reality of biological complexity.
The roadmap for (2S)-2-(2-Amino-5-Chlorophenyl)-4-Cyclopropyl-1,1,1-Trifluorobut-3-Yn-2-Ol Methanesulfonate (1:1.5) hinges on a mix of synthetic flexibility, proven value as a building block, and untested potential in applications outside classic drug discovery. With computational tools speeding up structure-property predictions, and a global market looking for patent-lifetime extensions on existing therapies, demand for structurally unique, functionally robust intermediates like this one only keeps moving upward. Environmental and regulatory hurdles are real, especially given persistent halogen content, but advances in greener synthesis and better waste management steer the field away from old habits. Lab culture benefits when teams treat every molecule as a step along a bigger journey—whether it’s answering a single research question or contributing to long-term health solutions. My own path through this blend of challenge and opportunity reinforces a core belief: every outlier compound, thoughtfully developed and responsibly managed, offers new possibilities for tomorrow’s breakthroughs.
Inside many labs, people work late to unlock the next big thing in medicine. (2S)-2-(2-Amino-5-Chlorophenyl)-4-Cyclopropyl-1,1,1-Trifluorobut-3-Yn-2-Ol Methanesulfonate, although a mouthful, cleaned up a fair share of problems for researchers hunting for new cancer therapies. This compound stands out as a crucial intermediate in building targeted drugs, especially those swinging for the fences in the cancer treatment arena. It landed square in the sights of folks developing kinase inhibitors—the kind that home in on overactive proteins inside tumor cells, flipping off the switch that lets them grow wild.
A big reason this molecule gets a steady spotlight is its unique shape. Pharmaceutical design doesn’t leave much to chance, and the trifluoromethyl group on this backbone boosts stability and makes drugs last longer in the body. Add cyclopropyl and the right kind of amino groups, and you get a structure that can squeeze into very picky enzyme pockets. That’s the dream for medicine aimed at cancer: a drug that won’t go wandering through every healthy tissue, just the bad spots, cutting down harmful side effects.
Anyone who ever tried to launch a new drug knows the pipeline is rough. Lots of promising ideas flare up, then fade out. One reason folks prize this compound comes from its reliability in synthesis. It reduces wasted effort and failed batches. If a company wants to scale up a promising new kinase inhibitor, this intermediate helps clear one of the trickiest hurdles: making enough pure product without torching a budget. In my own experience sitting through pharma team meetings, process specialists flagged this point over and over—few things tank a project faster than scale-up issues. A reliable building block like this one offers peace of mind.
Supply is a running concern. Demand keeps rising for intermediates like this as more biotech startups get into precision medicine. Not every lab has the setup or skills to safely work with these kinds of chemicals. Sourcing problems can slow the whole chain, pushing out timelines for patients stuck waiting on the next generation of therapies. Some experts urge better global cooperation and sensible policies, so skilled suppliers can deliver quality material consistently. Keeping the lines open for international collaboration reduces costs and speeds up life-saving research.
Oversight matters. Regulatory agencies control the purity and safety of intermediates since the downstream products end up in vulnerable people. Producers invest heavily in analytics—high-pressure liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, all that gear—just to prove every batch shows the right profile. With so much hanging on a single molecule, nobody wants to gamble on a shortcut. In my own work with pharmaceutical partners, every shipment sparks review meetings and document checks. It slows things down, but nobody disputes the reason. One weak spot, and everything built on top could come crashing down.
Fresh breakthroughs come from a solid foundation. A reliable supply of high-quality intermediates lets researchers focus energy on what matters: designing smarter, safer drugs for tough diseases. As research pushes forward, these building blocks keep showing up in trial data and clinical pipelines—a quiet testament to their value behind the scenes.
Working in a lab, tidiness isn’t just about clean benches and labeled bottles. Poor storage conditions can turn a safe material into a hazard, even for something routine. Not long ago, I saw a colleague set a bottle aside after a busy synthesis run. The cap was loose. A week later, the contents inside that once-stable white powder had caked, yellowed, and left a strange odor in the cabinet. The lesson didn’t end with a ruined experiment. Chemical stability relies on respect for everyday details. Light, moisture, temperature swings, open air—these can tip the balance from safe to unpredictable.
Scientific literature puts numbers to these everyday facts. Some organic compounds—think azides, peroxides, and many pharmaceutical ingredients—break down fast if heat seeps into the container. Studies show, for example, hydrolysis reactions speeding up at just above room temperature. In 2022, researchers at a major European lab measured significant potency loss in reactive intermediates left at 25°C compared to those at 4°C. Pharmacy shelves across the world have seen drug recalls because moisture crept into bottles, triggering slow reactions that nobody planned for.
Storage isn’t just about setting bottles in a fridge or freezer, either. Sometimes it’s the right choice, but not always. Some compounds, if chilled too quickly or left at the back of a freezer, can crystallize in ways that make them hard to recover. Frost and condensation after thawing end up contaminating more than a little product. Light matters too; certain dyes and organic materials fade or transform because of UV exposure from ordinary indoor fixtures. UV shield bags and amber bottles block out these dangers. Ask anybody who’s worked with photoresist or vitamin solutions and they’ll recall throwing out cloudy, off-color batches after hitting the wrong shelf.
Glass with a tight-fitting screw top solves a world of problems. My years handling hygroscopic powders and acids have convinced me nothing beats glass for reliability. Old plastic containers go brittle or leach chemicals into what you’re trying to store. A silica gel pack tucked into a reused jar often protected dozens of grams of rare materials from ruin. Proper labeling avoids accidental mix-ups, which can still slip through even seasoned teams. Forget fancy climate controls—often, a shaded, consistent spot at 15 to 25°C with sealed containers keeps most laboratory stocks in good shape.
Most storage accidents happen from distractions and shortcuts. Better routines help. I once started logging fridge temperatures weekly in a logbook, and later dozens of small issues got caught before they harmed anything valuable. Teams that check expiration dates and swap older bottles forward rarely lose money to spoilage. Blunt conversations about labeling and shelf space have stopped outright disasters. Large organizations that post simple "storage rules"—in every language their staff speaks—roll past little mistakes that would trip others up.
One simple rule: respect the chemistry and keep it boring. Consistent temperatures, dry air, solid caps, and clear labeling. Back up proper equipment with habits that recognize danger in everyday things. The best researchers don’t just chase new elements or reactions. They know how to avoid careless mistakes that cost time, health, and data. Store sensitive stuff like you’re going to use it for ten years—because sometimes, you do.
Pharmaceutical research runs on precision, trust, and safety. Choosing the right product starts with more than just reading the label. In a lab, I’ve watched scientists weigh out materials, checking purity levels and cross-referencing certificates each step of the way. It’s clear that a product’s backstory matters: purity, traceability, storage, supplier accountability, even the feel of a powder or the clarity of a solution can tell you if something is up to the job.
Quality in pharmaceutical research isn’t an afterthought. Researchers rely on certified reference materials and reagents that meet tight purity requirements. Contaminants or heavy metals can throw off the whole process. I’ve seen one contaminated reagent set a team back two weeks just to uncover the source. Always check for documentation: reputable suppliers provide testing certificates, batch records, safety data sheets, and updated shipping conditions. If these basics aren’t there, I start questioning everything else about the product.
Regulatory agencies leave no stone unturned. The US Food and Drug Administration expects every ingredient and reagent to have a provenance. During my time working under Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), we had to document exactly where each vial came from—down to the original manufacturer, lot number, and even storage temperature during transit. If a product doesn’t support this paper trail, researchers risk regulatory headaches and wasted resources.
Safety isn’t just a checkbox; it’s real people at risk. Pharmaceutical labs use autoclaves, fume hoods, and protective gear every day to manage hazards. A product with incomplete hazard identification or poor labeling becomes a liability. Good suppliers invest in transparent hazard statements, packaging that prevents cross-contamination, and robust shipping logistics. After a minor incident with a mislabeled container, my trust shifted to vendors who could account for every detail.
Research can stall over small details, like delayed shipping or poor technical support. It’s common for labs to stick to tried-and-true brands because they consistently meet delivery estimates and solve issues quickly. I’ve watched lab managers compare suppliers not only on price, but on how fast they answer questions or replace a damaged shipment. Customer service forms part of overall suitability.
It’s tempting to cut corners for a budget, but low-grade materials often backfire. Counterfeit chemicals, unknown fillers, or reused containers don’t just affect results—they can lead to product recalls, failed publications, or lost grants. I’ve never seen a colleague regret sticking with materials that came with full documentation and batch traceability.
Stronger collaboration between suppliers and research teams often leads to better outcomes. Vendors who offer technical consultations, custom documentation, and transparent quality assurance reporting help labs reach their goals. Preferring suppliers who actively solicit feedback and adapt their processes means fewer surprises and more reliable experiments.
In the end, suitability depends on trusting both the product and the partner behind it. Every research project, grant, or patient waiting for a new drug rests on making smart choices right from the start. The stakes are too high for anything less.
Every time I’ve worked with chemicals, the value of knowing exactly what’s in the bottle can’t be overstated. Pure product means less guessing. Take a batch of salt intended for food processing. If the label says 99.5% sodium chloride, the confidence to use it stretches far. Contamination, even at half a percent, could spoil a process or, worse, threaten safety. Purity isn’t a small detail. It’s the backbone for accurate results, reliable reactions, and consistent products.
Lab technicians and engineers notice differences in outcomes even from small impurities. Impurities in something as basic as hydrochloric acid can throw off titrations, leading to wrong analyses and potentially expensive mistakes. Most experienced folks insist on certificates of analysis for a reason—they’ve learned what can go wrong without them.
Grades tell us who the intended user is. Reagent or analytical grades signal suitability for research or testing, where even minor contamination can skew data. In contrast, industrial grades might seem less glamorous, but consistency remains key. Using a low-grade product for pharmaceutical tests invites disaster. Only high-grade, documented purity materials find their way into those drug trials because a small contaminant could interact, change the chemistry, or even become harmful.
Some suppliers use terms like “USP” or “food grade” for clients in health or food sectors. Those grades aren’t just marketing. Regulatory bodies, both in the US and abroad, keep close tabs on those terms. The US Pharmacopeia (USP) outlines strict requirements, demanding suppliers validate purity and safety. Buyers expect detailed batch records and third-party test data. Nobody trusts “pretty close to pure” in critical applications, and health relies on those fine distinctions.
Direct experience reminds me how important third-party verification has become. Certificates of analysis matter only if reputable labs confirm the results. Internal checks, on their own, invite doubt, especially after well-publicized cases where suppliers exaggerated or misreported test results. Quality control teams ask for methods, instruments, and sometimes even audit supplier labs before accepting a shipment. Only through this level of transparency can trust exist.
Sometimes, purity isn’t just about one unwanted chemical. Microbial contamination, heavy metals, or even stray moisture can alter a product’s usefulness. A pharmaceutical batch tainted with heavy metals puts patients at risk and can cost a company dearly in recalls and reputation. The expectation: suppliers test for multiple potential contaminants and not just the primary substance.
Strong supplier relationships begin with open communication about specifications. Asking the right questions—about test methods, detection limits, and prior regulatory findings—shifts the relationship from transactional to genuine partnership. Firms embracing digital batch records and blockchain for traceability find fewer surprises and, ultimately, fewer headaches.
Innovation brings opportunities for better purity and tighter quality controls. Spectroscopy, chromatography, and rapid diagnostic assays get better every year. Smart firms invest in these tools and keep certifications current. I’ve worked with partners who send digital test results with every batch and open doors to their labs if questions arise. This openness, together with technology upgrades and strict adherence to standards, pushes the conversation toward better quality, safety, and trust on every shipment.
Working around chemicals changes the way you look at common tasks. Over the years, simple mistakes like skipping gloves or rushing through pouring have cost people their health. Getting careless or feeling too confident usually backfires. Direct contact, inhalation, or mixing incompatible substances causes burns, breathing trouble, or worse.
Back when I started in a small lab, we kept a strong focus on routine. Goggles, gloves, and lab coats were non-negotiable. After seeing a colleague suffer chemical burns from a splash—because he grabbed someone else's stained cotton gloves instead of nitrile—it hit home: shortcuts just aren’t worth it. Some people think danger comes only from “scary-sounding” substances, but even vinegar and bleach will hurt if mixed incorrectly.
The American Chemical Society tracked over 100,000 chemical injuries in workplaces last year. Most incidents happened through skin contact, especially around the hands and eyes. This matches my own experience—people reach for cleanup towels instead of proper spill kits, or leave containers unlabelled, setting up someone else for a nasty surprise.
Fumes carry invisible danger. Without good ventilation, some solvents—like acetone or toluene—create headaches, nausea, or long-term damage. A small fan in the window does not qualify as safe extraction. I once saw a coworker collapse in a paint shop just because someone closed a door, trapping fumes. That wasn’t an accident, but pure unawareness.
Improper storage causes more harm than actual “use.” Mixing acids with store-bought cleaners generates toxic vapors. Too many garages, schools, and backroom workshops pile up chemicals without noticing expiration dates, which turn sturdy liquids into unstable risks. A simple answer is better labeling and practicing the habit of reading those labels—not just shoving bottles on a shelf and assuming tomorrow won’t matter.
Instead of trusting luck, everyone should keep a mental checklist. Before opening a bottle, think about air flow, spill containment, and where to rinse off if something spills. I've watched beginners save themselves just by knowing that water does not help every chemical; for some, only mineral oil or a neutralizer reduces harm. Knowing this—learning it early—makes a difference.
Big operations enforce buddy systems, especially for anything volatile. Working with a partner means quicker help if things go wrong, plus another set of eyes to catch mistakes before they become irreversible. Safety showers, eye-wash stations, and accessible first aid kits turn into lifesavers once you actually need them.
Good communication prevents many problems. In my own shop, a chalkboard lists what chemicals got used that day, warnings about reactions, and even jokes to keep morale up. This open sharing keeps people aware—not just of risk, but of responsibility toward each other. Accepting that no one gets it right alone builds a culture where people support each other, instead of pointing fingers when accidents occur.
Building strong habits—wearing protective gear, reading safety data, double-checking storage—prevents emergencies. Pushing for regular training helps everyone, not just newcomers. This focus doesn’t slow you down; it saves time in the long run, sparing people pain and organizations legal trouble.
Nobody wakes up expecting an accident. By treating every chemical like it matters, everyone stacks the deck in favor of health and peace of mind. Safety isn’t a box to tick; it’s a commitment to yourself and the people around you.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | methanesulfonic acid; (2S)-2-(2-amino-5-chlorophenyl)-4-cyclopropyl-1,1,1-trifluorobut-3-yn-2-ol (1.5:1) |
| Other names |
Abrocitinib mesylate PF-04965842 mesylate |
| Pronunciation | /tuː ɛs tuː əˈmiːnoʊ faɪv klɔːrəˈfiːnɪl fɔːr saɪkləˈproʊpɪl wʌn wʌn wʌn traɪˈfluːrəˌbjuːt θriː aɪn tuː ɒl ˌmɛθeɪnsʌlˈfəʊneɪt/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 1416799-28-4 |
| 3D model (JSmol) | `/data/structures/diverse/other/3q2/3q2bh.xyz` |
| Beilstein Reference | 9007442 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:131811 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL3612427 |
| ChemSpider | 35523138 |
| DrugBank | DB14761 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03a1d197-9ae9-4e7d-a771-25c395a72c10 |
| Gmelin Reference | Gmelin Reference: 1346354 |
| KEGG | C22298 |
| MeSH | D000068917 |
| PubChem CID | 160050610 |
| UNII | 5GVD67ZQ84 |
| UN number | UN3272 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID50963666 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C14H12ClF3NO·1.5CH4O3S |
| Molar mass | 438.86 g/mol |
| Appearance | White solid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.44 g/cm3 |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble |
| log P | 0.9 |
| Acidity (pKa) | pKa ≈ 9.2 (for the anilinium group) |
| Basicity (pKb) | 6.71 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -98.6×10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.563 |
| Dipole moment | 4.4316 Debye |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 586.6 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | N01AX17 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | Harmful if swallowed. Causes skin irritation. Causes serious eye irritation. May cause respiratory irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS02,GHS05,GHS07 |
| Pictograms | GHS05,GHS06,GHS08 |
| Signal word | Danger |
| Hazard statements | H302, H315, H319, H335 |
| Precautionary statements | P261, P264, P271, P272, P273, P280, P302+P352, P304+P340, P305+P351+P338, P312, P321, P332+P313, P333+P313, P362+P364, P337+P313, P501 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-2-0 |
| Flash point | > 150.1°C |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): Oral, rat = 4263 mg/kg |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not Established |
| REL (Recommended) | 0.05 mg/m3 |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Trifluoromethylated butynols Cyclopropylphenyl derivatives Amino-chlorophenyl compounds Methanesulfonate salts Organofluorine compounds Phenylethynyl derivatives |
