The synthesis and use of complex reaction masses like the one formed by blending 1-phenylethanamine, methanesulfonic acid, and 2-amino-2-(hydroxymethyl)propane-1,3-diol emerged through stepwise breakthroughs in organic and analytical chemistry. A chemist can trace the lineage back to early explorations of amine function, the task of pairing these with strong acids, and the hunt for buffers and stabilizers that resist breakdown during tough industrial processes. In practical terms, scientific curiosity in the 20th century set the groundwork, but demand from the pharmaceutical and diagnostics fields drove expansion. Even small changes in preparation—tweaks in temperature, ratios, or purification strategies—began showing tangible impacts on consistency and yield. Today’s facilities benefit from that layering of incremental improvements, steering the blend’s development toward more rigorous reproducibility and safer scaling. Historical records show that as more data collected on longevity, stability, and cross-contamination risks, the field started to recognize how reaction masses could support workflows where single reagents fell short.
Mixing 1-phenylethanamine with methanesulfonic acid and 2-amino-2-(hydroxymethyl)propane-1,3-diol results in a system where amine, acid, and buffering agent collide. Each component brings its own reactivity and makes this blend versatile for specialty synthesis and diagnostic chemistry. The primary amine offers nucleophilicity and a degree of selectivity, often acting as a building block between broader aromatic chemistry and more intricate amide structures. Methanesulfonic acid’s strong, non-oxidizing nature helps control pH without introducing unwanted side products. The buffer keeps things steady, letting sensitive procedures run without runaway shifts in acidity. When working with this formulation, product engineers report better control over chiral resolution and sometimes fewer process impurities—a real advantage where purity dictates regulatory approval or downstream compatibility.
Anyone assessing this reaction mass up close will notice a clear to pale yellow hue in solution, an odor notable in labs already using similar amines, and a viscosity dependent on water content. The blend shows strong solubility in polar solvents, mainly water and lower alcohols. Thermal stability remains robust below 50°C, but going any higher risks gradual discoloration and off-flavors from amine degradation. pH values hover on the acidic-to-neutral border, depending on blend ratios, and the buffering strength holds steady against moderate influxes of acid or base. Direct exposure to strong oxidizers or bases destabilizes the system, so process designers typically engineer around these weak spots to avoid yield losses or accidental etching of storage tanks. For everyone handling large volumes, the material’s high water affinity can be a headache, drawing in humidity from the air and forcing storage in air-tight containers.
Labeling on containers goes well beyond older black-and-white hazard symbol stickers. Today’s bottles display batch codes linking to traceable analyticals, QR codes loaded with SDS sheets, and often product-specific purity figures measured by HPLC or NMR. Specifications lay out percent contents of the primary amine, acid titration numbers, occupational exposure guidelines, and sometimes even ion-specific contamination limits. During transport, manufacturers include handling instructions regarding temperature and moisture tolerance, a requirement both for regulatory compliance and for avoiding spoilage. Glass, HDPE, or lined steel drums remain the usual choices, with detailed tamper-evidence features used for lots headed into GMP workflows.
Preparation generally uses a simple, scalable sequence: 1-phenylethanamine dissolves in an alcohol-water blend at room temperature or slightly cooled. Methanesulfonic acid, often pre-chilled, is added in a slow, steady stream to allow safe exothermic neutralization. Careful stirring keeps local heat pockets from forming. Once the first heat peak passes, the 2-amino-2-(hydroxymethyl)propane-1,3-diol enters in solid or concentrated solution form to build out the buffer action and avoid pH spikes. Processors occasionally use inert nitrogen gas blankets to keep oxygen from catalyzing side reactions. Finished material faces in-line filtration to strip particulates. Consistency from batch to batch usually depends on tight raw material spec, pH monitoring, and real-time temperature tracking with data loggers—details learned the hard way by anyone who’s seen a full drum solidify or a supposedly “inert” batch spawn contaminants after an overnight delay.
This trio opens several doors for synthetic chemists. The amine can condense with carbonyls, coupling agents, or activated esters to build up amides or ureas. Under mild heating, the sulfonic acid and amine generate an ammonium sulfonate salt, paving the way for ionic liquid applications or dual-purpose solvents. Chemists can exploit the buffering component, TRIS (tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane), to clamp down on rapid pH drift during peptide coupling, making this mass valuable for large-scale library synthesis. Some research points to possible modifications: incorporating small ring derivatives, tacking on heavy isotope labels, or pushing the buffer toward metal-complexed states for enzyme immobilization. The same blend can be adjusted with co-solvents or used as a matrix for solid-phase synthesis, so long as downstream extraction separates the pieces cleanly.
Depending on context and supplier, references may include "Phenylethylamine + Methanesulfonic Acid + TRIS Buffer Reaction Mass," "Buffered Phenylethylamine Sulfonate Solution," or proprietary acronyms developed for commercial blends. In academic papers, some shorthand as "PEA-MSA-TRIS mass," while import/export declarations use more exhaustive IUPAC-style nomenclature to please border authorities. As I’ve seen catalog listings, lot codes often link back to either the buffer’s commercial name or the dominant application field—biochemical assays, peptide synthesis, or diagnostic polymer preparations.
Lab and plant safety managers take this blend’s hazards seriously, grounding protocols in both regional regulations and globally harmonized system principles. Skin or eye contact creates localized irritation—standard for many aliphatic amines and strong acids—so goggles and nitrile gloves remain non-negotiable. Inhalation isn’t a huge risk thanks to moderate vapor pressure, but splash risks during mixing or transport spur widespread use of face shields or chemical hoods. Emergency spill kits line mixing floors. Facilities stack engineering controls (local exhaust, inert gas, vapor detection) with clear operational signage. Every batch comes with detailed Safety Data Sheets outlining decomposition products (mainly volatile amines, SO2 derivatives), underscores the need for fixed eyewash stations, and describes cold-chain preferences for long-term storage. Disposal leans on neutralization with sodium bicarbonate or sodium hydroxide followed by local wastewater filtration.
In my time consulting with diagnostic companies, the demand for such reaction masses stemmed from their robustness as intermediary solutions for buffer-stabilized assay kits and compatible synthetic platforms. Pharma process chemists pull from these blends when aiming to modulate substrate pH with precision and tackle tricky substrate combinations that side-eye more volatile acids or less stable amines. Materials scientists sometimes exploit these mixtures during the functionalization of advanced polymers, attracted by their controlled ionic strength and minimized batch-to-batch deviation. Companies rely on them to smooth out synthesis cycles for peptides or oligonucleotides, particularly where downstream steps can’t tolerate wild pH shifts. Diagnostics labs incorporate these into advanced PCR platforms or immunoassay components, evidence that practical versatility trumps theoretical purity in routine industrial work.
Today’s research teams push the envelope for these materials. Ongoing work explores nanoscale applications where surface chemistry benefits from the coupling of phenylethylamines with strong sulfonic acids. Green chemistry initiatives look for reduced-waste alternatives or avenues for in situ recycling of reaction byproducts. Studies in catalysis show that tuning the ratios expands the toolkit for one-pot syntheses, with early successes in making chiral auxiliaries and phase transfer catalysts. Analytical chemists, facing increasing regulatory scrutiny, continue gathering data on trace impurity migration and optimizing new purification columns tailored for these reaction masses. As someone with a history in collaborative commercial-academic partnerships, I see that blending hard-won practical wisdom with computational predictions yields measurable gains in reactivity and cost control. The field now pays close attention to integrating automated monitoring tools—miniaturized IR or NMR probes installed inline—ensuring every gram produced matches spec with less interruption.
Toxicologists dissect each ingredient’s safety profile, recognizing that the blend inherits risk from both the parent amine and strong acid. 1-Phenylethanamine, especially in high doses, exerts mild neuroactive properties, while methanesulfonic acid causes classic corrosive injuries at concentrated levels. Combined, they don’t create exotic hazards but still demand routine protective steps. Animal studies cite low systemic toxicity at intended operational concentrations, but chronic exposures—especially for workers handling drums daily—raise ongoing questions around dermal and mucosal irritation. Regulatory bodies set occupational exposure limits, but workplace audit data often reveals compliance gaps in glove use or air handling. Long-term, the industry invests heavily in in vitro assay development to identify breakdown intermediates and their impact on aquatic systems, reflecting pressure from stricter environmental regulators.
Advances in custom blend formulations seem poised to continue, with machine learning-enabled process control and waste stream minimization at the forefront of priorities. Next-generation pharmaceutical manufacturing targets ever-tighter impurity limits and blockwise scalability, expecting these reaction masses to flex in new directions. Biotech’s rising complexity, especially in therapeutic peptide and RNA tool manufacture, increases pressure to deliver more predictable, minimized-toxicity raw materials that can handle evolving regulatory landscapes. Researchers experiment with greener sulfonic acid alternatives or engineered amines to cut environmental footprints without compromising performance. With digital twins and AI-augmented batch release, future facilities expect mixtures like this one to set new benchmarks on throughput, visibility, and reliable integration across increasingly sophisticated supply chains.
Every day people take for granted how pills reach pharmacies or how home test kits give instant results. These wonders start with reactions in the lab. A reaction mass formed from 1-Phenylethanamine, methanesulfonic acid, and 2-amino-2-(hydroxymethyl)propane-1,3-diol turns up as a central player in some crucial pharmaceutical syntheses. The components themselves belong to two different but important chemical families. 1-Phenylethanamine offers a backbone for compounds related to neurotransmitters. Methanesulfonic acid acts as a strong, selective acid — powerful enough to drive a reaction but not as hazardous as some older mineral acids. 2-amino-2-(hydroxymethyl)propane-1,3-diol, often called TRIS, buffers against sudden changes in acidity. Combined, they create a setting where specific drugs can take shape safely and repeatably.
The main use for this chemical trio comes in kicking off or improving key steps while synthesizing active pharmaceutical ingredients, or APIs. As someone who has spent hours in a lab optimizing reactions, hitting a wall is common. The yield might drop, or tricky byproducts muddy the results. In these moments, swapping out older acids for methanesulfonic acid smooths the process. TRIS keeps the pH from swinging wildly, protecting delicate molecules. For example, to make certain antihistamines or neurological drugs, chemists rely on a setup like this to form stable salt forms or speed up purification. Factories appreciate how methanesulfonic acid breaks down safely and does not build up toxic waste, solving headaches linked to harsher chemicals.
Labs that jump into this chemistry see real-world results. Consider allergy pills or antidepressants available today. The pathway to those medications often includes reaction mixtures with these very components. 1-Phenylethanamine derivatives turn into agents that interact gently with the body’s own pathways. The acid and buffer help keep everything stable through the complex production, storage, and transport stages. Patients then get more consistent pills, fewer surprise side effects, and higher confidence they’re getting what’s on the label.
No one wants mystery substances in their medicine. Methanesulfonic acid offers a clean alternative to stronger acids that can leave behind nasty residues. Research journals back this up — studies show methanesulfonic acid scores better on safety and environmental impact than decades-old acids like hydrochloric or sulfuric. Workers in manufacturing plants feel safer when fewer dangerous fumes get released. Environmental groups have pointed out how shifting to this new standard helps cut down on hazardous waste at its source.
The push for greener, safer drug manufacturing can’t run on promises alone. Companies embracing these reaction masses need proper training on safe handling. More transparency around each ingredient’s sourcing helps build trust with buyers and the public. Groups like the FDA and EMA watch these developments with a close eye, setting strict quality and traceability rules before any batch hits pharmacies. Investment in better waste management, staff education, and open reporting stands out as a top priority. Years in the lab showed me that every chemical shortcut taken for profit can come back as a bigger risk down the line. The future will favor plants and chemists holding themselves to a higher standard, not just for compliance but for real-world public safety and consistent supply of essential medicines.
Working with chemical mixtures, or reaction masses, has always required a careful look at what goes into the blend. A mix of chemicals can create a cocktail far more unpredictable than the sum of its parts. Only examining the ingredients list rarely tells the whole story. One chemical in isolation may seem mild, but when paired with another, things can heat up fast—sometimes literally, sometimes in all the wrong ways.
Talking with people in labs and factories, I've seen how easy it is to gloss over the hidden hazards in these blends. I once worked alongside a solvent recycler who pointed out that some reaction masses off-gas toxic fumes, even long after being bottled up. The Material Safety Data Sheet, often ignored, told us that pressure builds up if left in sunlight, and I watched a drum pop its lid on a hot afternoon. That chemical stew, it turned out, had an ingredient that breaks down and gives off something nasty at warm temperatures.
Hazards can sneak up. That’s why the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) and REACH regulations in Europe demand careful review. If you can’t pronounce the name, it probably deserves a closer look. Sometimes folks think, "If I’ve handled all the pieces alone, I can handle the soup." That’s a mistake. Toxicity can skyrocket, or flammability can jump. Reactivity doesn't always show up until something unexpected, like a little humidity, sets it off.
For those who dig into data, ingredient thresholds matter. A tiny percentage of a hazardous substance influences how the overall reaction mass must be stored and used. If the blend contains a sensitizer like isocyanate or a pyrophoric substance, standard gloves or goggles won’t cut it. Here’s where training pays off. OSHA keeps lists of chemicals flagged for special handling, and those labels with red diamonds aren’t just for show.
Many times, new mixtures roll out with no field experience to draw on. Scientists or engineers might know the starting materials but haven't seen hours-old reaction masses handled with warehouse forklifts. In my experience, this is where problems crop up. Dumping two "safe" liquids together led to a runaway reaction in a neighbor’s garage lab, and the house filled with choking fumes. Knowing the flashpoint and boiling point of the blend, not just its parts, could have prevented a scary afternoon.
Safety comes down to respect for the unknown. That’s where established guidelines step in. NIOSH, EPA, and international agencies urge double-checking each reaction mass before it reaches the floor. Using sealed drums for volatile compounds, ensuring an eyewash station stands nearby, and proper labeling—these steps block most close calls.
Training and communication offer solutions where technical sheets leave gray areas. Workers should know not just what's in the drum, but how it behaves with water, sunlight, or air. Manufacturers can add QR codes on labels that link to real-world handling videos. Regular drills prepare teams for the rare things that go wrong—like a flare-up or accidental spill. Investing time in practice beats cleaning up after something goes sideways.
Every reaction mass deserves respect. Treat each as a unique material until proven safe through testing and real-life handling—not just by piecing together the paperwork. The shortcut is never worth the cleanup.
Anyone who has ever mixed a batch of anything—from concrete to soup—knows there’s more to getting it right than just following a recipe. Chemists see the same thing with reaction masses. In every lab or factory, the goal is clear: combine components at the right ratio for the outcome you want. That recipe doesn’t magically appear from a book. It’s drawn from hard-won experiments, regulatory rules, and often the stubborn rules of chemistry itself.
You’ll find that a lot of reaction mixtures depend on striking a balance. In organic chemistry, for example, classic Grignard reagents use a 1:1 molar ratio of magnesium and organohalide. Stray from this too much, and things can go sideways—unreacted starting materials, byproducts, wasted money, maybe even safety risks. On the other hand, a synthesis aimed at producing ammonia, like the Haber-Bosch process, relies on a 3:1 ratio of hydrogen to nitrogen. These numbers aren’t arbitrary. They come from both the demands of stoichiometry and modern process efficiency.
Years back, I worked in a university chemistry lab where precision made or broke an experiment. Once, we misjudged the amount of oxidizer by just a few grams, thinking a slight excess would be harmless. Ends up, the reaction ran too hot, ruined our product, and forced us to spend all night scrubbing glassware. Small differences in ratios can have huge effects. This isn’t just about the right amount on paper—ratios influence cost, energy use, repeatability, and even the shelf life of the final mixture.
Chemists and process managers rely on published research, technical guidelines, and sometimes intuition from decades of similar work. For new or less-documented reactions, labs often run pilot batches, starting near the theoretically “perfect” ratio. Through trial, measurement, and sometimes failed batches, they fine-tune the process. In some places, like the pharmaceutical industry, regulations force tighter controls on these numbers to guarantee both safety and the effectiveness of the finished product.
The right concentration or ratio in any reaction mass isn’t just a number you pull from thin air. For well-studied processes, you’ll find accepted values published in journals, reviewed by regulators, and proven in industry. Take acetylsalicylic acid production—pharmaceutical giants tend to stick close to a 1:1 molar ratio of salicylic acid to acetic anhydride. In battery manufacturing, lithium-ion precursors rely on proprietary mixes, but each company fiercely tests to find what gives the highest yield with the least waste.
It’s not enough to chase the perfect theoretical yield; real-world production runs face scale-up issues, machine limitations, supply purity, and even operator skill. Nobody wants to discard expensive raw materials in hopes of wringing out another gram of product. On the other hand, cutting corners by skimping on a crucial component rarely ends well. Mistakes hit the bottom line and risk damaging reputations—not to mention the risk to safety and compliance.
Standardizing concentrations across an industry or even within a single plant remains a moving target. Teams blend data from literature, pilot studies, and real-time analytics. Some companies have invested in sensors and software that monitor and adjust ratios on the fly. Others trust the judgment of veteran operators. Regulators tighten oversight, expecting frequent sampling and strong records.
The future promises tighter controls, smarter equipment, and more openness about best practices. Sharing successful ratios across companies is still rare, as it can mean exposing competitive secrets. Until then, every chemist and process engineer keeps a close eye on their ratios, knowing the numbers they choose shape the outcome in ways textbooks barely hint at.
Anyone who’s pulled an expired carton of milk from the fridge knows how storage can make or break a product. Whether dealing with specialty chemicals, food, or pharmaceuticals, everything comes down to protecting what’s inside from the outside world. Ignoring storage guidelines isn’t an inconvenience—it often means flushing money and safety down the drain. High-quality products lose their value when left in the wrong conditions; simple mistakes end up costing time and, in many cases, public trust.
Humidity creeps into packaging like an unwanted guest. Some powders clump and lose their punch, while tablets can swell or even crumble. Light plays the part of a slow saboteur, breaking down sensitive ingredients over weeks or months. There’s also temperature: heat makes chemical bonds more likely to snap, cold can cause separation or crystallization. Each hazard, on its own, can ruin a perfectly good batch long before its date on the label.
In my own work, I’ve seen what happens when products are left unchecked in a warehouse corner. One summer, a shipment of reagents suffered through a heatwave because someone left them near a sunny window. What arrived at the lab wasn’t useful—it showed lower potency, and some bottles were leaking. The customer called, frustrated, and suddenly everyone had a new appreciation for standard operating procedures.
Industry recalls trace back to storage mistakes more often than some might think. The FDA tracks incidents where drugs degrade in retail settings, usually from improper temperature control. For perishable food, the World Health Organization puts a sharp focus on proper refrigeration during transport and storage—it takes just a few hours of exposure to spoil thousands of dollars worth of products.
Regulators force companies to list storage instructions on the label. Reading these instructions tells you how companies want their goods handled. It goes beyond just following rules—or avoiding fines. It’s a matter of preserving every bit of quality built into the product. Even the best-designed molecule or formulation suffers when basic storage gets neglected. Storing a moisture-sensitive material in a damp storeroom undoes months of development and quality control.
Security against instability doesn’t require magic. It starts with controls anyone can follow: airtight packaging, climate-controlled rooms, regular checks for signs of breakdown. Real-time temperature and humidity sensors flag problems before they spiral. Barcode systems and inventory turnover policies make sure stale stock doesn’t linger on the shelf. Training goes a long way, too. Staff who recognize the signs of spoilage or degradation step in long before a recall becomes necessary.
Global supply chains put more pressure on storage than ever before. Products now sit in shipping containers, cross various climates, and wait in distribution warehouses, sometimes for weeks. Choosing packaging that stands up to rough handling and extreme environments protects the product far longer than low-cost alternatives. Quality doesn’t just come from the production line—it follows the product from the factory to the end user’s hands.
People trust products that perform the same way every time. The only way to deliver that consistency is to respect how the product reacts to the world around it. As science and technology move forward, the basics don’t change: get storage right, and everything else gets easier.
Anyone who’s spent time around chemical manufacturing knows that regulations aren't just an annoying hurdle—they cut risk, protect workers, and make sure neighborhoods stay safe. Whenever you’re dealing with a reaction mass, things can get complicated fast. The term “reaction mass” gets thrown around all the time, but it usually describes a mixture of multiple substances that react with each other, or a blend that’s being transported, stored, or used together as a unit. What makes regulatory and safety decisions tricky is that you can’t always predict exactly what comes out during or after the process.
Ignorance or shortcuts around safety turn small mistakes into news stories or lawsuits. Just look at the Bhopal disaster in 1984—union carbide mishandled a tank of chemicals and killed thousands. Nobody wants that repeated. Good chemical stewardship means checking rules at the local, state, and federal levels, not just hoping that whatever works in one country will fly everywhere.
I’ve worked with compliance officers who spend their days chasing down Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), updating pictograms, and translating safety phrases for every blend that comes through the lab. They tell me the hardest part isn’t following a specific rule, but figuring out which rules apply to each unique mixture. In places like Europe, folks turn to REACH, which treats reaction masses as “substances of unknown or variable composition.” In the US, TSCA has its own opinion. One mass might need a registration, another needs new hazard assessments, and both start to sound like alphabet soup before lunch.
Some chemicals react gently. Others form gases that choke the air or heat up enough to melt plastic. A reaction mass might look harmless but hide risks that show up on exposure or if water sneaks in during shipping. That’s why compliance isn’t about hunches but hazard proof. Regulators want to know what you’re mixing, the likely and possible products, by-products, what escapes during transport, storage conditions, and whether everything’s labeled right. I remember a spill we had in our facility years ago—two liters of what seemed like an everyday mixture, but it knocked out half the plant because no one realized a secondary component became toxic above 60°C.
Every shipment, every new lab project, there’s always a checklist: Is this mixture flammable or explosive? Could something outgas and cause indoor air problems? Will it survive transport in summer heat? Regulators expect answers. If you get those details wrong or fudge the numbers, expect fines or shutdowns.
Trust in this space doesn’t come from just the right paperwork, but clear process and transparency with authorities. Third-party audits, robust incident reporting, and regular training for staff go further than clever legal arguments. Technology can help—modern sensors and tracking software provide real-time data on container temperature and pressure shifts. Small operators and startups sometimes feel overwhelmed, yet consulting with experienced professionals early often reduces costs down the road.
Waste handling is another stress point. A reaction mass might morph into something that needs hazardous waste labeling by the end of a process. Failing to track that conversion can set off a cascade of fines, or worse, accidents that ruin a company’s name.
Building a culture that doesn’t just “check the box” pays off over time. Involving operations teams, not just managers, creates frontline accountability. I’ve seen workplaces with nearly zero incidents for years by investing in labeling, storage systems, and open-door policies for reporting close calls. Chemical safety doesn’t come from luck—it’s rooted in diligence, ongoing education, and respect for both people and process.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Reaction mass of 1-phenylethan-1-amine, methanesulfonic acid and 2-amino-2-(hydroxymethyl)propane-1,3-diol |
| Other names |
TRIS-Phenylethylamine methane sulfonic acid salt Tris/PEA/MSA Tris-phenylethylamine mesylate Reaction mass of phenylethylamine, methanesulfonic acid and trometamol Phenylethylamine mesylate with trometamol |
| Pronunciation | /rɪˈæk.ʃən mæs ʌv wʌn ˈfiːnɪlˈɛθəˌnəˌmiːn ˌmɛθeɪnsʌlˈfɒnɪk ˈæsɪd ənd tuː əˈmiːnoʊ tuː ˌhaɪdrɒksɪˈmɛθɪl ˈproʊpeɪn wʌn ˈθriː daɪ˒ɒl/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 1253178-70-9 |
| Beilstein Reference | Beilstein Reference: 6358735 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:142504 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL4297750 |
| ChemSpider | 26286710 |
| DrugBank | DB16523 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03-2119955951-48-0000 |
| EC Number | 'EC 700-883-2' |
| Gmelin Reference | 6019 |
| KEGG | C15460 |
| MeSH | D000068551 |
| PubChem CID | 136134409 |
| RTECS number | GV8130000 |
| UNII | 2LY85V376T |
| UN number | UN3286 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C8H11N.C7H19NO3.C2H6O3S |
| Molar mass | 215.28 g/mol |
| Appearance | White to off-white solid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.05 g/cm3 |
| Solubility in water | soluble |
| log P | -2.6 |
| Acidity (pKa) | 10.1 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 6.64 |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.538 |
| Viscosity | 11000 mPa.s at 20 °C |
| Dipole moment | 5.9423 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 192.3 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | N06BX13 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | Harmful if swallowed. Causes skin irritation. Causes serious eye irritation. May cause respiratory irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS05, GHS07 |
| Pictograms | GHS05,GHS07 |
| Signal word | Danger |
| Hazard statements | H302, H317, H318, H412 |
| Precautionary statements | P260, P280, P302+P352, P305+P351+P338, P310 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-3-0 |
| Flash point | > 109 °C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD₅₀ Oral Rat: >2000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (oral, rat) > 2000 mg/kg |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
1-Phenylethanamine Methanesulfonic acid 2-Amino-2-(hydroxymethyl)propane-1,3-diol |
