Long before computers made chemical research a desk job, dye makers and organic chemists stood over benches testing crude syntheses and new colorants. Sodium 4-[(9,10-Dihydro-4-Hydroxy-9,10-Dioxo-1-Anthryl)Amino]Toluene-3-Sulphonate belongs to that current of innovation tracing back to coal tar dyes in the late 1800s—a time when synthesizing colorful molecules revolutionized medicine, textiles, and even the perception of pure science. The anthraquinone backbone, famous for yielding robust and lightfast blues and reds, became a familiar sight in records from German and British chemists eager to expand on Perkin’s mauve. Sulphonated derivatives, like the compound in question, hit research journals right as bulk chemical production matured. They didn’t just bring new hues, but also new strategies for water-solubility and controlled reactivity in both lab and plant-scale settings. Tracing the evolution from that industrial dawn to today’s refined methods, one can see not just the march of progress, but also the stubborn persistence of practical needs driving innovation.
This compound, known in trade and laboratory circles for its intensity of color and stability, finds its main use among synthetic dyes and as an intermediate in organic synthesis. Its peculiar name hints at its structure: an anthraquinone core merged with an aminotoluene sulphonate group. The design comes directly from a need to combine visual strength with predictable handling on industrial equipment and in research labs. From direct dyeing of fabrics to analytical stain formulation, the compound often serves when water solubility and strong chromatic performance matter more than subtlety. It doesn’t just produce shades—it creates standards for reliability under heat, light, and repeated use. Having worked around industrial dyehouses and seen quality control labs pore over batch-to-batch variations, this chemical often turns up as a sort of fail-safe in formulations that can’t betray their customers with fading or inconsistency.
The powder offers a bold coloration, usually deep purple-red, and dissolves in water with ease, thanks to its sulfonate group. It carries a molecular weight close to 463 g/mol, but what stands out is its high melting point and resistance to photo-degradation. The anthraquinone core won’t break down quickly when exposed to sunlight or oxidizers; this means fabrics and samples treated with the compound don’t lose their vibrancy. Lab data show good chemical stability across a wide range of pH and limited volatility, making storage and handling straightforward compared to other aromatic amines or sulfonates. During analytical work, I’ve appreciated the way this dye stays put under stress, which saves time and reduces the need for repeat testing.
Regulations require careful labeling: clear identification of the sodium salt form, purity ranges (often >98% for research use), and batch-specific data like moisture content and heavy metal residues. Producers attach the right hazard symbols warning of irritation or acute toxicity potential. Labels often specify storage conditions—typically dry, away from direct sunlight, and below 30°C—along with lot numbers for traceability. Having prepared safety data sheets, I can vouch that the compound’s data must cover inhalation, skin contact, and safe handling, as well as disposal recommendations pointing to regulated landfill or incineration. Technical specs hinge on customer-supplied COA (Certificate of Analysis) and need rigorous calibration by HPLC or UV-Vis methods, confirming both identity and concentration before the product ever leaves the warehouse.
The classic route for synthesizing this compound starts with sulfonation of an aminotoluene, followed by a coupling reaction with a halogenated anthraquinone derivative—most frequently using mild acid or base conditions to push the reaction toward the targeted aminated bond. Filtration, precipitation, and washing steps ensure purity, with the sodium salt added either during or after synthesis for maximum water solubility. Scale-up in factories often involves big jacketed vessels, careful temperature control (to avoid over-sulfonating or decomposing intermediates), and precise metering of all reactants. One overlooked lesson from bench work is the need for slow addition and constant monitoring, not just of pH, but also of residual byproducts; rushing synthesis leads to colored tars that defy easy separation. In my view, the prep isn’t just about getting to the right molecule—it’s about making sure every kilogram meets testable standards, avoiding hazardous waste and unnecessary resource drain.
This dye is more than a finished product; it serves as a starting scaffold for further modifications. The sulfonate group opens opportunities for substitution, creating analogs with different solubility or dyeing characteristics. The anthraquinone ring system can be tweaked through halogenation, alkylation, or reduction—each adjustment leading to alternate spectral properties. Cross-linking reactions allow for attachment to polymers or surfaces, and reductive cleavage of the amino linkage finds use in analytical breakdown studies. Colleagues in analytical chemistry frequently use it as a reference for quantifying modifications in similar molecules. For textile engineers, small tweaks in the side chains mean real savings in dyeing temperature or fixing agent. Each reaction—carried out carefully—can spawn a new product with its own commercial possibilities and research puzzles.
Chemists know this compound under many labels. Industry catalogs list it as Acid Violet 43, and in some settings, it appears as C.I. 60730. These synonyms help users track down compatible products or regulatory data, especially when switching suppliers or crossing international borders. A short list of trademarks and alternate spellings crops up in technical literature, giving a sense not just of the chemical’s ubiquity but of the scattershot naming conventions that persist in specialty chemicals. Having combed through MSDS sheets from different suppliers while sourcing an exact match for analytical work, I’ve learned how necessary cross-checking synonyms can be, especially when regulations change from one year to the next.
Handling the compound in the lab or on a production line means respecting its potential hazards. Dust can irritate airways, and skin contact needs prompt washing. Facilities must install efficient local exhaust ventilation and enforce glove and goggle policies. Storage in sealed containers, placed well away from acids and oxidizers, remains standard practice. Spill protocols call for containment with inert absorbent and disposal in line with regulations aimed at environmental safety. Workers should review SDS documents not simply as a formality, but as part of ongoing training; chemical burns and respiratory risks occur when shortcuts replace standard procedure. In my own research department days, regular drills and audits made sure new staff didn’t learn safety lessons the hard way. All these practices reflect real-world experience—a chemical is only as safe as the people and systems in place to use it.
This dye finds steady work in textile dyeing, biological staining, and industrial markers. Its water solubility and high tint strength make it preferable for cotton, viscose, and blended fabrics that require both brightness and resistance to laundering. Histochemists use it as a pH indicator or chromogenic agent, taking advantage of that anthraquinone core’s sharp absorbance in the UV-Vis spectrum. Paper and ink manufacturers appreciate the straightforward formulation with other additives, reducing the trial-and-error common with less predictable dyes. My work on color matching in a textile mill confirmed how essential this compound becomes in meeting both customer shade expectations and global standards for colorfastness, especially when export markets require ISO or OEKO-TEX compliance.
Researchers see this compound as a model for evaluating dye-environment interactions, especially in studies of wastewater remediation and the search for more benign alternatives. Environmental chemists use it to trace pollution pathways and to calibrate sensors looking for aromatic pollutants in surface waters. Synthesis labs regularly test new analogs, searching for improvements in color strength, wash resistance, or fixation efficiency. Advances in computational chemistry allow research teams to simulate structure-activity relationships, reducing the need for excessive trial benchwork. As an R&D manager in a mid-sized specialty chemicals firm, I watched teams create libraries of derivatives, some finding success in niche medical diagnostics, others quietly shelved, waiting for their application to catch up with the science. Each breakthrough builds on decades of hands-on lab work, learning the difference between a promising formula in theory and a scalable process in practice.
Toxicological studies raise real-world concerns, especially given the aromatic amine content and the fate of sulfonated byproducts. Animal studies and cell culture assays have mapped potential mutagenicity and patterns of skin sensitization, prompting strict limits on allowable residuals in finished goods. Regulatory agencies require robust eco-toxicity data; wastewater from dyehouse discharge undergoes biological treatment designed to break down persistent anthraquinones before release. Real exposure data from manufacturing workers, combined with advances in monitoring, drive steady improvements in handling protocols. My time reviewing toxicology reports for compliance taught me that regulations aren’t just bureaucratic hurdles—they reflect patterns of harm seen in occupational settings, and improve over time as new evidence pushes permissible limits lower. The real challenge comes not just in finding safer analogs but in convincing companies to consistently adopt them when profit margins are tight.
Looking ahead, this compound sits at a crossroads. Traditional dyeing methods face growing scrutiny for water and chemical use, pushing the industry toward greener synthesis and biodegradable alternatives. Research into bio-based anthraquinone derivatives and enzymatic sulfonation processes offers hope for improved environmental profiles without sacrificing performance. Digital textile printing, with its demand for vivid, durable colors in ever-smaller runs, continuously drives materials engineers to refine dyes like this for inkjet compatibility and improved wash-off. Information sharing via open databases and joint industry-academic projects could accelerate development of both safer compounds and less polluting production methods. As climate goals tighten, customers and consumers pay closer attention to what colors their clothes or lab samples. For practitioners, this molecule serves as both a benchmark for reliability and a reminder of forces reshaping chemical industries worldwide.
Anyone working in a lab or around industrial chemistry comes face to face with names that resemble a tongue twister. Sodium 4-[(9,10-dihydro-4-hydroxy-9,10-dioxo-1-anthryl)amino]toluene-3-sulphonate fits that bill. The name doesn’t hint at its use in daily life, or why anyone outside a specialty lab might care. Yet, this compound often plays a bigger role, especially for folks who care about color.
Most people don’t realize that synthetic dyes touch almost everything: T-shirts, food packaging, sometimes even medications. This specific compound, known in many industries as Acid Yellow 36 or C.I. 13065, lands squarely in the category of azo dyes. Chemists gravitate toward it for the rich yellow it can provide. During my time volunteering with local textile artists, I saw vibrant results come from seemingly bland powders, and Acid Yellow 36 was one that always delivered.
The reason this molecule matters comes down to performance. It offers a strong yellow that survives tough wash cycles. Textile workers, manufacturers, and hobbyists often rely on it to maintain colorfastness in fabrics, which lowers long-term costs and supports consistent product quality.
Colorants that touch things humans consume fall under tight scrutiny. Regulatory agencies like the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority spend a lot of time reviewing and updating their guidance on synthetic dyes. Acid Yellow 36 shows up in the conversation more for what it shouldn’t do rather than for its brilliance as a colorant. Since the late 1970s, it's been flagged for removal from food and cosmetic use in many regions, especially across Europe, due to studies linking certain azo dyes to allergic reactions and potential carcinogenicity. In the United States, it never received widespread approval for food, so it’s hard to spot outside technical or industrial uses.
It would be an easy mistake to consider any dye safe if it's present in products. Current science shows a different story. Azo compounds can break down during digestion or manufacturing, which could release aromatic amines—some of which raise real red flags about health.
Knowledge changes the landscape in chemistry. Most textile and leather industries have begun to seek out alternatives, shifting toward colorants sourced from plants or engineered to avoid the harmful byproducts tied to older synthetic dyes. Some companies grab headlines by advertising “azo-free” products, signaling to shoppers that they made an active choice to keep known risk factors out of their supply chain.
I’ve found that transparency builds trust. When brands post full dye contents online or offer public test reports, it creates more loyalty than splashy marketing ever could. Scientists working on new colorants tend to target both safety and performance, often pushing for biodegradable options to cut down on pollution, not just health risks.
Manufacturing still uses Acid Yellow 36 where regulation allows, especially in markets outside Europe and North America. Education remains a hurdle. Many small businesses either don’t know the details or face cost barriers in transitioning to safer alternatives. Supporting global efforts to share test data and make safer dyes more affordable helps nudge the industry forward.
A future with safer, more sustainable dyes looks brighter—not just for scientists and manufacturers, but for consumers picking out clothes or trusting the labels on a product. Raising awareness about the chemistry behind color builds smarter choices all around.
Everyday life involves more chemicals than most of us probably realize. The color in that sports drink, the tint of a tablet, even the way some medicines dissolve—science brings a strange collection of long-winded chemical names. One that’s popped up lately asks for attention: Sodium 4-[(9,10-Dihydro-4-Hydroxy-9,10-Dioxo-1-Anthryl)Amino]Toluene-3-Sulphonate. The first gut reaction tends toward skepticism. Most people know that long chemical names sometimes appear on lists we’d rather avoid. Experience tells me that reading deeper pays off, especially when health gets involved.
Places like the FDA and European Food Safety Authority anchor their decisions in lab evidence and decades of health records. If a chemical shows up in food, medicine, or cosmetics, their labs test for more than just immediate reactions. They search for proof that nothing builds up inside the body, trips up organ function, or triggers overreactions in sensitive folks.
Take synthetic dyes, for example, which is usually where this chemical shows up. These additives hit the market after layers of checkups: cell cultures, animal models, controlled human trials. The best safety data is clean and repeatable. Real-world reporting then fills the gaps. For most legal food and pharmaceutical dyes in North America and Europe, there’s a healthy paper trail to follow.
Some dyes in this class have raised red flags. Animal studies dating back decades sometimes found tumors or allergic reactions in rare cases. Every research body I trust points out the need for defense against impurities—tiny contaminating leftovers from manufacturing, not the named compound itself. That risk falls hardest with poorly regulated suppliers. Curious consumers ask: Are batches tested for harmful contaminants? Good factories submit every shipment for inspection, and the strict rules in reputable countries weed out the worst offenders.
On dosage, it helps to remember the advice that toxicity depends on the amount. For food and drug dyes, regulatory bodies set "acceptable daily intake" (ADI) levels that stretch well below anything proven harmful in testing. For this chemical, look at the color additive code: there’s a system tracking which product can go into which use, and how much is legally allowed. When problems show up, it almost always traces to breaking those use limits.
My family learned to read labels when food allergies got personal. I dig around in PubMed and recall how easy it gets to jump to fear when headlines mention cancer, bans, or recalls. The smart path follows facts and asks questions about how any chemical ends up on a label. I ask the manufacturer about quality assurance, check if the product has clear regulatory marks, and scan for up-to-date safety summaries from national health authorities.
Anyone worried about this particular dye should focus on source and transparency. In the world of chemicals, trust comes with open data: traceable records, third-party testing, voluntary recalls if issues appear, clear labeling for consumers. That’s not just best practice for industry—that’s peace of mind for families watching out for each other.
Public health often improves when companies show everything behind their colorants. Data transparency makes it possible for watchdogs and ordinary people to catch problems sooner. Demand for cleaner raw materials and stricter third-party checks has led to better products over the past decade. For those uneasy about synthetic dyes, natural alternatives have grown more common—and usually cost more. If enough shoppers speak up, companies feel real pressure to change what goes into everyday foods and pills.
Every product arrives with its own set of storage needs, shaped by what it is and what it does. I’ve seen more than a few businesses put stress on the importance of storing things right, especially after things go wrong. Take a warehouse without climate control: a single summer heatwave can ruin months of effort and investment, leaving managers scrambling and customers frustrated. You don’t want that headache. Getting storage right matters not just for keeping the product safe but also for making sure people handling it stay healthy.
I once helped sort out a shipment where temperature swings left key ingredients useless. Many products change character pretty quickly once they get too warm or cold. Some powders love to clump, while liquids might separate or harden. Want to avoid spoilage or strange odors? Keep items in spaces with reliable heating or cooling. A lot of manufacturers label their goods for “room temperature,” but that can mean different things in different climates. I always recommend investing in digital thermometers to get the facts right, not just guesses.
One thing that trips folks up: humidity sneaks in and brings trouble. I’ve seen simple flour clump to the point of uselessness, or packaging develop funky smells. Sealing packages properly goes a long way, but moisture barriers or silica gel can add another layer of defense. Don't underestimate how fast moisture spreads in a storage unit, especially in older buildings or during damp weather. Dehumidifiers work wonders, and checking for leaks around windows, doors, and vents makes a difference long-term.
Not everyone thinks about how light can cause problems. Certain products break down if they see too much sunlight, so warehouse managers need to block direct rays. I once walked into a stockroom with windows, only to find the outer layer of goods faded and weak. Covers, shade screens, or solid shelving help keep light levels in check. Keep labels facing outward too, so staff don’t fumble around or shift too much product looking for what they need.
Tight, cluttered aisles turn storage areas into minefields. In my experience, leaving gaps between stacks cuts down on accidents and lets everyone spot problems early. Stacked boxes breathe better, and it’s easier to clean or spot leaks before damage spreads. Clear labeling, racks, and shelving help people work smarter, not harder.
No one remembers every instruction, especially after a long day. Posting clear checklists near entrances and keeping a log of temperature, moisture, and inventory movement can flag issues before they snowball. Train everyone on what to look for and put safety first. Regular walk-throughs give employees a chance to catch odd smells, bulging packages, or stains that signal bigger issues.
What matters most in storage is knowing your product. I learned this firsthand: a set routine can miss important changes in how a new batch reacts. Always read product specifications, and if you’re unsure, talk directly to suppliers. Keeping open communication lines and updating procedures protects both your investment and your reputation.
Keeping storage top-notch helps businesses thrive. The extra effort pays off by stopping losses and earning trust. That’s worth every bit of attention.Labs and workshops introduce us to all sorts of chemicals, some of them with names that look like they belong in a comic book. Sodium 4-[(9,10-Dihydro-4-Hydroxy-9,10-Dioxo-1-Anthryl)Amino]Toluene-3-Sulphonate may not roll off the tongue, but people use it in synthesis and pigment industries. Safety isn’t an option; it’s what keeps people out of the emergency room. Every bottle comes with a safety data sheet, but real safety comes from treating every fine, bright powder as risky until proven otherwise.
Many only think about splashes and direct contact. There’s also fine dust, easy to inhale without even noticing. Chemical powders like this can irritate the lungs, eyes, and skin over time. I’ve watched dedicated techs come down with nasty reactions after just a little carelessness — no open-toed shoes, and no quick grabs without gloves. The simple gear — gloves, goggles, a mask — turns a risky task into a routine one. These items rarely cost more than lunch, yet they keep the worst stories from happening.
Every workspace has that one overstuffed cabinet stacked with chemical bottles. Tossing this compound in with something acidic or highly reactive creates a real hazard. Heat and light degrade some substances, making them unstable or shooting their reactivity through the roof. Dark, dry cabinets, away from acids and oxidizers, keep things safe. Labels matter, too — a missing label is a mystery nobody wants solved with a spill.
There’s an urge to wash every container in the sink after a job. Chemicals drop into wastewater, pass through treatment, and might land in drinking supplies or hurt the local wildlife. Environmental agencies outline rules because traces build up fast. I’ve worked in places where even a few grams skipped containment and caused headaches with inspections later. Neutralize the waste or store it for collection; this takes half as long as dealing with the fallout from poor disposal.
It’s tempting to hand off new compounds to junior staff without enough guidance. I watched a talented guy get burned by a similar molecule because no one explained what to expect beyond the data. Some accidents happen because people trust their gut more than good habits. Regular training and drills, not just the ten-minute onboarding, save the day. Everyone remembers the time the evacuation alarm sounded over a careless spill. That sort of lesson sticks.
Respect in the lab doesn’t start with the biggest, most explosive compounds. The risk often hides in routine handling of powders like this one. Treat it like you’d teach your friends — don’t get it on you, keep it away from mystery containers, and never let it reach the environment. The work gets done, and people clock out safely. That’s what counts, every single day.
Ask any scientist about a compound, and the first thing they reach for is its structure or formula. Those little groupings of letters and numbers carry more information than most people realize. In the real world, knowing a chemical’s structure isn’t just for trivia night—it tells us what the molecule does and how it might interact with everything from your morning coffee to the lining of your lungs.
Walk down the aisle at a pharmacy. Some names might sound familiar—aspirin, acetaminophen, caffeine. Behind every one of those, chemists see a blueprint. For instance, acetaminophen is C8H9NO2. Change one bond or swap a hydrogen for something else and you can turn relief into poison. During grad school, I spent long hours studying diagrams, learning to recognize how seemingly tiny alterations could completely flip a substance’s effects. Simple mistakes in copying down formulas sometimes meant weeks lost in the lab.
It’s not just academics who care. Farmers check chemical structures before spraying crops, worried about runoff or safety. Parents scan labels, watching for hidden surprises in vitamins or cleaning products. In the summer I worked at an environmental agency, my job was tracing contaminants in river water back to factories upstream. Structural details meant knowing what stuck around in the fish, what broke down quickly, and what needed urgent cleanup. The chemical formula became a map for the entire investigation.
A molecule’s structure isn’t window dressing–it’s a guidebook to how atoms lock together, twist, fold, or reach out to other molecules. The difference between ethanol and methanol, both in clear drinks, is a single carbon atom. One is in wine; the other can blind you. A small tweak like that affects boiling point, solubility, toxicity, and everything else a substance might do. Years ago, safety protocols in my lab hammered these lessons home—never rely just on a name. Always check the chemical formula.
Every product and medication that gets certified or tested for safety rests on regulatory agencies double-checking exact chemical identities. Groups like the FDA or EPA demand clear structural diagrams before approval because they know how easy it is for dangerous knock-offs to slip through. In 2018, contaminated blood pressure medicine turned up worldwide after a manufacturing shortcut left a toxic impurity in the pills—something only the precise formula could reveal. The damage cost lives and millions of dollars, pushing the courts and the public to demand better checks.
One part knowledge, one part vigilance—that’s the real formula for chemical safety. As chemistry teachers tell their students, being able to draw or write out a compound isn’t just academic. Policy-makers and industry leaders should push for open-access databases, so people beyond university walls can check structures and formulas for themselves. More transparency from companies about ingredient breakdowns lets everyone—from concerned parents to emergency responders—make better choices. Technology gives us easier tools than ever to visualize and share this vital information. Society benefits when the power to “read” a chemical structure isn’t locked away behind jargon or paywalls.
![Sodium 4-[(9,10-Dihydro-4-Hydroxy-9,10-Dioxo-1-Anthryl)Amino]Toluene-3-Sulphonate](/static/81c4c90b-3bfe-4770-bbec-fcbf5e0a3809/images/2d/sodium-4-9-10-dihydro-4-hydroxy-9-10-dioxo-1-anthryl-amino-toluene-3-sulphonate.png)
![Sodium 4-[(9,10-Dihydro-4-Hydroxy-9,10-Dioxo-1-Anthryl)Amino]Toluene-3-Sulphonate](/static/81c4c90b-3bfe-4770-bbec-fcbf5e0a3809/images/3d/sodium-4-9-10-dihydro-4-hydroxy-9-10-dioxo-1-anthryl-amino-toluene-3-sulphonate.gif)
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Sodium 4-[(9,10-dihydro-4-hydroxy-9,10-dioxo-1H-anthracen-1-yl)amino]-3-methylbenzene-1-sulfonate |
| Pronunciation | /ˈsəʊdiəm ˈfɔːr ˈnaɪnˌtɛn θaɪˈhɪdrəʊ fɔːr haɪˈdrɒksi naɪnˌtɛn daɪˈɒkˈsəʊ wʌn ˈænθrɪl ˈæmɪnəʊ təˈluːiːn θriː ˈsʌlfoʊneɪt/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 6408-78-2 |
| 3D model (JSmol) | `6xvg` |
| Beilstein Reference | 82140 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:87644 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2103838 |
| ChemSpider | 25185646 |
| DrugBank | DB13817 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03bddb15-e1ad-4cae-8298-86597b53b3c9 |
| EC Number | 606-106-5 |
| Gmelin Reference | 114140 |
| KEGG | C16775 |
| MeSH | D05.750.078.730 |
| PubChem CID | 72251 |
| RTECS number | BU5975000 |
| UNII | VKP33M2K2S |
| UN number | UN3077 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID1040771 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C21H15NNaO6S |
| Molar mass | 477.48 g/mol |
| Appearance | Red powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.473 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | soluble |
| log P | -0.43 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Acidity (pKa) | 6.1 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 5.5 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -73.0·10^-6 cm^3/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.726 |
| Dipole moment | 5.5047 Debye |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -947.8 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -1426 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | C09XA01 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause respiratory irritation. May cause eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Pictograms | GHS07, GHS09 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H302, H315, H319, H335 |
| Precautionary statements | Precautionary statements: P261, P280, P305+P351+P338, P337+P313 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-2-0 |
| Explosive limits | Non-explosive |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): 2000 mg/kg (oral, rat) |
| NIOSH | WF1200000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 10 mg/m3 |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not listed/Not established |
