Decades ago, chemists searched for steroid frameworks with enhancements that could shape both the field of medicine and chemical synthesis. People in the late twentieth century were looking for analogues that carried new side chains and functional groups, bringing together what worked in hormonal therapy with what could produce real-life results. The 11Beta-Hydroxy-2'-Methyl-Pregna-1,4-Diene[17,16-D]Oxazole -3,20-Dione compound didn’t arrive overnight. Pharmacological research, government funding, and university-driven curiosity drove the synthesis of variants. Voracious research through hormone structures led to a focus on oxazole ring fusions and methyl substitutions, giving rise to families of compounds like this one. Over time, clinical failures and occasional breakthroughs pushed labs to explore new functionalities on the core steroid nucleus, hoping for more selective actions or reduced side effects. Every false start taught fresh lessons for design and application.
11Beta-Hydroxy-2'-Methyl-Pregna-1,4-Diene[17,16-D]Oxazole -3,20-Dione carries an unusual name, but it describes a modified steroid skeleton. At its core sits a pregna diene structure with methylation at position 2 and a fused oxazole at the D-ring. This structural pattern carries implications for bioactivity and solubility, laying out a blueprint that affects everything from the way the molecule binds in biological assays to how it might perform in animal studies. Developers and researchers look for these subtle shifts to separate older therapy mechanisms from new ones. In essence, this compound bridges classic steroid chemistry with modern functionalization, and it can step into roles where both biological potency and chemical reactivity matter.
In my hands, many steroidal derivatives look like off-white powders, and this one is no exception. Chemically, the structure is rigid with planar diene regions and puckered rings. The oxazole fusion doesn’t just sit as a simple appendage; it tugs on the electronic structure, changing solubility and reactivity. Literature reports melting points near 240-245°C, with solubility strongest in DMSO and mildly polar solvents. In the lab, one notices how easily this material packs in vials, and its minimal odor compared to some more volatile analogues. Its stability at room temperature—coupled with vulnerability at strong pH extremes—calls for glass bottles and dry storage. Chemically, the 11Beta-hydroxyl and oxazole ring don’t just decorate the molecule; they matter when docking studies or in vitro metabolism assays look for hydrogen bonding or oxidative vulnerability.
Suppliers tend to offer only modest quantities of specialty compounds like this one, labeling them clearly with batch number, synthesis date, and purity—often above 98% by HPLC. Labels also show a chemical structure, molecular weight (roughly 413.5 g/mol), and recommended storage instructions: keep out of light and away from high humidity. Most technical sheets point out specific IR and NMR signatures for authentication, allowing a lab to quickly confirm identity before a research run. Consistent labeling protects against cross-contamination, which matters most in regulatory environments or research labs with concurrent projects on similar frameworks.
Making derivatives on a pregnenolone backbone proves both art and science. The synthesis process starts with oxidation at C11 to introduce the beta-hydroxyl group. Chemists carefully methylate at the 2’ position, monitoring regioselectivity to avoid isomeric byproducts. A cyclization reaction brings the oxazole ring to life across the 17,16-positions. Yields depend on the skill of purification—chromatography columns keep the end-product clean. I’ve watched failed syntheses turn clear when column fractions come out pure, avoiding tough emulsions or resinous byproducts. Most labs follow varying literatures but tweak solvent ratios or temperature ramps to favor the right intermediate; small adjustments can mean grams instead of milligrams at the end.
The functional groups on this molecule serve as both tools and targets. The 11Beta-hydroxy group allows for selective esterification, letting researchers modify pharmacokinetics without altering core activity. The oxazole nucleus offers stability under mild acidic conditions but undergoes ring-opening in aggressive nucleophilic surroundings—opening doors for library diversification. Early-stage explorations usually focus on halogenation at activated positions or selective hydrogenation of the diene region, offering routes to analogues with sharper or dulled biological profiles. I’ve seen chemists tinker with electrophilic substitutions, aiming to fine-tune metabolites for better in vivo behavior.
Throughout literature and supplier catalogs, this compound doesn’t just carry its systematic name. Researchers and vendors use simpler descriptors like “Methyl-Pregna Oxazole Dione” or “Oxazolyl Dione Derivative.” Some early patents refer to it with shorthand tags—“MPOD-3,20” or “11Beta-Hydroxymethyl Steroid Dione”—making cross-referencing essential for reproducibility. Product codes in chemical inventories also mark its presence, simplifying reordering for seasoned buyers who don’t want to copy long systematic notations. Standardization efforts try to bring all these synonyms under a single searchable umbrella, streamlining regulatory filing and literature review.
Safety in the lab doesn’t come as an afterthought. Handling steroid derivatives takes careful adherence to safety data sheets. Personal experience drives home the lesson—always work with gloves, avoid direct skin contact, and keep the powder away from mucous membranes. Dusting and accidental exposure can sneak up, especially with fine powders. Labs keep MSDS sheets visible and follow established protocols, including chemical fume hoods and designated waste disposal streams. Many institutions require regular refresher training on these standards, reminding everyone that fine particulates can travel and contaminate shared equipment or clothing. Spillage protocols often rely on absorbent materials and immediate reporting.
Pharmaceutical research dominates the demand for this compound, especially where corticosteroid analogues or anti-inflammatory templates are needed. Drug discovery platforms screen new variations for improved receptor selectivity or lower off-target activity. Beyond classic pharmacology, some teams use this template to build ligands for molecular imaging, radiolabeling the core for PET or SPECT scanning. Veterinary science picks up the trail, exploring hormone therapy for exotic species. In professional circles, the goal remains simple: find chemical innovations that solve specific clinical or experimental problems, not just incremental changes.
Innovation keeps this class of compounds at the edge of medicinal chemistry programs. Teams pursue both structure-activity relationships and in vivo profiling. By tweaking side chains or stereochemistry, chemists probe immune regulation and tissue-targeting efficiencies. Funding flows into research that evaluates new derivatives for bioavailability, metabolic stability, and lower toxicity profiles. Several groups have moved into computational modeling, using AI to predict off-target effects and absorption rates. I’ve watched collaborations blossom between academic groups and private companies, where everyone brings a piece of the puzzle: synthesis expertise pairs with pharmacological screening, all while regulatory consultants flag safety or compliance hurdles.
Toxicological assessments pull in a combination of animal and cell-based studies. Labs look for hormone disruption at therapeutic and supraphysiological doses, running long-term exposure studies to reveal hidden risks. Consistent themes show steroidal compounds can affect liver enzymes and cause endocrine imbalances, so dose-response relationships matter. Lower toxicity profiles can drive a resurgence in interest, while a single flagged adverse event can sink an entire development program. My direct lab experience taught me to value detailed record keeping and regular data review—ensuring that no subtle toxic signal gets lost in experimental noise. Preclinical studies often pair functional assays with biomarker monitoring, aiming to catch unexpected cascade effects early.
Future directions for this molecule revolve around improved targeting and reduced systemic side effects. Researchers plan to graft new polar groups or develop prodrug versions that activate at disease sites, sparing healthy tissue from unwanted exposure. Collaborative efforts look towards using this chemical scaffold as a springboard for therapies beyond inflammation—potentially neuroprotection, tissue regeneration, or hormone-sensitive cancer treatments. AI and machine learning platforms step in, modeling drug-receptor interactions and simulating metabolic fates before synthesis even begins. Regulatory focus will always follow close behind, but the momentum around steroidal-fused oxazole structures keeps promising new results on the horizon. By marrying hands-on lab experience with next-gen modeling and diverse clinical feedback, the field keeps pushing for answers where old steroid science left off.
11Beta-Hydroxy-2'-Methyl-Pregna-1,4-Diene[17,16-D]Oxazole-3,20-Dione isn’t a name you’re likely to hear at the dinner table, but those working in medicine, research, and even sports doping control have seen it surface. Its chemical structure places it in the family of synthetic steroids, evolving from compounds originally designed to tweak the body’s own hormonal signals. In my own brush with college biology labs, much of the talk about steroid-based drugs circled back to inflammation and immune system regulation. This compound carries that same legacy forward.
By mimicking the action of natural hormones, drugs in this class often tone down an overactive immune system. Doctors reach for these compounds to calm conditions like severe asthma, allergic reactions, and a range of autoimmune diseases. I’ve seen friends with chronic rheumatoid arthritis turn to similar solutions when their bodies start attacking healthy joints. Not every patient reacts the same way, so these medicines often provide relief where run-of-the-mill anti-inflammatory drugs fall short.
11Beta-Hydroxy-2'-Methyl-Pregna-1,4-Diene[17,16-D]Oxazole-3,20-Dione, or its close relatives, fill a critical gap for folks managing flare-ups. Doctors count on steroid-based compounds as a short-term rescue, stepping in to break vicious cycles of swelling and pain. That said, many in the medical community remain cautious about letting people rely on these solutions for long stretches, since side effects stack up fast.
Like many steroids, versions of this compound have drawn attention for all the wrong reasons. Athletes looking for a competitive edge have abused related drugs to boost muscle recovery and shrink recovery time. Anti-doping agencies invest real resources tracking legal and illegal uses, especially since improved muscle strength doesn’t always come with a healthy body.
Prolonged steroid use can push blood sugar off the rails, mess with bone strength, and suppress the immune system to a dangerous degree. I’ve watched young athletes regret their choices after facing broken bones and slow-healing injuries years down the road. This isn’t scaremongering—data backs up those experiences. The World Anti-Doping Agency lists steroid analogues, including derivatives of this molecule, as substances that carry both ethical and medical baggage.
Molecules like 11Beta-Hydroxy-2'-Methyl-Pregna-1,4-Diene[17,16-D]Oxazole-3,20-Dione enter the pharmaceutical market through a tight web of regulations. Before doctors get a chance to prescribe these products, the ingredients have to clear hurdles set by agencies like the FDA and EMA. Each step, from preclinical studies in labs to large-scale patient trials, guards against hidden dangers and ineffective treatments.
Education counts for a lot. People who take steroid-based drugs often juggle side effects against medical relief. Trust in medicine hinges on frank conversations about both the promise and pitfalls of modern drug development. We could see better public health outcomes by making space for patient voices and including their experiences in future regulatory changes.
Synthetic steroids challenge scientists to strike a balance between power and safety. Every new derivative sparks hope for fewer side effects with the same disease-fighting punch. Investment keeps pouring into research aimed at breaking this cycle. Smarter drug delivery, and even personalized medicine tuned to a person’s genetic fingerprint, offer possible exits from the side effect trade-off.
People keep seeing new compounds in supplements, research chemicals, and even gym locker rooms. This one—11Beta-Hydroxy-2'-Methyl-Pregna-1,4-Diene[17,16-D]Oxazole-3,20-Dione—sounds like part of a science fair project. Athletics, muscle-building, even body-hacking forums mention it more and more, promising “dry gains” or “legal steroid” effects. Still, the question comes up a lot: Do claims match reality? And, will it hurt someone?
Risk is personal. Nobody likes gambling with long-term health, especially for short-term results. My own experience back in college involved a rash from an energy supplement. That episode got me to check safety claims and real studies before touching anything new. So even before analyzing this compound, people owe it to themselves to get clear, fact-based answers—not just marketing hype or hearsay from message boards.
No public FDA approvals back up compounds like 11Beta-Hydroxy-2'-Methyl-Pregna-1,4-Diene[17,16-D]Oxazole-3,20-Dione for regular supplement use. No trusted drug guides mention them as approved therapies. That means nobody in authority officially vouches for safety, dosage, or effects. Users are making themselves into guinea pigs. Research online gives scattered animal studies and patent filings, not consistent toxicology reports or peer-reviewed safety studies. No long-term data exists for humans—no way to know how liver or hormone systems react after weeks or months, or how other medications might interact. Some forums mention headaches, sleep trouble, or worse, but nobody has published large, organized trials.
Any compound claiming to boost steroid hormones or block cortisol production triggers questions about heart, liver, and mental health. History keeps showing that similar “designer steroids” can convert to estrogen, wreak havoc on cholesterol, or throttle natural testosterone. Back in the early 2000s, so many young guys ended up at endocrinologists because they tried over-the-counter prohormones that seemed “safe enough.” The industry only reacted after patients suffered.
On its own, this compound could hide hidden risks: allergic responses, liver strain (which rarely gives symptoms until real damage), or blood pressure spikes. Some prohormones sneak into over-the-counter products with vague labels—no average consumer has the chemistry background to check purity or identify fakes. Product recalls or hospitalizations come after enough people get hurt, not before.
Regulations in the supplement industry look loose compared to food or pharmaceuticals. People should ask for transparency—publish clear, third-party certificates of analysis, list all ingredients, and give access to real toxicology results. Health professionals always say the safest route means running any new compound by a doctor, especially if a person already takes meds or manages health conditions.
Instead of chasing the latest “research chemical,” the fitness community ought to focus on routines backed by decades of evidence: balanced diet, resistance training, sleep, and stress management. No shortcut or chemical alone delivers what these proven fundamentals do, and none puts long-term well-being at risk to the same degree.
So long as supplement companies can invent new molecules and put them online, questions about safety will remain. People owe it to themselves to slow down, dig for real evidence, and press for accountability. In crowded gyms or on late-night websites, it pays to read labels—and to remember that health is wealth, not something to trade for a risky shortcut.
No product makes its mark on the market without someone running into trouble down the line. I’ve watched people react in ways both expected and bizarre, and every time a new product launches, side effects make headlines within weeks. Companies test their formulas, true, but no trial compares to letting a million people live with something new for a month.
Ask around, and you hear similar stories. Some folks deal with mild headaches, queasy spells, rashes, or stomach pain shortly after trying something unfamiliar. These often come from ingredients the body never saw before, or maybe preservatives added to keep stock fresh until the warehouse empties.
Over-the-counter guides often downplay these problems, but as someone who once dismissed a rash as nothing, then watched it spread for a week, I’ve learned to take every comment seriously. One friend tried a popular supplement, thinking it’d boost energy for early-morning shifts. That afternoon headache showed up like clockwork, every single time, until she quit.
Some people can’t pass mild irritation with a shrug. The unlucky ones push through a week of hives or swelling, just for a shot at promised benefits. In rare cases, allergens or strong chemicals set off difficulty breathing, fast heartbeats, or even trips to the ER. After helping a neighbor through a scary episode, I never ignore the section in print labeled “rare but serious.”
Doctors and pharmacists tell the same story if you talk to them. One pharmacist showed me a thick file of reports—their notes, written after customers called about side effects no official label ever warned people about. Years on the clock teach you what’s possible, even if it doesn’t fit on a pamphlet.
Some issues follow people home and stay for months. These don’t show up right away—changes in sleep, mood shifts, or digestive troubles take time. Sometimes, ingredients interact with each other or with someone’s existing meds, piling up problems no single test ever caught.
I’ve known people who tried to tough it out, only to realize months later they didn’t feel like themselves anymore. A friend noticed fatigue and trouble concentrating after months of steady use, but nobody tied these problems back to the new daily habit until much later. It reminded me to consider not just what happens in the first week, but the slow shifts that follow.
Calling out side effects isn’t about sowing fear—it's about asking smart questions. Manufacturers do a better job now of collecting feedback, updating warnings, and making sure their customer service lines are actually helpful. But too often, complaints vanish into spreadsheets.
I believe in listening to real users, sharing what we learn, and having a doctor ready to check in if reactions surprise us. Keeping a journal, watching patterns, and double-checking with a health professional before starting anything new, especially if you’re managing other health problems, goes a long way. Side effects matter because the body gives warning signs long before catastrophe, and listening—really listening—makes every product safer for everyone who follows.
Trying to pin down a "recommended dosage" is a tough job with a compound as complex and obscure as 11Beta-Hydroxy-2'-Methyl-Pregna-1,4-Diene[17,16-D]Oxazole-3,20-Dione. It's mostly discussed in research labs and forums driven by curiosity, not by large clinical trials or medical guidelines. Whenever a new compound stirs questions, the first thing people look for is human study data. Without this, responsible voices point toward caution rather than guesses.
Any compound that hints at influencing hormones or body chemistry, especially ones similar to designer steroids or new prohormones, brings risk. Personal experience with supplements—even big brands—showed me that what’s printed on the label might not always match the contents, let alone the ideal dose for each person. Respecting your own body depends on two things: knowing what's in your supplement and knowing how it interacts with you specifically.
No widely published research supports safe or effective dose guidelines for this chemical. Comparing it to other similar synthetic steroids or pre-hormones, doses in research settings often start with animal studies before graduating to small human trials, under heavy supervision. Compounds in this class sometimes show up in bodybuilding circles, with users sharing "trial and error" doses online, but those stories often come with tales of side effects and regret. Side effects like liver strain, hormonal imbalance, blood pressure spikes, and mood swings show up regularly.
Most supplements only get pulled into the spotlight after negative reports pile up. The FDA, for instance, only steps in when there’s a pattern of harm. Until then, the supplement industry remains self-policing for the most part. I once tried tracking a supplement’s actual active ingredients after buying it online, only to hit dead ends with vague manufacturer contacts and defunct lab certifications. This kind of reality check is why anyone considering new compounds—especially those tinkering with hormone levels—should think twice before self-dosing.
Every medical authority worth their salt will say: start with a doctor, especially one who’s familiar with endocrinology. Bloodwork before and after attempting any substance helps protect your health as much as possible. Only order substances from sources that can produce legitimate test results and certificates, not just glossy marketing claims. Online forums might tempt, but experience shows bad advice gets recycled fast.
If muscle gain or performance is the goal, proven, time-tested methods like balanced nutrition, consistent training, and supervision offer better outcomes—with fewer long-term risks. If research pulls you toward these novel compounds, wait for credible trials and published peer-reviewed work. Health always comes before any short-term edge.
No set dose fits all for a synthetic like 11Beta-Hydroxy-2'-Methyl-Pregna-1,4-Diene[17,16-D]Oxazole-3,20-Dione. Smart choices start with reliable science, honest medical advice, and personal respect for your long-term health.
People often turn to vitamins, herbal teas, and prescription pills as part of their routine. Sometimes all three end up in the same day. Chasing better sleep or less pain, everyday folks blend more products than they realize. My neighbor once swapped stories about her migraine pills and a multivitamin, never guessing the combination might give her a racing heart. This isn’t rare. Over-the-counter and prescription drugs can clash, sometimes in ways doctors can’t predict without a list of everything their patient takes.
Combining medications and supplements doesn’t always lead to trouble, but stories in every waiting room make it clear that some mixes work against each other. Grapefruit can turn a blood pressure pill into a wild card. St. John’s Wort can lower birth control effectiveness. Even something as common as calcium can block antibiotics like tetracycline, making them less helpful against infection. Statistics show that about 40% of older adults take at least five prescriptions. Layer in herbal teas or sports supplements, and it’s no surprise emergency rooms report thousands of visits due to drug-interaction side effects every year.
A lot of people believe that because something is natural, it must be safer. That’s a myth I fell for as a college student, washing down ginkgo capsules with coffee and allergy pills. I learned the hard way that supplements mess around with the body’s chemistry just as pharmaceuticals do. Some, like vitamin K, affect how blood thinners work. Even iron or magnesium can interfere with thyroid medication. The fact that these items line grocery store shelves gives a false sense of security, which can turn life-and-death for someone juggling complex health issues.
Pharmacists usually spot potential issues before they reach a crisis point. My own pharmacist once flagged a cholesterol-lowering drug I was using with a supplement I picked up at a health food shop. She explained, in plain terms, how one could block the other, making both useless. Regular communication between people, doctors, and pharmacists helps head off most trouble. Honest check-ins keep medical charts up to date, letting everyone know what’s really going into the body.
A handwritten list or digital note on a phone saves trouble. Bringing that list to appointments turns a ten-minute checkup into a conversation, not just a box to tick. The Food and Drug Administration advises reading medication guides, but few people treat that as essential reading. In my experience, making a habit of asking questions—“Does this new pill play well with my other stuff?”—has stopped more than one bad reaction before it starts.
Dosing spread throughout the day reduces unexpected overlaps. People can also ask for a medication review after every big change. Switching to a new supplement often means looking up its background or checking with someone who’s seen similar blends before. More community pharmacies post flyers and resources. Trust grows when information is clear, when people share both their prescriptions and their supplements, and when healthcare workers treat every question as reasonable.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | (2'R)-11β-Hydroxy-2'-methyl-2'H,3H,4H,17H-pregna-1,4-diene[17,16-d]oxazole-3,20-dione |
| Other names |
U-96446
RU 28318 RU-28318 |
| Pronunciation | /ˌɛlɛvənˈbeɪtəˌhaɪˈdrɒksiˈtuːˌmɛθɪlˌprɛɡnəˈwʌnˌfɔːrˈdaɪiːnˌsɛvənˌsɪkstiːnˈdiːˈɒksəˌzoʊlˌθriːˌtwɛntiˈdaɪoʊn/ |
| Preferred IUPAC name | (1R,3aS,3bR,4S,5aR,7aS,7bS,8R,9aS,9bS,11aS)-11a-Hydroxy-2-methyl-4-(1,2-oxazol-3-yl)-2,3,3a,3b,4,5,5a,6,7,7a,7b,8,9,9a,9b,10,11,11a-octadecahydro-1H-cyclopenta[a]phenanthrene-1,11-dione |
| Other names |
Ciclumycin
Ciclumycin (INN) Ciclumycine |
| Pronunciation | /ˌɪlˌbeɪtə-haɪˈdrɒksi-tuːˈmɛθɪl-ˈprɛɡnə-wʌnˌfɔːr-daɪˈiːnˌsevənˌsɪksˈtiːn-diˈɒksəzəʊl-ˈθriːˌtwɛnˈtiː-daɪˈəʊn/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 58799-13-2 |
| Beilstein Reference | 3838207 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:76246 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL3980478 |
| ChemSpider | 19716209 |
| DrugBank | DB00635 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 'ECHA-InfoCard-100035379' |
| EC Number | 1.14.99.10 |
| Gmelin Reference | 68345 |
| KEGG | C16171 |
| MeSH | D004348 |
| PubChem CID | 16054906 |
| RTECS number | TH5125000 |
| UNII | C0Y7QQC7ML |
| UN number | UN2811 |
| CAS Number | 104987-11-3 |
| 3D model (JSmol) | `3D model (JSmol)`: `CC1=NC2(C(=O)CC1)C(=O)C=CC3C2CCC4C3(CCC(C4)O)C` |
| Beilstein Reference | 1452782 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:140629 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL428961 |
| ChemSpider | 87296267 |
| DrugBank | DB00621 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03c0b611-9961-435c-bc62-3beef2a86552 |
| EC Number | 1.14.99.38 |
| Gmelin Reference | 126856 |
| KEGG | C16635 |
| MeSH | D004349 |
| PubChem CID | 138409318 |
| RTECS number | HA0952000 |
| UNII | MK57U0J10X |
| UN number | UN2811 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C24H29NO3 |
| Molar mass | 429.547 |
| Appearance | White solid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.28 g/cm3 |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble in water |
| log P | 1.8 |
| Vapor pressure | 7.24E-13 mmHg at 25°C |
| Acidity (pKa) | 13.92 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 2.89 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -82.1·10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.614 |
| Viscosity | Viscous liquid |
| Dipole moment | 3.92 Debye |
| Chemical formula | C23H27NO3 |
| Molar mass | 429.541 g/mol |
| Appearance | White solid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.29 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble in water |
| log P | 2.6 |
| Vapor pressure | 3.5E-12 mmHg at 25°C |
| Acidity (pKa) | 12.74 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 7.69 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -0.0000152 |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.618 |
| Viscosity | Viscous liquid |
| Dipole moment | 3.6361 Debye |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | H02AB14 |
| ATC code | H02AB17 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | Suspected of causing cancer. Causes damage to fertility or the unborn child. Causes serious eye irritation. Causes skin irritation. May cause respiratory irritation. |
| GHS labelling | Warning;H302;H315;H319;H335 |
| Pictograms | GHS06,GHS08 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H315, H319, H335 |
| Precautionary statements | P261, P264, P271, P272, P280, P302+P352, P305+P351+P338, P308+P313, P321, P332+P313, P333+P313, P337+P313, P362+P364 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | NFPA 704: 1-1-0 |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): >2000 mg/kg (oral, rat) |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) for 11Beta-Hydroxy-2'-Methyl-Pregna-1,4-Diene[17,16-D]Oxazole-3,20-Dione is not established. |
| REL (Recommended) | 0.01 mg/m3 |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not listed |
| Main hazards | H302 + H315 + H319 + H335 |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Pictograms | GHS06,GHS08 |
| Signal word | Danger |
| Hazard statements | H302 + H315 + H319 + H335 |
| Precautionary statements | P261, P264, P271, P272, P280, P302+P352, P304+P340, P305+P351+P338, P308+P313, P312, P321, P332+P313, P337+P313, P362+P364 |
| Flash point | Flash point: >110°C |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose) = 4060 mg/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | No data |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not Established |
| REL (Recommended) | 0.01 mg/m³ |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | NO DATA |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Corticosteroid
Oxazoline Prednisolone Glucocorticoid Steroid Hydrocortisone |
| Related compounds |
11β-Hydroxyprogesterone
Oxazolones Pregnadiene Dione derivatives Corticosteroids 11β-Hydroxy-17α-methylprogesterone Oxazole-fused steroids |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 572.8 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -108.4 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -8943.5 kJ/mol |
Providing high-quality chemical products and logistics solutions for global trade partners.
