Once chemists spotted the value hiding in the androstane skeleton, research started branching out. The buzz started in the late 1950s, as scientists dug into steroid biochemistry and structure-activity trends. Research moved quickly, especially when pharmaceutical companies noticed how small tweaks on this framework could block or boost key hormonal pathways. People tend to think of finasteride or dutasteride as the big names, but dig a little deeper and 3-oxo-4-aza-5-alpha-androsatane-17beta-carboxylic acid shows up as a backbone in lots of patent literature. It helped pave the way for selective enzyme inhibitors and brought about big changes in how people approach androgen-related problems—especially in hair loss and prostate health realms. With each new experiment, this acid picked up extra layers of history, sometimes appearing as an intermediate, sometimes as the main character in papers that shaped the modern steroid field.
3-Oxo-4-aza-5-alpha-androsatane-17beta-carboxylic acid sits among a group of steroidal structures that matter both in the clinic and the lab. Drug developers and academic teams use it as either a reference point or as raw material in new syntheses. The whole family of such molecules sparks interest because of their precise control over 5-alpha-reductase, an enzyme that drives testosterone to more potent forms. Doctors don’t jump straight to muscle gains or hormone therapy—the deeper appeal of these compounds comes from being able to slow benign prostate growth or curb hair follicle miniaturization. Its role shines the most behind the scenes in research, though a few rare pharmaceutical products put it front and center for specific metabolic disorder investigations.
This acid usually turns up as a solid, off-white crystalline powder, melting just under 300°C on most lab thermometers. The core androstane structure offers up a sturdy scaffold, flanked by an oxo group at the third position and a carboxylic acid at seventeen. Those extras breathe life into solubility, polarity, and reactivity, guiding how scientists tinker with it during reactions. It stays quiet in water, barely dissolving, but performs better in polar organic solvents. A sharp, slightly bitter chemical aroma sometimes surfaces in fresh batches—old lab rats know the smell. The stability of this acid comes from the rigid steroid ring, resisting light and oxidation under normal storage. This reliability makes it a trusted participant in multi-step organic tinkering.
On labels from respectable chemical suppliers, you'll usually find 3-oxo-4-aza-5-alpha-androsatane-17beta-carboxylic acid marked clearly by its systematic name, often coupled with the CAS number 98319-26-7. Physical specifications matter—the material usually arrives in containers packed tight against moisture and light, since it absorbs both with time. Labels spell out molecular weight, purity (often exceeding 98 percent in research grade), and lot-specific spectral data, including NMR and mass spectrometry peaks. Having worked with similar compounds, I always check for full traceability on safety sheets. Fastidious labeling means mistakes in research or pilot manufacturing hardly ever happen, saving valuable funds and time for larger-scale experimentation.
Scientists usually start with a protected steroid core when making this acid, either modifying an existing androstane or building from saponification of certain precursors. Multi-step synthesis means reheating and purifying using column chromatography, recrystallizing with ethanol or methanol, and handling reagents with both speed and caution. One setup relies on oxidation at position three, followed by aza ring introduction at the fourth carbon—delicate work, since any unguarded step ruins yield or purity. Technicians who’ve spent hours coaxing white crystals from brown goo appreciate methods reducing solvent loss and minimizing hazardous waste. Each step brings fresh chance for error and later correction, so training and good notes play a bigger role than any single recipe.
3-Oxo-4-aza-5-alpha-androsatane-17beta-carboxylic acid behaves much like its neighboring steroids—openings for reaction crowd around the carboxylic end, letting chemists fashion esters, amides, or even build prodrugs with better absorption. The oxidative site at C3 brings more options; sometimes researchers tweak electronics here, hunting for a sharper or softer biological effect. When companies want to patent new ideas, they move to fast, selective functionalization—each chemical add-on opens a new IP route. My personal experience tells me that planning every move here feels like chess, since small changes in conditions or solvents bring surprising side products. Familiar reagents—DCC, EDCI for coupling, mild bases for deprotonation—remain mainstays in the lab blends, as anything more aggressive risks breaking the whole steroid ring.
The name may trip up newcomers, but alternative designations are common in the literature. “17beta-carboxylic acid 4-aza-androstane” often pops up in older patents, while research protocols sometimes shrink it to “4-aza steroid acid.” Chemists tossing ideas around might shorten references to “aza-acid” in their notes, though that's far too broad for formal paperwork. Trade names surface in pharmaceutical company filings from time to time, reflecting either a prodrug derivative or a modified salt. Manuals always flag all synonyms to steer clear of confusion—mistaking one congener for another can derail a whole series of experiments.
Solid safety culture shapes any work involving steroidal acids. The chemical’s low volatility helps, but dust inhalation or long skin exposure bothers even seasoned professionals. Gloves, masks, and splash goggles surround every handling session. The acid’s moderate toxicity means it rarely makes the high-risk list, yet labs keep spill kits and neutralizing solutions on hand. Waste disposal lands squarely under hazardous organic rules—nobody shortcuts these steps in environments where cross-contamination costs careers. Storage conditions favor dryness, darkness, and room temperature stability. Newcomers benefit from mentorship and documented protocols, setting the tone for trouble-free work cycles.
The acid finds a home wherever steroid modification drives research or therapy. Drug companies chase patentable analogs in benign prostatic hyperplasia, androgen-driven skin disease, and sometimes rare metabolic disorders. As a molecular building block, it gives synthetic chemists powerful tools for diversifying libraries in drug discovery screens. In some contexts, teams test it for anti-inflammatory or metabolic regulation along lipid pathways. Though the acid itself rarely hits pharmacy shelves, its fingerprints turn up in dozens of clinical compounds, either as an intermediate or as part of a targeted release formula. The value stretches out further in university labs dedicated to deciphering enzyme-inhibitor interactions at the atomic scale.
Current research pulls from computational chemistry, old-school organic synthesis, and high-throughput screening. Publications often explore new ester and amide derivatives, hoping to pump up absorption or lock down selectivity for stubborn medical problems. Over the past decade, academic teams cross-checked 3-oxo-4-aza-5-alpha-androsatane-17beta-carboxylic acid against cellular enzyme panels, taking aim at androgen metabolism, cancer markers, and even some novel inflammation targets. Lab success depends as much on creative synthetic planning as access to fresh, high-purity acid. R&D budgets in pharma expand and contract depending on blockbuster drug performance, but a consistent thread remains—every breakthrough on this scaffold lifts the entire steroid-hormone research community.
Toxicity studies focus on both acute and chronic effects, targeting metabolic breakdown and the chance for unintended hormonal spillover. Standard animal panels show relatively low acute toxicity, though long-term exposures demand attention due to potential off-target binding at androgen or glucocorticoid sites. Corporate and academic labs lean on in vitro liver assays and predictive modeling, looking for DNA interaction, oxidative damage, or subtle endocrine disruption. Having worked with these compounds, the necessity for rigorous in-house screening shows up over and over—a single misjudged impurity can skew a whole set of mouse or cell culture results. Keeping tabs on degradation and bioaccumulation ensures new synthetics avoid dead ends in late-stage clinical work.
The next few years promise tighter focus on tailored analogs with fewer side effects, using this acid as both a platform and a probe. Machine learning tools keep ramping up, letting chemists sort huge libraries of possible modification sites in days rather than months. Collaboration between steroid chemists and computational biologists narrows the distance from benchtop to bedside, especially for rare or resistant hormonal conditions. Open questions about steroid-resistance and enzyme cross-talk draw more funding each year, with hopes that the lessons learned from 3-oxo-4-aza-5-alpha-androsatane-17beta-carboxylic acid feed straight back into the fight against prostate disease, hair loss, and even metabolic syndrome. That feedback loop—real interactions between scientific curiosity, industry drive, and clinical urgency—shapes the path ahead, as both a challenge and an invitation for the next crop of researchers.
A tongue-twister like 3-Oxo-4-Aza-5-Alpha-Androsatane-17Beta-Carboxylic Acid barely invites attention outside the chemistry classroom. Yet this compound serves as a backbone for some of the most important prostate health drugs. Its structure lies at the core of how finasteride, the popular medication for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and male pattern baldness, manages to block a specific enzyme: 5-alpha-reductase.
Let me break it down—the human body makes testosterone that, once converted into dihydrotestosterone (DHT), turbocharges hair loss for some and triggers growth inside the prostate for others. 3-Oxo-4-Aza-5-Alpha-Androsatane-17Beta-Carboxylic Acid mimics the natural shape of a hormone but jams up the process. Lab teams shaped this molecule to fit the enzyme’s active site almost like a faulty key. That stops 5-alpha-reductase from making DHT out of testosterone.
Without that conversion, hair follicles don’t get the destructive signals, and the prostate receives fewer growth messages. People dealing with thinning hair or prostate trouble see real relief, right down to better urination and less overnight bathroom runs.
After years in the field, I trust no “magic pill.” Every chemical with benefits also raises questions about risks. The backbone compound powering these therapies sometimes triggers side effects. Reports talk about sexual dysfunction, mood swings, fertility issues—none small potatoes if you ask any patient stuck with them. There’s nothing abstract about weighing a few more strands on the scalp against a drop in libido.
Researchers still debate how the long-term use of these inhibitors influences things like hormone balance, mood, and even risk for high-grade prostate cancer. Some folks in the medical community now call for more cautious prescribing, insisting that doctors screen patients carefully and monitor any signs of unwanted effects. They also urge giving patients the full story, so decisions about starting treatment never look rushed or one-sided.
This molecule’s journey proves a simple science fact: tinkering with hormones gives us power, but power calls for responsibility. The hope is to create even more selective inhibitors that dodge unwanted effects. Some labs now test slight structural tweaks, searching for molecular shapes that still block the enzyme but slip past the gears controlling mood or sexual health.
Open discussion with patients helps most. If someone asks me about the newest medication for hair loss or prostate health, I make space for both excitement and caution. Respecting fears matters just as much as sharing statistics about improvement. Some people might find direct conversations about lifestyle changes or less-risky options far more helpful than any prescription. The story of 3-Oxo-4-Aza-5-Alpha-Androsatane-17Beta-Carboxylic Acid shows medical progress up close—complicated, promising, never straightforward.
For years, new therapies only reached those able to afford repeated doctor visits. Telehealth now bridges part of that divide. Broader availability of generic medications can also chip away at cost barriers. Never hurts for patients to push doctors for transparent answers and urge policymakers to keep essential medications within reach. Science builds the molecules, but communities decide their real value.
People want smooth solutions for their problems, not new headaches. Every product, from laundry detergent to a new gadget, can come with side effects. Sometimes these are annoying, other times they threaten safety. Whether I’ve grabbed a late-night snack and faced a toolbox of stomach remedies, or I’ve tested a new phone app that left my phone’s battery drained, I’ve seen firsthand that even little things can create real challenges.
Companies like to highlight benefits in bold and side effects in fine print. That’s not good enough. Honest labels and clear warnings build trust. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires medications to list their risks. But with non-medical products, it’s easy to skip disclosure unless regulators step in or customers make noise. Stories travel fast now. Search any product review forum or social media platform—the truth bubbles up. The most helpful reviews talk about actual experience. I remember testing a new natural cleaning spray after it hit a popular parenting blog. It smelled great, cleaned well, but made my skin itch even through gloves. Dozens of parents chimed in later with similar stories. These voices can become a powerful feedback loop that pushes manufacturers to step up their game.
Side effects aren’t always obvious from the start. People can chalk up headaches, coughs, or rashes to stress or weather and miss the real cause. Some dietary supplements promise “energy” or “focus” and bury any mention of jitters or sleeplessness at the bottom of the website. I’ve seen friends blame themselves for not adapting fast enough, when it was really the product out of step with their body. Health organizations and watchdog groups have built side-effect trackers for medications and vaccines, and those databases can help people connect the dots. More consumer goods should follow this lead. Restaurant allergy notices and nutrition boards show what transparency looks like in action: big, easy-to-read warnings right where you can see them.
Manufacturers need to keep pace with modern expectations. Hiding information may save face for a few weeks, but full disclosure creates the safety net people deserve. Upfront labels and simple language make all the difference. After seeing so many product recalls, it’s clear that proactive testing and honest feedback loops catch problems early. Governments and standard-setting bodies should enforce more rigorous labeling rules outside medicine too. That includes toys, personal care items, supplements, even electronics with unexpected heat or allergy risks.
People can fight back with knowledge. Looking up independent research, reading real-user stories, and asking direct questions won’t guarantee safety, but it builds stronger habits. For every product I buy now, I make checking for reported side effects part of my own checklist. Parents, pet owners, and anyone with allergies know the value of that extra minute spent scanning for the honest story, not just the marketing promise.
No one expects miracles from a label. Still, most of us would rather know upfront if a new product could trigger a reaction, ruin an afternoon, or leave a mess to clean up. Clear warnings, open customer service lines, and swift recalls when needed—those steps prove a company cares. The more power shifts toward informed customers, the more pressure brands feel to deliver on both safety and honesty.
Buying any chemical or compound taps into a maze of regulations. When someone walks into a pharmacy and asks for a medication or a specialty chemical, that conversation goes deeper than just "do you have this?" In the US, the answer relies heavily on whether the compound has a record of medical use, risk, or potential for harm. Over the years, lawmakers and medical boards developed lists of what requires a doctor’s say-so. Without that green light, a pharmacist isn’t just being careful—they’re following the law.
A prescription acts as a guardrail. Take antibiotics, for example. Before tight controls, you could pick them up like candy. Pretty soon, resistance cropped up and bacterial infections got tougher to treat. Public health officials sounded the alarm. The result? Most antibiotics now sit behind a prescription wall. Other compounds landed in a similar spot—think painkillers, stimulants, or any substance shown to lead toward dependency or abuse. Safety takes center stage, especially for drugs that mess with blood pressure, brain chemistry, or immune function. Your doctor weighs the risks and decides if you should take that step.
Some compounds don’t require a prescription, and you’ll see them on store shelves. Think about acetaminophen or ibuprofen. They have a place in regular homes, but wrong doses can trigger real harm. Labels give warnings, but in my experience working with pharmacy staff, confusion still leads to hospital visits. Even seemingly harmless chemicals, sold for cleaning or gardening, come with their share of warnings, and for good reason. Authorities want to trust adults, but not so much they overlook risks to kids or misuse for illegal purposes.
Many people try to find workarounds. Online sellers may skirt the rules, offering access to restricted chemicals without proper checks. During the pandemic, some turned to mail-order websites when local pharmacies required prescriptions. A few wound up with dangerous knock-offs, dosing errors, or even legal trouble. Tracking these transactions grew tougher, leaving buyers in a gray zone. Stories float around about supplements or “research chemicals” mislabelled to avoid scrutiny. Users gamble with their own safety each time.
Rules exist for a reason. But strict oversight sometimes gets in the way of progress. Scientists often hit roadblocks because they can't easily order compounds for legitimate lab work—it takes time, paperwork, and bureaucracy. Cutting corners isn’t a smart fix, but refining the system could help. Some groups argue for clear guidance and rapid review for professional requests, so that real research doesn’t grind to a halt.
A practical solution puts the right compound in the right hands. Doctors, pharmacists, and regulators talk to each other more often—they share data, flag problems early, and tailor recommendations. Education also crops up on the list; teaching the public about safe use changes behavior faster than any rulebook. Technology may help too, making authentication and purchase tracking easier without creating extra hoops for everyday users. Striking a balance keeps communities safe, while still trusting people and supporting research.
Standing at the pharmacy counter, plenty of folks glance at pill bottles and think, “How much is too much?” It’s a fair question, since even a safe medication can cause trouble if you exceed the amount your body can take. Aspirin gives a classic case. A couple tablets can bring down a fever, but a handful can cause stomach bleeding or ringing in your ears. Clarity around dosage protects people from harm—nobody wins by playing guessing games with their health.
Doctors and pharmacists spend years learning what works and what’s risky. Sure, labels help, but personal factors—body weight, age, other medications, and liver or kidney health—change what’s ideal. Acetaminophen, common for headaches, can damage the liver if you combine it with alcohol or already take certain other drugs. One-size-fits-all doesn’t work. That’s where tailored advice saves lives.
It’s tempting to skip instructions or mix your own plan, but I’ve seen people regret it. Back in college, a friend took cold medicine at double the recommended dose, thinking, “If it works at one scoop, two must work faster.” By evening, he was dizzy and jittery, his heart skipping beats for hours. The label didn’t just print the numbers for show.
Some medications also come in forms your body absorbs differently. One friend on heart meds only got relief after switching from a tablet to a patch—his system just didn’t take in enough through his stomach. A patch kept the effect steady all day. This isn’t a quirk; it’s thousands of research hours making sure that a milligram means what it should. Changing dosage forms by yourself, or mixing up oral and injectable types, spurs unpredictable results.
The FDA’s drug approval process, for instance, sets precise recommendations after massive clinical trials. They don’t skip to market after just seeing what works in a small handful of cases. They want to see how different bodies, ages, lifestyles, and genetics affect results. The process weeds out doses that cause more harm than good. Hospitals document this deeply. A published study in JAMA showed over 1.5 million people in the U.S. get sick each year from dosing errors. The right number matters—every milligram counts.
Never treat dosing instructions as suggestions. If a doctor adjusts your prescription, take their word over anything you read on a forum or hear from a neighbor. Ask clear questions: “Can I split these pills?” or “What if I miss a dose?” In my own family, we keep all medication info taped on the fridge, with reminders set. That system caught many near-mistakes.
Don’t mix or crush pills unless your pharmacist says it’s safe. Liquid, chewable, patch—all have their reasons. For any medicine, start at the low end, especially with kids. Always check for interactions: even vitamins can mess with some prescriptions. If a dose feels off—too strong, too weak—talk, don’t guess.
Getting dosage and method right isn’t about being cautious; it’s about honoring the science. Trust those numbers—they come from real people, real results, and carry the weight of keeping us out of harm’s way.
Products launch every day with bold promises. New creams, supplements, gadgets, and foods claim they can make life healthier or easier. Flashy ads point to quick studies or use big words, but they rarely touch on the side effects that may show up months or years later. People trust labels that read “clinically proven” or “doctor recommended,” yet such phrases often hide the limitations of short-term trials and handpicked data. A claim like “no side effects so far” doesn’t mean much if the longest study was eight weeks and most users just started.
Checking experiences from people who have used a product for years can reveal far more than any press release or influencer post. As someone who has lived through changing health trends—from fat-free snacks that later proved disappointing, to painkillers that caused problems after years of use—firsthand reports have shaped my own choices more than catchy ads ever did. Stories often crop up online where folks share the fallout of long-term use: skin rashes, mood swings, or digestive troubles that didn’t show up in the first month.
Not all products get the thorough research they deserve before landing on shelves. I look for products tested in large, long-term trials that include people of various ages and backgrounds. Peer-reviewed studies mean independent experts checked the data. When a product’s testing only involves a handful of healthy adults and the follow-up ends after a season, big questions stay open about what happens after repeated use over years.
For example, arthritis painkillers once seemed safe until longer studies revealed risks to heart health. The same goes for some artificial sweeteners or supplements that got green lights early on, but started showing troubling data from ongoing real-world use. Science tends to reveal the bigger picture with time.
Even big health watchdogs like the FDA and EMA sometimes approve items supported only by initial, short-term safety data. In the U.S., recalls get issued only after enough negative reports pile up, like with certain weight-loss pills or hair treatments. In daily life, people affected rarely feel like “test subjects”—but decisions based on smart long-term research instead of hype or short-term trends protect families better.
A healthy dose of skepticism brings balance. Ask these questions: Do experts or organizations with nothing to sell support the product? Is there real research showing it’s safe after long use? Can you find honest, critical reviews—not just glowing posts linked to discount codes?
Often, the safest products have been around for decades. They show their strengths and their flaws openly, and we learn from generations of use rather than seasonal sales pushes. Trying something new isn’t a mistake, but look past the promise and count on solid evidence and gathered experience. Choices based on deep, ongoing research often serve you better than any trend.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | (3aS,3bR,4S,5aR,7aS,7bR,8R,9aS,9bS,11aS)-4-Carboxy-8-methyl-2,3,3a,3b,4,5,5a,6,7,7a,7b,8,9,9a,9b,10,11,11a-octadecahydro-1H-indeno[5,4-f]quinolin-10-one |
| Other names |
Epetraborole
AN2690 |
| Pronunciation | /θriː-ˈɒk.soʊ-fɔːr-ˈeɪ.zə-faɪv-ˈæl.fə-ænˈdrɒs.teɪn-sev.ənˈtiːn-ˈbɛ.tə-kɑːrˈbɒk.sɪl.ɪk-ˈæs.ɪd/ |
| Preferred IUPAC name | (3aS,3bR,5aS,7R,9aS,9bS,11aS)-7-Carboxy-11a-methyl-2,3,3a,3b,4,5,5a,6,7,8,9,9a,9b,10,11,11a-hexadecahydro-1H-indeno[5,4-f]quinolin-7-ium-3-one |
| Other names |
Finasteride
MK-906 Proscar Propecia 5α-Reductase inhibitor N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-oxo-4-aza-5α-androstane-17β-carboxamide |
| Pronunciation | /θriː-ˈɒk.səʊ-ˈfɔːr-ˈeɪ.zə-ˈfaɪv-ˈæl.fə-ænˈdrɒs.təˌniːn-ˌsɪv.ənˈtiːn-ˈbeɪ.tə-ˈkɑː.bɒk.sɪl.ɪk ˈæs.ɪd/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 65447-77-0 |
| 3D model (JSmol) | `3Dmol('CC12CCC3C(C1CCC2N(C3=O)C(=O)O')` |
| Beilstein Reference | 3443021 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:76268 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1276588 |
| ChemSpider | 185502 |
| DrugBank | DB01394 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03eae9d4-7a4d-4f11-89d2-dda6e0138371 |
| EC Number | EC Number: 616-418-4 |
| Gmelin Reference | 5466 |
| KEGG | C18622 |
| MeSH | D000929 |
| PubChem CID | 65565 |
| RTECS number | RN0016400 |
| UNII | CP94V992AI |
| UN number | UN2811 |
| CAS Number | 98319-26-7 |
| Beilstein Reference | **3241562** |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:75274 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL176262 |
| ChemSpider | 21740737 |
| DrugBank | DB01486 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03e2e9cc-4383-4f91-b503-fabf026e71e2 |
| EC Number | 3.5.2.17 |
| Gmelin Reference | 78667 |
| KEGG | C18659 |
| MeSH | D000927 |
| PubChem CID | 115514 |
| RTECS number | LC2625000 |
| UNII | FWB8XBI6WF |
| UN number | Not assigned |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C19H29NO3 |
| Molar mass | 345.48 g/mol |
| Appearance | White solid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.24 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble in water |
| log P | 2.56 |
| Vapor pressure | 0.0 mmHg at 25°C |
| Acidity (pKa) | 4.09 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 13.12 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -92 × 10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.591 |
| Dipole moment | 4.30 debye |
| Chemical formula | C19H27NO3 |
| Molar mass | 329.44 g/mol |
| Appearance | White to off-white powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.23 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Slightly soluble in water |
| log P | 0.92 |
| Vapor pressure | 7.14E-14 mmHg at 25°C |
| Acidity (pKa) | 4.45 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 3.84 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -531 × 10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.63 |
| Dipole moment | 5.0944 Debye |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 397.2 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | –686.2 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -7138 kJ·mol⁻¹ |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 322.5 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -628.6 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -8373 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | G04CB02 |
| ATC code | A14AA04 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause respiratory irritation. May cause eye irritation. May cause skin irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H302: Harmful if swallowed. H315: Causes skin irritation. H319: Causes serious eye irritation. H335: May cause respiratory irritation. |
| Precautionary statements | P261, P264, P270, P272, P273, P280, P302+P352, P305+P351+P338, P362+P364, P501 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | NFPA 704: 1-1-0 |
| NIOSH | Not listed |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL (Permissible): Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 0.05 mg |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not listed |
| Main hazards | Suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child. Causes skin irritation. Causes serious eye irritation. May cause respiratory irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Pictograms | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Signal word | Danger |
| Hazard statements | H315, H319, H335 |
| Precautionary statements | P261, P264, P271, P272, P273, P280, P302+P352, P305+P351+P338, P308+P313, P332+P313, P337+P313, P362+P364 |
| NIOSH | No data found. |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL (Permissible): Not Established |
| REL (Recommended) | 0.82 |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Finasteride
Dutasteride Androstanolone Testosterone Stanozolol |
| Related compounds |
Finasteride
Dutasteride Epristeride |
Providing high-quality chemical products and logistics solutions for global trade partners.
