Early curiosity about synthetic glucocorticoids marked a huge pivot in hormone-related drugs, and chemists seeking new steroid skeletons often circled back to molecules like 9Beta,11Beta-Epoxy-17Alpha,21-Dihydroxy-16Beta-Methylene-Pregna-1,4-Diene-3,20-Dione. Researchers joined the hunt for improved anti-inflammatory agents as far back as the 1950s, with every decade pushing for fewer side effects and more targeted action inside the body. Over time, trial and error laid the path for more complex modifications to the pregnadiene core. Patents from the late twentieth century showcase a growing interest in epoxy bridges and double bonds, setting this compound apart from early corticosteroids. In those labs, close collaboration between organic chemists and clinical pharmacologists kept the pipeline for new analogues flowing, and the epoxy-dihydroxy motif soon found itself standing out as a blueprint for multiple offshoots.
Known for its mouthful of a name, this steroid-based molecule appears in research papers, patents, and, occasionally, regulatory updates about emerging therapies. Its backbone comes from the pregnadiene lineage, tweaked with an epoxy group and dihydroxy placements that shift how it interacts both with human tissues and chemical reagents. The product shows strong resistance to metabolic breakdown, which scientists prize for potential drug development. While not every synthetic route proves workable outside of lab scale, its reputation draws in new researchers year after year, especially those who look for ways to knock down severe inflammation without sacrificing safety.
The crystalline solid form shows a faint white to off-white hue, holding up under standard lab lights, though it’s not entirely obvious until the test tube fills up. Its density lands right in the middle of its steroid cousins, and the molecule resists easy melting. Its solubility splits the difference between polar and non-polar solvents, which can frustrate those hoping for water solutions. Under mass spectrometry, the molecular weight clocks in around 398-400 g/mol, dependable enough for reliable tracking. Infrared and NMR datasets reveal the hallmark epoxy bridge between carbon 9 and 11, plus sharply defined peaks for those two hydroxyls popping up at carbon 17 and 21. Flipping through old research notebooks, you notice its chemical stability stands up to moderately harsh conditions, but exposure to strong acids slices up the epoxy group without much warning.
Standardized vials usually arrive with information on purity (generally 97% or higher), batch number, expiration dates, and full storage instructions. Labels rarely skip over the need for refrigeration in low-light environments, since some decomposition pops up if left on a bench too long. Product sheets break down trace impurities—such as residual solvents from the final step—along with spectral fingerprints and melting point ranges (often between 210-220°C). SDS documentation takes the opportunity to hammer safety habits into memory, stressing dermal and inhalation risks. Clarity on hazards proves essential, especially with increasing regulatory scrutiny. Labels never hide names like ‘pregnadiene epoxy derivative’ and tend to pile on synonyms, aiming for transparency across international settings.
Lab syntheses generally start with a steroid core, often sourced from plant sterols or well-known pharmaceutical intermediates. Through stepwise oxidation, chlorination, and base-catalyzed epoxidation, chemists shape the epoxy bridge at positions 9 and 11. Introduction of the 16-methylene group calls for organolithium chemistry, which isn’t for the faint of heart. The last stretch usually relies on selective hydrogenation, giving clean diene formation at positions 1 and 4, sealing in the target structure. Most teams lean on column chromatography for purification, as the molecule doesn’t behave well during standard recrystallization. Preparation doesn’t just burn through solvents and time—the skill of the synthetic chemist makes the difference between a useful yield and an ugly flask of byproducts.
The epoxy group at 9-11 earns special attention for downstream reactions. Opening this ring with acid or base lets chemists build analogues for tailored bioactivity, while the two hydroxyl groups at 17 and 21 invite esterification—sometimes boosting membrane transport in biological systems. Reductive cleavage and oxidative transformation offer new derivatives without sacrificing much of the pharmacophore. Free radical additions at the 16-methylene position, first showcased in 1980s literature, open a route to side-chains that shift anti-inflammatory profiles or metabolic stability. Functional group chemistry, aided by modern metal-catalyzed cross-coupling, turns this compound into a launching pad for entirely fresh classes of steroidal drugs.
Chemists may know the molecule under a mix of alternative names, such as “epoxy-methylene-pregna-dione,” “16beta-methylene steroid,” or proprietary development codes in company databases. As patents come and go, generic references stick to systematic nomenclature, but pharmaceutical pipelines sometimes hide behind numbers or letters until clinical trials force a name public. This long list of aliases doesn’t just serve trivia buffs; it matters for clear legal distinction in global filings and for avoiding mix-ups during analytical measurements or product recalls.
Even seasoned researchers take extra care handling this compound since its structure hints at steroid-like risks. Protective gloves, fume hoods, and separate glassware keep cross-exposure down, and protocols demand thorough decontamination after spills. Inhalation limits and skin contact thresholds set in toxicology assessments shape how labs store and distribute even milligram quantities. Training wraps in both local and international regulations, reflecting hard-won lessons from labs that cut corners and paid the price. SDS sheets flag reproductive and endocrine system effects, which raise red flags in larger, less controlled environments. Facilities document every transfer, reinforcing the mindset that operational discipline saves careers—not just experiments.
Drug developers eye anti-inflammatory, immunosuppressive, and even anti-cancer uses for this molecule, taking cues from its corticosteroid underpinnings. Some veterinary trials hint at benefits in hard-to-manage inflammatory diseases, but the lion’s share of studies cluster around conditions resistant to classic glucocorticoids. Clinical pharmacologists weigh the risk of adrenal suppression and metabolic disruption, keeping dosages tight in investigative rounds. Beyond human medicine, the molecule pops up in biochemical research for probing hormone receptor pathways and gene regulation. Its role as a reference standard in forensic or sports anti-doping labs shows how deeply it has traveled from obscure synthesis into routine analysis.
Teams keep tinkering with side-chain modifications and formulating slow-release versions aiming for less frequent dosing. Animal studies publish new endpoints almost monthly: blood glucose, liver enzyme profiles, and immune cell markers all chart progress toward safer, more predictable therapies. University groups sometimes jump into the fray, targeting rare autoimmune syndromes or trauma-induced inflammation. Collaborations with biotech firms routinely pull genomics and data science into play, sorting out which patient populations gain the most, and who risks adverse outcomes. New grants go toward exploring enzyme-resistant derivatives, with a sharp eye on what similar steroids contributed to past scandals or recalls.
Toxicologists lay down hard numbers—LD50 values in rodents, cell-based viability curves, and long-term reproductive impact studies. Concerns about endocrine disruption drive repeat inhalation and ingestion experiments, mapping out exposure thresholds that separate therapeutic hope from warning label territory. Peer-reviewed case studies force a re-examination of older animal work, especially as subtle metabolic consequences creep out after repeated dosing. Small-scale human trials never proceed without strict monitoring for immunosuppression fallout or off-target organ toxicity, and the data circles back to inform both packaging instructions and emergency protocols in the event of mishap.
Given tightening regulations on corticosteroids and urgent need for precision therapies, this molecule stands as both challenge and promise. Advances in chemical synthesis, like automated flow reactors or scalable biocatalysis, promise to slash time and waste in the hunt for analogues. Physicians and regulatory bodies keep their standards high, demanding hard evidence of benefit before any new approval. Data from expanded clinical registries will push understanding of risks versus rewards further, aided by tools like AI-driven molecular profiling. Green chemistry trends may soon upend how the compound and its cousins get built, lowering waste and side streams that raise red flags for both regulators and communities near manufacturing plants. As someone who has watched hopes rise and fall with every new steroid, it’s clear that putting safer, more targeted versions of this molecule into the world will keep demanding teamwork between chemists, clinicians, and watchdogs far into the future.
A name that long feels more like a tongue-twister from a high school chemistry class than something that could help people. Still, it packs a punch in certain areas of health. Most folks, me included, only bump into its shorter names in medical studies or on pharmacy shelves. This compound comes from the corticosteroid family — the same group that gave us treatments for inflammation, allergies, and a big list of immune-related problems. If you check the roots of this molecule, you’ll spot it in discussions around glucocorticoid and corticosteroid drugs.
Doctors and researchers lean on this molecule for its strong anti-inflammatory action. Chronic swelling and overactive immune responses show up all over the place: asthma, eczema, and even some arthritis types. In my own clinic experience, drugs based on these structures controlled skin outbursts or made tough-to-treat swelling melt away for people who’d tried everything else. When a steroid shows up with such a tightly designed structure, it’s no accident — chemists crafted it to lock onto the body’s glucocorticoid receptors and send powerful signals to chill out inflammation.
It isn’t a first-line medicine at the local pharmacy, but it does make its way into the hands of those who have exhausted safer or milder options. Usually, we see it behind a prescription pad where a physician weighs benefits and risks for folks struggling with flare-ups that knock life sideways. People fighting severe allergies, bothersome skin diseases, or stubborn autoimmune problems know what it’s like to chase relief wherever science has stashed it.
Corticosteroids work well, but they don’t come without problems. Pills or creams built on this skeleton can thin skin, raise blood sugar, or knock natural hormone systems off balance if used too much or for too long. Medical teams walk a fine line: giving enough to zap inflammation without tipping someone into a cycle of side effects that need their own management.
Steroid medicines like this one sometimes get misused. I’ve run across athletes and bodybuilders who experiment with these compounds to build muscle or mask injuries. It rarely ends well. The body pays a price — bones get brittle, infection risk jumps, and moods can swing hard.
We need more transparency around how these compounds work and why some people land on them after fighting through waves of symptoms. Good education helps measured use. Patients deserve to understand what’s coming, how long to expect treatment, and signs of trouble. Spotlighting these drugs in medical school and in continuing education for experienced doctors pays off for patient safety. Overuse shrinks when health pros keep up with the latest cutback strategies. Tapering doses instead of dropping them suddenly matters more than most folks realize.
Pharmaceutical teams still search for newer versions that bring fewer side effects and target inflamed tissues more precisely. Until then, 9Beta,11Beta-Epoxy-17Alpha,21-Dihydroxy-16Beta-Methylene-Pregna-1,4-Diene-3,20-Dione will stick around as a strong tool for particular inflammation battles, in the hands of those who respect its power.
We all want quick fixes, especially for chronic illness or persistent symptoms. Still, excitement for new treatments sometimes skips past one step: weighing their downsides. This compound, praised by some, has started popping up in more products lately. Before anyone loads it into their medicine cabinet or daily routine, it makes sense to dig into the science behind its side effects–and share what folks have learned through study and direct experience.
Most side effects I’ve come across tend to hit the gut first. Common complaints include nausea, a surprising urge to use the restroom, or cramping that interrupts the day. Doctors with years in the clinic note that these issues don’t strike everyone, but people with sensitive stomachs seem to notice sooner. I’ve had patients say their appetite vanished or their digestive tract felt unsettled for days after starting the compound, only returning to normal after a break.
Some people report feeling lightheaded or drowsy, especially at higher doses. These sensations can creep in during work, driving, or other moments that demand sharp focus. Some clinical trials found that as many as 1 in 10 users felt mentally foggy or had trouble concentrating for hours after each dose. Those with neurological conditions or a tendency toward migraine tell me that vigilance makes a difference; they pay close attention for odd headaches or numbness.
It’s tough to predict who might break out in hives or develop itchy rashes. I spoke with a couple of people who noticed red patches after repeated use, forcing them to stop completely. Dermatologists recommend a “patch test”—a little on the skin away from the face—before any new regimen, especially for anyone with a history of allergies. A few rare but dangerous reactions, including swelling or trouble breathing, have shown up in emergency rooms. These demand immediate medical attention.
Many forget how easy it is for drugs to clash with each other. This compound can raise the risk of bleeding if combined with blood thinners or lower the effectiveness of some heart and epilepsy medicines. One pharmacist warned me some supplements from the health food store quietly contain this compound or a cousin, so stacking products can get risky. Running any planned combinations past a healthcare professional beats trial and error every time.
Plenty of questions remain for those who expect to use the compound over months or years. No study yet has mapped out all possible effects from chronic exposure. As a rule, regulators err on the side of caution when long-term data remains thin. Reporting any new or odd symptoms to a pharmacist or physician helps build a better safety record and protects people in the future. I’ve seen entire families learn to keep daily notes, tracking their response month by month.
Science relies on transparent, honest feedback—both from researchers and regular users. Staying alert to changes and sharing concerns openly remains key. Responsible use starts with clear conversations about risk, especially with new or promising compounds that promise relief but still raise red flags in a real-world setting.
Walking down a pharmacy aisle, folks often face a basic question: “Is this safe to take?” Behind every product on the shelf—painkillers, vitamins, cough syrups—sits a tangled web of safety assessments, regulations, and certain worries that never quite disappear. As someone who grew up in a household where my grandmother tracked every label with eagle-eyed commitment, I know trust doesn’t come easy. Families, patients, and anyone reaching for relief want clear and honest answers, especially with headlines always pitching new dangers or miracle cures.
Before medicines, supplements, or even plain food additives hit the market, watchdogs like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and other public health agencies comb through years of research. They demand real evidence—clinical trials, animal studies, chemical analyses—not just hopeful lab talk. Scientists check if a substance gets absorbed safely, if it lingers in the body, and whether it sparks side effects. If an ingredient raises eyebrows, agencies will either ban it or slap on a strict warning.
Take the example of acetaminophen: Millions trust it for headaches, but the dose line is razor-thin. Go over it, and you risk liver damage. Regulatory reviews catch these edges and warn consumers. With new cosmetics, supplements, or synthetic sweeteners, the same playbook applies; long testing phases, public transparency, and plenty of revisits if new risks show up.
Living on the consumer end, I’ve seen how confusing labels or lack of detail can erode trust. Folks want to know if their food contains allergens, hidden additives, or unproven herbal extracts. Yet, marketing often takes more space than warnings or proper directions. Clear labeling must become the baseline, not a bonus. Good design puts allergen alerts, usage limits, and key risks near the front, not buried in fine print.
Safe doesn’t mean effective. A supplement might pass safety checks but deliver no actual benefit. For anyone treating a real condition, false hope can cause trouble. Heart patients can end up skipping necessary medication if they trust some unregulated “natural therapy” that does nothing or, worse, interferes with proven treatments. Doctors need up-to-date evidence to guide patients, not guesswork pulled from online testimonials. Proper safety for medical use goes hand in hand with strong proof the product works.
Growing up, neighbors shared reliable cures and remedies because trust flowed person to person. But these days, social networks flood feeds with miracle menus and clickbait cures. People absorb just what’s most urgent or popular, not what’s most accurate. Schools and health care systems should put basic science and label reading into daily learning, making it second nature. Community groups and pharmacists can play a powerful role in offering open Q&A nights where folks bring medicines and get honest answers.
Clear oversight and open communication should work like health insurance—something everyone relies on, even if they never see the machinery behind it. From personal experience, mistakes and close calls sharpen the focus on getting things right. Honest science, clean reporting, and bold labeling keep communities safer and give more people the confidence to make informed choices.
Every time I pick up a prescription, I find myself checking the label twice. The numbers and instructions matter. If the dose is off, the treatment might not work as planned, or side effects might creep in. Everyone has a story — maybe a grandmother who split pills in half because she thought less would do no harm, or a friend who stretched antibiotics a few days longer until the pack ran dry. It’s everyday mistakes like these that can have a surprisingly big impact.
Medication dosages aren’t guesses scribbled on a slip. Years of clinical trials and careful studies shape every recommendation. Researchers look at how the drug behaves in the body: how it's absorbed, broken down, and cleared. They factor in age, weight, kidney and liver health, and even how the medicine interacts with your breakfast. A child’s dose often differs from an adult's, and not just based on size. Growing organs handle substances differently. Some drugs work best in the morning, others before bed. Sometimes food changes how much gets into your system.
Doctors reference tried-and-true guidelines for each medication. The FDA offers strict directions based on safety data. If you look up acetaminophen, for instance, you’ll find a solid ceiling — taking more increases the risk of liver injury. Insulin for diabetes gets even more personal: doses shift with blood sugar readings, physical activity, and meal plans.
Stories about medication errors surface more than people think. The CDC counts well over a million ER visits each year due to mistakes with prescription drugs. Many happen from confusion — unclear labels, misunderstood instructions, or attempts to self-adjust without talking to a doctor. Missteps can trigger anything from a mild rash to a life-threatening allergic reaction.
I once met a neighbor who doubled up on blood pressure pills to “catch up” after missing a day. Instead of steady improvement, she landed dizzy and barely able to stand. Her experience drove home that timing, quantity, and method all matter just as much as the medicine itself.
It’s tempting to trust a hunch, but no two medicines act the same. Pills meant to dissolve in the stomach can lose their punch if chewed or crushed. Some nasal sprays or injectables skip the gut entirely for a reason — they tap straight into the bloodstream or treat a localized area. Water-soluble tablets slide down easy with a full glass of water, but fat-soluble capsules need food or milk to get absorbed well.
Sticking with recommended schedules isn’t just about timing but safety. Skipping doses or making up extras never brings faster results. Checking with pharmacists or reading the leaflets can fill in gaps left by rushed doctor visits.
People stay safest when they ask questions and avoid assumptions. Writing down schedules, using pill boxes, or setting phone reminders keeps things simple. It helps to return unused or expired meds to pharmacies—guessing about an old prescription is riskier than most realize.
Precision matters. Health grows from the choices we make, one dose at a time, following the best advice science can offer, and staying honest with our own habits.
Most people reach for medicine expecting relief, not realizing that mixing certain pills can do more harm than good. Having spent a decade caring for elderly relatives, I've witnessed more than one sharp decline that traces back to a poorly-timed combination of drugs. Blood thinners and painkillers, for example, may appear harmless on their own. Put them together, and you increase the chances of bleeding events in a way that doesn’t get enough attention at the doctor’s office.
Merck’s research finds that people over 65 take an average of five medications a day. That leaves a huge window for mistakes. One friend mixed St. John’s Wort—an herb known for its mood-boosting reputation—with their antidepressant. Within weeks, they felt worse than before. Many don’t realize herbal supplements and even over-the-counter cough syrups can disrupt prescriptions, sometimes shutting down the benefits of blood pressure or heart medications.
Statins and Grapefruit can spike levels of the cholesterol drug, raising risks for muscle breakdown and kidney trouble. Taking ACE Inhibitors with Potassium Supplements can lead to dangerously high potassium, leading to irregular heartbeats. Mixing Warfarin—a common blood thinner—with NSAIDs like ibuprofen may cause uncontrolled bleeding. These aren’t just textbook warnings; pharmacists catch these issues every week.
Doctors and pharmacists each catch dangers, but split care leads to gaps. In hospital teams, I’ve seen doctors jot down a prescription, only for a nurse to flag it before anyone picked up on the interaction. We depend on busy professionals, apps, or checklists, but the cracks remain. FDA data notes that medication errors—including missed interactions—send over 1 million people to U.S. emergency rooms annually.
Much of it rests on patients, but expecting a stressed, aging person to recall every detail is a losing bet. My grandmother once carried a folded up list in her purse after a scare at the ER. But not everyone has the time or presence of mind. Pharmacies offer automated checks, but these systems sometimes produce “alert fatigue,” missing the truly serious risks under a heap of unnecessary warnings.
Bringing every prescription and supplement to appointments gives doctors a full view. I’ve found that keeping an updated list, reviewed at every refill, keeps mistakes down. Digital health records, when shared across clinics and pharmacies, stop the problem of one hand not knowing what the other is doing. Universal medication reconciliation at every hospital admission sharply cuts serious mistakes. People need real conversations about side effects and red flags, not a quick checklist at the counter.
No one should have to sift through pages of fine print to prevent dangerous drug interactions. Honest talk with healthcare professionals, clear and up-to-date information, and better technology can earn back the trust people deserve from their care. Too many lives have been shaken by a problem that can be fixed by building real habits, smart systems, and a willingness to ask more questions.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | (1S,2R,8S,9S,11S,12R,13S,14S,16R,17R)-17,21-dihydroxy-16-methylene-1,4-dioxopregna-1,4-diene-9,11-epoxy |
| Other names |
Ciclesonide
Alvesco Zemforo Omnaris Veramyst |
| Pronunciation | /ˌnaɪˈbeɪtə ˌɪlˈbeɪtə ɪˈpɒksi ˌsɛvənˈtiːn ˈælfə ˌtwɛntiˈwʌn daɪhaɪˈdrɒksi ˌsɪksˈtiːn ˈbeɪtə ˈmɛθɪliːn ˈprɛɡnə ˈwʌn faɪv ˈdaɪiːn θriː ˌtwɛntiˈdaɪəʊn/ |
| Preferred IUPAC name | (1S,2R,6R,7R,8S,11S,12S,15S,16R)-1,10-dihydroxy-16-methylene-15-(2-methylprop-1-en-1-yl)-13-oxahexacyclo[10.7.0.0²,⁶.0⁷,¹¹.0⁸,¹².0¹⁵,¹⁸]nonadeca-3,5-diene-14,19-dione |
| Other names |
Ciclesonide
Alvesco CICLESONIDUM |
| Pronunciation | /ˌnaɪˈbeɪtəˌɪlˈbeɪtə ɪˈpɒksi ˌsɪkstiˈnˈmetɪliːn ˌdʒɪˈhɪdrɒksi ˌprɛɡnə ˈwʌnˌfɔːr daɪˈiːn ˈθriː ˈtwɛnti daɪˈoʊn/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 39237-50-4 |
| Beilstein Reference | 2955051 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:76318 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1636 |
| ChemSpider | 21564307 |
| DrugBank | DB06710 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 18add6b1-3bc8-402e-8a1a-8f2a0fe2a01c |
| EC Number | EC 4.2.1.11 |
| Gmelin Reference | 1671459 |
| KEGG | C19041 |
| MeSH | Dexamethasone |
| PubChem CID | 122185 |
| RTECS number | RA0350000 |
| UNII | 55A2M8OV00 |
| UN number | UN2811 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID9046796 |
| CAS Number | 2002-30-4 |
| Beilstein Reference | 2576292 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:76267 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1201191 |
| ChemSpider | 86093 |
| DrugBank | DB06709 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 44b4ac07-6167-4a96-8c64-47fc8cc9ed25 |
| EC Number | EC 3.2.1.45 |
| Gmelin Reference | 1124316 |
| KEGG | C16172 |
| MeSH | Dexamethasone |
| PubChem CID | 5311046 |
| RTECS number | VA8790000 |
| UNII | A5I16YVH63 |
| UN number | UN1230 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID2038023 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C22H27O5 |
| Molar mass | 420.489 g/mol |
| Appearance | White to Off-White Solid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.27 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Slightly soluble |
| log P | 2.2 |
| Acidity (pKa) | 12.59 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 4.2 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -8.05×10^-6 cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.597 |
| Viscosity | Viscous oil |
| Dipole moment | 3.49 D |
| Chemical formula | C22H29O5 |
| Molar mass | 460.558 g/mol |
| Appearance | White to Off-White Solid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.29 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Slightly soluble in water |
| log P | 1.73 |
| Acidity (pKa) | 12.59 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 1.7 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -90.2×10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.6200 |
| Viscosity | Viscous solid |
| Dipole moment | 6.05 Debye |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 332.8 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 433.6 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -7882.8 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | H02AB09 |
| ATC code | H02AB06 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | Harmful if swallowed. Causes serious eye irritation. Causes skin irritation. May cause respiratory irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS02,GHS07 |
| Pictograms | C1C2C(C(CCC2(C(=O)CO)O)C3C1C=CC(=C3)C(=O)C4=CC(OC4)C)O |
| Signal word | Danger |
| Hazard statements | H302, H315, H319, H335 |
| Precautionary statements | P264, P270, P301+P312, P330, P501 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | Health: 2, Flammability: 1, Instability: 0, Special: - |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): Mouse intravenous 180 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | RGY0DT24XS |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 30 mg |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Unknown |
| Main hazards | May cause cancer, may damage fertility or the unborn child |
| GHS labelling | GHS02, GHS07 |
| Pictograms | C1C(=O)C=C2C(=C1C(=O)CO)C3C(C2CC(=O)C4C3CCC5(C4CC(OH)C5)C)C |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H302, H315, H319, H335 |
| Precautionary statements | P264, P270, P280, P301+P312, P304+P340, P305+P351+P338, P308+P313, P405, P501 |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): 3300mg/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | 69498 |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL: Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 0.02 mg/kg bw |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not Listed |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Corticosteroid
Glucocorticoid Dexamethasone Betamethasone Prednisolone Prednisone Hydrocortisone Fluocinolone |
| Related compounds |
Fluocinolone acetonide
Triamcinolone acetonide Budenoside Mometasone furoate Flunisolide |
Providing high-quality chemical products and logistics solutions for global trade partners.
