Finasteride and dutasteride rose to prominence as pharmaceutical answers to trouble in men’s health, specifically around hair loss and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Both compounds come from years of research into 5-alpha-reductase, an enzyme pivotal to converting testosterone into dihydrotestosterone (DHT). This conversion process drives both benign prostatic enlargement and male pattern baldness. In the late 1980s, scientists dialed into this connection and began chasing molecules that could break this chain. Finasteride jumped to the market first, in the early 1990s, as a therapy for BPH and later, as a hair loss solution. Dutasteride trailed but offered broader inhibition across 5-alpha-reductase isoforms. These drugs didn't arrive out of the blue—they reflect a long stretch of chemical development, clinical study, and regulatory hurdles, with pharma teams refining intermediates at every stage to ensure potency, stability, and safety.
A deep dive into finasteride and dutasteride intermediates turns up a range of white to off-white crystalline powders boasting specific melting points and solubility traits. These intermediates aren't finished pills or ointments you find at the pharmacy, but building blocks that chemists use to create the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) powering these big-name drugs. Reliable intermediates keep synthesis lanes open, prevent bottlenecks in production, and help deliver treatments to millions—including the men crowding dermatology and urology clinics seeking real help.
Anyone who's worked near a chemical reactor understands that every intermediate comes with a physical fingerprint—melting points often between 130-150°C, low water content, and quite a bit of stability under standard storage conditions. Their ability to dissolve in polar organic solvents matters for reaction efficiency during batch manufacturing. Some intermediates sport fluoro, azido, or methyl groups, influencing not just how they react, but also how safely they can be transported and stored. The wrong choice in an intermediate not only cuts yield, but also throws off reaction times, risks operator safety, and opens the door to costly recalls.
Quality in pharmaceutical manufacturing depends on transparency and rigorous testing. Technical specifications—for example, purity exceeding 98%, specific optical rotations, minimal residual solvents—shouldn’t just be marketing copy. Each batch needs a complete certificate of analysis, comprehensive impurity profile, and clear expiration dates. Workers in compliance and QC see first-hand just how quickly manufacturing can get derailed when specs go wonky. Agencies in North America, Europe, and Asia scrutinize import shipments for these details. As a result, any slip-up threatens not just business reputation but patient safety.
True innovation in the world of intermediates often traces back to the way chemists tweak existing processes. Take finasteride's path: Stepwise alkylation, strategic use of protecting groups, and careful hydrogenation form the backbone, with purification stages dialed in for each unique reaction byproduct. Dutasteride, with its extra enzyme-blocking punch, calls for an extra layer of synthetic precision owing to its delicate dual fluorinated rings. People on the process chemistry side invest years in shaving away side reactions, tuning pH, swapping hazardous reagents for lower-risk options, and scaling up bench recipes to handle thousands of kilograms annually. That hard-won expertise underpins every white bottle of API shipped to a global distributor.
Every intermediate invites further chemical adventure. Modifying these molecules—by swapping out methyl for ethyl, tweaking ring substituents, or experimenting with new protective groups—gives rise to novel analogues. Sometimes, these ‘cousin’ compounds go nowhere. Other times, they spark the launch of new drugs or more efficient, greener manufacturing. For research chemists, intermediates from the finasteride or dutasteride routes often serve as valuable scaffolds for probing the biology of DHT and beyond—sometimes spinning off into discoveries in cancer biology or endocrinology.
Finasteride and dutasteride intermediates don’t always go by obvious names in chemical catalogues. Tracking synonyms like “N-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-3-oxo-4-aza-5α-androst-1-ene-17β-carboxamide” or a blend of registry numbers keeps technical teams on their toes, especially in international trade. Sales and procurement often navigate a maze of local nomenclature, trivial names, and IUPAC strings—a complexity that can lead to mistakes or delays unless checked by experience or reliable digital tools.
Manufacturing these molecules isn’t a walk in the park. Every lab manager and plant operator knows the risks posed by volatile solvents, high pressures, and toxic reagents—classic hazards in steroid synthesis. Gloves, goggles, engineered ventilation, and strict batch records form the beating heart of a safe workplace. Plenty of lessons have been learned the hard way, with minor spills or thermal runaways prompting upgrades in alarms, training, or handling protocols. Countries lean heavily on Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) frameworks, making compliance key to continued business. The costs of skipping these steps show up not just in fines, but in injuries, production halts, and insurance nightmares.
Real-world uses for these intermediates stretch beyond blockbuster drugs. While the flagship APIs tackle BPH and alopecia, R&D outfits in academic labs and biotech startups scan these same compounds for fresh uses—in reproductive health, dermatology, endocrine disorders, or even cancer mechanisms. Curiosity around off-target effects or combinatory therapies keeps interest alive. Supply chain teams, meanwhile, hustle to maintain a constant flow, given the steady stream of patients who rely on these medications.
Labs bent on discovery keep exploring how structural tweaks to intermediates could push the efficacy profile or minimize side effects. Enhanced understanding of 5-alpha-reductase's tissue-specific behavior pushes further chemical modifications and, hopefully, better outcomes for patients tired of the status quo. Smart R&D departments invest in green chemistry—using less toxic reagents, less energy, and more sustainable solvents—to reduce the environmental burden of large-scale finasteride and dutasteride production. These tweaks may look small on paper but add up quickly in worldwide production.
No one forgets the importance of toxicity research. Data coming in over decades point to some classic side effects, including sexual dysfunction and mood swings—for the end-user, that’s men on the medications. For plant operators and chemists, toxicity concerns revolve around unintentional exposure to APIs and intermediates. Animal models and in vitro tests supply early warning of trouble, and regulatory agencies demand robust reporting before green-lighting any new molecule or production tweak. Equipment upgrades and improved ventilation arise from direct experience with these hazards, not just text in a handbook.
With rates of male pattern baldness and prostate troubles rising globally as populations age, the need for reliable intermediates will only grow. Competitors in China and India have brought prices down but also triggered a new arms race in technical quality and regulatory savvy. Subtle synthetic advances and smarter process controls could mean fewer bottlenecks and less environmental pollution in upcoming years. Data-driven manufacturing and AI-inspired process prediction may soon help chemists predict—and prevent—bad batches before they ever hit the tank. For chemists, plant managers, and supply chain experts, these molecules are less about abstract chemistry than they are about daily problem-solving, teamwork, and making sure patients get the help they need while keeping workers and the environment safe.
Pharmaceuticals like finasteride and dutasteride make a real difference for people dealing with hair loss or prostate conditions. At the root of these drugs, before they even get to the pharmacy shelf, science and engineering work together to build the active ingredient from scratch. The term “intermediate” refers to the chemicals central to these builds—stepping stones in the multi-step processes. Each drug relies on a unique set of intermediates that shapes not only the finished molecule, but the overall manufacturing process, risks involved, and downstream cost.
Finasteride and dutasteride both target 5-alpha-reductase, but the way scientists piece them together varies a lot. Finasteride brings together a core steroid skeleton where the C-17 position gets a lactam ring sooner, influencing which intermediates hit the spotlight. One well-known finasteride intermediate is the 4-aza-steroid skeleton, which comes from modifying a simple progesterone-like structure. The finasteride path leans on reliable, well-documented reactions—the process has been studied for decades, with manufacturers usually relying on intermediates that withstand temperature swings and store well.
Dutasteride’s intermediates come from a tougher route. The skeleton grows bulkier, and its 22,23-dihydro group means chemists face more steps—and more complicated ones at that. The process involves intermediates that contain extra fluorine atoms and require careful protection and deprotection of certain functional groups. This adds more columns and purification work in the lab, more waste to manage, and higher skill demands for anyone working on these steps. That’s what drives up the cost, both in research and mass production.
Contaminants sneak in easily at each step, especially with dutasteride. It’s easy for the process to produce byproducts without careful control of temperature, pressure, and solvent choice. Poor control means the intermediates don’t always look the way they should, and there’s a risk of impurities getting carried all the way through to the final drug. Both the FDA and EMA push hard for producers to catch flaws at the intermediate level, since downstream clean-up is no easy task.
I’ve watched this play out in manufacturing settings. With finasteride, chemists and engineers spend more time monitoring for generic cross-contamination. With dutasteride, the time goes to isolating specific crystalline forms and filtering out stubborn fluorinated byproducts. Miss a step, and it can set back weeks of work and thousands of dollars in reagents. From a safety angle, problems at the intermediate stage can mean recalls and headaches for pharmacies down the road.
Raw material availability also sets the tone. Finasteride intermediates rely on building blocks that come out of commodity steroid chemistry. Prices follow a predictable curve, and producers can source from multiple regions, keeping the supply chain resilient. Dutasteride intermediates call for more specialty chemicals—fluorinated agents that aren’t always easy to find locally and aren’t cheap to ship, driving up costs and carbon footprint.
Leftover solvents and reagents from dutasteride intermediate synthesis often need extra treatment before disposal. Companies focused on sustainability must invest more in hazardous waste management. This impacts not only profit margins but community relations when plants sit close to residential neighborhoods.
Innovation solves a lot. Continuous flow chemistry stands out as a promising fix for both drugs, but especially for dutasteride. By running reactions in a closed loop, chemists cut down exposure to air, dial-in temperature control, and get cleaner intermediates out with less waste. More research into greener starting materials helps too. Universities and manufacturers share data now more than ever; by spreading best practices, the whole industry gets closer to safer, cheaper, and more available treatments.
In the world of pharmaceuticals, people often praise the finished pills and capsules, yet few look behind the scenes at the building blocks that let those medications exist. Finasteride and dutasteride intermediates fall into this often-overlooked area, yet they punch above their weight in the world of medicine. Every time someone picks up a finasteride tablet to fight hair loss or a dutasteride capsule to treat an enlarged prostate, they benefit from these critical intermediates. The power of these small-molecule precursors shapes cost, purity, and availability of medicines that millions rely on for daily quality of life.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers depend on trusted intermediates to create reliable, potent drugs. For finasteride, the main story starts with its application in treating benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and male pattern baldness. To get there, labs use its intermediates as essential steps in synthesis. I’ve spoken to chemists who work long hours perfecting this process, seeking to boost yields and cut toxic byproducts. The right intermediate often makes the difference between efficient production and expensive, wasteful runs. On the factory floor, getting high-quality starting materials reduces headaches during scale-up and keeps costs favorable for patients.
Dutasteride shares a similar path but targets more advanced prostate issues. Doctors choose dutasteride over finasteride in some cases due to its broader inhibition of 5α-reductase enzymes. Behind that choice sit intermediates crafted for reliability and chemical purity. In practice, every successful dutasteride dose can trace its life back to these early chemical steps. Without industry-scale access to stable intermediates, both affordability and global access would shrink fast.
Cancer researchers and clinical scientists often lean on finasteride or dutasteride and their intermediates to test new ideas. Before any clinical trial reaches patients, pre-clinical labs work with intermediates to explore novel analogues or new delivery routes. That quest to improve treatment or explore fewer side effects depends on access to these chemicals with consistent specifications. If I’ve learned anything from speaking with academic researchers, it’s that supply interruptions or unreliable intermediates slow science down.
Generic manufacturers, too, rely heavily on well-defined routes traced by intermediates. After patents expire, competition between generic makers leads them to optimize synthesis, aiming for lower costs or greener processes. Consistent intermediates keep those races going and ensure that finished products stay within regulatory limits for purity and safety.
Problems sometimes pop up around sourcing. Not all suppliers maintain strict control on quality, and a bad batch can throw off entire production runs—or worse, make it to distribution. Regulatory bodies like the FDA and EMA require constant vigilance, but real-world lapses in quality continue to appear. For me, the need for clearer global standards sticks out as a direct path forward. More reliable international certification, and routine audits, could cut down on tainted supply chains.
Another challenge remains intellectual property and the slow trickle-down of new synthesis methods from top-name companies to smaller generic firms. Opening more collaborative research channels and shared licensing might speed up safe access to these critical building blocks. The stakes stay high: better access to quality intermediates keeps costs down, safety up, and research thriving.
Chemical intermediates drive a massive portion of industries making everything from medicine to daily-use plastics. They’re not the main act—the face of the final product—but they play a critical backstage role. Even if most folks don’t know the term “intermediate,” they come into contact with their finished work almost every day. That’s part of why folks have started to ask about side effects tied to these compounds. As someone with a family history of asthma—triggered by everything from fresh paint to certain shampoos—safety around any chemical manufacturing process isn't just an academic concern. It’s personal.
Intermediates can bring concerns at different stages. In the production plant, workers face the most obvious risks. Handling some substances without proper engineering controls or protective equipment has led to skin burns, lung trouble, and sometimes chronic health problems. Agencies like OSHA and the European Chemicals Agency document these incidents every year. Folks in the industry have always pressured companies for better safety gear. Sadly, some corners still cut costs. For one worker exposed to an intermediate like formaldehyde, the risk is real: headaches, watery eyes, sometimes even cancer with heavy or repeated encounters.
People worry about what happens after intermediates leave the factory. Leaks or illegal dumping sometimes mean groundwater or air contamination. Some of these compounds stick around for years, moving up the food chain. A person might have heard about PFAS—so-called “forever chemicals”—showing up in drinking water. Once in the system, these substances can mess with hormones, harm the immune response, or affect fetal development. My town faced a scare after a chemical waste truck toppled into a creek; folks spent months boiling water and worrying about every rash or sniffle.
Product recalls over chemical residues pop up often. A baby’s teething ring made with a contaminated plastic intermediate can stir panic among parents. Europe’s RAPEX system logs thousands of banned products due to leftover toxic intermediates, including some dyes and plasticizers that can cause allergic reactions, especially in children. Personal experience with allergic skin reactions from certain toiletries led me to read labels obsessively. Most of us want assurance that what comes off the store shelf is free from leftover risks.
Some companies have started shifting to “greener” intermediates, hoping to skip over toxic legacy chemicals. Scientists are developing biological routes that produce fewer by-products—this can mean less risk for both workers and the environment. Open data helps. Customers want QR codes and databases that give plain-English info about what goes inside each product. Tougher rules—real inspections, not just paperwork—also push companies to handle intermediates more responsibly. I’ve seen some smaller factories work wonders with basic containment, regular health checks, and swift spill responses. Regular audits by independent bodies cut through the red tape, making the air safer to breathe and the water safer to drink.
Folks who’ve been affected—factory workers, parents, rural communities—bring the most powerful insight. We owe it to each other to ask questions about every step, not just the final product. Transparent reporting and real community engagement matter most, not just for comforting worried neighbors, but for catching problems before they become crises. After all, what’s in yesterday’s waste sometimes ends up in tomorrow’s water bottle or lunch box.
Storing chemical intermediates like those used for finasteride and dutasteride doesn’t sound like a daily worry for most, but for anyone connected to pharmaceutical manufacturing or quality control, it’s a big deal. The kinds of tightly controlled temperatures seen in professional labs aren’t only used to tick a box with regulators—they genuinely protect the chemical makeup of these compounds. Room temperature in most cases will do, as long as room doesn’t mean somewhere that swings from freezing to boiling in a 24-hour period. A range of 15 to 25°C keeps these intermediates stable and keeps surprises out of the workday. From experience, working in a lab with a broken HVAC system taught me how quickly sensitive chemicals lose potency or even become dangerous when left out in sweltering or frigid conditions.
No one wants to lose valuable material to a cracked container—especially since some intermediates can react to moisture or light. Simple, sturdy bottles made from dark glass work better than clear jars. Glass resists chemical reactions and blocks out most of the sun’s rays, so there’s no slow breakdown inside the bottle. Plastic might seem cheaper, but it can sometimes leach chemicals or warp in heat, so glass offers peace of mind. Sealing matters just as much as the bottle itself. Screw caps with a good gasket keep air and humidity away. I once opened an improperly sealed bottle only to find clumped powder—useless, wasted material from picking the wrong storage tools.
Any pharmaceutical lab worth its certificates will focus on cleanliness just as much as lock-tight storage. Intermediates don’t simply risk changes in chemistry; they also pick up dust, oils from hands, and bits of the outside world far more often than you’d expect. Wearing gloves, using clean scoops and tools, and returning the lid straight after using saves a lot of headaches. Years spent in compounding pharmacy practice showed me that, no matter how careful the supplier, one careless moment on-site can lead to product recalls and worse. It’s never worth it.
Light and humidity may not ruin every chemical, but they’re two risks that don’t forgive mistakes. Ultraviolet radiation can sneak through windows and start slow reactions in the intermediates even in properly labeled bottles. That’s part of why those chemical cabinets rarely face windows in pharmaceutical facilities. As for humidity, sometimes all it takes is a few days in a damp stockroom for powder to clump or crystals to change. Once that’s happened, there’s no way back—test results end up askew, and safety profiles can’t be trusted.
Good record-keeping means knowing what batch came in, where it’s stored, and how long before it goes off. It’s not paranoia: chemistry can go awry even inside a sealed jar after enough years. Writing clear dates and rotating the oldest materials to the front saves everyone from nasty surprises down the line. The best labs and storerooms stick barcode labels right on the bottle, so each lot gets tracked from delivery to usage or safe disposal.
The answer sounds straightforward: seal tightly, watch the temperatures, keep light and water away, stay organized. Some chemical suppliers offer storage guides, and investing in simple temperature and humidity monitors pays back every time the summer heat gets rough. Pharmaceutical industry audits hammer home that controlled storage isn’t about ticking regulatory boxes, it’s about keeping people safe and making sure every tablet or capsule does what it’s meant to. Small habits—shutting the cap tightly, checking the alarms on the fridge, logging every movement—don’t take up much time but protect a whole batch of supply.
Reliable sourcing for pharmaceutical intermediates, especially those connected to drugs like finasteride and dutasteride, has turned into a challenge for professionals working in pharmaceutical manufacturing, distribution, and R&D. In my experience working with supply chains for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), the journey involves much more than a simple online search or price comparison. Safety, documentation, regulations, and traceability set the foundation for any meaningful supplier relationship.
Folks who develop pharmaceuticals know that impurity in a key intermediate can ruin weeks of work and trigger expensive investigations. Subpar batches delay projects, waste resources, and possibly risk patient safety. High-quality intermediates go hand in hand with detailed Certificates of Analysis (CoA), full traceability, and adherence to global standards such as GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice). Many reputable Chinese and Indian manufacturers invest in these certifications, but not all suppliers show the same commitment. The gap between quality-focused producers and fly-by-night dealers remains wide.
Browsing online, buyers find a flood of vendors on platforms like Alibaba, chemnet, or EC21. Navigating this landscape without falling for misrepresented materials gets tricky. In my supply chain days, we dismissed a dozen emails promoting “USP grade” finasteride intermediates that looked identical. A single call asking for their US FDA audit documents or European market references sorted genuine vendors from those with little to lose. Peer networks proved crucial—reputation and word-of-mouth matter far more than slick websites.
I’ve seen labs buy intermediates that wouldn’t pass a simple HPLC test. It’s tempting to shave costs when pressures mount, but shortcuts tend to create downstream headaches. Licensing, regulatory registration numbers, factory inspection reports, and independent batch analysis all provide valuable safety nets. Always ask for a full documentation package, and never accept vague answers about batch history or analytical methods. I encourage teams to insist on samples for verification before committing to significant orders.
Many countries step up scrutiny on pharmaceutical imports, especially hormones and related substances like finasteride intermediates. Customs or health agencies regularly detain questionable shipments. Firms need a shipping history that shows respect for compliance rules, not just low prices or fast delivery. Reputable suppliers help with paperwork, including import/export licenses and detailed customs forms.
Face-to-face meetings at trade fairs like CPhI or in-country site visits build trust. I’ve traveled to factories in India and watched actual production runs, which told me much more than PowerPoint slides ever could. References from recognized pharma companies, evidence of multi-year business stability, and on-site audit reports make a big difference. Many experienced buyers rely on exclusive distributors or industry-specific procurement networks for these intermediates, since these channels offer more transparency and accountability than broad online platforms.
Solid sourcing practices—clear documentation, regulatory harmony, reputation checks, and in-person audits—remain the best protection. Risk always enters the mix, but rigor, professional skepticism, and personal experience lead to suppliers who match the needs of serious pharmaceutical projects.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | (5α,17β)-N-tert-butyl-3-oxo-4-azaandrost-1-ene-17-carboxamide |
| Other names |
N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-oxo-4-aza-5α-androst-1-ene-17β-carboxamide
tert-Butyl-3-oxo-4-aza-5α-androst-1-ene-17β-carboxamide |
| Pronunciation | /fɪˈnæs.tə.raɪd ənd djuːˈtæs.tə.raɪd ˌɪn.təˈmiː.di.ət/ |
| Preferred IUPAC name | N-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-oxo-4-aza-5α-androst-1-ene-17β-carboxamide |
| Other names |
N-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-3-oxo-4-aza-5alpha-androst-1-ene-17beta-carboxamide
tert-Butyl-3-oxo-4-aza-5alpha-androst-1-ene-17beta-carboxamide tert-Butyl-3-oxo-4-aza-5α-androst-1-ene-17β-carboxamide |
| Pronunciation | /fɪˈnæstəraɪd ənd djuːˈtæstəraɪd ˌɪn.təˈmiː.di.ət/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 137-58-6 |
| Beilstein Reference | 4125574 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:5068 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2549 |
| ChemSpider | 160698 |
| DrugBank | DB01148,DB09085 |
| ECHA InfoCard | ECHA InfoCard: 100.131.833 |
| EC Number | EC 3.1.1.31 |
| Gmelin Reference | Finasteride: 8057143; Dutasteride: 8521218 |
| KEGG | C15428 |
| MeSH | D04.210.500.410.400 |
| PubChem CID | 5284532 |
| UNII | 9O6R5GVZ4L |
| UN number | Not Assigned |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DJ1X0201AI |
| CAS Number | 164656-23-9 |
| Beilstein Reference | 82123 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:36686 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2540 |
| ChemSpider | 65634 |
| DrugBank | DB01216,DB09068 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03b43bfc-2b94-4e0d-9dc9-54f65b1bbb2a |
| EC Number | EC Number: 626-070-1 |
| Gmelin Reference | Gmelin Reference 83293 |
| KEGG | KEGG:C07342 |
| MeSH | D04.210.500.365 |
| PubChem CID | 6918493 |
| RTECS number | VZ1294300 |
| UNII | 9I51L4FF1V |
| UN number | UN3272 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | EPA CompTox Dashboard: DTXSID30895298 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C₁₉H₃₁NO₂ |
| Molar mass | 372.55 g/mol |
| Appearance | White or almost white crystalline powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.2 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Slightly soluble in water |
| log P | 3.2 |
| Acidity (pKa) | 12.64 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 5.81 |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.572 |
| Viscosity | 340.2±40.0 cP at 20°C |
| Dipole moment | 2.97 ± 0.59 D |
| Chemical formula | C23H36N2O2 |
| Molar mass | 372.55 g/mol |
| Appearance | White or off-white powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.2 g/cm3 |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble in water |
| log P | 3.2 |
| Acidity (pKa) | 13.31 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 4.96 |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.520 |
| Viscosity | Viscous liquid |
| Dipole moment | 3.49 D |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | G04CB |
| ATC code | G04CB |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause reproductive toxicity. May be harmful if swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin. Causes skin and eye irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Pictograms | health hazard, exclamation mark, environment |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | Hazard statements: Causes skin irritation. Causes serious eye irritation. May cause respiratory irritation. |
| Precautionary statements | Suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child. Avoid breathing dust/fume/gas/mist/vapours/spray. Wear protective gloves/protective clothing/eye protection/face protection. IF exposed or concerned: Get medical advice/attention. |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | NFPA 704: 1-1-0 |
| Flash point | Flash point: 273.7°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (rat, oral): > 2000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): Oral, rat: 1451 mg/kg |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not Established |
| REL (Recommended) | Intermediate |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not established |
| Main hazards | May damage fertility or the unborn child. Causes skin irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS labelling: Danger. Hazard statements: H360 - May damage fertility or the unborn child. Precautionary statements: P201, P202, P280, P308+P313, P405, P501. Pictograms: GHS08 (Health hazard). |
| Pictograms | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H302: Harmful if swallowed. H315: Causes skin irritation. H319: Causes serious eye irritation. H361: Suspected of damaging fertility or the unborn child. |
| Precautionary statements | Obtain special instructions before use. Do not handle until all safety precautions have been read and understood. Use personal protective equipment as required. Avoid release to the environment. |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | Health: 2, Flammability: 1, Instability: 0, Special: - |
| Flash point | > 163.4°C |
| Autoignition temperature | NA |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 oral rat > 2000mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose) of Finasteride And Dutasteride Intermediate: "LD50 (rat, oral): > 4000 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | Not Listed |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL (Permissible) of Finasteride And Dutasteride Intermediate: Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 0.5-1 mg orally once daily |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not established |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Finasteride
Dutasteride 4-azasteroids Testosterone Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) |
| Related compounds |
Finasteride
Dutasteride Azasteroids Androgen receptor antagonists |
Providing high-quality chemical products and logistics solutions for global trade partners.
