© 2026 Nanjing Finechem Holdings Co., Ltd,
All Right Reserved
Curiosity sparked my early interest in chemical biology, and among the compounds that cropped up, 5,5-Dimethyl-1-pyrroline N-oxide (DMPO) always caught my eye for its starring role in free radical research. Its introduction to the scene goes back to the push in the 1960s and 1970s to develop better spin trapping agents for Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) spectroscopy. Chemists wanted a tool to actually “capture” fleeting radical species, so they weren’t left theorizing about invisible threats. DMPO quickly earned its stripes after its synthesis, proving much more reliable than earlier nitrones and nitroso compounds that broke down too easily. Since then, the number of peer-reviewed articles exploring DMPO and its applications has grown every decade, signaling a lasting interest that doesn't just come from bench scientists but also from toxicologists, pharmacologists, and even food safety researchers. What brought about that shift? It wasn’t just the hunt for academic novelty — researchers saw DMPO as a path toward understanding oxidative stress in disease, pollution, and nutrition.
DMPO doesn’t appeal for its looks or simple uses. Its value roots itself squarely in its reactivity and selectivity with free radical species. In the lab, holding a vial of DMPO suggests you’re setting up meaningful EPR experiments, rather than just following protocols. As a nitrone, DMPO reacts directly with transient radicals to yield stable nitroxide adducts, which can then be detected and characterized by advanced spectroscopic techniques. The joy of working with DMPO comes closest to the satisfaction of watching a puzzle fall into place — suddenly, radicals stop being invisible and start writing their signatures on instrument traces. Commercially, DMPO is available as a crystalline solid, often shipped in tightly sealed containers to prevent degradation. Its purity, usually above 98 percent, matters a great deal, since small impurities can cloud the clarity of radical adduct spectra. Over the years, product names like 2,2-Dimethyl-4,5-dihydro1H-pyrrole 1-oxide or simply Spin Trap DMPO have circulated in the literature, pointing to its core function as a radical trap rather than a shelf chemical.
Few compounds live harmoniously at the intersection of stability and reactivity, but DMPO hits that mark. It appears as a white to off-white crystalline substance, soluble in water, methanol, and ethanol. Its melting point sits at a convenient range for most analytical setups, generally around 91–93°C. Structurally speaking, the two methyl groups on the pyrroline ring give DMPO its defining shape and chemical selectivity, especially when reacting with oxygen-based radicals. In my earliest hands-on work with DMPO, I remember frustration at its faint odor and tendency to slowly yellow upon exposure to air. That color change signals slow autoxidation — a reminder that, despite its stability against water and mild acids or bases, DMPO still wants to join in the oxidative game. Its reactivity with hydroxyl, superoxide, and carbon-centered radicals carves out a unique chemical fingerprint. When exposed to nitric oxide-related oxidants, DMPO tends to yield distinctive EPR spectra that serve as unmistakable proof of radical existence in biological or environmental samples.
Labels on DMPO bottles usually feature the CAS number 3317-61-1 and a warning about possible irritant or harmful effects. The technical sheet highlights purity and recommended storage (usually between 2–8°C in a dry place). Very few other chemicals I’ve handled require quite as much attention to the risk of contamination from atmospheric oxygen. The best suppliers color code their cap seals and tamper-evident strips, reflecting the attention to detail needed to keep DMPO in top condition. EPR enthusiasts go one further and prepare daily working solutions from frozen stock, minimizing degradation. Concentrations typically used in biological assays fall within the 10–100 millimolar range, though experienced researchers keep an eye on both the solvent and potential for side reactions, especially where complex biological matrices come into play.
Manufacturing DMPO hasn’t changed dramatically since its initial synthesis. Early literature lays out a fairly direct pathway: condensation of 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediol with nitrosating agents forms the pyrroline skeleton first, followed by controlled oxidation to yield the nitrone. Scale-up challenges crop up in the purification steps, with the final crystalline product needing to be isolated with minimal exposure to atmospheric oxygen. I have watched chemists use rotary evaporators and sealed distillation setups to preserve product purity and tackle the tricky transition from oily film to dry crystal, a move where losses can compound quickly. While newer routes through catalytic oxidation offer promise, most manufacturers stick to time-tested protocols that balance yield with reliable spectroscopic quality. One potential avenue for improvement, in my view, lies in green chemistry adaptations, which aim to substitute toxic nitrosating agents and solvents with more sustainable choices — a shift that would help meet health and environmental goals.
The main chemistry of DMPO revolves around its reaction with radical species, producing adducts detectable by EPR. Unlike some spin traps that get lost in side reactions, DMPO’s selectivity gives researchers a clearer voiceprint of oxygen-centered or carbon-centered radicals. In the presence of hydroxyl radicals, for example, DMPO forms a fairly stable nitroxide, which I’ve seen used to identify radical formation in stressed cell cultures or after metal-catalyzed reactions. The methyl groups on the ring promote stability and influence the shape of the EPR signal, letting users distinguish DMPO from similar traps. While modifications to DMPO itself exist — such as derivatives with sterically hindered substituents or fluorescence tags — the parent compound holds the best balance of cost, availability, and research-proven reliability. Scientists continue trying to boost DMPO’s resistance to biological nucleophiles and improve its lifetime under physiological conditions, signaling fertile ground for chemical innovation.
Over time, DMPO has picked up a variety of monikers, including 5,5-Dimethylpyrroline-N-oxide, N-Oxide Pyrroline, and Dimethylpyrroline oxide. Most catalogs and papers default to DMPO, since the longer chemical name tends to slow down conversation, especially between chemists and biologists. No matter the name on the bottle, the role stays the same: a dedicated radical scavenger that helps pierce the darkness around oxidative stress or pollution studies.
Working with DMPO calls for sensible lab practice and respect for chemical hazards. I’ve always treated DMPO containers like perishable food — opening them sparingly, wearing gloves, and discarding anything past its stated shelf life. MSDS data highlight DMPO’s irritant potential and possible toxicity, especially in concentrated solutions or powder form. On inhalation or strong skin contact, DMPO can irritate mucous membranes, eyes, or skin. Fume hoods and splash-proof goggles help reduce accidental exposure. Training in spill response and waste disposal keeps both people and wastewater safe, especially given that DMPO degradation can produce minor but unknown byproducts. Beyond day-to-day precautions, the big-picture safety concern comes from the likelihood of cumulative low-dose exposure, especially in labs with frequent EPR studies. Longer-term toxicology work continues to follow animal studies and environmental monitoring to ensure no chronic effects slip through the cracks.
DMPO finds its home in fields obsessed with free radicals. Clinical biochemistry, toxicology, and molecular biology all grab for DMPO when they reach the limits of conventional antioxidant assays. In practical terms, DMPO lets scientists measure how many free radicals appear during oxidative stress in diseases from Parkinson’s to cancer, or to tally up the free-radical load in polluted urban air. Material scientists use it to assess the impact of radiation or heat on polymers, as DMPO can pinpoint radical-driven degradation pathways with unmatched clarity. Even food technologists have harnessed DMPO to track the antioxidants in oils and fats, or the breakdown of packaging films. In my experience, DMPO also fits perfectly into collaborative studies: an EPR physicist might see signals, but the insights pop out only when a molecular biologist offers context about enzymes or cellular responses. This cross-talk has pushed DMPO beyond a niche role into a recognized standard in radical detection.
Research into DMPO shows no signs of fading. Over the last decade, grant-funded projects have adopted DMPO to quantify oxidative bursts in living cells, trace pollution-driven radicals in water samples, and screen new pharmaceuticals for unintended pro-oxidant activity. Newer work seeks to expand DMPO’s reactivity, either by chemical tweaking or by integrating DMPO-derived molecular sensors with microfluidic devices or high-throughput EPR arrays. One area gaining steam involves pushing detection limits down to levels that match physiological radical bursts, as in immune cell activation or ischemia-reperfusion studies. DMPO’s reliability as an internal standard means new antioxidants or radical-generating pharmaceuticals get a rigorous screening. Critically, DMPO-derived signals offer credible, reproducible results that often pass scrutiny from regulatory agencies or journal editors focused on data transparency and reproducibility.
Toxicity profiles for DMPO haven’t raised red flags in short-term studies, but caution still rules the day, particularly with chronic exposure or high-dose animal work. While acute toxicity sits well above the levels used in most radical-trapping assays, metabolic breakdown products remain less well studied. Older rodent studies found little evidence of carcinogenicity or organ toxicity within the narrow dosing used for analytical work, but gaps still exist for potential allergic or environmental impacts. For someone investigating environmental toxicology or biomonitoring, DMPO’s life cycle merits regular scrutiny; what starts out as a specialized lab chemical eventually makes its way into wastewater and potentially broader ecosystems. Research teams keep advocating for expanded chronic exposure studies and environmental persistence assessments. Transparency in reporting dose, exposure time, and observed side effects makes a big difference for regulatory acceptance of data in health and environmental science.
Looking ahead, DMPO stands at the intersection of established technique and innovative development. As analytical technologies mature, DMPO will probably gain traction beyond traditional EPR setups, possibly merging into point-of-care diagnostics or portable pollution detectors. In my view, the next leap will come from integrating DMPO chemistry into wearable sensors or automated monitoring devices, letting clinicians, researchers, or regulators watch oxidative stress in real time, outside of the confines of multimillion-dollar laboratories. As for the basic science, opportunities abound for inventing second-generation spin traps with greater selectivity, durability, or biocompatibility — each innovation tracing its heritage back to DMPO. For all the progress, future acceptance depends on continued open-data sharing, balanced risk assessment, and an honest reckoning with environmental impact. DMPO’s story, built on decades of focused research and practical applications, sets a standard for both chemical transparency and cross-disciplinary science.
DMPO, or 5,5-Dimethyl-1-pyrroline N-oxide, sounds like the sort of thing you’d find in an advanced chemistry textbook. What really makes this compound interesting lies in its role in studying all the invisible troublemakers that bounce around our cells—free radicals. Over the years, I’ve read a lot about oxidative stress and how it damages the body. Whether someone’s passionate about nutrition, worried about aging, or working in a lab, the idea of managing free radicals always seems to come up.
Free radicals are highly reactive molecules that can damage DNA, proteins, and cell membranes. Scientists have spent decades trying to find a good way to actually see and measure these short-lived molecules as they zip through cell systems. DMPO steps in like a fishing net for these radicals. It traps them right in action by forming spin adducts, making the whole process visible for analysis.
My first introduction to DMPO came through reading about electron spin resonance (ESR) spectroscopy work. ESR is a technique that’s sensitive enough to pick up these spinning radicals, but only when paired with a “spin trap”—and DMPO is one of the most popular choices today. It reacts with free radicals, forming a much more stable compound that sticks around long enough for researchers to observe. With this tool, teams have been able to dig into the details of how the body responds to stress, pollution, and disease.
Anyone working in environmental or medical research comes across DMPO sooner or later. It’s essential in mapping out oxidative bursts in immune cells, following the spread of oxidative damage in conditions like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, and investigating how certain drugs or treatments might help slow things down. Without DMPO, whole branches of biomedical science would be stuck guessing at what’s happening at the molecular level.
Several studies highlight the versatility of DMPO. For example, a 2018 paper in Free Radical Biology & Medicine demonstrates how DMPO helps monitor the real-time production of hydroxyl and superoxide radicals. In another example, environmental scientists have relied on DMPO to track polluted water sources. These efforts help track reactions that drive everything from the rusting of bridges to the spoilage of packaged foods.
Medical researchers lean on DMPO during experiments that test antioxidants. If a compound claims to mop up harmful radicals, DMPO can validate or debunk those claims with clear data. To anchor that, more than 300 peer-reviewed studies reference DMPO each year, underscoring its importance in both academic and applied settings.
Relying on compounds like DMPO comes with its own quirks and hurdles. Some radicals don’t react as strongly with DMPO, and getting reliable results depends heavily on how pure and fresh the DMPO is in each experiment. Storage and handling require care, and cross-contamination can throw off whole batches of data. There’s also a cost factor: top quality DMPO does not come cheap, which can limit its use in smaller labs or for extended experiments.
Researchers keep searching for spin traps with broader reach and greater stability, yet DMPO continues to hold its place. I’ve met chemists who are convinced future breakthroughs will still rely on tools like DMPO for years to come. The ability to reveal hidden chemical reactions gives everyone—from pharmaceutical researchers to environmental scientists—an edge in solving real-world problems around health, pollution, and aging.
Sitting in the lab, you rarely look at a bottle and think about what could go wrong until it does. Take 5,5-Dimethyl-1-pyrroline N-oxide (DMPO), for example. Chemists use it to trap radicals, chasing down the fleeting moments in chemical reactions. Anyone handling it learns pretty fast that this compound reacts easily, both with air and light. Failing to respect its limits leads to breakdown products, compromised experiments, and even safety issues. I once opened a bottle stored behind the wrong cabinet door just to find it tinted and useless; someone had thought “room temperature” meant the brightly lit top shelf nearest the window.
DMPO starts to lose stability in the presence of light or heat. Leave it under lab lights or near operating equipment and those radicals creep in unseen. The industry recommendation points to cool, dark, and dry storage. My own experience backs this up. Wrapping bottles in foil and tucking them away inside a well-sealed desiccator in the fridge preserves DMPO’s quality for a longer period than any shelf left to chance. Lowering the storage temperature down to 2-8°C keeps degradation at bay, and darkness gives you a buffer against everyday accidents.
No less crucial, humidity turns DMPO into another story altogether. In labs without strict humidity controls, I have watched powders clump and change character before their time. Dry, airtight containers carry more than theoretical value here—they save budgets and research time. For me and most researchers I know, it’s always worth double-sealing: once in its own screw-top container, then again inside a desiccator or resealable bag with a drying agent.
Labels provide one of the strongest lines of defense against confusion and waste. Date everything, and always track opening and transfer times. One of my lab supervisors drilled into us that even high-purity reagents like DMPO start losing integrity from the second you crack a seal. A simple habit of checking inventory and rotating stock stops surprises from creeping up. Expired DMPO does nothing for an experiment and eats away at project budgets.
According to manufacturer literature, DMPO can produce harmful vapors if mishandled or heated excessively. OSHA and other regulatory agencies stress safe storage not just as best practice, but as a baseline requirement for occupational safety. My graduate advisor once pointed out that it’s not about being fussy—it’s about protecting your lungs, coworkers, and the broader environment. Breathing in degraded product carries risks that aren’t worth the shortcut. Keeping a safety sheet in the drawer and making sure newcomers read it kept our lab incident-free for years.
Lab culture sets the tone for consistency. Sharing lessons learned and embracing better storage tech—like modern refrigerators with data loggers—supports better science. Double checks before holidays, regular fridge cleaning, and communal responsibility all help. Investing in better sealing vials and smart labeling systems saves more DMPO than relying on memory or sticky notes alone.
People who work in research or the pharmaceutical field run into chemicals like 5,5-Dimethyl-1-pyrroline N-oxide (DMPO) all the time. As a spin trap for studying free radicals, this compound draws attention for its role in unmasking molecular mysteries. Purity isn’t just a box to tick on the supplier’s list; it changes the accuracy and reliability of experimental results.
Pushing above 98%, the typical purity specification for DMPO isn’t arbitrary. Impurities play against you during spectroscopic studies. Impure compounds introduce background noise that can tangle the interpretation of electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) data. The industry sets the bar at 98% or greater because stray molecules have a way of complicating signal clarity. Some labs, especially those publishing in peer-reviewed journals, go after 99% or even “ultra-pure” grades. That extra percent sometimes spells the difference between groundbreaking discovery and suspicious data.
Every container arrives with a certificate of analysis (COA), and this isn’t just paperwork. That sheet details not only the minimum purity but also how it was measured. Suppliers often use Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR), High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), and sometimes melting point determination to back their claims. Reliable operators run these tests batch-by-batch, allowing end-users to trust the number printed on the label. Without that assurance, it’s easy to run into trouble when the results simply don’t stack up against expectation.
Cutting corners on purity leads to trouble beyond the bench. If impurities creep into a project, data integrity slips. In academic research, that’s a hit to credibility. Commercial researchers can lose months of work—and resources—chasing false leads. I’ve seen promising projects get delayed because a trace contaminant threw off the readout on critical experiments. All the experience in the world can’t fix a trial based on faulty ingredients.
Leading suppliers in the chemical market—Sigma-Aldrich, Cayman Chemical, TCI—set their own benchmarks and disclose testing protocols. Their transparency feeds the trust researchers place in them. But demand for dependable chemicals reaches far beyond the largest companies. Smaller outfits avoid cutting corners when the crowd pushing for purity stays noisy and informed. Clean supply chains matter. If a supplier skips on full disclosure or skirts questions about test methods, that’s a warning sign. A good purchase starts with communication, not price.
If a project carries high stakes, researchers test the material themselves after delivery, running their own spectra or chromatography checks. This double-check has bailed out teams that faced questionable vendor analysis. Budgets are tight, but some corners never get cut. Researchers document every step, from source to test result, so others can follow the evidence trail.
Chemical standards should keep tightening. Public registries where labs can compare COAs or flag questionable suppliers hold some promise. Open data on batch quality gives users a clearer view before placing an order. Professional societies and journal editors play a role by refusing to accept results drawn from questionable materials. Stakes are high in chemical research, and raising the purity bar stays everyone’s business.
Most lab workers have come across 5,5-Dimethyl-1-pyrroline N-oxide, or DMPO, whether running ESR experiments or doing free radical detection. It shows up as a reliable spin trap in research circles. But a chemical doesn't become useful in a vacuum—its safety profile should matter just as much as its ability to generate results.
It's tempting to eyeball a solid with low vapor pressure and assume little health risk. DMPO doesn't jump off the shelf with a skull-and-crossbones icon. Its main hazard in the lab involves skin and eye irritation if splashed or spilled. The available Material Safety Data Sheets list it as an irritant. Longer exposures through inhalation haven't been thoroughly studied, raising questions about potential respiratory effects.
A few studies hint DMPO’s toxicity lies at moderate levels compared to potent industrial chemicals. Researchers at universities have used high concentrations in animal models and did not report immediate severe poisoning, though they kept dosages within a controlled range. This doesn't mean anyone should handle it carelessly—most harm in research spaces comes from repeated minor exposures rather than single catastrophic events.
Literature reviews and chronic toxicity profiles remain surprisingly thin for a compound with DMPO's scientific popularity. A review from the early 2000s admits a lack of detailed studies in animals or humans. Most data focuses on how DMPO traps radicals, not what it does to people. Its metabolic byproducts haven't been fully mapped out. A persistent trend in chemical safety: what isn't published often matters as much as what is.
Still, the lack of case reports about poisonings reflects partly on real risk in practical use, but also on careful lab handling protocols. Teams rely on gloves, eye protection, and fume hoods, which limits risk in real time. Once safety standards slip, even low-toxicity compounds can prick at health, especially with cumulative exposure across months or years.
For small-scale research settings, the biggest hazard comes from mistaken use or accidental spills. Individuals sensitive to chemical irritants or with allergies might notice stronger reactions than others. Anyone caring for the next generation of scientists should train for these realistic exposures, not only emergency scenarios.
Industrial-scale DMPO use could introduce larger worries. Waste disposal practices lag far behind advances in free radical chemistry tools, especially in facilities that process dozens of chemicals at once. Without robust containment, DMPO might pop up downstream in effluent streams.
Institutions can take clear steps. Smart labeling, better safety training, and practical personal protective equipment lower daily risks. Placing spill kits on benches and giving undergrads straightforward instructions prevents much bigger headaches later. Review and rehearse safety data sheets as a routine part of prep work. Regular audits help catch outdated handling practices and point out places for less risky substitute compounds.
Researchers hunting for new spin traps have plenty of reason to demand published toxicity data before swapping in new chemicals for DMPO. It pays to support journals and open science initiatives that prioritize safety studies over technical novelty. Safety takes real effort, and expertise shouldn’t come at the cost of anyone’s well-being.
Any scientist who’s spent time running spin trapping assays knows the value of a good reagent. 5,5-Dimethyl-1-pyrroline N-oxide, or DMPO, remains a favorite for catching and studying free radicals. You want your data to show what’s really going on, but the truth is, the concentration of DMPO can make or break your experiment.
Most of the published work points toward using DMPO concentrations between 10 mM and 100 mM, depending on your target radicals and system. If you’re tracking superoxide or hydroxyl radicals, you’ll see that 50 mM is pretty common. This lands in the sweet spot: high enough to trap radicals efficiently, yet not so concentrated that you run into solubility or toxicity problems.
Lab experience backs this up. I’ve prepared fresh DMPO lots more times than I’d like to count, making sure to filter and keep everything dark. Running too low can cause you to miss weaker radical signals, which means hours wasted and sometimes weeks of troubleshooting. On the other hand, pushing concentrations much above 100 mM doesn’t just strain your buffer system, it can also kick off side reactions. Nobody needs extra artifacts in their spectra.
I’ve worked with teams who tried both lower and higher ranges, hoping to squeeze out better sensitivity or trap rare radicals. Usually, going below 10 mM brings a sharp drop in radical adduct signals, while exceeding 100 mM starts to muddy up spectra. One of the toughest lessons has been that more isn’t always better. A leading chemistry journal published a review in 2023 that showed the detection threshold improves up to a certain point, then plateaus. You only end up increasing reagent costs and noise if you keep pouring it in.
Each experimental system has its quirks. Cell cultures, for example, may call for lower DMPO levels. I remember troubleshooting toxicity in a set of neuronal cells; even 25 mM started to shut down metabolism. In contrast, in cell-free systems or direct radical generation assays, a bump closer to 100 mM often works without much downside. The best approach has been to start with pilot runs and monitor cell health, ESR signal, and final readouts together.
Finding your ideal concentration really boils down to balancing sensitivity, specificity, and biological tolerance. For most electron spin resonance (ESR) or spin trapping projects, the literature points to 50 mM DMPO as a dependable starting point. Always prepare solutions fresh, use high-purity water, and protect your DMPO from light. Don’t skip negative controls, or you could chase artifacts caused by the compound itself. In studies with cells or tissues, always monitor cytotoxicity alongside detection capability.
If your system isn’t giving the clarity you want, try tweaking upward in small steps. Watch for blunting of signal or off-target effects; then dial back if needed. Trust both your protocols and your instincts. After years in the lab, I’ve found that simple tweaks—fresh prep, clean glassware, and thoughtful titration—do more for reproducibility than anything else. In the end, getting DMPO just right can mean the difference between publishable data and another long troubleshooting slog.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | 5,5-dimethyl-3,4-dihydro-2H-pyrrole 1-oxide |
| Other names |
DMPO NSC 407292 5,5-Dimethyl-1-pyrroline N-oxide 1-Pyrroline N-oxide, 5,5-dimethyl- |
| Pronunciation | /ˈfaɪvˌfaɪv daɪˈmɛθɪl wʌn paɪˈroʊliːn ɛn ˈɒksaɪd/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 7399-02-2 |
| Beilstein Reference | 120924 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:44408 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL12113 |
| ChemSpider | 13605071 |
| DrugBank | DB09235 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 100.032.540 |
| EC Number | 214-257-4 |
| Gmelin Reference | 136500 |
| KEGG | C01731 |
| MeSH | D017910 |
| PubChem CID | 11954 |
| RTECS number | UY8925000 |
| UNII | X2JQ0ZC4MP |
| UN number | This product does not have a UN number. |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C6H11NO |
| Molar mass | 129.179 g/mol |
| Appearance | White to off-white solid |
| Odor | amine-like |
| Density | 1.082 g/mL at 25 °C |
| Solubility in water | Soluble |
| log P | -0.35 |
| Acidity (pKa) | 7.6 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 6.50 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -30.5·10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.477 |
| Viscosity | 1 cP (20°C) |
| Dipole moment | 3.51 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 226.5 J mol⁻¹ K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -107.6 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | –3241 kJ·mol⁻¹ |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause irritation to the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract. |
| GHS labelling | GHS02, GHS07 |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H302 + H315 + H319 + H335 |
| Precautionary statements | P261, P264, P270, P271, P304+P340, P312, P403+P233, P405, P501 |
| Flash point | Flash point: 134 °C |
| Explosive limits | 7.0-15.2% (H₂ in air) |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (oral, rat): > 1000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): Oral rat LD50 > 5000 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | WI6640000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 10 mg/m³ |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | No IDLH established. |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
2,2,6,6-Tetramethylpiperidine 1-oxyl Mannich base Spin trap Nitrone |
