© 2026 Nanjing Finechem Holdings Co., Ltd,
All Right Reserved
Before the late 1990s, working with RNA meant racing against time. Every researcher in molecular biology remembers, or has heard stories about, frantic efforts to freeze tissues right after collection. Once fresh tissue hit the bench, RNA degraded quickly, all thanks to ever-present RNases — those relentless enzymes lurking everywhere, waiting to chop RNA into pieces. Many promising experiments ended in frustration because even the fastest technician couldn't beat nature's scissors. Labs devoted entire freezers to liquid nitrogen and dry ice. Field biologists had it even tougher, dragging portable coolers miles into remote environments just to keep samples viable. This routine shaped everything from project design to staff schedules. When Ambion and other companies began selling RNAlater, scientists called it a game-changer. Now, researchers could submerge tissue samples in a special solution and confidently expect RNA to stay intact at room temperature, sometimes for days. That advantage opened new doors, let scientists collect samples in rough conditions, and sidestepped the logistics nightmare of always keeping things frozen. Some labs doubled their productive output simply by cutting down on lost time. In my own lab days, RNAlater allowed us to get more reliable RNA yield from hard-to-reach animal tissues, and let us replan studies around ease of sampling, not freezer proximity.
At its core, RNAlater isn't a fancy or high-tech performer. The solution owes its utility to the clever combination of ingredients — ammonium sulfate at high concentrations, buffered with citrate and EDTA. These humble salts don't break the bank or stand out in a chemical catalog, but together, they act as a preservative that halts RNase activity on contact. No need for dry ice. No complicated freezing protocol. A tissue chunk, snip of leaf, or drop of whole blood goes in, and cellular RNA stops breaking down. Its single-minded purpose gives researchers peace of mind. Since launch, other suppliers have supplied comparable formulas, sometimes under the same basic name, sometimes with tweaks meant for specific sample types. People in the field often use the term 'RNAlater' colloquially, even for homemade versions, but Ambion gets credit for the original recipe and widespread adoption.
Open a fresh bottle of RNAlater and you'll find a clear, slightly viscous liquid with a mild, salty scent. Ammonium sulfate saturates the solution, driving the ionic strength sky-high and forcefully denaturing proteins, including those tenacious RNases. Additives like sodium citrate keep pH at a steady, mild acidic slant, so the tissue doesn't swell or shrink, and chelators like EDTA mop up stray metal ions that could spark unwanted reactions. The formulation gives a stable shelf life in the lab, resistant to contamination as long as the lid gets capped and the bottle handled cleanly. Volume can be a hassle with larger samples; the solution soaks into dense tissues poorly unless pieces get trimmed down. Still, nothing else off-the-shelf matches this preservative punch with such simple ingredients. Mixing your own from scratch requires spot-on weighing and careful checking of ionic strength, or things go sideways in unpredictable ways.
Information posted on a bottle tells you most of what matters: store it cool, keep it tightly closed, and discard if anything cloudies or smells off. The formulation sits at about neutral pH, with ammonium sulfate making up the bulk of the mass. Directions generally tell you to use at least ten volumes of solution per sample weight to ensure deep penetration, with thin or diced tissue pieces working best. Labels avoid overstated promises, but everyone in the field expects stable RNA even after days at room temperature, and weeks inside a fridge. This consistency stands as the product’s core selling point, and batch-to-batch variation rarely trips up even the most exacting downstream applications like qPCR or RNAseq. For years, regulatory stickers flagged biochemistry ingredients for cautious handling, but RNAlater’s profile doesn’t worry most lab managers, as long as people aren’t drinking it by accident.
Making RNAlater resembles making a supersaturated salt bath in undergraduate lab. In practice, chemists dump weighed ammonium sulfate in water, then stir until dissolved. Cold dissolves more slowly, but patience gets the job done. Once fully mixed, sodium citrate and EDTA go in, with a little pH check and adjustment at the end. Everything comes together in ordinary plastic bottles, with a sterile cap and sometimes a brief filtration to clear dust. The official recipes focus on reproducibility, and many a grad student has spilled some while scaling up for a long field study. Homemade batches work for people comfortable in the lab, though most commercial labs avoid the risk of spoiled prep by buying it ready to use.
Once tissue or blood enters RNAlater, chemical reactions lock down RNA almost instantly. The highly concentrated ammonium sulfate denatures proteins, including those troublemaking RNases, so their destructive power vanishes in minutes. Some protein-bound RNases might cling on a bit longer, but the overwhelming ionic strength tips the scales in favor of RNA preservation. pH stability further blocks acid- or base-catalyzed hydrolysis. Nothing in the RNAlater formula reacts destructively with RNA or most DNA, meaning that downstream extractions stay clean. Later, during RNA isolation, users wash out the preservative with a buffer and proceed as if they'd frozen the tissue all along. In newer products, tweaks like alternative buffers or stabilizers help tailor the approach for awkward sample types — high-fat tissues or environmental water, for example.
Over the years, 'RNAlater' has become shorthand for any tissue RNA preservative, much like brand names sometimes stand in for whole classes of product. Companies try to stand out with branding — DNA/RNA Shield, RNAprotect, Allprotect, to name a few — but they aim for the same result: stop all biological breakdown long enough to get samples into extraction tubes. Labels often note suitability for DNA and protein stabilization as well, since the salt bath denatures almost everything. In academic writing, people stick with ‘RNAlater’ if they mean the original formula. Homemade salts and published recipes muddy the waters for reproducibility, but the commercial version’s reliability largely keeps it at top billing.
Ammonium sulfate and EDTA don't qualify as nastiest chemicals in a molecular lab, but RNAlater earns respect for its salt load alone. Splash this into your eye, you’ll feel it. Chronic exposure or mishandling can trigger mild skin irritation, and a mouthful burns from the salt, not to mention the gag factor. Run-off in quantity raises mild environmental caution, since high salt can harm aquatic life. Standard safety goggles, gloves, and an apron keep most risks at bay. Labs handle RNAlater as a low-hazard solution, though nobody wants to inhale a mist of it or dump buckets down the drain. Waste management best practices call for collected disposal in appropriate hazardous waste containers, especially at large scale. Training remains routine for new lab members: don’t pipette by mouth, clean up spills, don’t put tissue-saturated solution in the wrong bin. Risk never hits the level of true hazardous chemicals, which keeps RNAlater a favorite for field kits and mobile stations.
Researchers who depend on high-quality RNA know the frustration of extraction failure due to degradation. RNAlater saves time, energy, and nerves by offering preservation that holds up outside the freezer. Field biology benefits enormously, letting scientists collect plant, insect, or animal samples from rainforest, tundra, or remote clinics. Clinical researchers use it to stabilize biopsy or body fluid RNA from humans, since real-world hospitals rarely offer liquid nitrogen at a moment’s notice. Gene expression profiling, transcriptomics, and single-cell sequencing all demand reliable RNA. Once RNAlater entered common use, previously impossible or logistically awkward studies (like tracking gene expression in deep-sea fish or wild-grown medicinal herbs) became manageable. Conservation biology teams now monitor endangered species at molecular level, monitoring how stress impacts genetic response. In my work, RNAlater played a quiet but critical role in letting us compare gene expression in identical samples stored for different amounts of time, something the old methods never allowed. Today, high-throughput genomics and RNAseq platforms take for granted stable input, and the spread of working cold chains in developing regions often follows RNAlater’s lead, not the other way around.
Once the basic formula took hold, both academic teams and company scientists looked for ways to improve or adapt RNAlater. No single product suits every sample: fatty animal tissues, latex-rich plants, and insect cuticles each challenge raw salt diffusion. The race continues to make new stabilizer mixes that work in tricky tissues, maybe with enzymes to help break down barriers or specialized surfactants to speed up penetration. Early RNA discovery experiments got delayed by laborious ice-cold handling, but now automated sampling and preservation have started to catch up. Research on alternative preservation solutions aims to make things greener, cheaper, and more broadly effective. In recent years, teams working in metagenomics and environmental sampling have started developing RNAlater-like solutions designed for the wild world outside the lab — think swamp water, soil, or coral polyps. Some projects even test integration with microfluidics for capturing single cells directly into preservation wells, a true marriage of old-school chemistry and next-gen tech.
Nobody expects to chug a flask of RNAlater, but safety data matters, especially as the product gets used around the world in clinics, field stations, and teaching labs. Most of its contents remain low in acute toxicity, but environmental accumulation draws mild concern, especially near aquatic systems. High sulfate levels disrupt aquatic osmotic balance if released in quantity. In humans, eye or throat exposure feels unpleasant but isn't dangerous at typical laboratory concentrations. Chronic exposure data stays slim — most studies focus on accidental ingestion or rare spill exposure. Since RNAlater doesn’t leave behind organic solvents or volatile compounds, it's considered much safer than old-school phenol-chloroform extractions, which used to injure researchers and warranted fume hoods and hazmat cleanup plans. In safety reviews, real problems cluster around disposal in sensitive environments and mitigating risk of skin or eye contact, not systemic toxicity. That keeps RNAlater in widespread good standing for institutional safety assessments, easing its use among students and less-experienced staff members.
The work of preserving RNA never ends, especially as sequencing and gene expression technology explodes in accessibility and scope. Scientists continue to hunt for next-generation stabilizers that work even better, cost less, or suit neglected sample types. An emerging trend leans on integration — combining preservation, lysis, and extraction into single-use devices or microchip platforms, a move that shortens workflows and increases reliability. Efforts to reduce the environmental footprint inspire research into biodegradable or less-salty alternatives for fieldwork. As genetic testing finds broader healthcare adoption, RNAlater and its children aim to secure quality medical samples with minimal infrastructure, democratizing access well beyond big-city hospitals. The ultimate goal takes shape as preserving not just RNA, but the integrity of a whole sample — proteins, small molecules, even DNA — in a way that stands up to time, travel, and budget constraints. Lessons learned from RNAlater set the standard for what sample preservation should deliver: peace of mind, robust data, and an open road for research everywhere, from pristine forest to bustling clinic.
Out in the lab, there’s always something that seems basic, maybe even forgettable to people who don’t spend their time handling tissue samples. Yet, for anyone in genetics or molecular biology, RNAlater steps in as one of those unsung heroes. Stepping up from my early days in a small research lab, I saw firsthand what frustration looked like—graduate students hunched over freezers at midnight, cursing the clock, because the samples wouldn’t wait. Back then, if you didn’t rush tissue into liquid nitrogen, you risked ruining your entire experiment. All those hours, sometimes days, of fieldwork could get wiped out if RNA—the fragile, message-carrying molecule—broke down.
RNA tells the story of a cell at a specific snapshot in time. Researchers rely on that story to track disease, map plant responses to climate, and even monitor food safety. Unlike DNA, RNA quickly degrades when exposed to lurking enzymes present in every living thing. As soon as a sample leaves the organism, those enzymes get to work breaking it apart. Keeping it intact used to demand ice, hurry, and, for many, a lot of stress.
RNAlater changed that dynamic. It’s a chemical solution that flows right into tissue, stopping those pesky enzymes cold. Instantly, the race against time slows. You drop a piece of tissue in the solution—even out in the field—and the RNA stays steady for days, sometimes weeks, at room temperature. There’s no magic here, just a smart workaround that shields the molecule from what nature intended.
Imagine remote fieldwork in the Amazon, or a doctor in a clinic far from a proper lab. Without RNAlater, precision work with RNA would only be possible in the biggest cities or best-funded labs. The solution shrinks that gap. Scientists can collect samples on the spot and keep them ready for later study, without tossing everything into a freezer truck.
I’ve watched researchers with limited resources pull off studies that once would have seemed out of reach. Because they could protect their samples using RNAlater, they built projects around rare wildlife, emerging diseases, or even local crops. In my own lab, tissue preservation meant no more panic if the courier ran late—experiments stayed on track, students kept learning, and data held up.
Plenty of folks point out limits. Some samples become tough to slice if left soaking in the solution for too long. Some downstream applications in very sensitive RNA analysis runs into hiccups, too. Still, for the vast majority of needs, it works and keeps important research moving along.
Better alternatives and improvements keep popping up, but RNAlater addresses a simple, stubborn problem in biology. If you want sturdier RNA to reach the lab in one piece without deep pockets or fancy gear, this product delivers. Expansion into more accessible, lower-cost versions would open doors for even more people around the world to contribute to science.
Science depends on keeping those tiny details intact. RNAlater shows how a clever solution can make good research possible everywhere, not just in the world’s best-funded labs.
Storing tissue samples for RNA analysis creates a problem every young scientist faces: how do you stop that fragile RNA from falling apart before you get it to the freezer or extraction bench? RNAlater looks like a mighty solution on paper. It’s a clear, salty, preservative liquid that halts ribonucleases cold, almost as soon as tissue meets solution. That means researchers can bring home field collections in the back seat of a car and trust the data tomorrow to look like data collected today, not a garbled mess.
Many research teams treat RNAlater like a golden ticket, thinking a splash protects RNA no matter what. That mindset has hurt more studies than it has helped. It comes down to one simple truth: RNAlater works well, but not magically. Sloppy storage and lazy handling still ruin samples. I’ve seen good projects unravel this way. So, what actually matters once the sample hits the liquid?
According to the companies selling RNAlater, the solution allows samples to stay at room temperature for up to a day. While that claim holds up for very short-term holding, time creeps up on even the busiest scientist. More than 24 hours and some RNA starts to degrade, even in perfect conditions. I always tell new lab members to chill samples as soon as possible. If tomorrow’s schedule looks busy, don’t gamble. Stick those tubes in a refrigerator at 4°C. Planning to hold onto samples for more than a week? Move them to a freezer, settle for nothing short of -20°C, but -80°C gives true peace of mind for months.
Some see RNAlater as a catch-all buffer and skip over measurements. That’s trouble. The solution won’t work unless there’s enough volume to soak every bit of tissue. Companies recommend adding about ten volumes of RNAlater per sample volume. This means a 100 mg biopsy gets about 1 mL of solution. Too little, and the preservative can’t get inside the tissue. Even distribution matters, especially for tougher samples like muscle or skin. Break larger pieces into smaller chunks first. Shortcuts lead to uneven preservation and confusing data.
Working in the field breeds carelessness. Researchers might dunk a set of swabs directly into the same bottle or pool samples together to save money. Each step multiplies contamination risk. Use dedicated, clean forceps and always split RNAlater into small aliquots. Touching tubes or pipettes together spreads nucleases from person to person, undoing the work RNAlater’s supposed to do. I always bring extra gloves and clean tools, especially outside of the lab.
It’s tempting to toss a tube in the fridge and walk away. Time passes, memories fade, and even the best scientist forgets how long that sample has sat on the counter. Log every detail – collection date, time, amount of RNAlater, temperature, and eventual transfer to storage. A notebook or spreadsheet, kept up to date, saves much more time and heartbreak in the long run.
Every biology lab has stories of wasted samples, usually due to shortcuts or blurry details. RNAlater helps researchers pay less for freezer space and offers backup when out in the field. Still, RNA preservation hinges on discipline: prompt chilling, generous volume, good separation, and steady record-keeping. The samples you collect today should give answers years from now, not excuses.
RNAlater shows up on nearly every bench where researchers care about RNA stability. Anyone who’s worked with RNA knows how quickly those precious transcripts can degrade. I’ve seen hours of work vanish just because a sample spent a few extra minutes at room temperature. That’s where RNAlater comes in, acting like an instant pause button on RNA decay right after collection. This convenience lets teams ship tissue samples across countries or wait for the right moment to process cells.
Researchers often debate if RNAlater preserves RNA just as well as snap-freezing in liquid nitrogen, especially once it gets to the stage of actual extraction. Several studies, like the one published in Biotechniques (2016), show that most commercial RNA extraction kits handle RNAlater-fixed samples without trouble. Columns from brands like Qiagen or TRIzol’s organic extraction protocols cleanly separate RNA from salts and any RNAlater interference. What matters is thoroughly removing RNAlater before lysis. If residues stick around, guanidinium salts in lysis buffers can mix badly with leftover RNAlater, and this sometimes affects yield.
There’s practical advice most technicians pick up fast—rinse the sample or spin out excess RNAlater before loading it into extraction kits. Failing to do so sometimes drops RNA yield or slightly raises absorbance readings at 230 nm, giving a hint of contamination. In practice, I’ve repeated extra wash steps after seeing this happen in our own lab. After careful handling, RNA comes out clean and suitable for downstream applications like RT-qPCR, microarrays, or RNA-seq.
Poor RNA integrity wastes budgets, time, and precious biological material. Sample degradation doesn’t just cause faint or smeared RNA gels; it also introduces bias into transcriptomic studies. With clinical or field samples, there’s often no way to get a “redo.” Reliable preservation tools like RNAlater reduce sample-to-sample variability, making it easier to compare results across studies or time points. Consistent sample handling drives reproducible science.
In reality, RNAlater supports collaboration by taking away the stress of working on a tight clock. Teams working in remote locations, outside of well-equipped city labs, often choose RNAlater over risky dry ice shipping. It costs more than some alternatives, so weighing the extra price against the possibility of ruined samples always matters.
There’s no perfect, universal answer for every extraction need. Some applications, like small RNA or microRNA profiling, require scientists to optimize protocols more carefully. Some labs report that RNAlater can interfere with certain resin-based or magnetic bead systems, so pre-processing methods—like extended washes or additional ethanol precipitation—can help here.
I’ve learned not to cut corners on sample preparation. Even with RNAlater, slow or inconsistent mixing sometimes leaves the core of large tissue samples under-preserved. Cutting tissue into thinner slices and getting them saturated quickly matters a lot, especially for larger animal or plant specimens. For those evaluating methods, starting with pilot tests using both RNAlater and snap-freezing helps clarify any workflow-specific issues. Publishing these comparisons means others don’t have to run the same troubleshooting cycles.
Ultimately, scientific experience and transparent reporting make the biggest difference. Describing exact handling steps, including how RNAlater is removed before extraction, helps journals and colleagues trust the data. As sequencing and molecular tools keep evolving, RNAlater stays relevant—helping researchers balance convenience with the pursuit of reliable results.
Keeping RNA intact in tissue brings back memories of my earliest lab days, hands shaky over a new bench, worried I’d mess up a precious sample. Any researcher who has handled tissues for RNA work knows the pain of losing a sample to degradation. RNAlater entered the scene as a real game-changer. With freezer space forever at a premium, the idea of skipping the dry ice and just letting tissue sit at room temperature for a bit feels like magic.
Most studies show that RNAlater does a good job at preserving RNA in tissue for up to 7 days at room temperature. A classic paper published by Ambion’s team some years back found that most human, rat, and mouse tissues preserve RNA integrity for at least a week — sometimes, more like ten days. Red snapper muscle, cow liver, plant roots — labs keep pushing the envelope. At day 7, the 260:280 ratios usually look solid and RIN scores stay above 7, which meets the cut-off for most downstream applications.
Beyond about a week at room temperature, sample quality starts to slide downhill. After two weeks, RNA levels drop off. Some tissues degrade faster than others — spleen or pancreas seem especially vulnerable, while dense muscle tends to hold up better. Once you get past a week, even with the best storage, fragmentation increases and you’ll notice more “smear” on gel electrophoresis. Labs report RT-qPCR results changing, gene expression profiles drifting, and reproducibility dropping.
High integrity RNA keeps gene expression studies trustworthy. During my graduate work, waiting a day or two for courier pickup made me nervous enough; seven days might feel like a stretch, but field researchers collecting samples in remote places have few other options. Few of us haul massive coolers up mountains, across deserts, or deep into forests. Sometimes, using RNAlater is the only way to capture a moment in biology before it's gone forever.
Losing RNA integrity doesn’t just waste time; it can mean lost grant money, experiment delays, and disappointing answers in the final manuscript. Data from an unreliable sample set can lead to misleading conclusions, especially when small differences or rare transcripts are important. In cancer research and epidemiology, that difference often matters.
If a freezer sits within arm’s reach, chilling the samples soon after immersion in RNAlater always pays off. Most protocols suggest moving samples to 4°C within 24 hours, then switching to -20°C or -80°C after a day or two. Even a basic fridge slows down the slow creep of RNases, helping keep everything stable for months, not days.
Fieldwork throws up real challenges, but quick transfer to cold storage beats letting samples sit out for longer periods, especially for tissues with high enzyme content. Thick samples should be cut into small pieces before immersion so preservative can penetrate fast and evenly.
Labs might consider batch-shipping samples every few days or training techs to stabilize and freeze at temporary field stations. Cheaper, lightweight solar-powered coolers and mobile labs have started to show up, giving scientists fewer excuses for room temperature storage.
Experience has taught me to double up labels, keep backup RNAlater bottles, and always have a timer set for transfer to cold. Good record-keeping often saves more sample integrity than any chemical trick. With attention to timing and storage, researchers can squeeze real reliability out of every precious tube — and that, more than any fancy protocol, keeps results reproducible and science honest.
RNAlater is a familiar sight on lab benches. Researchers use it to preserve RNA in tissues and cells without needing cryogenic freezers. The promise is simple: keep RNA intact, cut costs, make life easier. Yet as any postdoc who’s spent hours troubleshooting protocols knows, nothing comes for free. RNAlater’s impact stretches beyond just the RNA it protects, raising questions for teams who also want DNA or protein from their samples.
RNAlater preserves RNA, but folks like me, who have worn gloves sticky with the reagent, know DNA is not immune from its reach. Reports in respected journals—like BMC Genomics and Nucleic Acids Research—show that DNA integrity doesn’t suffer much during storage in RNAlater if extractions happen soon after collection. For many downstream applications, PCR and sequencing chug along fine after RNAlater has touched the sample.
Trouble appears with long-term storage. Extended exposure sometimes leads to DNA shearing, making high-molecular-weight DNA isolation tricky. That’s important if you’re aiming for long-read sequencing or want to build biobanks that last. If the task just calls for routine PCR, RNAlater rarely gets in the way, but complex applications deserve more prep work—timing, temperature, extraction chemistry matter.
Protein work adds another layer of complexity. RNAlater’s high salt, which helps stabilize nucleic acids, doesn’t play well with proteins. If you try mass spectrometry straight from tissues soaked in RNAlater, protein yields drop and signals get muddy. Researchers at institutions like the Broad Institute have scratched their heads over this, noting that detergents and extra washing steps become necessary, sometimes without much improvement.
Proteomics needs proteins with minimal modifications. Yet RNAlater can cause subtle changes to protein structure, hinder extraction, and introduce noise to data. Western blots can still work, but with lower intensity bands or worse, extra background, forcing repeated trials. Peptide mapping and functional assays require extra purification to chase away RNAlater’s residues, which doesn’t always succeed and drains valuable time.
Preserving samples in the field matters. Not everyone has immediate access to -80°C freezers or liquid nitrogen. RNAlater gives a workable solution in resource-limited settings, such as environmental sampling in the tropics. High-quality RNA with reasonable DNA comes out the other end. But any lab eyeing both nucleic acids and proteins from a limited sample should plan ahead. Alternative strategies, including split-sample collection (some in RNAlater, some snap-frozen) or rapid extractions in the field, help avoid painful surprises months later.
No single preservation method solves everything. As research shifts toward integrated omics, the push for “universal” fixatives grows. Industry and academia chase formulations that won’t mess with proteins or DNA, while preserving RNA. This work takes real sweat—every tweak to composition, storage time, or extraction protocol brings trade-offs. The scientists who get best results pay attention to the details, anticipate bottlenecks, and validate every step with their actual samples, not just what works in another lab.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | ammonium sulfate |
| Other names |
RNA Stabilization Solution RNA Preservation Solution RNA Storage Reagent |
| Pronunciation | /ˌɑːr.enˈeɪ.lə.tər/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 448798-55-8 |
| Beilstein Reference | 3114465 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:88517 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2108508 |
| ChemSpider | 21545135 |
| DrugBank | DB15660 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03b7e8e7-7775-4d24-975b-462b8e25611e |
| EC Number | 9002-07-7 |
| Gmelin Reference | 88262 |
| KEGG | ko:K00173 |
| MeSH | DNA, RNA and Protein Synthesis Inhibitors |
| PubChem CID | 23665732 |
| RTECS number | VZ1050000 |
| UNII | QF5N6384LJ |
| UN number | UN1993 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | Na₂SO₄·EDTA·NH₄OAc |
| Molar mass | Unknown |
| Appearance | Clear, colorless, aqueous solution |
| Odor | odorless |
| Density | 1.13 g/mL |
| Solubility in water | Soluble in water |
| log P | -7.8 |
| Acidity (pKa) | 5.2 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 9.5 |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.382 |
| Viscosity | Viscous liquid |
| Dipole moment | 0.0 D |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | V04CX |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | Causes skin irritation. Causes serious eye irritation. May cause respiratory irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Precautionary statements | P264, P280, P301+P312, P330, P501 |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 0.1–0.5 mL |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
DNAzol TRIzol |
