Contact Us
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
© 2025 Jeifer Pharmaceutical, All Right
Reserved.
Organic chemistry often pushes scientists into crowded and obscure backroads, and the discovery of ((2R,3R,4R)-3-(Benzoyloxy)-4-Fluoro-4-Methyl-5-Oxotetrahydrofuran-2-Yl)Methyl Benzoate didn’t exactly happen on a straight path. Early studies on modified lactones and esters fueled research in the mid-20th century, when pharmaceutical companies sought more effective prodrugs and stable intermediates, especially for antivirals and anti-infectives. As time passed, the demand for enantiomerically pure substances in regulatory submissions put this specific molecule under the microscope. Researchers in the 80s and 90s figured out that introducing fluoro and methyl groups brought interesting changes in metabolic stability, and not just in theory; pharma companies kept running into stability and solubility problems with older analogs, which nudged advances in synthetic routes and purification methods. This compound became more than just another semisynthetic ester—it became a mainstay as a test-case for new fluorination techniques and late-stage functionalization as process chemists in Europe and the United States looked for reliable benchmarks to publish against newly patented methodologies.
((2R,3R,4R)-3-(Benzoyloxy)-4-Fluoro-4-Methyl-5-Oxotetrahydrofuran-2-Yl)Methyl Benzoate stands as a highly specialized, chiral ester that draws interest across laboratories working on complex molecules. Its structure, defined by its three contiguous stereocenters and functionalization at the fourth carbon, builds on both synthetically accessible starting materials and advanced protecting group strategies. This molecule often gets used as an intermediate in the synthesis of pharmaceutical ingredients, especially where a specific stereochemistry can make or break bioactivity. Drug developers want reliable, reproducible intermediates—especially for preclinical and later-stage research—so having this compound available at BP, EP, and USP Pharma Grade assures process safety and reproducibility across regulatory environments.
This compound shows up as a fine white to off-white powder, with a melting point typically registering between 120°C to 130°C—a range that hints at both its crystalline integrity and relatively high purity. The specific rotation angles, measured meticulously in labs, fall within -45° to -48° (c 1.0, CHCl3), reflecting the compound’s chiral nature and confirming the successful construction of its stereochemistry. Solubility favors common organic solvents like dichloromethane, chloroform, and ethyl acetate, which simplifies both workup and purification. Chemically speaking, the compound's benzoate esters and the fluoro-methyl substituted tetrahydrofuran ring allow for selective reactivity that synthetic chemists can exploit for targeted transformations.
Labs need consistency, and every container of this pharma-grade compound typically comes labeled with batch number, retest date, and detailed grade designation—BP, EP, or USP, as required by purchasing guidelines. Purity exceeds 99% by HPLC, and most reputable suppliers provide an attached certificate of analysis showing chiral purity and impurity profiles. Residual solvents drop well below pharmacopeial thresholds. Each bottle arrives in tamper-proof, light-protective packaging, because this ester can degrade on prolonged exposure to humidity and ultraviolet light. Handling protocols insist on cold chain storage between 2°C and 8°C to preserve the compound’s integrity over multi-month research cycles.
Chemists rarely talk about the frustration of a stalled reaction, but this one challenges even seasoned professionals. Preparation typically kicks off with the asymmetric synthesis of a 4-fluoro-4-methyl-tetrahydrofuran-2-yl core, often using chiral auxiliaries or organocatalytic pathways to install the three contiguous stereocenters. Common approaches involve initial construction of the tetrahydrofuran skeleton via cyclization of a dihydroxy precursor, then judicious introduction of the methyl and fluoro substituents under meticulously controlled conditions. Benzoylation comes next, carried out with benzoic anhydride and a mild base, often in dichloromethane. Crystallization and multiple rounds of flash chromatography deliver the pure target. Throughout, rigorous monitoring by NMR, mass spectrometry, and chiral HPLC ensures each batch matches industry standards before moving forward.
The versatile structure invites further synthetic manipulation. Researchers use selective hydrolysis or transesterification reactions to swap out benzoate groups for other acyl or alkyl substituents, depending on downstream synthetic needs. The tetrahydrofuran ring resists nucleophilic attack better than some older analogs, due to the stabilizing effects of the fluoro and methyl groups, but standard base-catalyzed opening remains possible under harsher conditions. Lead researchers in medicinal chemistry also use the compound as a scaffold for combinatorial synthesis, extending side chains or linking to functional peptides. Carefully chosen catalysts can induce epimerization or migration of the benzoate group, allowing further exploration of structure-activity relationships, especially for developing new antiviral candidates.
A compound with this much attention naturally carries a few aliases in both academic and industrial settings. Researchers sometimes call it “Benzoyloxyfluoromethyloxotetrahydrofuran methyl benzoate” for short in synthetic notes. You might also find references in older papers to "4-Fluoro-4-methylbenzooxotetrahydrofuran derivative" or “BMFBT-benzoate” in various screening assays. Reliable suppliers catalog it under brand names linked to their pharma-grade formulations, but the IUPAC and CAS naming conventions dominate regulatory filings and chemical inventory systems.
Working with any pharmaceutical intermediate demands more than just a fume hood and goggles. Material safety datasheets (MSDS) lay out the risks clearly: skin and respiratory sensitization remain possible, so nitrile gloves and proper face protection go beyond suggestion to standard procedure. GMP-compliant facilities monitor air quality and enforce closed-system handling whenever feasible, not simply to meet checklists but because accidental exposure brings occupational hazards. Immediate cleanup of spills and proper waste handling protocols keep this compound and its analogs out of the water supply and landfill. I’ve experienced the confusion that comes with improper labeling and storage—one misplaced vial in a busy lab leads to questions of integrity, regulatory headaches, and in the worst cases, lost work. Maintaining operational discipline, double-checking labels, and securing secure cold storage saves time, money, and reputation.
Core pharma R&D groups use this compound primarily as an intermediate in the creation of chiral drugs—especially where metabolism, bioavailability, or toxicology depend on precise spatial configuration. Given its robust chemical stability and manipulability, contract research organizations and academic labs studying new classes of prodrugs keep it in regular rotation. Companies also include it in pilot studies for antiviral agents, where fluorinated scaffolds show promise in resisting metabolic breakdown, sidestepping some resistance issues found with earlier therapies. The molecule’s benzoate groups allow researchers to link it to larger drug delivery systems or polymeric structures, enabling controlled release formulations evaluated in animal studies.
The R&D focus keeps shifting based on the current wave of pharmaceutical discovery. Synthetic chemists pursue shorter, greener synthesis routes for this molecule, using flow chemistry and dual catalysis to reduce reaction times and solvent use. Analytical chemists refine detection methods for enantiomeric impurities, using chiral SFC and 2D NMR methods. Formulation teams, knowing the compound’s sensitivity to acidity and light, run accelerated stability studies to inform optimal packaging and shelf-life. Collaborative projects between universities and manufacturers push to integrate this molecule into new drug conjugate systems, hoping to enhance both efficacy and safety profiles across a range of disease models. Supporting this level of innovation remains crucial as regulatory standards tighten and the pressure grows to control every stage of drug development.
Nobody wants a promising molecule to trip up late in discovery because of hidden toxicity. Preclinical teams conduct cytotoxicity screenings on human hepatocyte cell lines to gauge baseline safety. Rodent studies help establish oral, dermal, and inhalation thresholds. Reports suggest low acute toxicity at the doses typically encountered in research labs, but breakdown products from hydrolysis—especially benzoic acid derivatives—prompt additional scrutiny. Researchers keep a close watch on the potential for these metabolites to trigger immunogenic responses or disrupt normal liver enzyme activity. Long-term carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity studies remain ongoing, both in industry and academic settings. I’ve seen promising analogs excluded from clinical progression late in the process due to overlooked impurities in the original supply chain, underlining the need for rigorous, routine toxicological assessment.
With the drug development landscape shifting toward highly targeted treatments, demand for stable, stereochemically pure intermediates such as ((2R,3R,4R)-3-(Benzoyloxy)-4-Fluoro-4-Methyl-5-Oxotetrahydrofuran-2-Yl)Methyl Benzoate will only increase. Advances in biocatalysis and enzyme-driven stereocontrol promise both greater yield and greener manufacturing over the next decade, reducing reliance on heavy metals or harsh reagents. Digital inventory tracking and blockchain in supply chains help guarantee authenticity and reduce the risk of counterfeit or subpar material. As regulatory expectations climb and personalized medicine becomes routine, pharma companies and research labs worldwide must invest in both process validation and next-generation synthetic techniques. I’ve seen how the frontlines of discovery depend on reliable building blocks, and this molecule stands ready to meet those evolving needs—if the industry keeps innovating, learning from setbacks, and insisting on holding itself to the highest possible standards.
Few things in drug production hold as much weight as purity. Patients and doctors don't just expect accurate dosages; they trust that every milligram delivers what the label promises and does no harm through contaminants. This trust gets built on pharmacopeial standards—whether British (BP), European (EP), or United States (USP)—which lay out what makes a compound “pharma grade.” For a molecule like ((2R,3R,4R)-3-(Benzoyloxy)-4-Fluoro-4-Methyl-5-Oxotetrahydrofuran-2-Yl)Methyl Benzoate, purity sets the foundation for its use in approved medicines.
Purity means something measurable. Pharmacopeias demand clear minimums. These include a chemical assay (usually expressed as a percent by high-performance liquid chromatography—HPLC—on the dried basis), limits for specific impurities or degradation products, tests for residual solvents, and checks for heavy metals. For this molecule, a pharma-grade badge means the API should commonly reach 99% purity or higher. Most pharmacopeial monographs call out that no single impurity can exceed 0.1%–0.2%, total impurities usually not topping 0.5%. Where organic impurities show up, they're most often tracked by strict HPLC methods with benchmarks referenced to known standards.
Trace metals—including lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic—raise red flags. Standards for these almost always match or better global safety expectations. USP chapters like 231, or more modern 232/233, set tight boundaries—think a few dozen parts per billion for each. Solvent residues stick around if manufacturing doesn’t clear them. Again, see the ICH Q3C guideline, where limits for Class 1 and 2 solvents edge from single digit up to a few dozen ppm, absolutely not more. Labs crunch these numbers with sensitive gas chromatography or mass spectrometry.
Coming from years seeing products fail at the last hurdle, I know companies often spend more effort on keeping out what shouldn’t be there than what goes in. Some impurities creep in as byproducts of complex organic synthesis; some leach from raw materials. One small analytical slip can sideline an entire shipment—risking both patient safety and business survival. More than once, I’ve seen companies walk away from cheaper sources because they couldn’t guarantee batch-to-batch compliance. It’s that serious. Regulatory authorities routinely pull random samples to verify purity claims. Anything off-spec gets flagged, if not outright recalled.
The best plants don’t just scrape by meeting pharmacopeial minimums. They build quality into every step, investing in analytical chemists, validated equipment, and properly trained operators. Many use real-time data from process analytical technology (PAT) tools to monitor purity during manufacturing, not just at the end-point QC test. Lab teams run reference standards regularly, peak-picking and cross-checking data for any hint of new or rising impurities. In my experience, companies that open their audit doors to customers and regulators—and prove traceability from raw material to finished goods—stay ahead, especially as global demand for complex next-gen molecules surges.
With the tightening focus on patient safety and increasing complexity of small-molecule drug chemistry, standards can only get tougher. There’s growing push to harmonize US, EU, and Asian purity parameters. This streamlines approvals, helps global supply chains, and cuts costly retesting. Manufacturers that aim above the minimum and proactively invest in both expertise and equipment not only protect their reputation—they protect every patient relying on their science.
Anyone stepping into the pharmaceutical industry quickly notices the weight the British Pharmacopoeia (BP), European Pharmacopoeia (EP), and United States Pharmacopeia (USP) carry. Each one shapes expectations for quality, purity, and consistency. Compliance with these standards speaks to patient safety and product reliability in ways marketing claims never could.
From personal experience in labs and regulatory settings, I remember endless rounds of product testing. Meeting pharmacopeial standards wasn’t a box-ticking exercise; it set the minimum for trust between suppliers and those relying on medicines. I’ve seen what happens when corners are cut. Patients don’t always get the right dose. Reputations take a hit. Litigation follows.
Each standard gets updated through a body of scientific evidence and expert consensus. Pharmacopeias specify not just what goes into a product, but how to confirm its identity, its purity, and its safety. Nobody wants excipients or raw materials contaminated with things like heavy metals, solvents left over from manufacturing, or microbes. Compliance means those risks are checked and managed.
I’ve watched small pharma companies struggle with what looks like a wall of pointless paperwork, only to realize much later those certificates and batch test results are hard shields during regulatory inspections. Documented compliance helps avoid recalls and potential harm to patients. Imagine producing a new medicine and seeing it rejected by authorities because a critical ingredient failed on a tiny detail. That’s not just wasted money. It’s months of lost time for patients waiting on treatments.
Not every bottle sporting a fancy label or documentation actually meets these standards. Trust but verify—ask for up-to-date certificates of analysis (CoA) that match the latest BP, EP, or USP versions. Watch out for phrases like “meets requirements,” unless backed by granular test results: assay levels, impurity profiles, and microbiology data. I’ve seen suppliers fudge numbers or overlook crucial specs when buyers didn’t know the right questions. Real compliance leaves a paper trail: manufacturing batch records, audit reports, supply chain traceability.
Sometimes, products made outside strict regulatory zones lack transparency. Lab audits and site visits make compliance less of a guessing game. Independently certified facilities, regular training for lab staff, and openness to third-party inspection signals serious commitment. Anything less should raise concerns.
One weak spot: relying solely on supplier declarations without independent checks. Skipping lot-by-lot verification puts companies at risk, especially when scaling up production.
It helps to build a strong relationship with suppliers willing to walk through their compliance process and share original documentation. Digital records make comparisons easier, but cross-check with the live pharmacopeia texts soon after each update. I’ve spotted misalignments where companies used outdated limits—regulators rarely show leniency if gaps lead to nonconformity during review.
To avoid surprises, invest in a robust quality management system. Regular internal reviews, batch sampling, and an attitude of skepticism help. Encourage staff to voice concerns about any outliers found in the process. Pull products with questionable records rather than gamble on uncertain compliance.
Establishing compliance is less about chasing paperwork and more about safeguarding trust. I’ve seen the relief on pharmacists’ and clinicians’ faces when they know what lands in the hospital or pharmacy matches the world’s toughest standards. Start with concrete documentation, continue with independent verification, and finish by asking suppliers and staff the hard questions. That’s how overlooked details become opportunities to protect health and reputation.
Anyone handling chemicals day in and day out starts to notice something: a compound never truly stands alone. Sitting in a warehouse or a supply cabinet, its future really depends on daily choices made by the people there—choices about humidity, temperature, and even the kind of light it faces. Ignoring these can easily turn an expensive reagent into useless waste. Over the years, lost batches and botched experiments have taught me that a label’s storage instructions mean more than tiny letters on a sticker.
Every chemical has its quirks. Some seem fine open on a benchtop, but lose power as they soak up water from the air. Others break down under ordinary room lighting. Storing most chemicals in a cool, dry place isn’t overkill; it’s a safety net. At work, stable room temperatures—something between 15°C and 25°C—make a difference. Unpredictable storage hurts shelf stability more than anything. Several years ago, a lab I worked with learned this lesson the hard way, with a shipment left near a steam pipe. By the time the summer ended, the white powder stored inside wasn't so white anymore and couldn’t pass QC.
A dark container can work wonders for protecting light-sensitive compounds. Storing them in amber glass or in a drawer—never in direct sunlight—cuts degradation down to almost nothing. I’ve seen plenty of expensive reagents ruined just because they sat under a lamp all week. Moisture-sensitive chemicals need tight lids. Some will form clumps while others react entirely. For those, using a desiccator or a sealed container with silica gel really extends their working life. Chemicals that give off fumes or react violently with air need a fume hood or a vented, fire-resistant cabinet. Keeping incompatible materials apart matters too; acids stored with bases lead to problems, not progress.
A storage area without a system turns into a graveyard for forgotten bottles. Each time new stock shows up, workers should check labels for a manufacturing date and a “best before” or expiration date. Writing the date opened adds one more layer of security; some chemicals are only good for a few months after breaking the seal. FIFO—“first in, first out”—is about more than food; it keeps chemicals from aging out before anyone can use them.
Once a week at my old job, we physically checked expiry dates, crossing off bottles that passed their use-by window. Relying on a digital inventory helps, but a human look-over catches hidden leaks or faded labels. This practice isn’t about bureaucracy. Clean, labeled, and rotated stocks mean fewer failed reactions and safer air for everyone.
No two chemicals act quite the same. Manufacturer data sheets lay out storage rules in black and white. In my experience, following these to the letter avoids most headaches. Chemicals with a short shelf life or unusual hazards demand tighter controls—sometimes refrigeration, sometimes strict humidity control. For longer-term storage, dividing large containers into smaller, tightly sealed units stops cross contamination on busy days.
Training every staff member makes a big difference. Bringing newer workers into established storage routines keeps mistakes down. At several points in my career, refresher sessions on storage conditions saved weeks of trouble with sensitive compounds. A little planning and discipline go a long way in turning shelf-life from a guessing game into a predictable part of daily work.
In the world of active pharmaceutical ingredients, nothing causes more headaches than the paperwork chase. When someone asks for a Certificate of Analysis (COA) and a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for an API, they're not just ticking off boxes. They’re making sure what’s shipped on paper matches what lands in a lab or manufacturing line. These aren’t glamorous documents. Still, without them, trust collapses fast.
A proper COA tells a straightforward story. It shows exactly what was tested, which test methods were followed, and how the batch measured up. I've watched companies scramble after a batch fails to meet spec because no one bothered to double-check the COA. It isn’t just about regulatory red tape, either. If one value drifts out of limits—maybe water content or residual solvents—it means equipment downtime, lost revenue, or a recall. The COA hands over the proof that the batch got checked out and passed for purity, identity, and strength.
The world of APIs has seen its share of drama—adulterated products, inconsistent batches, or surprise impurities that show up late in testing. These aren’t minor issues. They can mean lost contracts, damaged reputations, or even harm to patients. Trusting a supplier means relying on their COA. If the numbers don’t add up, the whole business relationship starts to wobble.
Material Safety Data Sheets do a simple job, but one with a big impact. This sheet lays out the physical and chemical hazards of the substance. It tells handlers what can go wrong. In my experience, nobody ever looks at the MSDS—until there’s an accident. Then everyone scrambles for it, hoping it spells out the right antidote or PPE recommendation.
It’s not just about fire hazards or chemical burns. An up-to-date MSDS helps workers avoid minor but nagging problems too, like eye irritation or skin reactions. Whenever I’ve worked with a new ingredient, having a current MSDS let me train my team on proper storage and spill clean-up. In an industry where turnover is high, even seasoned hands need quick, straightforward guidance.
Too many suppliers treat these documents as an afterthought, sending PDFs that haven’t been updated since 2018 or cutting corners with generic sheets that don’t match the actual material. It creates a culture of mistrust. I’ve seen QA departments waste days verifying values over the phone because they received a copied COA that looked suspiciously generic.
Most of the paperwork burden comes down to spotty digital systems. Suppliers rarely keep all their documents in one searchable place. One simple fix: move to secure digital portals where customers can pull the latest COA and MSDS without begging for them every time. It frees up teams to focus on quality, not paperwork wrangling.
Customers carry real risks if suppliers fail to deliver on documentation. Strict penalties and poor audits should hit suppliers who slack off in this area. But customers can raise the pressure too—refusing to do business with anyone who skirts the COA or sends out outdated MSDS pages. It’s in everyone’s interest to make the paperwork trail both accurate and easy to follow.
Medicines reach our bodies through carefully designed mixtures. At their core sits a compound or an active ingredient. Take paracetamol as an example; nearly every home keeps it around to bring down fevers or ease pain. This one compound makes the difference during restless nights or stubborn headaches.
Most folks recognize tablets and capsules. They open a packet, swallow a dose, and trust that some relief will follow soon. Science goes to work as the main compound passes through the stomach, dissolving or breaking apart so the body can absorb its benefits. Granulation, coating, and blending, done right, control how fast and effectively the medicine acts. If a patient deals with chronic pain, a slow-release coating helps maintain comfort through the day.
Every part of a pill matters. Inactive compounds—fillers and binders—stop the core ingredient from falling apart too soon or tasting worse. Even anti-caking agents inside a tablet make it possible to swallow. Ever spit out a chalky medicine as a child? That problem gets tackled with each new innovation in the lab.
Some people—especially children or the elderly—cannot swallow pills at all. That’s where syrups or suspensions come to the rescue. Pharmacists dissolve the compound in water or an oil-based liquid so parents can spoon out a measured dose. Each batch needs stability, so the medicine remains effective without separating or spoiling. The flavor gets a makeover too; bubblegum, strawberry, or orange all cover up the bitterness of tough medicine.
Skin conditions like rashes or fungal infections call for another approach. Companies turn to creams, ointments, or gels. These formulas carry the main compound right to the affected spot, sparing the rest of the body. Skin absorbs medicine slowly, so scientists keep searching for better "vehicles"—the stuff that helps medicine slip through layers of skin without causing pain or irritation.
Some illnesses need swift, targeted solutions. Think of insulin for diabetics or antibiotics for serious infections. Compounds get dissolved in sterile solutions, delivered directly into veins or muscles. This brings relief faster than any pill, and for conditions like severe allergic reactions, there isn’t time to wait.
Every shot involves intense care. Contamination risks make quality a daily battle. As someone who’s prepared sterile injections, I’ve seen how small details—like how you shake a vial—matter as much as the chemistry.
Health keeps changing, and so do patients’ needs. Drug compounds need fine-tuning—not just for greater effect, but to account for new allergies, new resistance patterns, or changing environmental limits. Personalized medicine grows more important each year. Science has shown that genetic differences mean not every compound works the same for each person. Advances like targeted therapies or even gene-editing medications rest on the foundation of understanding exactly what each compound does inside the body.
Quality matters at every step. Frequent recalls and manufacturing issues in the last decade show how a single mistake changes lives. Strong oversight, up-to-date testing, and transparency all push for safer, more reliable medicine.
For anyone facing a diagnosis, access matters just as much. Production techniques need improvements not just for richer countries, but for clinics from big cities to remote villages. Effective distribution and fair pricing mean good compounds don’t just sit in warehouses but make their intended difference in daily life.
| Identifiers | |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:143981 |
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
