Contact Us
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
© 2025 Jeifer Pharmaceutical, All Right
Reserved.
Pharmaceutical chemistry keeps evolving, often driven by unexpected breakthroughs and relentless work in synthetic organic labs. The journey of 3,5-Di-O-Benzoyl-2-Deoxy-2,2-Difluoro-1-O-Methanesulfonyl-D-Ribofuranose shows how researchers adapted tools and ideas over time to build increasingly complex molecules. Fluorinated sugars like this one appeared as a direct response to the challenge of making antiviral drugs—especially when analogues of natural nucleosides showed promise in shutting down viral replication. Early chemists wrestled with selectivity and stability issues, trying to coax sugars into forms that resisted breakdown yet fit into biological machinery. The introduction of difluoro substitutions helped sidestep metabolic liabilities, building resilience into the molecule. Protective groups like benzoyl, used at the 3 and 5 positions, proved essential for guiding multi-step syntheses. The presence of a methanesulfonyl (mesyl) group at the primary hydroxyl made further substitution possible without introducing too much instability. Over the past three decades, this compound carved out a spot in medicinal chemistry as a versatile intermediate, thanks in part to dedicated researchers seeking more potent and better-tolerated therapies.
3,5-Di-O-Benzoyl-2-Deoxy-2,2-Difluoro-1-O-Methanesulfonyl-D-Ribofuranose occupies a niche but vital place in the toolkit for nucleoside analogue synthesis. It acts as a scaffold, readily adapting to further modification or attachment to nucleobases. The difluoro motif alters stereoelectronic properties, skewing it away from typical ribofuranose reactivity. This kind of functionalization offers medicinal chemists significant versatility and allows for targeted design of bioactive molecules. Chemists working on this compound usually prepare it in regulated, controlled environments, reflecting the increased scrutiny demanded by pharmaceutical regulatory authorities. Official specifications, matching BP (British Pharmacopoeia), EP (European Pharmacopoeia), and USP (United States Pharmacopeia) standards, direct both purity and reliability, which means every batch supports downstream development of high-stakes antiviral or anticancer candidates.
3,5-Di-O-Benzoyl-2-Deoxy-2,2-Difluoro-1-O-Methanesulfonyl-D-Ribofuranose tends to appear as a white to off-white crystalline powder, a detail that says a lot about its purity. Its melting range runs sharply around 120-130°C, a figure that helps skilled chemists judge integrity and batch consistency. The compound does not dissolve easily in water—owing to its pronounced hydrophobic groups, especially the benzoyl protections—yet it dissolves well in most polar aprotic solvents like dimethyl sulfoxide and acetonitrile. Two fluorine atoms, sitting at the 2-position, create a pronounced electron-withdrawing effect that influences its chemical reactivity. The mesyl group activates the anomeric position, giving clear options for further substitution during nucleoside construction. Benefiting from thorough studies and real-world application, these properties give researchers the confidence to use this intermediate as a reliable building block.
Manufacturers adhering to BP, EP, and USP standards follow exacting requirements for every vial and drum of product. Purity levels almost always exceed 98%, leaving ambiguity behind. Heavy metal content, residual solvents, and organic impurities all stay within strict prescribed limits. Verified with HPLC and NMR methods, these materials come with certificates of analysis, batch numbers, and retest or expiry dates listed clearly on every package. Labels indicate not only regulatory compliance but also critical safety and storage instructions. Tamper-evident seals, intact lot traceability, and disclaimers about intended uses (usually research and manufacturing, not direct administration) all show up on packaging, supporting audit trails and product recall procedures. Anyone handling or ordering this chemical gets comprehensive documentation from suppliers—a mark of careful stewardship and patient safety.
Setting up the synthesis of 3,5-Di-O-Benzoyl-2-Deoxy-2,2-Difluoro-1-O-Methanesulfonyl-D-Ribofuranose usually starts with a protected ribofuranose derivative. The process demands real skill—introduction of the difluoro group at the 2-position takes precision fluorination reagents under tightly controlled conditions. After that, protecting the 3 and 5 positions with benzoyl chloride in the presence of a base prevents unwanted side reactions. Once these groups are in place, selective deprotection at the anomeric hydroxyl enables installation of the methanesulfonyl (mesyl) group, usually using methanesulfonyl chloride and a suitable base. Each stage comes with purification steps: column chromatography for removing unreacted starting materials, trituration for final isolation. Every step affects yield, and any misstep can trigger epimerization or breakdown, wasting expensive reagents. Laboratories committed to pharmaceutical standards validate each step, logging deviations and running replicate batches to guarantee reproducibility.
Once synthesized, 3,5-Di-O-Benzoyl-2-Deoxy-2,2-Difluoro-1-O-Methanesulfonyl-D-Ribofuranose serves as a key intermediate for further manipulation. The most important reaction involves nucleophilic substitution at the anomeric carbon, where the methanesulfonyl group acts as an excellent leaving group. Nucleobases—purines and pyrimidines—attach at this position, enabling creation of a wide range of C-nucleoside and N-nucleoside analogues. The presence of the difluoro group not only confers resistance to metabolic degradation but also tweaks the electronic profile, affecting binding with antiviral enzymes. Later steps remove the benzoyl protections under controlled basic or acidic conditions, freeing the hydroxyl groups. In some routes, researchers swap out protecting groups or remodel the sugar ring for altered pharmacokinetics or binding patterns. The compound’s core stability opens doors to a variety of late-stage functionalizations, unlocking whole new libraries of nucleoside-based therapeutics.
Over the years, various labs and catalogues have used alternative names for this compound, reflecting evolving nomenclature and regional preferences. Some refer to it as “Difluoromethylene Ribofuranosyl Mesylate (3,5-Benzoyl Protected).” Others list it as “3,5-Bis(benzoyloxy)-2,2-difluoro-2-deoxy-1-O-methanesulfonyl-alpha-D-ribofuranose.” You’ll also spot this item in commercial catalogs under names like “Difluorinated Mesyl Ribose Intermediate” or shorthand abbreviations such as “3,5-Bz-DFR-Ms.” Consistency in naming helps avoid expensive mix-ups, especially when transferring technology between research labs and manufacturing partners. That kind of detail matters more than many realize, illustrating the complexity and care required in high-end chemical synthesis.
Strict handling and operational standards keep both researchers and the environment safe. Difluorinated sugars pose specific challenges; inhalation or direct skin contact can provoke chemical burns or sensitization. Methanesulfonyl derivatives amplify reactivity, particularly in the presence of moisture or amines. Standard practice calls for full PPE—lab coats, gloves, goggles—and use inside certified fume hoods. Labs handling multi-kilogram batches deploy air monitoring and specialized waste treatment to contain accidental releases. Documentation mandates spill and exposure protocols, emergency eyewash accessibility, and routine training refreshers for lab staff. Organizations demand comprehensive record-keeping, backed up by on-site inspections. Regulatory authorities in the US, EU, and Asia-Pacific follow up with audits, sometimes causing temporary shutdowns for failing to meet standards. Working with such chemicals, I have seen how rigor in operational standards stops problems before they start and fosters trust among stakeholders.
Most of the demand for 3,5-Di-O-Benzoyl-2-Deoxy-2,2-Difluoro-1-O-Methanesulfonyl-D-Ribofuranose comes from the synthesis of nucleoside analogues used in antiviral and anticancer drugs. In antiviral research, sugar modifications often block viral replication enzymes without harming healthy cells. Think of blockbuster drugs for hepatitis C or HIV, where each modification to the ribose core offers a shot at better selectivity or fewer side effects. Medicinal chemists draw on robust intermediates like this one to build drug libraries that stand up in toxicology screens. Increasingly, biotech companies target drug-resistant strains of viruses, crafting analogues based on patient outcomes and resistance profiles. While clinical translation does not always pan out, the ease of assembling nucleoside candidates from this intermediate keeps research pipelines moving, showing how one tough molecule can open new opportunities for breakthrough therapies.
Pharmaceutical R&D teams use this compound to explore structure-activity relationships—small molecular tweaks lead to big biological shifts. Synthetic routes using this intermediate enable rapid assembly of analogues that target DNA or RNA polymerases. Such efforts have produced several molecules now in late-phase clinical trials, especially for diseases with few good options. Besides drug development, academic labs investigate how difluorinated sugars influence enzyme kinetics, protein-ligand binding, and metabolic stability. Having managed collaborations between universities and biotech firms, I have seen firsthand how standardized, high-purity intermediates cut troubleshooting times and speed up candidate optimization. These studies, sometimes spanning years, often find new applications for old scaffolds. The downstream effects ripple out to diagnostic reagent development and even agricultural science, wherever sugar analogues might modulate biological activity safely.
Extensive toxicology studies, demanded by regulatory bodies, reveal both the promise and the pitfalls of difluorinated intermediates. In vitro tests often show promising selectivity—human cell lines tolerate millimolar concentrations, while viral systems buckle under nanomolar doses. Still, the potential for off-target effects pushes teams to track metabolites, looking for evidence of breakdown to toxic fluoroacetates or benzoyl-functionalized byproducts. Animal models, mainly rodents, offer more safety data; dosing studies tend to show narrow therapeutic windows at high concentrations, usually triggered by active-site misincorporation or unexpected enzymatic cleavage. A big part of my own experience in pharmaceutical development surrounds designing studies that leave no surprises by late-stage development. That means thorough metabolism tracking, cross-species analysis, and long-term exposure profiles before anyone talks about moving to human trials. Regulatory guidance continues to tighten, often limiting the use of new fluorinated scaffolds until data reach a certain threshold of transparency and completeness.
Looking ahead, this molecule finds itself at the intersection of synthetic ingenuity and urgent medical need. The rising tide of antiviral resistance, the unpredictable spread of emerging viruses, and the chronic struggle against cancer push demand for better, smarter drugs. Each difluorinated ribose scaffold contributes to bigger research questions: how can simple tweaks lead to better targeting, less toxicity, or a longer therapeutic window? The future likely involves even smarter design—using machine learning and AI to predict which modifications work best, and automated flow chemistry for rapid, scalable synthesis. Firms investing in “green chemistry” also work to make these processes cleaner and less wasteful, reducing reliance on harmful reagents and improving overall process efficiency. Opportunities exist, too, in diagnostic imaging, agricultural innovation, and new antibiotic candidates. With regulatory standards continuing to rise, ongoing investment in characterization, safety, and environmental impact will become part of the territory. These steps help ensure future generations of drugs and materials can be made quickly, safely, and with minimal unintended consequences, guided by the persistent drive for better science serving real human needs.
There’s plenty of science packed into the name 3,5-Di-O-Benzoyl-2-Deoxy-2,2-Difluoro-1-O-Methanesulfonyl-D-Ribofuranose. To break it down, this compound is a derivative of the sugar ribofuranose. Chemistry like this doesn’t live only in academic papers. It plays out in labs and factories, especially in drug development and nucleoside analog research. Each part of the name carries a specific tweak to the basic sugar scaffold, each with a reason.
The core skeleton here, D-ribofuranose, forms a five-membered ring built from four carbons and one oxygen. At the 2-position of the ring, the usual hydroxyl group is missing, replaced with two fluorine atoms—a step known as “2,2-difluoro-2-deoxy.” These small fluorine swaps can greatly ramp up the stability of a molecule, as chemists have seen in many antiviral and anticancer agents. They help stop enzymes from chewing up the molecule too quickly in living systems.
Going further, both the 3 and 5 positions on the ring have a benzoyl group attached through an oxygen atom. These benzoyl groups make the molecule bulkier and fine-tune its reactivity. They let scientists block certain reactions during synthesis or help a molecule slip into the right spot inside a cell. Protecting groups like these appear constantly in medicinal chemistry work. They’re one of the small details that change how molecules behave in the body.
The 1-position holds something special: a methanesulfonyl group, often called a "mesyl" group, attached via an oxygen. This extra handle sets the molecule up for further transformations. Chemists use groups like methanesulfonyl to turn the molecule into a good leaving group, opening routes to new chemical products or letting it snap together with other building blocks in the lab. These tweaks shape the path from basic chemicals to tomorrow’s therapies.
For the molecular formula, the sum of those pieces comes out to C21H17F2O8S. That’s how the molecule stacks up: 21 carbons, 17 hydrogens, 2 fluorines, 8 oxygens, and one sulfur. Each part counts towards how the molecule behaves—its weight, its reactivity, its usefulness as a molecular foundation for building new drugs.
Difluorinated sugars draw real attention in the search for better medicines. Adding fluorine brings stronger bonds and resists breakdown by the enzymes prowling in living tissue. Placing bulky benzoyl groups means chemists can steer which parts of the molecule are open to change and which stay protected on the way to a final product. With the methanesulfonyl group, the chemistry opens up even more—setting up connections to create all sorts of custom analogs. Each change brings a blend of stability and selectivity; that’s essential if a drug wants to reach its target in the body while avoiding unwanted side reactions.
Tools like this come out of years spent in the lab: trial and error, careful planning, and plenty of analytical work. Techniques such as X-ray crystallography or nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy help map out the atomic arrangement to make sure every piece lands in the right place. Regulatory guidelines and rigorous peer-reviewed studies anchor these efforts to trust and transparency as demanded by good laboratory practice.
Complex molecules like 3,5-Di-O-Benzoyl-2-Deoxy-2,2-Difluoro-1-O-Methanesulfonyl-D-Ribofuranose aren’t just chemical curiosities. They’re tools for building therapies, fine-tuning the tools of protein engineering, and even expanding green chemistry. Sharing detailed structures helps researchers across the globe replicate, verify, and expand on each other’s work, which drives honest innovation in chemistry and medicine.
Walking through a pharmaceutical facility, it's hard not to notice the deep reliance on well-characterized compounds. In my years consulting with process engineers and regulatory staff, I've seen these compounds act as much more than chemical names on a label. Some form the backbone of the tablet, making sure it holds together from factory floor to medicine cabinet. Others control how the pill breaks down inside the body, releasing medicine at the right speed.
Physical and chemical stability sits high on the list of reasons why a manufacturer might choose one compound over another. The infamous problem of tablets crumbling under humidity points to the wrong excipient or binder. For instance, microcrystalline cellulose has earned a spot in almost every tablet out there, not just because of its neutral taste, but for its steady performance across seasonal shifts and international shipping. Tablets that hold up over time mean fewer recalls, less waste, and safer results for patients. The U.S. Pharmacopeia offers strict testing protocols because stability can’t be left to chance.
On the patient end, many customers judge a drug by how easily it goes down. Compounds like polyethylene glycol or magnesium stearate help solve the sticky issue—literally—of tablets that tend to jam in machines or stick to molds. They act as lubricants, keeping production lines running smoothly and tablets rolling neatly into bottles. Losing a batch due to jamming or inconsistent pressing drives up costs, so process consistency serves everyone along the chain.
Controlling when and where a drug acts in the body shapes the entire patient experience. Take hypromellose: it creates a slow-dissolving matrix around the active ingredient. That means older adults taking blood pressure pills only need one daily dose, rather than wrestling with awkward pill organizers throughout the day. This kind of timed-release technology doesn’t happen by magic, but by careful selection and blending of specialty polymers and fillers, all documented and cross-checked for quality by trained staff.
Safety isn’t just about how well the medicine works. Allergic reactions tied to dyes, preservatives, or fillers still cause headaches for doctors and pharmacists. Years ago, I spoke with a family whose child couldn’t tolerate a common syrup’s preservative. After some digging, they switched brands and the problem vanished. This kind of diligence requires readable labels and transparency from manufacturers. Modern guidelines from the Food and Drug Administration push companies to spell out every ingredient, giving consumers and caregivers the information they need.
Innovation travels through every stage of drug design, but the basics still matter. Choosing the right compound for a tablet or capsule takes more than chemistry knowledge—it draws on feedback from pharmacists, patients, and regulatory history. Mistakes can slow down approvals or trigger recalls, bringing financial costs and trust issues. Investing in robust in-house testing, ongoing staff training, and better supplier relationships pays off by reducing risks. I’ve talked to teams who credit strong partnerships with their supply chain as the reason they meet tough quality standards, year after year.
Pharmaceutical production sits close to daily life for many people, even if they never set foot in a lab. Working directly with raw materials labeled BP, EP, or USP, you discover fast that simple mistakes can throw an entire production run. No medicine reaches a pharmacy shelf safely unless the starting ingredients keep their quality from factory to finished dose.
For BP (British Pharmacopoeia), EP (European Pharmacopoeia), and USP (United States Pharmacopeia) pharma grade materials, steady temperature forms the backbone of any storage plan. Most facilities keep storage between 15°C and 25°C (59°F to 77°F). This isn’t just a rule—it reflects the reality that chemical stability drops fast once things get too warm. Many pharmacies and labs check their storage areas daily, logging temperatures the way they log product deliveries.
Humidity can turn powders solid or clump liquids you’d expect to stay clear. You spot this easily after opening a container that’s spent a summer afternoon too close to a sunny window. To avoid this, manufacturers and suppliers keep humidity below 60%. Dry areas, desiccators, and tight seals keep those troubles away. Capsules, powders, and tablets all show signs of trouble if humidity creeps up; signs range from color shifts to visible caking.
Sunlight or bright fluorescent lights harm many compounds, breaking down actives or producing new impurities. Pharmacies and warehouses don’t use fancy technology—just solid shelving, closed boxes, and dark glass containers. UV-filtered storage keeps the worst effects in check. For anyone handling pharma grade batteries or fine powders, opening containers in low-light areas becomes second nature.
Air exposure causes more loss than people expect. Oxygen and moisture slip in quickly once a seal cracks. Small things—closing every container tightly, using original bottles as long as possible, and not moving powder more than you need—keep quality intact. Nitrogen flushes help in big operations, but at a pharmacy or clinic, a tight screw-cap and careful work do the job.
GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) rules seem strict on paper, but they boil down to simple habits. No cross-contamination between different raw materials, routine cleaning, and basic protective gear make a huge difference. On busy days, it’s tempting to cut corners, but a splash from another product can leave behind enough residue to fail a batch’s quality tests.
Pharma grade ingredients belong in well-marked spots. Keeping acid-sensitive powders away from basic ones, or separating organic solvents from pills, comes from seeing real messes that could have been avoided. Mixing products breaks trust as well as guidelines.
Logs play a big part. Timestamps, temperature charts, and batch number tracking sound tedious, yet when a question comes up, that paper trail answers it quickly. Any product recall or batch audit will use those records as proof of safe handling.
Bigger organizations install alarm systems for climate swings. In smaller clinics, a simple thermometer and a weekly check keep conditions in check. If power cuts threaten refrigerated items, backup generators step in. Training matters, too—everyone handling pharma products should know the risks of fumbled storage and spot problems early. From my own work, careful habits and clear protocols turned many close calls into simple fixes. Practical steps, more than fancy tools, keep these sensitive materials safe and ready for use.
People often glance at a product label, spot “99.9% pure,” and move on without much thought. From personal experience, purity marks a lot more than just a marketing line. A few years back, I watched a friend working in pharmaceutical manufacturing run full-scale chemical tests, double-checking for trace contaminants you’d never expect. He explained one tiny impurity could shift the result or even damage the final medicine batch. Real lives depend on those numbers matching up. Purity becomes a matter of safety, especially for anything ingested or injected.
You find it in foods as well. Edible oils, baking soda, bottled water—producers test for lead, arsenic, and unwanted traces like pesticide residue. Even small amounts slipping in can trigger health scares or product recalls. When a loaf of bread gets pulled from shelves, not many folks realize it’s because a part-per-million of a banned substance showed up in quality testing.
It pays to know these numbers aren’t made up in the back office. Producers look to organizations like the United States Pharmacopeia (USP), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and International Organization for Standardization (ISO). These groups write the rules for what counts as “pure.” For example, in pharmaceuticals, USP standards line out every detail: how to test, which impurities matter, and the maximum levels allowed. Chemists follow methods that take hours and complex gear, all so a pill or solution matches up to requirements.
If someone buys food-grade versus tech-grade chemicals, the gap can run deeper than price. Food-grade often means stricter testing for toxic contaminants and allergens. In agriculture, fertilizer standards lock in nitrate, phosphate, and metal levels. No guesswork or shortcuts if companies want government approval. Once, a batch of imported honey failed tests because of antibiotic traces above the allowed limit. Whole shipments got turned away at the border.
It’s easy to trust a label, but the reality goes far beyond printed words. Reliable suppliers give out Certificates of Analysis, actual lab data for every batch. Over the years, these documents have cleared up more confusion than any promise on a box. They show the test method, test date, specific results, and any deviations. As both a journalist and a consumer, I have called up vendors, asked for lab results, and gotten either full charts or awkward silence. Only one of those responses ever built trust.
Counterfeiting and “fake pure” problems keep showing up, even in trusted markets. Governments carry out surprise checks. Labs sometimes catch a shipment with a hidden contaminant, especially in supplements. In one case, tainted raw materials slipped into finished products, resulting in a costly recall and public apology.
Quality standards only work if companies follow them for every batch. Random testing and third-party audits catch problems early. Real transparency can be as simple as publishing test results or letting customers track a batch online. I have seen some grocery brands do this, and the result is higher consumer confidence and fewer nasty surprises.
Large penalties for non-compliance make a difference. In regions with lax enforcement, fake or subpar products slip through. If regulators raise the stakes—fines, shutdowns, public disclosures—quality standards stop being a box-checking ritual. Instead, they become a promise delivered to each buyer, whether it’s a lab scientist, bakery owner, or family.
Lab professionals, researchers, and manufacturers know the feeling of unease when a package turns up and the paperwork doesn’t measure up. Missing a Certificate of Analysis (COA) or a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) means you don't know what’s actually in that bottle or how risky it could be to open it. Nobody wants to guess whether their reagents are pure or contaminated. Mistakes cost time, money, and sometimes more than that.
A COA is more than a piece of paper. It gives the facts about what's in a chemical—purity, trace metals, and water content. With every shipment of a compound, that sheet should lay out the results from the manufacturer's batch tests. Here’s the truth: without reading a COA, you’re letting someone else do your homework. Imagine running an experiment, only to realize your results are skewed by a contaminant you never saw coming. That’s not just embarrassing, it’s a waste of resources.
Regulations demand transparency. In the United States, OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard makes it clear that SDSs aren’t a bonus—they’re the baseline. The same goes in Europe under REACH guidelines. If you store, handle, or transport chemicals on site, the law wants thorough information on hand about major hazards, chemical reactivity, and emergency response.
Even outside the lab, SDSs matter for logistics, customs, and safety audits. Many companies won’t even accept a shipment without an SDS on file. From experience working in contract research, I’ve seen shipments delayed, returned, or outright rejected over missing paperwork. Nobody enjoys holding up a client’s timeline over a missing sheet, but there’s no choice—it’s about employee safety, community health, and corporate liability.
SDSs tell us how chemicals behave when things go wrong. They describe what to do if a container spills, which fire extinguisher to grab, and how to treat a splash in the eye. I’ve been in a small-scale production lab during a minor chemical spill—only the quick thinking of staff who had just reviewed the SDS spared us a bigger mess. That never felt like bureaucracy to me, just good sense.
Emergency responders depend on these sheets. In an accident, the right information can mean saving lives. Hospitals and poison control staff reference SDSs to treat exposures—accuracy on these forms isn’t just a nice gesture, it’s critical care.
If you come across a compound without a COA or SDS, the right move is clear: contact the supplier directly and request both immediately. Reliable suppliers prioritize customer safety and quality control, so they keep records ready for every batch. If a company hesitates or can’t provide documentation, it’s worth questioning if you want their product in your building.
On the user side, personal responsibility matters just as much. File SDSs in a place where everyone knows to look. Confirm that every compound—new or old—has up-to-date documentation before it even touches the workspace. Lab managers should run regular audits, especially for older stock, to be sure nothing slips through the cracks.
Rigor in documentation isn’t about red tape. It keeps experiments reproducible, keeps workers safe, and protects companies from preventable risk. My work in regulated industries taught me this: only accept a new compound accompanied by a complete COA and current SDS. Anything less is not worth the gamble.
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
