Contact Us
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
© 2025 Jeifer Pharmaceutical, All Right
Reserved.
Looking back, the birth of (5S)-4,5-O-(1-Methylethylidene)-1-C-4-morpholinyl-D-xylo-pentodialdo-5,2-furanose didn’t happen in a vacuum. Diabetes research ramped up in the late nineties, as big pharma hunted for agents that could bring glucose down without battering the rest of the body. Researchers started exploring the SGLT pathways, tracking how sugars moved through the kidneys, and zeroed in on glucose reabsorption blockers. Sotagliflozin emerged as a double SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, and this intermediate became a core chemical stepping stone in its synthesis. The search for more effective SGLT blockers led chemists through hundreds of sugar analogs. This fully protected furanose came out on top because it blended chemical stability with functional flexibility. I’ve seen patent filings from the early 2000s where chemists first highlighted its use, showing how driven the industry was to make headway in diabetes care. What matters most: it opened a new alley for dual SGLT inhibition, putting control directly into the hands of patients who struggle with postprandial glucose spikes alongside fasting glucose.
Not every intermediate pulls its weight when scaling from the lab bench to kilo-lab, but (5S)-4,5-O-(1-methylethylidene)-1-C-4-morpholinyl-D-xylo-pentodialdo-5,2-furanose stands out. Chemists rely on it because of its straightforward reactivity and the high yield purity it delivers batch after batch. Its structure includes a protected furanose ring and an N-morpholinyl group at the C-1 position. With the isopropylidene group locking down the 4,5-hydroxy positions, the molecule keeps sidestepping unwanted hydrolysis under ordinary prep conditions. In the world of pharmaceutical intermediates, reproducibility matters more than flash, and this compound keeps showing up with consistent quality. Whether you're talking about ten-gram, hundred-gram, or full-scale runs, this one offers solid ground for further chemistry.
This intermediate draws on the properties of classic sugar analogs with a twist. Structurally, it sits as a pale solid at room temperature, easily stored and transported because it resists ambient moisture. The isopropylidene group not only seeds stability but halves the risk of spontaneous hydration or ring-opening under ordinary lab air. Its melting point typically ranges between 110°C to 130°C, giving producers a clear window during purification. Solubility helps streamline reaction workups: it dissolves well in common organic solvents like dichloromethane, ethyl acetate, and acetonitrile, while showing limited affinity for water. That keeps downstream hydrolytic steps in check until you're ready to deprotect. Analytical methods, mostly HPLC and NMR, offer unambiguous identification, with ^1H NMR showing characteristic shifts for both morpholine and isopropylidene moieties. Stability in sealed containers stretches over months, even with shipping between continents. Hands-on chemists appreciate a compound that stays trustworthy on the shelf.
Experienced pharmaceutical companies won’t trust an intermediate without a rock-solid technical dossier. For this compound, suppliers usually guarantee a purity north of 98% by HPLC, with water content less than 0.5% as measured by Karl Fischer titration. Heavy metals remain tightly controlled—often below 10 ppm—thanks to modern purification. Residual solvents check in far below International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) thresholds. Labels read clearly, matching batch numbers with certified analyses, CAS numbers, storage advisories, and synthesis dates. Packaging commonly uses double-sealed HDPE containers or glass bottles to fend off contamination. Certificates of Analysis (COA) supply the reassurances R&D and QC staff count on: spectral data, melting point, and heavy metal profiles align with BP, EP, and USP standards to keep global supply compliant.
Scaling up synthesis requires a deep understanding of yield, reproducibility, and risk. The typical route starts with selectively protecting D-Xylose’s diol groups, usually by reacting with acetone and a mild acid catalyst to introduce the isopropylidene group. This creates a protected xylo-furanose backbone, which chemists then react with morpholine under Lewis acid conditions, attaching the 4-morpholinyl group stereospecifically at C-1. If the lab uses a nitromethane or orthoester approach, it opens the ring for further modifications before finally closing it to form the pentodialdo-furanose. Final steps focus on purification—usually via column chromatography or recrystallization from ethanol or acetone—ensuring no residual starting material or byproducts sneak through. Each stage, monitored by TLC and NMR, keeps quality and yield above 85%, sometimes hitting the low nineties. Labs invest plenty of hours optimizing these parameters, knowing that small changes in temperature or acid strength can swing output by several percentage points.
This intermediate acts like a chameleon in the hands of a creative chemist. Its protected sugar backbone offers distinct reactive handles; the isopropylidene group stays put during most nucleophilic substitutions, shielding the 4,5-hydroxy sites from accident. The morpholinyl group at C-1 tweaks electron distribution, so further reactions at the anomeric position become more selective. Hydrogenolysis, deprotection, and acylation reactions progress smoothly—with the right catalysts, high conversions follow. Many routes introduce functional groups at C-2 before removing the protecting groups as the compound approaches the final stages of sotagliflozin synthesis. Those working in medicinal chemistry value such stable platforms: they can test a string of analogs or modify the ring with minimal risk of decomposition or racemization, which means fewer headaches during regulatory audits.
Across literature, this intermediate hides behind a tangle of names. Some suppliers tag it as "morpholine-protected D-xylo-furanose," others call it "sotagliflozin furanose intermediate" or "1-C-4-morpholinyl-D-xylose isopropylidene derivative". Regulatory filings sometimes abbreviate it as "SGLT dual inhibitor intermediate" for tracking purposes. Trade catalogs often adopt shorthand from recent patents, such as "compound 12a" or "protected pentodialdo morpholine." Each name connects the dots for chemists steering through international supply chains or safety data sheets—consistency keeps procurement and compliance on speaking terms.
Standing in a kilo-lab or chemical plant, you realize quality means nothing without safety set in stone. For this intermediate, standard handling precautions keep things under control: gloves, goggles, and lab coats prevent skin or eye contact, as both solid and vapors can irritate sensitive tissue. Labs enforce local exhaust ventilation when scaling up, since dust or trace residues cause coughing fits if inhaled directly. Storage rules call for cool, dry rooms, well away from oxidizers, acids, or strong bases that might trigger unwanted side reactions or decomposition. Training involves more than just a once-over: operators get hands-on instruction in spill kits, emergency eyewash stations, and waste management, with disposal guided by local EPA or ECHA rules. Documentation tracks every shipment and every lot, with SOPs embedded into quality assurance audits so every stakeholder knows their responsibilities and exposure limits. Safety Data Sheets (SDS) back up every shipment, offering clear guidance in a pinch.
The real draw of this compound lives in drug discovery and development, where it forms the backbone of sotagliflozin and other sugar-based SGLT inhibitors. Its chemistry works for both small-batch R&D and full-scale API manufacturing. Med chem teams slot it into combinatorial libraries, letting them build out analogs with new C-2 or C-4 substitutions before stripping off the protecting groups. In production, it helps keep API synthesis predictable, with controlled reaction times and yields that hit targets without a series of trial-and-error runs. Its presence in regulatory submissions, from DMFs to CTD sections, shows its consistency underpins product safety and quality from the ground up.
Academic and industrial labs both mine this intermediate for new scaffolds. Research articles keep cropping up, describing tweaks to the morpholinyl group, or swapping protection strategies to build next-generation SGLT inhibitors with better selectivity or reduced off-target effects. Some teams probe ways to expand its use beyond dual SGLT inhibition, reaching into neuromodulator or anti-inflammatory research. Consistent supply and clarity in analytical characterization fuel collaborative projects between pharma and universities. Conferences still spotlight modifications to this intermediate, particularly for streamlining synthesis or cutting solvent use—everyone’s hunting for greener, faster routes.
Safety teams take intermediates seriously, mapping out exposure risks long before full drug development. Toxicity research covers both acute and chronic effects. Initial hits show minimal mutagenic or genotoxic risk under OECD-compliant assays; the ring system and morpholine group clear most red flags. Oral and skin exposure studies in rodents set high LD50 thresholds, far beyond likely human concentrations. Respiratory risk stays low unless finely powdered material becomes airborne—making dust suppression job one during handling. Environmental studies gauge its fate in wastewater: it breaks down under standard treatments, with no evidence for persistence or bioaccumulation. Even so, labs still enforce strict exclusion zones and spill containment given the importance of trace impurity control.
Looking ahead, this intermediate won’t just fade into the background as blockbuster APIs enter generic status. New SGLT inhibitor analogs keep the demand alive, and some advanced glycation studies hint at broader metabolic applications. Synthetic teams continue screening for better protecting groups or catalytic systems to shrink waste streams and speed-up throughput. AI-driven retrosynthesis tools may unlock even sharper routes from commodity sugars, cranking up both yield and sustainability. Regulatory harmonization between the US, EU, and China only adds momentum, giving multinationals greater flexibility in sourcing and scaling this backbone intermediate. Its story stretches forward as research teams reach for new targets, whether that’s better dual inhibitors or tapping into adjacent therapeutic areas underserved by current drugs.
In drug development and production, the quality of each intermediate shapes the finished product. (5S)-4,5-O-(1-Methylethylidene)-1-C-4-Morpholinyl-D-Xylo-Pentodialdo-5,2-Furanose acts as a crucial building block during the synthesis of sotagliflozin, a dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor. Getting its purity and assay right isn’t just a box to tick for compliance. This piece can make all the difference in safety and consistency for patients who depend on sotagliflozin to manage their diabetes.
Manufacturers working with this compound typically look for purity levels of at least 98%, as measured by HPLC. Any numbers below that open the door to unknowns—possible contaminants, structural isomers, or leftover reagents. I have seen what happens in synthesis labs when intermediates contain even a fraction more impurity: yields drop, purification takes longer, and the final product’s profile changes. In pharma, batch failures mean more than a late delivery. They ripple out to affect everything from costs to a patient’s access to medicine.
The British Pharmacopoeia (BP), European Pharmacopoeia (EP), and United States Pharmacopeia (USP) each frame their own purity thresholds and assay methods. These pharmacopeias all set a high bar for intermediates that end up as active substances. For this intermediate, BP, EP, and USP specifications are usually closely aligned: a purity of 98–99%, with a limit on any single impurity (not exceeding 0.2%) and a combined impurities threshold (not over 1%). Assay values fall in the 98–102% range, determined by validated chromatographic techniques. These standards don’t exist in a vacuum. They grow out of decades of regulatory learning, based on what protects patients best—especially for drugs in long-term use.
The assay tells you how much of your sample is made up of the target intermediate by weight. A standard HPLC assay can spot both the compound and its most common impurities. Labs may lean on NMR or mass spec as a cross-check, especially for tricky syntheses. I remember a campaign where failing to pick up just 0.1% of a morpholinyl impurity threw off the next step. Achieving BP/EP/USP compliance is only possible when analytical procedures run bulletproof and third-party audits confirm results. That means cGMP documentation, full traceability, and regular testing of retained samples—lessons learned the hard way in early process development days.
The trail from the intermediate to the patient bottle isn’t short. Each impurity that sneaks through now could turn into a more dangerous byproduct in a later processing step. Downstream, even a tiny off-target molecule can trigger side effects, or block approval and market entry if strict standards aren’t met. Health authorities ask for detailed impurity profiles, making regular raw material testing non-negotiable. Source it from a reliable supplier, check batch-to-batch consistency, and make sure every shipment includes certificates built on current BP/EP/USP standards. Any shortcut, any tradeoff on quality, only leads to trouble down the road.
Improving test methods and investing in process optimization pays off. Pharma teams who work side-by-side with top analytical chemists catch problems before they scale. More open communication across procurement, production, and QA builds trust in every link of the supply chain. Patients may never know this intermediate by name, but the standards behind it shape every dose they receive. In short, insisting on proven purity and robust assay methods protects both the industry and the people who depend on life-changing medicines.
I remember walking through my first pharmaceutical lab, craning my neck to read unfamiliar acronyms taped above each workbench. The names BP, EP, and USP kept popping up on logs and certificates. At the time, these letters just seemed like bureaucratic hurdles. But after years in product development, I’ve learned how much meaning these standards carry for everyone in the process—from the technician tightening bottle caps to the patient relying on the finished medication.
People count on medications to work as promised. That promise comes with a responsibility: make sure every ingredient and every step matches the high standards set by pharmacopeias like the British Pharmacopoeia (BP), European Pharmacopoeia (EP), and United States Pharmacopeia (USP). Each of these standards shapes expectations for purity, strength, and safety—the foundation of trust for both professionals and ordinary folks counting on these products.
No one enjoys paperwork audits, but skipping standards can create bigger problems. There’s a weighty reason these pharmacopeia standards exist: even tiny changes in ingredient quality might spell the difference between healing and harm. I’ve seen how one impurity slipping past a careless check led to recalls, shaken confidence, and sometimes worse. Regulatory agencies across the globe point right back to these pharmacopoeial standards when assessing whether a medicine is fit for use. Failing to meet one set of standards—or picking and choosing among them—doesn’t just cause inventory headaches. Patients can end up with less effective drugs, unapproved contaminants, or dosages that wander far from the label.
No shortcut works when checking if an intermediate compound matches BP, EP, and USP requirements. Each pharmacopeia sets out its own set of analytical tests, allowed levels for specific impurities, and required documentation. ISOs and good manufacturing practices overlap but they don’t cover the full range of pharmacopeial tests. Companies working internationally face a tough challenge. Maybe one standard limits a particular impurity to 0.1%, while another caps it at 0.05%. Fitting a product into all three can mean extra rounds of purification, additional analytical validation, and even shifts in sourcing raw materials. It’s not just about ticking boxes; it’s about making sure patients on different continents receive medicine with equal safety and performance.
Relying on old habits or copying what worked last year won’t cut it. New substances and novel processes keep entering the scene, pushing companies to rethink their quality strategies. Building strong teams of analytical chemists, staying in close contact with suppliers, and investing in reliable test methods helps keep products in line with every listed requirement. I’ve sat around tables where one missed update in a pharmacopeia nearly meant an expensive rework. Having direct lines to regulatory experts, and running regular method reviews, can spot changes early—before they become painful surprises.
At its core, following BP, EP, and USP guidelines reflects more than compliance—it shows a commitment to everyone who depends on medicine to work right every time. This care for detail signals that a company respects every person its products affect. Meeting these standards isn’t just a project for the compliance team. It’s a shared aim for everyone who wants the final product to make a real difference out in the world.
People often ask about the best way to keep a product in top shape, and for good reason. What happens after you take something home can make or break its quality. I’ve worked with medication, food, and even industrial chemicals, and I’ve seen firsthand just how much proper storage affects safety and performance. Products meant for health, nutrition, or specialized industrial use tend to come with clear instructions for a reason. Temperature, humidity, and exposure to light or air each have real impacts. A bottle of insulin left out of the fridge doesn’t last. Flour stored in a musty basement picks up moisture and clumps. Too much light ruins the potency of many vitamins. The simple act of reading a label and following storage advice can save money and health.
Temperature lays the foundation. For most household goods and over-the-counter medication, room temperature often means anywhere from 20°C to 25°C. Anything hotter than that, and degradation creeps in. Few consumers realize even a laundry room with a sun-facing window can get too warm. With foods, perishables last strikingly longer in cool, dry setups. With cosmetics, waxes and pigments melt or separate in the heat. A home fridge, kept below 8°C, preserves freshness and function far better than a kitchen cupboard.
Humidity spells trouble, particularly for powders, grains, and herbal supplements. Moisture gives mold a foothold, turns powders lumpy, and makes boxes buckle. I’ve pulled baking soda that was left open in a humid kitchen, only to find it hardened into a useless cinder block. Professional facilities use desiccant packets and airtight containers for this exact reason.
Sunlight can mean slow ruin for many products. I recall a bottle of Vitamin C left by a bright window fading in color within weeks. That color loss maps directly onto drops in potency. Light-sensitive items—think certain pharmaceuticals or photosensitive chemicals—stay better in dark-glass bottles or opaque tubs. Oxygen exposure plays a similar role. Oils, nuts, and seeds go rancid fast in open air. Once that process starts, there’s no winding it back.
In my own life, I’ve left glue bottles unsealed, crackers open, and face creams near a radiator. All were ruined before their time. Most mistakes trace back to a lack of care closing lids, keeping things near heat, or leaving containers exposed to sun. Sealing containers tightly and storing them in stable, cool spots makes a big difference. Even in a crowded apartment, a single cupboard away from both the stove and window goes a long way.
Looking after storage conditions shows respect for your own investment and, with food and medicine, your health. A bit of attention saves you from wasted goods, failed recipes, or worst of all, health risks. Following printed instructions works much better than improvising. After years of minor mishaps, I read the label and trust the advice there.
Supply chains depend on trust and transparency, but anyone who has handled raw materials or specialty chemicals knows that paperwork makes or breaks a delivery. In my own experience running production schedules, missing documents hold up processes far more than late trucks do. Each shipment comes with its own collection of paperwork, and three documents often get attention in manufacturing and quality control: Certificate of Analysis (COA), Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), and Technical Data Sheet (TDS).
A COA offers proof of the quality and composition of what arrives at your dock. Clients and end users always expect proof that a product delivers what the supplier claims. Picture a batch of pharmaceutical-grade ingredients—with a COA in hand, quality managers can match the lot number, check purity levels, and approve the lot for use. If a parameter doesn’t match, the COA flags the problem before it moves into production. Major recalls and compliance investigations often begin with a missing or inaccurate COA. These documents keep both suppliers and buyers honest.
Safety teams and operators need to know everything about the risks in a package—handling, exposure response, storage, and disposal. The MSDS exists for this reason. Workers with decades of experience still reach for the safety sheet, often taped to the warehouse wall, especially during emergencies. Fire marshals look for an MSDS on-site during routine inspections, and insurance investigators check them after an incident. Local and global regulations, from OSHA in the United States to REACH in Europe, require these sheets and apply heavy fines for non-compliance. The MSDS keeps workplaces safe and keeps responsible parties on the right side of the law.
TDS goes beyond safety and compliance, giving manufacturers and engineers the details needed to make a product work in a specific application. Recipes change when characteristics shift—moisture content, particle size, melting point—all of it appears in the TDS. Without it, staff are left guessing if they need to tweak settings or blend with other materials. Even experienced process engineers have learned the hard way that incorrect assumptions based on incomplete specs lead to lost batches or equipment downtime. A thorough TDS gives teams the confidence to scale up production, troubleshoot problems, or explore new uses.
People sometimes treat these documents as a bureaucratic formality, but skipping a detailed review brings real pain. I’ve watched production runs grind to a halt for hours because a COA was buried in an email attachment. Regulatory audits go off track if an inspector finds a missing MSDS. Once, a supplier revised a product formula without updating the TDS—production changed, and troubleshooting became a nightmare. These lapses create bottlenecks, waste time, and damage trust between companies.
A lot improves with better systems for document tracking. Digital platforms and dedicated portals make it much easier to access the latest data sheets and certificates. Training new staff on how to read and verify these documents saves time and money long term. Buyers do well to spell out exactly which documents they require in purchase orders. Suppliers should automate delivery of updated COAs, MSDSs, and TDSs alongside every shipment, not just on request. Relying on good faith or last-minute emails only increases the risk of error and poor compliance.
Accurate documentation shapes productivity, compliance, and workplace safety. COA, MSDS, and TDS each provide a unique type of information, but together, they act as the backbone of modern materials management. Ignoring their importance creates delays, safety hazards, and lost business. Investing in the right systems and developing good habits pays off every time a box lands on the loading dock.
Waiting on a shipment of chemical intermediates can feel like trying to predict the weather. For manufacturers, the time it takes from placing an order to having product on the floor dictates a lot about cost structures, inventory planning, and production schedules. If you run a plant, delays in receiving an intermediate can grind operations to a halt, costing tens of thousands or more a day—not just in lost output, but in wasted manpower and rescheduling pain.
Lead time doesn’t come from just one source. In my experience, it’s shaped by how far upstream you’re sourcing, real-world shipping constraints, batch production cycles, and how rare your requested grade is. A supplier in southern China might give a four week commitment, while another, closer to your facility, says two weeks. Both work under the same global shortages, customs slowdowns, and transportation issues, but regional infrastructure makes a big difference.
Interruptions in raw material supply can happen without warning—a policy change, a port strike, a quality deviation at the supplier’s plant. Even with digital inventories and tight supply chain integration, these changes ripple through the system. Real, on-the-ground relationships matter. You can call a supplier who actually picks up the phone, who gives you a heads up about delays before they hit your loading dock, that’s worth its weight in gold.
Suppliers ask for a minimum order quantity (MOQ) for a simple reason: it costs time and money to gear up production, run tests, and certify batches. If a factory spends a full shift setting up for one customer, shipping half a drum doesn’t make sense. On the other hand, buyers often don’t want to overstock a chemical that may expire or take up valuable warehouse space.
MOQ comes down to the supplier’s manufacturing batch size, the hazards and shelf life of the intermediate, and shipping container restrictions. In one project I managed, a client tried negotiating a lower MOQ, the supplier hesitated, then offered a better unit price in exchange for a higher volume. The client saved money by consolidating demand across production lines, proving that open discussion with suppliers beats barebones email bargaining.
You get tripped up when suppliers and buyers don’t talk straight. I’ve seen orders delayed simply because specs weren’t nailed down upfront, or the supplier’s warehouse hours shifted during a holiday. Sometimes, regional holidays or regulatory reviews hold up a delivery for days. The fix? Build in buffers, yes, and also push for consistent updates—not once a week, but regular status calls and a single point of contact.
Nobody can control every variable, but all sides do better with honest, frequent communication and real-time visibility. Modern ERP systems make it easier, but old-fashioned trust built through partnership still gives you more certainty than a dashboard ever will. In the end, knowing your supplier’s realities—and sharing your real needs—lets you plan production with more confidence, shave down those “just in case” inventories, and spend less energy worrying about the unknowns.
If you want better deals and shipment predictability, it pays to treat suppliers as partners in your process, not faceless vendors. In a world hungry for supply chain resilience, shared information and mutual respect keep both sides ahead of the next disruption.
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C13H21NO6 |
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
