We Offer Worldwide Shipping
Login Wishlist

16-Acetoxy-7-O-acetylhorminone

$1,024

  • Brand : BIOFRON

  • Catalogue Number : BN-O0999

  • Specification : 98%(HPLC)

  • CAS number : 269742-39-4

  • Formula : C24H32O7

  • Molecular Weight : 432.51

  • PUBCHEM ID : 14164993

  • Volume : 5mg

Available on backorder

Quantity
Checkout Bulk Order?

Catalogue Number

BN-O0999

Analysis Method

HPLC,NMR,MS

Specification

98%(HPLC)

Storage

-20℃

Molecular Weight

432.51

Appearance

Yellow powder

Botanical Source

This product is isolated and purified from the herbs of Rabdosia serra (Maxim.) Hara

Structure Type

Diterpenoids

Category

Standards;Natural Pytochemical;API

SMILES

CC(COC(=O)C)C1=C(C2=C(C(=O)C1=O)C3(CCCC(C3CC2OC(=O)C)(C)C)C)O

Synonyms

(7α)-12-Hydroxy-11,14-dioxoabieta-8,12-diene-7,16-diyl diacetate/1,4-Phenanthrenedione, 10-(acetyloxy)-2-[2-(acetyloxy)-1-methylethyl]-4b,5,6,7,8,8a,9,10-octahydro-3-hydroxy-4b,8,8-trimethyl-, (4bS,8aS,10R)-

IUPAC Name

2-[(4bS,8aS,10R)-10-acetyloxy-1-hydroxy-4b,8,8-trimethyl-3,4-dioxo-5,6,7,8a,9,10-hexahydrophenanthren-2-yl]propyl acetate

Density

1.2±0.1 g/cm3

Solubility

Soluble in Chloroform,Dichloromethane,Ethyl Acetate,DMSO,Acetone,etc.

Flash Point

174.4±23.6 °C

Boiling Point

534.0±50.0 °C at 760 mmHg

Melting Point

InChl

InChl Key

DPCAYMPTUWTOLE-IASILQIZSA-N

WGK Germany

RID/ADR

HS Code Reference

2933990000

Personal Projective Equipment

Correct Usage

For Reference Standard and R&D, Not for Human Use Directly.

Meta Tag

provides coniferyl ferulate(CAS#:269742-39-4) MSDS, density, melting point, boiling point, structure, formula, molecular weight etc. Articles of coniferyl ferulate are included as well.>> amp version: coniferyl ferulate

No Technical Documents Available For This Product.

PMID

24379926

Abstract

AIM: To investigate normoglycemic, prediabetic and diabetic A1c levels in those with prediabetes; and prediabetic and diabetic A1c levels in those with non-prediabetes.

METHODS: The National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007-2008 and NHANES 2009-2010 were utilized to examine and compare trends and differences among five different ethnic groups (Mexican Americans, Other Hispanics, Non-Hispanic Whites, Non-Hispanic Blacks, Other/Multi-racials) with normoglycemic, prediabetic and diabetic A1c levels with self-reported prediabetes and prediabetic and diabetic A1c levels in those with self-reported non-prediabetes. Sample participants of the five ethnic groups were limited to those 20 years of age and older, who had completed the diabetes questionnaire and had A1c measured. Descriptive statistics were computed for all variables. χ2 were performed on all five ethnic groups to examine significant differences of normoglycemic, prediabetic and diabetic A1c levels in those with self-reported prediabetes, and prediabetic and diabetic A1c levels in those with self-reported non-prediabetes.

RESULTS: This study demonstrates that of the five different ethnic groups from NHANES 2007-2008 to NHANES 2009-2010, Non-Hispanic Whites (6.5% increase) and Non-Hispanic Blacks (0.2% increase) were the only two groups with an increase in the number of self-reported prediabetes. Although the overall percentage of Mexican Americans who self-reported prediabetes had remained the same (5%) from NHANES 2007-2008 to NHANES 2009-2010, χ2 analysis showed significant differences when examining the different ranges of A1c levels (normoglycemic, prediabetic and diabetic). Among Mexican Americans who self-reported prediabetes, normoglycemic (P = 0.0001) and diabetic (P = 0.0001) A1c levels from NHANES 2007-2008 to NHANES 2009-2010. For Non-Hispanic Whites who self-reported prediabetes, prediabetic (P = 0.0222); and diabetic (P ≤ 0.0001) A1c levels from NHANES 2007-2008 to NHANES 2009-2010. For Non-Hispanic Blacks who self-reported prediabetes, there were significant differences (P = 0.0001) for all A1c levels (normoglycemic, prediabetic and diabetic A1c levels). For Other/Multi-racials with self-reported prediabetes there was significant differences in those with normoglycemic (P = 0.0104) and diabetic (P = 0.0067) A1c levels from NHANES 2007-2008 to NHANES 2009-2010. For all combined ethnic groups who self-reported not having prediabetes (non-prediabetes), 19.9% of those in NHANES 2007-2008 and 22.4% in the NHANES 2009-2010 showed to have prediabetic A1c levels. When separately examining each of the five ethnic groups who self-reported not having prediabetes, all showed an increase in those with prediabetic A1c levels from NHANES 2007-2008 to NHANES 2009-2010. Through χ2 analysis, all five ethnic groups who self-reported not having prediabetes showed significant differences (P < 0.0001) in all A1c levels (normoglycemic, prediabetic and diabetic) from NHANES 2007-2008 to NHANES 2009-2010. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the need of prediabetes awareness and of education in the community as ways to reduce the number of people with prediabetes.

KEYWORDS

National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey, Prediabetes, Undiagnosed prediabetes, Undiagnosed diabetes

Title

Prevalence of normoglycemic, prediabetic and diabetic A1c levels

Author

Judith Aponte

Publish date

2013 Dec 15;

PMID

31122855

Abstract

Background
Little is known about the role of private sector providers in providing and financing immunization. To fill this gap, the authors conducted a study in Benin, Malawi, and Georgia to estimate (1) the proportion of vaccinations taking place through the private sector; (2) private expenditures for vaccination; and (3) the extent of regulation.

Methods
In each country, the authors surveyed a stratified random sample of 50 private providers (private for-profit and not-for-profit) using a standardized, pre-tested questionnaire administered by trained enumerators. In addition, the authors conducted 300 or more client exit interviews in each country.

Results
The three countries had different models of private service provision of vaccination. In Malawi, 44% of private facilities, predominantly faith-based organizations, administered an estimated 27% of all vaccinations. In Benin, 18% of private for-profit and not-for-profit facilities provided vaccinations, accounting for 8% of total vaccinations. In Georgia, all sample facilities were privately managed, and conducted 100% of private vaccinations. In all three countries, the Ministries of Health (MoHs) supplied vaccines and other support to private facilities. The study found that 6-76% of clients paid nominal fees for vaccination cards and services, and a small percentage (2-26%) chose to pay higher fees for vaccines not within their countries’ national schedules. The percentage of private expenditure on vaccination was less than 1% of national health expenditures. The case studies revealed that service quality at private facilities was mixed, a finding that is similar to those of other studies on private sector vaccination. The three countries varied in how well the MoHs managed and supervised private sector services.

Discussion/Conclusion
The private sector plays a growing role in lower-income countries and is expanding access to services. Governments’ ability to regulate and monitor immunization services and promote quality and affordable services in the private sector should be a priority.

KEYWORDS

Vaccination, Private sector, Financing, Expenditures

Title

Scope and magnitude of private sector financing and provision of immunization in Benin, Malawi and Georgia

Author

Ann Levin,a,⁎ Spy Munthali,b Venance Vodungbo,c Natia Rukhadze,d Kuhu Maitra,e Tesfaye Ashagari,e and Logan Brenzelf

Publish date

2019 Jun 12


Description :

Empty ...