We Offer Worldwide Shipping
Login Wishlist

24,25-Epoxydammar-20(21)- en-3-one


  • Brand : BIOFRON

  • Catalogue Number : BN-O1581

  • Specification : 98%(HPLC)

  • CAS number : 63543-52-2

  • Formula : C30H48O2

  • Molecular Weight : 440.7

  • PUBCHEM ID : 91668417

  • Volume : 5mg

Available on backorder

Checkout Bulk Order?

Catalogue Number


Analysis Method






Molecular Weight




Botanical Source

This product is isolated and purified from the herbs of Walsura robusta

Structure Type



Standards;Natural Pytochemical;API




(24S)-24,25-Epoxydammar-20-en-3-one/Dammar-20-en-3-one, 24,25-epoxy-, (24S)-




1.0±0.1 g/cm3


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

Flash Point

165.1±23.7 °C

Boiling Point

502.7±50.0 °C at 760 mmHg

Melting Point



InChl Key


WGK Germany


HS Code Reference


Personal Projective Equipment

Correct Usage

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

Meta Tag

provides coniferyl ferulate(CAS#:63543-52-2) 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.




In the title methaqua­lone analogue, C23H20N2O2, the planes of the terminal aromatic rings [dihedral angle between them = 64.52 (7)°] approximately face the fused-ring methyl group and both are twisted with respect to the pyrimidine plane (r.m.s. deviation = 0.028 a), forming dihedral angles of 86.9 (3) (with the 2-tolyl ring) and 65.57 (7)°. The 2-tolyl residue is disordered over two almost coplanar but opposite orientations with the major component having a site-occupancy factor of 0.893 (3). The three-dimensional crystal packing is consolidated by C—H⋯O, C—H⋯π and π-π [2-tol­yl-2-tolyl centroid-centroid distance = 3.8099 (6) a] inter­actions.




Adel S. El-Azab,a,b,‡ Alaa A.-M. Abdel-Aziz,a,c Seik Weng Ng,d,e and Edward R. T. Tiekinkd,*

Publish date

2012 Mar 1;




Pressure ulcers, also known as pressure injuries and bed sores, are localised areas of injury to the skin or underlying tissues, or both. Dressings made from a variety of materials, including foam, are used to treat pressure ulcers. An evidence‐based overview of dressings for pressure ulcers is needed to enable informed decision‐making on dressing use. This review is part of a suite of Cochrane Reviews investigating the use of dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Each review will focus on a particular dressing type.

To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of foam wound dressings for healing pressure ulcers in people with an existing pressure ulcer in any care setting.

Search methods
In February 2017 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; EBSCO CINAHL Plus and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta‐analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

Selection criteria
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster‐RCTs, that compared the clinical and cost effectiveness of foam wound dressings for healing pressure ulcers (Category/Stage II or above).

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias and data extraction. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies between the review authors.

Main results
We included nine trials with a total of 483 participants, all of whom were adults (59 years or older) with an existing pressure ulcer Category/Stage II or above. All trials had two arms, which compared foam dressings with other dressings for treating pressure ulcers.

The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low due to various combinations of selection, performance, attrition, detection and reporting bias, and imprecision due to small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. We had very little confidence in the estimate of effect of included studies. Where a foam dressing was compared with another foam dressing, we established that the true effect was likely to be substantially less than the study’s estimated effect.

We present data for four comparisons.

One trial compared a silicone foam dressing with another (hydropolymer) foam dressing (38 participants), with an eight‐week (short‐term) follow‐up. It was uncertain whether alternate types of foam dressing affected the incidence of healed pressure ulcers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.75) or adverse events (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.25), as the certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for serious limitations in study design and very serious imprecision.

Four trials with a median sample size of 20 participants (230 participants), compared foam dressings with hydrocolloid dressings for eight weeks or less (short‐term). It was uncertain whether foam dressings affected the probability of healing in comparison to hydrocolloid dressings over a short follow‐up period in three trials (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.34), very low‐certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious study limitations and serious imprecision. It was uncertain if there was a difference in risk of adverse events between groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.11), very low‐certainty evidence, downgraded for serious study limitations and very serious imprecision. Reduction in ulcer size, patient satisfaction/acceptability, pain and cost effectiveness data were also reported but we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty.

One trial (34 participants), compared foam and hydrogel dressings over an eight‐week (short‐term) follow‐up. It was uncertain if the foam dressing affected the probability of healing (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.28), time to complete healing (MD 5.67 days 95% CI ‐4.03 to 15.37), adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.65) or reduction in ulcer size (MD 0.30 cm2 per day, 95% CI ‐0.15 to 0.75), as the certainty of the evidence was very low, downgraded for serious study limitations and very serious imprecision.

The remaining three trials (181 participants) compared foam with basic wound contact dressings. Follow‐up times ranged from short‐term (8 weeks or less) to medium‐term (8 to 24 weeks). It was uncertain whether foam dressings affected the probability of healing compared with basic wound contact dressings, in the short term (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.88) or medium term (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.72), or affected time to complete healing in the medium term (MD ‐35.80 days, 95% CI ‐56.77 to ‐14.83), or adverse events in the medium term (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.05). This was due to the very low‐certainty evidence, downgraded for serious to very serious study limitations and imprecision. Reduction in ulcer size, patient satisfaction/acceptability, pain and cost effectiveness data were also reported but again, we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty.

None of the included trials reported quality of life or pressure ulcer recurrence.

Authors’ conclusions
It is uncertain whether foam dressings are more clinically effective, more acceptable to users, or more cost effective compared to alternative dressings in treating pressure ulcers. It was difficult to make accurate comparisons between foam dressings and other dressings due to the lack of data on reduction of wound size, complete wound healing, treatment costs, or insufficient time‐frames. Quality of life and patient (or carer) acceptability/satisfaction associated with foam dressings were not systematically measured in any of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence in the included trials as low to very low. Clinicians need to carefully consider the lack of robust evidence in relation to the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers when making treatment decisions, particularly when considering the wound management properties that may be offered by each dressing type and the care context.


Humans, Middle Aged, Bandages, Hydrocolloid, Hydrogels, Hydrogels/therapeutic use, Pressure Ulcer, Pressure Ulcer/therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Silicones, Wound Healing


Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers


Rachel M Walker,corresponding author Brigid M Gillespie, Lukman Thalib, Niall S Higgins, and Jennifer A Whitty

Publish date

2017 Oct;




Chemical characterizations of leaves and fruits that were obtained from organically and integrally produced strawberries (′Favette′, ′Alba′, and ′Clery′) and blueberries (′Bluecrop′, ′Duke′, and ′Nui′) from western Serbia were undertaken in this study. Phenolic analysis was done while using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled to a linear ion trap-Orbitrap hybrid mass analyzer, while total phenolic content (TPC), total anthocyanin content (TAC), and radical-scavenging activity (RSA) by spectrophotometry. In general, leaves and fruits from blueberry showed higher levels of TPC and TAC as compared to strawberry. These chemical traits were larger in organic grown fruits and larger in leaves than fruits. The most abundant phenolics in leaves and fruits of blueberry was 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid, followed by quercetin 3-O-galactoside, while catechin, quercetin, and kaempferol 3-O-glucosid were dominant in the leaves and fruits of strawberry. cis, trans-Abscisic acid was detected in all fruit samples, but not in leaves. Blueberries (both fruits and leaves) were separated from strawberries, but only organic blueberry fruits were distinguished from integrated fruits, according to principal component analysis. Quercetin, kaempferol, 5-O-caffeoylquinic acid, ferulic acid, caffeic acid, catechin, p-coumaric acid, and p-hydroxybenzoic acid were the most influential phenolic compounds for the separation. Much higher contents of TPC, RSA, TAC, quercetin 3-O-galactoside, and quercetin were found in fruits and TPC, RSA, catechin, p-hydroxybenzoicacid, p-coumaricacid, and ferulic acid in leaves in all three blueberry cultivars and the strawberry cultivar ′Clery′. These phenolic compounds are good sources of antioxidant compounds with potentially high beneficial effects on human health.


Fragaria x ananassa, Vaccinium corymbosum, organic production, integrated production, fruit, leaf, phenolic profiles, antohocyanin, principal component analysis


Chemometric Characterization of Strawberries and Blueberries according to Their Phenolic Profile: Combined Effect of Cultivar and Cultivation System


Milica Fotirić Akšić,1,* Dragana Dabić Zagorac,2 Milica Sredojević,2 Jasminka Milivojević,1 Uroš Gašić,3 Mekjell Meland,4 and Maja Natić5

Publish date

2019 Dec;

Description :

Empty ...