We Offer Worldwide Shipping
Login Wishlist



  • Brand : BIOFRON

  • Catalogue Number : BF-D2029

  • Specification : 98%

  • CAS number : 66335-38-4

  • Formula : C9H12FN3O4

  • Molecular Weight : 245.21

  • PUBCHEM ID : 10037499

  • Volume : 20mg

In stock

Checkout Bulk Order?

Catalogue Number


Analysis Method






Molecular Weight




Botanical Source


Structure Type



Standards;Natural Pytochemical;API




5'-deoxy-5-fluoro-Cytidine/5'-Deoxy-5-fluorocytidine/Cytidine, 5'-deoxy-5-fluoro-/4-Amino-1-[(2R,3R,4S,5R)-3,4-dihydroxy-5-methyltetrahydro-2-furanyl]-5-fluoro-2(1H)-pyrimidinone/5'-Deoxy-5-fluoro Cytidine/Capecitabine Impurity 1




1.8±0.1 g/cm3


Flash Point

218.6±31.5 °C

Boiling Point

437.9±55.0 °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#:66335-38-4) MSDS, density, melting point, boiling point, structure, formula, molecular weight etc. Articles of coniferyl ferulate are included as well.>> amp version: coniferyl ferulate




The descriptive taxonomic study reported here is focused on Glyptapanteles, a species-rich genus of hymenopteran parasitoid wasps. The species were found within the framework of two independent long-term Neotropical caterpillar rearing projects: northwestern Costa Rica (area de Conservacion Guanacaste, ACG) and eastern Andes, Ecuador (centered on Yanayacu Biological Station, YBS). One hundred thirty-six new species of Glyptapanteles Ashmead are described and all of them are authored by Arias-Penna. None of them was recorded in both countries; thus, 78 are from Costa Rica and the remaining 58 from Ecuador. Before this revision, the number of Neotropical described Glyptapanteles did not reach double digits. Reasonable boundaries among species were generated by integrating three datasets: Cytochrome Oxidase I (COI) gene sequencing data, natural history (host records), and external morphological characters. Each species description is accompanied by images and known geographical distribution. Characteristics such as shape, ornamentation, and location of spun Glyptapanteles cocoons were imaged as well. Host-parasitoid associations and food plants are also here published for the first time. A total of 88 species within 84 genera in 15 Lepidoptera families was encountered as hosts in the field. With respect to food plants, these wild-caught parasitized caterpillars were reared on leaves of 147 species within 118 genera in 60 families. The majority of Glyptapanteles species appeared to be relatively specialized on one family of Lepidoptera or even on some much lower level of taxonomic refinement. Those herbivores in turn are highly food-plant specialized, and once caterpillars were collected, early instars (1-3) yielded more parasitoids than later instars. Glyptapanteles jimmilleri Arias-Penna, sp. nov. is the first egg-larval parasitoid recorded within the genus, though there may be many more since such natural history requires a more focused collection of eggs. The rate of hyperparasitoidism within the genus was approximately 4% and was represented by Mesochorus spp. (Ichneumonidae). A single case of multiparasitoidism was reported, Copidosoma floridanum Ashmead (Encyrtidae) and Glyptapanteles ilarisaaksjarvi Arias-Penna, sp. nov. both parasitoid species emerged from the caterpillar of Noctuidae: Condica cupienta (Cramer). Bodyguard behavior was observed in two Glyptapanteles species: G. howelldalyi Arias-Penna, sp. nov. and G. paulhansoni Arias-Penna, sp. nov. A dichotomous key for all the new species is provided. The numerous species described here, and an equal number already reared but not formally described, signal a far greater Glyptapanteles species richness in the Neotropics than suggested by the few described previously.


Central America, diversity, mtDNA, natural history, parasitoid wasps, South America


A species-level taxonomic review and host associations of Glyptapanteles ( Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae) with an emphasis on 136 new reared species from Costa Rica and Ecuador


Diana Carolina Arias-Penna, James B. Whitfield, Daniel H. Janzen, Winifred Hallwachs, Lee A. Dyer, M. Alex Smith, Paul D.N. Hebert, Jose L. Fernandez-Triana

Publish date





Single-sided deafness refers to profound sensorineural hearing loss or non-functional hearing in one ear, with normal or near-normal hearing in the other ear. Its hallmark is the inability to localize sound and hear in noisy environments. Conductive hearing loss occurs when there is a mechanical problem with the conduction of sound vibrations. Mixed hearing loss is a combination of sensorineural and conductive hearing loss. Conductive and mixed hearing loss, which frequently affect both ears, create additional challenges in learning, employment, and quality of life. Cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants may offer objective and subjective benefits of hearing for people with these conditions who are deemed inappropriate candidates for standard hearing aids and do not meet the current indication (i.e., bilateral deafness) for publicly funded cochlear implants in Canada.

We conducted a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient preferences and values related to implantable devices for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. We performed a systematic literature search for systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness studies of cochlear implants and bone-conduction implants, compared to no interventions, for these conditions in adults and children. We conducted cost-utility analyses and budget impact analyses from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health to examine the impact of publicly funding both types of hearing implants for the defined populations. We also interviewed 22 patients and parents of children about their experience with hearing loss and hearing implants.

We included 20 publications in the clinical evidence review. For adults and children with single-sided deafness, cochlear implantation when compared with no treatment improves speech perception in noise (% correct responses: 43% vs. 15%, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), sound localization (localization error: 14° vs. 41°, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), tinnitus (Visual Analog Scale, loudness: 3.5 vs. 8.5, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life (Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale, speech: 5.8 vs. 2.6, P = .01; spatial: 5.7 vs. 2.3, P < .01; GRADE: Moderate); for children, speech and language development also improve (GRADE: Moderate). For those with single-sided deafness in whom cochlear implantation is contraindicated, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention provide clinically important functional gains in hearing thresholds (36-41 dB improvement in pure tone audiometry and 38-56 dB improvement in speech reception threshold, P < .05; GRADE: Moderate) and improve speech perception in noise (signal-to-noise ratio −2.0 vs. 0.6, P < .05 for active percutaneous devices; signal-to-noise ratio improved by 1.3-2.5 dB, P < .05 for active transcutaneous devices; GRADE: Moderate) and hearing-specific quality of life (Abbreviated Profile for Hearing Aid Benefit, ease of communication: 12%-53% vs. 24%-59%; background noise: 18%-48% vs. 33%-79%; listening in reverberant condition: 26%-55% vs. 41%-65%, P < .05 [active percutaneous devices]; ease of communication: 7% vs. 20%; background noise: 46% vs. 69%; listening in reverberant condition: 27% vs. 43%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous devices]; Children’s Home Inventory for Listening Difficulties score 7.3 vs. 3.4; P < .05 [passive transcutaneous devices]; GRADE: Moderate). For those with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants when compared with no intervention improve hearing thresholds (improved 19-45 dB [active percutaneous devices], improved 24-37 dB [active transcutaneous devices], improved 31 dB [passive transcutaneous devices], and improved 21-49 dB [active transcutaneous middle-ear implants]; GRADE: Moderate), speech perception (% correct: 77%-93% vs. < 25%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous devices], % speech recognition: 55%-98% vs. 0-72%; P < .05 [active transcutaneous middle-ear implants]; GRADE: Moderate), and hearing-specific quality of life and subjective benefits of hearing (GRADE: Moderate).

In the cost-utility analyses, cochlear implants for adults and children with single-sided deafness provided greater health gains for an incremental cost, compared with no intervention. On average, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was between $17,783 and $18,148 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, 70% of the simulations were considered cost-effective. For the same population, bone-conduction implants were not likely to be cost-effective compared with no intervention (ICER: $402,899-$408,350/QALY). Only 38% of simulations were considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY. For adults and children with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention (ICER: $74,155-$87,580/QALY). However, there was considerable uncertainty in the results. At a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, only 50% to 55% of simulations were cost-effective. In sensitivity analyses, results were most sensitive to changes in health-related utilities (measured using generic quality-of-life tools), highlighting the limitations of currently published data (i.e., small sample sizes and short follow-up).

For people with single-sided deafness, publicly funding cochlear implants in Ontario would result in an estimated additional cost of $2.8 million to $3.6 million in total over the next 5 years, and an additional $0.8 million would be required for bone-conduction implants for this population. For people with conductive or mixed hearing loss, publicly funding bone-conduction implants would cost an estimated additional $3.1 million to $3.3 million in total over the next 5 years.

In interviews, people with single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss reported that standard hearing aids did not meet their expectations; therefore, they chose to undergo surgery for an implantable device. Most participants with experience of a cochlear implant or bone-conduction implant spoke positively about being able to hear better and enjoy a better quality of life. People with a cochlear implant reported additional benefits: binaural hearing, better sound localization, and better hearing in noisy areas. Cost and access were barriers to receiving an implantable device.

Based on evidence of moderate quality, cochlear implantation and bone-conduction implants improve functional and patient-important outcomes in adults and children with single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss. Qualitative results of interviews with patients are consistent with the findings of the systematic reviews we examined.

Among people with single-sided deafness, cochlear implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention, but bone-conduction implants are unlikely to be. Among people with conductive or mixed hearing loss, bone-conduction implants may be cost-effective compared with no intervention. Results and uncertainty are mainly driven by changes in health utilities associated with having a hearing implant. Hence, further research on utility values in this population is warranted with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up.

The 5-year cost of publicly funding both types of hearing implant for single-sided deafness and conductive or mixed hearing loss in Ontario is estimated to be $6.7 million to $7.8 million.


Implantable Devices for Single-Sided Deafness and Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss: A Health Technology Assessment


Ontario Health (Quality)

Publish date

2020 Mar 6.




Background: The prevalence of asthma and allergy has increased during the last decades, especially in children. However, little is known about it in the Middle East region. This systematic review is aimed to estimate the prevalence of asthma among the Middle Eastern children.

Methods: Local and international scientific databases including SID, Iranmedex, Medline and Science Direct were systematically searched for relevant keywords including; asthma, prevalence, children, International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISACC) and the names of Middle Eastern countries for the period of 1996-2011. Papers in Persian and English which met the defined criteria were included into the study. Bibliographies of the extracted articles were also searched. After extraction of data, heterogeneity between studies and publication bias were measured using Egger’s-test. Effect size was pooled by the random-effect model. Since significant heterogeneity was found between studies, univariate meta-regression analyses were done to assess the association of variables with the overall results.

Results: Fifty studies in the Middle East examined the prevalence of asthma and allergy in children under the age of 18 years according to the ISAAC criteria and were included. A total number of 289,717 children were examined in the included studies and the prevalence varied from 0.7 % in Isfahan to 22.3 % in Bagdad. The total prevalence of diagnosed asthma was calculated 7.53 % (95% Cl: 6.38-8.75). Prevalence of asthma in the 13-14 years age group was 7.57% (95% Cl: 5.78-9.29) and in 6-7 years age group was 7.43% (95% Cl: 5.75-9.10). The prevalence of asthma among girls, based on random effect model, was 6.30% (95% Cl: 4.97-7.61) and among boys, it was 8.91% (95% Cl: 6.80-11.04).

Conclusion: The prevalence of asthma in the Middle East is lower than most developed countries. However, there is not enough longitudinal data to estimate the trend over time. In order to have more accurate estimates and to provide evidence for proper planning, standard epidemiologic studies should be conducted in countries of the region.


Asthma, Prevalence, Middle East, Children, Systematic review


Prevalence of asthma among Middle Eastern children: A systematic review


Masoud Mirzaei, 1 Mehran Karimi, 2 Shima Beheshti, 3 and Masoud Mohammadi 4 ,*

Publish date


Description :

Empty ...