We serve Chemical Name:2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid CAS:713522-59-9 to global customers since 2007, Pls send inquiry to info@nbinno.com or visit www.nbinno.com our official website should you have any interests. This site is for information only.
![2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid](https://a.dearchem.com/CAS2/713522-59-9.png)
Chemical Name:2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid
CAS.NO:713522-59-9
Synonyms:2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid
Molecular Formula:C10H18N2O3
Molecular Weight:214.26200
HS Code:2933599090
Physical and Chemical Properties:
Melting point:N/A
Boiling point:335.2ºC at 760 mmHg
Density:1.155g/cm3
Index of Refraction:1.503
PSA:60.85000
Exact Mass:214.13200
LogP:
Material Safety Information (Applicable for Hazard Chemicals)
RIDADR:
Packing Group:
Contact us for information like 2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid chemical properties,Structure,melting point,boiling point,density,molecular formula,molecular weight,2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid physical properties,toxicity information,customs codes,safety, risk, hazard and MSDS, CAS,cas number,2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid Use and application,2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid technical grade,usp/ep/jp grade.
Related News: A new case of coronavirus has been reported in the United Arab Emirates, the country’s fifth, the Ministry of Health and Prevention announced on Saturday. 2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid manufacturer A new case of coronavirus has been reported in the United Arab Emirates, the country’s fifth, the Ministry of Health and Prevention announced on Saturday. 2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid supplier We found over half the products we tested contained elevated fluorine levels,” Bruton said.
The cosmetic categories that had the highest percentage of 213 high fluorine products were foundations (63%), eye products (58%), mascaras (47%), and lip products (55%), the study found.
Even more concerning was that cosmetics containing high levels of fluorine more often than not failed to disclose any PFAS chemicals on their labels, Bruton noted.
Further analysis of 29 cosmetics with high fluorine levels revealed that they contained between four and 13 specific PFAS chemicals, researchers found. However, only 1 of the 29 products listed PFAS as an ingredient on the product label.
“Even if a consumer is doing their due diligence and trying to avoid harmful chemicals by reading labels, our work is showing that these harmful chemicals are often not disclosed,” Bruton said.
Despite this, Bruton recommends that consumers who want to limit their exposure to PFAS read the labels anyway, to at least avoid products where the chemicals are accurately listed.
High levels of fluorine were frequently found in products advertised as “long-lasting” and “wear-resistant,” which could provide another clue for discerning consumers.
But in the end, there’s not much consumers can do to solve the problem.
“It’s important that the government step up to regulate ingredients in cosmetics with more stringency,” Bruton said. “It’s also time the cosmetics industry steps up and begins efforts to move away from this class of chemicals. 2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid vendor The U.S. laws governing cosmetics safety and labelling date back to 1938 and 1967, which tells you something,” Bruton said.
However, on Tuesday, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced the No PFAS in Cosmetics Act in the Senate, the Washington Post reported. The same bill was introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan). It would direct the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to issue a proposed rule banning the intentional addition of PFAS in cosmetics within 270 days of the bill’s passage, and require a final rule to be issued 90 days later.
“Our bill would require the FDA to ban the addition of PFAS to cosmetics products,” Collins said in a statement. “Americans should be able to trust that the products they are applying to their hair or skin are safe. 2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid factory The U.S. laws governing cosmetics safety and labelling date back to 1938 and 1967, which tells you something,” Bruton said.
However, on Tuesday, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced the No PFAS in Cosmetics Act in the Senate, the Washington Post reported. The same bill was introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan). It would direct the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to issue a proposed rule banning the intentional addition of PFAS in cosmetics within 270 days of the bill’s passage, and require a final rule to be issued 90 days later.
“Our bill would require the FDA to ban the addition of PFAS to cosmetics products,” Collins said in a statement. “Americans should be able to trust that the products they are applying to their hair or skin are safe.
The cosmetic categories that had the highest percentage of 213 high fluorine products were foundations (63%), eye products (58%), mascaras (47%), and lip products (55%), the study found.
Even more concerning was that cosmetics containing high levels of fluorine more often than not failed to disclose any PFAS chemicals on their labels, Bruton noted.
Further analysis of 29 cosmetics with high fluorine levels revealed that they contained between four and 13 specific PFAS chemicals, researchers found. However, only 1 of the 29 products listed PFAS as an ingredient on the product label.
“Even if a consumer is doing their due diligence and trying to avoid harmful chemicals by reading labels, our work is showing that these harmful chemicals are often not disclosed,” Bruton said.
Despite this, Bruton recommends that consumers who want to limit their exposure to PFAS read the labels anyway, to at least avoid products where the chemicals are accurately listed.
High levels of fluorine were frequently found in products advertised as “long-lasting” and “wear-resistant,” which could provide another clue for discerning consumers.
But in the end, there’s not much consumers can do to solve the problem.
“It’s important that the government step up to regulate ingredients in cosmetics with more stringency,” Bruton said. “It’s also time the cosmetics industry steps up and begins efforts to move away from this class of chemicals. 2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid vendor The U.S. laws governing cosmetics safety and labelling date back to 1938 and 1967, which tells you something,” Bruton said.
However, on Tuesday, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced the No PFAS in Cosmetics Act in the Senate, the Washington Post reported. The same bill was introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan). It would direct the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to issue a proposed rule banning the intentional addition of PFAS in cosmetics within 270 days of the bill’s passage, and require a final rule to be issued 90 days later.
“Our bill would require the FDA to ban the addition of PFAS to cosmetics products,” Collins said in a statement. “Americans should be able to trust that the products they are applying to their hair or skin are safe. 2-[4-(2-methylpropyl)piperazin-1-yl]-2-oxoacetic acid factory The U.S. laws governing cosmetics safety and labelling date back to 1938 and 1967, which tells you something,” Bruton said.
However, on Tuesday, Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced the No PFAS in Cosmetics Act in the Senate, the Washington Post reported. The same bill was introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Michigan). It would direct the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to issue a proposed rule banning the intentional addition of PFAS in cosmetics within 270 days of the bill’s passage, and require a final rule to be issued 90 days later.
“Our bill would require the FDA to ban the addition of PFAS to cosmetics products,” Collins said in a statement. “Americans should be able to trust that the products they are applying to their hair or skin are safe.
