Chemists have always chased after precision and selectivity, especially once chiral drugs moved into the limelight. The structure of (S)-2-(2-(3-((1E)-2-(7-Chloro-2-Quinolinyl)Ethenyl)-Phenyl)-3-Hydroxypropyl)Phenyl)-2-Propanol reflects years of this drive. Early days saw a flurry of quinoline-based compounds in malaria research, kicking off intense exploration into chlorine-substituted derivatives. Teams made their early hurdles public, posting up articles in the 1970s about how certain ethenyl links and hydroxy groups altered properties. No one glosses over the fact that this class has roots in both classic pharmacology and advanced asymmetric synthesis. The development journey runs parallel with blockbuster compounds, where separation of enantiomers shaped drug safety, bioactivity, and future patent races. These threads wove into industry’s serious investments in stereoselective syntheses and in regulatory standards.
Put this molecule on the bench and you see why chemists keep it around. The backbone balances two phenyl rings, a quinoline group, and a chiral center at the propanol chain—each piece steering biological function. The structure often positions the molecule in pharmaceutical leads, especially those aiming for anti-infective or anticancer targets. Companies often list analogues under “specialty intermediates,” with demand running in both research and pilot-scale synthesis. Synthetic chemists often use the (S)-enantiomer because of its improved receptor fit versus the (R)-form, tracing back to essential studies that tuned biological activity by just tweaking chirality. One look at available catalogs and you’ll spot a family of related ethenyl and hydroxy derivatives under custom synthesis labels, and this compound appears in both academic work and industry pilot studies.
Physical handling tells a story. (S)-2-(2-(3-((1E)-2-(7-Chloro-2-Quinolinyl)Ethenyl)-Phenyl)-3-Hydroxypropyl)Phenyl)-2-Propanol usually crystallizes as a pale yellow solid, driven by the extended aromatic system and chlorine atom pulling electrons. The typical melting point sits in the mid-100°C, which grants shelf stability when stored in cool, dry conditions. Chemists measure solubility in organic solvents like DMSO and chloroform, thanks to the fused quinoline and phenyl portions, but water remains a challenge due to hydrophobic arms. High purity shows up in sharp NMR and IR signatures, and proper optical rotation – a must-have for anything with (S) or (R) designations. In my own work, I remember patching together spectra late at night, looking for that benchmark downfield shift or characteristic absorption peak. It doesn’t disappoint, and always signals strong π-π stacking from aromatic rings.
Reliable documentation comes from both suppliers and regulatory offices. Labels usually display the enantiomeric ratio, melting point, and residual solvent status. You’ll notice lot records showing >99% chemical purity by HPLC, and often an enantiomeric excess above 98%. Labels don’t skimp on warnings—chloroquinoline derivatives require careful tracking, given their history with toxicity in mammalian cells. Every bottle I’ve received for the lab included not just batch certificates, but also detailed handling guides, often referencing the latest editions of the ICH or USP guidelines. These records don’t gather dust, either. QA teams pore over them to check that each parameter falls inside customer specs—especially before moving to regulated pilot plants.
Getting to this structure on the bench isn’t for the faint of heart. Labs often kick off with a selective Heck coupling to bolt the ethenyl chain between an aryl halide and a 7-chloro-2-quinoline derivative. The catalyst game matters here, and choosing a palladium complex with the right ligand pushes the geometry towards the (E)-configuration that makes the molecule perform. The propanol arm, with its secondary alcohol, typically follows as a Grignard addition into a structured ketone intermediate—a multi-day step that loves moisture control and careful pH adjustment. Final separation of the desired (S)-enantiomer takes advantage of chiral column chromatography or asymmetric reduction, both expensive but essential for pharmaceutical use. Recrystallization and pure solvent washing finish off the work, a process I’ve seen eat up weeks when scaling up for industrial projects.
This molecule wears its reactivity front and center. The hydroxy group stands out as a handle for further esterification, allowing medicinal chemists to thread new functionalities or attach fluorescent tags for biological imaging. The quinoline ring, with its electron-withdrawing chlorine, can be selectively functionalized at the 4- or 8-position through lithiation or halogen exchange—a classic route for SAR (structure-activity relationship) studies. Conjugated ethenyl systems in the core offer pathways to hydrogenation or Michael additions, often for tuning the molecule’s activity profile or adjusting its solubility. Chemical robustness holds up under most lab conditions, but working up reactions with strong oxidants can chew up the hydroxy and quinoline moieties quickly, so waste control and reaction monitoring are musts.
Across chemical suppliers, synonyms appear as mouthfuls: (S)-Chloroquinolinyl ethenylphenyl propanol, (S)-Hydroxypropyl quinoline derivative, or sometimes just “S-enantiomer of [parent structure]” in internal documents. Research articles reference it under specific synthetic labels and occasionally reference a company’s batch code for clarity. Data sheets group it in the family of chiral arylpropanols, often with a catalog number that cuts through naming confusion. In my own stacks of journal printouts, I’ve seen at least three different hats for the same basic structure, depending on the lead author’s preference for pharmacophore-based or IUPAC names.
Lab safety officers have an eye on this compound. Handling guidelines direct staff to work in ventilated hoods, wear splash goggles, and keep nitrile gloves on—chloroquinoline derivatives have a track record for skin and respiratory sensitivity. Chronic exposure data remains thin, but acute effects like dermatitis or mild nausea show up in some early studies. Waste streams almost always run through dedicated halogenated solvent disposal, and even bench spills draw instant cleanup, since quinoline’s environmental impact has regulatory bodies watching closely. I’ve sat through enough SOP reviews to know that risk assessments cite ICH Q3C for solvent traces, and any deviation draws a red flag on product release.
Companies and academics dig into this molecule for more than just its nice-looking profile. The core structure matches up with known antimalarial scaffolds, drawing interest from teams screening new drugs for resistant Plasmodium falciparum strains. The same backbone tempts people working in anti-inflammatory therapies—hydroxy-arylethenyl connections can act as molecular recognition points in cytokine regulation. The chiral nature widens its reach into asymmetric catalysis, where researchers lean on its optical activity for enantioselective transformations. There’s no shortage of clinical pharmacologists who probe its derivatives for CNS penetration, since lipophilic quinoline fragments make for promising candidates in Alzheimer’s and mood disorder research. My experience shows that grant proposals love molecules like this: you get chemical novelty, biological relevance, and enough modification handles to keep postdocs busy for years.
Fresh discoveries keep this area bustling. Synthetic chemistry groups turn out new catalytic approaches, seeking more sustainable and cheaper routes to the chiral center—think enzymatic reductions or mechanochemistry. High-throughput screens flood chemical libraries with dozens of similar compounds, guided by machine learning predictions from QSAR models. The interface between synthetic efficiency and biological performance drives much of the excitement. Tens of patent filings trace structural tweaks—each slight modification gives companies extra time under market exclusivity and a shot at improved bioavailability or different toxicity profiles. At scientific conferences, presentations often focus on data from mouse models, where pharmacodynamics surprise even the most seasoned researchers. My own colleagues often stress that iterative synthesis and biological screening run neck and neck—chemists and biologists learning from each new lead compound together.
Concerns keep coming up about the link between quinoline systems and neurological side effects. Studies using cell cultures pin down thresholds for mitochondrial impairment and cell cycle arrest. Animal testing shows that doses above pharmacological levels induce hepatotoxicity or mild arrhythmias, especially in sensitive species, prompting frequent re-examination of allowed concentration windows. Companies diving into first-in-human trials collect wide-ranging safety data—hitting the maximum tolerated dose, then dialing back while watching for delayed effects. I remember reviewing lab notebook entries that flagged faint cytotoxicity signals just above therapeutic thresholds, forcing teams to rethink substitute groups for the next round. The safety debate stays front and center, driving strict limits on both workplace exposure and drug formulation.
Excitement around this molecule and its relatives looks strong. As infectious diseases become more resistant to old treatments, structural hybrids with quinoline and hydroxy-containing fragments stand out as hope for the next generation of therapies. Advances in asymmetric synthesis promise easier—and cheaper—routes to high-purity (S)-enantiomers, cutting both costs and environmental footprints. Digital techniques, using AI to sift through how modifications affect bioactivity, are finally speeding up lead candidate selection, and these approaches suit a molecule rich in functional diversity. Industry eyes future regulatory trends, with focus shifting to green chemistry, more sensitive environmental tracking of waste, and better-defined clinical trial designs. New applications in material science or as chiral catalysts aren’t off the table either. In my view, chemists and pharmacologists have plenty of open territory left for real discovery, and the structure keeps finding new relevance, even decades after its first synthesis.
I’ve spent years reading up on small molecules with complicated names, and (S)-2-(2-(3-((1E)-2-(7-Chloro-2-Quinolinyl)Ethenyl)-Phenyl)-3-Hydroxypropyl)Phenyl)-2-Propanol might be a mouthful, but it actually represents a major leap in antimalarial drug research. At its core, this molecule belongs to a class bridging the chemical world of quinoline-based compounds and modern synthetic strategies. Chloroquine, with that signature quinoline core, provided a blueprint. Researchers built off it, hoping to sidestep drug resistance, which continues to rob malaria drugs of their punch in Asia and Africa.
Drug makers, often in academic or pharmaceutical labs, use this compound and close cousins to try and outwit malaria parasites. Mutations in Plasmodium falciparum made old drugs less effective. Every year, nearly half a million children under five die from malaria, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. The world can't afford to stand still. This molecule, modeled to bind with key proteins in the parasite and block its reproduction, forms one angle of attack. Scientists test it not only for classic malaria, but also for strains that laugh off drugs like mefloquine and atovaquone.
In the lab, chemists use this compound as a lead or scaffold. Medicinal chemistry thrives on structure–activity relationships. Tweak an atom here, change a bond angle there, and suddenly the molecule might work better or last longer in the bloodstream. Often it takes years and hundreds of versions to get something that works in mice, then in people. The profit isn't always huge, but for neglected diseases, good drug candidates change the entire playing field for global health. Publishing the data, whether it’s a failed experiment or a breakthrough, forms the backbone of trust between researchers and the public. Openness in research stands out as the gold standard for credibility and trust.
Beyond its direct use as a treatment prototype, this molecule steps into diagnostic and mechanistic studies. Scientists mark or label the compound to track how malaria parasites absorb and metabolize it. High school students might only hear about basic antibiotics, but the deeper dive involves following these new synthetic drugs through cell cultures and even animal models. Understanding how, say, the addition of a hydroxy group transforms the way the body breaks down a drug links right back to patient outcomes and public trust in new medicine.
Even with promising lab results, getting medicine to clinics in rural regions goes far beyond chemistry. I’ve seen firsthand how regulatory delays and supply chain challenges keep vital drugs away from desperate families. This is where cooperation between governments, international aid groups, and local communities matters. Stronger partnerships can lower the price of manufacturing and expand distribution. There’s nothing glamorous about logistics, but for any new antimalarial candidate, it’s the difference between a scientific achievement and a real-world solution. Investments in education, so that health workers spot drug resistance early, have the power to multiply the impact of molecular breakthroughs like this one.
Curiosity often pushes scientists—and regular folks—to test out new compounds in medicine, food, and even in daily-use products. Everyone wants the next big breakthrough. Experience tells me each shiny new thing comes with a flip side, especially in the health field. Let’s look at the tradeoffs that don’t always get top billing.
I remember trying a supposedly “safe” supplement a few years ago, just like many do after reading a positive headline. Within hours, I found myself with itchy skin and a red rash. Turns out, some people’s immune systems react alarmingly to chemicals that pass through animal studies just fine. Reports show even natural compounds—turmeric, peanuts, bee pollen—sometimes trigger allergies that land people in the emergency room.
Liver and kidney function take a lot of hits from experimental drugs or supplements. The liver handles so many toxins that some compounds pile on extra stress. The FDA regularly pulls drugs that show early promise but then damage the liver after reaching widespread use. Tylenol, sold over the counter, sends thousands to the hospital every year when used above suggested limits. Any compound that needs breaking down inside us raises the same concern. It’s not fear-mongering, just observing the wake left behind by dozens of products pulled from shelves.
Many chemicals passed animal-safety tests yet built up in people’s bodies over years, slowly doing harm. BPA was everywhere—from baby bottles to water jugs. After seeing study after study linking it to hormone problems, regulators clamped down, but not before millions of people got exposed. Some effects show up in children: brain development, attention span, growth. With any compound, the story’s just beginning at launch day.
Mixing compounds creates a Wild West situation inside our bodies. Grapefruit juice, of all things, can turn safe medications into dangerous ones by slowing their breakdown. Blood thinners, antidepressants, cholesterol drugs—they can go haywire. Most new substances never get checked thoroughly for these issues, and real-world use uncovers danger that lab tests miss. The only reason some of these interactions came to light is because real people reported side effects to safety agencies.
Strong oversight matters. Products slip through when funding’s not there or the rules leave loopholes. The FDA, European Medicines Agency, and others work to keep up, but sales and innovation race ahead. Every recall or new warning comes after real lives get impacted. Calling companies and doctors to report odd side effects makes a difference—I’ve done it. It shapes which risks get flagged and which get ignored. People’s voices, not just research papers, drive change in the safety game.
Being cautious pays off. Read up on anything new—check sources, not just product labels. Talk to your pharmacist or doctor if you’re on prescriptions, even herbs or vitamins. Follow up with blood tests where possible, especially if you have chronic health issues. Lend your experience to official reporting systems if you feel odd effects. Real-world data gives regulators tools to protect everyone else down the line.
Science moves fast, but safety trails behind without help from users and watchful researchers. As exciting as new compounds seem, asking questions about their risks keeps everyone safer over the long haul.
Every time I’ve handled complex small molecules in the lab, the first thing on my mind has always been how to protect their structure. It’s tempting to treat organic compounds like a basic bottle of aspirin, but over the years, I’ve seen what a few degrees, some unpredictable humidity, or a touch of light can do to destroy months of research effort. Real experience makes it clear: storing a sensitive substance like (S)-2-(2-(3-((1E)-2-(7-Chloro-2-Quinolinyl)Ethenyl)-Phenyl)-3-Hydroxypropyl)Phenyl)-2-Propanol takes diligence and the right environment.
Lab guidelines don’t get written by guesswork. Pharmaceutical references and supplier data align on one point: keep organic molecules like this one at low temperatures. From my background in medicinal chemistry, room temperature rarely cuts it. Refrigeration—ideally at 2°C to 8°C—protects from decomposition, reduces volatility, and slows any possible breakdown. Without cold storage, I’ve watched sensitive compounds yellow and degrade in days instead of staying clear and active for months. It’s easy to overlook the freezer when space runs short, but temperature swings mean risk, and risk has a habit of ruining experiments and budgets.
Humidity sneaks up on a sample in a way that rarely gets enough attention. Those who’ve spent time in damp labs, especially near the coast, know moisture can lead to hydrolysis reactions or cause solid clumping. Desiccators or tightly sealed vials lined with inert gas—nitrogen or argon—become essentials. After one rainy season, I learned that failing to keep a good desiccant in the cabinet let just enough water vapor in to cause visible damage to otherwise ‘properly stored’ compounds. Chronic exposure saps a molecule’s potency and sometimes triggers unplanned side reactions.
Direct exposure to light—especially ultraviolet—never does organic molecules a favor. UV can break down conjugated systems and knock out functional groups, leaving sample purity and structure questionable. Amber glass bottles or wrapping in aluminum foil shields sensitive compounds from photodegradation. I’ve seen vials look fine on Monday and turn cloudy by Friday after a lab bench left them in the sun. It takes little effort to keep samples in a dark place, but the cost of not doing so shows up in failed analytical tests.
Personal experience has shown that clear labeling and storage logs don’t just help the next shift—they keep contamination or misuse at bay. Stringent chemical hygiene, proper PPE, and updated inventory ensure the compound stays where it should and in the state originally intended. I recall a research colleague misidentifying a similar bottle, spoiling an entire batch. Storage is as much about organization as temperature or humidity.
Small changes deliver big results: investing in reliable temperature monitoring, using hermetically sealed containers, and regularly checking desiccant packs can mean the difference between valid and failed results. Many research labs can’t afford high-end storage, but even simple steps, rooted in consistency, go a long way. The science is clear—quality storage keeps innovation on schedule and costs in check.
Most people rarely think about what those letters and numbers mean on the label of a bottle of cleaner or a pack of vitamins. Yet, a chemical formula and its molecular weight hold the power to tell you what’s really inside a product. These details matter far beyond a laboratory or classroom — anyone dealing with materials, medicines, or foods benefits from knowing what’s in front of them.
Think about the times labels play a crucial role: allergy alerts, medication dosages, food supplements, even ingredients in fertilizers or construction materials. Each one relies on formulas and weights to guarantee what you’re getting, both for safety and results.
A chemical formula uses symbols and numbers to show what kinds of atoms make up a compound and how many of each are linked together. Glucose, for example, is C6H12O6. That string of letters and numbers is a promise—six carbon, twelve hydrogen, and six oxygen atoms hooked up to fuel energy in living things.
Molecular weight gives you the scale. It’s the sum of all the atoms within a molecule, measured in units called daltons or unified atomic mass units. One water molecule weighs in at about 18.02 daltons, coming from its two hydrogens and single oxygen.
Through my own run-ins with food allergies, I’ve learned that formulas can make or break trust. Pharmaceutical products, for instance, can’t cut corners—the dose relies on the chemistry being right, every single time. Too much or too little of one element can spell the difference between a remedy and a risk. I once dove into medical journals just to double-check the composition of a supplement I was thinking of taking. Turns out, not all “vitamin B12” supplements use the same molecular form, and the difference makes a world of difference for people with certain conditions. Accurate information on the label set my mind at ease.
This isn’t just personal. Mislabeled or poorly described products can disrupt entire industries. Food recalls often trace back to mistaken ingredients. Manufacturing mistakes have forced companies to scrap tons of material at huge cost, all because a single component’s formula or weight was off.
Trust starts with honesty, and honesty starts with reliable information. Consumers and professionals deserve clear, verified details—right down to the last molecule. Reputable suppliers and manufacturers list the formula and weight not just out of habit but because regulation demands accuracy. The FDA, REACH, and other regulatory bodies require strict standards here for a reason: one wrong letter in a formula can mean disaster.
Digital databases and updated labeling tech have made this easier than ever. Scanning a code with your phone can lead straight to up-to-date safety data and product information. That only works if the data gets checked and updated regularly. Mistakes should get corrected publicly, and companies should invite questions and feedback.
Education goes a long way. Schools, universities, and workplaces need to go beyond basic memorization and teach people how to look up and interpret formulas and weights. Getting comfortable with these tools means fewer accidents, smarter choices, and less waste.
In the end, a chemical formula and its molecular weight may seem like small details, but together, they open a window into what we use, buy, or put into our bodies. Transparency saves lives, protects health, and builds trust.
I've stood over the lab bench, watching a suspension stubbornly refuse to dissolve. Anyone who’s prepped solutions understands how bad solvent choice lands you with precipitation, wasted materials, and stalled progress. Solubility isn’t an abstract concern—it shapes everything, from the accuracy of your results to the safety of your process. Choosing a solvent isn’t just box-ticking. It means picking a partner for your compound so it’ll show its best qualities.
The phrase “like dissolves like” often rings in my mind from organic chemistry. Polar compounds open up in polar solvents—water, ethanol. Nonpolar papers drift into organic options such as hexane or toluene. Anyone who’s tried to force a greasy, hydrophobic sample into water watches it clump up or float, never really blending in. Polar aprotic solvents like DMSO or acetonitrile have bailed me out more times than I care to count, especially for charged compounds that shun straight-up water.
In drug development, solubility picks the winners early. Poorly dissolved candidates barely reach intended targets. In applied chemistry, the wrong solvent can slow a simple test by hours. Reports from PubChem, Sigma-Aldrich, or Merck often reflect lab realities—lists of what works, what doesn’t, and at what concentrations.
I’ve worked with organics that barely budge in standard solvents. For stubborn cases, a mix helps—a dash of DMSO into water can open up otherwise insoluble compounds. Sonication or gentle heating sometimes turn a cloudy solution clear. Still, patience has limits unless you want to degrade your material. There’s no hero solvent; a bit of trial, guided by data, does more good than stubborn effort. Safety always sits at the top with more aggressive solvents. Chloroform, dichloromethane, even pyridine have strong dissolving powers but carry health risks. Airflow, gloves, and a solid respect for fume hoods are non-negotiable.
A lot has changed since acetone or methanol were the default choices. Teams now pick greener, less volatile options whenever they can. Ethyl acetate, ethanol, or water-based blends ease handling and disposal burdens. Regulatory groups from the EPA to the European Chemicals Agency push for this shift with rules that matter. For every project, smaller solvent volumes help reduce both cost and risk.
Emerging bio-based solvents catch my eye. Limonene and ethyl lactate come from renewable sources and work surprisingly well in many cases, cutting down on hazardous waste. It’s not only good for the planet—it spares researchers days of extra paperwork.
Databases serve as starting points, but nothing replaces a quick bench test. For experimental compounds, I jot down observations: clear? opaque? how long did it take? Reproducibility wins over guesswork every time. If published data disagrees, trust your eyes and the behavior in your actual setup. Colleagues swap tales of “mystery goo” and the odd solvent rescue, creating a culture of shared troubleshooting.
Solubility isn’t a chemistry quiz question—it’s the groundwork for discoveries, innovations, and industrial success. Smart choice of solvent means safer labs, more reliable findings, and happier scientists. Keeping current with regulations, green alternatives, and hands-on results ensures compounds dissolve, both in flasks and in practice.
Providing high-quality chemical products and logistics solutions for global trade partners.
