© 2026 Sinochem Nanjing Corporation,
All Right Reserved
Over the past century, the photographic and lithography industries have seen chemistry drive their technological leaps. No set of compounds paved the way quite like the diazo naphthol sulfonates, especially in the family associated with "Type D" mixtures. These compounds emerged during the golden era of analog imaging, at a time when precision pattern transfer on photosensitive surfaces changed the landscape of printing, circuit boards, and even early semiconductors. Owing to their photoreactivity and fine solubility, they became a backbone for positive photoresists. Manufacturers around the world recognized their potential for producing finer lines and sharper images than earlier alternatives. As new variants cropped up, chemists tinkered with side-chain modifications to push image resolution and shelf stability, responding directly to industry’s demands. This evolution didn’t just happen in isolation. It tracked closely with the booming need for more accurate and efficient electronic components, bringing these sulfonates from esoteric chemicals to crucial players in technology’s progress.
Chemists grouping mixtures under the “Type D” label refer to blends of 2-diazo-1-naphthol sulfonates with subtle chemical differences tuned for practical performance, not just raw reactivity. These blends balance shelf-life, processing latitude, and sensitivity to ultraviolet light, all of which play out on the assembly line or in a lab environment. Many manufacturers count on these mixtures to create electronic circuits, microchips, printed circuit boards, and precision masks for displays. Because they break down cleanly under UV exposure, engineers can define minute patterns, making them pivotal for modern electronics. As more consumer goods rely on denser and more intricate circuitry, the demand for reliable and adaptable diazo mixtures climbs. It’s not just about raw chemistry; user feedback from decades of hands-on production shaped every tweak, showing a clear link between bench science and engineering reality.
Type D mixtures typically present as pale yellow powders, which, in my experience, makes them easy to distinguish from more generic resists. They dissolve rapidly in standard photoresist solvents like n-butyl acetate and propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, which is as much a benefit to production speed as to safety protocols, since handling dust and powder always poses risks. Their molecular weights, water solubility, and melting points can shift slightly depending on the mix used, but in most labs, consistent, rapid dissolution matters more than any theoretical number. What stands out is their sensitivity to UV in the 350-420nm range, which lets operators run exposures that balance energy consumption and throughput. I’ve seen labs choose one variant over another based solely on how quickly it reacts and then wipes away in alkaline developer. In practice, chemists and engineers lean hard on reproducibility, which leads to constant tweaks in both blend ratios and stabilizer content by suppliers.
Labels for these compounds go beyond regulatory compliance. I’ve seen the headaches that come from poorly labeled bottles—batch numbers, purity levels, and hazard data must be crystal clear. Good vendors provide certificates of analysis with each lot, spelling out purity (often 98%+), water and ash content, and sometimes a spectrum analysis to pass quality audits. Dust-tight amber vials or drums keep the contents from degrading in the light or air, as accidental exposure to sunlight can ignite a cascade of false positives or unusable photoresist. I remember a colleague pulling an all-nighter after a shipment arrived in a leaky bag; that batch never made it to production. The industry has learned from mistakes, moving toward barcoded labeling, tamper-proof seals, and traceable lot histories through the supply chain. In a field where contamination can ruin thousands of dollars worth of hardware, these practical details beat out abstract standards every time.
Making a Type D mixture usually starts with the diazotization of naphthylamines followed by sulfonation and isolation as sodium or potassium salts. In scale-up batches, attention centers on keeping temperatures steady and water content down, as excess humidity muddles product purity and clogs dissolution. Controlling the amount of sulfonating agent influences not just solubility, but also the eventual pattern sharpness on photoresist films—a lesson I learned after a batch turned out too viscous for spin coating, costing hours of cleanup and reformulation. Blending different sulfonate salts gets dictated by what the customer needs: sometimes more photolytic activity, sometimes more storage stability, or resilience against mechanical abrasion. Manual intervention gives way to automated controls and robotic dosing since consistency directly impacts the bottom line. Industrial reactors, precise pH titration, and multi-step filtration ensure that the product stays within the narrow performance window customers expect. Mistakes at this stage don’t just waste chemicals—they upend production schedules downstream.
2-Diazo-1-naphthol sulfonates break down under UV light, producing nitrogen gas and transient species that shift the solubility profile of any film in which they’re dispersed. Photolithographers rely on this action, as it drives the imagewise solubility change that leaves sharp, clean lines after development. Side-chain modification, like swapping sodium for potassium ions, tweaks both reactivity and film uniformity. Some research outfits test other stabilizers to prevent premature diazo group loss, especially in hot climates or high-throughput fabs. If you push the process harder—higher energy, longer exposures—byproducts can creep in, undermining yields and causing circuit defects. No one likes to see a yield dip due to a formulation tweak gone wrong. By adjusting the ratios or adding new antioxidants, labs hope to push reliability further. Each innovation comes from months of benchwork, careful monitoring, and relentless documentation, not marketing speak.
People working in the lab quickly realize the confusion that comes up from competing names. Some labels might call it "Naphthoquinone diazide sulfonate" or "1-Naphthol-2-diazo sulfonate," and regional suppliers might have proprietary codes or numbers. This mix-up sometimes leads to crossed shipments, so most purchasing agents check CAS numbers (often 6358-90-1 for a typical 2-diazo-1-naphthol-5-sulfonic acid sodium salt). Big brands like Shipley, Rohm and Haas, or Tokyo Ohka have house blends that labs learn to trust (or avoid), and after a while, users get a feel for what works based on years of trial, error, and production feedback. These names don’t just serve as marketing; they also signal a certain performance niche—one formula may run best for LCD exposure, another for dense PCB lines. Mistaking one for another could jam up an entire production line.
Handling diazo compounds brings its own set of risks, not just in the lab but all the way to production lines. I've seen graduate students suit up in gloves and goggles, but miss a tiny powder spill on the bench—by the time the custodian found it, the powder had discolored and needed hazardous waste processing. Direct skin contact irritates, and the dust makes respiratory protection a must. Industrial environments install local exhaust or laminar flow benches, and routine safety drills keep workers attuned to spill response. Storage protocols look strict for a reason; UV-sensitive compound stockpiles in a sun-lit storeroom spell disaster. Globally, regulators clamp down hard on exposure limits, shipping hazards, and proper waste disposal. Manufacturers posting transparent SDS (Safety Data Sheets), employee training, and strict compliance audits do more than check a legal box; they help keep real people healthy and businesses running smoothly.
Everyday items like smartphones, computers, touchscreens, and sensors trace their lifelines through manufacturing processes that rely on photoactive compounds. Type D mixtures act where the rubber meets the road: defining image patterns on wafers, forming intricate copper circuitry, and producing high-resolution display panels. I’ve watched technicians rely on these sulfates for wafer fabrication, because nothing else gives such fine control in positive photoresist processes. Other industries lean on these materials too—optical instruments, printing plates, and even some security printing feature patterns made possible by diazo chemistry. I remember a printshop operator bragging about the sharper lines in his litho plates after making the switch. No surprise, engineers love products that simplify the mask-making process and cut turnaround times. The legacy of these compounds isn’t some abstract record—it shows up in almost every modern device that needs miniaturized, reliable, and rapidly reproduced circuitry.
Companies and universities constantly chase after safer, faster, and greener alternatives. Teams tinker with molecular tweaks that would extend shelf life or pump up sensitivity to newer light sources like deep-UV and extreme-UV. Academic papers fill up with data on fresh side-chain modifications or novel stabilizer systems. I’ve met scientists who obsess over minor impurity profiles, convinced that a barely-detectable contaminant can destabilize a batch. Environmental teams push to reinvent formulations that cut down hazardous byproducts or simplify solvent use, knowing regulatory winds blow ever stronger. In my experience, genuine innovation springs from a collaborative approach—engineers, chemists, and process techs sharing hard-won wisdom, and adapting to new industry standards overnight. These efforts pay off as the world’s appetite for faster, smarter electronics only grows.
Separate from their process value, diazo compounds demand scrutiny for health and ecological impacts. Research labs invest in toxicological studies to sort acute hazards from long-term risks, especially as processors and end-users grow more concerned about safe working environments. Data points to skin and respiratory irritation as immediate risks, and while large-scale chronic exposure studies remain limited, manufacturers shift toward lower-exposure handling systems as a precaution. In waste streams, sulfonates can persist longer than expected, pushing wastewater treatment plants to install better filtration and chemical breakdown processes. My conversations with environmental consultants always circle back to the need for real-time monitoring and early intervention when spills threaten local ecosystems. Even the best technology faces scrutiny if downstream harm threatens brand reputation or regulatory certification. These hard facts drive the entire field toward more sustainable chemistry—even as markets keep expanding.
Type D mixtures stand at a crossroads. Next-generation electronics, flexible displays, and even bio-integrated sensors keep pushing for chemicals that outperform the last batch on every metric. Green chemistry initiatives ask suppliers to cut the use of toxic solvents and swap out persistent byproducts. In the labs and on the shop floor, real progress comes from partnerships—brands that listen to feedback, regulators that embrace smart standards, and scientists willing to test against real-life conditions rather than controlled environments alone. Exciting work targets diazo mixtures that can handle lower exposure doses, run in ambient air, and still leave clean patterns after development. While the industry keeps chasing smaller circuit lines and higher energy efficiency, the next chapter will require open collaboration and a steady hand in both innovation and stewardship. For anyone measuring chemicals with an eye toward the future, the balance between performance, safety, and sustainability sets the agenda for years to come.
A smart phone screen, a computer chip, the camera in your car—none exist without photolithography and photoresist chemistry. Wander through the history of electronics and you run into 2-Diazo-1-naphthol sulfonates. These chemicals sound like something best left to engineers in full-body suits, but they play a huge role in everyday tech.
The Type D mixture is a key team player in the world of photoresists. Try building a microchip without a clean, accurate photoresist pattern, and you get lines that bleed and circuits that fail. In a typical light-sensitive resin used for creating microcircuits, these sulfonates do the heavy lifting. Expose them to ultraviolet light and they change shape, shifting from almost-waterproof to open-armed and water-friendly. This change lets developers wash away parts of the photoresist, etching detailed lines at nanoscale widths onto silicon wafers.
Major chip manufacturers demand precision. They rely on the way this mixture helps make patterns with near-perfect edges. Every year, as phones get smaller and faster, fabs pack more components into less space. Whenever I handled old circuit boards growing up, I saw the jump in precision over time. Now, this chemistry takes that improvement even further. It lets chip makers reach nanometer-scale resolutions, shrinking the lines between working tech and unusable waste.
The impact of Type D mixture stretches outside chip-making. Glass manufacturers lean on photoresist chemistry for making anti-reflective or toughened coatings. When you glance at your phone screen under the sun and you see less glare, that involves precision patterning baked into the glass during manufacturing—often driven by diazo chemistry.
Printed circuit boards in almost every gadget start with a photoresist step. Using Type D solutions brings consistent results, handling the changing demands of consumer tech. Even flexible electronics, which take a beating as they bend, depend on stable, sensitive photoresists that trace incredibly fine lines.
Being around chemicals like 2-Diazo-1-naphthol sulfonates calls for attention. These substances can irritate the skin or cause respiratory issues if mishandled. Factory workers rely on closed systems and intensive training. Some waste products present challenges for local water treatment. Many big manufacturers partner with specialized recyclers that filter out hazardous leftovers. I’ve spoken with lab techs who trust the newer processes. They value strong regulations and transparent audits, which encourage safer workplaces. There’s a growing push for greener formulations that break down faster and take less energy to clean up.
Innovation in this field never really stops. Academic groups try to build photosensitive compounds from renewable sources or make them less toxic. Large makers are switching parts of their production to water-borne resists. Other efforts test lower-energy light sources or develop recovery systems, cutting energy bills while protecting people and the planet. Change happens step by step. Demand from tech giants, stronger global laws, and investment in clean factories all push things along.
Faster chips, tougher screens, safer production—these follow from research and smarter rules around the chemistry behind photoresists. For anyone invested in technology or safety, this chemistry makes a difference every single day.
One thing folks often overlook about any product, whether it’s food, medicine, or electronics, is the space where it spends most of its life: storage. Good storage keeps everything from losing value, spoiling, or even turning dangerous. I’ve spent years watching organizations cut corners on storage, only to lose entire shipments to heat, moisture, or an overlooked leaky roof. Quality in, quality out—it really does start on the shelf.
The first thing to check is temperature. Many products will last much longer inside a controlled environment. Medicines, for example, stop working or, worse, change in unexpected ways at the wrong temperature. In warehouses I’ve worked with, setting up a basic climate system saved companies thousands in scrapped inventory. Even for non-medical goods, too much heat or cold can ruin packaging, cause warping, or allow mold to creep in. Room temperature usually means between 20°C and 25°C, but always check the label or documentation for specifics. I’ve seen stores trying to save money by keeping warehouses unheated and ended up with useless products. If stored too warm or too cold, performance takes a nosedive.
Humidity wrecks more goods every year than people realize. Dry goods suck up moisture and clump, metal items rust, and packaging falls apart faster than anyone expects. I recall a case from a retail partner that stored electronics in a humid storeroom. The result? All the inner circuits corroded before they even reached customers—thousands of dollars, just gone. The best storage spaces rely on solid ventilation and sometimes dehumidifiers. Even a few desiccant packs in small containers make a noticeable difference if you have no better option. Keep things dry, and problems usually stay away.
Dust, dirt, and pests creep in wherever they can. A small crack in a storage facility wall can bring in more than a breeze. Foods and pharmaceuticals draw rodents and bugs, and once they get in, it doesn’t take long for entire batches to become unusable. Sealing cracks, using proper racks, and checking for pests regularly pays dividends. I’ve seen companies run monthly checks and save themselves from major recalls. As for sunlight, certain products break down within weeks if left in the light. Vitamins, photosensitive chemicals, and more—once exposed, they degrade fast. Use opaque containers or cover the shelves when windows or skylights are nearby.
Storing goods next to cleaning supplies or heavy machinery brings unexpected risks. I’ve seen cross-contamination ruin stock because cleaners dripped from a top shelf onto open cartons below. Always store products away from chemicals, fuels, or anything with strong odors or potential spills. Sometimes, keeping it simple—clean, dry, and uncluttered—works best.
Anyone looking after valuable stock should set reminders for regular checks on temperature and humidity levels. Simple equipment like digital thermometers, hygrometers, or even just walking through the site every few days goes a long way. Every lost shipment comes back to haunt the books at year’s end. Taking care of storage conditions shows respect for both the business and those who count on the final product. Your reputation—and your bottom line—depends on it.
Work in the printing or semiconductor industries often puts folks in close contact with photoactive compounds. The Type D mixture of 2-diazo-1-naphthol sulfonates, used for making photoresists, shows up on that chemical roster. The impressive clarity and performance these mixtures bring to high-tech manufacturing often grab headlines, but the health side of the conversation doesn't get the same spotlight.
The main thing about 2-diazo-1-naphthol sulfonates is their reactivity. Dust or mist from mixing or processing can touch skin, land in eyes, or make its way into noses and lungs. Most mixtures release nitrogen gas as they react to UV light, which may sound harmless, but there's more to the story. My own time spent in a small lithography lab taught me to treat any photoresist as if it could cause trouble, mostly because everyone I met shared some story about rashes, breathing issues, or eye stinging after sloppy handling.
Direct contact with 2-diazo-1-naphthol sulfonates hasn’t just been about mild irritation. Occupational health reviews point out that some workers experience skin sensitization—meaning they start getting reactions even with a tiny splash later on. Eyes grow red and watery within minutes if a powdery puff lands at the wrong angle. Inhaled dust, especially in poorly ventilated shops, can spark itching throats and deep coughs. Just reading the old Technical Safety Data Sheets gives a sense of the potential. Respiratory issues, skin redness, even allergic symptoms, all have been noted. Long-term effects rarely get as much attention, but repeated exposure raises questions no responsible business should ignore.
Nobody should lean on past experience alone, though. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and European Chemical Agency (ECHA) have both classified 2-diazo-1-naphthol derivatives under substances that carry risks if not handled with care. Studies done over years show sensitization rates rising, especially when people work without proper gloves or a fitted respirator.
No clear link has been found between the mixture and cancer, but that doesn’t let workplaces off the hook. Some derivatives in the larger diazonaphthoquinone group are flagged for causing birth defects, especially if chronic exposure levels climb over months or years. Cleaning up spills without wearing PPE or skipping regular handwashing only boosts the odds.
Protecting workers starts with more than a lab coat and googles hung by the door. Local exhaust ventilation does more than reduce the strange odors floating through corridors. Regular air monitoring tracks problem spots that show up over time. I remember a buddy who cut his annual sick days in half after management installed a fresh-air hood in his photoetching booth.
Gloves rated for chemical protection mean less guessing and more confidence. Eye wash stations should be nearby, not tucked in storage closets. Training helps, but reminders work better—signs written in plain language, sharp colors, and real-life photos make a bigger impact than policy memos. New research encourages using substitute chemicals with fewer known health effects, though shifting a factory's chemistry brings its own headaches.
Anyone handling Type D mixtures can push for regular skin checks and lung screenings. Sharing near-miss stories keeps the threat in focus, especially for new folks who might shrug off the first warning signs. Staying informed, equipped, and alert makes a bigger health difference than new gadgets ever could.
Anyone working in labs or dealing with safety data sheets has faced the classic question: “What’s the chemical composition or CAS number for this mixture?” This can seem simple, but it’s rarely that clear-cut. Unlike pure chemicals—think sodium chloride or ethanol—mixtures bring together more than one substance, sometimes dozens. Each individual chemical will come with its own Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number, which acts like an ID. Water? 7732-18-5. Caffeine? 58-08-2. This global registry number makes it easy to track, research, and regulate individual substances.
Put those chemicals together, and things start to get muddy. The CAS system can’t always assign a new number for every combination possible. There are too many possibilities. For instance, paint thinners, gasoline, or household cleaners blend many chemicals, some of which change with each batch. Some have their own group CAS numbers, especially well-known mixtures, but those numbers may describe the overall character, not all ingredients.
As a former lab assistant, spilling coffee and labeling samples became a lot more nerve-racking once health and safety walked by. The risk in misunderstanding a mixture’s identity is real. It only takes one hidden or misidentified chemical to spark a health scare, fire, or environmental incident. Story after story, both in the press and inside industries, shows the fallout from unknown contents. Contaminated pharmaceuticals, tainted foods, industrial accidents—these often share a common thread: hidden or poorly understood chemical mixtures.
Full transparency isn’t just about rules. Workers have the right to know what they’re handling. Emergency responders and even janitors need to know what they might be exposed to. For me, reading labels, cross-checking every CAS number, and chasing MSDS sheets taught a healthy respect for clarity. I’ve seen what confusion looks like, and it doesn’t end well.
One weakness of relying on a mixture’s “overall” CAS number is that it’s a broad brush, painting over many unique risks. Everyone from researchers to warehouse workers benefits more from a breakdown of what’s inside. That demands transparency from manufacturers, especially when products travel across borders with different labelling standards. Electronic databases, like ChemSpider or PubChem, already help identify individual substances and their risks. Tighter regulations in some places require a full ingredient list, not just a single CAS number.
Another approach comes from technology: automated inventory systems now scan barcodes or QR codes to pull up detailed ingredient lists and hazard warnings in seconds. This cuts out confusion and takes pressure off busy workers. But technology alone won’t fix the root of the issue—communication. Regulators, companies, and end-users can build a feedback loop where anyone, from a lab tech to a delivery driver, can flag missing or unclear information.
My own work history shows that hands-on training changes everything. People learn to spot incomplete labels, double-check information, and push back if a safety sheet misses key details. This practical know-how is harder to teach than it sounds, but simple habits—like always looking up the components of a mixture—save hassle and sometimes lives.
Knowing the chemical composition or CAS number of a mixture sometimes matters more than we think. It’s not just about bureaucracy—it’s about safety, trust, and good science. Reliable information lets us protect workers, respond to emergencies, and even defend the environment. Staying informed takes effort and vigilance, but it pays off in real results across industries and communities.
Handling chemical products always brings a layer of risk. I remember the first job I worked at a factory, nobody made a big deal about gloves or masks. One coworker developed a nasty rash on his hands because nobody explained the importance of PPE. This stuck with me. Chemicals don’t always give a warning before causing harm. Some irritate skin, others give off fumes that hit your lungs. Stories like this crop up in workplaces, workshops, and even gardens. Ignoring safety steps, even for a day, can lead to long-term trouble.
The basic safety kit needs to include gloves made for chemical resistance, not just the thin plastic kind, but something thicker—nitrile or neoprene often works best. Goggles keep fumes and splashes out of your eyes. I learned early not to underestimate splashback, especially when pouring or mixing. Respirators serve as a shield against fine particles and dangerous vapors. Don’t forget work boots and full-sleeve shirts. It may feel hot and stuffy, but exposed skin is an open invitation for burns and allergic reactions.
Skip over the label, and you take the product on blind faith. Every company must display hazard warnings, ingredient lists, and instructions. Some chemicals need dilution. Others react badly to water. Once, someone in my circle poured leftover cleaner down the sink and forgot to check the compatibility. The fumes sent him to urgent care. The lessons taught in training sessions—look for flammability, toxicity, and storage directions on every bottle—have never felt more relevant. Labels also come with pictograms or color codes for quick recognition. They exist for a reason.
I never bring open food or drinks near workstations. Chemicals love to find their way onto snacks, and accidental ingestion lands people in the ER. Keeping containers sealed, stored away from sunlight and heat sources, makes spills less likely. Never reuse a chemical container for another purpose, even if washed. Residual fumes can mix and turn dangerous. Instead, use clean, clearly marked containers. Separate acids and bases, flammable liquids from oxidizers—simple housekeeping can stop a disaster before it starts.
Any enclosed space fills up with invisible fumes in no time. Opening windows and using exhaust fans pulls the bad air out. Sometimes, especially in older workshops, I have brought in portable air filters to keep the air fresh. Safety showers and eye wash stations need easy access. If something splashes, seconds count. Many ignore regular drills, but practicing an emergency response means nobody freezes up when things go wrong.
Experience only goes so far without learning. Refresher courses help to catch updates in handling guidelines or safety protocols. Some industries update recommendations every year as new risks come to light. Trusted sources like OSHA, the CDC, and accredited safety trainers publish information for free online. Checking their latest updates or attending short workshops keeps everybody a bit safer.
Approaching chemical product handling with seriousness doesn’t just tick boxes for regulators. It builds a culture where everyone looks out for each other. A good safety practice spreads—from the workplace to home garages, schools, and communities.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Type D mixture of 2-diazonaphthalen-1-ol-4-sulfonic acid and 2-diazonaphthalen-1-ol-5-sulfonic acid |
| Other names |
2-Diazonaphthol-5-sulfonic acid mixture DNST mixture 2-Diazo-1-naphthol-5-sulfonic acid mixture Diazo photoresist mixture Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 2-diazo-, mixture |
| Pronunciation | /taɪp diː ˈmɪks.tʃər ʌv tuː daɪˈeɪzəʊ wʌn næfˈθɒl sʌlˈfəˌneɪts/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 94195-00-9 |
| Beilstein Reference | 3878737 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:86339 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2103830 |
| ChemSpider | 21569992 |
| DrugBank | DB11097 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 100.111.524 |
| EC Number | 400-600-1 |
| Gmelin Reference | Gmelin 139118 |
| KEGG | C11928 |
| MeSH | D017338 |
| PubChem CID | 22445376 |
| RTECS number | QJ6387000 |
| UNII | P5R8Y2902V |
| UN number | UN3316 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID20878654 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C10H6N2O3S |
| Molar mass | Varies |
| Appearance | Yellowish powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 0.52 g/cm3 |
| Solubility in water | Soluble in water |
| log P | 1.3 |
| Acidity (pKa) | Acidity (pKa): 1.0 (strong acid) |
| Basicity (pKb) | 6.7 (pKb) |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -4.5 x 10^-6 cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.5100 to 1.5300 |
| Viscosity | 30-80 mPa.s |
| Dipole moment | 3.5 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 0 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | ΔcH⦵298 = -578 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | V04CX |
| Hazards | |
| GHS labelling | GHS02, GHS07 |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H317, H319 |
| Precautionary statements | Precautionary statements: "P261, P264, P271, P272, P280, P302+P352, P305+P351+P338, P333+P313, P337+P313, P362+P364 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-1-0 |
| Flash point | > 72 °C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 Oral Rat: > 2000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | > 2,000 mg/kg (Rat) |
| NIOSH | `SR3555000` |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) for Type D Mixture Of 2-Diazo-1-Naphthol Sulfonates: "Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 10 mg/m³ |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Type A Mixture of 2-Diazo-1-Naphthol Sulfonates Type B Mixture of 2-Diazo-1-Naphthol Sulfonates Type C Mixture of 2-Diazo-1-Naphthol Sulfonates |
