Plasticizers first hit the market near a century ago, mostly made from petroleum. Industry poured resources into fossil-derived phthalates and adipates as the backbone of flexible PVC and other plastics. For decades, nobody seemed to trouble over the waste, the complex breakdown in landfills, or the build-up in food chains. Over the last twenty years, chemical firms faced increasing pressure from both regulators and customers: safe and sustainable sourcing grew as major concerns. Researchers dusted off old ideas for plant-derived esters and started hunting for more scalable routes to bio-based alternatives. The shift did not happen overnight. Large-scale investments and government incentives picked up speed after clear connections between human health issues and legacy plasticizers left the science world with an obvious mission. People want plastics, but not the persistent side effects. Bio-based plasticizers rise out of this hard-earned lesson, growing from side-lab curiosities to real industrial contenders.
Bio-based plasticizers run the gamut from epoxidized soybean oil to esters made from citric acid, isosorbide, castor oil derivatives, and succinic acid. They carry many of the same functional groups as petroleum-based plasticizers but use raw materials that start as crops, waste from biorefineries, or forest byproducts. This isn’t about inventing a whole new molecule; it’s about building familiar performance out of resources that regrow every season. Firms label these products with names like epoxidized methyl esters, citrate esters, and sebacates. The move to these choices comes from several angles: legal restrictions on phthalates, consumer demand for ‘natural’ labeling, and big brand programs to cut carbon footprints. Shoppers and manufacturers can’t always tell the difference at a glance, but industrial clients push for clear sourcing information because real supply chains need more than just a green label.
Bio-based plasticizers often share the oily, low-volatility feel as their fossil counterparts. Key specs include density, pour point, boiling range, refractive index, and plasticizing efficiency. Certain types like acetylated monoglycerides carry increased polarity, which pushes compatibility with polar resins but narrows the plasticization window. Epoxidized plant oils load in extra oxygen atoms, making them stable and light-resistant. High-purity grades block out unwanted color, smell, or residual contaminants. Water content, acid values, and iodine numbers round out the main quality measures in daily lab checks. These molecules slip easily among PVC chains or other host polymers, pushing them apart so materials soften, bend, or roll without cracking. What’s inside the molecule—whether a chain, a ring, or a group of double bonds—sets the balance between flexibility, permanence, and resistance to weathering.
Industrial buyers demand routine test data: flash point, viscosity at set temperatures, color index, purity by GC or NMR, and migration rates. The difference between a technical grade and a food-contact grade typically means deeper analysis for possible toxins, metals, and taste or odor traces. Labels need to show not only the origin but also industrial compliance number—REACH, FDA, and other regional standards. Bio-content claims rely on isotopic measurements, like C-14 dating, to distinguish plant-based carbon from fossil sources. Packaging may note environmental certifications and kosher or halal status for food and pharma uses. Firms chasing the highest marks run traceability programs back to the farm or oil mill. Customers scrutinize not just the headline numbers, but how stable those numbers remain batch to batch, since plastics don’t forgive slip-ups during production.
Modern producers draw on enzymatic or chemical esterification, sometimes using transesterification or epoxidation to manipulate vegetable oils. Common starting materials include soybean, sunflower, and castor oil, which can be split and rebuilt into diesters or triesters by reaction with organic acids. Some green chemists speed up these steps with solid acid catalysts, others harvest side-streams from biodiesel plants or starch processing. Removing by-products like water or alcohol keeps reactions moving forward. Filtering, neutralization, and multiple distillation steps polish the final product. In my own hands at the bench, prepping these plasticizers turns out to be less about clever new reactions and more about purifying, monitoring, and keeping the process steady on large scale, every single time. Consistency isn’t an accident—it comes out of relentless troubleshooting and paying attention to the quirks of real feedstocks.
Core reactions focus on building ester bonds, ether linkages, or introducing epoxy groups through controlled oxidation. By reacting plant-derived alcohols with anhydrides or acids, the process locks in flexibility while keeping molecular weight within an optimal range. Plant oils can undergo epoxidation—basically, swapping some double bonds for epoxides—boosting thermal and UV stability. Often, manufacturers tweak chain length, side groups, or even introduce branching to shift the balance between migration resistance and plasticizing power. Post-synthesis, some grades receive further purification to cut out trace organics or color bodies. I have seen projects where a minor shift in catalyst or reactants led from a sticky mess to a high-grade, shelf-stable product—attention at this step easily separates the commercial winners from the expensive dead ends.
Walk through a plastics compounding floor or skim a supplier catalog, and these materials go by a stack of names. You’ll find “epoxidized soybean oil” (ESBO), “tributyl citrate,” “acetylated monoglyceride,” “diethyl sebacate,” “isosorbide diesters,” and “esterified fatty acid methyl esters.” Many of these line up with their fossil analogues, but leading brands stamp proprietary trade names meant to catch attention or stake out a regulation-friendly claim. End users watch not just for the chemistry but for the assurance printed across the label: “phthalate-free,” “bio-content above 80%,” or “food-safe.” In my experience, purchasing teams spend as much time checking paperwork and verification as they do comparing samples, since risk of confusion or mislabeling sticks out as one of the main barriers to broader adoption.
Legacy plasticizers often failed the safety test, leading to bans once science showed their migration and breakdown byproducts could disrupt hormones or threaten child development. Bio-based options promise a safer profile, but producers can’t assume a plant origin covers every risk; each grade must submit to the usual full battery of mutagenicity, skin irritation, and migration testing. Regulatory rules like REACH in Europe and the FDA in the US spell out migration limits and purity specs for food contact. Facilities must run proper ventilation, PPE, and eye-wash stations during synthesis and handling—strong acids, bases, or oxidizing agents crop up in prep as often as with petro-chemical routes. In audits, customers always ask for evidence on occupational safety, residual monomers, and environmental fate. It’s a long road from “natural” to “proven safe in real world exposure,” so companies who skip testing set themselves up for recalls or market rejection.
Bio-based plasticizers carve out a home in soft PVC, toys, food contact films, tubing, flooring, and even some automotive interiors. Sectors under the most pressure from health and sustainability watchdog campaigns—baby products, medical devices, food packaging—lead the charge, often due to brand reputation at stake. Newer entrants, like biodegradable agricultural films or compostable packaging, lean on bio-based plasticizers as a marketing and technical edge. Paints, inks, adhesives, and sealants also draw on these products, chasing both improved flexibility and regulatory approval. End users judge performance by static and dynamic flex, migration resistance, processing ease, and ultimate product life. From what I’ve seen in factory settings, the final judgement comes down to whether a bio-based plasticizer can handle rugged production cycles and keep up with cost pressure from every angle.
Research in this space moves quickly, spurred by new feedstocks, improved catalysts, and the relentless hunt for better balance between cost, supply security, performance, and green credentials. Universities pump out studies on enzymes, bio-refinery side products, and novel functional groups that shift migration, weathering, or toxicity. Industrial labs tie up with seed producers, biofuel companies, or agricultural processors to widen the raw material pipeline. Many projects come down to scale—what looks slick in 100-gram batches may not behave at a thousand or million times the volume. I’ve seen real progress through closer partnerships between farmers, chemists, and processors, rather than siloed research. Everyone from government grants officers to chemical engineers to marketing teams wants to shape the next big product, so knowledge-sharing and protecting new IP often go hand in hand.
Each new molecule gets run through a battery of lab and animal tests to rule out problems like endocrine disruption, mutagenicity, or bioaccumulation. It’s a sobering process; early “green” plasticizers sometimes slipped through initial screens only to show migration into food or human tissue at unacceptable levels. With bio-based feedstocks, unknown impurities or side-products sneak in more easily and must be chased down with high-sensitivity instruments. Regulatory agencies, consumer advocacy groups, and independent labs demand that any claims about “safer” or “naturally derived” rest on hard evidence. The pattern is clear: without transparency and thorough independent review, trust evaporates, slowing adoption. Many companies now publish more detail about study protocols, test methods, and open up their results for outside vetting. Getting to truly non-toxic, traceable, and environmentally gentle plasticizers remains both a technical and communications challenge.
Looking ahead, bio-based plasticizer producers face fast-evolving pressure from lower-carbon targets, regulatory bans on legacy types, and a market willing to pay a small premium to avoid the legacy issues that dogged petroleum-based chemicals. Areas like agricultural waste-derived esters, engineered enzymes for low-energy syntheses, and closed-loop recycling stand out as leading trends. Success may depend less on one “magic molecule” than on finding integrated approaches that track raw inputs, certification, end-of-life disposal, and product stewardship all the way down the line. If industry, academia, regulators, and buyers pull in the same direction, there’s a shot at building plastics that don’t leave behind a troubled legacy. Time and again in the lab and on the shop floor, it’s obvious—solving these challenges doesn’t end at the chemistry bench; it flows out through policy, supply chains, and consumer behavior.
For years, industries have leaned on plasticizers to give plastics more flexibility and durability. Shoppers might not see these ingredients, but they show up everywhere: in car seats, flooring, wires, rain boots, bags, and children’s toys. Most of those old-school additives come from petrochemicals, a fossil-fuel source that always carries health and environmental baggage. A bio-based plasticizer changes the picture. Instead of coming from oil, these plasticizers come from plant oils, starches, or other renewable feedstocks—think corn, soy, or even waste from sugar beet processing.
My own interest grew after reading studies linking traditional phthalate plasticizers to hormone disruption in humans and wildlife. The EPA, European Chemicals Agency, and health researchers worldwide have flagged these petroleum-based additives for years. Every parent wants safer toys, but it’s not just about kids. These chemicals build up in our bodies, seep into groundwater, and pollute food webs.
Bio-based options shift the risk-and-reward equation. Over the last decade, biotechnology labs at companies like BASF, Evonik, and smaller startups have worked to create flexible alternative molecules using fermentation, enzymatic processing, or direct extraction from plants. Instead of relying on non-renewable inputs and complex refining, producers turn to farming or food processing waste—a circular economy in practice.
Not every “green” product lives up to the hype, so it’s important to separate science from empty marketing. There’s data showing that some bio-based plasticizers such as epoxidized soybean oil, citrates, and acetylated monoglycerides actually outperform their petro-based cousins in vital uses. They resist leaching, stand up under heat, and keep plastic supple without turning brittle down the line. Several are already food contact approved by U.S. and European regulators.
There’s a learning curve, though. Farmers need market certainty before planting bigger volumes of oil crops. Supply chains have to adjust so companies can trace every feedstock to a sustainable source. New chemistries often face higher upfront costs or need tweaks in processing to swap out legacy ingredients. Based on conversations with engineers and plant managers, switching over rarely happens overnight. Convincing big manufacturers to risk dollars and production time on anything unproven takes more than a good sales pitch—it demands hard proof and real incentives.
Personal experience comes in talking with entrepreneurs in clean tech. Progress accelerates once there’s public awareness and a strong business case. Schools, hospitals, and big brands can help drive demand for these bio-based solutions through their purchasing policies. Government support matters too—a tax credit for renewable chemicals or a ban on the worst offenders gets the attention of supply chain decision-makers. Above all, transparent labeling lets consumers know what’s in the products they buy and keeps companies honest about what’s “bio” about their products.
I believe bio-based plasticizers mark a step toward a future where we value safety and sustainability as much as convenience. Every small shift—from what sells on store shelves to how farms operate—moves us in the right direction, shaping a healthier environment for everyone.
Anyone paying attention to the materials around us, from food packaging to flooring to kids’ toys, notices how plastics show up everywhere. Many give little thought to the additives that help keep plastics bendable and strong—plasticizers. Most plasticizers, like phthalates, traditionally come from petrochemicals. These pose some nagging concerns for both people and the planet. Over years spent working with product designers and manufacturers, I often field questions about safer, non-petroleum alternatives. The hype around bio-based plasticizers isn’t just buzz; it speaks to changing expectations and responsibilities.
Decades ago, almost every squishy or flexible item relied on oil-derived plasticizers. They did their job well. Phthalates, for example, let companies make vinyl affordable and easy to process. Despite their benefits, these chemicals leach out over time. You might remember the concern over kids’ lunchboxes and phthalates, or how flexible tubing in medical settings caught the eye of health advocates. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and European authorities both flagged potential risks, especially for children, linked to hormone disruption and other health problems. Research points to phthalate exposure as a risk factor in developmental and reproductive health. Since then, alternatives became necessary for certain products.
Bio-based plasticizers come from plants, not petroleum. You see names like epoxidized soybean oil, castor oil derivatives, and citrates in product disclosures. I’ve watched companies in food packaging, flooring, and automotive struggle to balance requirements for safety, cost, and performance. Bio-based plasticizers step up on safety and sustainability. They don’t rely on finite fossil resources. And more importantly for health, studies show lower migration rates into food or air, cutting off a significant exposure route.
On the engineering side, bio-based options usually deliver good flexibility and durability. Some users do point out challenges with compatibility in certain applications, and they can cost more. Switching over isn’t as simple as swapping ingredients. Each resin system handles plasticizers differently. A few years ago, I worked on a project testing epoxidized soybean oil in flooring, and our team had to tweak the formula to maintain the right balance between softness and scratch resistance.
Regulations push companies away from legacy plasticizers. The European Union’s REACH program and California’s Prop 65 forced a close look at phthalates and other additives. Consumers use their wallets to demand safer stuff; retailers noticed and updated requirements. In my own neighborhood, parents ask about what’s in their children’s rain boots or school supplies. Modern supply chains have to answer these questions. The trend goes beyond the West—food exporters in Asia and South America face audits for non-phthalate compliance in packaging, or risk losing customers.
Even as bio-based plasticizers make gains, affordability and supply can slow widespread adoption. Right now, large-scale agriculture provides the raw materials—soy, corn, castor—but any spike in food commodity prices can ripple into the supply of plastics. Manufacturers face pressure to deliver on price and performance. There’s another dimension here: transparency. Any bio-based innovation only helps trust if companies are upfront about sourcing and health data. Certification systems, like USDA BioPreferred, give some reassurance, but not every claim stands up to scrutiny.
Success stories come where government, industry, and researchers pull in the same direction. Grants for green chemistry, clear guidelines for developing safer additives, and customer pressure combined with honest, open communication all go a long way. As a parent who chooses products for my own family and a professional who’s seen the inside of factories, I believe more bio-based options only succeed if they fill the bill for health, environment, and the reality of modern production. The technology moves quickly; public engagement and attention to the real needs on the ground are what keep the momentum going.
Living in a world packed with plastic means dealing with a wild mix of concerns—health, pollution, waste, and what touches our food, homes, and even hospital supplies. Anyone who keeps an eye on packaging news or digs through ingredient lists has probably noticed the trend: big companies are swapping out old-school oil-derived additives for bio-based plasticizers. It isn’t just a feel-good label. This shift solves real problems and shapes how we’ll make things for decades ahead.
For years, many goods—everything from children’s toys to vinyl flooring—relied on phthalates as plasticizers. Studies have linked certain phthalates to hormone disruption, reproductive issues, and growth disturbances. People want products they trust, and the data proves out those worries. The main benefit of bio-based plasticizers? Many leave that whole mess behind. Take epoxidized soybean oil or those made from castor oil. These come straight from renewable crops, and a stack of research points to safer profiles. I remember reading reports after phthalate scares and seeing parents panic about the soft plastic in lunchboxes. Fewer worries come with bio-based options. Some of these additives already meet strict European and U.S. safety guidelines—something petroleum-sourced options often struggle with.
Oil extraction and refining chew up energy, spit out carbon, and fuel climate change. Bio-based plasticizers throw a different card on the table. Corn, soybeans, and other crops lock up carbon as they grow. Production from these sources runs on lower emissions and smaller energy bills. The International Energy Agency projects a 30% drop in greenhouse gases with some bio-based alternatives compared to classic petrochemical routes. When you think about just how much flexible plastic we churn out—packaging, cables, medical tubing—the potential for a cleaner system stacks up fast.
Every pull from a finite oil well tightens the grip of unsustainable systems. Switch the focus to crops, and there’s a shot at genuine resource renewal. I grew up near cornfields, and farmers always had an eye on soil health, crop rotation, and working with the seasons. Bio-based plasticizers feed off that mentality. After harvest, the leftovers or special-purpose crops can become the start of new plasticizers. This closed-loop mindset fits right into bigger dreams for a circular economy—one that cuts waste and keeps value moving instead of draining it. Fast food chains, for example, have begun to investigate packaging lined with bio-based additives that break down more cleanly after use. This isn't just theory. There are cities now collecting food packaging and turning it back into compost for local gardens—putting waste to real work.
Switching plasticizer supply lines isn’t just for green marketing. Oil price swings and global disruptions can scramble the chemicals markets. Bio-based sources tap into agricultural supply chains. I’ve seen manufacturers hedge their bets this way, protecting themselves from price spikes tied to refinery fires or shipping blockages. Some argue this creates new uncertainty. But global grain production systems already move billions of tons each year, and as more farmers see the value in growing crops for bio-based markets, the infrastructure catches up.
None of this works without buy-in from the whole chain—farmers, processors, manufacturers, and consumers. Better crop science, transparent ingredient labeling, and fair trade practices have to go along with technical innovation. Bio-based plasticizers won’t fix everything overnight. Cost matters, quality has to hold up, and food crops shouldn’t get squeezed aside just for material feedstocks. What’s clear to me is that with each new shift—each food container that trades fossil for plant—the pressure eases off our environment and public health a bit more. That’s a payoff worth sticking with.
Walk down any supermarket aisle or browse the latest sustainable packaging news, and you’ll run into claims about “bio-based” materials. Companies promise that squeezing out oil and swapping it for corn or castor beans in plasticizers will make everyday plastics safer and greener. It’s easy to get swept away by these claims, but closer inspection reveals a complicated story that doesn’t always match the marketing.
Plastics don’t bend, stretch, or hold up to daily use without a softening agent. For decades, that job fell to phthalates—a group of chemicals with a well-documented history of leaching out and causing hormone disruption. Headlines about microplastics or plastics in food and medical products usually lead to discussions about these plasticizers' risks.
Shifting to bio-based plasticizers looks like a sensible move on paper. They come from renewable sources and show lower toxicity than traditional phthalates in some studies. As a parent, I want less risk around my kids, so plant-based solutions catch my eye. Still, green origins do not guarantee that a material won't break down into something harmful over time. Even plant-based compounds can have side effects if not tested thoroughly. The science needs to separate the truly benign from those that merely sound better.
Sustainability hinges on how a material breaks down once it leaves the factory. Conventional plasticizers can persist in waterways, soils, and bodies for years, which contributes to pollution and health risks. A promise of “biodegradability” is one of the central claims for bio-based alternatives. Some options, such as epoxidized soybean oil or citrates, do break down faster in composting facilities or natural conditions.
That’s only half the issue. As a gardener, I watch what’s in my compost heap. If plasticizers are going to break down, everything they turn into must be safe. More independent, peer-reviewed studies need to fill in the blanks, especially about secondary break-down products. Preliminary research on some candidates shows lower environmental persistence, yet there’s no guarantee for every new material coming onto the market. Regulatory agencies in Europe and North America keep expanding their requirements, but loopholes exist when companies market novel bio-based additives.
Plant-based doesn’t always mean sustainable. Turning crops like corn, soy, or castor into industrial chemicals takes land and resources. These crops often need fertilizer and water. In some places, increased agricultural production feeds deforestation and pushes out food crops.
Farmers—especially in the Global South—may not see much benefit from rising demand for industrial feedstocks. Fair trade, crop rotation, and better practices need support if markets want to avoid repeating the mistakes made with palm oil or soy for animal feed. Traceability and certification programs offer one solution, but supply chains in the chemical industry get complicated.
No single plasticizer, bio-based or otherwise, will solve the issues around health and plastic waste. Lawmakers, companies, and consumers have to keep pushing for transparency about safety data. I read labels, but I also look up research and reports from trusted sources like the US EPA or EFSA. Choosing safer plasticizers is better policy than banning all of them outright, but the science should drive decisions, not just marketing buzz.
Better materials and stronger regulations will help, but real change comes from redesigning products for less plastic overall. Refilling, reusing, and supporting genuinely circular economies do more to protect health and the planet than swapping out a single chemical—even if that chemical comes from a wildflower or a bean.
Decades ago, plasticizers showed up everywhere from children’s toys to hospital PVC tubing. Most folks didn’t pay attention to the source. It only mattered that things were flexible and cheap. That changed as people started reading ingredient lists, and research linked legacy chemicals like phthalates to real health problems. Instead of accepting risk, smart companies and communities started pushing for alternatives. That’s how bio-based plasticizers broke onto the scene.
I remember reading news reports about toxic toys getting recalled. That hit hard as a parent who only wants the best for their kids. Bio-based plasticizers step in to make things safer in products handled every day. In rubber ducks, lunchboxes, and cling wraps, plant-derived options replace ingredients that might cause harm. Researchers from the US and Germany have found that these new plasticizers not only cut down on leaching but also break down more readily in the environment. This matters to families and the planet, since single-use goods often end up as litter. The food packaging field especially benefits, as nobody wants chemical traces transferring into snacks or leftovers.
Try spending a week in the hospital, and you’ll see the sheer number of tubes, bags, and masks in use. Traditional PVC, softened with phthalates, delivers the flexibility necessary for blood bags and IV lines. Yet, patients—especially infants—are sensitive to what might leach into fluids and medications. The FDA has actively monitored these risks, and several hospitals in Europe now make decisions favoring bio-based plasticizers for disposable medical products. Large manufacturers switched to blends using castor oil or citrates, providing the same flexibility without raising safety questions. That supports trust, not only in product quality but also in public health.
If you’ve ever installed new flooring, you’ll know just how much plasticizer is needed to keep vinyl planks and wallcoverings from cracking. Construction consumes huge volumes because these materials must stay flexible for years. Green building standards like LEED and BREEAM are pushing for non-toxic, renewable options. Bio-based plasticizers derived from soybeans or vegetable oils slot right in. They cut down on emissions during manufacturing and help buildings earn clean material credits. Some research shows that these alternatives even slow down yellowing and make materials more resistant to UV exposure, translating to longer service lives. At the community scale, healthier renovation and construction practices make indoor air better for everyone living and working in those spaces.
Vehicles use a surprising amount of plasticized materials. You’ll find them in dashboards, cables, seat covers, and under-hood parts. The automotive sector deals with harsh heat, sunlight, and heavy wear. Bio-based options might sound niche, but major brands now tap these alternatives to meet both regulatory demands and customer interest in green claims. Studies by Japanese and American auto makers report fewer indoor air quality complaints and reduced environmental pollution with bio-based plasticizers. The change improves both workplace conditions in factories and riding comfort in cars.
Nothing’s perfect, and scaling bio-based solutions sometimes means higher costs and technical tweaks. Farmers must grow crops responsibly, so the supply chain doesn’t hurt food prices or biodiversity. Tight collaboration among chemists, manufacturers, and farmers makes progress feel possible. By documenting the reduced health risks, lower emissions, and real-world performance seen in case studies, advocates are helping more industries move past habit and make better choices for the planet and the people on it.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Bis(2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate |
| Other names |
Green Plasticizer
Bio-Plasticizer Natural Plasticizer Eco-Friendly Plasticizer |
| Pronunciation | /ˌbaɪ.oʊˈbeɪst ˈplæs.ɪ.saɪ.zər/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 6846-50-0 |
| Beilstein Reference | 1825535 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:16990 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2103839 |
| ChemSpider | 2241656 |
| DrugBank | DB16297 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 41be4a9f-8c9b-4e45-b06e-b889c1b24004 |
| EC Number | EC 204-211-0 |
| Gmelin Reference | 82112 |
| KEGG | C11356 |
| MeSH | D018709 |
| PubChem CID | 129802416 |
| RTECS number | BU8400000 |
| UNII | 66P2O255S9 |
| UN number | UN3082 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID9071492 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C12H22O3 |
| Molar mass | 350.5 g/mol |
| Appearance | Light yellow transparent oily liquid |
| Odor | Slight characteristic |
| Density | 0.96 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble |
| log P | 4.2 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Acidity (pKa) | 7.5 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 8.2 (20°C) |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.465 |
| Viscosity | 30-60 mPa.s (25°C) |
| Dipole moment | 3.45 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -726.2 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) of Bio-Based Plasticizer: -33.5 kJ/g |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | 'ATC code' |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause respiratory irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, Warning, H317, P280, P302+P352 |
| Pictograms | GHS07,GHS09 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | No hazard statements. |
| Precautionary statements | Keep container tightly closed. Store in a cool, dry, well-ventilated place. Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing. Wash thoroughly after handling. Do not eat, drink, or smoke when using this product. Use personal protective equipment as required. |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-1-0 |
| Flash point | > 230°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD₅₀ (Oral, Rat): > 5000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | > 5000 mg/kg |
| PEL (Permissible) | 5 mg/m³ |
| REL (Recommended) | 110-250 |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Phthalates
Adipates Citrates Sebacates Epoxidized Soybean Oil Castor Oil Derivatives Succinates Itaconates |
