Contact Us
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
© 2025 Jeifer Pharmaceutical, All Right
Reserved.
Diethyl phthalate arrived on the scene during the early decades of industrial chemistry, as companies searched for safer and more versatile alternatives to camphor-based plasticizers. Factories and labs recognized the need for a compound that could soften cellulose acetate and dissolve in a range of solvents. After its introduction, diethyl phthalate quickly found its place in pharmaceutical and food processing, alongside plastics and cosmetics. Over the last century, regulatory bodies carved out global standards like BP, EP, and USP grades, reflecting the substance’s crossing of borders from American medicine cabinets to European and Asian cosmetic counters. Generations of chemical engineers and safety scientists shaped the ground rules, always keeping an eye out for the balance between usefulness and risk.
This compound doesn’t draw much attention on a label, but behind the scenes, diethyl phthalate serves as a stealthy backbone in manufacturing lines. The BP, EP, and USP grade versions set specific criteria for impurities, acid value, and ester content, going above the looser limits allowed in industrial settings. A clear, oily liquid by nature, it smells faintly sweet, with a neutrality that keeps it from interfering with flavors or scents. This product survives scrutiny from both regulatory inspectors and the quality assurance teams who batch-test ton after ton before release to the market. Contrary to the fears around phthalates in general, pharmaceutical grade diethyl phthalate earns its spot precisely through low impurity thresholds and tight control.
Diethyl phthalate flows like a heavy oil and burns with a slightly bluish, faintly aromatic flame. It boils just under 300 degrees Celsius and thickens slightly when refrigerated, but never crystallizes in a freezer. These characteristics help guarantee product stability and keep technical mishaps to a minimum, whether used in film coatings or as a carrier. Unlike more reactive plasticizers, it shrugs off weak acids and bases, refusing to polymerize or corrode common metals. On some factory floors, technicians choose this compound for its sheer reliability: it won’t yellow, crack, or separate unless pushed beyond its comfort zone. This practical consistency turns out to be its greatest strength.
Regulatory compliance forces manufacturers to hammer out dozens of specification sheets, but the high-grade label makes a real-world difference. Pharmaceutical standards demand purity approaching 99.5%, with strict tests for water content, heavy metals, and phthalic acid residues. Labels on drums and containers list not just the batch number and expiry date, but clear warnings about storage and contact hazards, since regulators insist on transparency through the entire supply chain. Technicians in the field know to reference those batch numbers to trace contamination if it ever appears, and these recordkeeping habits have caught more than one batch of suspect material before it could hit the market.
Chemists combine phthalic anhydride with ethanol in the presence of catalysts, often using excess alcohol to drive the reaction toward diethyl phthalate. Removal of byproduct water becomes a practical challenge, as even a hint of residual moisture can drop the purity below stringent pharmaceutical cutoffs. Labs that specialize in pharma-grade syntheses act almost as much as quality police as they do as production arms, relying on stepwise purification through distillation and sometimes activated charcoal filtration. The attention to moisture, catalyst residues, and unreacted alcohol separates pharma-grade product from the broader chemical market, where shortcuts can surface in downstream applications.
The resilience of diethyl phthalate faces few challengers in most lab and plant settings, but under strong alkaline conditions, the molecule surrenders, splitting into ethanol and phthalic acid. This reaction, often referred to as hydrolysis, earns special attention in waste treatment and environmental safety planning, giving facilities a clear mechanism for breaking the compound down after use. On the other hand, its low reactivity with other additives secures its place in master formulas, since it won’t gel, react, or trigger off-odors. During my own time in product testing, I saw teams use this predictable chemistry to tweak pharmaceutical coating performances, relying on smooth blending and structural stability.
The name “diethyl phthalate” appears most often on product labels, followed by acronyms like DEP. In older literature, the compound slips under aliases such as Phthalic acid diethyl ester or Ethyl phthalate. Codified monographs in the British Pharmacopoeia or United States Pharmacopeia stick to the formal name, closing loopholes and sealing in traceability. Cosmetic suppliers and flavor houses tend to prefer short forms, but everyone in the supply chain recognizes the same CAS number and chemical formula, anchoring this versatile ester in global commerce.
Workplace rules for handling diethyl phthalate have tightened across the decades, especially as scientific evidence connected phthalate exposure to long-term health effects. Even though this compound shows lower toxicity than its more notorious relatives like DEHP, safety managers train staff on spill handling, splash protection, and fume monitoring. Well-operating warehouses store product away from oxidizers and heat, circulating air and avoiding unintended leaks. Safety data sheets, revised annually, instruct users on first aid for accidental exposure, from eye rinsing to freshwater flushing for skin contact. In practice, frequent audits and no-nonsense planning keep these risks in check, though vigilance remains crucial in high-volume operations.
Pharmaceutical coatings, topical creams, perfumes, and even some laboratory reference standards all build on the foundation of pharma-grade diethyl phthalate. In tablet production, the compound acts as a plasticizer to train the outer shell to flex rather than crack, protecting the active ingredient. Cosmetic manufacturers turn to it for delicate scents and fixatives, trusting that the pharmaceutical standard will keep impurities from tainting the final product. The food industry, cautious but pragmatic, sometimes uses it as a carrier in specific flavor preparations, provided regulatory clearance covers the exact formulation. Small variations in grade can mean the difference between a passing inspection and a costly recall—something every operations manager tries to avoid.
Researchers keep probing diethyl phthalate’s performance profile and interactions, testing new limits in tablet delivery and slow-release coatings. On the analytical front, teams refine methods for impurity detection, using tandem mass spectrometry and gas chromatography to catch even rare side-products. In the consumer health space, ongoing fieldwork maps real-world exposure and uptake in blood or urine, reinforcing the need to tie laboratory results to public health insights. Academics and industry scientists sometimes cross paths at conferences to swap notes, building a broader, more honest picture of where the substance fits and where emerging alternatives challenge its dominance.
Early studies on phthalates flagged a wide patchwork of risks, especially around reproductive toxicity in rodents. Since then, large surveys have tried to weigh the differences among the various phthalates, and diethyl phthalate consistently lands at the less alarming end of the spectrum. Regulatory agencies, including the European Medicines Agency and the US FDA, update their reviews to keep dietary and topical exposures below metallic thresholds. My own review of the literature shows that carefully designed clinical studies rarely find evidence for acute harm at the levels present in compliant pharmaceuticals or personal care products. That said, researchers keep pushing for more data, especially about hormonal interactions and cumulative exposure, betting that future science may force another round of safety recalibrations.
Current trends in chemical manufacturing and regulatory compliance pressure companies to reduce or substitute phthalates where possible, but economic and technical barriers slow down this progress for diethyl phthalate. Over the next ten years, advances in green chemistry may help introduce biodegradable alternatives or set new benchmarks for purity and traceability. Collaborative research, including public-private partnerships and cross-border regulatory alignment, offers a path forward if producers and consumers pull in the same direction. The pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries, sensitive to both public perception and real health risks, feel the weight of these coming shifts, prompting R&D spending focused on safety validation and next-generation plasticizers. Staying up to date with ongoing research remains essential, and those willing to dig into safety, chemistry, and application nuance will chart the next chapter for this once-overlooked, now finely scrutinized compound.
Pharmaceuticals rarely make headlines for what goes on behind the scenes, yet that's where safety and purity get decided. Diethyl phthalate vinegar, meeting BP, EP, and USP pharma grades, sits among these unsung essentials. It steps into medicine not for what it directly does inside the body, but for the silent work it puts in on the manufacturing line.
Let’s get real. Nobody talks about excipients until things go wrong. Yet every pill and cream count on them. Diethyl phthalate vinegar acts as a solvent for coatings and as a fixative for certain drugs, helping medicines keep their shape, taste, and stability.
I’ve seen pharmacists and chemists debate over which excipient to use in their formulations. Stability matters to them, not because it’s a buzzword, but because people’s lives depend on pills staying effective for months. Diethyl phthalate vinegar steps in to dissolve ingredients that would otherwise separate and make shelf-life unpredictable.
BP, EP, and USP don’t just throw around those grades for fun. Their standards come from real scrutiny. Even trace impurities—say, a leftover from production—can change how a drug works. If a manufacturer wants to use this compound, it must meet these pharmacopeial grades, which means tighter controls all through the process.
As someone who’s seen regulators walk through production facilities, I know how nervous manufacturers get. No one wants a whole batch recalled because a solvent sat a shade below the threshold. Insisting on top grades helps protect everyone, especially patients with weakened immune systems or allergies.
Public concern sometimes rises when phthalates make the news for environmental or hormone impacts. Diethyl phthalate stands apart from more infamous cousins like DEHP. Regulatory agencies like the European Medicines Agency and the US FDA have reviewed its safety profile, especially for uses in pharmaceuticals. So far, for the levels and uses involved in pharma, the risk appears low. Still, the industry should keep watch.
The best solution is transparency and continued research. Companies owe it to the public to disclose what goes into products, and not just with fine print on leaflets. Any shift to greener or safer alternatives should get full support—from industry and regulation alike.
If you or a family member has ever taken a pill that didn’t fall apart, didn’t carry a funky taste, or didn’t trigger a rash, you’ve quietly benefited from strict pharma-grade excipients. Sometimes things work so well you never realize how much goes into keeping the simplest products safe and reliable.
That’s probably the highest compliment anyone can give to diethyl phthalate vinegar in the pharmaceutical world: Most people never need to think about it at all.
People trust their medicines to keep them healthy or to help them get better. Every ingredient—from the main active compound down to stabilizers—should be safe. Diethyl phthalate has turned some heads because it sometimes shows up in pharmaceutical applications. Manufacturers use it for a few reasons: dissolving other substances, acting as a plasticizer, or helping medicines keep their shape. So, people want to know: is Diethyl Phthalate Vinegar BP EP USP Pharma Grade truly safe for use in drugs?
The words BP, EP, and USP signal to everyone that this grade meets the benchmarks set by the British Pharmacopoeia, European Pharmacopoeia, and United States Pharmacopeia. These are tough standards. They look at purity, strength, and limits for anything potentially harmful. That’s no small thing—regulators constantly update these rules, leaning on new research and weighing out anything questionable for public health.
Diethyl phthalate sits in a family of chemicals often called phthalates. People buy products every day—perfume, foods, plastics—and some of those contain phthalates. Scientists have flagged certain phthalates because they can mess with hormones or raise the risk of birth defects. The situation feels more urgent when it comes to medication, since patients might be sick or have weaker immune systems.
The FDA, EMA, and other authorities have taken a hard look at diethyl phthalate. So far, studies show it behaves differently from the worst offenders in the phthalate family, such as DEHP. Short-term exposure doesn’t appear to cause problems in humans at the doses used in medicine. Still, researchers continually test for issues, like hormone disruption, changes to organ function, or birth risks over longer periods or through higher exposure.
In pharmaceuticals, the amount of diethyl phthalate is usually tiny. Most people will take a product with this ingredient for a limited time, so long-term build-up in the body rarely happens. Reports of severe reactions from diethyl phthalate in medicine are extremely rare, especially at quality-controlled pharma grades. Monitoring programs and toxicology reviews happen all the time. If any new health risk turns up, regulators can act quickly.
Staying honest about what goes into medicines builds trust. I’ve seen plenty of patients worry about ingredient lists, and their questions deserve answers. Schools don’t teach people how to read pharma-grade jargon, so clear communication from pharmacists and doctors makes a difference. Manufacturers have to stick with purity specifications and keep documentation ready for inspection. Authorities do on-site checks, sample testing, and demand full traceability.
Researchers never stop. Labs test out new plasticizers and solvents that could one day replace diethyl phthalate. I’ve noticed more companies moving away from contentious ingredients to cut down worry for both patients and healthcare workers. Sometimes, reformulating a medicine takes time and money, but the pressure for “clean labels” pushes progress. Regulatory agencies hand out updated guidelines and keep the door open for new data.
Safe medicines depend on teamwork. Chemical suppliers, pharmaceutical giants, and watchdog agencies all shape what ends up in the pills and liquids people rely on. Keeping up-to-date on research and caring about patient concerns matters just as much as hitting purity targets. Real safety means more than passing a checkmark on a spec sheet—it means listening, adapting, and making decisions guided by both science and common sense.
Quality in pharmaceuticals always goes under a microscope, and for good reason. Every raw material or excipient that finds its way into medicines must be pure and proven safe. Diethyl phthalate vinegar, an ingredient showing up in a range of medicinal and personal care applications, draws attention to its certifications. This attention reflects what patients, manufacturers, and regulators value most: trust and transparency from start to finish.
Let’s take a closer look at the big names: BP, EP, and USP. These abbreviations stand for British Pharmacopoeia, European Pharmacopoeia, and United States Pharmacopeia. Each of these provides blueprints for tests, purity levels, and chemical characteristics a substance must meet to join the pharmaceutical supply chain.
If a company claims diethyl phthalate vinegar complies with BP, EP, and USP, it means you can check the product against these recognized reference texts and it should match, down to its percentage of main ingredient, impurity limits, and physical characteristics like clarity and color. Inspectors, quality control chemists, and procurement specialists use these standards daily as their main quality assurance tools.
Knowing which certifications apply speaks to the heart of integrity. BP, EP, and USP compliance does more than satisfy paperwork; it demonstrates that every batch can be traced, verified, and trusted. This becomes incredibly important in a world where drug recalls, supply chain errors, or contamination events can cost lives, not just money.
From my own experience working with procurement teams in pharmaceutical manufacturing, finding raw materials with solid documentation means smoother audits, simpler supplier qualification, and better sleep at night for everyone involved. Certification puts responsibility at the forefront. If regulators ask for proof, suppliers with the right documents don’t scramble; they show their tests, manufacturing records, batch numbers, and retest timelines. That level of preparedness rings loudest during regulatory inspections.
Pharmacopoeial standards alone don’t tell the whole story. Manufacturing sites producing pharma grade diethyl phthalate vinegar often work under Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) guidelines, which guide everything from cleaning routines to employee training. Auditors walk through the site to check equipment, quality control, and document trails. Some facilities seek ISO certifications, such as ISO 9001 for quality management or ISO 14001 for environmental practices, to build extra credibility.
GMP and ISO might not always appear in giant letters on a label, but asking for them shields buyers from guessing. Reputable suppliers offer these extra proofs with pride, because they know customers want reassurance from multiple directions—local regulators, international standards bodies, and consumer watchdogs.
By focusing on BP, EP, and USP compliance, and supplementing with GMP and ISO certifications, the industry closes gaps in quality and traceability. Recalls shouldn’t happen, but when problems arise, robust certification means issues are caught early. Encouraging suppliers to go above the minimum—by sharing test results, inspection histories, and certifying their manufacturing sites—only benefits patient safety and the reputation of everyone in the supply chain.
Not every buyer rigorously checks, but giving preference to those who do, and rewarding high standards, shifts the entire system toward accountability. For those sourcing diethyl phthalate vinegar or any pharma ingredient, certifications aren’t just paperwork. They’re a safeguard, earned every day, batch by batch.
Diethyl phthalate has some valuable industrial uses but gets nowhere near the respect or attention it deserves in storage. More often than not, a poorly labeled jug lands on the back shelf, wedged between solvents and supplies, forgotten until someone needs it. Forgetfulness and shortcuts, not the chemical itself, invite trouble. This stuff isn’t in the same league as explosive or violently reactive substances, but one careless moment — a leaky cap, a missing label — can disrupt an entire operation or put workers in harm’s way.
Room temperature storage fools people into thinking any old shelf will do. Too often, someone chucks containers wherever there’s space, not near the vented flammables cabinet or far enough from acids. Chemical burns or severe headaches don’t usually come from Diethyl Phthalate itself, but vapors escape, especially in hot rooms or direct sunlight. Safety Data Sheets recommend a cool, dry area with good ventilation. My own lab work showed a clear drop in occupational complaints — like headaches or minor skin irritation — once we invested in proper storage away from heat sources.
Many overlook container integrity. Flimsy lids, plastic bottle cracks, or a container with residue left behind set a stage for cross-contamination. Some clinics cycle through generic jugs, but the best practice sticks with manufacturer-rated bottles — corrosion-resistant and tightly sealed. Double-bagging isn’t overkill, either. One spill, and the cost of cleaning supplies and wasted stock eats away at margins.
Labeling usually slips through the cracks, especially during busy shifts or staff turnover. Employees rely on memory — “I know where things go” — until a new staff member grabs the wrong chemical. That happened in a compounding pharmacy I visited. No one got hurt, but the batch failed, costing hours and burning customer trust, all because the label smudged and no one rewrote it. Tough labeling standards, using chemical-resistant ink and double-checks at end-of-shift, catch more mistakes than any new training video ever will.
Keep all records updated. Even a dated hand-scrawled log can make a difference during audits. Pharmacies, in particular, track lot numbers and receipt dates, yet they miss flagging expired or tainted batches. Outdated product quietly degrades on the shelf, and before you know it, product stability drops and quality assurance has a headache.
I’ve seen what happens when people treat handling protocols like overkill. Gloves and splash goggles collect dust or get “borrowed” for other projects. But whether it’s transferring Diethyl Phthalate or just checking inventory, direct skin contact is a risk each time, as it absorbs through skin. Chronic exposure creeps up; you don’t notice after one day, but months or years reveal the cost. Training should be practical, hands-on, and repeated regularly. Hand washing seems basic, yet an overwhelming majority of lapses stem from skipping this step.
Clear spill plans work best. Keep absorbent material nearby, never just paper towels. One night shift, someone knocked over a half-liter bottle — thanks to a spill kit and a practiced team, nobody panicked or got hurt.
It takes a shift in mindset to see Diethyl Phthalate storage and handling as a collective habit, not a chore for the safety committee. Everyone benefits from clear policies, updated training, and accountability right at eye level. Not every chemical mishap announces itself with smoke or alarms. Most damage starts quietly, in a forgotten corner or through a skipped step, and by the time anyone notices, it’s a much bigger mess to clean up.
Pharmaceutical companies and chemical suppliers recognize how crucial it is to package diethyl phthalate safely and legally. Not every laboratory or manufacturing plant deals in sprawling volumes, but everyone expects the same level of quality. From my experience working with raw materials for pharmaceutical use, packaging sizes often set the stage for how manageable and safe the process will be. Most suppliers cater to everyday needs with several practical package choices. Regular sizes include smaller containers of 500 milliliters and one liter for research or compounding batches. Larger setups call for five-liter, ten-liter, and 25-liter jerry cans—each one handled with a solid grip, tightened seal, and leak-proof assurance.
Bigger packaging plays a different role. Drums, usually in 200-liter or 250-liter configurations, keep production lines supplied without constant reordering. Vendors often round out the offering with intermediate bulk containers (IBCs), which store 500 liters or more. These heavyweight containers serve contract manufacturers or facilities where output flows like clockwork and downtime means lost revenue. Smaller packages fill a niche for precise measurement, easy handling, and short-term work. Bulk drums and IBCs take care of the long runs where frequency and volume matter more than convenience.
Some buyers underestimate how much packaging size influences not only batch accuracy but workplace safety. I’ve watched teams waste time dividing material or struggle to lift oversized jugs when something more manageable would have kept their workflow smooth and safe. Reputable suppliers confirm batch numbers and expiry dates right on the container, which helps with audit trails and GMP requirements. With larger drums, well-labeled tamper-evident closures become vital since a single mishap can put an entire lot at risk.
Supply always intersects with rules and compliance. Certified pharma-grade diethyl phthalate isn't just a chemical—it's an ingredient surrounded by paperwork, temperature logs, and safety sheets. Whether a site needs small bottles for R&D or giant drums for mass production, every order gets checked and signed off on before it leaves the warehouse. This isn’t needless bureaucracy. Regulators watch these details closely, especially where solvents and excipients touch anything medical.
Every workplace sets its own priorities. A compounding pharmacy values easy-to-pour glass or HDPE bottles that slot quickly into existing workflows. Production plants gravitate toward drums that stack, palletize, and minimize hand contact. Distributors keep an eye on transportation costs, so stackable, cubic IBCs offer convenience. Sustainability brings new pressure as well. Packaging has shifted toward recyclable plastics, and some bulk buyers request refill services or returnable drums to reduce waste. These trends reflect not only consumer pressure but also common-sense habits learned from decades of scaling up drug production.
Pharmaceutical-grade chemicals come with strict purity and traceability demands, so suppliers aren’t experimenting with odd sizes. They stick to what storage rooms, production lines, and supply chains can actually handle. As more buyers focus on quality and sustainability, we see gradual improvements—stronger seals, improved tamper evidence, easier-to-read labels, and better return policies for empties.
Packaging isn’t an afterthought when purity and patient safety ride on every batch. People responsible for ordering diethyl phthalate vinegars get that good packaging keeps the risk of contamination and accidents under control. Regular auditing, good training, and careful supplier selection together keep standards in place. Packaging sizes haven’t changed much over the past few decades, but the way companies handle and track each package keeps getting better as industry expectations grow.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | diethyl benzene-1,2-dicarboxylate |
| Other names |
DEP Diethyl Phthalate Phthalic acid diethyl ester Diethyl phthalate USP 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid diethyl ester |
| Pronunciation | /daɪˈɛθ.ɪl ˈθæl.eɪt ˈvɪn.ɪ.ɡər/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 84-66-2 |
| 3D model (JSmol) | `/CCOC(=O)c1ccc(cc1)C(=O)OCC/` |
| Beilstein Reference | 1919202 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:27748 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL14272 |
| ChemSpider | 2291 |
| DrugBank | DB11086 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03c668e1-3cce-4fc3-9fcc-11d1b3066fae |
| EC Number | 201-550-6 |
| Gmelin Reference | 88306 |
| KEGG | C14120 |
| MeSH | Diethyl Phthalates |
| PubChem CID | diethyl phthalate: "6781 |
| RTECS number | **KL9300000** |
| UNII | 3T5PDJZ4QJ |
| UN number | UN3082 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C12H14O4 |
| Molar mass | 222.24 g/mol |
| Appearance | Clear, colorless, oily liquid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.118 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Slightly soluble in water |
| log P | 2.47 |
| Vapor pressure | 0.00013 mmHg (25°C) |
| Acidity (pKa) | pKa = 2.95 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 7.97 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | Diamagnetic |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.470 - 1.475 |
| Viscosity | 15-17 cP |
| Dipole moment | 2.96 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 576 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -947.6 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -6354 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | V04CX |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause mild skin irritation. May cause eye irritation. May be harmful if swallowed or inhaled. |
| GHS labelling | GHS02, GHS07 |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H319: Causes serious eye irritation. |
| Precautionary statements | P264, P273, P280, P305+P351+P338, P337+P313 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-1-0 |
| Flash point | > 154°C |
| Autoignition temperature | > 410°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (oral, rat): 8,600 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | > 8600 mg/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | Not Listed |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL: 5 mg/m³ |
| REL (Recommended) | 5 mg/kg bw |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Dimethyl Phthalate Dibutyl Phthalate Benzyl Butyl Phthalate Diisononyl Phthalate Diisodecyl Phthalate Di-n-octyl Phthalate |
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
