Contact Us
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
© 2025 Jeifer Pharmaceutical, All Right
Reserved.
Dioctyl Sebacate first appeared in technical literature after scientists looked for new, robust plasticizers better able to handle low temperatures, maintain flexibility, and not migrate out of final products. The story goes back to the mid-twentieth century, when chemical engineers saw the limitations of commonly used phthalates. Organic chemists turned their attention to aliphatic dibasic acid esters, and soon enough, dioctyl sebacate entered the scene. Pharmaceutical regulation tightened in the following decades, so the material found itself tested and re-tested under BP, EP, and USP monographs, evolving alongside growing regulatory expectations. Generations of chemists contributed thousands of hours to refining techniques and improving consistency. The compound's acceptance by official pharmacopeias signals a blend of industrial persistence and the medical system's demand for reliable excipients. These days, its history offers a lens into how innovation and regulation push against each other, but eventually settle on a workable balance that keeps both patients and manufacturers content.
Dioctyl sebacate surfaces in pharmaceutical manufacturing as a tried-and-tested plasticizer, less headline-grabbing than APIs but vital in keeping tablets and capsules operational in real-world conditions. The molecule, built from sebacic acid and 2-ethylhexanol, stays flexible at low temperatures, resists hydrolysis, and does not yellow or degrade rapidly under UV. Every batch arriving for formulation undergoes rigorous checks for consistency, odor, and appearance. Here, supply chain reliability matters as much as chemical properties. Anyone who’s dealt with a batch that failed to meet viscosity standards understands the disruption that ripples down from one miss. Pharma-grade dioctyl sebacate represents the gold standard, containing far less than the allowed traces of impurities and conforming tightly to international benchmarks. As someone who has monitored industrial tank farms, I have seen how deviations get flagged within minutes by operators worried about product recalls and regulatory fines.
Look at dioctyl sebacate and you see a clear, colorless to pale yellow oily liquid with a faint, characteristic odor. Its chemical formula, C26H50O4, sets up a long carbon chain structure with two ester linkages – chemistry that brings exceptional low-temperature performance, keeping polymers soft pliable down to minus forty degrees Celsius. The density hovers around 0.912 g/cm³ at 20°C, while the refractive index falls near 1.449. It sweeps up a boiling point that passes 400°C, rarely vaporizing under regular production conditions. Water solubility drops off to nearly zero, cementing its role as a hydrophobic additive. Chemical stability across a wide pH and temperature range means gear can run for hours without clogging or breaking formulation. Watching it pour into a mixing tank reminds me how lab data translate directly into real-world process flows; an oil that resists breakdown at steam sterilization temperatures makes plant engineers' lives much smoother.
Labels on pharma-grade dioctyl sebacate say more than just a product name. Every line—assay, acid value, specific gravity, water content—tells a story about process control and batch history. Manufacturers post certificates of analysis with each drum, proving compliance with BP, EP, and USP. The acid value, for example, almost always stays under 0.10 mg KOH/g. Water content should land below 0.10%, and any color change beyond 50 APHA units raises a red flag. Heavy metal testing, once a tedious process, now gets automated, so regulatory filings follow a strict protocol. Chemical engineers know that trace residues or improperly cleaned containers can torpedo a batch downstream, which explains those repeated, almost obsessive checks at receiving docks. Anyone grinding through regulatory audits learns to appreciate labeling not as a burden but as a shield against reputation-wrecking recalls and insurance nightmares.
Dioctyl sebacate reaches its final form through esterification of sebacic acid with 2-ethylhexanol, catalyzed by either acid or base, then followed by vacuum distillation. Standard practice involves using a Dean-Stark apparatus to strip water during reaction. As the water gets drawn off, the ester group locks in, and after several hours, crude product forms. After neutralization and careful washing, the product cycles through a low-pressure column, aiming to capture the purest fraction without overcooking. Filtration and storage complete the journey, with each step traced for documentation. Labs track batch numbers, line traceability, and cleaning validation. Process engineers walk reactor farms, eyes alert for leaks or off-spec vapor trails. The technology isn’t glamorous, but it stands as the only way to ensure tablets bend, not shatter, on clinic shelves or inside patient purses.
Dioctyl sebacate’s molecule doesn’t invite much further transformation once made, but research teams do experiment with side reactions — mainly interesterification, oxidation, and chain scission — to modify flexibility or tweak solubility. Rarely, laboratories use strong bases to split the ester bond, capturing new derivatives with specialized uses. Most pharmaceutical applications stick to the native ester, but some medical device fields surf around modified sebacates hoping for antibacterial coatings or novel controlled-release agents. Chemists occasionally add functional groups aiming for better covalent crosslinking in hydrogels. In all, every modification puts the product under even tighter toxicological scrutiny, and regulatory hurdles for new forms prove steep. The original compound’s resistance to hydrolysis and oxidative breakdown explains why manufacturers rarely risk straying too far from the core molecule, preferring reliability over novelty.
Dioctyl sebacate travels the world under different badge names, and anyone reading MSDS from global suppliers feels the confusion. Common commercial names include Bis(2-ethylhexyl) sebacate, DEHS, Sebacic acid dioctyl ester, and even DOS. Some documentation uses the EINECS number (203-043-7) or CAS number (122-62-3). Pharma-grade suppliers prefer to clearly specify BP, EP, or USP compliance somewhere prominent to fend off confusion. Generic or industrial grades look similar but don’t meet pharmaceutical traceability. Newcomers to manufacturing sometimes order the wrong material, derailing timelines and forcing costly returns. Familiarity with synonyms cuts risky errors and saves labor on double-checking paperwork.
Working with dioctyl sebacate gets safer each year, but discipline at the operational level matters. OSHA and European standards classify it as a low-toxicity material, but inhaling mist or chronic skin contact may cause irritation. Plant workers wear gloves and splash goggles by default. Bulk storage tanks get grounded and bonded to prevent static discharge. Spills get cleaned up immediately since the slick, oily surface poses a slip hazard in production halls, and no one wants compensation claims or lost time injuries. The environmental side asks workers to guard against leaks, since the material, although not classified as hazardous, shouldn’t slip into wastewater. Fire risks stay low, but warehouses keep Class B extinguishers close, guarding against accidents linked to faulty nearby solvents. Process safety management systems track incidents with regular updates to the team. Strong operational culture keeps minor slips from turning into major incidents.
Pharmacy techs and formulation scientists reach for dioctyl sebacate when making soft gelatin capsules, tablets, or transdermal patches needing softening agents. Think of a softgel surviving six months at warehouse heat: plasticizer migration or crystallization turns the dose into dust, but stable dioctyl sebacate keeps it intact. I’ve watched teams adjust the concentration drop by drop to keep mechanical strength where it needs to be, balancing tactile feel with chemical release properties. Some wound healing gels and ophthalmic devices also depend on its chemical inertia and non-reactivity, keeping patient exposure within strict limits. In tablets, dioctyl sebacate earns its keep by prolonging shelf life and resisting degradation when the packaging gets rough handling. Smaller specialty segments use it in topical creams and medical plastics, where the balance of plasticity and biocompatibility makes the difference between market acceptance and batch recalls.
R&D teams treat dioctyl sebacate as a test bed for studying plasticizer-polymer interactions, and journals run papers connecting its molecular fit with various polymer backbones. I recall reading about labs blending new excipient packages with controlled-release coatings, measuring migration rates and excipient-polymer compatibility. Some colleagues run cell culture assays to confirm that the material stays nontoxic at the lowest possible residual levels. Analytical chemistry advances bring better impurity profiling, so modern studies output fingerprint-level assurance. Some projects now examine synergy with bio-based polymers serving as greener capsule shells, and this is shaping a low-carbon supply chain discussion in pharma formulation. University-industry partnerships keep filing patents around new delivery systems built on this stalwart chemical, aiming for compliance with both efficacy and future regulatory requirements.
Toxicologists place dioctyl sebacate under the microscope to check short- and long-term exposure effects. Decades of oral, dermal, and inhalation studies report low acute toxicity, and chronic exposure tests track for subtle metabolic or reproductive effects. Regulatory agencies draw comfort from negative results, but manufacturers must supply updated data as technology picks up ever lower levels of impurities in the finished product. Some analytical labs now track the breakdown of sebacates in environmental settings, helping predict long-term bioaccumulation and environmental health impacts. Medical device companies routinely present this data at regulatory reviews, and pharma companies compile non-clinical study folders in anticipation of shifting guidelines. Audit trails and documentation practices here reflect not only on company reputation, but also on patient safety.
Dioctyl sebacate might seem like a finished story, but its future looks shaped by greener chemistry, tighter traceability, and wider regulatory harmonization. The pharma sector faces rising pressure to cut environmental impact, so suppliers investigate renewable feedstock routes for sebacic acid and 2-ethylhexanol. Digitalization may soon allow blockchain-style batch traceability, tracking from raw material procurement through formulation and shipment. As climate change shakes up supply chains, resilience in sourcing becomes a competitive edge. Startups begin to tinker with biobased versions and drop-in alternatives, but the technical bar stays high owing to the trusted safety record of the original molecule. Regulatory bodies in Europe and North America hint at tighter guidelines on impurities and leachables, so R&D ramps up once more. Companies embracing transparency and joint industry-government oversight stay ahead of compliance and win trust, while those lagging behind face recalls or lost contracts. All signs suggest dioctyl sebacate will keep earning its keep in the pharma sector, but only for those committed to the twin goals of safety and innovation.
Dioctyl Sebacate, often called DOS, looks like a chemical name that belongs in a specialized lab, not mixed up with anything a person might need in day-to-day life. In truth, this compound plays a bigger role than most folks might realize, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Chewing tablets, coating medicinal pills, making medical plastics—DOS finds its way into each of these, but rarely draws attention outside pharmacy walls.
Most people notice the feel of a tablet between tongue and teeth, but never think about what keeps that tablet from crumbling into powder inside the bottle. DOS serves as a plasticizer that helps manufacturers make smoother, slicker coatings for tablets or capsules. Tablets pass through machines by the thousands every hour. They risk breaking apart. DOS gives those coatings a bit of flexibility, so tablets stay in one piece from factory to bottle, to home medicine cabinets.
Working briefly in a busy compounding pharmacy, I saw firsthand how humidity swings or even a small change in batch size could ruin a run of tablets. Plasticizers like DOS made the difference between stable, safe pills and a gritty mess. Every pharmacist or technician who tries to press a glove into an uncoated tablet understands why a good plasticizer matters.
Not every batch of DOS is the same. The “BP EP USP Pharma Grade” label means this product meets standards published in books like the British Pharmacopoeia and United States Pharmacopeia. Regulators keep a careful eye out for contaminants—including heavy metals, phthalates, and unwanted solvents. Quality makes the difference between a safe tablet and one that brings risk to the patient. In a world where patients count on medicine working the same way every time, using the certified grade becomes a non-negotiable choice.
Feel a pill with a smooth coating and you’re touching the work of a plasticizer like DOS. In the mouth, an even coating keeps medicine from tasting bitter or rough, helping folks stick to their prescriptions. In the stomach, coatings protect acidsensitive drugs, only letting them dissolve where doctors want them to. DOS helps keep coatings smooth and reliable. Medicine pops out of bottles undamaged, easily slides down the throat, and delivers the active ingredient just where it’s supposed to.
Outside coating work, DOS stands up as a plasticizer for medical containers, IV tubing, and even blood bags. Medical manufacturers swap out old-school phthalates in favor of DOS because studies link phthalates to hormonal risks. Clinical evidence and sweeping recalls have shown how even small mistakes with plasticizers can lead to major problems in healthcare settings.
Keeping up with modern expectations for safety and performance in pharmaceuticals means using the right ingredients. DOS, especially in its pharma grade forms, checks off compliance boxes not just for local agencies but for global distribution. As new studies call out old plastics, manufacturers turn to more trusted alternatives like DOS. Pharmacies, hospitals, and their patients win each time the industry opts for purer, better-tested components. Careful sourcing, regular analysis, and transparent labeling stand out as ways to strengthen trust.
Every part of the production chain matters. Companies using pharmaceutical-grade DOS invest in patient safety from the ground up and help protect the integrity of medicine worldwide. As innovation in formulation continues, ingredients with a long track record and strict oversight keep showing their staying power.
Dioctyl Sebacate, often called DOS, pulls its weight as a plasticizer, especially in pharmaceutical settings where precision makes all the difference. People working with this compound expect more than just functional plasticity—purity and stable performance mean the end product can actually be trusted in applications ranging from enteric coatings to capsule shells.
Pharma-grade dioctyl sebacate generally demands purity levels north of 99%. This isn't just some arbitrary number. Regulatory bodies like the US Pharmacopeia (USP) or European Pharmacopeia lay out those requirements because the tiniest contaminant could derail a whole production run. In my earlier experience auditing excipient suppliers, even trace metals or residual solvents threw up red flags, leading not just to wasted batches but to regulatory questions nobody wants to answer.
Pharma manufacturers push their suppliers hard—testing for heavy metals sits high on the checklist. Iron, lead, cadmium, and arsenic must fall far below 10 ppm, often even 1 ppm in some vendor certificates. Volatile matter matters, too; less than 0.5% keeps the product stable and safe. Every lot comes with a signed certificate, reporting levels for every contaminant that could be tested. That transparency builds trust between supplier and formulator.
The pharma space has seen recalls simply because a plasticizer batch didn’t meet specs. Patients rely on drug products that store for months, sometimes years. Small mistakes in excipient specs multiply through the system. I saw teams double and triple-investigate raw material issues, often investing in their own in-house labs just to validate supplier claims. That expense can add up, but after a contamination scare, few QA managers argue with the extra testing.
The best approach sees suppliers investing up front in high-end refining and distillation, using stainless steel tanks to avoid metal contamination, and keeping batch records detailed enough for any auditor to verify. Pharmaceutical buyers now request every test result—infrared spectra, residual solvent analysis, and impurity profiling—before a single drum goes on site.
Vendor transparency helps keep both patients and manufacturers out of trouble. Better third-party certification and more frequent audits cut down on “out of spec” surprises. Technology steps in as well; real-time NMR or FTIR analysis can spot impurities earlier, preventing surprises at the final QC checks. Pharma buyers should keep the pressure on suppliers, using long-term contracts to negotiate tougher standards. Investing in these controls doesn’t just avoid regulatory pain; it builds a system where patients get safe, reliable medicine, every time.
Dioctyl Sebacate pops up in pharma labs and production sites more often than most people realize. Used as a plasticizer, it helps in making capsules more flexible and easier to swallow. The food and drug guidelines are already packed with details on additives, but trust gets built only with real transparency and clear, repeatable testing.
When a chemical earns labels like BP, EP, and USP, it means the batch has gone through checks under British, European, and United States Pharmacopeia standards. Not every manufacturer achieves these marks. They have to demonstrate the material meets purity benchmarks and keeps out toxins. Heavy metals, residual solvents, and bacteria—nobody wants those near their medication. In my experience visiting pharma plants, I’ve seen the effort that goes into assuring raw materials consistently meet these benchmarks. Every shipment gets tracked, sampled, and logged with impressive detail. Auditors often drill into those paper trails. It’s not just a rubber stamp; the product either meets the standard or doesn’t leave the warehouse.
Dioctyl Sebacate pharmacological safety has been studied. Toxicology reviews available in medical journals show the substance doesn’t get absorbed through the skin easily, and it passes through the digestive system without leaving behind harmful byproducts. Toxicity levels observed in animal studies sit far above the tiny amounts used in finished medications. There’s little sign of bioaccumulation. Independent labs run extraction tests to check for chemicals leaching into capsules. Capsule-makers have to share their data when they want approval for a new product, and regulatory agencies like the FDA or EMA ask tough questions if they spot any signals in adverse event monitoring.
Problems often come from lapses in sourcing or sloppy handling, not the chemical itself. Unscrupulous suppliers, shortcutting proper purification or mislabeling containers, create real dangers. Contaminated batches trigger recalls, cost millions, and, worst of all, erode patient trust. There’s no shortcut here. I’ve watched trusted firms audit every step, from origin to final shipment. Batch traceability matters, and frequent third-party lab testing helps catch problems early.
Another reality: not every patient responds the same way. Some folks with sensitivities might react to capsule ingredients. Doctors and pharmacists ought to keep up-to-date lists of excipient allergies for their patients. If you have recurring trouble with medications, checking the specific formulation could reveal insights. Regulatory agencies encourage this vigilance with clear reporting systems and periodic ingredient reviews.
As formulas change and new excipients emerge, pharmaceutical companies have to stay sharp. Regular training on ingredient sourcing and testing helps avoid costly mistakes. Clear, jargon-free communication goes a long way with patients who have safety concerns. Consistent standards like BP, EP, and USP offer confidence, but trust grows every time questions get honest, straightforward answers. If a problem does pop up, prompt action and open reporting limit the damage and protect patients.
Dioctyl Sebacate often shows up in pharmaceutical settings as a tried and tested plasticizer. Manufacturers and formulators count on its purity. That purity delivers predictable results, especially in areas where patient safety matters. Years in the field have taught me that even with stable chemicals, you can run into trouble if you skip the basics of storage and handling. Problems grow fast, so smart routines keep issues at bay.
Pharma grade chemicals reward careful storage. Dioctyl Sebacate will stay clear and free from trouble in closed containers, away from heat and moisture. Unlike casual warehouse goods, a controlled stockroom makes a big difference. Shelves off the ground, shaded from sunlight, do more than keep the area tidy. They stop product breakdown. Anyone who’s opened a container and found clumps or odd smells knows that poor storage leads to waste, delays, and questions about quality. Real experience tells me that keeping stock at moderate room temperature, below 30°C, helps this compound stay true to its pharma promise. Freezing conditions create new headaches with separation, so that risk doesn’t earn its keep either. Solid doors, clear labeling, and well-kept records round out the basics.
Moving and measuring Dioctyl Sebacate deserves steady attention. Always wear gloves and safety glasses. Some might think that clear liquids are harmless, but accidental splashes teach quick lessons about skin and eye irritation. Clean scoops and syringes for dispensing avoid the mix-ups that spark regulatory flags. If equipment or surfaces run greasy, workers must clean up before heading anywhere near production zones. Clean-up supplies close at hand save time and support audits.
Chemical compatibility might sound like a chemistry class topic. Still, it’s easier to avoid storing Dioctyl Sebacate near oxidizers, strong acids, or alkalis. Mixing mishaps with the wrong neighbors set the scene for big losses and reputational hits. Any tank or vessel used should be stainless steel or the right safe plastic; rough materials, like plain iron or copper, don’t belong in contact. Even small reactions leave marks.
Training pays dividends no piece of equipment can match. Whether you’re working in a small lab or a busy compounding suite, fresh eyes and clear reminders protect teams and the final product better than any high-tech sensor. Encouraging staff to report leaks, spills, or labeling errors catches small slip-ups before they spread. Regular review of standard operating procedures keeps everyone alert. Site tours with new deliveries drive home the message, and using checklists proves its worth in every batch.
Humidity and temperature swings stand out as the main threats. They speed up degradation and make sure you find yourself discarding expensive stock. Room dehumidifiers, air-tight drums, and temperature logs bring peace of mind. Regular inspection of seals and caps stops slow leaks, which cost more than lost liquid—they weaken trust. Outdated or recalled lots need removal, not just for regulatory reasons, but to show every inspector and end-user that high standards matter from start to finish.
Close attention to these details sets the stage for clean records, smooth audits, and safe end products. In pharmaceuticals, simple routines for Dioctyl Sebacate protect both workers and those relying on finished medicines.
Dioctyl Sebacate shows up in several pharmaceutical products as a plasticizer or solvent, shaping the texture or release profile of a final drug form. Pharmacopeia standards—whether it’s BP, EP, or USP—are not suggestions, but rather non-negotiable benchmarks set by regulatory experts, scientists, and doctors, who expect manufacturers to take quality as seriously as they take patient safety. These standards determine which materials enter the market. They spell out test methods, purity requirements, impurity maximums, identification approaches, and even packaging expectations.
People often talk about pharmacopeia compliance like it’s just paperwork, though anyone who’s worked in a quality control lab knows the headaches involved. With Dioctyl Sebacate, labs analyze volatile matter, acidity, and purity using chromatography or titration. Pharmacopeias set limits not just for the main ingredient, but also for related substances—including plasticizer-related impurities and potential contaminants.
In my own experience, working in a facility that sourced excipients from around the globe, missing a single residue test could stop shipment for days, sometimes weeks. Regulators want to see documentation dating back to the starting materials and every batch step along the way, not just a single “certificate of analysis” taped to a drum.
Buyers see “pharma grade” on a spec sheet and think they’re in the clear. If only things were that easy. Pharma grade means nothing if the excipient misses even one mark set by the relevant pharmacopeia. Out-of-spec materials might still look, smell, and pour the same, but the risks to patients are invisible until it’s too late. If Dioctyl Sebacate carries excess acidity or residue, it can threaten both shelf life and the end user’s health. During an FDA audit, I saw entire production runs recalled just because of minor—yet unacceptable—variance.
Every supply chain step carries responsibility. Unscrupulous sourcing leads to compromise downstream. Patient trust takes years to earn and seconds to lose in pharma. The stakes, measured in lives, leave little room for shortcuts.
Keeping Dioctyl Sebacate within pharmacopeia limits requires both robust sourcing and honest, relentless testing. Reliable suppliers share full traceability, rapid documentation, and willingness to answer sometimes painful questions. Pharmacopeias update frequently; yesterday’s compliant batch can fail tomorrow. Manufacturers and buyers owe it to patients and themselves to invest in regularly calibrated instruments, updated training, and clear protocols for product holds.
Industry transparency works best when labs own mistakes and share learnings. Closed-door audits and quiet failures only breed more risk. Bulk buyers should demand true pharmacopeia certificates from accredited labs—and double-check the lab’s credentials rather than accepting flashy paperwork. It may cost more in the short term, but shortcuts almost always bite back.
Trust forms through consistent performance under real-world pressure. Years ago, I saw a supplier go above and beyond by proactively tightening specs and seeking independent validation before anyone asked, saving a critical supply line during a shortage. That extra upfront cost paid off tenfold for both sides. Such moves build partnerships that survive audits and low tides.
The message runs simple: Pharmacopeia compliance earns its value in patient safety and business resilience. Dioctyl Sebacate’s pharma grade doesn’t simply check a box—it draws a hard line against risk in a high-stakes industry where second chances rarely come around.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | **di(octyl) decanedioate** |
| Other names |
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) sebacate Di(2-ethylhexyl) sebacate DEHS Dioctyl sebacate Sebacic acid dioctyl ester Octyl sebacate |
| Pronunciation | /daɪˈɒktɪl sɪˈbeɪkɛt/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 122-62-3 |
| Beilstein Reference | 1721373 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:47432 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1437004 |
| ChemSpider | 6827 |
| DrugBank | DB14106 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 17f2d578-418d-44e7-b4e3-6d4b15830153 |
| EC Number | 204-558-8 |
| Gmelin Reference | 196292 |
| KEGG | C17499 |
| MeSH | C11H22(COOC8H17)2 |
| PubChem CID | 30341 |
| RTECS number | OI8575000 |
| UNII | 6B2V4S0T0T |
| UN number | UN3082 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID3039243 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C26H50O4 |
| Molar mass | 426.68 g/mol |
| Appearance | Clear, oily liquid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 0.914 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble in water |
| log P | “log P: 8.1” |
| Vapor pressure | <0.01 mmHg (20°C) |
| Acidity (pKa) | pKa > 13 |
| Basicity (pKb) | pKb: 3.77 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | Diamagnetic |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.449 – 1.454 |
| Viscosity | 12 - 18 cSt at 25°C |
| Dipole moment | 2.89 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 810.6 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | −1576.9 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -14160 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | A06AA11 |
| Hazards | |
| GHS labelling | GHS labelling: Not a hazardous substance or mixture according to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) |
| Pictograms | GHS07,GHS08 |
| Precautionary statements | P264, P280, P301+P312, P305+P351+P338, P337+P313 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | NFPA 704: 1-1-0 |
| Flash point | 220°C |
| Autoignition temperature | 410°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (oral, rat) > 20,000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): > 5 g/kg (oral, rat) |
| NIOSH | SEB8725000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL: Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 0.6 mg/kg |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not established |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Dibutyl sebacate Diisooctyl sebacate Diethyl sebacate Sebacic acid Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) Dimethyl sebacate |
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
