Contact Us
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
© 2025 Jeifer Pharmaceutical, All Right
Reserved.
From my view, the story of mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides is grounded in changes to how we approach food, medicine, and chemical manufacturing. Roughly a hundred years ago, chemists looked to natural fats as a resource for both industry and therapy. Fatty acid glycerides like these started as accidental by-products from soap-making and candle production. With petroleum chemistry and the pharmaceutical revolution, the late 20th century marked a turning point, pushing the need for more controlled, pure excipients in medicine. That push led to stricter guidelines, such as BP, EP, and USP monographs, and changed the way quality is measured: it’s no longer enough just to separate out chemicals. Stearic acid glycerides earned a place in the pharma world because they could do the job that older, cruder excipients could not—without causing unpredictable side effects.
Mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides stand as well-defined compounds derived from reaction between glycerol and stearic acid. In a pharma setting, these compounds serve as emulsifiers, stabilizers, and release agents in tablets, capsules, and creams. Their structure lets them work as both a bridge and a barrier—helping keep oil and water from separating, or making sure active drugs break down at just the right speed. Drug makers look for ingredients that won’t react with sensitive molecules or mess with the careful recipes of modern medicine, and these glycerides fit the bill. They show up in ointment bases, tablet coatings, and more because their track record matches regulatory safety expectations.
Mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides look like off-white, waxy solids or sometimes flakes, melting at temperatures around 55–65°C, with a slight fatty odor and virtually no taste. They don’t really dissolve in water but disperse well, which creates a creamy consistency. On the chemical side, the mono form carries one stearic acid chain attached to the glycerol backbone, while the di form attaches two. They remain neutral in pH, have high thermal stability up to about 180°C, and show little interaction with most solvents. This specific profile is why they stay reliable as excipients—unlike some other fatty acid derivatives, they don’t break down or lose structure inside medicine cabinets or warehouses.
If you scan pharma ingredient labels, you’ll find mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides listed with names like “glyceryl monostearate” or “glyceryl distearate.” Each grade—BP, EP, USP—gets judged by factors like glyceride content (mono, di, tri percentages), acid value, saponification value, iodine value, and heavy metal content. Certificates of analysis usually spotlight residual solvents, presence of impurities, and microbial limits. Labeling requirements force companies to show exact grade, purity level (often >90% for mono forms), country of origin, and compliance statements for each pharmacopeia. I’ve seen how sometimes these microdetails make or break a supplier’s relationship with regulators, since adulteration or not matching spec sheets can land products in recall lists.
True pharma glycerides don’t come from just boiling animal fat; companies start with either plant-sourced or fully hydrogenated vegetable oils to get pure stearic acid. After mixing with glycerin in the right proportions, the batch undergoes esterification—a reaction under vacuum, controlled temperature (up to 200°C), and acid or alkali catalysts. By tweaking reaction time and ratios, manufacturers control how many stearic acid chains end up attached to each glycerol molecule. Technicians finish with high-vacuum distillation, bleaching, and deodorizing. A lot of care during this process prevents contamination: stray free fatty acids, traces of solvents, or even leftover catalysts can interfere with drug actions later. Analytical testing (HPLC, GC-MS, FTIR) verifies no surprise by-products remain.
In practice, mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides are pretty stable. If they do react, it’s often with strong bases to form soap, or strong acids to decompose back to fatty acid and glycerol. Some researchers have enhanced their properties by adding polar groups, making derivatives like polyglyceryl stearates, which give better dispersibility in water. In pharmaceutical labs, scientists sometimes tweak chain length or saturation—like swapping a palmitic or oleic acid in place of stearic—to fine-tune melting point or compatibility with drug molecules. I’ve found that molecular modification lets manufacturers adjust the release rate of specific drugs. These modifications don’t just matter on paper: poor choices in this area can cause drug clumping or upset stomachs in real-world use.
Depending on context or region, mono-stearic acid glyceride might appear as glyceryl monostearate, GMS, or E471 in European regulations. For the di form, glyceryl distearate and E472a are common tags. Both types also pop up as Glycerin monostearate, Stearic acid (mono and diglycerides), or Stearin. Trademarked blends sometimes appear in ingredient lists if a supplier has their own variant. In my own research around pharma buying, having a short list of common synonyms saves tons of trouble tracking cross-border shipments and checking regulatory filings.
Strict standards keep mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides safe for medical use. Regulatory agencies demand toxicological data, batch traceability, and detailed process documentation. Factories must line up with cGMP (current Good Manufacturing Practice), ensuring raw materials don’t spill over with allergens, animal proteins, or pesticide residues. Standard operating procedures target things like cross-contamination, cleanliness, and temperature control during storage and transit. Allergen declaration forms, Kosher and Halal certificates, and clear expiry dates are now non-negotiable for many global pharma buyers. Just a few decades ago, those details barely showed up in contracts, but now a quick web search shows recall records caused by unapproved glyceride lots contaminating entire product lines.
Mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides fill key roles in drug production—lubricating tablet punches, forming protective coatings, and serving as anti-caking agents. In semi-solids like ointments, these compounds create texture and help APIs release steadily through the skin. Oral formulations get their smooth swallow and consistent breakdown thanks to these excipients. Non-pharma uses pop up in foods as emulsifiers and anti-staling agents, but pharma grade demands tighter purity and quality. In my experience, the flexibility of these excipients lets even small companies create generic versions of branded drugs that last just as long on pharmacy shelves—critical for patient safety and business stability.
Scientists continue to probe the finer points of mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides. Over the last decade, researchers have tested new synthesis routes to limit residual contaminants—like switching to enzymatic processes to cut catalyst residues. Efforts aim to make glycerides more ‘green’ by using palm-free or genetically certified sources. Nanotechnology opens up possible tweaks in molecular structure, improving their ability to deliver drugs right where needed, bypassing harsh stomach conditions, for example. Collaboration with university labs has produced nanoparticles coated in modified glycerides, targeting cancer cells. Countless studies now line the shelves of chemistry and pharma journals exploring different blends’ ability to hold hard-to-dissolve drugs in suspension or make tablets more resistant to heat and moisture in tropical climates.
Toxicology data across decades points to a strong safety profile for mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides used at recommended levels. Animal tests and human clinical monitoring show little or no absorption—most of the material passes through the liver unchanged. Long-term studies confirm low allergenic potential and no significant build-up in tissues. That said, the truth sits in the details: every form, every batch, carries a small risk if contaminated, poorly manufactured, or taken at wildly high doses. Over my years in quality assurance, I’ve seen how extra screening for by-products or spoilage prevents nearly all risk. Regulatory updates since the 1990s have forced suppliers to run sharper LC-MS analyses to catch even trace contaminants, especially as production scales up globally.
Industries keep looking for safer, more resource-efficient solutions, and mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides factor into conversations about sustainable pharma. Alternative feedstocks, such as algae or yeast-derived fatty acids, may someday replace palm or soybean, reducing ecological impact. Digitalization of supply chains speeds up traceability, cutting false labeling and import fraud. If regulatory bodies keep pushing for higher purity and transparency, more investment will flow into process innovations—making high-grade glycerides with smaller waste streams. Research labs will expand their focus on blending these excipients with new drug delivery vehicles, such as oral dissolving films and 3D-printed tablets, opening new access for patients who struggle to swallow standard pills. In all this, trust in ingredient quality, transparency, and thorough research forms the foundation for both safe medicine and responsible progress.
Folks outside the industry usually focus on the main drug in a pill or a tablet. Rarely does anyone ask about the other bits that help the medicine make its way safely and effectively into the body. Mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides might sound like background players, but they keep things running smoothly behind the scenes in pharmaceuticals.
In tablet making, powders can gum up machines, cause jams, or stick to tooling. Having worked alongside people on the factory floor, I’ve seen a production line grind to a halt when a batch misses its lubricant. Mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides address this head-on. They coat the granules and lessen friction, letting powders glide through the presses without binding or clogging. That means faster, cleaner runs and less chance of losing a batch due to technical hiccups.
Every pharmacist hears from customers who want to split a tablet in half for easier swallowing. The expectation: each half, each quarter, gives a predictable dose. This works best when the drug and other ingredients hold together evenly. Adding mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides helps the powder mix stick together — not too loosely, not like concrete. The goal is compactness with the right level of crumbliness, so tablets don’t shatter in the bottle or fall apart before reaching your digestive tract. Taking a page from food processing, fat-based excipients like these improve both mouthfeel and breakdown in the gut—helping people actually take (and benefit from) their medication.
Heat and moisture are enemies of shelf life. Mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides put up a barrier. Their fatty nature helps keep water out, shielding sensitive actives inside from clumping, reacting, or degrading. This protection means drugs last longer on pharmacy shelves. In tropical climates or in buildings where air conditioning falters, this matters—a lot.
Not every pill should dump everything into your system at once. For conditions like high blood pressure or chronic pain, the body does better with medicine delivered over hours. Fatty acid derivatives like these help create that slow-release effect. They work by forming a matrix or film, controlling how fast fluids can reach the active ingredient. Everyday experience with time-release painkillers or allergy tablets owes a lot to how excipients set the pace for absorption.
Patients and doctors both watch for reactions to ingredients. Mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides offer a lower allergy risk than many old-school lubricants or wheat-based fillers. As more people report sensitivities, the industry has leaned further into using excipients with long, dependable records like these. They’re derived from fats and are well-tolerated for most patients, cutting the chance of trouble—especially for children or people taking multiple medicines at once.
The industry keeps finding ways to make pills safer, smaller, and easier to take. Better sourcing and refining of these fatty acid glycerides could further cut contaminants and fine-tune how medicines work. Plus, pressure continues to improve both the science and transparency around excipients so people know what goes into their meds. That focus only grows as personalized, high-tech formulations become common.
Standards influence so many daily decisions in health, manufacturing, and food. In the pharmaceutical and food worlds, I often hear managers wrestle with whether to use BP, EP, or USP grades of the same ingredient. Mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides are no exception. In my work with formulators, the first thing they look for is not just a source, but whether an ingredient “measures up” to a standard they can stand behind with confidence.
Here’s where the differences come into focus. BP and EP standards represent testing criteria set by British and European regulatory authorities. USP comes out of the United States Pharmacopoeia. Each of these bodies writes its own book of rules, and the rules cover every inch of what makes the grade—purity, contamination limits, structural identity, packaging, even labeling.
I worked with an international supplement company a few years ago. They thought they could swap out mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides between suppliers, as long as the paperwork listed “pharmacopoeial grade.” That shortcut tripped them up. BP and EP versions often outline stricter or different requirements for residual solvents and heavy metals than USP does. If someone’s mixing their batch for a U.S. audience, USP can be fine. Ship that same batch to Europe—without meeting harsher EP heavy-metal cutoffs, it’s dead on arrival.
BP and EP frequently overlap. Both draw on shared European standards, but the fine print reveals differences, such as test protocols and the limits set on contaminants. The USP follows guidelines geared for U.S. compliance. Anyone who’s felt that nervous energy at an FDA or EMEA inspection knows this isn’t just red tape. Customer trust and market access ride on those checkmarks.
I’ve seen ingredient suppliers dismissed over small points. Sometimes the culprit is a failed peroxide value or a positive test for certain esters. A few missed decimal points can mean safety dangers, and regulators raise their eyebrows at anything not matching local pharmacopeia. EP may take a deeper look at certain impurities due to European focus on cumulative exposure, while USP might highlight different quality markers or tests for identity.
Behind the stickers and certificates, real differences lurk. If you use USP-grade mono- or di-stearic acid glycerides in a European generic medication, and a BP or EP monograph outlines stricter limits, the difference isn’t academic. Products can end up pulled from the market, and reputations can sour overnight. In food, compliance with the right standard shields companies from recalls or consumer complaints.
Every manufacturing project I touch, I recommend this: Figure out where your finished good will go, and stick to the strictest relevant grade. Keep testing records tight and use reputable suppliers who can explain their certificates—not just hand over a PDF. Docs mean little if nobody backs them up with actual tests.
Staying on top of regulatory changes also matters. There were big updates to USP-NF in recent years that caught even experienced buyers off guard. Having someone on your team keeping watch over shifting pharmacopeia requirements deflects expensive surprises later.
Finally, ask suppliers tough questions. I once helped troubleshoot a project delayed because the supplier stamped “USP grade” but couldn’t show tested results for all USP requirements. Only after drilling into batch-level tests did the truth surface. Some qualified “pharma grade” suppliers can bridge EP, BP, and USP testing. They charge more, but that extra scrutiny usually pays for itself in reliability and regulatory peace of mind.
Grab almost any bottle of medicine at a pharmacy and scan the ingredients list. I bet you’ll see words like “mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides” tucked among the fillers and flow aids. For years, I worked in pharmaceutical research and these names crossed my desk more times than I can count. They slip into all sorts of tablets and capsules, supposedly to help the machines pump out smooth, consistent pills. But does everyone actually know if these ingredients are safe?
Let’s skip the chemistry lecture and talk in plain English. These are made from stearic acid—a fatty acid found naturally in animal fats and vegetable oils—and glycerol, which is basically what you get from splitting apart fats. When you join the two, you get a waxy substance that acts almost like a non-stick agent, keeping machines and powders moving smoothly.
I once reviewed dozens of safety data sheets for these additives before approving them for a solid dose manufacturing project. Regulatory watchdogs across North America, Europe, and Asia have looked at data spanning decades. Based on toxicity studies in rats and dogs, mono- and diglycerides didn’t raise red flags at even high exposures. Most people already eat small amounts in foods like bread and ice cream, with no major reported side effects. The World Health Organization and FDA both clear them for use at the low levels found in finished pharmaceuticals. They just don’t get absorbed or build up in the body the way some scary chemicals do.
Over my years in the lab, no one I worked with ever reported allergic reactions or health issues linked to these particular additives. Of course, you always find rare outliers—there’s never a 100% guarantee in human biology—but widespread issues just haven’t materialized.
Not everyone feels reassured. A few consumer advocates point out that processing can sometimes generate trace contaminants. Any manufacturer worth their salt sources ingredients that meet strict purity codes. Pharmacopeia standards set exacting thresholds for things like heavy metals and solvents—something every reputable factory follows to the letter.
Real worries arise more from unknowns: People with allergies may ask for plant-sourced versions to avoid animal byproducts, and strict vegans might need answers about how these additives are made. I’ve seen some discussion about trans fats, but true mono- and di-stearates don’t contain harmful trans isomers; those are a different beast found in partially hydrogenated oils, not pharmaceutical-grade stearates.
Sometimes, industry shortcuts lead to problems. Years ago in my early career, I remember hearing about inconsistent quality from overseas suppliers. That sparked industry-wide change—now, buyers demand certificates of analysis before any material ever hits the production floor. Gear like HPLC machines crank out batch-by-batch reports, confirming purity and identity every time. Regulators drop by for surprise audits. This system isn’t perfect, but it blocks a lot of low-quality material before it ever touches a medicine bottle.
There’s always room to do better. Pushing for raw materials from transparent, trusted sources makes a difference. Continually improving traceability builds public trust. Adding extra safety checks—especially for products used by children or sensitive groups—seems like a no-brainer, too. As long as pharmaceutical companies hold the line on supplier standards and listen to patient concerns, ingredients like mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides will keep earning their place on the label.
If you pick up an ingredient list for many tablets or capsules, you’ll often spot mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides. These aren’t the usual suspects for discussion unless you’re mixing up pharma recipes or checking raw material specs. For the folks who work behind the scenes in manufacturing and quality labs, understanding the specifics of these excipients keeps products safe and reliable.
Pharmaceuticals get held to high standards because people rely on them for their health. Mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides act as emulsifiers and lubricants in tablet and capsule production. Purity isn’t just about tidiness — it controls how these excipients behave in the body. High purity means fewer unknowns when these molecules join with active drugs or other ingredients. One stray contaminant or heavy metal, and the batch gets tossed. So, suppliers prove their worth by sticking to published pharmacopoeia standards.
Quality specs for these glycerides aren’t a moving target; most producers refer to USP, Ph. Eur., or JP pharmacopeia. Think of it as a checklist. A typical pharmaceutical grade mono- and di-stearic acid glyceride comes with these benchmarks:
Manufacturers chase these numbers because every deviation turns into a risk. If a finished batch starts failing on dissolution or stability, the root cause often leads back to an excipient that didn’t meet its standards. No tablet maker can afford weak documentation or questionable certificates of analysis. Both FDA and EMA expect a full set of lab results before signing off on a batch release.
Besides law and liability, there’s a simple point: a patient might take dozens of pills across decades. Even small impurities build up, especially in chronic users. Consistent specs stop those worries from ever reaching the pharmacy counter.
Companies sourcing these glycerides can ask for multi-point quality audits and not settle for the lowest-cost bidder. More transparency in supply chains, better origin tracing, and routine third-party testing take guesswork out of production. Supply contracts tie-in clear thresholds, pushing back against the temptation to cut corners.
Those of us who have spent hours testing excipient lots in real-world labs know how much easier life gets when ingredients arrive with tight, understood specs — not just for compliance, but for peace of mind.
Mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides find their way into pharmaceutical manufacturing for good reason. They work as emulsifiers and release agents, but the right storage plays a huge role in keeping them fit for their purpose. Years of working in pharmaceutical facilities have shown problems hit fast when you ignore storage basics. Once these compounds clump together from damp air or lose their smooth texture, quality drops. This doesn’t just mess with consistency in drug manufacturing. Finished medicines could land out of spec, production could slow, and, most worrying, people relying on safe medications could get products that don’t meet exacting standards.
Water is not a friend here. Moisture will turn powders into lumps and make granular materials stick together. Fungal growth or chemical changes could follow if any residue piles up in humid conditions. A solid practice involves storing mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides in sealed containers lined with desiccants. Make sure the lids twist tight or snap securely. Warehouses and ingredient rooms work best when their climate systems keep the air dry and the temperature below 25°C. Picture a storeroom—dust-free and smelling faintly of cardboard—where hygrometers quietly record air moisture. In places where hot months hit, cooling units pay for themselves.
Some lessons stick—even after dozens of warehouse checks. Cross-contamination rarely announces itself with fanfare, but a little powder from a previous batch or a neighbor ingredient lands in your container and changes the makeup. That’s why storage areas worth their salt always keep mono- and di-stearic acid glycerides on their own shelves, never stacked under unstable materials, far from caustic cleaners or strong-smelling products. Spills, no matter how small, call for immediate cleanup with proper equipment. Clean buckets, scoops, and gloves keep material pure. Opened containers should go straight back to storage and not linger on counters.
Good labeling prevents mix-ups. In an environment waiting for audits, every bag or drum has a date of receipt, a batch number, and a clear product name. If anything sits on a pallet, records show where it came from and where it’s heading. Staff know where to look for lot numbers. This seems small, but during a recall or audit, a complete paper trail protects both the business and patients. Using barcode scanning or digital inventory brings speed, but even handwritten logs give peace of mind when digital tools falter.
Moving these compounds around the plant brings its own hazards. Staff rely on gloves made from nitrile or latex and sometimes masks if dust threatens breathing. In my own shifts, I’ve watched new hires get comfortable with transfer protocols—scooping only what’s needed, closing containers right after, and carrying materials without rushing. Forklifts move drums gently to avoid impact. Nothing sits blocking the fire exits. Training goes beyond videos; hands-on walkthroughs make sure everyone expects what could go wrong and how to handle every scenario.
Quality assurance steps in with regular checks—sampling drums before a batch gets made, taking temperature readings daily, and setting up surprise audits. Problems spotted early are far easier (and cheaper) to correct. Building this culture doesn’t take fancy equipment—just steady discipline and ongoing reminders from supervisors who know what’s at stake.
Pharmaceuticals can’t risk ingredients losing their integrity. Simple storage choices, honest record-keeping, and routine checks set a strong foundation. Teams that stick to these basics earn trust from every patient down the line.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | 2,3-Dihydroxypropyl octadecanoate |
| Other names |
Glycerol Monostearate GMS Glycerin Monostearate Monostearin Glyceryl Stearate E471 |
| Pronunciation | /ˈmɒnoʊ ən daɪ stiˈærɪk ˈæsɪd ɡlɪˈsəraɪdz biː piː iː piː juː ɛs piː ˈfɑːrmə ɡreɪd/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 31566-31-1 |
| Beilstein Reference | 2427470 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:53727 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL3563601 |
| ChemSpider | 6017 |
| DrugBank | DB14197 |
| ECHA InfoCard | ECHA InfoCard: 01-2119470145-41-XXXX |
| EC Number | 31566-31-1 |
| Gmelin Reference | 19,287 |
| KEGG | C02100 |
| MeSH | C24H46O4 |
| PubChem CID | 16219421 |
| RTECS number | TYV5904300 |
| UNII | X4W7ZR7023 |
| UN number | UN Number: "UN3257 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | Product not found in CompTox Dashboard |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C21H42O4 |
| Molar mass | 622.96 g/mol |
| Appearance | White or almost white powder or flakes |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 0.97 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble in water |
| log P | 7.6 |
| Acidity (pKa) | ~4.9 |
| Basicity (pKb) | pKb: 15.9 |
| Refractive index (nD) | Refractive index (nD): 1.448 |
| Viscosity | VISCOCITY : 40 - 50 CPS (1% SOLUTION IN WATER) |
| Dipole moment | 1.85 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 889.8 J·K⁻¹·mol⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -1610 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -35.75 MJ/kg |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | A21FA |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause respiratory and eye irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS labelling: "Not classified as hazardous according to GHS; no pictogram, signal word, hazard statement, or precautionary statement required. |
| Pictograms | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | Hazard statements: Not a hazardous substance or mixture according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. |
| Precautionary statements | Keep container tightly closed. Store in a cool, dry place. Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing. Wash thoroughly after handling. Use with adequate ventilation. |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-1-0 |
| Flash point | > 285°C |
| Autoignition temperature | > 385°C |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): > 2,000 mg/kg (oral, rat) |
| NIOSH | Not Assigned |
| PEL (Permissible) | 50 mg/m³ |
| REL (Recommended) | 210-313-0 |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not Established |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Stearic Acid Glycerol Monoolein Monoglycerides Diglycerides Glyceryl Monostearate Glyceryl Distearate |
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
