Pine tar has carved out its place in human civilization for centuries. Long before modern science gave us a way to qualify and quantify, communities across Scandinavia and Eastern Europe saw pine tar as more than just a sticky byproduct. Folk healers painted wounds and skin infections with it, fishermen waterproofed boats, and farriers treated horse hooves. Over time, as scientific knowledge caught up with traditional practice, researchers pinpointed unique compounds in pine tar — phenols, resin acids, and more — which explained its enduring value. Swedish and Finnish archives from the 18th and 19th centuries detail how pine wood faced slow, oxygen-limited burning in earth-covered kilns, resulting in a smoky liquid with antibacterial punch. Modern pharmaceutical standards have taken this rough-around-the-edges remedy and refined it to meet tightly regulated thresholds, but the old-time respect for pine tar never faded.
Pharma grade pine tar — certified under BP (British Pharmacopoeia), EP (European Pharmacopoeia), and USP (United States Pharmacopeia) — is an upgraded version of traditional pine tar. Instead of a crude extract, pharma-grade batches undergo scrupulous distillation to remove impurities and boost therapeutic consistency. This grade typically produces a thick, dark brown, semi-liquid concentrate, earthy in aroma and notoriously stubborn to wash away without a scrubbing. Its main draw comes from its use in medicated shampoos, soaps, and ointments for irritated skin, eczema, or psoriasis. Its potent antifungal and bactericidal components come from a delicate balance among phenols, guaiacol, cresols, resin acids, and aromatic hydrocarbons, each present in defined concentrations pieced together by repeated lab runs. Documentation and traceability often matter as much as composition, bridging old wisdom with 21st-century protocols.
Pharma-grade pine tar comes out thick and viscous, somewhere between molasses and motor oil, with a color that ranges from deep brown to almost black under typical lighting. The sense of smell never lies; a heavy, smoky, resinous note fills the room once the lid comes off. Specific gravity hovers around 1.04 to 1.10 at 20°C. This substance resists easy mixing with water, yet dissolves fairly well in organic solvents such as ethanol, ether, and chloroform. Chemically, it acts as a complex soup — mainly phenolic compounds, methyl derivatives, resin acids like abietic, pimaric and phenanthrene, and a small share of unsaponifiable matter. pH usually tests between 4.0 and 6.0, depending on production. The blend plays a key role in both therapeutic and industrial performance, with small changes in distillation temperature or feedstock shifting the final aroma, stickiness, and even color.
Labels on BP, EP, and USP pine tar focus less on regional branding and more on strict chemical analysis. Moisture content commonly stays below 6%, benzo[a]pyrene content falls well under 5 ppb, and resin acid content stays tightly controlled. Phenol content, for example, needs regular quantification, given phenol’s potential toxicity and therapeutic role. Flash points for safe handling, purity percentages, and origin traceability dominate documentation, matching pharmacopoeia-specific chapters. Each batch carries thorough certificates of analysis and heavy metal screen results, so downstream manufacturers meet local and global regulatory hurdles. Trust comes from transparency — tight lot tracking, expiry dating, and the rejection of batches with haze, grit, or soured odor. Testing, both organoleptic and instrumental, builds confidence for anyone considering clinical or consumer-facing formulations, making everybody’s job downstream a lot less guesswork-filled.
Classic pine tar results from tightly controlled destructive distillation of pine wood — specifically, stumps and roots loaded with resin channels. Operators stack wood inside steel or earthen kilns, seal it against too much oxygen, and heat it to 250-350°C over several hours or days. Instead of burning outright, the wood breaks down under heat, with resin and lignin cracking to form volatile tars that trickle out. Collected tar then cools and settles. For pharma grade, raw tar heads to a refinery. Here, it’s vacuum distilled, filtered, and sometimes solvent-extracted to clean out wood ash, wood vinegar, or unwanted pyrolysis leftovers. Glass and stainless steel equipment dominate, since pine tar erodes most plastics. Strict controls monitor batch-to-batch temperatures, pressure, and flow rates to avoid contaminant spikes. Good operators scrutinize feedstock pine species; experience says Scotch pine and red pine produce reliably pure yields, as opposed to certain yellow pines or recycled construction lumber.
Industrial chemists and pharmacists keep busy tweaking pine tar for safety or added value. Simple distillation breaks down the tar into lighter and heavier fractions, letting some teams focus on the most bioactive pieces. Phenols, for example, could see selective extraction for anti-microbial salves, while resin acids often undergo salt formation for more stable soaps or detergents. Pine tar’s phenolic core reacts with alkalis to yield pine tar soaps, famous for being both medicinal and cleansing. Hydrogenation or methylation modifies solubility and reduces odor; it also mitigates potential irritation for sensitive skin. Some research groups pursue nano-emulsion blending to boost penetration for topical drugs, or anchor pine tar to carrier gels for extended-release. Dedicated efforts trim down polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) — notorious for toxicity concerns — through selective adsorption, distillation, and advanced catalysis, making final products safer and more comfortable for regulatory scrutiny.
Pine tar runs under a surprising range of synonyms in the market. Traditional trades refer to Stockholm Tar, Vegetable Tar, or Norwegian Pine Tar. Scientific circles tend toward “Pix Liquida,” its Latin pharmacopoeial moniker, or CAS number 8011-48-1 for clarity. Some cosmetic and topical medicine labels drop the “tar,” calling it “pine resin extract” or “wood tar” to navigate consumer biases. In veterinary supply, similar dark liquids could appear as “Birketeer,” especially in horse and cattle treatments. Even in artisan woodworking and maritime supply, “kiln-burnt pine tar” remains a common product term. These differences matter less in chemical terms, but navigating regulatory filing or consumer marketing makes it essential to know which synonyms match the product’s actual origin and grade, rather than just relying on a single trade name.
Pharma-grade pine tar production doesn’t leave much to chance. Operators face risks from phenolics, volatile organics, and combustible byproducts, so industry standards step in. Proper PPE forms the baseline: gloves, goggles, and industrial aprons stand between skin and sticky stains. Fume hoods and exhaust fans stay busy dispersing irritant vapors. Industrial fire codes set clear flash point cutoffs and storage guidelines, pushing operators to use explosion-proof pumps and sealed drums. Regulatory agencies track benzo[a]pyrene, a known carcinogen, which means factories invest in modern detection equipment and high-efficiency filtration. Product labels and MSDS sheets don’t sugarcoat health warnings, pushing out up-to-date toxicology, first aid instructions, and spill management steps. Pharma-grade facilities go all in on batch record-keeping, annual process audits, and multi-stage quality checks — paperwork rivals output volume, but each folder backs up ingredient purity, staff safety, and end-user protection.
Pharmaceutical grade pine tar bridges old remedies and new therapies in skin care. Dermatologists and hospital pharmacies keep pine tar on the shelf for stubborn chronic eczema or psoriasis, especially when standard corticosteroids or immunologics fall short. Its pronounced anti-pruritic effect makes it a regular feature in over-the-counter shampoos for dandruff and seborrheic dermatitis. Veterinary clinics use pine tar topically for horses and livestock, treating cracked hooves and minor wounds. Some practitioners suggest pine tar as a supporting agent for mild bacterial, fungal skin infections, owing to its long tradition and mounting evidence for antimicrobial activity. Outside medicine, you’ll spot the same raw material in heavy-duty soaps, concrete additives, or marine sealants, though such grades skip the rigorous pharma screening. Its reputation — equal parts folk wisdom and modern biochemistry — steers specialty practitioners toward pine tar for specific cases where plant-based, multi-component therapies make more sense than single-molecule drugs.
Lab teams and university researchers don’t leave pine tar stuck in the past — each year pulls new findings out of its sticky matrix. Recent studies have dug deeper into pine tar’s polyphenolic fraction, spotting moderate anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects in animal models that might extend to human wound care with less reliance on systemic steroids. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) now sketch detailed fingerprints for each batch, separating out PAHs, pinpointing rare lignans, and catching batch-to-batch inconsistencies. Alternative delivery systems sit in the pipeline: microencapsulation promises less odor; nanoemulsions aim for greater skin absorption without boosting irritation. Academic groups probe for plant-based substitutes to synthetic anti-microbials, bringing pine tar’s ancient chemistry into the debate about antimicrobial resistance, particularly in dermatology and rural healthcare contexts. Peer-reviewed pilots track both regular efficacy and side effects, crossing the narrow bridge between old claims and real-world outcomes.
Pine tar’s age-old use didn’t shield it from scrutiny once analytical toxicology caught up. Its PAH content, particularly benzo[a]pyrene, draws regular concern from government agencies. Many modern studies focus on chronic skin exposure; most clinical teams can’t ignore reports of mild to moderate irritation, contact dermatitis, or rarely, severe allergic reactions among sensitive users. Toxicological guidelines cap PAH and phenol content to levels proven safe in controlled studies. Dermatologists caution against overuse, especially for infants or open wounds without supervision. Ongoing pre-clinical assays follow the fate of pine tar’s less well-known minor components — questions remain about their breakdown products, especially with long-term or high-dose topical application. Still, accumulative evidence suggests pharma-grade pine tar, produced and screened under strict standards, sits well below most safety thresholds compared to its crude, undistilled counterparts. Modern R&D focuses on tweaking processing and modification to further lower impurity risks without throwing out valuable medicinal components.
Current research opens up more than nostalgia for pine tar. With mounting concerns about antibiotic resistance and synthetic anti-inflammatories, labs and companies look back to pine tar’s broad-spectrum antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory activity for new leads. Green chemistry pushes for improved purification and sustainable pine sourcing, making future supplies less reliant on old-growth forests. Some biotech startups eye the conversion of pine tar into medical resins or even as a platform for slow-release drug carriers, leveraging both bioactivity and stickiness. Cosmetic chemists test gentle, low-odor blends for sensitive skin markets without sacrificing active benefits. Advances in analytical chemistry and genomics mean tomorrow’s pine tar products could pair traditional effectiveness with a new sense of safety and traceability. Experience says regulators will demand cleaner, better-profiled ingredients — but as the science grows, pine tar may yet prove itself a lasting tool in both mainstream medicine and specialty care, with its potential stretching well beyond what old folk healers ever imagined.
Pine tar doesn’t sound glamorous. The thought of a sticky substance scraped from pine stumps doesn’t exactly scream “modern medicine.” Yet, this crude resin, thick and dark, still plays a role in healthcare. I’ve seen ointment jars and shampoo bottles with “pine tar” on their labels in both big drugstores and small-town pharmacies.
Doctors, pharmacists, and herbal practitioners haven’t forgotten about pine tar. They reach for pharma grade pine tar marked “BP,” “EP,” or “USP” — codes for British Pharmacopoeia, European Pharmacopoeia, and United States Pharmacopeia. This tells buyers the stuff has passed strict tests for purity and safety. That level of assurance matters a lot because pine tar off the lumberyard shelf can contain impurities that don’t belong anywhere near your skin.
Pine tar’s claim to fame sits in old-fashioned skin therapy. Folks with psoriasis, eczema, and seborrheic dermatitis often try everything, but modern drugs and steroid creams don’t always keep flares in check. Pine tar ointments and bath solutions offer another option. The tar soothes the itch, softens tough patches, and can calm swelling. Some products blend it with other ingredients like sulfur to help skin heal faster. I recall seeing older family members favor pine tar soap when store-bought creams didn’t work during winter flare-ups.
According to reviews from dermatology journals, there’s still no complete agreement about how pine tar “works.” Scientists think it lowers inflammation in the upper layers of skin. Pine tar might also slow the rapid cell growth that causes thick scales in psoriasis. Decades of clinical use add support here. In fact, the American Academy of Dermatology includes pine tar among recommended treatments for mild skin disorders.
Medicinal pine tar hasn’t just remained in skin care. Before the rise of newer antiseptics, hospitals sometimes used pine tar as a wound dressing. The sticky texture helped cover and protect injuries against infection, especially before antibiotics were common. Today, this practice has faded, but some folk remedies remain, especially in rural areas. A handful of dental care products also use it for its mild antimicrobial qualities, though these are far less common than, say, fluoride-based formulas.
Pine tar turns up in DIY and herbal circles, but unregulated versions may come packed with contaminants—think dirt, leftover solvents, even bits of bark. Consistent purity means patients and hospitals can trust what they’re using. The pharmaceutical grades — BP, EP, and USP — involve thorough analysis. Test results focus on levels of phenols, creosols, and other trace chemicals, and set limits on heavy metals and impurities. I’ve spoken with pharmacists who stress that only pharma-approved pine tar belongs in healthcare products for people with sensitive skin or open wounds.
Modern labs keep producing synthetic alternatives, but some doctors and patients keep returning to pine tar. Cost, tradition, and choice all play their part. The safest path lies in continuing robust testing, more high-quality clinical trials, and tight quality controls from trustworthy manufacturers. Patients should make sure any product used on skin, especially for ongoing issues, clearly meets BP, EP, or USP standards. Regulatory bodies and patient advocates continue to watch pine tar closely, making sure safety comes before nostalgia or marketing.
Pine tar has a long history in healthcare. My own grandfather kept a tin of pine tar ointment on a shelf for everything from minor burns to stubborn patches of dry skin. Old remedies march on for a reason, but not every tradition fits modern expectations around safety and purity. These days, you’ll see pine tar labeled as BP (British Pharmacopoeia), EP (European Pharmacopoeia), or USP (United States Pharmacopeia) "pharma grade." Each label means that product has passed specific chemical purity standards for the region named on the bottle.
Pharma-grade pine tar goes through far more scrutiny than the black, sticky tar peddled for horses or woodwaterproofing. Regulatory bodies demand strict analysis. They look for toxic compounds common in industrial-grade pine tar, like certain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which have ties to cancer. Pharma-grade products must stay far below dangerous thresholds, and credible suppliers regularly post lab results. This is an improvement over what passed for pine tar decades ago.
Even so, “pharmaceutical grade” is not a golden ticket. Years back, a friend of mine reacted with red, itchy skin to a pine tar soap that met official standards. His dermatologist explained—some people simply don't agree with it, pure or not. Allergies work by their own rules. Product purity narrows risks, but individual sensitivities, underlying conditions, or improper use keep the door open to problems. Dermatologists in Australia, where pine tar soaps remain popular, have reported occasional irritation in patients with eczema, even with best-quality pine tar.
Topical pine tar won a spot in several national formularies for treating chronic skin problems like psoriasis and eczema. Health authorities in the UK and Australia give pine tar the green light when it meets pharmacopoeia standards. The American FDA remains more cautious, especially about inhaled or ingested uses. Oral consumption should not be confused with topical use—no credible modern authority endorses drinking it.
Many doctors today limit pine tar's use to short-term care or combine it with other treatments. Science changes, and so do best practices. One survey of dermatologists published in the British Journal of Dermatology found most still recommend pine tar ointment for its anti-itch and soothing qualities, but only as one small tool in a larger arsenal. Pine tar’s abilities sound humble in the age of biotech, but relief for itch and inflammation still holds value—just not as a cureall.
Too many products carry the word “pharmaceutical” in their name without proof. For safety and compliance, pharmacy buyers and manufacturers should ask for a certificate of analysis, with detailed breakdowns for potential contaminants like benzo[a]pyrene. Trustworthy suppliers don't get cagey about paperwork. Doctors and pharmacists who stick to officially recognized grades give patients a large margin of safety. Anyone wanting to use pine tar in a clinic or personal care setting should keep an eye on product traceability and adverse reaction reports.
The world of natural remedies has always beckoned, but demand for real transparency is greater today. Pharma-grade pine tar, from a reputable source and used on healthy skin, has a sound record in topical applications. The story changes for those with severe allergies, for children, pregnant women, or anyone with questionable products. Old wisdom is valuable—paired with new science and honest labeling, it can still play a role in modern care.
Pine tar pops up a lot as a trusted ingredient in both the pharmaceutical and personal care world. Sourced by carbonizing pine wood under controlled conditions, this sticky, rich material ends up in ointments, soaps, and treatments for skin conditions. Folks who work with it pay serious attention to its quality and purity because it often gets used on sensitive skin—and sometimes even in treatments that go inside the body.
Pharmaceutical-grade pine tar wears three big labels: BP (British Pharmacopoeia), EP (European Pharmacopoeia), and USP (United States Pharmacopeia). Meeting these benchmarks means it matches strict rules about what goes in the container. Right out of the gate, purity matters most. Purity here refers to how little the substance contains contaminants or unwanted substances. High-quality pine tar must remain free of heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and any other potentially harmful compounds above strict limits. For example, regulatory bodies often want proof that PAH levels stay below certain parts per million, since the presence of these compounds draws concern for safety.
Moisture content checks stand just as tall. Water content needs to stay low, because extra moisture supports the growth of bacteria and mold. Most pharma-grade tars fall under 3% water by weight. Volatile content also gets measured, since excessive volatility makes storage and transport a challenge, and it can signal impurities that might leave users at risk. On top of that, color and viscosity help tell whether the batch matches what doctors, pharmacists, and end-users expect based on previous use and safety testing.
A distinctive pine aroma marks the material as genuine, but it’s laboratory testing that matters for passing regulatory certification. It goes under the microscope, sometimes literally, to ensure no sign of camphor, creosote, or synthetic additives. Equipment-based tests double-check that the tar’s acid content and specific gravity fit recognized ranges set by pharmacopeia standards.
Getting that BP, EP, or USP stamp is not a one-and-done deal. The producer, supplier, and sometimes even the seller all go through steady rounds of inspection and documentation. These certifications confirm the pine tar not only fits the right specifications but also came from a source mindful of quality throughout the process. Suppliers need to provide transparent batch records and offer Certificates of Analysis with every shipment.
More than once I’ve seen confusion about ‘grade’ lead to trouble—delays in production, wasted money, sometimes even product recalls. Global regulations keep growing tighter, especially for items touching food, skin, or wounds. Knowing you hold a robust certificate backed by strong documentation means you can track any issue back to its source without finger-pointing or excuses.
Problems usually creep in when shortcuts get taken. Loose record-keeping, missed tests, or sourcing from unregulated suppliers have all caused major headaches across the industry. Fixing this calls for training, investment in updated lab equipment, and regular audits—even for companies used to passing every round with flying colors.
Making the move toward cleaner, absolutely traceable raw material is one of the best ways to avoid costly slowdowns or, worse, harm to patients. The bar isn’t just set by regulators; patients and customers ask for proof that products truly meet these standards. People recognize honest production and safe sourcing, and that’s where the pharmaceuticals supply chain needs to stay vigilant.
Pine tar stands out for its history, from traditional medicine to pharmaceutical applications. If you have spent time in a compounding pharmacy or even a busy laboratory, you're no stranger to the sticky, aromatic character of this material. Its value isn’t just in what it offers to products but in how it must be stored and handled to meet safety and regulatory standards. In this field, your processes reflect directly on both patient safety and product quality.
Storing pine tar looks simple on paper, but small oversights can throw off the entire supply chain. This material should be kept in airtight containers—stainless steel or high-quality plastic both work—to keep moisture and air away. Pine tar can thicken or degrade if exposed to the wrong conditions, and you don’t want that happening before you even start work with it.
Always set aside space in a cool, dry, and well-ventilated area, away from direct sunlight and any major heat source. Hot storage rooms or windowsills do a disservice to both the pine tar and the technicians relying on its consistency. Humidity, dust, and chemical fumes also bring a real risk; mixing these with pine tar doesn’t just affect quality, it makes you answer awkward questions from auditors.
Most people who work with pine tar every day develop good instincts for safe handling, but formal training sets the baseline. Gloves, lab coats, and safety goggles aren’t just for looks—they keep your skin and eyes free from irritation, a real possibility with dense, resinous ingredients. Once, I worked beside a new technician who decided to skip gloves. By midday, he understood exactly why those warnings exist.
Leaning over the workbench, open containers of pine tar should stay covered whenever possible to limit evaporation and contamination. In a busy setting, it’s surprisingly easy for airborne particles, dust, or even packaging fragments to slip inside an open jar. Don’t let short-cutting these steps undermine quality control.
Not every day goes as planned. Spills are rare, but they happen. If you do have a spill, act quickly with absorbent materials—sawdust or sand work well—and follow up with a thorough cleaning using approved solvents. Some teams develop a routine drill for these situations, which saves time and avoids confusion during real incidents.
Transportation requires thoughtful planning. Always seal containers, label them with the latest safety data, and pack them to prevent shifting during transit. While international guidelines set the baseline, your internal standards make the real difference. Freight mishaps don’t just cost money; they spark regulatory headaches.
Regulation often feels like a moving target, especially in pharmaceuticals. Keep safety data sheets updated and easy to access. Take time to walk through your storage and handling process quarterly, looking for leaks, outdated labels, or temperature fluctuations. Engaging with your team and giving them a voice in process improvement brings fresh eyes and practical solutions. Accommodation for staff suggestions—like better shelving, improved ventilation, or even periodic reminders—makes a big difference.
Every batch of pine tar you manage doesn’t just represent inventory; it’s a responsibility to coworkers, patients, and the broader medical community. Proper storage and careful handling protect more than product; they keep trust intact up and down the supply chain.
The shelf life of Pine Tar BP EP USP Pharma Grade has big implications for anyone working in pharmaceuticals or even animal care. Freshness means effectiveness, and with pine tar, that window typically stretches to about two years under proper storage. Temperature plays a major role here. Cool, dry environments help the product keep its quality longer. Humidity or sunlight cuts that timeline down fast. I’ve seen more than one warehouse lose product value just because a pallet sat too close to a window.
Regulatory documents put shelf life between 18 and 24 months, given that containers stay sealed. If you’ve opened a drum or a pail, the clock speeds up. Exposure to air thickens the tar, even changes its chemical profile. In practice, a partial container might see reduced potency after only nine months if not closed tightly.
Bulk buyers see pine tar most often in steel drums or heavy-duty plastic pails. Sizes tend to fall between 25 to 200 liters. Steel resists leaks and keeps sunlight out, and plastic pails work well for smaller scale or frequent transfer. In my own experience, suppliers choose drums for big orders and stick with plastic for easier handling. Both must meet pharma-grade standards—no matter the size.
Clean sealing is key. If a vendor ships product in a dented or warped drum, you risk contamination. Pine tar takes on moisture or impurities from the air quickly. A trusted supplier always uses tamper-evident closures, sometimes double-sealing lids or shrink-wrapping the top. Anyone who skips a layer of protection costs buyers down the line through rejections or worse, recalls.
Good packaging alone doesn’t guarantee quality. Every shipment requires a clear batch number, expiration date, and compliance paperwork. In the pharmaceutical world, anything less than full traceability opens major liability. Labs want to know exactly which lot made it to production, especially when used in medicinal skin products and veterinary treatments.
Investing in reliable warehousing pays off here. Keeping containers off the ground and away from sunlight preserves shelf life. Simple racking and regular inspections cut down on spoilage. During summer, I’ve seen pine tar thicken and eventually separate when indoor temperatures climb over 30°C. Cold storage isn’t always necessary, but ventilation and shade keep things stable.
Compromised containers have hurt more than one manufacturer. Leaky drums don’t just waste product; they skew potency and risk contamination with bacteria or even heavy metals. That’s why it makes sense to audit suppliers regularly—checking both packaging quality and handling in transit.
Expiration dates matter, too. While pine tar doesn’t spoil in the way food products do, chemical breakdown affects how it interacts with other compounds. If you plan to blend it for a prescription or topical cream, expired material means unpredictable results. In a regulated environment, this brings safety concerns and can stall production altogether.
The lesson here is to combine airtight packaging, steady storage, and strict record-keeping. Asking suppliers for Certificates of Analysis and chain-of-custody logs shields buyers from surprises. Investing in climate control and staff training works out cheaper than tossing out expired goods. Better practices mean safer medicine for patients and stable results in labs—no shortcuts, just careful steps along the way.
Names | |
Preferred IUPAC name | Wood tar |
Other names |
Pine Tar Pinus Palustris Tar Pix Liquida Pine Tar Oil Oleum Pini |
Pronunciation | /paɪn tɑː ˌbiːˈpiː ˌiːˈpiː ˌjuːˈɛsˈpiː ˈfɑː.mə ɡreɪd/ |
Identifiers | |
CAS Number | 8001-73-8 |
Beilstein Reference | 232-374-8 |
ChEBI | CHEBI:53559 |
ChEMBL | CHEMBL1201818 |
ChemSpider | 5320663 |
DrugBank | DB14026 |
ECHA InfoCard | 03f16b43-1e80-47aa-a49e-39c38414dded |
EC Number | 232-374-8 |
Gmelin Reference | Gm. 10750 |
KEGG | C01828 |
MeSH | D010881 |
PubChem CID | 6992833 |
RTECS number | WN6500000 |
UNII | T3OKU70C8K |
UN number | UN 1999 |
CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID5022515 |
Properties | |
Chemical formula | C₁₀H₁₂O₂ |
Appearance | Dark brownish-black viscous liquid |
Odor | Characteristic odor |
Density | 1.14 g/cm³ |
Solubility in water | Insoluble in water |
log P | 3.97 |
Vapor pressure | 1 mmHg @ 20°C |
Acidity (pKa) | 6.0 – 8.0 |
Basicity (pKb) | 8.43 |
Refractive index (nD) | 1.520 (at 20°C) |
Viscosity | Viscous Liquid |
Pharmacology | |
ATC code | D03AX |
Hazards | |
GHS labelling | GHS02, GHS07 |
Pictograms | GHS07, GHS08 |
Signal word | Warning |
Hazard statements | H315, H317, H319, H411 |
Precautionary statements | Precautionary Statements: P261, P272, P273, P280, P302+P352, P305+P351+P338, P308+P313, P333+P313, P362+P364 |
Flash point | > 207°C |
Autoignition temperature | 225°C |
Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 Oral Rat > 5000 mg/kg |
LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): >16 mL/kg (oral, rat) |
NIOSH | Not Listed |
PEL (Permissible) | PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) for Pine Tar BP EP USP Pharma Grade: 0.1 mg/m³ (OSHA - as Coal Tar Pitch Volatiles, respirable fraction) |
REL (Recommended) | 300 mg/kg |
IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not established |
Related compounds | |
Related compounds |
Birch tar Coal tar Wood tar Creosote Pitch |