Contact Us
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
© 2025 Jeifer Pharmaceutical, All Right
Reserved.
Decades ago, manufacturers started looking for ways to prevent contamination and extend shelf life of pharmaceuticals. In that search, parabens showed promise. Methyl hydroxybenzoic acid, commonly known as methylparaben, was one of the earliest benzoate preservatives to see widespread use because it offered effectiveness in inhibiting fungus and bacteria without causing significant irritation or toxicity. Interest soon shifted to sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate, the sodium salt of methylparaben, for its better water solubility. Pharmaceutical standards like BP, EP, and USP started codifying quality requirements, raising the bar for purity, safety, and traceability. Each revision reflected growing consumer and regulatory demands for safety in medications and personal care products.
Sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate appears as a white, odorless powder. Its main strength lies in acting as a preservative, blocking the growth of mold, yeast, and some bacteria. It appeals to both pharmaceutical and cosmetic formulators because it dissolves easily in water, making integration into creams, syrups, and gels more straightforward than with methylparaben alone. The clear labeling of BP, EP, or USP standards confirms the product has passed strict contaminant limits, heavy metal tests, and microbial purity specifications, which gives assurance to drug-makers and end-users. Drug development teams often turn to this compound for oral, topical, and even injectable products to reduce risk of microbial degradation during storage.
The compound features a molecular formula of C8H7NaO3 with a formula weight hovering around 174 g/mol. The melting point ranges near 125°C. Its standout quality is the high solubility in water, surpassing that of neutral methylparaben—this feature alone explains much of its popularity where aqueous formulations rule the market. Stable under a wide range of conditions, sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate avoids degradation under neutral and slightly acidic pHs. Importantly, it doesn't bring any strong taste or color, so it can be used in pediatric syrups or clear gels without changing the product’s appeal. The substance doesn’t react with common excipients or actives, so most compatibility studies find it fits into established formulas easily.
With BP, EP, or USP designations, suppliers must deliver consistently high-grade material. Assay values often demand 99% or greater purity, with clearly defined maximums for loss on drying, residual solvents, and trace metals like arsenic and lead. Inspection of the Certificate of Analysis can reveal detailed impurity profiles. Labels usually show batch number, manufacturing date, and expiry, allowing recall or trace-back if a problem ever arises. Manufacturers are held responsible for demonstrating compliance through periodic audits, and storage conditions—usually cool, dry, and away from direct sunlight—appear on every drum or package. This traceability means pharmaceutical firms can quickly verify if an ingredient meets tight regulatory rules in the US, Europe, or other regions.
Factories manufacture sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate through neutralization of methylparaben with sodium hydroxide. The chemical reaction takes place in an aqueous medium at controlled temperatures. Purification steps often involve crystallization, filtration, and washing to eliminate unreacted precursors and by-products. Analytical teams use high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and infrared (IR) spectroscopy to confirm identity and exclude contamination. As global demand for paraben alternatives grows, suppliers have invested in greener synthesis pathways to reduce waste and improve energy efficiency in the reaction and purification stages.
Sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate, being the sodium salt of methylparaben, doesn’t undergo many transformations during final product formulation. Its chemical reactivity remains low in neutral or mildly acidic environments, which protects active pharmaceutical ingredients from unwanted interactions. If exposed to extreme alkalinity or high heat, hydrolysis may occur, breaking down the parent ester. In research, analogs and derivatives sometimes emerge by swapping ester groups or altering the aromatic ring, with the goal of enhancing antimicrobial power or adapting to non-traditional product formats. Yet, the original sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate continues to offer a dependable preservation effect, which is why it remains a workhorse across medicine, topical care, and even food uses.
Across different industries and regulatory frameworks, this compound appears under an array of synonyms: sodium methylparaben, methyl-p-hydroxybenzoate sodium, and E219 number in the context of food additives. In ingredient lists for pharmaceuticals, you might also find it called sodium p-methoxycarbonylphenolate. Understanding these interchanges prevents confusion during regulatory submissions, global trade, or quality assurance. The compound’s wide variety of names reflects its long-standing position as a trusted preservative in many countries.
Handling sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate at any facility means following strict occupational safety and health protocols. Personnel use gloves, goggles, and dust masks to avoid irritation or inhalation. Companies train staff to avoid spills and ensure any accidental contact with skin or eyes receives prompt treatment. Storage remains a key safety point—keeping the compound away from moisture and high temperatures prevents caking or degradation. Most importantly, workers must follow established disposal guidelines, in line with local environmental rules, because improper disposal of chemicals—even well-established preservatives—can create downstream environmental risks.
The pharmaceutical industry leans heavily on sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate to suppress microbial growth in oral solutions, topical creams, and suspensions. Its clear performance and trustworthy safety record make it a first-line choice where product recall or safety incident could create huge financial and reputational losses. Cosmetic makers use it in face creams, makeup, and shampoos; food technologists look to E219 for preservative power in sauces and dressings. What links all these diverse uses is the shared priority of product protection—without modern preservatives, far more drugs, foods, and cosmetics would spoil long before leaving the warehouse.
Research teams worldwide keep exploring new uses and compatibility profiles for sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate. Some labs blend it with other preservatives to target a broader swath of microbes, especially in products prone to complex contamination. There’s a growing wave of interest in how this compound affects, or interacts with, emergent drug delivery platforms, such as nanoparticle-based suspensions or novel gels. Researchers track degradation products and study shelf-life under stress test conditions, all to strengthen safety and reliability claims. In cosmetics, scientists want to better understand the compound’s behavior in the presence of plant extracts and oils, often looking for synergies or warning signs of instability.
Safety reviews shape every regulatory decision about sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate. Animal studies and long-term exposure trials show the compound tends to have low acute toxicity and presents minimal risk at the concentrations used in medicine and consumer products. The skin tolerance profile looks favorable compared to more irritant preservatives. Regulatory panels across Europe, North America, and Asia have pronounced it safe within agreed concentration limits—typically up to 0.2-0.3% in finished pharmaceutical products. That doesn’t mean there are zero risks: misuse or excessive doses could trigger allergic reactions, particularly in sensitive populations, which warrants clear product labeling. Academic journals continue to publish follow-up studies; the door remains open to reassessment should new evidence surface.
Pharmaceutical preservation already faces pressure from shifting consumer demands, increasing regulatory scrutiny, and the rise of new manufacturing technologies. Sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate won’t slip away soon because it delivers a balance of stability, safety, and versatility that alternatives rarely match. Still, the future may bring more bio-based preservatives and tighter limits on all small-molecule additives. Biotech firms, major generic drugmakers, and even cosmetic start-ups continue to invest in co-preservative systems and real-world shelf-life studies. They are looking for smarter, more targeted ways to block spoilage without disrupting sensitive biologicals or raising flags with health-conscious buyers. That ongoing evolution means industry players must stay adaptive and always keep sight of end-user safety and regulatory expectation—not just old habits.
Factories are full of products and raw materials, but a few compounds there do a lot of heavy lifting behind the scenes. Sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate lands in this group. Most people won't notice this name on a label, but it gives medications extra shelf life by keeping out the bacteria and fungi that can turn simple syrups, creams, eye drops, and injection solutions into breeding grounds. If you've picked up a cough syrup at the pharmacy and used it over weeks without worrying about it spoiling, this compound played a big part.
Pharmaceutical-grade preservatives aren't just another box to tick. Keeping the bar high means patients avoid contaminated medicine. Regulations from agencies like the BP, EP, and USP—these represent the British, European, and United States Pharmacopeias—lay down strict standards. Pharmacy shelves need stable, consistent products, whether for a hospital ER or a rural dispensary. If contamination creeps in, the risk isn't just ineffective medicine. Someone could end up seriously ill because microbes take hold in a bottle of what was supposed to help. Each time a preservative like sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate passes quality tests, it's another guardrail for public health.
During long shifts in clinics, I've watched patients rely on oral suspensions or topical gels. Some needed their medicine to last weeks because replacements weren’t easy to get, especially in small towns with supply delays. If preservatives came in weak or with the wrong specs, dosing became dangerous. Imagine a child with an infection given spoiled syrup—it’s more than a bad taste; it invites infection. Years ago, contaminated cough syrup caused deaths in several countries. These tragedies underline how careless storage or poor ingredients invite disaster.
Sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate draws on the power of parabens, stopping bacteria and fungi almost on contact. Water-based medicines naturally breed germs. A preservative’s job is to shut down that process. In labs, scientists select at which concentrations this compound stops bugs but leaves people safe. Too much, and patients might face allergies or skin sensitivities. Too little, and spoilage sneaks in. Striking the right balance relies on research, batch controls, and regular third-party checks. Stability studies make sure that over months—sometimes years—the original formulation still fights off microbes.
Families trust that pharmacy products will do no harm. Meeting that promise means companies spend on the right chemicals, not just the cheapest. Laws push manufacturers to trace every ingredient. Reputation matters, but so does oversight. Governments must back up regulations with tough inspections, and community pharmacists need to know how to spot spoiled or suspicious products.
Newer research looks at possible side effects and safer alternatives. Some people react to parabens, so scientists keep hunting for better options. For now, though, sodium methyl hydroxybenzoate serves as one of the defenders that keep medicine safe through hot summers and shaky supply chains. Knowing which preservative stands behind a bottle might not make headlines, but for the nurse administering a dose, or the patient at home, that quiet protection carries a lot of weight.
Whenever I weigh up whether to order a chemical, supplement, or raw ingredient, I always look for clear specs and purity data. A name alone never tells the whole story. Vendors or distributors can’t just throw out technical labels and expect trust from customers. Read any lab report or packaging slip, and the purity—whether it’s 98%, 99%, or pharmaceutical grade—matters to everyone from food manufacturers to hobby chemists. For someone working in quality control years ago, I saw firsthand how meeting the right grade avoids wasted batches and angry phone calls. A shortcut on quality results in real-world messes and sometimes health or safety risks.
A purity percentage isn’t some marketing bullet. Walk into a research lab, and purity levels separate the compounds used for medicine from those used for cleaning grease. For food production, even a tiny slip below food-grade standards risks contamination or failed testing. Think of the infant formula recalls or supplement scandals reported by the FDA: purity and contaminants—or the lack of them—can become front-page news. I remember reading about supplements cut with fillers, causing allergic reactions or failing to deliver claimed results. That’s where published specs become more than numbers; they become safety guarantees.
Many sectors use standard measures such as USP, ACS, or EP grades. These standards don’t exist for bureaucracy’s sake—they are a shield against inconsistency. In the pharmaceutical business, a 99.9% level means everything else in the batch adds up to just 0.1%. This level of detail matters in processes where the smallest impurity triggers expensive recalls or lawsuits. Food producers rely on FCC or Food Chemical Codex values—again, with strict upper limits for metals, solvents, or allergens. Customers trust a brand less if any product falls short of these marks or if the company hides information.
People expect straightforward data. Certificates of Analysis (COAs) should list the lot number, date of manufacture, actual purity percentage, and results for contaminants. Years ago, I visited a supplier listing vague “high purity” without lab data. We passed on their offer. Being open about heavy metal content, microbial presence, or trace solvents shows a manufacturer stands by their quality. Ignoring these signals exposes everyone down the line to risk.
Some suppliers skip detailed specifications to keep costs down. Buyers get burned, and manufacturers scramble to fix problems. Regulators step in if enough people complain, but the damage to health and trust is already done. I always encourage people sourcing ingredients—whether for medicine, food, or specialty crafts—to demand up-to-date lab results. Purity testing should not be a black box.
Digital traceability can help here. QR codes on packaging or digital certificates bring easy, instant access to lot-specific test data. Investing in regular, third-party testing—rather than occasional in-house checks—keeps standards honest. Sharing failures as openly as successes helps weed out careless parties over time. Customers deserve to know what they're using, right down to the last decimal.
Specs and purity details drive safe production and better outcomes. They also drive customer loyalty—a lesson learned over years of managing product quality. Every purchase decision depends on trusting those numbers, not just the sales pitch. In a crowded market, clear purity specs aren’t an extra. They're essential.
Pharmaceuticals have never been just about mixing ingredients. As someone who's worked in chemical labs and seen the everyday struggles of pharmacists, I know how important standards are. It's not about being picky. It's about protecting lives and keeping trust. The British Pharmacopoeia (BP), the European Pharmacopoeia (EP), and the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) set the rules for what counts as safe, pure, and effective medicine. If a product aligns with these rulebooks, you can trust what's inside.
Imagine walking into a pharmacy in London, Paris, or New York. If the aspirin on the shelf doesn't meet BP, EP, or USP requirements, all bets are off. It might not dissolve as it should. Maybe it carries contaminants. Maybe it's missing enough active ingredient to even work. At worst, it might hurt you. I've heard pharmacists describe cases where they caught a batch of tablets that barely passed the 'appearance' test. That one visual check saved dozens of people from weak or tainted medication. Without compliance, you end up guessing about each dose people take.
BP, EP, and USP standards grew out of centuries of trial, error, and tragedy. These are not just technical requirements. These rules came as responses to people getting sick, or dying, from subpar drugs. Fake quinine during malaria outbreaks or cough syrups tainted with glycol led to heartbreak that shaped our rules. Trained experts, real patients, and evidence-based updates push these standards forward. No boardroom meeting can replace that kind of history.
Plenty of folks think meeting all three sets of standards is just about ticking boxes, but that's not true. Each pharmacopoeia throws its own hurdles at manufacturers. BP emphasizes heavy metal limits. EP might give extra tests for microbial purity. USP has its fingerprint tests for drug identity. Each one steps in from a different angle, making sure that no weak spot slips through. Factories that skate by without rigorous testing are not hard to spot — they cut corners, stretch ingredients, and play games with labeling.
Labs can face shortages of supplies for test kits. Documentation gets lost, systems lag, and new rules take time to hit the production floor. I once toured a factory where a single guy handled both the paperwork and the daily batch tests. He worked eighteen-hour days, dog-tired, cutting corners to keep up. This isn't rare, and these gaps make or break compliance. Production deadlines and profit pressure shouldn't outweigh public health.
Real solutions start with training and proper oversight. Factory workers and quality managers should work together, not at odds. Regular audits, updated batch records, and external testing keep the process honest. Technology helps, but commitment goes further. Management can't put numbers above safety. Governments must fund inspections, and buyers need to ask tough questions about sourcing. If everyone along the way keeps asking, "Is this up to code?" then patients can actually trust what’s in their medicine. Transparent supply chains and traceability should become the norm, not the exception.
Experience has taught me that paying attention to storage directions prevents a world of frustration. Medications lose their potency when left in a sunlit car, just as fresh produce spoils after sitting out all afternoon. Most products, whether they’re medicine, food, or chemicals for cleaning, don’t just “prefer” the right conditions—it’s non-negotiable. Shortcuts can lead to lost money, wasted resources, and in some cases, real health risks.
Out of all storage recommendations, temperature ranks as the most closely watched. Vaccines in the health clinic fridge won’t work if the temperature drifts. Years ago, I remember my family hurrying to move insulin into a cooler during a blackout because medical guidelines make it crystal clear—it can’t go above a certain temperature. Turns out, this isn’t just about following instructions. Vaccines exposed to the wrong setting may not do their job. That’s why warehouses and pharmacies install alarm systems and check their logs several times a day. Even at home, double-checking where pills or a tub of ointment spend their time often saves a costly repeat trip to the pharmacy.
Correctness in handling goes hand in hand with secure storage. In a food bank where I once volunteered, volunteers wore gloves and took time to read labels before touching anything new. One mislabeled allergen or cracked container risks more than a little inconvenience. Mishandled cleaning supplies can mix into dangerous fumes or catch fire. The same logic plays out at the local pharmacy or in a school science lab. Respect the label. Don’t move containers from original packages unless the new container carries all warnings and instructions. Plenty of serious incidents start with a missing label or a half-hearted guess about contents.
It’s tempting to stash things wherever they fit. That’s a mistake I’ve made—and paid for with moldy bread and faded battery life. Humidity creeps up in bathrooms and basements, ruining paper products and electronics. Light-sensitive chemicals and medicines degrade in daylight. Packaging seals and proper shelving protect against both, but forgetting them leads to waste.
Thoughtful storage puts dangerous or expensive items out of reach of kids or visitors. Accidental poisonings and theft stories fill the nightly news, many ending in heartbreak. Locks aren’t just for high-security labs. Everyday families benefit from safe storage of medication, chemicals, and even alcoholic drinks. The key is keeping legitimate users able to access items conveniently, without giving up security. That balance takes thought, not guesswork.
Labels are a lifeline. Everyone—from parents to warehouse staff—benefit when instructions spell out dos and don'ts with clarity. Confusion starts arguments, wastes time, and breeds mistakes. Many times I’ve seen a whole team’s effort wasted because a box didn’t list “keep frozen” or “shake before use.” Simple as it seems, reading and respecting those details reflects respect for everyone down the line—from manufacturer to end user.
Brands earn loyalty when I know I’ll get what I paid for. That trust relies on careful handling and smart storage—at every step from factory floor to my own shelf. Staying alert to these details avoids headaches, costs, and sometimes even dangers. As someone who’s seen what goes wrong when storage and handling slip through the cracks, those recommendations are anything but optional.
Drug ingredients don’t just show up in tablets or capsules by chance. Behind every pain reliever or allergy pill sits a stack of research, government guidelines, and proven track records. The question of whether an ingredient belongs in a medicine bottle or on a list of banned substances depends on a few things: the science behind how it behaves in the body, results from animal and human studies, and years of monitoring for problems. As someone who’s spent years reading studies and talking with pharmacists, I’ve noticed one thing—regulators and manufacturers both take these questions seriously.
For something to appear in a medicine that you take, developers run it through the wringer. Labs study the ingredient’s effect on rats first, looking for signs of harm or strange behavior in organs. If those tests don’t turn up issues, the research moves on to controlled studies in people. No outcomes guarantee 100% safety—think about peanut allergies, for example—but regulators keep a close eye for anything that doesn’t look right. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and similar organizations in many countries approve only ingredients with studies showing safe use at typical doses.
No matter how much lab work goes into a pharmaceutical ingredient, there are limits to what studies predict. Years of use in different groups of people offer the best insights. Acetaminophen, which millions of people take for headaches and fevers, comes with mounds of real-world data. Each time doctors or patients report unexpected reactions, safety data grows. If problems start cropping up—for example, links to liver problems or heart risks—guidelines change and warnings get added. So far, most common pharmaceutical ingredients, including sweeteners, fillers, and preservatives, haven’t turned up widespread health concerns when used as directed.
Reading a long list of ingredients on a drug label can be confusing. Not everything on that list carries risk for everyone. Someone with celiac disease, for instance, worries about gluten in fillers, even in tiny quantities. People who avoid certain sugars or chemicals because of allergies or intolerances need clear information. That’s where honest labeling and transparent communication step in. Pharmacies and doctors play an important part too. They flag problems before they start and help people make smart choices for themselves and their families.
Science and technology improve the way pills and syrups get made. Experts keep working to make medicines more effective, easier to swallow, and safer for people with special health needs. Plant-based capsules, for example, give options for vegetarians or people with gelatin allergies. Advanced coatings help slow the release of a drug or protect the stomach. Even minor tweaks—a new binder or color, for example—get careful review before anyone starts swallowing the update. Putting safety first never comes second.
None of this matters without trust. Drug makers, researchers, and agencies all play a part in keeping the system honest. Drug safety depends not just on one big test in a lab but on hundreds of small checks, thousands of patient reports, and constant learning. If a headline pops up about a recall or unexpected side effect, that means the system is catching problems. It’s not foolproof, but it beats the alternative—letting unknowns slip past. Responsible use, regular oversight, and a culture that values transparency keep everyone safer in the end.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Sodium 4-methoxybenzoate |
| Other names |
Methylparaben Sodium Sodium Methylparaben Sodium 4-hydroxybenzoate Methyl p-hydroxybenzoate sodium salt |
| Pronunciation | /ˈsəʊdiəm ˈmiːθəl haɪˈdrɒksi bɛnˈzəʊeɪt/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 5026-62-0 |
| Beilstein Reference | 386535 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:75208 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1200890 |
| ChemSpider | 2286 |
| DrugBank | DB14547 |
| ECHA InfoCard | Citric string: 03b5fa9d-87f3-4a09-b2b6-2e8949d0ef57 |
| EC Number | 231-978-9 |
| Gmelin Reference | 6088 |
| KEGG | C02462 |
| MeSH | Sodium Benzoate |
| PubChem CID | 70995 |
| RTECS number | WN9655G36W |
| UNII | 02Z8NSV5HM |
| UN number | UN2811 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C8H7NaO3 |
| Molar mass | 174.11 g/mol |
| Appearance | White or almost white crystalline powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | Density: 1.44 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Freely soluble in water |
| log P | -0.7 |
| Acidity (pKa) | 9.5 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 8.38 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -31.0·10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.349 |
| Viscosity | Viscosity: 5-15 mPa.s (20°C) |
| Dipole moment | 4.72 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 172 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -726.1 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -659.2 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | V03AX |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS09 |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H315: Causes skin irritation. H319: Causes serious eye irritation. H335: May cause respiratory irritation. |
| Precautionary statements | Precautionary statements: P261, P264, P280, P305+P351+P338, P337+P313, P362 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 2-1-0 |
| Flash point | > 200°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (oral, rat): 2100 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): 2,100 mg/kg (oral, rat) |
| NIOSH | DH6650000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) for Sodium Methyl Hydroxybenzoate is not specifically established by OSHA or ACGIH. |
| REL (Recommended) | Not more than 0.1% |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not established |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Methylparaben Sodium Propylparaben Propylparaben Ethylparaben Sodium Ethylparaben Sodium Benzoate Potassium Sorbate Calcium Propionate |
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
