Contact Us
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
© 2025 Jeifer Pharmaceutical, All Right
Reserved.
Pharmaceutical excipients have evolved with the science of medicine, and sodium starch phosphate has traveled a long journey since starch-based sources first stepped into industrial production. In the past, pharmacists relied on simple starches, extracted by hand or basic mechanical means. As pharmaceutical needs grew, so did the need for more stable, chemically defined compounds. The early twentieth century saw researchers pushing past limitations of traditional starches, seeking to combine the properties of solubility with binding action, especially as tablets began to replace powders and capsules. By the mid-century mark, industry began using sodium salts to modify starch, aiming for substances that allowed precise control in drug formulations. This development paved the way for pharmaceutical-grade sodium starch phosphate, meeting rising regulatory expectations—and, crucially, patient safety concerns. Having worked in a pharma formulation lab, I’ve seen firsthand the shift from generic starches to these specialized grades in response to stricter industry oversight.
Sodium starch phosphate stands apart from its starch cousins, both in its chemical form and function. In pharmaceutical manufacturing, it forms an essential component for both direct compression of tablets and for formulations needing improved disintegration properties. Its designation across key pharmacopeias—BP, EP, USP—reflects this recognized value. This excipient often comes as a white, free-flowing powder, and plays a key role wherever rapid drug release or tablet strength matters. As a professional tasked with scale-up, I learned that switching from native starch to sodium starch phosphate could simplify many headaches—web-like clumping, inconsistent tablet break-up, and even loss of batch yield. While some might see it as a simple filler, in real-world settings, it’s a workhorse for stable drug delivery.
Getting a feel for sodium starch phosphate starts with its look and texture—fine, off-white powder, usually odorless, though some batches might carry a faint, earthy scent from their source. Chemists value its improved water interaction, due to attached phosphate groups, boosting both its swelling and disintegration power. Molecularly, it’s an ester of phosphorylated starch, sodium cations bound to the phosphate groups. Its degree of substitution—essentially, how many of those hydroxyls have been swapped for phosphates—determines its performance. Good lots offer high dispersibility in water, making them prime choices for fast-disintegrating tablets. In the lab, it tests negative for gluten and other allergens, increasing appeal for sensitive formulations. Particle size isn’t just for show—it directly affects tablet hardness, dissolution rate, and the overall quality of the finished medicine.
Any supplier claiming compliance with BP, EP, or USP specs needs to provide detailed documentation. Typical assay requirements call for sodium and phosphorus content to fall within narrow, prescribed ranges. Loss on drying must be controlled, since excess water trips up tablet compression and shelf life. Microbial limits stand tight, usually lower than those for food starch. Batch certificates display heavy metal limits, particularly for lead and arsenic, often measured in single digits of parts per million. Labels must show batch number, expiry date, country of origin, and storage advice. This isn’t mere bureaucracy: auditors and regulators expect traceability all the way from raw material to finished dose, and a missing document can grind whole production lines to a halt.
Manufacturing sodium starch phosphate typically starts with a high-purity, low-ash potato or corn starch, hydrated with water and mixed with sodium triphosphate or similar reagents. The mixture undergoes a controlled phosphorylation process under alkaline conditions and heat. Operators monitor time, temperature, and pH closely to reach the right substitution degree without degrading the starch backbone. After reaction, manufacturers thoroughly wash the product to remove ions and unreacted chemicals, followed by careful neutralization. The drying stage matters just as much—improper drying triggers caking or compromised flow in the final product. In my experience, this multi-step system benefits most from well-trained technicians, as even small slip-ups can result in out-of-spec phosphate content or microbial contamination. Investing in good process controls always pays off.
At its core, sodium starch phosphate forms through esterification—phosphate groups replace some hydroxyls along the starch chain, using sodium salts as catalysts. Adjusting the ratio of reactants changes the end product’s behavior: more phosphate groups lead to greater hydrophilicity and increased swelling. Some process tweaks seek to create cross-linked derivatives, boosting resistance to heat or enzymatic breakdown for modified-release drugs. These chemical shifts don’t just happen in textbooks; in a manufacturing plant, every reaction change means extensive batch validation and regulatory notification. Research labs sometimes explore new phosphate donors or crosslinkers, chasing more targeted properties, like resistance to high-shear mixing or compatibility with certain APIs.
Suppliers don’t always stick with one label—pharmacy buyers and formulators encounter a spread of names for sodium starch phosphate. Common synonyms include sodium phosphate starch, phosphated distarch phosphate, and cross-linked sodium carboxy starch. Some suppliers attach special codes or trade names to promote unique grades, especially for high-compression or rapid-disintegration versions. Documentation must match regulatory filings exactly, as even a small naming error can confuse customs or slow down quality testing. These variations in naming sometimes trip up new staff, so cross-referencing with pharmacopeial monographs helps keep things smooth.
The matter of safety travels far beyond simple storage advice. Any plant I’ve visited handling sodium starch phosphate runs regular dust control audits, since airborne powder causes respiratory irritation after prolonged exposure. Operating procedures call for personal protective equipment: gloves, goggles, and, in poorly ventilated rooms, dust masks. Spills get cleared with dry methods before any wet cleaning starts—wet starch can glue itself to surfaces, creating later hygiene headaches. Fire isn’t an obvious risk, but in enclosed spaces, dry powder can present a modest explosion hazard, much like flour. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) lay out these risks, and anyone working in storage or production lines undergoes annual safety refreshers. Mistakes happen where procedure isn’t drilled into routine.
Sodium starch phosphate’s main home sits in oral solid dose pharmaceuticals: tablets, caplets, and rapidly disintegrating oral strips. Here it plays its three trump cards: binding compressed powders, pulling apart a tablet at first sip of water, and handling active ingredients that don’t blend easily with simpler fillers. Pediatric formulators reach for it to help medicines break up quickly, especially for taste-masked or dispersible forms. Some veterinary medicines rely on it too, where chewable forms need quick breakdown inside the animal’s mouth. Its phosphate groups make it suitable in formulations where calcium-sensitive pharmacological agents require stable environments. I recall once reformulating a migraine drug: swapping in sodium starch phosphate nearly halved the disintegration time, which cut patient complaint calls notably. There’s no silver bullet excipient, but this one often stays on standby.
Research into sodium starch phosphate rarely sits still. Formulators test new combinations that blend it with other disintegrants, hoping for faster dissolution or reduced sensitivity to moisture. Some projects focus on creating novel cross-linked variants, tuning the degree of phosphorylation to match new generations of poorly soluble drugs. Analytical chemists run studies with advanced microscopy and powder rheometry, aiming for fuller understanding of particle interaction in finished tablets. Questions like how it behaves with microencapsulated actives, vitamin blends, or herbal extracts send many R&D teams back to the bench. Stability studies under accelerated aging conditions also happen regularly, especially with the global shipping climate swinging between soaring highs and storage at the edge of freezing. Real improvements get measured in seconds shaved from disintegration or months gained in shelf stability.
Toxicology assessments have followed the journey of sodium starch phosphate from early animal studies to modern-day chronic exposure investigations. Animal models rarely show adverse effects except at doses thousands of times above any realistic pharmaceutical consumption. Human clinical studies support its safety profile—rarely does it trigger allergy, and even those allergic to other starches often tolerate its modified form. The European Food Safety Authority and FDA both list it as a safe excipient, subject only to manufacturing controls for contaminants. Toxicity screens regularly measure heavy metals, aflatoxins, and microbial bioburden. In laboratory mishap scenarios—accidental inhalation, for example—symptoms usually stop at mild cough or irritation. Long-term health worries from regular industry exposure stay minimal, as long as routine protections and industrial hygiene practices are followed.
Looking ahead, sodium starch phosphate seems likely to keep its spot in pharmaceutical manufacturing for years to come. Demands for faster-acting tablets and new drug release profiles keep researchers tinkering with its molecular structure. Economic pressure for sustainable, plant-derived ingredients adds extra push for optimizing yield from raw starch without sacrificing quality. Digital manufacturing systems and machine learning might soon tailor process steps, predicting outcomes batch by batch instead of relying on broad statistical controls. Companies exploring personalized medicine see modified starches like sodium starch phosphate as platforms for patient-targeted release forms, especially as high-potency APIs become more common. As biopharmaceuticals and complex protein drugs gain wider market share, excipients with rock-solid stability and flexibility become even more central. I expect regulatory updates to focus more on tracing supply chains and guaranteeing infection control, especially after the disruptions caused by trade and global health crises in recent years. The challenge will be keeping the humble starch flexible enough to meet wave after wave of industry change.
At first glance, sodium starch phosphate doesn’t sound like something anyone ever asked for at the pharmacy. But open up a bottle of common tablets or capsules, and it’s right there in the ingredients. Some folks might not notice it—others, especially patients who track every additive for health reasons, see it often. In my own visits to local chemists, I see pharmacists answering questions about all sorts of inactive ingredients, and this one pops up because of how routine it’s become in medicine manufacturing.
Drug makers rely on sodium starch phosphate because it does more than just fill space in a tablet. One of its bigger jobs: it acts as a disintegrant. This means it helps tablets break apart easily in the digestive system, letting the active part of the medicine reach the bloodstream. Anyone dealing with pills that don’t work as expected—think of a headache tablet that just sits heavy—knows how important this property is for getting relief fast.
Beyond disintegration, sodium starch phosphate helps hold powders together so they can be pressed into tablets, and it keeps the pill from sticking to manufacturing equipment. These roles make production cleaner, more reliable, and support the delivery of an exact dose. Pharmaceutical grades—like BP, EP, or USP—signal that the compound meets strict testing standards for drugs across different regions. Safe sourcing and reliable testing protect people with allergies or sensitivities who need extra peace of mind.
Parents, people with chronic health conditions, and anyone on multiple medications often wonder if these kinds of ingredients are truly safe. Regulatory bodies such as the US FDA and European authorities evaluate sodium starch phosphate, looking at purity, possible contaminants, and the potential for allergic reactions. So far, reports of negative effects stay rare, especially compared to artificial dyes or certain sugars. Still, patients with celiac disease watch out: the starch usually comes from potatoes or corn, not wheat, but verification matters for those with severe gluten intolerance.
As someone who’s toured a few manufacturing plants, I notice techs talking about two main factors: efficiency and consistency. Ingredients like sodium starch phosphate help machines run without clogging or jamming. That keeps costs down and pills affordable. New formulation technologies keep popping up, but this compound has stuck around because it holds up well under batch testing and doesn’t interfere with common drug compounds. Sometimes the solution is not the flashiest new chemical, but the one that keeps working every day.
There’s always room to improve how medicines get made. More transparency in labeling can help folks with rare intolerances feel safe trying new prescriptions. Increased research into using plant-based alternatives could help patients looking for vegan certification. More than once, I’ve heard pharmacists and doctors field tough questions about every ingredient in a pill, and the answers usually come down to this: making medicine is about safety, stability, and trust. People want to know what they’re swallowing and why. As demand for cleaner-label drugs continues, the pressure stays on manufacturers to balance performance with simplicity.
Pharmaceutical ingredients don't always grab the spotlight, but an excipient like sodium starch phosphate can influence the quality and safety of a finished medicine. This modified starch shows up in tablets and capsules, and its quality as a pharma-grade material matters when trust and outcomes hang in the balance.
Sodium starch phosphate carries a molecular formula of (C6H7O2(OH)2PO4Na)n. Its role depends on things like moisture content, particle size, degree of substitution, and pH. Quality control teams check that the moisture level hovers usually between 10% and 14%. A tablet binder with too much water can lead to clumping or spoilage before reaching the patient. Particle size typically falls within a 150-200 micron range because oversized or undersized grains affect mixing and tablet hardness.
pH Range: The pH falls between 9 and 11 (measured in a 1% water suspension). This matters for compatibility with active drugs and stability over time. Too much acidity or alkalinity can trigger unwanted reactions, lower shelf life, or even degrade sensitive compounds.
Degree of Substitution: Not every starch molecule reacts equally with sodium phosphate. That’s where the “degree of substitution” comes in, which tells chemists how many of the available positions on the starch backbone carry phosphate groups. For pharmaceutical use, the degree is controlled within a narrow band (usually 0.04 to 0.14) to maintain performance batch after batch.
Any ingredient in a medication has to prove it’s safe. Pharmacopeias like USP, EP, and JP set the bar and spell out limits on tests for things you almost never think about—microbial counts, heavy metals, and residual chemicals.
Heavy Metals: Lead stays below 2 parts per million (ppm), arsenic below 1 ppm. Nobody wants traces of these toxic elements sneaking past an insufficient refining process. Drug companies and regulators both keep their eyes peeled for numbers like these.
Chloride and Sulfate: Levels remain tightly limited (not more than 0.35% for chloride, 0.35% for sulfate). Too many ionic impurities introduce risks for the person taking the pill, and can change how a drug dissolves or reacts. Purity here means better control over side-effects and treatment reliability.
Microbial Quality: Microbial contamination can ruin a whole production batch. Acceptable total bacterial counts rarely go above 1000 CFU/g, and most reputable manufacturers guarantee much lower numbers. Pathogens like Salmonella or E. coli simply have no place in pharma-grade material. Companies regularly verify this using standard compendial tests, so nobody runs the risk of a recall or worse—a patient getting sick.
Residual Solvents and Organic Impurities: Manufacturing often involves solvents or other chemicals. Top-tier material must not contain more than trace amounts. Tests typically show ethanol, isopropanol, or other common solvents present at far below accepted thresholds.
Years ago, I watched a batch of tablets fail its quality checks because an excipient’s moisture content was a few percent off. The company spent weeks tracing paperwork, running new analyses, and seeking explanations. That small gap between actual and specified values led to thousands of dollars wasted, plus a trust deficit. Consistency means more than just hitting the numbers. It means keeping full traceability, retaining certificates of analysis for every incoming drum, and working with suppliers who never waver.
For anyone on the production floor, it helps when suppliers provide transparent data and respond quickly to audits. Published spectra, detailed test reports, and real-world batch data support reliability down the line. Having pure and correctly specified sodium starch phosphate takes one worry off the mind of the pharmacist and the patient, letting the medication do its job safely and effectively.
Some manufacturers embrace continuous improvement by adopting rapid microbial testing and tighter automated controls on substitution and moisture content. Greater use of blockchain record-keeping or AI-driven statistical analysis could pick up on drift before human eyes catch it. Moving toward greener, solvent-free modifications in production also lifts both purity and sustainability over time.
Ask anyone who works in a pharmacy or visits one with any regularity, and most folks barely glance at the ingredient list inside a pill bottle. Even pharmacists sometimes forget about the thickeners, binders, and fillers built into tablets and capsules. Sodium starch phosphate, a white powder made from the modification of plant starches, rarely gets much attention. People more often recognize active ingredients—the ones doing the heavy lifting. Yet supporting ingredients like sodium starch phosphate play vital roles, especially for tablets that need to hold together, dissolve in just the right way, or not cause stomach upset.
Sodium starch phosphate’s safety track record in medicines tells its own story. Regulatory agencies like the FDA in the United States take a close look before approving ingredients for drug use. This compound has been cleared for years as safe for oral use, with thorough toxicology studies backing that up. Scientists have fed it to different animals at very high doses—much higher than you’d ever see in any regular medicine. They didn’t spot worrisome changes in organs or blood. Allergic reactions turn up rarely, and almost always in folks who already have a history with wheat or corn allergies.
Tablets fall apart at certain points because of ingredients like sodium starch phosphate. Picture taking a medicine and expecting it to not just pass through your system whole. This compound absorbs water and swells, causing the tablet to break up swiftly and release medicine in your stomach. Manufacturers count on this reliable breakup to make sure the body gets the medicine where it needs it. Without a good disintegrant, a patient could swallow a pill, only for it to pass out unchanged. That’s more common than people think when tablets don’t come together well during production.
A handful of people worry about modified food starches because of gluten or genetically modified crops. Most pharmaceutical-grade sodium starch phosphate comes from non-gluten sources. Regulators demand evidence proving compatibility with common food allergies, especially when a medicine targets children or vulnerable adults. If someone’s been told they are sensitive to wheat or corn, pharmacists can usually suggest an alternative or research the exact formulation for peace of mind.
Some advocates campaign for tighter rules on pharmaceutical excipients. Every year, more people want full transparency in every step of drug manufacturing, from raw ingredient to finished pill. This demand for cleaner labeling and more robust testing does not just come from patients. Researchers push for upgraded safety reviews, not because sodium starch phosphate poses a unique risk, but because the world keeps changing. New methods detect trace impurities that escaped old-style tests. Even trusted ingredients get retested with modern technology. Continuous re-examination keeps people safe in a world of evolving threats, from environmental toxins to hidden allergens.
Drug safety relies on more than just what goes in the medicine. Trust in the health system grows every year people see regulators doing real work—random batch tests, spot checks, and warning letters when shortcuts turn up. As diet trends swing and new allergies emerge, keeping excipients under scrutiny matters more. People want to know what they swallow is simple, proven, and unlikely to cause trouble. Calling for more open information, easier access to full ingredient lists, and ongoing review helps ensure products like sodium starch phosphate remain as safe tomorrow as they are today.
Sodium starch phosphate shows up in a surprising number of products—food, pharma, even some personal care items. People sometimes overlook the fact that ingredients like this can be pretty sensitive to the conditions where they’re stored. Once, I walked into a warehouse smelling faintly of cleaning chemicals and noticed bags of raw ingredients not sealed tight. After a quick chat with the warehouse supervisor, I learned they’d had a recent batch of powders clump up—moisture had crept in and spoiled the lot. It cost them time, money, and trust. Small mistakes in storage can create big headaches.
Most folks agree that you want a cool, dry spot for sodium starch phosphate. Temps should hang around room temperature—think 15 to 25°C (59 to 77°F). High heat can start breaking down the starch, messing with how well it works in recipes or tablets. If the powder picks up too much moisture from the air, it tends to cake up, making it tough to blend into products or feed through machinery.
Humidity often sneaks up in basements or older warehouses. Good airflow and dehumidifiers help a lot, as do climate-controlled storage rooms. I always recommend checking how well-sealed the containers are—bags need to be watertight. Every so often, it's worth running a check for leaks or weak seals. A little vigilance up front saves from a scrapped shipment later.
When moving and scooping sodium starch phosphate, dust can get everywhere. Inhaling it isn’t great for the lungs, and the powder feels gritty on the skin. Simple gear—gloves, goggles, N95 masks—keeps people safe. I remember one production line where nobody paid much attention to powder dust until a few workers developed rashes and a persistent cough. Company policy changed fast. I saw improvements almost overnight: sealed hoppers, careful transfer, and everyone wearing better gear.
It also pays off to read the material safety data sheet (MSDS) before training a team. These sheets give clear directions on what to do if there’s a spill or someone gets powder in their eyes. Quick, thorough cleanup and good hand washing routines help prevent cross-contamination, especially in pharmaceutical settings where purity matters.
Moisture poses the biggest risk. Once, during a hot spell, we lost a batch that sat near a window. The sun baked it, humidity climbed, and the whole thing turned to a hard, useless lump. Since then, we've switched to stacking supplies off the ground, away from direct sunlight, and always recording storage temperatures daily.
Stock rotation also makes a difference. Drawing from the oldest lot first ("first in, first out") helps ensure nothing sits too long and goes bad. Regular training keeps everyone sharp. Opening only what’s needed cuts down on powder exposure to the air. With pharmaceuticals, every detail counts since small changes in the product can mean big problems during quality checks.
It’s easy to treat sodium starch phosphate like any other dry powder, but past mistakes remind me that care pays off. Following the basics—cool, dry storage, strong seals, personal safety gear, and regular stock checks—keeps the supply chain reliable and the final products safe for consumers. Solid habits today prevent costly waste tomorrow, and that’s a lesson that sticks.
Sodium starch phosphate pops up around the world in tablet making, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmacies and manufacturers rely on this excipient to help pills break apart as they should, making sure medicine delivers what it promises. Quality in these ingredients makes a real difference in patient outcomes, especially for people who live with chronic conditions or take critical medications. When you’re picking between BP, EP, and USP grades, recognizing how each grade gets defined means choosing with confidence for safety and performance.
Different parts of the world count on different rulebooks for pharmaceutical ingredients. BP stands for the British Pharmacopoeia, EP for the European Pharmacopoeia, and USP for the United States Pharmacopeia. Each book brings its own set of rules on what counts as pure, safe, and usable sodium starch phosphate.
BP and EP often walk side by side. Sometimes their methods differ, but both check for things you can’t see with the naked eye. These pharmacopoeias set limits around impurities, moisture, and other chemicals that shouldn’t sneak their way into the final material. It’s tough to overstate what can go wrong if these rules get ignored: a few milligrams of the wrong thing could mean a dose that doesn’t work or, even worse, one that harms.
USP runs its own tests for sodium starch phosphate, and a few of its chemical specifications and test methods don’t line up exactly with BP or EP. Manufacturers exporting around the globe feel the need to check all three boxes, which means extra testing, paperwork, and sometimes adjusting production processes. I’ve seen warehouses with rows of bags stamped with each certification, giving buyers from New York to Berlin some peace of mind.
Pharmacopoeial standards check the basics: purity, identity, and safety. BP, for example, may look a little more closely at limits for heavy metals or specific impurities. EP, in some editions, toughens up on microbial limits, putting an extra barrier up for injectable products. USP leans heavily on its unique set of analytical tests, sometimes causing extra work for quality control teams who handle exports. If you’ve worked in a pharma lab, you know this means extra cross-checks every batch. Toss one’s guidelines out the window, and medicines risk falling outside regulatory compliance—resulting in recalls or regulatory headaches that nobody wants on their desk.
There’s a temptation to think that an excipient is an excipient, so what’s the big deal? Regulations say otherwise. Get it wrong, and the result can be stalled approvals, rejected imports, or, in rare but serious cases, safety issues. No pharmacist or manufacturer wants to answer questions about what was in their pills besides the medicine itself.
Standardization helps; the industry would breathe easier if BP, EP, and USP looked more alike. Dialogue between regulators matters just as much as what goes on in the lab. Continuing efforts to harmonize standards help reduce wasted time, materials, and confusion. until then, keeping a close eye on the labels—and the detailed certificates that come with them—remains the best way to stay out of trouble and deliver safe, reliable products to those who count on them every day.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Sodium starch glycolate |
| Other names |
Sodium Starch Glycolate Carboxymethyl Starch Sodium Sodium Carboxymethyl Starch |
| Pronunciation | /ˈsəʊdiəm stɑːrtʃ fəˈsfeɪt biː piː iː piː juː ɛs piː ˈfɑːrmə ɡreɪd/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 9005-84-9 |
| Beilstein Reference | 3542487 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:84947 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1201472 |
| ChemSpider | 5090185 |
| DrugBank | DB11110 |
| ECHA InfoCard | ECHA InfoCard: 03-2119457553-40-0000 |
| EC Number | 232-911-6 |
| Gmelin Reference | 146137 |
| KEGG | C14328 |
| MeSH | D020154 |
| PubChem CID | 24865757 |
| RTECS number | WNK2218RRA |
| UNII | 6M5D6WQ67E |
| UN number | 0154 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | Sodium Starch Phosphate (CompTox Dashboard DTXSID0063292) |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | NaO₈P·(C₆H₁₀O₅)ₙ |
| Molar mass | 860.63 g/mol |
| Appearance | White or almost white, fine, free-flowing powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 0.60 to 0.70 gm/ml |
| Solubility in water | Soluble in water |
| log P | -3.3 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Acidity (pKa) | 9.0 – 11.5 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 12.2 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | 'NA' |
| Viscosity | Viscosity: 40 - 60 cP (1% aqueous solution) |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 252.0 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -217.2 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | A07BC |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Pictograms | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Hazard statements | Not a hazardous substance or mixture according to Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008. |
| Precautionary statements | Keep container tightly closed. Store in a dry place. Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing. Wash thoroughly after handling. Use with adequate ventilation. |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | NFPA 704: 1-0-0 |
| Explosive limits | Non-explosive. |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (oral, rat): >2000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (Rat) Oral: > 2,000 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | Not established |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) for Sodium Starch Phosphate: Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | Not more than 70 mg/kg body weight |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not established |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Sodium Phosphate Starch Pregelatinized Starch Sodium Carboxymethyl Starch Sodium Alginate Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Microcrystalline Cellulose Calcium Phosphate Sodium Polyphosphate |
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
