Contact Us
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
© 2025 Jeifer Pharmaceutical, All Right
Reserved.
Many people trace the roots of Span 80 back to the growing need for stable emulsions in the early twentieth century. Early chemists tinkered with various sorbitan esters, figuring that esters with fatty acids could bridge the gap between lipids and water-based compounds. Companies began refining production as demand for specialized emulsifiers picked up—first in food, shortly after in pharmaceuticals. The British Pharmacopoeia (BP), European Pharmacopoeia (EP), and United States Pharmacopeia (USP) eventually laid down the standards for Span 80’s purity, setting the foundation for today's industry benchmarks.
Span 80 stands out as a nonionic surfactant made by esterifying sorbitan with oleic acid, usually derived from vegetable sources. Sporting a deep amber color and thick texture, it settles into countless applications where oils need managing. The consistency almost resembles syrup in cooler weather, while the scent brings a hint of oiliness. It doesn’t foam up in water—handy for applications where bubbles spell trouble. In many labs and factories, Span 80 offers a reliable way to pair up oil-soluble ingredients with aqueous systems—a tough challenge without these tools.
Span 80 weighs in with a molecular weight around 428 Da, and the chemical formula is C24H44O6. It holds a low hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) near 4.3, signaling a strong tilt toward oil-loving (lipophilic) behavior. Users can expect solubility in most organic solvents, but little interest in water. The melting point hangs around -7°C, so in most settings it stays in liquid form. Its density tops out at around 1 g/cm3. Chemically, it keeps to itself at room temperature. Mix it with the right reagents, though, and Span 80 can take on new forms—more on that soon.
Specs drawn up by BP/EP/USP standards focus on clarity and identity. Product labels spell out appearance, acid value, saponification value, and water content. Most pharmaceutical and food batches demand acid value under 10 mg KOH/g, water content below 1%, and a saponification value between 145 and 160. Traces of heavy metals and residual solvents get hunted down, keeping contamination away from sensitive formulations. Facilities keep batch numbers, storage instructions, and compliance marks visible, so regulators and users don’t lose track of critical data.
Chemists blend sorbitan with oleic acid under heat, often pairing the reaction with acid or basic catalysts. Once the ester forms, the batch gets washed and stripped of leftover reactants. Each run wraps up with dehydration—Span 80 hates water in its final form. Large-scale plants employ continuous mixing and controlled heating, keeping reaction times precise and by-products to a minimum. Behind the scenes, reactors churn day and night, spitting out metric tons of this sticky liquid as fast as the industry can consume it.
Span 80 doesn’t just sit in storage drums until someone needs an emulsifier. Researchers often react it further to craft Span 85 or switch up functional groups for targeted performance. Modifications might involve ethoxylation, which stacks ethylene oxide units onto the molecule, creating span-based polysorbates—solutions that allow water to mingle better with oil. Each of these tweaks alters the HLB value, so food scientists and pharmacists pick versions to tweak the texture, stability, or drug delivery in a given formula. In many cases, switching one ester group for another changes the whole performance game of emulsions and suspensions.
Read a technical document or safety data sheet and you’ll encounter Span 80’s full intro: Sorbitan monooleate. Other trade names pop up, including Arlacel 80 and Hexa-oleate. Chemists may jot down terms like E494 on food ingredient lists, as approved in the European food codes. Whatever the name, workers in the field know they’re talking about the same versatile go-between for oil and water.
Safety managers call Span 80 low-risk in most industrial and pharma settings. Toxicity stays low for ingestion, with LD50 numbers showing little risk at normal doses in food and pharmaceuticals. Standard handling calls for eye protection and gloves, more out of habit than severe risk concerns. Most spills clean up with absorbent pads or sweeping, since the compound doesn’t travel through air. The compound resists ignition, but hot surfaces or sparks in dry plants can still catch film and residue—precautions matter, especially at scale. In many places, authorities require training for staff who work with solvents alongside surfactants, especially in pharma and food plants. Disposal tends to travel along the same lines as vegetable oil waste, with most jurisdictions setting basic treatment requirements.
Span 80 follows oil everywhere it goes. As an emulsifier, it holds mixtures together in creams and ointments, chasing the pharmaceutical market’s need for stable suspensions. In vaccines, Span 80 allows for better antigen dispersion. It keeps pesticides from settling out in agribusiness and stops colorants from clumping in cosmetics. I’ve seen manufacturers rely on it to keep flavors distributed in margarines and dairy substitutes. Its use reaches as far as metalworking and textiles, where lubricants and finishes perform better thanks to Span 80’s oil-friendly backbone. Detergents and cleaners in the household market tap into its ability to suspend oily dirt, making it a silent partner in everyday chores.
Labs keep searching for the next edge—from nanotechnology drug carriers to more sustainable surfactant sources. Synthetic chemists have begun engineering variants that offer finer control over molecular size and branching, hoping to tune performance for highly specialized drug delivery. Projects at major universities and contract labs focus on breaking down the environmental fate of these esters, aiming for higher biodegradation rates. Research teams in pharma engineering test out mixtures with new active ingredients, measuring how Span 80 influences absorption rates and bioavailability in oral and topical formulations. In the cosmetics market, teams tinker with blends that promise even greater skin feel and stability.
Span 80 holds up well under toxicological scrutiny. Oral ingestion studies in rodents report high tolerance, with observable effects only at massive doses. Skin irritation sits at minimal levels, although repeat exposure in rare sensitive individuals may trigger responses. Regulatory agencies in Europe and North America set daily intake limits high, since most applications fall well under risk thresholds. Researchers still monitor for subtle bioaccumulative properties, especially as modified versions filter into the environment. Data from chronic exposure studies point to little or no risk, but regulatory reviews stay ongoing to catch any long-term effects that might pop up in niche uses.
Span 80’s role in pharma and food might look secure, but innovators eye the horizon for challenges and opportunities. Sustainability sits at the front of that push—producers hunt for greener sourcing of raw oleic acid, turning toward non-GMO and traceable supply chains. The biotech field sees potential in using engineered esters for targeted drug delivery, especially in the world of mRNA and nanoparticle therapies, where fast, selective emulsification can determine a product’s fate on the market. Automation and smart process control may soon refine production lines, squeezing out waste and tightening consistency. As demand for cleaner-label ingredients grows, transparency in sourcing and processing could shape Span 80’s reputation even more than technical specs. I expect regulatory bodies to keep raising the bar on purity and environmental impact, fueling a wave of innovation behind each batch that hits the market.
Pharma doesn’t achieve stable, efficient drug formulations by luck. Take the challenge of blending oil and water. It rarely ends well unless a reliable emulsifier like Oleic Acid Sorbitan—industry folks often call it Span 80—gets involved. This compound stands out as a non-ionic surfactant, and it’s trusted in global pharma standards such as BP, EP, and USP grades.
Much of my professional curiosity has been about how the tiniest chemical tweaks impact medication performance. Many liquid medications, ointments, creams, and vaccines depend on stable emulsions. Span 80 often steps in as the solution for these tricky blends. In real terms, a vaccine needs its active ingredients dispersed evenly, so every patient receives the right dose. Makers use Span 80 to break up oil droplets, spreading them through water-based solutions. This action limits separation, keeping drugs consistent from the factory to the patient’s dose.
Some ingredients in pharmaceuticals just don’t dissolve well in water—think oily vitamins or certain anticancer drugs. This usually means poor absorption in the body. Span 80 helps break up these oil-based compounds, making it easier for the body to use them. As a result, oral solutions and injectable forms work more predictably. That boost in reliability can translate to better treatment results for patients.
Beyond emulsions, Span 80 plays a role in soft-gel capsules. Manufacturers use it to keep oily fillings smooth and stable. It also smooths the way for coatings on tablets, making swallowing easier or controlling how fast a drug enters the bloodstream. In topical creams, it spreads active ingredients evenly to help skin healing or pain relief creams work better.
Patients and regulators alike put safety under the microscope. Span 80 passes strict standards laid out in the major pharmacopeias (BP, EP, USP). Regulators check for trace chemicals, microbes, and other potential contaminants. Drug companies rely on grades with extensive documentation of purity and consistent quality testing. It’s not just about ticking boxes. In my work, I’ve seen how failing these standards leads to real consequences, starting with costly recalls and ending with damaged trust.
One problem worth mentioning is the push to avoid petrochemicals and minimize processing waste. Oleic Acid Sorbitan, derived mainly from plant-based oleic acid, appeals to companies seeking greener supply chains. Still, quality doesn’t take a back seat. Process engineers keep improving purification and sourcing—ensuring the same high standards, whether the raw material comes from traditional or more sustainable sources.
Problems can crop up if suppliers cut corners or if raw materials change seasonally. The answer in pharma comes down to documentation, strict supplier audits, and frequent in-house tests. Companies invest in equipment that checks for even the smallest impurity or structural change in Span 80. Quality teams hold suppliers accountable, test every lot, and trace every shipment—because small errors here carry big risks for patients.
From what I’ve observed, innovation in drug delivery latches tightly to advances in excipients like Span 80. The ingredient may sound humble, but as new, more complex therapies reach the market, its reliability becomes even more valuable. Pharma will remain vigilant—constantly refining its approach to quality, safety, and transparency—because every detail in formulation counts for patients and healthcare providers alike.
Span 80, or sorbitan monooleate, has a job to do in pharmaceuticals. In short, it helps oil and water mix to make creams, injectables, and capsules work the way doctors want. That idea gets thrown around with a lot of weight, but few stop to look at why the grade and purity of Span 80 actually matter. I’ve seen manufacturers go through piles of paperwork and testing results just to prove they’re using the kind that truly meets drug standards.
The rules for Span 80 in medicine are strict. Only clean, well-characterized raw materials can take part in making any drug that enters a human body. The main test that matters is purity. Pharma-grade Span 80 needs to clear more than 98% assay on sorbitan monooleate. It cannot slip by with the kind used in industry for paints or lubricants. Heavy metals can’t be more than 10 parts per million. Water, a contaminant span 80 loves to absorb, has to stay under 1%. Peroxide and acid values get checked because those hint at spoilage or danger. Batch after batch, these numbers get checked, not only by the supplier but also by quality teams at every factory that buys it.
Even a trace of the wrong substance can cause trouble with medicine. That’s why suppliers show certificates proving their Span 80 is tested for lead, arsenic, residue on ignition, and color. If the numbers sneak above the acceptable range, the batch gets rejected. To avoid this, companies buy from partners who keep their facilities clean, equipment modern, and records transparent.
Some folks worry about solvent residues in excipients like Span 80, since the raw form comes from sorbitol and oleic acid, often through solvents. Good pharma-grade material lists every solvent used and proves there’s none left behind above threshold limits. That gives both drug makers and regulators peace of mind.
In my own work, the biggest headaches come from tracing a problem in a medicine back to a batch of excipient that didn’t meet full specs. Good documentation, including certificates of analysis, supply chain records, and stability data at different temperatures, saves both time and public trust. The gold standard comes from following standards like USP/NF, Ph. Eur., or JP, since each pharmacopeia spells out detailed limits. Suppliers who dodge those standards don’t last long.
Mistakes in purity can shut down entire assembly lines and spark recalls. I’ve watched teams put new controls in place, from online sensors to random sampling throughout production. Companies also test each incoming lot themselves, not just relying on the paper sent by suppliers. Some invest in more frequent training so every tech knows what’s at stake: if any impurity slips through, a patient pays the price.
There’s also a push for blockchain and digital records to track exactly where every gram of Span 80 comes from and how it’s handled. Rather than just trusting a label, the industry wants hard evidence available anytime. That level of oversight isn't about bureaucracy—it’s about protecting the person who needs medicine to work as promised.
Every step, from picking a trusted supplier to running regular tests in the lab, fits together to keep pharma-grade Span 80 safe for use. The standards aren’t just numbers on a page; they’re the result of years of experience and lessons learned from mistakes. Without tight control over what goes into excipients like Span 80, the safety of medicine can’t be guaranteed. This is why I take each line of a certification report so seriously—it all comes back to real people trusting what they take.
Span 80 goes by another name—sorbitan monooleate—and plenty of creams, ointments, and pills contain some version of it. It acts like an emulsifier, helping oily and watery components stay together. Pharmacies and manufacturers often reach for this ingredient because it’s been around for decades and seems dependable. You’ll spot it in skin lotions, ointments, and eye drops—the sort of items families and hospitals trust daily.
Skepticism grows whenever a chemical appears on labels we put on our skin or swallow as medicine. Span 80 flies under the radar for many, but health authorities across the world have examined its safety. Toxicology studies show that animals exposed to large amounts don’t experience severe or lethal reactions, though mild skin and eye irritation can show up when concentrations run too high. It doesn’t build up in the body, and humans break it down to simple fatty acids and sugars, which pass through like nutrients. International agencies, including the FDA and European regulatory bodies, classify it as safe for use in food and cosmetics up to certain levels.
I’ve mixed creams for family members dealing with rashes from new shoes or allergies from pollen. Manufacturers look for gentle ways to keep products smooth—ideas that connect with real-world concerns. Oils and water fighting in a cream don’t work so well for absorption or texture, so Span 80 creates a smooth blend that cooperates with the skin. I’ve never noticed allergic reactions from properly formulated creams with Span 80 in my household, but I’ve always paid attention to recommended dosages and other ingredient sensitivities. Every pharmacy or lab should act with that same respect: following guidelines, knowing that too much of anything can lead to skin trouble or worse.
All chemicals have two faces—usefulness and risk—and Span 80 counts as no exception. If you rub a product on delicate eye tissue or broken skin, or if you have sensitive skin, results may not be ideal. Some people experience redness or swelling; rare folks react with rash or allergy. The smart thing is reading ingredient lists and listening to your body. There’s always someone claiming “all natural” options work better, but sour cream goes bad without preservatives and lotions separate without emulsifiers. Fear shouldn’t steer us, but healthy skepticism keeps medicine and personal care safer for everyone.
Pharmacies, skincare companies, and medical supply outfits can take several steps that make a difference. They should always test formulas on small skin areas, keep ingredient lists clear, and use the least amount required for the job. Surveys and studies reveal that when patients talk with pharmacists or dermatologists before starting new products, negative reactions drop. Innovation never rests, and more plant-based emulsifiers appear each year, but the long track record of Span 80 makes it a baseline for safety and reliability. If a more natural replacement does the job better—and stands up to scrutiny—switching can only help. Until then, clear communication and precise formulation keep Span 80 a trusted tool for safe medicine and skincare.
You pull a drum of Span 80 off the shelf and think, “Here’s an emulsifier that keeps things from separating.” Plenty of soaps, cosmetics, and paints owe their smooth blends to surfactants like Span 80. But storage and handling can’t be an afterthought.
I’ve watched what happens when people don’t give proper attention to safe working habits. A little carelessness with chemicals, even ones that seem less risky, invites bad news. Skin contact sends some sprinting for the eyewash. Long-term exposure finds its way into the doctor’s file. It makes sense to get clear on best practices — both for personal health and for staying on the right side of safety rules.
Span 80 comes in a thick, greasy liquid form, usually golden or amber. Over time, exposure to air and moisture can mess with its quality. Humid basements, direct sunlight, or open containers create headaches nobody wants: clumps, separation, contamination, or a crew breathing in fumes unnecessarily.
The best place for Span 80 is a cool, dry storage area. Locked chemical storage cabinets do the trick. Don't stack drums right by exterior walls or heating vents. Get the temperature right, somewhere around room temperature — too cold, you end up with thick goo or separation; too hot, you increase fumes and risk spills.
Every container should carry a clear label, showing product name, hazard warnings, and contact details for emergencies. Keep lids tightened well after every use. If Span 80 gets into the wrong hands, plenty can go sideways fast.
Personal protective equipment shields against many Span 80 mishaps. Nitrile or heavy-duty rubber gloves work well. Safety goggles keep splashes out of eyes. I used to shrug off the advice as overcautious, but a single spill changed my mind — this stuff sticks to you. Once those slippery hands touch a doorknob, you’ve spread the risk around.
Ventilation matters. Poor airflow in the storage room or workstation brings up vapors and sometimes unpleasant odors. I’ve felt the headache after an hour’s work with the wrong kind of ventilation. Fume hoods or exhaust fans clear the air and make the shift go smoother.
Spill kits need a nearby spot. Paper towels don’t cut it. Absorbent pads, disposal bags, and mild detergent work better. Practice handling a spill, and it takes much of the panic away when one finally happens.
Sometimes, teams know the basics but still face problems. Span 80 drums arrive without documentation. Workers skip reading the safety data sheet (SDS). Managers race past tool-box talks, assuming folks already know best practices. Real improvement starts with consistent communication and training. Short sessions during the workweek help everyone stay sharp. Open discussions help people flag hazards before they become incidents.
Make space for notes — both digital and old-school written records — about inspection dates, spills, and clean-up drills. These logs do more than please inspectors. In my own experience, documenting a near-miss brought up a recurring leak nobody spotted before.
Span 80 isn’t the biggest hazard in the chemical workspace, but respect for it tells you a lot about a facility’s overall attitude. Trust doesn’t come from luck. It builds from knowing the products, recognizing risks, and believing everyone will speak up if something looks wrong. A reliable workflow and safe storage habits mark the difference between a close call and business as usual.
Pharma manufacturers take no chances on excipient quality, especially with ingredients like Span 80, which shows up in everything from topical creams to injectable formulations. Trusting the supply without tight documentation and transparent certification can lead to major regulatory setbacks or, worse, patient harm. Decades of work supporting pharmaceutical supply chains showed me most sourcing headaches begin with missing or vague paperwork. A company might claim pharma grade, but the batch slips through with gaps in the records, and suddenly, the entire lot is unusable.
Suppliers send over a CoA—Certificate of Analysis—for each Span 80 batch. The CoA lists test results against pharmacopoeial specs like USP, Ph. Eur., or JP, verifying the shipment meets pharmaceutical requirements. I’ve seen suppliers trip on the details here. One time, missing identification and acidity values on the CoA meant the receiving plant couldn’t process the order, as the regulatory auditor refused to move forward.
Alongside the CoA, clients want a full suite of compliance letters: TSE/BSE-free, allergen status, GMP compliance, and, where relevant, kosher, halal, or food-grade certificates. In a plant making both human and veterinary medicines, colleagues got into trouble with auditors for lacking a TSE/BSE declaration, which proves animal products in Span 80 come from low-risk sources or synthetic routes.
Traceability documents come up in every audit. Batch-specific Manufacturing Records allow each shipment to be traced back to raw material lots and process records. Rejection rates soar without this level of documentation, and an entire finished product batch could be lost because the original documentation didn’t cover a simple detail like solvent origin.
Regulatory authorities—FDA, EMA, and others—expect more than in-house controls. Span 80 for pharma needs certificates showing the site runs under GMP for excipients (such as EXCiPACT or IPEC certification). I’ve dealt with audit teams who took hours combing through supplier certifications. If they spot expired or missing GMP proof, the product gets blocked from entering production until the paperwork comes through.
REACH registration is sometimes overlooked, especially if the excipient comes from suppliers outside of Europe. Still, the documentation must clarify compliance if a product goes anywhere near the EU market. Likewise, pharma companies needing Span 80 for injectables chase suppliers for Drug Master Files (DMF). In a past role, releasing a parenteral batch was held up due to a supplier dragging their feet on submitting an updated DMF with the FDA.
Problems arise quickest at the interfaces—between what the supplier provides and what the buyer expects. Listings on a catalog rarely capture the detail pharma customers rely on. I’ve found it makes sense to take the time upfront: review a sample CoA and every compliance certificate before putting in a large order. Requesting scanned originals with actual batch numbers, not just templates, can avoid a backlog when the shipment arrives.
For suppliers, knowing the full expectation of international pharma buyers is key. Continuous training for staff handling documentation, investing in quality management systems, and keeping certifications current pays off. It isn’t box-ticking—it’s about avoiding the phone call at the end of the day saying production stopped because of a missing letterhead or signature. In the end, documentation and certification are the barriers standing between life-saving medicines and avoidable mistakes.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | sorbitan mono(octadec-9-enoate) |
| Other names |
Sorbitan Monooleate Span 80 Sorbitan Oleate Anhydrosorbitol Oleate Sorbitan Oleic Acid Ester |
| Pronunciation | /oʊˈleɪɪk ˈæsɪd sɔːrˈbɪtən (spæn ˈeɪti) biː-piː iː-piː juː-ɛs-piː ˈfɑːrmə ˈɡreɪd/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 1338-43-8 |
| Beilstein Reference | 2037554 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:53625 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1507 |
| ChemSpider | 5262398 |
| DrugBank | DB08798 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03b2a4d7-c1a3-4f35-bf7d-9e7a3b5e487e |
| EC Number | 9005-65-6 |
| Gmelin Reference | 1952 |
| KEGG | C19641 |
| MeSH | D009892 |
| PubChem CID | 5284447 |
| RTECS number | RG6040000 |
| UNII | 7T1F30V5YH |
| UN number | UN Number: "UN3082 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID2046726 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C24H44O6 |
| Molar mass | 428.62 g/mol |
| Appearance | Oily liquid, amber to dark brown |
| Odor | Characteristic |
| Density | 0.98 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble in water |
| log P | 4.9 |
| Vapor pressure | < 0.0001 mm Hg (25°C) |
| Acidity (pKa) | ~4.75 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 7.8 (pKb) |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | Diamagnetic |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.470 - 1.480 |
| Viscosity | Viscous Liquid |
| Dipole moment | 2.05 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 1104.7 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -10002 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | A16AX |
| Hazards | |
| GHS labelling | GHS07: Exclamation mark |
| Pictograms | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | No hazard statements. |
| Precautionary statements | Precautionary statements: P261, P280, P305+P351+P338, P337+P313 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | NFPA 704: 1-1-0 |
| Flash point | > 230°C |
| Autoignition temperature | 385°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (Rat oral): > 40,000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | > 34.4 ml/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | RG0870000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL: Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | “10 mg/m³” |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not established |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Sorbitan Monooleate Sorbitan Esters Polysorbate 80 Sorbitan Monostearate Sorbitan Monolaurate Sorbitan Monopalmitate |
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
