Back in the 1950s, as food production ramped up and the demand for smoother, creamier textures grew, scientists searched for compounds that could keep oil and water working together in harmony—enter polysorbates. Among these, polysorbate 65 rose through the ranks alongside its close relatives. Chemists discovered that tweaks in fatty acid chains gave each type its own quirks. Polysorbate 65 stood out due to its palmitic acid backbone, giving it a different balance between oil solubility and water friendliness. Over decades, as processed foods dominated supermarket shelves, companies leaned hard on additives like this to keep products appealing, stable, and affordable. Even now, the story of polysorbate 65 reflects our ongoing tug-of-war between food science, industry pressures, and consumer expectations.
Polysorbate 65 belongs to a family of emulsifiers developed from sorbitol (a sugar alcohol) and palmitic acid, then reacted with ethylene oxide. You’ll find it today in all sorts of products: whipped toppings, non-dairy creamers, ice cream, margarine, and even some pharmaceuticals. Companies count on it not just to prevent separation but to help deliver that rich mouthfeel folks enjoy. It’s valued because it works reliably across fat or aqueous systems, resisting temperature swings and helping extend shelf lives. The food and pharmaceutical sectors both see it as a workhorse, largely due to its ability to stabilize and disperse ingredients that wouldn’t mix otherwise.
Polysorbate 65 takes the form of a yellowish, oily or paste-like substance. It smells mild, almost sweet, and tastes a bit like wax. The ingredient dissolves in water and ethanol, swells in oils, and stays stable over a wide range of temperatures. Its molecular weight runs roughly around 744 g/mol, influenced by batch-specific fatty acid chains. The hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB), a way to describe how well the molecule can do its job as an emulsifier, sits at 10.5, making it ideal for blending oil into water rather than the other way around. The chemical backbone is made up of polyoxyethylene sorbitan condensed with palmitic acid, making the structure robust under mildly acidic and basic conditions.
Global regulations guide the permitted levels of polysorbate 65 in foods and drugs. Food-grade polysorbate 65 must meet purity benchmarks for heavy metals, acid value, saponification value, hydroxyl value, and polyoxyethylene content. The United States, Europe, and China each have their own detailed requirements. On product labels, you might see it shown as ‘Polysorbate 65’, ‘E436’ (the European food additive number), or ‘polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan tristearate’. Ingredients lists make it clear—consumers willing to squint past long words will notice its presence in a surprising range of goods.
Production starts with sorbitol, which undergoes a dehydration process to become sorbitan. The next step brings palmitic acid into the mix, forming sorbitan esters. Subsequent reaction with about 20 moles of ethylene oxide per mole of sorbitan palmitate yields the final product. This process demands tight control—temperature, pressure, and reaction purity directly influence chain length and residual contaminants. Filtration, decolorization, and purification steps bring polysorbate 65 up to standards suitable for food or pharmaceutical use. Despite all this chemistry, the manufacturing process keeps large-scale production cost-effective for big business.
The defining ester groups in polysorbate 65 can react when exposed to strong acids or bases, potentially hydrolyzing back into sorbitan, polyoxyethylene fragments, and palmitic acid. These reactions matter if someone needs to break polymer chains down for recycling or waste treatment. In research settings, scientists sometimes modify the polyoxyethylene chain length or the fatty acid attached to tailor specific performance traits—higher or lower HLB, increased stability, or different solubility profiles. Despite opportunities for further chemistry, the standard structure continues to provide the best mix of safety, accessibility, and utility for mainstream use.
Depending on where you look, polysorbate 65 pops up with many names. Its most technical name reads polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan tristearate, reflecting structural details. On packaging, it appears as E436 in the European Union. Other trade names include Tween 65, Armotan PS65, Alkest TW 65, and Cetiol HE. Ingredient lists around the world tend to use the simple ‘polysorbate 65’, but savvy formulators recognize its registry numbers or shorthand in regulatory databases, which prevents confusion with similar polysorbate variants.
Decades of regulatory scrutiny haven’t uncovered major risks to ordinary consumers, provided companies stick to dosing limits. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives assigns an acceptable daily intake (ADI) set at 10 mg/kg body weight for polysorbates. Workers in production plants benefit from standardized handling rules, including gloves and goggles—undiluted polysorbate 65 can irritate eyes or skin. Storage and packaging must avoid extreme heat or moisture, which might encourage hydrolysis or microbial growth. Labeling requirements help trace any issues back to their source, keeping both quality and safety tight.
Food products rely on polysorbate 65 for more than just scientific reasons. In chocolate, bakery creams, and whipped toppings, it prevents the fat and water from parting ways on the shelf. Ice cream stays smooth, resisting the formation of gritty ice crystals. Non-dairy creamers achieve that full pour without separating in coffee. Pharmaceutical tablets and syrups use it for consistent delivery of active ingredients, improving solubility and absorption. The cosmetic world taps into its emulsifying powers too, from lotions to facial cleansers. Breadth of application speaks to its reliability and proven track record wherever stable mixtures get top marks.
Over the years, most research focused on maximizing stability, finding the absolute limits for shelf life extension and texture retention. Today, scientists look at interactions with proteins, natural colorants, and preservatives. New testing efforts explore how it behaves with alternative oils—avocado, coconut, or even algae-sourced varieties. Research into biotechnology hopes to develop enzyme-assisted synthesis routes, aiming for more sustainable production. Some startups investigate bio-based alternatives that could offer similar benefits with a lower environmental footprint, reflecting consumer interest in cleaner-label products without sacrificing convenience or quality.
Polysorbate 65, tested in animal studies and monitored via decades of human consumption data, rarely causes concern at normal usage levels. Studies point to low acute toxicity and nearly full excretion after ingestion. Some high-dose animal studies note mild gastrointestinal issues, but not at levels present in a diet. Allergic reactions remain rare, though trace contaminants—residual ethylene oxide or byproducts—occasionally raise concern, prompting manufacturers to tighten up purification steps. Like many additives, questions about long-term effects resurface as analytical technology improves. Ongoing surveillance supports public trust, since key health agencies have not flagged major red flags for the populations at large.
With clean-label movements picking up speed, manufacturers quietly consider how much longer polysorbate 65 will stay at the center of food and pharma formulations. Consumer wariness towards chemical-sounding ingredients pushes companies towards natural or bio-based emulsifiers, driving fresh research. Still, legacy products—trusted brands that people reach for without thinking—rely on the predictability of polysorbate 65. There’s room here for compromise. Brands can reduce reliance by switching to blends that pair synthetic and natural emulsifiers or by developing new ways to enhance stability using less additive. Environmental impacts from its manufacture and disposal factor into regulations and purchasing decisions more than before. If companies commit to greater transparency and invest in greener production, polysorbate 65 may find a new role—not just as an old-school emulsifier, but as a benchmark for safer, smarter, and more responsible ingredient innovation.
Polysorbate 65 shows up in a surprising number of things we eat, clean with, and use on our bodies each day. Food companies put it to work as an emulsifier. That means it helps oil and water unite — things like cake mixes, whipped toppings, and cocoa drinks handle it all thanks to this one ingredient. If you’ve ever mixed a powdered drink and found it blended smoothly, Polysorbate 65 probably played a part.
Using it changes the way food feels inside a mouth. It gives a creamy finish and keeps products from splitting or turning greasy. In bakery work, I’ve seen bakers lean on it to help bread stay soft longer after baking. Freeze a cake, thaw it, and the smooth texture stays put — Polysorbate 65 keeps ice crystals from messing up the recipe.
Soap makers and cosmetic brands reach for Polysorbate 65 to solve mixing headaches. Lotions, creams, tanning sprays, and some conditioners get their silky feel because this ingredient calms down the clash between oily and watery parts, avoiding that gross separation you sometimes find in cheaper products. Even shaving creams can hold that thick, stable foam because of it.
Pharmaceutical companies also count on Polysorbate 65 for making tablets and syrups. By helping medicinal compounds distribute evenly throughout a solution, each dose gives the same result. This cuts down on the risk of inconsistent effects or wasted product. Hospitals and clinics lean on these solutions every day.
People sometimes see long chemical names and worry. Polysorbate 65 has approval from the US Food and Drug Administration as a food-grade additive. Studies done by health organizations support its safety when used in regulated amounts. It breaks down in the body into harmless fatty acids and sugars. People with food allergies might like knowing that it rarely causes allergic reactions.
Still, no ingredient works for everyone. Some people try to keep food additives low, sticking to home-cooked meals with fewer processed foods. As more shoppers ask for simpler ingredient lists, companies have started using less or swapping it out for alternatives, like lecithin or sunflower-based emulsifiers.
Some industry people see an opportunity to look for natural substitutes and clearer labeling. I remember speaking to folks who work in R&D for snack foods. They follow trends and experiment with other plant-based emulsifiers to soothe customer concerns. This can mean using more natural-sounding ingredients, but still holding onto shelf stability and taste that people want.
People with strong food preferences or health needs check ingredients carefully. Apps and websites that scan barcodes or list ingredient concerns step in here. Grocery store education does help families make choices—something I’ve seen work well at school nutrition workshops.
Trust hinges on facts and open conversation. When companies put effort into clear, honest labels and educational resources, people feel more confident about what goes into their bodies. Responsible sourcing and transparency count as much as technical food science.
The role of Polysorbate 65 proves that science and consumer needs meet in everyday life, not just in textbooks or labs. Whether in a chocolate bar, ice cream carton, or beauty cream, it’s a quiet helper — but it owes its place to trust and real-world use, supported by careful study and clear communication.
Polysorbate 65 often turns up on the back of food labels. It helps oil and water mix, so it finds a home in products like ice cream, baked goods, and salad dressings. The food industry relies on it to create a creamy texture and a consistent product.
Food authorities like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have studied polysorbate 65 for safety. Back in the 1970s, studies showed that polysorbates, including 65, pass through the system mostly unabsorbed, with only small amounts breaking down in the digestive tract. The FDA currently lists it as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) when used within certain limits.
European regulators call it E436, and the European Food Safety Authority has checked its safety too. They have not flagged it as a hazard for the general public based on available evidence. A typical diet doesn’t include huge amounts of emulsifiers, so intake stays well below regulated safety levels for most people.
Despite regulatory checks, consumer worry about food additives has grown. Some scientists have looked at whether emulsifiers like polysorbate 65 could affect gut health. Studies with animals have shown that high consumption of emulsifiers sometimes hurts gut bacteria and may trigger inflammation. Translating those findings to people brings in all kinds of questions. Human studies are sparse, and those using realistic quantities of emulsifiers have not established a clear risk so far.
Doctors also watch out for people who have allergies or sensitivities. Reports of allergic reactions to polysorbate 65 stay rare. Some people with severe allergies or chronic digestive issues might want to avoid anything unfamiliar, including this food additive, just in case. For folks already dealing with major digestive illnesses such as Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, doctors may recommend eliminating processed foods that contain emulsifiers as a precaution.
My own approach to shopping and eating often begins with a look at the label. If a product lists a lot of additives, I pause and weigh if there’s a simpler alternative. Some people feel best sticking with minimally processed foods. For others, foods with emulsifiers add convenience and shelf life, especially for busy weeks.
Health experts tend to agree that moderation matters most. Eating ice cream or bread with polysorbate 65 once in a while hasn’t shown harm in the research so far. Regular meals built mainly out of whole foods—vegetables, grains, fruits, a little meat or fish—carry the evidence for supporting good health in the long run.
Manufacturers have started looking at natural alternatives to synthetic emulsifiers, prompted both by consumer demand and ongoing research. Some companies already use plant-based lecithins from sunflower or soybeans.
Clear labeling helps everyone make smarter choices. Food companies can do more to explain why an additive has a place in their product. Talking with a doctor or registered dietitian proves useful if you’re trying to manage allergies, gut health, or just eat a little cleaner. Science doesn’t work in isolation—feedback from ordinary people helps guide where research focuses next.
Ice cream doesn’t magically end up creamy after churning. Besides dairy and sugar, ice cream makers add a small amount of Polysorbate 65 to help everything come together. Without it, many ice creams would turn icy and rough after a week in the freezer. Polysorbate 65 manages to keep fat and water from breaking apart, so you get a scoopable texture—no matter how many times you dive into the carton. Food chemists point out that this makes it easier to balance recipe costs, since Polysorbate 65 helps spread fat more evenly. In tough economic times, that impact can’t be ignored.
Biting into a soft cupcake or fluffy white bread rarely prompts folks to wonder about the science behind the texture. Still, those textures come from more than just flour and care in baking. Commercial bakeries use Polysorbate 65 to help lock in moisture and keep products fresher for longer. Living in a humid region, I’ve seen loaves of bread spoil on the shelf in days. Loaves treated with Polysorbate 65 tend to stay soft and resist staling—even after a few days in fluctuating heat and humidity.
Chocolate production is picky about temperature and consistency. If you’ve ever noticed a white, streaky bloom on chocolate, that’s fat separating out. Candy-makers figured out that Polysorbate 65 cuts down on these problems, making the chocolate look shiny and appealing long after packaging. I learned from a local chocolate maker how emulsifiers like this one streamline their process, saving them from expensive product losses caused by unpredictable batch flaws.
Salad dressing on a dinner table starts to separate into layers if left out too long. The addition of Polysorbate 65 helps oil blend with acidic ingredients, creating that smooth pour consumers expect. Brand-name dressings rely on it not only for taste but also for reliable shelf life and visual appeal.
Some folks raise their eyebrows at the idea of “additives” in food, and questions pop up about the safety of Polysorbate 65. Regulatory agencies like the FDA have reviewed its use and set safety limits. Research shows it is digested and broken down, resulting in no bioaccumulation in the body. Still, one useful step for the industry: clearer communication and labeling, so shoppers don’t feel like ingredients are being hidden from them. The food industry can make labels easier to read and publish more info online about why these ingredients are there.
Demand for “clean label” foods—products with fewer, recognizable ingredients—is on the rise. Brands can invest in recipe testing for alternatives based on plant fibers and proteins. Still, Polysorbate 65 has a long record of making processed food safer and better textured. Balancing innovation with consumer trust, and not treating scientific-sounding names as suspicious by default, remains a top challenge for both manufacturers and regulators.
Food labels have a knack for stirring up curiosity, and sometimes a little suspicion, especially among folks who follow a vegan diet. One of the ingredients that often sparks debate is polysorbate 65, found in products ranging from ice cream to baked goods. It acts as an emulsifier, helping foods keep a consistent texture and feel enjoyable to eat. The next question is simple: Does polysorbate 65 come from animals, or is it safe for those who steer clear from animal-derived ingredients?
Polysorbate 65 starts off with a mix of sorbitol and stearic acid. Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol, usually made from corn or potatoes, and it’s solidly plant-based. The real stumbling block comes with stearic acid. In chemical terms, stearic acid is a fatty acid, and this is where things take a turn. Big chemical manufacturers often create stearic acid either from animal fat (usually from cattle or pigs) or from vegetable oils like palm and soybean.
Personal experience with ingredient sourcing for recipe development has shown that not all suppliers are upfront about where that stearic acid comes from. It depends on price, availability, and sometimes even regional supply chains. For those who ask questions at grocery stores or reach out to brands, answers are rarely direct. The food industry sometimes substitutes animal-based stearic acid for a plant-based version without flagging it. Some companies label their polysorbate 65 as “vegetable origin” or “vegan,” but most just list the ingredient name and keep moving.
The FDA does not require brands to disclose the origin of stearic acid in their polysorbate 65. For someone with a strict vegan lifestyle, this lack of transparency presents a real challenge. The Vegetarian Resource Group and other food advocacy groups support this, noting that suppliers switch between sources depending on cost or supply. If a manufacturer uses plant oils instead of animal fats, the product fits most vegan definitions. But there’s always a grey area unless the producer takes responsibility and publicly verifies the source.
Reading available literature, especially scientific papers and ingredient catalogs, shows that large-scale polysorbate 65 more often comes from plant-based stearic acid these days. Animal fats, once cheaper, have given way to palm and soybean oils in many markets. Still, for those allergic or sensitive to animal products, or for folks taking their vegan label seriously, these broad trends only mean so much. Brand-to-brand, batch-to-batch, nothing guarantees the source unless it’s certified vegan or the manufacturer puts it in writing.
At home, it helps to ask brands for documentation, seek out vegan-certified products, and press companies to clarify ingredient sources. Big brands that respond to consumer pressure have adjusted their supply chains before; public interest gets their attention. Responsible food production should mean clear labeling, full traceability, and respect for dietary choices. Industry groups, food safety agencies, and advocacy organizations could help consumers by updating food labeling laws to include the source of ambiguous additives like polysorbate 65.
In everyday shopping, vigilance pays off. Until ingredient lists and supply chains become easier to untangle, vegans may want to stick with certified options or do a little extra digging. Full trust only comes with full information.
Polysorbate 65 finds its way into shelves at the grocery store, hidden inside treats like ice cream, whipped toppings, salad dressings, and some bakery staples. It works as an emulsifier, helping oil and water become friendly neighbors in foods. This ingredient pops up in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, too. Most people rarely skim the ingredient label long enough to notice it, and the average eater assumes it’s harmless. Yet, a few questions always hang in the air about additives like this: Are there side effects, and could it trigger allergies?
Scientists and regulatory groups like the FDA and EFSA have generally labeled polysorbate 65 as safe in small doses found in foods. That doesn’t mean it passes through everyone unnoticed. Some people notice digestive issues if they regularly eat foods with several types of emulsifiers, including polysorbate blends. You may hear folks mention bloating, loose stools, or stomach discomfort. These symptoms often blur with reactions to other food additives, so linking them only to this specific ingredient is tough without more research.
A few animal studies hint that long-term, high consumption of certain emulsifiers could upset gut bacteria and contribute to intestinal inflammation. While these findings often get cited in heated diet debates, researchers stress this isn’t solid proof that people need to worry about the occasional slice of cake.
Food and chemical allergy clinics rarely see patients react specifically to polysorbate 65. Actual allergic responses turn up in medical journals only now and then. When they do, the reaction owes more to the “sorbitan” part of the molecule or to an impurity rather than polysorbate 65 itself. Symptoms in these rare cases range from skin hives, itching, or swelling, to trouble breathing right after exposure in medicines or vaccines. People who have reacted to similar compounds (like polysorbate 80, often used in shots) have a slightly higher chance of noticing issues here.
Still, these reactions are exceptions. Most grocery shoppers and patients using products with this label move on with their day without a second thought.
Folks with a history of weird reactions after eating processed foods or after medical treatments should talk with a healthcare professional. Bringing a photo of ingredient lists, or even the boxes, helps nurses and doctors spot a pattern. People with a diagnosed allergy to a related compound, or to polyethylene glycol, might get advice to steer clear.
Anyone who worries about possible reactions can limit intake by choosing fresher foods and fewer packaged goods. This won’t only cut down exposure to polysorbate 65, it trims the load from several other synthetic additives. If symptoms like itching, hives, or breathing trouble show up right after using a new product or medication, seeking medical help makes sense.
Manufacturers could help by making ingredient lists easier to read, less crowded, and less cryptic. More open data sharing between researchers, hospitals, and food producers would shed better light on how rare these side effects really are. Ongoing studies on emulsifiers and their impact on gut health should continue, so shoppers and patients don’t end up playing guessing games.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan tristearate |
| Other names |
Polyoxyethylene (20) stearate Tween 65 E436 |
| Pronunciation | /ˌpɒl.iˈsɔːr.beɪt sɪksti faɪv/ |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan tristearate |
| Other names |
Polyoxyethylene (20) stearate Tween 65 E436 |
| Pronunciation | /ˈpɒliˌsɔːrbeɪt sɪksti faɪv/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 9005-71-4 |
| Beilstein Reference | 3970894 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:53428 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1201610 |
| ChemSpider | 14621 |
| DrugBank | DB11162 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03cb5a08-192b-443d-a066-4c68410db6d2 |
| EC Number | 500-018-3 |
| Gmelin Reference | 61187 |
| KEGG | C14233 |
| MeSH | D011110 |
| PubChem CID | 11114 |
| RTECS number | TR1575000 |
| UNII | 7T1F30V5YH |
| UN number | UN3082 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID4046876 |
| CAS Number | 9005-71-4 |
| Beilstein Reference | 2910958 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:53424 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1201537 |
| ChemSpider | 21569715 |
| DrugBank | DB11107 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03d9f5ca-7fc5-4d13-9bae-8932e8ec234d |
| EC Number | 500-019-9 |
| Gmelin Reference | 77139 |
| KEGG | C20404 |
| MeSH | D011110 |
| PubChem CID | 24853 |
| RTECS number | WGK3 |
| UNII | S6CO54H2UW |
| UN number | UN3082 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID9020937 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C100H194O28 |
| Molar mass | 1196.59 g/mol |
| Appearance | Yellow to amber oily liquid |
| Odor | Faint characteristic odor |
| Density | 1.08 g/cm3 |
| Solubility in water | Dispersible in water |
| log P | 2.6 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Acidity (pKa) | ~15.5 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | 'Magnetic susceptibility (χ) of Polysorbate 65: -7.1×10⁻⁶ cm³/mol' |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.466-1.478 |
| Viscosity | 600–800 cP (25°C) |
| Dipole moment | 1.53 D |
| Chemical formula | C100H194O28 |
| Molar mass | 1196.54 g/mol |
| Appearance | Pale yellow to yellow oily liquid or semi-gel |
| Odor | Faint, characteristic |
| Density | 1.05 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | soluble |
| log P | 2.1 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Basicity (pKb) | 13.89 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -9.6e-6 cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.466 (20 °C) |
| Viscosity | 300–500 cP (25°C) |
| Dipole moment | 2.49 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | ΔcH⦵298 (Polysorbate 65) = –37.7 kJ/g |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | A06AG11 |
| ATC code | A06AG11 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause mild skin and eye irritation. |
| GHS labelling | Not a hazardous substance or mixture according to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS). |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Signal word | No signal word |
| Hazard statements | Polysorbate 65 is not classified as a hazardous substance or mixture according to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS). |
| Precautionary statements | IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing. If eye irritation persists: Get medical advice/attention. |
| Flash point | > 100 °C (212 °F) |
| Autoignition temperature | 400°C |
| Explosive limits | Not explosive |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (oral, rat): > 10,000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | 12,900 mg/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | RN: 9005-71-4 |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 10 mg/kg bw |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not Listed |
| Main hazards | May cause mild skin and eye irritation. |
| GHS labelling | Not a hazardous substance or mixture according to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | According to the GHS classification, Polysorbate 65 does not have any specific hazard statements. |
| Precautionary statements | IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing. If eye irritation persists: Get medical advice/attention. |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | Health: 1, Flammability: 1, Instability: 0, Special: - |
| Flash point | > 235°C |
| Autoignition temperature | > 400°C (752°F) |
| Lethal dose or concentration | Rat oral LD50: >10,000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (oral, rat): 49,100 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | TR7400000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 10 mg/kg bw |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | No IDLH established. |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Polysorbate 20 Polysorbate 40 Polysorbate 60 Polysorbate 80 |
| Related compounds |
Polysorbate 20 Polysorbate 40 Polysorbate 60 Polysorbate 80 |