© 2026 Alchemist Worldwide Ltd,
All Right Reserved
Propylene glycol esters of fatty acids (PGMEFs) have evolved alongside the industrialization of food and chemical processes. This started around the mid-20th century when companies started looking for ways to make processed foods last longer, bake better, and travel farther. Food scientists invested in esters that balanced shelf life, texture, and appearance, and PGMEFs found a spot in the bread aisle, in margarine, and in processed cheese. Each decade pushed researchers and regulatory agencies to reevaluate safety and performance, prompting further refinements. Personal experience with food manufacturing shows how ingredient choices often follow public demand and safety trials, and PGMEFs became a staple along that journey.
PGMEFs stem from the reaction of propylene glycol and fatty acids—usually from vegetable oils such as palm, soybean, or coconut. Factories churn out these esters as oily liquids or waxy solids, tailored with different melting points and fatty acid profiles. This flexibility means bakers, manufacturers, and chemists can select exactly the version they need. Over the years, demand for cleaner, plant-based sourcing increased. Companies began publishing origin details more openly, reflecting consumer preference for ingredients with a clearer supply chain.
Breaking down PGMEFs in the lab or factory floor, you notice a blend of hydrophilic and lipophilic characters. This amphiphilic quality lets them act as surfactants and emulsifiers in everything from cake mixes to cosmetics. Their solubility profile—mixing with both water and oil—matters for industries striving to achieve specific food textures or stable creams. Density and melting points vary, depending on the fatty acid mix, which impacts how the ingredient incorporates into a final product. Anyone who’s worked with food emulsions recognizes how fickle these properties can become based on subtle changes in temperature or supply source.
Whether shipping PGMEFs across borders or bottling them for supermarkets, detailed specs follow the product. Typical sheets list acid value, saponification value, iodine value, and precise percentages of mono-, di-, and tri-esters. Food regulators such as the US FDA classify them under specific numbers—E477 in Europe and INS 477 in Codex standards. Ingredient lists in any region where processed food gets passed over the counter reflect modern consumer demands for transparency. Personally, reviewing labels and technical documents in food science has shown the need for clear, traceable naming—something PGMEFs adopted early on.
Large-scale production involves reacting fatty acids or triglycerides with propylene glycol. This happens under controlled heat with acidic or alkaline catalysts. Adjusting pressure and ratio helps direct the esterification toward monoesters or more highly substituted products. Controlling for quality means monitoring not only the primary reaction but also byproducts like unreacted glycol. I remember early lab courses where maintaining purity required endless checks—industrial producers now leverage point sensors and automation, but the same chemistry still grounds the work. Careful washing and purifying at the end of processing ensures the product meets specs for use in food or cosmetics.
PGMEF structure opens the door to chemical tweaking. Fatty acid chain length, degree of saturation, and source drive finished properties. Chemists sometimes hydrogenate unsaturated fatty acids to boost oxidative stability, extending shelf life for food applications. Advanced modifications may block certain functional groups, making the ester perform better in harsh processing or high-temperature environments. Additional reactions with other emulsifiers or stabilizers can create custom blends—a reality in modern baking where consistency matters as much as taste. For those monitoring industrial scale-up, each modification runs through extensive pilot batches before green-lighting for mass production.
PGMEFs float in the market under plenty of aliases: propylene glycol mono- and diesters, E477, INS 477, and even proprietary brand names tailored for meat, dairy, or bakery sectors. These names appear on ingredient lists worldwide. For anyone managing recipe formulations, recalling all possible synonyms—including for regulatory compliance—becomes routine. Many companies assign internal codes for traceability, but consumer-facing terms rely on local legislation.
Authorities in North America, Europe, and Asia developed safety boundaries for PGMEF inclusion in edible and topical products. US FDA, JECFA, and EFSA set daily intake limits based on multi-year toxicity and metabolism studies. Manufacturing plants focus on cGMP principles—clean lines, regular audits, and traceability from raw material through shipping. Engagement with global food safety teams and regular audits at production facilities underscores the pivotal role of documentation and hygiene. Worker exposure remains minimal due to automated processing, but on-the-job safety standards require gloves and protective equipment, especially around unreacted glycols or high-pressure equipment.
PGMEFs gained a foothold in bakery, dairy, and confectionery sectors, acting as emulsifiers that keep bread soft and margarine spreadable. Ice cream blends them for smoother texture even after temperature swings. Cosmetic lines use them for cream bases and lotions, where emulsion stability translates into real-world product quality. Industrial applications outside food circle around lubricants and coatings, thanks to PGMEF resistance to breakdown under stress. Firsthand, working at food development shows their importance—formulating trans-fat-free baked goods or dairy alternatives would stumble without their performance. Customer feedback often boils down to texture and shelf life—PGMEFs play a quiet but influential role here.
Researchers echo industry’s call for sustainability. Academics and manufacturers investigate greener fatty acid sources, often from byproducts of other agri-processes or even microalgae. Analytical labs refine detection of trace impurities—glycerol, free acid content, and unreacted glycol—using chromatography and spectroscopy. Collaboration between corporate R&D and public science ensures innovators target real market gaps. I have seen university labs work with local food processors to test shelf life in whole wheat bread formulations using newer PGMEFs, with results feeding back into process upgrades at scale. Each year, publications track tweaks in formulation, fresh test results, or performance improvements in existing recipes.
Toxicologists spent decades mapping out metabolism and excretion of PGMEFs. Results tend to show rapid breakdown into propylene glycol and fatty acids, both cleared readily by healthy bodies. Regulatory agencies reflect these findings in generous safety margins for approved food use. Long-term dietary studies in rats and multi-species trials paved the way for their inclusion on global food safety lists. Remaining questions circle around ultra-sensitive populations, or rare accumulations in special conditions. Updates get published as new data roll in, keeping food scientists, regulators, and industry in sync. Health-conscious buyers expect ongoing transparency, and ingredient suppliers update safety sheets with every regulatory revision.
Growing demand for plant-based, allergen-free, and sustainable foods pushes the envelope for PGMEF development. Future innovations point toward new feedstocks—whether regenerative crops or fermentation-derived fatty acids. Automated plant tech and advanced analytics promise tighter control over purity, reducing the tiny byproducts that sometimes linger in finished blends. Some attention focuses on integrating PGMEFs into biodegradable packaging or edible films, extending product portfolios beyond traditional foods. Environmental watchdogs and activists call for independent life-cycle analysis, and large brands heed the call with carbon tracking along the full ingredient journey. Researchers and technical teams keep updating processing methods as environmental requirements become more strict. From my side, looking at product launches in recent years, companies that invest in transparency—full ingredient traceability, clear labeling, and strong communication—tend to secure more loyalty. PGMEFs will continue to ride trends in consumer preference, safety, and sustainability as the food and chemical sectors chart a path forward.
Every time I check ingredient lists—on bread at the grocery store, on whipped cream at the diner—propylene glycol esters of fatty acids show up more than you’d think. People don’t usually pay attention to these names, but they punch above their weight in food and in plenty of products on drugstore shelves. They bridge the world of food science and the simple buttered toast on a breakfast table.
Imagine a cake that’s light, moist, and doesn’t turn stale in a day or two. Bakers want the cake to hold air, resist drying out, and have a soft bite. Propylene glycol esters of fatty acids, also called PGMEFAs, help achieve this. They keep water and fats working together, so doughs and batters come out fluffy and tender, not tough or crumbly. Grocery store loaves often list these esters soon after the flours and oils. In ice cream, PGMEFAs keep things silky so each scoop melts slowly and doesn’t get that icy crunch. I’ve seen ice cream melt in a soupy mess without emulsifiers like this.
Food isn’t the only battleground. If you’ve ever wondered why your favorite lotion feels smooth instead of greasy, PGMEFAs probably play a role. They make sure oil and water mix and spread easily. Same idea in shampoos and liquid soaps—these esters help every dollop blend and rinse out without clumps or streaks. It’s easy to skip reading the label and just use the product, but the comfort in a body wash or the even coverage in a face cream owes something to their chemistry.
The FDA keeps a close eye on propylene glycol esters of fatty acids. Safe use always matters, especially when ingredients mix synthetic and natural chemicals. Studies show these esters leave the body quickly—no build-up in common doses. But critics sometimes point out worries over hypersensitivity or long-term impacts. So far, most evidence supports their use at approved levels, both in the U.S. and in Europe. Still, I’ve known folks who read every single label after a rash or allergy, out of caution.
Most people love the shelf life and texture these esters bring. Whether it’s keeping burger buns soft or salad dressings creamy, food makers rely on ingredients like PGMEFAs. Some worry about processed food, and I get it—simple ingredient lists feel more wholesome to many families. Solving this calls for honest labels, more education, and maybe some innovation in natural alternatives. As someone who’s talked to parents, chefs, and plenty of skeptical eaters, I know trust grows when companies share what each ingredient does and why it’s there.
People want tasty food and reliable personal care. PGMEFAs help smooth that path, but folks demand more than just convenience. The balance will keep shifting as science digs deeper and shoppers get more curious. Until then, these quiet workhorses will keep bread soft, ice cream creamy, and countless lotions easy on the skin. The call for clean labels and real information makes the whole industry rethink what gets added and what stays on the shelf.
You’d be surprised at the wild number of ingredients added to everyday foods. Propylene glycol esters of fatty acids (PGMEFs) show up in all kinds of places—commercial bread, whipped toppings, cake mixes and coffee creamers. These compounds help keep things smooth and creamy, keep oil and water together, improve texture, and prevent products from going stale too quickly.
Walk down the grocery store aisle, and it’s easy to overlook complicated ingredient names. Yet these little extras play big roles. PGMEFs are made by combining propylene glycol—a substance recognized by the FDA as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS)—with fatty acids found naturally in foods like vegetables and animals. Basically, scientists create PGMEFs by attaching these two ingredients together, and use the result as an emulsifier.
Every responsible consumer wants to know—does long-term exposure to these additives affect health? Years of animal research and food safety reviews keep turning up the same answer: at the doses found in food, PGMEFs haven’t been linked to harmful effects in people. In 2023, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives reaffirmed their safety when used as intended. The FDA and the European Food Safety Authority both list PGMEFs for use in food, with clear maximum limits to keep intake reasonable.
From personal experience, I like to look for studies myself. European authorities ran a series of evaluations to see what happens when large amounts of PGMEFs enter the diet over months. They fed animals far more than a person would eat, looking for changes in organs, weight, or overall health. At those high levels, animals showed no life-threatening or reproductive impacts. No sign of cancer risk, either. It gives some peace of mind knowing scientists dig deep, not just skim data.
It’s fair to be skeptical. Just because something isn’t proven dangerous at typical use doesn’t mean it sits right with everyone. Many prefer to stick with food as close to the original source as possible—the “five-ingredient” rule makes sense. Over the years, people have worried that modern food science sneaks in artificial extras that our bodies weren’t made for. Some have even blamed food additives for rising rates of chronic disease, but so far, no studies point a finger at PGMEFs.
Anyone with sensitivities or allergies must pay attention. The FDA and food manufacturers must make sure PGMEFs don’t hide allergens like soy or dairy. It’s smart to check for labeling updates, especially for anyone dealing with allergies at home.
Caring about food means staying involved. Read ingredient lists, ask questions, and look up new additives. One helpful step: support clear labeling. Push for companies to explain why they use PGMEFs instead of other options, and whether these extras actually help keep food safer or tastier. Choose foods you trust, and recognize that moderation always outweighs panic over any single ingredient.
Food scientists must keep evaluating additives as our understanding grows. If one day new evidence shows PGMEFs or any other additive could cause subtle effects, those regulations can change. Until then, the best approach stays the same: pay attention to what you eat, trust evidence that stands up to scrutiny, and balance curiosity with common sense.
Chemicals in processed foods attract all sorts of attention. Propylene glycol esters of fatty acids, often listed as E477, show up in many products—ice cream, baked goods, even margarine. If you’re like me, you might have reached for a tub of spread and flipped it over to check the ingredients. These multi-syllable names naturally make people uneasy. But questions about safety and side effects go deeper than discomfort with long words.
These esters blend propylene glycol with fatty acids. Food scientists use them for a practical reason: they help fats and water mix, making foods smoother, creamier, and longer-lasting. Taste, mouthfeel, consistency—manufacturers chase these qualities for shelf appeal and consumer satisfaction.
Through my own research, I’ve noticed that health concerns usually relate to the body’s ability to process these compounds. In healthy people eating ordinary amounts, studies generally show low risk. Regulatory agencies—including the FDA and EFSA—review available evidence and consider E477 safe within set limits.
Some studies used rats and saw changes in body weight after high doses, but those doses went far beyond what anyone would eat from regular food. A typical serving of bread or cake, using E477 as an emulsifier, gives only a tiny fraction of the levels tested in labs. If E477 built up in the body, or broke down into toxic byproducts, we’d see bigger warning signs by now, at least with normal diets.
While scientific evidence suggests a low risk for most, not all bodies respond the same. People with allergies or intolerances might show skin reactions, digestive symptoms, or other mild discomforts. Anyone with propylene glycol sensitivity sometimes gets itchy or develops rashes even after small exposures. For most, these side effects remain rare, but I’ve heard from a few friends about mild stomach aches after processed snacks. Whether it comes from E477 itself, or a blend of other additives, can be hard to pinpoint.
E477 use reflects bigger issues than chemistry alone. The push to make foods last longer and look perfect connects to wider diets built on convenience, not nutrition. Sometimes, people focus on one additive, forgetting the full picture—a diet loaded with processed food brings risks no single emulsifier can explain away.
Keeping a focus on whole ingredients and fresh cooking shifts health in a better direction. As someone who spends time reading food labels, I’ve realized the benefit of unpacking more than just the strange words—asking why so many unpronounceable things show up at all often leads to better habits.
One improvement starts with clear labeling. Another involves raising awareness around the reasons we eat so many modified foods. Consumers who demand change, ask informed questions, and support better options often nudge the whole industry forward. Efforts to keep food honest, safe, and nourishing matter more than debating the precise hazard of a single additive like E477.
Whether making bread from scratch or buying from the store, anyone can benefit from a healthy skepticism—and a little more home cooking never hurt. Checking the ingredients, reading up on food science, and talking with medical professionals when symptoms appear offers more peace of mind than giving in to fear or hype.
If you flip over the packaging of your favorite plant-based creamer or vegan bread, sooner or later you’ll run into something called “propylene glycol esters of fatty acids.” This ingredient doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, and after reading it a few times, people start to wonder where it’s really coming from.
Those words sound plain, almost like something you’d find in a science textbook. But for folks trying to eat vegan or follow a particular set of ethical guidelines, it’s important to ask: are these esters actually plant-based, or do they sneak in animal-derived products? I’ve puzzled over plenty of ingredient labels in grocery store aisles, and I know that finding a clear answer isn’t always easy.
To break it down, propylene glycol esters of fatty acids, often shortened to PGMEFs, are made by combining propylene glycol—a synthetic compound used in lots of food and cosmetic products—with fatty acids. It’s those fatty acids that raise eyebrows. They can either come from plants (like palm oil, soybean oil, coconut oil, or canola oil), or from animal fats (such as tallow).
PGMEFs help water and oil mix smoothly, a trick that makes them popular in baked goods, dairy-free creams, ice cream, and margarine. Their power as an emulsifier keeps mixtures from splitting. Most of the time, especially on a commercial scale, companies use plant-derived oils because they’re cheaper and considered more neutral for a wide variety of diets. Still, no law forces a company to use only plant sources for these fatty acids. Some manufacturers do use animal fats if they’re more affordable or more readily available.
From my own experience talking with food companies and reading FDA documents, most mass-market PGMEFs in the U.S. and Europe use vegetable oils. Trade groups such as the Vegetarian Resource Group say the majority today come from plants, simply because the supply lines are fast, stable, and meet the growing demand for vegan and vegetarian diets. So, odds are, if you’re in North America or Western Europe, that emulsifier in your breakfast bar started with a soybean or palm kernel. Even so, not a single package legally needs to state whether the fatty acids are plant- or animal-based, and “usually” isn’t good enough for everyone.
One snag with PGMEFs is the lack of disclosure. Unlike allergen warnings for eggs or milk, the source of the fatty acids remains hidden unless a company chooses to certify the product as vegan. Without certification or the word “vegan” on the label, there’s always a sliver of doubt for strict vegans. Little details in supply chains, such as cross-contamination at a processing facility, may also blur the lines.
People deserve straightforward labeling, especially people committed to eating in line with certain values. I’d like to see companies state directly on ingredient panels or online whether their emulsifiers come from plants or animals. Third-party certifications such as “Certified Vegan” or logos from vegan societies help, but not all brands pursue them due to cost or logistics.
If you want to play it safe, reach out to companies and ask where their ingredients come from. Many brands answer customer questions via email or on their websites. Support for clearer labeling grows each year as more folks opt for vegetarian and vegan diets. In my own kitchen, I’ve learned the hard way to look up anything I don’t recognize, and to stick with products that clearly mark themselves vegan whenever available.
The story of PGMEFs isn’t only about chemistry or food science. For people living plant-based, it’s about trust—a bit more honesty from brands would go a long way.
Grocery shopping often feels like a treasure hunt with extra homework. Take “Propylene Glycol Esters of Fatty Acids”—that mouthful flashes by on packages most people toss straight in the cart. You’ll spot it in ice cream, baked goods, coffee creamers, margarine, and whipped toppings. Companies use it because it helps oil and water get along, keeping products smooth and creamy. Even if you avoid processed foods, it sneaks in at bakeries and cafes.
Factories chase consistency. Propylene glycol esters cushion bakery dough, making donuts fluffier and breads stay soft for days. Cakes rise higher without falling flat. Emulsifiers like this one help keep salad dressings from separating, and ice cream from growing icy crystals. Fast food joints whisk it into shakes and frozen desserts that need to stay thick and scoopable from delivery truck to freezer.
Personal care shelves brim with this ingredient, too. Toothpaste, lotions, shampoos, and deodorants often list it under complex-sounding names. Some processed cheeses and coffee whiteners also use it for smooth texture and even coloring. My own hunt for “cleaner” deodorant and lotion forced me to start reading ingredient lists more closely, eventually realizing how much ends up on and in our bodies through different channels.
Scientific panels in the US and Europe reviewed propylene glycol esters and ruled them safe at levels found in foods. The FDA set limits—like no more than 0.2% of the finished product. Over many years, these limits haven’t triggered recalls or scandals. Some people get nervous when they see anything “chemical” in food, comparing it to antifreeze due to the similar name. In reality, propylene glycol esters aren’t just thrown in; research and safety testing precede approval.
Most folks ignore label gobbledygook because the package says “wholesome” or “natural.” I used to feel reassured by marketing language until someone pointed out how regulations allow companies to play loose with these words. Many shoppers care more about food origins than ever before. A transparent ingredient list knocks down barriers between producers and eaters. Some food companies respond by swapping in recognizable plant-based emulsifiers, mostly in premium brands.
For those with allergies or sensitive stomachs, scrutinizing labels pays off. I once helped a friend figure out why boxed pastries gave her digestive trouble—the label pointed to multiple emulsifiers, including propylene glycol esters. Cutting back meant steering clear of her favorite ultra-soft sandwich bread, but her stomach thanked her. For many, balancing convenience with ingredient scrutiny won’t mean total avoidance, but it pushes companies to rethink recipes.
If people want fewer lab-created ingredients in their diets, nothing speaks louder to big brands than changing what ends up in the checkout basket. Government rules shape what gets added, but so does consumer demand. Next time you browse frozen dinners or dessert toppings, a careful look at the label could prompt some new questions. Supporting smaller bakeries or brands that cut back on food additives encourages a market where clean eating isn’t just a passing fad.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Propane-1,2-diyl esters of fatty acids |
| Other names |
Propylene Glycol Mono- and Diesters of Fatty Acids PGMEFAs E477 Propylene Glycol Fatty Acid Esters Propylene Glycol Esters |
| Pronunciation | /ˈproʊ.piˌliːn ˈɡlaɪ.kɒl ˈɛstərz əv ˈfæti ˈæ.sɪdz/ |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Propane-1,2-diyl esters of fatty acids |
| Other names |
PGMEF Propane-1,2-diol esters of fatty acids E477 Propylene glycol mono- and diesters of fatty acids |
| Pronunciation | /ˈproʊ.pɪˌliːn ˈɡlaɪ.kɒl ˈɛstərz əv ˈfæti ˈæsɪdz/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 1323-39-3 |
| 3D model (JSmol) | `C(O)COC(=O)CCCCCCCC` |
| Beilstein Reference | 1462309 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:53504 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1209727 |
| ChemSpider | 85160 |
| DrugBank | DB11126 |
| ECHA InfoCard | EC 500-038-2 |
| EC Number | E477 |
| Gmelin Reference | 69856 |
| KEGG | C19611 |
| MeSH | D011382 |
| PubChem CID | 24752 |
| RTECS number | RH0185000 |
| UNII | 6DC9Q167V3 |
| UN number | Not regulated |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID7020631 |
| CAS Number | 1323-39-3 |
| 3D model (JSmol) | ``` C(CO)OC(=O)CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC ``` |
| Beilstein Reference | 3011836 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:53731 |
| ChEMBL | CHEBI:53758 |
| ChemSpider | 71703 |
| DrugBank | DB11124 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03f3e638-9b03-4092-bf7a-d2b84bf9b131 |
| EC Number | EC 500-007-7 |
| Gmelin Reference | 5861 |
| KEGG | C19611 |
| MeSH | D011382 |
| PubChem CID | 11910815 |
| RTECS number | UB0025000 |
| UNII | 6DC9Q167V3 |
| UN number | Not regulated |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID8014537 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C27H52O4 |
| Molar mass | 652.98 g/mol |
| Appearance | White to yellowish pasty solid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 0.95 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble |
| log P | 0.9 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Acidity (pKa) | ~4.8 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 13.27 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | '-7.1e-6 cm³/mol' |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.4350–1.4380 |
| Viscosity | 140 mPa·s (25°C) |
| Dipole moment | 1.872 D |
| Chemical formula | C₃H₆(OH)₂·RCOOH |
| Molar mass | Approx. 278.43 g/mol |
| Appearance | Pale yellow oily liquid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 0.95 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble in water |
| log P | 0.9 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Acidity (pKa) | ~4.8 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | '-7.8 x 10^-6 cgs' |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.4310 - 1.4350 |
| Viscosity | 250 mPa.s (40°C) |
| Dipole moment | 2.79 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 889.8 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 710.1 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -8960 kJ/kg |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | A16AX30 |
| ATC code | A16AX10 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause mild skin and eye irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS labelling for Propylene Glycol Esters Of Fatty Acids: `"Not classified as hazardous according to GHS"` |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Signal word | Not Hazardous |
| Hazard statements | Not a hazardous substance or mixture according to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) |
| Flash point | Greater than 200°C (Closed cup) |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (oral, rat): > 50,000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | > 22 g/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | HNBR* |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 10 mg/m3 |
| Main hazards | May cause irritation to eyes, skin, and respiratory tract. |
| GHS labelling | GHS labelling: "Not a hazardous substance or mixture according to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Signal word | No signal word |
| Hazard statements | No hazard statements. |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-1-0 |
| Flash point | 210°C (410°F) |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (oral, rat): > 50 g/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | 37 g/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | TRN35665 |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) for Propylene Glycol Esters Of Fatty Acids: Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 10 mg/m3 |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | IDLH not listed |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids Polyglycerol esters of fatty acids Sucrose esters of fatty acids Sorbitan esters Lactic acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids |
| Related compounds |
Propylene glycol Fatty acids Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids Propylene glycol monoesters Polyglycerol esters of fatty acids |
