© 2026 Alchemist Worldwide Ltd,
All Right Reserved
Bakers and processed food manufacturers have always looked for ways to improve shelf life and texture in their products. In the early half of the 20th century, the food industry saw a surge in demand for starch derivatives with better cold stability and emulsification properties. Sodium starch octenyl succinate grew out of this era as researchers experimented with crosslinking and esterification. Chemists found that by reacting starch with octenyl succinic anhydride, the molecule gained new abilities—stabilizing flavors, preventing oil separation, and adding thickness without clouding or odd texture. Food innovators began adopting this additive worldwide as agencies like the FDA and EFSA reviewed and listed the substance as safe for food use. Its popularity owes a lot to the drive for convenience foods, instant soups, and baked snacks that need to survive transport and storage without losing appeal.
Most people stumble across sodium starch octenyl succinate in ingredient lists for salad dressings, infant formulas, or powdered desserts. Under codes like E1450, the name rarely gets a second glance. It’s a white-to-off-white powder that pours easily, dissolves well in water, and builds stable emulsions. Food technologists value its oil-absorbing capacity, working it into products needing long shelf lives or where fats might otherwise separate or go rancid. Several pharmaceutical coatings and cosmetics manufacturers make use of it for precisely the same reasons—consistent texture, resistance to breakdown during storage, and that subtle mouthfeel it lends to dry products that wake up creamy when rehydrated.
In my days working with food starches, I’ve learned that sodium starch octenyl succinate stands apart for its amphiphilic nature. The structure brings hydrophobic octenyl groups together with hydrophilic starch regions, allowing it to act as a bridge between water and oil. Powders containing this starch tend to resist clumping because the modified starch disrupts the formation of hard lumps. In the lab, the powder’s moisture content usually stays low for stability, and granule shape stays close to natural starch, so the mouthfeel doesn’t surprise consumers. Chemically, this modification gives better resistance to acids and heat during cooking, meaning sauces keep their smoothness after being boiled or microwaved.
Manufacturers must keep an eye on key specs to pass regulatory hurdles. Each batch gets tested for octenyl succinic ester group content, sodium level, and residual reagents. Food grade versions can't contain more than tiny traces of heavy metals or any free anhydride, and authorities like the CODEX Alimentarius require clear labeling as “Modified Starch” or “E1450.” Infant formula makers face extra scrutiny, documenting everything down to the process water and cleaning agents so that tenderness for sensitive populations remains protected. Product sheets typically include values for viscosity measurement, pH, and ash content to assure buyers of consistency.
Production relies on the reaction of starch, commonly from maize or potato, with octenyl succinic anhydride in an aqueous alkaline medium. Starch slurries get mixed with the anhydride and neutralizing agents like sodium carbonate, which kicks off an esterification process at moderate temperatures. Time, pH, and the ratio of reactants decide the final modification level, which ties directly to how well the product emulsifies or thickens. After reaction, the modified starch gets washed, filtered, dried, and milled for use. I remember seeing this in an industrial setting, the air thick with the scent of fresh starch, technicians sampling just-milled powder for degree of substitution.
The main transformation happens when the hydroxyl groups of starch react with octenyl succinic anhydride, forming ester bonds. This addition hooks hydrophobic side chains onto an otherwise hydrophilic starch molecule, which flips the starch’s behavior in mixtures where oil and water need to stay together. Some producers add further tweaks, blending in other modifiers like crosslinkers or stabilizers to reinforce the starch’s structure or adapt it for acidic foods, microwave reheating, or extreme freezing. Food scientists often run battery after battery of tests on emulsion stability and retrogradation to decide on the perfect modification level for each product line.
Sodium starch octenyl succinate appears in the literature under a host of aliases and trade names. Common shorthand includes the international code “E1450,” the slightly old-fashioned “Starch, sodium octenyl succinate,” and names like “modified food starch (E1450).” In industry catalogs, companies list it under proprietary trademarks, each with its own formulation tweaks and intended uses. Recognizing the names on ingredient lists ensures people following specific dietary rules—like those with sensitivities to certain additives—can make informed decisions about the products they buy.
Food regulators in Europe, the United States, and Asia set benchmark limits for allowed intake, labeling requirements, and purity. Reputable manufacturers publish technical data sheets, detailing exact composition and usage guidance for application in food, pharma, and cosmetics. Experienced operators don gloves, masks, and dust extraction equipment to avoid fine inhalable particles during milling and blending. Clean-in-place systems and batch recordkeeping keep cross-contamination to a minimum, and sticklers in QA departments watch for even tiny deviations in batch results before anything ships. On a personal note, the rigorous standards in these factories always reminded me just how much effort modern supply chains invest to keep risks low for consumers.
Sodium starch octenyl succinate turns up everywhere from creamy instant puddings to dry spice mixes, giving products shelf life and an appealing texture. In dairy, it prevents the thinning that plagues low-fat yogurts. Salad dressings stay creamy and pourable, avoiding the separation you’d see from plain starch alone. In baby food and formula, manufacturers take advantage of its ability to keep nutrients and fats blended, critical for bottle-feeding without clumps. The pharmaceutical industry deploys this starch in pill coatings, improving stability and controlling release rates. Cosmetics companies often look to its smooth-finish properties for powdered foundations and dry shampoos.
Researchers dig deep into the structure-function relationships of sodium starch octenyl succinate, using new analytical tools to pinpoint how tiny shifts in molecular configuration mean big changes in how a starch emulsion holds oil or resists freezing breaks. There’s a dynamic push to make production more sustainable by shifting to starches from renewable feedstocks or designing processes with lower water and energy footprints. Food formulators run trials to boost nutrition in processed foods using this additive, aiming to help people eat healthier even as the products sit on shelves for months. In some of the newer research circles I’ve followed, academic groups run clinical trials to track tolerability in populations with sensitive gut microbiota.
Major food safety bodies such as EFSA and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee have published detailed reviews of the toxicity profile of sodium starch octenyl succinate. Based on animal and human data, the molecule breaks down in the digestive tract much like regular starch, and safety assessments over the last few decades turned up no evidence of carcinogenic or reproductive toxicity. The permitted daily intake falls well above any typical dietary exposure, and rare intolerance cases get tracked in allergen databases. Having followed these public health debates, I’ve seen regulators take a conservative stance—periodically revisiting the evidence and forcing transparency in data reporting before any revision of the safety limits.
Synthetic food science walks a fine line between enhancing convenience and supporting natural food trends. Looking forward, sodium starch octenyl succinate could find new life in plant-based food innovation, playing a critical role in dairy alternatives and vegan snacks needing clean texture and stability. There’s growing interest in making this additive from organic, traceable sources and integrating green chemistry principles into its manufacture. Regulatory attention to “clean label” preferences sparks innovation in both naming and production transparency. As societies seek balanced convenience and well-being, expect to see more research and improved variants meeting stricter clean food standards. My belief is that continuing education across industries and the public helps demystify these ingredients, supporting safer, smarter use in modern diets and products.
I’ve spent decades reading the ingredient lists on everything from potato chips to nutrition shakes. One name comes up more than you’d expect: Sodium Starch Octenyl Succinate. It sounds like something better left in a lab. Turns out, it pops up in the foods we eat every week. The goal? To improve the performance of processed foods, shelf-stable mixes, infant formulas, and even vitamin capsules. This ingredient helps manufacturers avoid clumping, keeps powdered drinks dissolving smoothly, and stops your salad dressing from separating.
Food makers look for consistency. That’s where Sodium Starch Octenyl Succinate pulls its weight. Derived from starch—usually corn, potato, or rice—it delivers a texture that feels familiar to most people. Companies started adding it because no one wants a gritty protein powder or yogurt that puddles out water on top. By binding water and fat together, it offers a creamy or smooth feeling, even in low-fat snacks. From my own experience with instant pudding and energy bars, the difference is noticeable. A handful of years ago, almost every shelf-stable soup at the store already contained it.
It’s normal to wonder, “Is this stuff safe?” The Food and Drug Administration in the United States has classified Sodium Starch Octenyl Succinate as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). The European Food Safety Authority looked at data and arrived at a similar conclusion. Still, questions keep cropping up. I remember seeing concerns from parents with kids struggling with digestive problems and others targeting processed foods. Studies haven’t turned up clear evidence of harm at common intake levels. That said, nobody can claim food science is finished. Anytime you see unfamiliar ingredients, there’s a story behind it—sometimes that story should spark more curiosity.
Not everyone reacts to these additives the same way. People with special dietary needs—celiac, FODMAP sensitivity, or allergies—want to double-check the source of the starch. Companies sometimes draw from wheat or other allergenic bases. Also, as someone who values whole food nutrition, I can’t ignore the bigger pattern. Additives like these mark the shift from home-cooked to ultra-processed meals. When every label in the breakfast aisle lists a chemical-sounding starch, it’s worth asking: Are we trading flavors and convenience for something less nourishing in the long term? Processed food tends to crowd out simpler options filled with fiber and micronutrients.
Labels help, but educated food choices start with knowing your own priorities. I read up on ingredients that show up in my go-to snacks. If that’s a concern, picking items with fewer processed starches makes sense. Chefs and food scientists have also started exploring simpler, plant-based thickeners and emulsifiers—think pea starch or bamboo fiber. Some brands have pivoted to meet demand for “clean label” foods by sourcing starches from non-GMO or certified allergen-free sources. That doesn’t solve everything, but it offers balance.
At the end of the day, food is personal. The best path uses science, clear information, and a little gut instinct—literally and figuratively. Sodium Starch Octenyl Succinate designed its way into our diets as a helper for food manufacturing. Now that we know what it does and where it hides, we can navigate the grocery store with confidence, a bit more skepticism, and our health front and center.
You may not spot it right away, but sodium starch octenyl succinate appears in all sorts of processed foods—think powdered soup, salad dressing, creamers, and baby food. Companies use this modified starch as a thickener and stabilizer. I recall seeing it listed on a packet of instant pudding, which made me curious about what the ingredient was actually doing besides thickening. Manufacturers add it to help products keep a smooth texture and hold up better on store shelves. If you’re like me, you want to know if it’s safe, especially if it winds up in food kids are eating.
Sodium starch octenyl succinate isn’t something new. Regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have determined it’s safe when used in the amounts found in food. It goes by the E number E1450 in Europe. These agencies review toxicology studies and look out for signs of problems like allergies, digestive upset, and long-term health concerns. So far, all the evidence lines up with current limits being safe.
The ingredient starts off as starch—usually from corn, potato, or rice. Then producers modify it with octenyl succinic anhydride, basically creating a starch molecule that mixes better with both fat and water. This process doesn’t make it “unnatural,” although some people do prefer to stick to food that stays closer to its original form. In my experience, people who have sensitivities or are managing certain health conditions pay extra attention to these modified components, so it’s always smart to check labels if you have digestive issues or allergies.
One concern comes from quantities. Safe limits aren’t meant to make up a huge chunk of your everyday diet. Eating normal portions isn’t likely to be an issue. Still, processed foods can add up, especially in diets lacking whole foods. Taking kids as an example—since they snack and eat convenience foods—constant exposure to additives matters.
No strong reasons have come up to suggest sodium starch octenyl succinate causes problems at the amounts commonly used, but that may not ease every parent’s mind. A few animal studies did look at gut health and found no evidence of harm, though these results don’t always translate to humans. I haven’t seen complaints pop up from parents or pediatricians, unlike some food colorings or artificial sweeteners, which do have well-documented allergy or sensitivity reports.
Whole foods always form the backbone of a healthy diet. Relying less on processed products cuts down your exposure to additives of all stripes. If you feel unsure about specific food technologies, look for simpler ingredient lists. Personally, I aim for ingredient transparency by picking brands that spell out sources and processing steps. For those who need to avoid additives due to health concerns, specialty grocers and online retailers now offer more options than ever.
Demand continues to push food companies toward more straightforward recipes. Consumers expect clear labeling, and the science should always be part of that conversation. Keeping an eye on new research is just good sense, but so far, based on the most trustworthy sources, sodium starch octenyl succinate hasn’t rung alarm bells for toxicity or major health risks. As with most food issues, balance and informed choices shape the healthiest approach.
People keep a close eye on food labels these days. Ingredients like sodium starch octenyl succinate show up in everything from powdered soups to instant puddings and even in baby formula. Plenty of folks want to know: is this ingredient natural or synthetic? The answer starts with a look at where it comes from and the way it’s made.
The backbone of sodium starch octenyl succinate is plain old starch. Starch comes from plants. Think corn, potatoes, or rice. That’s a familiar starting point — it’s the stuff you find in your kitchen right now. But food science doesn’t stop at the farm. Starch by itself doesn’t always act the way food makers want. It can clump or break down with heat. Somewhere along the way, someone figured out that by changing a few things in the lab, this basic starch could handle many jobs better.
Sodium starch octenyl succinate comes to life when regular starch goes through a chemical process. Technicians treat starch with octenyl succinic anhydride (OSA) and sodium, which gives it new abilities. Now it blends smoother, keeps powders from caking, and helps fats and water mix together. These changes wouldn’t happen without human intervention. By most definitions, this ingredient counts as “modified.” It’s made from natural materials, but the final product isn’t exactly how nature intended.
Ask anyone with food allergies, or anyone who just worries over what’s in processed meals, and you’ll hear lots of questions about the difference between “natural” and “synthetic.” Many food additives begin with natural sources, then pick up extra steps that turn them into something new. The process places sodium starch octenyl succinate in a middle ground. It isn’t plucked straight from a plant, nor is it built entirely from scratch in the lab like some artificial colors or sweeteners.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists this ingredient as safe, and the European Food Safety Authority has agreed, setting limits for its use. I’ve read those studies and sifted through the technical language. They all come back to one point: regular servings found in foods don’t raise safety flags in healthy people. Still, the way this ingredient blends natural roots with synthetic tweaks might surprise some who expect “starch” to always mean something simple and untouched.
Plenty of shoppers want to eat foods with short, familiar ingredient lists. The science behind ingredients like sodium starch octenyl succinate might feel unnecessary, especially for home cooks who never reach for chemicals with names ending in “succinate.” In my own kitchen, I stick to flour and cornstarch when thickening soups. If I buy packaged snacks, reading the label closely helps me decide if I’m comfortable with the additives inside.
Eating less processed food usually means running into sodium starch octenyl succinate a lot less often. For people with questions, contacting brands or double-checking official food safety sites may help. The more we understand what’s added to our meals, the easier it gets to make choices that fit our preferences and values.
Some parents and people with health concerns want more transparency from brands and regulators. They want food companies to explain why ingredients like sodium starch octenyl succinate go into snack bars or salad dressings. Food scientists and large processors should share more about how these additives play a role in food texture, shelf life, and mixing. There’s still room for food makers to listen to those who want simpler foods and respond by expanding clean-label options, using only ingredients that come closer to the original plant.
No one wins from confusing labels or ingredient lists packed with science jargon. Clear explanations and honest answers earn trust. The conversation about what counts as “natural” doesn’t look likely to end soon. Every consumer brings a different set of expectations to the table, and like most issues in food, one guiding principle sticks with me: the more we know, the smarter we shop.
Sodium starch octenyl succinate, often called E1450, usually pops up in ingredient lists for powdered foods, instant mixes, and plenty of snacks in the grocery aisle. Some folks might spot the word “starch” and start to get nervous—if you’re living gluten-free, every label becomes a minefield, and confusion rarely helps.
Starch brings up lots of red flags for people with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity. Many assume all starch in processed foods must trace back to wheat, but that’s not how it goes. Sodium starch octenyl succinate most often comes from corn, potatoes, or tapioca. These sources don’t naturally carry gluten. Companies pick these starches because they work well in the lab, and they’re much less likely to cause a reaction in sensitive eaters.
Cross-contamination can muddy the waters. Factories processing both wheat and gluten-free starch on the same lines can introduce trace amounts. This rarely shows up on labels, and it complicates things for those who absolutely cannot risk any gluten at all. I’ve spent time watching production lines, and even with solid cleaning practices, trace particles still turn up — especially if the plant moves a variety of grains. Certification from trusted groups goes a long way, but not every company has it.
Packaged foods in the US and Europe stick to strict gluten labeling rules. If a product includes wheat or gluten, regulations force companies to print that on the label, either in the allergens box or the ingredients list. Most sodium starch octenyl succinate avoids any gluten warning, but it pays to pause and double-check for those with severe celiac reactions. The ingredient itself should come gluten-free, but factories may not always be as vigilant as needed.
Studies in food chemistry journals highlight that sodium starch octenyl succinate, produced from corn or potatoes, keeps gluten out by default. Major allergy registries, such as the Celiac Disease Foundation, list this additive as safe unless sourced from wheat. Potato and corn versions dominate the industry, since they’re cheaper and more widely available. Over the past decade, most manufacturers stopped using wheat starch to avoid legal headaches and customer complaints.
If wheat sensitivity ranks high among your health concerns, reaching out directly to brands can clear things up. Many customer service teams provide detailed sourcing info on additives. I’ve called companies after my physician’s advice, and most answered quickly, especially around common food additives like this one. Some gluten-free baking forums keep up-to-date lists of safe and unsafe sources, often crowd-sourced by people who live with these restrictions every day.
For those keeping gluten out of the kitchen, vigilance remains key. Reading carefully, connecting with brands, and choosing certified gluten-free products create a safety net. Modern food science gives better insight than ever, but the on-the-ground reality of celiac life stays shaped by trust and clear communication. Even a technical-sounding name like sodium starch octenyl succinate doesn’t have to mean worry, as long as consumers stay armed with solid information and a willingness to ask questions.
Supermarket shelves offer all sorts of processed foods these days, and a common sight on many packaging labels is Sodium Starch Octenyl Succinate, sometimes shortened to OSA starch. On paper, the name sounds like something from a chemistry exam, but most of its function centers around food texture, flavor-holding, and stability. For folks who live by a plant-based code, understanding where ingredients come from makes a real difference. So, is this a sneaky animal product, or does it pass the vegan sniff test?
The bulk of sodium starch octenyl succinate comes from plants like corn, potatoes, or tapioca. Factories modify regular starch by reacting it with octenyl succinic anhydride, which gives it those specific food science qualities. This process floats firmly on the plant side—most manufacturers use vegetable-based starch sources since animal-derived starch simply costs more and isn’t widely available at scale. Over the years, I’ve called different food companies and checked ingredient tech sheets. Reliable vegan certification isn’t always stamped on every package, but ingredient suppliers almost always confirm: wheat, corn, or potato sit at the start of the production line, not anything from animals.
Some vegans worry about cross-contamination in giant factories. If the same plant churns out both plant starches and animal byproducts—like gelatin-based capsules or dairy-based additives—those concerns are real. Clear labeling and third-party audits reduce risk. In places with strong labeling laws, like the European Union or Canada, food companies must spell out potential sources of allergens or cross-contact. Reading labels closely and picking products marked “vegan-friendly” closes that gap further. Still, if the worry about stray animal-derived molecules bothers you, reach out to the company. Companies get these questions all the time and often provide helpful assurance.
The ethics of being vegan stretch beyond ingredient lists. Many folks, myself included, have realized the processing and labor ethics behind food production can matter just as much. Some manufacturing facilities use enzymes for starch modification, but nearly all of these enzymes come from bacteria, not animals, these days. Enzyme technology has evolved quickly, with industry standards favoring cost-effective, non-animal sources. Certified vegan OSA starch exists for those who want added certainty.
On every shopping trip, the ingredient lists grow longer and the print seems to shrink. I have spent plenty of time squinting at snack bags, scanning for animal-sourced ingredients hiding in plain sight. After researching and cross-referencing, sodium starch octenyl succinate stands up to scrutiny for plant-based eaters. No animal products find their way into the main ingredient supply. Shopping for vegan-friendly processed foods ends up less of a minefield with a little insider knowledge about the supply chain.
If doubt still lingers, buy from brands with vegan labeling or independent certifications. Apps and databases make fact-checking easier—resources like the Vegan Society or EWG hold thorough product data. Direct conversations with brands go a long way, especially for strict vegans or people with allergies. A quick email puts anxiety to rest and often helps companies realize clarity matters.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | sodium 2-dodecen-1-ylsuccinoyloxystarch |
| Other names |
E1450 Starch sodium octenyl succinate Octenyl succinic anhydride starch OSA starch |
| Pronunciation | /ˈsəʊdiəm ˈstɑːrtʃ ɒkˈtiːnɪl səksɪˈneɪt/ |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Sodium 2-[(2-dodecen-1-yl)succinoyl]oxy starch |
| Other names |
E1450 Starch Sodium Octenyl Succinate Octenyl Succinic Acid Modified Starch OSA Starch Sodium Octenylsuccinate Starch |
| Pronunciation | /ˈsəʊdiəm stɑːrtʃ ɒkˈtiːnɪl səksɪˈneɪt/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | # 9087-69-0 |
| 3D model (JSmol) | `CC(C)(C(=O)O)C(=O)OCCOC(=O)CC(C)C` |
| Beilstein Reference | 1361116 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:59963 |
| ChEMBL | CHEBI:53425 |
| ChemSpider | 71541387 |
| DrugBank | DB11199 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03b1a633-6fd3-4178-8eae-c0b24c2327cb |
| EC Number | EC 219-019-8 |
| Gmelin Reference | 34459 |
| KEGG | C14147 |
| MeSH | D019333 |
| PubChem CID | 24822361 |
| RTECS number | OK4496000 |
| UNII | 4W7J0E4VVP |
| UN number | UN3077 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | EPA CompTox Dashboard (DTXSID): DTXSID1041578 |
| CAS Number | 9087-61-0 |
| 3D model (JSmol) | `[Na+].CC(C)(OC(=O)CC=CCC(=O)O)O[14C](COC(=O)CC=CCC(=O)O)O[14C](COC(=O)CC=CCC(=O)O)O[14C](COC(=O)CC=CCC(=O)O)O` |
| Beilstein Reference | 3954246 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:53428 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1201058 |
| ChemSpider | 11444911 |
| DrugBank | DB11110 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03f7e696-d1a7-4a1f-88e2-5d08ce274232 |
| EC Number | EC 216-319-5 |
| Gmelin Reference | 92715 |
| KEGG | C14147 |
| MeSH | D020376 |
| PubChem CID | 23666313 |
| RTECS number | WHV28344WA |
| UNII | 42ZK3853YO |
| UN number | UN Not Regulated |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID10208246 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C18H27Na3O15 |
| Molar mass | Molar mass varies depending on the degree of substitution and polymer length. |
| Appearance | White or almost white powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 0.5-0.7 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Dispersible in water |
| log P | -4.7 |
| Acidity (pKa) | pKa ≈ 4.2 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 8.0 - 9.0 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | Diamagnetic |
| Viscosity | Viscosity: 10–50 mPa·s (5% solution, 25°C) |
| Dipole moment | 0 D |
| Chemical formula | (C6H7O2(OH)2(OC4H4O4Na))n |
| Molar mass | Unable to determine precisely |
| Appearance | White or light yellowish powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | Density: 0.5-0.7 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Soluble in water |
| log P | -7.3 |
| Acidity (pKa) | 5.1 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 8.2 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | Diamagnetic |
| Viscosity | Viscosity (10% solution): 400–2,000 cP |
| Dipole moment | 0 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 345.3 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | A14DM |
| ATC code | A13AX |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause respiratory irritation; may cause eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Hazard statements | No 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) | 1-1-0 |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (oral, rat) > 5,000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose) : 5,000 mg/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | Not listed |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 55% |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Pictograms | GHS07,GHS08 |
| Signal word | No signal word |
| Hazard statements | Not a hazardous substance or mixture. |
| Precautionary statements | IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing. |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | NFPA 704: 1-1-0 |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (rat, oral) > 5,000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): Rat oral > 5,000 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | NIOSH: MS2813000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not established |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not Listed |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Sodium succinate Octenylsuccinic acid Starch acetate Modified starch Sodium carboxymethyl starch |
| Related compounds |
Starch Sodium succinate Octenylsuccinic anhydride Modified starch Sodium carboxymethyl starch Sodium alginate Hydroxypropyl starch Pregelatinized starch |
