Amphoteric surfactants have earned a spot in laboratories and manufacturing lines through decades of trial, error, and innovation. In the early twentieth century, detergent and cosmetic chemists wrestled with the drawbacks of soaps and early anionic surfactants—ill-suited for hard-water and often harsh on skin. Research picked up after World War II, as scientists saw the need for milder cleaning agents for personal care. Companies wanted a molecule tough on dirt yet kind to skin, safe for lakes and rivers. Enter cocamidopropyl betaine and its relatives, embraced for their mildness and stability in complex formulations. Over time, as environmental and health scrutiny sharpened, demand rose for surfactants handling pH swings, salt, protein, and other additives without losing performance or safety. The timeline of amphoteric technology winds through big breakthroughs in synthetic chemistry, including better ways to control the charge on molecules and improved purification. The story shows how regulatory pressure, consumer demand, and the plain stubbornness of researchers have shaped today’s products.
Amphoteric surfactants show up everywhere—shampoos, dish liquids, baby wipes, hydraulic fluids, textile softeners, oilfield muds. These molecules stand out by carrying both positive and negative charges, which lets them mix easily with almost anything: acids, bases, oils, or salts. Every bottle of shampoo I have used owes its mild feel and rich foam to some amphoteric agent. Chemists lean on these multi-taskers for viscosity control, foam stabilization, and gentleness. Cocamidopropyl betaine is a true workhorse, sourced from coconut oil, commonly listed on bottles as just “betaine.” Despite panics over allergens now and then, careful refinement keeps finished products safe and dependable. Others like lauramidopropyl betaine, sulfobetaines, and alkylamphoacetates answer specialized needs—cleansing without sting or degradation. Their chameleon-like behavior gives formulators an extra level of flexibility compared with older, single-charge surfactants.
Amphoteric surfactants often appear as pale yellow to clear liquids, sometimes pastes, easy to handle in industrial tank rooms or laboratory glassware. At the molecular level, these agents feature hydrophobic (water-hating) tails and zwitterionic (both-charged) “head” groups. This unique arrangement delivers surface activity across a broad pH range. In acidic settings, they show cationic (positive) character; in alkaline solutions, they lean toward anionic (negative) charge, and near neutral pH, both charges appear. They handle heat and salt quite well. Viscosity and cloud point can vary widely with loading, which means storage and pump design matter. Their solubility in water, ethanol, and some glycols, and their ability to lower surface tension to values below 30 mN/m, make them essential for foam and wetting. Compared to straight anionic or nonionic surfactants, amphoterics deliver lower eye and skin irritation, especially at moderate doses.
Labeling and spec sheets for amphoteric surfactants provide the backbone for quality assurance. Manufacturers establish purity by gas or liquid chromatography, targeting active content above 30%, with tight limits on free amine and chloride levels. Color and odor limits ensure compatibility with consumer products. Standard pH range for a 10% solution normally falls between 5 and 8. Heavy metals and nitrosamine content need regular monitoring, and responsible suppliers test for residual reactants or by-products to reassure buyers. The specification sheet for cocamidopropyl betaine typically includes active percent, sodium chloride content, pH, color (APHA or Hazen scale), and viscosity at room temperature. Labels also flag any potential allergens or animal-derived content, in line with regulatory shifts and retailer demands for “clean” labels. My experience following SIPC, REACH and TSCA registration processes served as a hard-earned lesson in just how much paperwork backs up each container that leaves a plant.
The main synthesis route for many amphoteric surfactants starts with fatty acids or triglycerides, often from coconut or palm oil. These natural oils get split, refined, and converted into fatty amines through methylation, hydrogenation, or amination. To make cocamidopropyl betaine, for example, the process begins with coconut oil yielding lauric acid, then lauramide by amidation, which reacts with dimethylaminopropylamine. This intermediate then undergoes quaternization by sodium monochloroacetate. The result is a molecule with a long carbon tail and a betaine head, holding both charges. Throughout, reaction temperatures stay close to 50-80°C to limit side reactions. Similar logic guides the creation of sulfobetaines, where sultones add to amines. Process control targets high selectivity, minimal color, and low levels of unreacted amine and byproducts. Water, salt, and glycols serve as processing and dilution aids. Each batch brings its own quirks; I have seen shifts in fatty acid feedstock create wild swings in the final product’s color and smell.
Surfactant chemists always push for tweaks to tailor properties. Standard amphoterics can get functionalized to boost foam, modify rheology, or improve antimicrobial effects. Manufacturers add ethoxylate chains or glycol groups to increase water solubility or change the feel on skin. Hardened oils sometimes get blended in to firm up viscosity or change sensory touch. In advanced research, biocidal or anti-static groups attach to the molecule for use in industrial cleaning. Oxidation, reduction, and transamidation reactions further broaden the spectrum; one engineer’s insight can yield a detergent molecule that handles greasy fryer build-up one day and produces hospital-grade wipes the next. As always, every chemical tweak requires new safety data and revalidation. Formulators learn quickly—change one group and you may unlock a new property or trip a regulatory wire unintentionally.
Product catalogs, MSDS sheets, and regulatory filings use a maze of names for amphoteric surfactants. Cocamidopropyl betaine sometimes appears as “CAPB,” “cocoyl amido propyl betaine,” or “coco-betaine.” Lauramidopropyl betaine goes by “LAPB.” Sulfobetaines show up as “sultaine” or “hydroxysultaine.” Alkylamphoacetates get labeled as “amphocarboxyglycinates” in some jurisdictions. Each major producer—BASF, Clariant, Stepan, Solvay—puts their own spin on names: “Dehyton,” “Tego Betaine,” or “Mirataine.” These synonyms drive confusion in procurement and compliance unless buyers stay alert to CAS numbers and INCI (International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients) designations. Over the years, I’ve seen the same surfactant pop up under three different names in a single customer audit, complicating traceability until the team standardized its documentation.
Safety starts on the factory floor and runs straight through to the consumer’s sink. Handling amphoteric surfactants means following local safety protocol, wearing gloves and eye protection, and controlling ventilation in mixing rooms. Most compounds show relatively low acute toxicity, so the real risks stem from accidental splashes and prolonged exposure to high concentrations. Regulatory agencies—including the US FDA, EPA, and European ECHA—set tough standards for allowable levels of residual amines, heavy metals, 1,4-dioxane, and nitrosamine byproducts. Finished cosmetics need patch testing and dermatological clearance. Plant personnel run spill drills and test for waste-water compliance with every load-out. Consumers trust that each bottle sold lives up to the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) and keeps to guidelines established by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel. Throughout my time managing supply chains, I learned that regulatory audits often find gaps not in product quality, but in paperwork or overlooked MSDS updates.
Manufacturers lean on amphoteric surfactants to solve real-world problems that rigid surfactants can’t. In personal care, these agents balance foam and mildness in shampoos, hand washes, baby products, and facial cleansers. Their low eye irritation led to a surge in baby shampoos and sensitive-skin washes. In industrial cleaning, amphoterics shine as coupling agents, keeping oil, water, and dirt separated even in tough conditions. Textile processors rely on them for dye leveling and fiber softening. Oilfield workers pump them downhole to stabilize drilling muds. Food and beverage production lines need equipment cleaners that rinse away quickly yet break down grime efficiently. Biomedical labs, too, mix them into buffers to minimize protein denaturation. Their ability to boost the performance of other detergents makes them a regular ingredient in complex cleaning or wetting blends. Meeting these tough demands, amphoteric surfactants cut across market boundaries, quietly supporting both consumer comfort and industrial reliability.
Academic and commercial labs keep pushing at the limits of amphoteric surfactant chemistry. Recent years saw a surge in green chemistry—bio-based feedstocks, biodegradable chains, and methods reducing energy and solvent use. Machine learning tools now model new surfactant structures for better skin compatibility or improved performance in hard water. At global conferences, researchers share data on rare earth recovery, soil remediation, and corrosion inhibition, all powered by clever amphoteric blends. New composite materials, including nanoparticles covered by specialized amphoterics, enable precision drug delivery or targeted decontamination. Intellectual property filings reflect a fierce race to develop next-generation molecules balancing cost, speed, and environmental impact. Anyone tracking this field quickly learns that every improvement in mildness, stability, or environmental breakdown drives both innovation and regulatory scrutiny.
All the promise of amphoteric surfactants depends on their safety in use and disposal. Over the years, toxicologists tested cocamidopropyl betaine and its cousins in skin patch studies, oral and ocular exposure, aquatic toxicity, and long-term degradation trials. Findings point toward low acute toxicity, though higher concentrations can irritate mucous membranes or trigger dermatitis in sensitive individuals. Biodegradability usually rates “readily biodegradable” for most common structures in standard OECD tests, which keeps regulatory agencies satisfied for the most part. Animal studies and in vitro cell assays have not flagged significant carcinogenicity or reproductive harm for the vast majority produced with controlled methods. Environmental scientists find that breakdown products rarely linger in soils or rivers, though incomplete purification or excessive use downstream can spike issues, calling for tighter discharge controls or greener processes. Staying current with toxicity data isn’t an academic exercise—it drives real business choices, especially when consumer advocates and NGOs see a chance to raise an alarm.
Demand for amphoteric surfactants won’t slow down soon, as more countries push for safer and greener ingredients—and brands compete to win trust. Market researchers spot a sharp rise in plant-based, allergen-free, and solvent-free amphoterics. Biotechnologists test microbial fermentation—skipping petroleum inputs altogether—while production engineers experiment with continuous processes that cut energy and waste. Innovators link these surfactants to biodegradable polymers or antimicrobial peptides, opening new doors for hygiene or healthcare. The movement toward transparency—full traceability back to field or forest—also shapes purchasing in retail, food service, and even water treatment. Across the board, companies know tomorrow’s best surfactant won’t just clean or foam, but fit a world where safety, sustainability, and performance all count equally.
Amphoteric surfactants sound technical, but you use them all the time. Grab a bottle of shampoo, face wash, or a bottle of dish soap, then flip it around to the ingredients list. Words like “cocamidopropyl betaine” give a hint that you are looking at an amphoteric surfactant. They help water and oil mix, making cleaning easier. Unlike most chemical jargon, amphoteric just means these molecules can act as both acids and bases. In plain terms, they adapt to their surroundings, making them more versatile than surfactants that stick to just one job.
People rarely stop to think about what goes into their cleaning products, but the right surfactant can make all the difference. Years ago, aggressive cleansers left my hands red and itchy after washing dishes. After switching to brands with amphoteric surfactants, those problems disappeared. There's a reason: these substances often create less irritation compared to their more basic or acidic cousins. Their milder nature means they show up in everything from baby wipes to eye-makeup remover. Dermatologists note that surfactants like coco betaine work well for people with sensitive skin, mainly because of their gentle touch.
Not every mess plays by the same rules. Grease clings in the kitchen, soap scum builds up on bathroom tiles, and body oils mix into sweat on workout clothes. Amphoteric surfactants have a trick up their sleeve — they adapt to the pH of their surroundings. In acidic water, they perform differently than in alkaline solutions, shifting their charge to tackle what needs to be cleaned. This isn’t just chemistry for the sake of show; it means products can be more effective at breaking up different types of grime, all without over-drying your skin or damaging fabrics.
People care more about what they’re rinsing down the drain these days. Environmental experts push for safer alternatives to harsh detergents that linger in water and hurt wildlife. Research published in journals like Environmental Science & Technology highlights that some amphoteric surfactants break down faster, reducing their lasting mark on the environment. Of course, not all are perfect, and there’s still work to do to make sure everything we wash away doesn’t end up harming our rivers and oceans.
The search for better surfactants keeps moving. Cosmetic chemists continually experiment with plant-based sources, hoping to make products even milder and more biodegradable. Some promising options use coconut or sugar sources. For people working in beauty or cleaning industries, tuning in to new science means staying ahead of trends and offering safer products. A little awareness about these molecules can push both companies and consumers toward a cleaner, less irritating future.
Amphoteric surfactants do more than just clean — they straddle the line between strong results and gentle care. By adapting to different needs, they bring comfort to people with sensitivities and offer hope for healthier homes and waterways. Paying attention to what’s in the bottle helps everyone make smarter choices, and spreads the benefits from our hands to the world outside our homes.
Amphoteric surfactants stand out in the lab because of the way they respond to pH levels. They change their nature based on whether the solution is acidic or alkaline. This flexibility opens avenues for developing gentle and effective products. Watching how skin care and cleaning products have shifted toward more gentle formulations, you can see the quiet role these surfactants play. They tend to reduce irritation, a big plus for anyone who has struggled with harsh soaps or shampoos that leave the skin feeling dry and tight.
Skin sensitivity is nothing to brush off. Many consumers react to common surfactants, but amphoteric surfactants routinely help blunt that response. For instance, adding cocamidopropyl betaine to shampoos and washes can reduce the chance of dryness and itching, especially for babies, people with eczema, or those using these products every day. Gentle cleansing makes a difference—personally, I’ve seen fewer flare-ups and dryness after switching household cleansers to products containing these ingredients.
Biodegradation is another necessity now. In the past, we ignored where ingredients ended up once they went down the drain. Amphoteric surfactants like betaines and sultaines usually get broken down by the environment more easily than some anionic or cationic options. Choosing these chemicals helps lower the chemical burden on waterways. Regulatory reports have called out their lower toxicity to aquatic life, and it feels responsible to pick options that keep both people and wildlife in mind—especially when the risks of microplastics and persistent chemicals grow each year.
Not every surfactant works well in every scenario. Amphoteric surfactants offer more than just mildness. They work quietly alongside other surfactants, improving foam, stability, and viscosity without fighting for dominance. This matters when you’re trying to fine-tune a cleaning product for hard water, or engineer a face wash that feels luxurious without driving up costs on thickeners or fragrance suppressors. In everything from dish soap to intimate cleansers, their ability to support other ingredients on the label can help reach new target audiences, like those sensitive to strong foaming agents or allergic to sulfates.
This flexibility also comes in handy if a team is developing something new in a crowded market. Adjusting pH or combining amphoteric surfactants with others can tweak the foaming style, cleansing power, or sensory feel to beat competitors or secure an eco-label certification. These finer adjustments can set a brand apart. Brands draw on real chemistry to address user complaints. If a product doesn’t rinse clean or foams poorly, swapping in an amphoteric surfactant usually improves things overnight.
There’s no silver bullet in chemistry, but amphoteric surfactants offer practical answers for modern concerns. They help reduce allergic reactions, ease toxicity worries, and allow formulators to work smarter, not harder. For both personal care and cleaning companies striving for a safer, greener footprint—and for anyone hunting for gentler products to bring home—the choice feels obvious.
Continued investment in understanding how these surfactants perform across applications builds trust with users and regulators alike. By prioritizing safety, environmental responsibility, and consumer comfort, the industry can deliver products that don’t compromise on performance or conscience.
Most people know surfactants as the ingredients in soaps and shampoos that create a nice foamy lather. In daily life, amphoteric surfactants show up in everything from face washes to baby shampoos and even toothpaste. They’re popular because they clean well, rinse off easily, and work no matter how hard or soft the local water is. If you check the labels on gentle cleansers, you’ll often find cocamidopropyl betaine, a classic amphoteric surfactant, sitting near the top of the ingredient list.
Anyone who struggles with burning, itching, or redness after trying new skincare products knows how tricky it can be to find something that doesn’t sting. Many folks—including dermatologists—value mild cleansers for this reason. It’s easy to see why amphoteric surfactants earned their reputation as a milder option. Their chemical structure helps them adjust how they interact with skin based on the pH of the formula. This ability to “play nice” makes them less likely to strip away all the skin’s protective oils or leave skin feeling tight after washing.
Peer-reviewed research has dug into how amphoteric surfactants affect skin. A study in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found that cleansers using these ingredients tend to cause less irritation than those with harsher sulfate surfactants. The American Contact Dermatitis Society points out that surfactants like cocamidopropyl betaine rarely cause allergic reactions. The FDA and European Union both allow amphoteric surfactants in cosmetics, and regulatory agencies keep a watchful eye on evidence of irritation or allergy.
Even products labeled for sensitive skin can trigger reactions sometimes. Some amphoteric surfactants, such as cocamidopropyl betaine, stem from coconut oil but can contain leftover impurities after processing. People with very reactive skin might still notice redness or stinging, especially if they use several products at once. Allergic contact dermatitis to cocamidopropyl betaine can happen, but actual cases stay rare compared to problems from sulfate-based surfactants like sodium lauryl sulfate.
Buying a cleanser for sensitive skin shouldn’t feel like a science project. Choose fragrance-free formulas and patch-test before putting anything new on your face or body. Don’t just trust claims like “dermatologist recommended”—double-check ingredient lists if you’ve had problems before. If redness or burning crops up, stop using the product and talk to a healthcare provider. Real-world experience shows most people tolerate amphoteric surfactants just fine, but individual skin chemistry can’t be overlooked.
The market for mild skincare keeps growing as awareness of sensitive skin climbs. Brands keep tweaking their formulas, sometimes combining amphoteric surfactants with moisturizing ingredients like glycerin or ceramides. Dermatologists often suggest these cleansers to patients who want clean skin without risking a flare-up. Safer options exist, but no ingredient suits everyone. Reading labels, listening to your skin, and talking to professionals helps minimize problems for people searching for that hard-to-find gentle cleanser.
Open up the back of any shampoo, dish soap, or body wash bottle and you see a parade of chemical names. Surface-active agents, better known as surfactants, make all those bubbles and cleaning action possible. Most formulas mix different types, and nowhere is this blend more interesting than with amphoteric surfactants. Folks in the chemical trade or working behind the scenes in product development know straight away: these ingredients are flexible and play well with others, pushing cleaning formulas into new territory. Understanding this gives regular users a better grasp of what actually cleans their hair or dirty dishes, instead of just trusting the marketing blurbs on the bottle.
You’ll find amphoteric surfactants in mainstream products because they adapt to their surroundings, behaving acidic or basic depending on the solution. In practice, this means they survive and function in a wide range of pH values—an edge over some other surfactant types. This adaptability cuts down on irritation, making gentle cleansers possible. In the lab, I once mixed cocamidopropyl betaine—a classic amphoteric—with a harsh primary surfactant and watched the overall irritation factor drop on the patch test. Even big companies, like the brand behind baby shampoos, borrow this compatibility to soften up their cleansers without sacrificing foam or cleaning power.
Most products on the market mix nonionic, anionic, cationic, and amphoteric agents. Each group brings a different trick to the table. Anionics like sodium lauryl sulfate bring the fizz and cleaning strength but can rough up skin and hair. Nonionics deliver mildness and solubilizing action. Amphoterics fill a sweet spot by buffering harshness, boosting foam, and stabilizing mixtures. This chemistry isn’t simply about what’s possible in a test tube—blending these types means formulators can adjust viscosity, improve foam, lower skin irritation, and hit the right price point for both high-end and bargain products. In my time tinkering with homemade soaps, I learned quickly that pure anionic formulas stripped too much oil from skin, while adding a dose of amphoteric surfactant made the bar tolerable for daily use. That’s the difference a thoughtful blend makes.
Getting all these surfactants to cooperate takes real knowledge of chemistry. Not every combo plays nice; for example, anionic and cationic surfactants can clash and form useless blobs. Amphoterics often bridge these gaps, helping create stable mixtures with both types. In bigger production settings, quality control teams run repeated checks for things like viscosity swings, product separation, or odd smells. It doesn’t just boil down to tossing different surfactants together and hoping for the best. Proper ratios and testing stand between a world-class formula and a sticky, separated mess.
The public gets more health-conscious every year, so brands face mounting pressure to use less aggressive chemicals. Amphoteric surfactants help make this shift possible. Their mildness clears the way for sulfate-free or “sensitive skin” claims. On the eco side, some amphoteric surfactants biodegrade more easily than old-school anionic types, helping companies meet new environmental regulations. In my experience consulting for a local artisan soap maker, switching to blends with amphoteric ingredients let us avoid customer complaints and lifted our environmental profile.
Mixing amphoteric surfactants with other types isn’t just possible—it’s standard practice in both mass-market and specialty cleaning products. Their adaptability and proven mildness help chemists create products that feel great to use and work across a range of water conditions. By seeing how these choices play out at the consumer level, anyone grabbing a bottle off the shelf can appreciate the thought behind the formula, not just the price tag or the marketing promises.
Step into any bathroom and you’ll probably spot a bottle of shampoo or body wash. Many of these products owe their gentle cleaning power to amphoteric surfactants. Since these ingredients work well with both acids and alkalis, brands use them to balance tough dirt removal with low risk of skin irritation. I’ve struggled with sensitive skin, so I know how easy it is to overdo washing and end up with redness or itchiness. Using a formula with cocamidopropyl betaine or similar amphoteric surfactants has made showers less of a gamble; the lather feels rich, and the skin doesn’t feel stripped. Besides shampoo, these surfactants appear in facial cleansers, baby products, and even shaving creams just for that reason: they clean with less sting.
While companies often reach for stronger cleansers to tackle kitchen and bathroom grime, there’s a real case for using amphoteric surfactants in dish soap and multipurpose sprays. They manage the grease from pans and countertops without forcing you to glove up or endure cracked skin after a round of chores. More than once I’ve noticed my hands feeling less dry after cleaning up the kitchen with a “gentle” dish liquid. It’s all because these surfactants can boost foam, help with rinsing, and soften the effect of harsher ingredients in a formula.
Outside of homes, amphoteric surfactants play a behind-the-scenes role in big cleaning jobs. Hospitals, restaurants, and schools look for cleaners that won’t damage stainless steel, painted walls, or tiled floors. Since amphoteric surfactants can mix with other cleaning agents without losing effectiveness, it’s easier for maintenance crews to clean a variety of surfaces with one product. In food-handling spots, safety matters, and regulations sometimes push for milder, less toxic cleaners. These surfactants provide a balance between thorough cleaning and safety for staff.
Textile mills and tanneries use amphoteric surfactants during washing, dyeing, and softening steps. In my college days, chemistry labs would run fabric samples through a batch process with these surfactants just to prep for dyeing, because they help remove leftover fats, oils, or previous dyes. Having the right surfactant means better color absorption and smoother fabric feel—small details, but they show up in how a shirt holds onto bright colors or in how soft a new sweater feels.
The pharmaceutical industry relies on these surfactants for skin creams, ointments, and liquid medicines. Some medications need even spreading and no irritation, so amphoteric surfactants get picked over harsher ones. In cosmetics, makeup removers combine these ingredients with oils to strip mascara or sunscreen without redness, and lotions use them to keep the result light and non-greasy.
The demand for less harmful and eco-friendly cleaning materials keeps growing. Amphoteric surfactants can biodegrade easier than some traditional alternatives, making them a better choice for those aiming to cut down on environmental impact. Manufacturers and everyday consumers both benefit from improved safety and skin tolerance. Keeping an eye open for these ingredients makes sense for anyone who cleans daily, worries about skin dryness, or cares about wastewater impact. Trading up to products with amphoteric surfactants takes some guesswork out of cleaning, both at home and in big industries.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Cocamidopropylbetaine |
| Other names |
ampholytic surfactant zwitterionic surfactant |
| Pronunciation | /æmˈfəʊtərɪk ˈsɜːfəktənt/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 61789-40-0 |
| Beilstein Reference | 2006436 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:29995 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2095161 |
| ChemSpider | 11440541 |
| DrugBank | DB11105 |
| ECHA InfoCard | ECHA InfoCard: 02-2119750014-49-XXXX |
| EC Number | 61791-14-8 |
| Gmelin Reference | Gmelin Reference: 169911 |
| KEGG | C18647 |
| MeSH | D011643 |
| PubChem CID | 23688707 |
| RTECS number | AK8575000 |
| UNII | 6A1V7B8B12 |
| UN number | UN3082 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID3020716 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C19H42N2O3S |
| Molar mass | 320.52 g/mol |
| Appearance | light yellow transparent liquid |
| Odor | Characteristic |
| Density | 1.05 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Soluble in water |
| log P | -1.4 |
| Acidity (pKa) | 6.5 – 7.5 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 8.5 – 10.5 |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.460 |
| Viscosity | 50-500 mPa·s |
| Dipole moment | 6.56 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -2857.0 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | D08AJ |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | Causes serious eye damage. Causes skin irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS05 |
| Pictograms | GHS05, GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H315: Causes skin irritation. H319: Causes serious eye irritation. |
| Precautionary statements | P264, P280, P305+P351+P338, P337+P313 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-0-0 |
| Flash point | >100°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD₅₀ (oral, rat) > 5000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): >2000 mg/kg (rat) |
| NIOSH | Not Listed |
| PEL (Permissible) | 50 mg/m3 |
| REL (Recommended) | 10 - 35% |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Lauramidopropyl Betaine Cocamidopropyl Betaine Sodium Lauriminodipropionate Disodium Cocoamphodiacetate Cocamphopropionate Lauryl Hydroxysultaine Coco Betaine Capryloamphopropionate |
