Fatty Acid Diethanolamide, better known by many as CDEA, sits on the shelf of nearly every home and industry, though most don’t give it a second thought. In the early days, surfactants relied heavily on animal fats and rather harsh chemicals. As the world pushed for better alternatives through the 20th century, scientists started looking at plant oils for their abundant fatty acids. CDEA grew from this movement, forming a bridge between raw coconut oil and the modern world of detergents. Factories first started making it in bulk in the mid-1900s, not just to clean but to make soaps and shampoos less harsh on skin. Over time, regulations and rising demand for milder ingredients gave CDEA a steady foothold across personal care and even heavy industry.
What draws manufacturers to CDEA is its function as a foam booster and thickener. Look under the labels of shampoos, body washes, or dish liquids, and you'll see words like cocamide DEA. Its versatility comes from a knack for making water work harder — turning small amounts of surfactant into a much more efficient blend, trapping dirt, oil, and grease. This also adds a creamy, stable foam that has become a ritual expectation in cleaning routines worldwide. At the core, CDEA doesn’t just lather; it softens the experience for skin and hair by countering the harshness of primary detergents.
In many labs and factories, CDEA’s pale yellow, viscous liquid form speaks to its ease of use. That mild coconut scent connects back to its origins, but the real story begins with its solubility in both water and oils. It holds together under high temperatures and doesn’t fall apart in cold storage, making it a real workhorse. It won’t catch fire easily. Its pH sits near neutral, dodging the corrosiveness seen in many cleaning bases. Others notice its ability to blend without separating, crucial for making products that look good on a drugstore shelf.
Every batch of CDEA comes with a set of standards, agreed on worldwide by groups like the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) and food and chemical safety boards. These specs call out key metrics: purity, acid value, amine value, color, and water content. Good manufacturing demands low impurities — too much glycerin or excess diethanolamine, and the result may irritate skin or creates off-odors. Containers show the chemical’s proper name and content, coupled with hazard and precautionary statements as coordinates for responsible use. Labels now also warn about nitrosamine contaminants, echoing ongoing safety debates.
The journey from coconut oil to CDEA involves more than simple mixing. Producers first extract the fatty acids, purifying and reacting them with diethanolamine under moderate heat, all in stainless steel vessels that keep unwanted reactions out. This process, called amidation, transforms the raw materials into a stable surfactant, all while balancing temperature and adding catalysts with a trained hand. Once cooled and refined, technicians test batches for purity and viscosity before sending them off for use. This process may sound routine, but each step decides the final product’s smoothness and safety.
CDEA doesn’t just stop at surfactant duty. Chemists often tweak its structure by reacting it further with ethylene oxide or by modifying its chain length. These adjustments improve solubility, foaming, or even make milder versions. In some labs, they ‘cap’ the reactive amine groups to make the product safer for leave-on skin care. It can take part in emulsification reactions, combining oil and water phases into stable lotions. Such modifications form the backbone for the next generation of specialty formulations.
CDEA wears a handful of names. Many call it Cocamide DEA, reflecting its coconut source. Among exporters and importers, ‘Coconut oil diethanolamide’ and ‘Lauric acid diethanolamide’ often find their way onto customs forms. Trade names differ from region to region, but the underlying molecule remains the same. Keeping up with these synonyms matters when sorting safety data, tracking shipments, or ensuring compliance in products distributed globally.
Everyone from batch operator to end user relies on responsible handling of CDEA. Over the years, concerns centered around possible impurities, especially diethanolamine and its links to nitrosamine formation, which regulators flag as potential carcinogens. International standards ask for tight control at every stage, nose to the grindstone from raw sourcing to blending and packaging. Workers in plants suit up, don gloves, ventilate areas, and stick to instructions not just out of habit but as a response to research showing what happens if safety gets ignored. Effective safety data sheets guide storage away from acids and strong oxidizers, pointing out routes of exposure and first aid steps. In practice, safety means diligent monitoring and constant updating of procedures based on the latest evidence and incident reports.
CDEA’s footprint stretches across laundry detergents, car wash soaps, and personal care aisles. In cosmetics, it partners with other ingredients to soften skin or help shampoos glide through tangles, setting the wash-and-go rhythm of modern life. Firefighting foams exploit its foaming ability without toxic build-up. Textile and leather industries turn to CDEA for lubricating yarn or softening hides. Each use taps into its ability to cut surface tension and stabilize blends — a small molecule with big impact, creating ripple effects from industrial plants to everyday bathrooms.
Recent years saw researchers pushing CDEA to do more with less. Ongoing challenges include making it from non-coconut sources, reclaiming waste oils, or cutting the risk of nitrosamine contamination to practically zero. New analytical tools allow deeper looks at by-products and impurities, making it easier to set tougher quality standards. In labs, green chemistry approaches aim to alter the synthesis route for better energy use and less waste. The push toward plant-based everything opens new doors for CDEA, with trials on using palm oil derivatives or algae oils while weighing the environmental side of each step.
Toxicity studies shaped CDEA’s reputation. Early animal tests rang some alarms about irritancy and cell damage. Deeper studies on related compounds like DEA highlighted cancer risks from nitrosamines, steering regulators toward stronger limits and better purification practices. Most current formulations show low risks at typical exposure levels in soaps and shampoos, but some sensitive users still report skin or eye irritation when formulations aren’t optimized. Safety debate continues, with toxicologists looking not just at short-term contact, but at lifetime accumulation, breakdown products, and effects on water treatment plants where residues end up. Trained toxicologists review every new data set, often prompting manufacturers to reformulate or double down on testing, especially as consumer demand for transparency keeps rising.
The future of CDEA depends on how well industry and science answer old and new questions. Stricter safety standards already force smaller nitrosamine thresholds and greener raw materials. Public interest in ethical sourcing and bio-based surfactants presses for crops that don’t compete with food or push deforestation. Automation and digital monitoring can trim impurity risks or energy use in manufacturing. Some innovators look at bioengineered enzymes to build fatty acid amides more precisely, blending tradition with twenty-first-century tech. The basic need for efficient, skin-friendly, sustainable cleaning agents hasn't faded, so if CDEA adapts on every front — from plant to plant floor to global supply chain — it keeps earning its spot beneath the kitchen sink and on lab benches.
Look at the back of most shampoos or body washes and you’ll spot names like “Cocamide DEA” or “Fatty Acid Diethanolamide.” These ingredients give the smooth lather most of us expect from a proper cleaning product. CDEA, often produced from coconut oils, works as a thickener and a foaming agent. It turns runny liquids into gels, giving that satisfying texture people connect with quality. Without CDEA or something similar, many cleaning products would pour like watery soup.
Aside from cosmetics, laundry detergents and dish soaps take advantage of CDEA to keep bubbles full and resilient. From my view, this isn’t just about luxury—the right texture and lather convince people a product cleans well. It’s the unsung part of product performance that shapes everyday routines.
CDEA’s chemical structure lets it bridge between oil and water. Mix it into a detergent and it gathers grime and grease, making rinsing easier. These surfactant properties boost cleaning power in everything from bubble baths to hard surface cleaners. Dropping off the science for a second, think of CDEA as the ingredient that makes soap cut through sticky leftovers in a pan or lets body wash clear away whatever you pick up in a long day.
CDEA also improves the look and feel of products. Brands know that a thick, creamy shampoo stands out against watery alternatives. That’s why CDEA has stuck around for decades.
Growing interest in ingredient safety has pulled CDEA into the spotlight. In lab studies, high doses of diethanolamides have raised questions about skin irritation or links to more serious problems with long-term use. As researchers and regulators examined the data, some manufacturers chose to pull CDEA or reduce reliance on it.
Major personal care brands started reformulating shampoos and cleansers to cut exposure. I’ve seen a shift toward plant-based thickeners and surfactants like sodium lauryl sulfate or cocamidopropyl betaine. These alternatives don’t deliver an identical texture, but they meet safety goals some families want.
Consumers now demand transparency in ingredient lists. More people check labels, especially those shopping for children or people with allergies. Watching this change, I see that choosing soap isn’t only about scent or price anymore—it’s about trust.
Public pressure moved global brands to give clearer information and offer CDEA-free options. In kitchens and bathrooms everywhere, that transparency matters as much as performance.
Companies face the challenge of balancing cost, product feel, and safety. Removing CDEA increases production expenses, and not all substitutes work the same. While some customers stick with familiar products, others pay more for “clean label” options.
Regulators help by reviewing science and updating guidance for ingredient use. Industry groups run independent tests, building a stronger evidence base. As someone who tracks these trends, I see brands tweaking their recipes often, aiming for safety without losing the experience people expect.
The story of CDEA is more than chemistry labs or factory floors. It’s about the push to keep daily products simple, safe, and enjoyable—without losing the qualities that matter in real life.
Cocamide DEA (CDEA) often shows up on the back label of shampoos, liquid soaps, and bubble baths. Made from coconut oil and diethanolamine, CDEA works as a foaming agent, helping products lather up and spread easily. It’s been a staple in countless brands chasing that thick, creamy feel we all associate with deep cleaning. I’ve lost count of the times I flipped a bottle and found this chemical listed among the ingredients.
Not all the attention CDEA gets is positive. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) included CDEA on its Proposition 65 list, which singles out chemicals known to cause cancer. This action comes after research linking CDEA to tumor growth in lab animals. The American Cancer Society acknowledges some of these findings, though real-world exposure in shower gels or soaps tends to stay far below test levels.
Safety groups such as the Environmental Working Group give CDEA moderate to high hazard ratings, mostly due to these potential carcinogenic effects and the irritant factor for skin and eyes. My experience reading consumer complaints matches what I see in science reviews—some people notice redness or itching when using products with hefty doses of this compound.
Corporations and regulators play catch-up as health consciousness grows. The European Union bans CDEA in cosmetics, aiming to keep risky compounds out of everyday care routines, especially those for babies and children with sensitive skin. Health Canada restricts its use, giving strict rules about how much can go into cosmetics, and Australia’s NICNAS agency warns about potential health hazards.
American regulators haven’t banned CDEA outright, but consumer watchdogs and class-action lawsuits have pushed brands to reformulate. Walk down the aisle at any supermarket, and newer product labels point out “CDEA-free” formulas as a selling point, echoing moves once made against parabens and sulfates.
Plenty of safer alternatives exist, and they work just as well without raising red flags. Manufacturers in recent years have turned to ingredients like sodium cocoyl isethionate or decyl glucoside, drawn from natural sources like coconut and corn sugar. You can pick up a bottle containing these instead and still get loads of bubbles with none of the baggage.
Simple steps help any consumer steer clear of risky substances. Reading product labels and looking up unfamiliar names can save a lot of guesswork. Reputable brands post full ingredient lists online, sometimes with explanations and safety notes. I found that switching to products with plant-based surfactants brought down the occasional irritation I got from older formulas, and my skin felt healthier for it.
Transparency and better consumer education empower people to make smart, safe choices. Research into ingredient safety will always evolve, so learning how to spot and avoid less desirable chemicals makes a real difference. Companies benefit by responding to this demand for safer, cleaner products, keeping pace with the latest knowledge rather than waiting for rules to change. People deserve not just clean hair and skin, but peace of mind about what goes into those favorite bottles lined up along the tub.
Cocamide DEA, or CDEA, shows up in products many people use daily—think shampoos, hand washes, and household cleaners. It helps thicken formulas, build foam, and make products feel nicer on skin and hair. If you’ve used a shampoo that pours smoothly and creates rich lather, there’s a solid chance CDEA helped. This ingredient earns a spot in labs, but not without debates and research around safety and effectiveness.
Check a typical shampoo or liquid soap, and you’ll often find CDEA at levels ranging between 1% and 5% by weight. Most chemists lean toward 2% to 4% for personal care products—enough to boost thickness and foam without overloading the skin or wallets. Some knocks on the door at 5%, especially if a thicc, pearly texture is the goal and budgets can handle the extra surfactant. Go above that, and irritation risks start growing, defeating the original purpose of making a nicer wash.
Cleaning products for the kitchen or shop sometimes run higher concentrations, sliding up to 7% if the goal is cutting thick grease. At that level, it’s all about balance: cleaning power versus lingering residues. Dosing too aggressively brings trade-offs, including potential for skin irritation and environmental impact.
Anyone who’s spent time behind a chemical mixing bench learns fast—more of an ingredient doesn’t always mean better performance. CDEA adds cost, so manufacturers try to find the lowest level that still makes the product stand out on the shelf. Ingredient savvy shoppers also keep an eye out for high concentrations. Regulatory pressure has ramped up over recent years, with some markets—especially in the EU and California—keeping a close watch on contaminant levels like DEA and nitrosamines.
Science tells us: keep CDEA moderate. Studies from sources like the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) and EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety suggest cap levels. Those working in the industry double-check against legal rules: many regions recommend not topping 10% in finished product, but most go much lower. This is partly out of caution for irritation, partly audit risk, and partly cost control. Ingredient suppliers usually suggest their own maximums in technical bulletins, based on both lab trials and years of customer feedback.
Years of mixing and testing in the lab highlight one truth: alternatives come knocking as fast as old ingredients get scrutinized. Companies now blend CDEA with gentler co-surfactants, or swap it for other fatty acid amides like cocamide MEA. Plant-derived thickeners are showing up in green formulas. The industry keeps moving toward lower levels, not just for safety, but to keep up with eco-labels and savvy customers asking real questions.
Formulas built today rarely stick with the same ratios for long. Lab teams try new mixes, adjust viscosity, and look for ways to avoid the pitfalls tied to higher doses of synthetic thickeners. Up-to-date knowledge helps chemists build products that clean well, feel good, and stand up to watchful regulators. Trust grows where manufacturers talk straight about choices and customers know what’s inside their bottle. Keeping cash and skin out of trouble starts at the ingredient list—and CDEA, used smart and sparingly, keeps doing its job on the shelf.
Cocamide DEA, or CDEA, does a lot of heavy lifting in the world of cosmetics and cleaning products. It gives shampoos their creamy lather and helps soaps stay smooth. Even the best ingredient loses its touch if stored the wrong way. In my work, I've seen CDEA go from clear and pourable to thick, gunky, and even separated—just because it stood too long in a hot warehouse or got exposed to air.
Heat changes the game. High temperatures mess with CDEA’s consistency and trigger slow chemical breakdown over time. I’ve watched shipments suffer during summer. A steamy garage, a sun-soaked shelf, a space near hot machinery—these places spell trouble. For years, I stored raw materials no higher than room temperature, 20–25°C (68–77°F), and that simple rule always kept things from separating or turning cloudy. Keeping the product out of direct sunlight comes from hard experience; those drums heat up fast in the sun, which destroys texture and pours ability.
It only takes a little bit of moisture or air to spoil CDEA. The product absorbs water from the air, which then encourages mold and other contaminants. I always urge anyone handling surfactants to close containers immediately after use. Pails or drums with tight, screw-down lids do far better than snap-on caps. On one warehouse visit years ago, we found open buckets near mixing tanks. Not only did the CDEA thicken and change color, but it also developed a sour smell. Regular checks on the seal stopped the problem.
Foreign particles ruin batches. I’ve learned not to use tools that haven’t been properly cleaned and dried before dipping into a CDEA pail. Even a bit of leftover product from another raw material can react and create clumps or off-smells. At the facility where I supervised blending, we trained staff to wipe down all tools, use dedicated scoops, and never double-dip. That small discipline made a huge difference in quality after weeks and months of storage.
CDEA slowly breaks down with sustained exposure to air and humidity. That’s why we finished off an open container within a few days rather than leave it half-full for months. While it usually holds up in sealed containers, scooping out small quantities over and over raises risk. Splitting large drums into smaller, tightly sealed cans kept the product fresher for the teams who used it occasionally.
In any storeroom, the “first in, first out” method saves more than just money—it saves quality. Labeling each container with the receipt date made it easy to use up the oldest supply first. I’ve seen forgotten drums at the back of shelves go bad after a year, while properly rotated product held onto its clear appearance and good performance. Every few months, a quick check through inventory cut waste and stopped accidental use of stale product.
Following the basics, CDEA delivers peak performance: stay cool, keep it dry, always seal tightly, use clean tools, and pay attention to dates. These aren’t just theory from a textbook. Every skilled formulator and factory manager learns the value of practical storage from the batches they lose—or save—with simple habits. That’s how you keep quality up and costs down, no matter the season or product line.
Cocamide DEA, often shortened to CDEA, crops up in daily life far more often than most realize. Most people bump into it in shampoos, liquid soaps, and various cleaning supplies. Manufacturers use it because it helps produce rich foam and cleans surfaces and hair more thoroughly. The ingredient starts with coconut oil, but that doesn’t always mean it matches the gentle image people have of coconuts and other natural ingredients.
Stories about CDEA’s safety have sparked plenty of debate. Looking at straight-up toxicity, most research shows low risk at the concentrations used in household products. In this sense, washing your hands or hair with a bit of shampoo doesn’t appear to leave lasting harm right away. But dig a little deeper, and a different picture starts to show.
Most of the known risk to humans involves skin irritation or allergic reactions. Even folks who never experienced allergies before sometimes end up with red, itchy patches from daily soap, especially if that soap contains CDEA. The skin acts as a strong barrier, but some people still find their skin gets aggravated after steady use of products with CDEA. Dermatologists receive plenty of questions about recurring rashes, and CDEA remains on their list of possible culprits.
A bigger worry hangs over CDEA because of its capacity to create nitrosamines. These substances form when CDEA mixes with certain chemicals, including nitrites found in some preservatives. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies CDEA itself as possibly carcinogenic. Studies haven’t demonstrated the same risks in people as researchers have seen in lab animals, but the possibility keeps cropping up because nitrosamines just don't belong in things people rub into their skin or rinse down the drain.
Rinsing soaps and shampoos down the drain sends CDEA straight into water systems. Waste treatment removes a good chunk of it, but not all. Once in natural water systems, CDEA can damage aquatic life at certain concentrations. Fish and aquatic invertebrates don't process chemicals like CDEA as quickly as humans, and some species have shown reduced growth or reproduction when exposed to high levels.
Another point worth sharing—CDEA doesn’t break down quickly once it reaches the environment. Persistence matters in the world of chemical pollution, as enduring compounds may accumulate in habitats over time. This slow breakdown means that even if the risk per exposure sits on the low side, repeated and widespread use adds up.
Plenty of companies have switched gears in recent years. With rising consumer awareness, many brands use alternative foaming agents like cocamidopropyl betaine or plant-based surfactants. While not every substitute comes risk-free, industry pushes for safer ingredients that still clean just as well.
Consumers shape what sits on store shelves. Checking ingredient labels, supporting brands that avoid controversial chemicals, and staying updated on new safety findings puts more power in individual hands. On the larger scale, regulators play a key role by reviewing data and updating guidelines as new facts come to light. Environmental groups and researchers continue to monitor long-term impacts, making waves that eventually ripple back into industry practice and government action.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | N,N-Bis(2-hydroxyethyl)dodecanamide |
| Other names |
Cocamide DEA Coconut Diethanolamide CDEA Lauramide DEA Coco Diethanolamide Cocamide Diethanolamine |
| Pronunciation | /ˈfæti ˈæsɪd daɪˌɛθəˈnɒl əˈmaɪd/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 68603-42-9 |
| Beilstein Reference | 1911122 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:63498 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2044738 |
| ChemSpider | 21134173 |
| DrugBank | DB11132 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03-2119475796-30-0000 |
| EC Number | 931-329-6 |
| Gmelin Reference | 84056 |
| KEGG | C01700 |
| MeSH | D003637 |
| PubChem CID | 10461 |
| RTECS number | JR7875000 |
| UNII | QK5N674C3I |
| UN number | UN3082 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID5020276 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C11H23CON(C2H4OH)2 |
| Molar mass | 263.37 g/mol |
| Appearance | Light yellow to yellow viscous liquid |
| Odor | Mild characteristic |
| Density | 0.96 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Soluble in water |
| log P | 2.34 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Acidity (pKa) | ~16 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 3.75 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | Diamagnetic |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.4730~1.4760 |
| Viscosity | 2000-5000 mPa·s (25°C) |
| Dipole moment | 4.08 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 810.610 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -1195.7 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -7208 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | D11AX |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | Skin irritation, Eye irritation, Harmful if swallowed |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS05 |
| Pictograms | GHS07,GHS05 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H315, H319 |
| Precautionary statements | P264, P280, P305+P351+P338, P337+P313 |
| Flash point | > 204°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50（Oral, Rat）: > 5,000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (rat, oral): 4,200 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | MN9275000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | 5 mg/m³ |
| REL (Recommended) | 15 mg/m³ |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Lauramide DEA Cocamide DEA Oleamide DEA Linoleamide DEA Myristamide DEA |
