Diisostearyl malate didn’t just pop up overnight in the world of cosmetic and personal care. Chemists in the late 20th century began looking for ways to create stable, skin-friendly esters that felt smooth and acted as key emollients. Drawing inspiration from malic acid, found in fruits like apples, and isostearyl alcohol, which offers a rich, cushiony texture, researchers blended natural inspiration with lab-based innovation. This focus on sourcing milder, less reactive alternatives to harsher emollients launched diisostearyl malate onto ingredients lists for lipstick, foundation, and skin balms. Word spread through technical forums and beauty trade shows, and formulators valued its luxe glide without stickiness, leading to a sharp rise in its usage across Asia, Europe, and North America. The demand for “long-wearing” and “hydrating” became a driving force, with many beauty brands looking for signature texture boosters that stood up to consumer demand and evolving regulatory requirements.
People often ask, what's the big deal about diisostearyl malate? In short, it acts as an emollient, giving lipsticks and balms a creamy, smooth texture that doesn't feel greasy or heavy. This malate ester is synthesized using malic acid—an alpha hydroxy acid—and two isostearyl alcohol molecules. The design of this molecule delivers a balance between oil-loving (lipophilic) and water-hating characteristics, making it perfect for products needing both glide and adherence. Expect to see it near the top of ingredient lists in premium lip colors, hydrating creams, and sun-care lines. Its ability to disperse pigments evenly makes it particularly useful for clean, bold color in makeup. Brands often promote its soft feel, quick absorption, and lasting comfort, thinking of consumer needs above all else—especially in a crowded and competitive beauty market.
Think of diisostearyl malate as a nearly colorless, odorless, viscous liquid or soft wax at room temperature. Its melting point hovers between 28°C and 35°C, which helps cream formulas remain stable over a range of storage conditions. The cetane number and iodine value stay low, signaling a profile that resists rancidity and stays fresh longer than pure triglycerides. Its specific gravity ranges from 0.92 to 0.96, and the refractive index comes in at around 1.45, reflecting its smooth appearance and compatibility with common cosmetic oils. It dissolves well in oils and blends, carrying pigments and active ingredients. Water solubility counts as nearly zero, so it forms the backbone of water-resistant beauty and skin care products. Some labs push to fine-tune purity and color, aiming for minimal impurity levels and enhanced oxidative stability, especially as demands for green chemistry and minimal formulation footprints grow louder.
Regulators stick to strict limits for diisostearyl malate. Creams, sticks, and balms list it on ingredient panels generally as “Diisostearyl Malate.” Purity plays a big role: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) documents cite requirements around heavy metals, color, and permissible residual solvents. Typical product specs call for acid values under 3 mg KOH/g, saponification values about 125–135, and low peroxide numbers to minimize free radical risk. Safety and allergy checks get woven into the approval process, because today’s savvy buyers actually read labels. Responsible brands detail traceability and match labeling with region-specific rules; for instance, in Japan or South Korea it may be subject to more testing and certification. Labelling as vegan or cruelty-free increases its market value, as clean beauty standards grow increasingly strict and ingredient traceability turns into a selling point rather than just red tape.
The manufacturing of diisostearyl malate involves a classic esterification reaction. Manufacturers start with malic acid and two equivalents of isostearyl alcohol under acidic catalysts—often p-toluenesulfonic acid or sulfuric acid—at temperatures usually in the 150–180°C range. Removing water drives the reaction to completion, so vacuum and heat play big roles on the production line. After cooling, crude product undergoes washing and neutralization before distillation or molecular filtration knocks out color bodies and unwanted volatiles. Makers monitor acid number and unsaponifiable matter until the batch matches buyer and regulatory specs. Some plants in Europe and Asia have shifted to using green chemistry, swapping out harsher catalysts for enzyme or ion-exchange technologies, spurred in part by sustainability goals and ever-tougher national standards. Energy and solvent recovery, water reuse, and minimal waste numbers remain front and center in modern manufacturing—customer demand for environmentally responsible production keeps chemical factories constantly improving.
Diisostearyl malate’s ester backbone allows for selective modification. In the lab, additional functionalization offers routes to derivatives with antimicrobial, anti-UV, or extra antioxidant properties. Hydrogenation helps further stabilize against oxidation, which is useful for heat- or light-exposed personal care items. Reaction with ethylene oxide or propylene oxide tweaks solubility, giving rise to specialty surfactants tailored for gentle cleansing or microemulsion prep. Some chemists experiment with blending in fatty acids or unique alcohols, creating a medley of esters that not only deliver new texture, but also meet rising standards for skin compatibility and “green” appeal. Microencapsulation techniques allow for controlled release of actives, with diisostearyl malate serving as the carrier system’s anchor. Such modifications move out of the lab and into pilot batches almost instantly, showing the ingredients’ flexibility and the relentless push for sensory improvement in beauty and skincare lines.
It’s easy to get lost in the language soup surrounding this compound. On ingredient decks, it may be listed as “Malic Acid, Diisostearyl Ester” or less often by its older trade names like EMOL DIISOM. Some suppliers tout unique blends or upcycled versions under branded names. Japanese and Korean manufacturers often opt for more complex descriptors to target local compliance or highlight vegetable sourcing. Online, inky databases and trade catalogs reference it under both cosmetic INCI and CAS numbers, to help regulatory teams and R&D chemists match specs across continents. Branded versions may tout cleaner, lighter, or “organically derived” origins, though the molecule remains the same at its core. Keeping brand and regulatory names straight matters, since traceability, certification, and consumer trust ride on accurate information—every mislabeled drum or typo in registration leads to real-world consequences for safety and compliance.
Safety remains a point of pride for ingredient makers. Formulators and toxicologists test diisostearyl malate for skin irritation, sensitization, and phototoxicity before any commercial launch. Regulatory bodies in the US, EU, and Asia require exhaustive safety dossiers—not just on acute toxicity, but genotoxicity, reproductive safety, and long-term exposure. In lab tests with both cell cultures and human volunteers, diisostearyl malate shows low irritancy rates and lacks cumulative toxicity. Cleanroom manufacturing processes, filtered air, and regular batch testing keep contaminant levels within safe margins. Factories respond to near-miss incidents or quality flags with real-time intervention, rather than waiting for a quarterly review. Employee safety measures, including chemical-resistant gloves and eye protection, mirror the high standards demanded for food-grade handling. Trace amounts of residual catalysts or by-products prompt recall protocols and corrective action, not hand-waving explanations. The bottom line: brands and regulators demand flawless compliance to avoid consumer harm and legal fallout, and most major manufacturers treat these standards as regular parts of business, not burdensome hurdles.
Much of the buzz about diisostearyl malate swirls around its make-or-break role in lipsticks, balms, and high-performance foundations. Color cosmetics, particularly those touting “non-drying” and “rich payoff” claims, lean heavily on its smooth texture and long-wearing comfort. Skin care developers use it to boost hydration and spreadability in creams and softeners, where lighter esters fall short. Sunscreen and after-sun lines incorporate it for moisture retention, water resistance, and pigment stability—helping active ingredients stay put even through sweat or humidity. Hair care brands add it to shine balms and color-protecting oils, avoiding silicones while preserving gloss and slip. Some pharmaceutical companies borrow it for ointment bases and transdermal delivery, capitalizing on its mild skin feel. With all the crossover innovation between beauty, health, and wellness, its value stretches beyond surface aesthetics: it helps brands hit comfort, safety, and performance marks without loaded-down formulas or greasy aftereffects. As a result, many labs keep their formulas close to the chest, treating diisostearyl malate combinations as trade secrets.
Behind the scenes, R&D teams keep stretching what diisostearyl malate can do. Analytical chemists map out its breakdown under UV and high heat to design more stable blends and preempt recall risks. Sensory scientists test new combinations for touch and feel, collaborating with big names in luxury and mass-market beauty to dial in texture preferences across different cultures. Sustainability teams pore over lifecycle analysis from raw material to waste stream, hunting for ways to minimize environmental footprint without raising consumer risk. Suppliers partner with indie brands to formulate waterless, preservative-light pigments and balms, answering calls for “conscious chemistry” that balances glam with green. Some labs experiment with encapsulation tech that lets actives ride alongside diisostearyl malate, allowing controlled release on skin rather than burst-release (which can create overload and waste). Intellectual property and trade secret battles remain fierce as every tweak to source purity, process, and effect can spell out a competitive lead for major players. Open communication between formulators, raw material producers, and safety boards helps keep everyone honest, driving standards higher year after year.
Health and safety trials form the backbone of diisostearyl malate’s widespread adoption. Acute toxicity tests in laboratory animals show no harmful effect at typical exposure levels used in consumer goods—no lethality or organ targets when administered orally, dermally, or even inhaled at high doses in lab settings. Clinical dermatological studies report irritation rates on par with inert oils, which speaks to its gentle skin presence. Multiple academic and regulatory reviews scan for allergenicity, carcinogenicity, and potential hormone disruption, but repeated results show this ester does not bioaccumulate or cross the skin barrier in worrisome amounts. Patch testing with sensitive groups (babies, elderly, people with eczema) further underscores its risk profile as low, supporting “for all skin types” claims. Tighter workplace safety rules and environmental audits, especially in Europe and Japan, require real-time monitoring of emissions, wastewater, and residuals. The ongoing review process means any new findings—positive or negative—will change both manufacturing process and consumer communication strategy without delay. Most technical teams keep supporting ongoing independent research, aware that consumer trust and brand reputation turn on unvarnished safety data.
Looking ahead, diisostearyl malate faces both steady support and new demands. Rising environmental scrutiny will demand more sourcing from renewable feedstocks, with green chemistry certification and total transparency in supply. As brands continue to tout “clean” and “minimalist” formulations, chemists will likely develop blends with lower carbon footprints and even better sensory attributes. Regulatory shifts—think microplastics bans, limits on silicones, and closer scrutiny of persistent organic pollutants—may nudge diisostearyl malate into an even higher-profile role, thanks to its low migration, solid safety rating, and versatility with natural pigments or actives. As synthetic biology advances and enzyme-catalyzed processes scale up, both purity and environmental numbers will keep improving. Cosmetic brands, facing sharper consumer questions and data privacy rules, will need to report more details about every batch, from raw materials to finished lipstick tube. Ongoing research in skin biology could uncover unforeseen benefits: antimicrobial roles, improved recovery in barrier creams, or tailored delivery for high-value actives. For now, wider adoption across emerging economies and specialty formulations—sunscreens, cosmeceuticals, and water-free lines—will help diisostearyl malate hold its spot as a cornerstone of innovation in modern beauty and personal care.
Lots of people read ingredients lists on skincare or makeup but don’t always know what half the words mean. Diisostearyl malate pops up all over the place, especially in lips and face products. It shows up in lipsticks, tinted balms, glosses, and sometimes even foundation. You’ll notice how smooth these products feel—there’s a good chance this chemical plays a role.
In the 1980s and ‘90s, companies went on a hunt for better alternatives to heavy oils or waxes. Diisostearyl malate landed in formulas because it gives an emollient, cushiony texture without feeling greasy. Think about how your favorite lip gloss glides on and clings for hours instead of sliding off or drying up. This ingredient isn’t just about shine—it's about locking in moisture, too.
But it’s not just about feel. Tests have shown that diisostearyl malate works well for holding pigment, helping colors go on evenly and stick around longer. As a longtime lip balm user, I know balms with this ingredient smooth cracks and keep lips feeling comfortable in dry weather. Some cosmetic chemists compare it to lanolin, a common base in older lip balms, but diisostearyl malate is plant-based, so it makes vegan claims easier to back up.
Health always comes first, especially where skin is concerned. Diisostearyl malate has passed safety checks from the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel and holds approval for use in Europe, the United States, and much of Asia. Allergic responses tend to pop up for just a handful of people sensitive to certain fragrance ingredients; this malate generally steers clear of that list.
Dermatologists who focus on contact allergies say this ingredient rarely causes issues, which is saying something in a world where fragrance or certain oils can irritate folks with eczema. If you have highly reactive skin, always test new products on a patch of your arm. But as a rule, diisostearyl malate steers clear of common allergens.
One big story in cosmetics today revolves around sustainability. Because diisostearyl malate often comes from plant oils, some brands use it to cut down on petroleum-based resources. Shoppers want clarity about what’s in the tubes and compacts they use. The RSPO (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) puts pressure on brands to pick responsibly sourced ingredients. Companies that use diisostearyl malate from certified palm oil or other sustainable crops can make a good case to eco-minded customers.
Have you noticed more makeup companies offering “clean beauty” lines? They look for ingredients that help lips feel good and appear glossy, but without parabens or questionable fillers. Diisostearyl malate fills this role because it’s lightweight and doesn’t muck up the formula. In 2023, several studies found that lipsticks made with this emollient stay flexible in freezing or hot weather, so you won’t get that dreaded tug across your lips. It helps the product survive rattling around in a purse.
Consumers now read labels and demand transparency. Brands that highlight ingredients like diisostearyl malate show they care about performance, but also safety and origin. For anyone looking to support healthy ingredients that feel good, glide on, and last, this one’s worth a look. If the conversation in beauty keeps shifting toward safer, cleaner products, expect to see diisostearyl malate stick around for the long haul.
Diisostearyl malate shows up often in lipsticks, glosses, balms, and even some creamy foundations or blushes. Cosmetic companies like it for its smooth texture and ability to help products glide easily across the skin. This ingredient makes lip formulas feel rich instead of waxy or sticky. Over the years, I have read up on ingredient lists while searching for products that don’t make my skin mad. Sensitive skin throws fits over the smallest change, and even one new ingredient can spark a reaction.
Folks with sensitive skin tend to watch out for what goes in a product because allergies and flare-ups are no joke. There’s a lot of chat online about harmful additives lurking in cosmetics. Dermatologists, and even large skin care websites, often recommend checking labels and steering toward ingredients with a good track record. A concern that pops up: Is diisostearyl malate one of those safe or sketchy options?
Cosmetic chemists and the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) panel have reviewed diisostearyl malate. Both the CIR and the EU Commission’s scientific panels included diisostearyl malate on their lists of ingredients allowed in cosmetic products. The CIR’s safety assessment points to a low risk of irritation or allergy. Studies monitoring its use in animal models and, more importantly, on human skin don’t raise red flags in terms of toxicity or daily application for long periods. Top brands, including those making hypoallergenic products, use this emollient because of its steady performance in safety assessments.
I've tried a range of lip balms and glosses that use this ingredient as a base. My lips, which react to the most basic formulas sometimes, haven’t acted up with products using diisostearyl malate. I’ve also spoken with dermatologists about ingredient triggers. Several pointed to fragrances, essential oils, and certain plant extracts as regular troublemakers. Diisostearyl malate didn’t make those lists. Reddit and beauty forums echo a similar sentiment; people with sensitive skin rarely point fingers at this emollient. Most complaints tie back to pigments, flavor additives, or bad batches rather than this specific ingredient.
Patch testing makes sense: dab a little of the product on your inner forearm or behind your ear and wait a full day. No itching or redness? Feels good. Anyone battling eczema or chronic sensitivity should check for other potential triggers, since reactions often come from a mix of ingredients. If there’s ever a reaction, drop the offending product fast and reach for a gentle cleanser and an unscented moisturizer. Find out what starts the flare-up with the help of a board-certified dermatologist.
Cosmetic safety depends on how brands formulate their products. Clean makeup brands have to keep up with patch testing, keeping formulas free of known irritants and being open about ingredient sourcing. Transparency can help people with sensitive skin trust what they’re putting on their bodies. The simple fact is that the vast majority of reactions come from aggressive preservatives, synthetic fragrances, and complex botanical blends. Diisostearyl malate doesn’t show up on the “red list” nearly as often as those offenders.
Consumers flip over product labels every day, hunting for clues about what goes into their favorite lipsticks and skincare. Diisostearyl malate has a habit of popping up in ingredient lists, but most people don’t know whether it grows on trees or comes from a beaker in a lab. It’s a good question. Plenty of folks want reassurance that what goes on their lips has a traceable and safe backstory.
This ingredient doesn’t exist in nature on its own. Chemists start with malic acid, which occurs naturally in apples, grapes, and even your favorite glass of wine. They combine it with isostearyl alcohol, often made from plant-derived fatty acids, especially from coconut or palm oils. Sometimes, though, that alcohol can come from petroleum. Here’s where it gets tricky: manufacturers can pull from plant-based or synthetic sources. It all depends on the supply chain and cost, not just what feels more “natural.”
Having spent a few years talking with formulators in the beauty industry, I’ve seen them choose ingredients not only for purity or label appeal, but also for stability and texture. Diisostearyl malate’s silkiness gives lip balms their glide and leaves lipsticks feeling buttery instead of waxy. Its structure helps trap moisture—something lips desperately need in dry weather.
The word “natural” on a label feels reassuring, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Major beauty brands sometimes use plant-based isostearyl alcohol if marketing calls for it, but synthetic options work just as well and might even be more sustainable in some scenarios. Instead of judging an ingredient solely by its origin, safety testing, manufacturing standards, and ethical sourcing shape whether the final product deserves trust.
Research from the Environmental Working Group doesn’t flag diisostearyl malate as a risk for typical use, whether the starting materials came from coconut trees or a chemical plant. The European Chemicals Agency lists it in the “low concern” category for skin contact. In my experience, the biggest controversy comes from the potential use of palm oil, considering deforestation linked to unsustainable palm agriculture.
Over the past decade, consumers demanded more transparency. They want to know if brand promises stack up, whether ingredients come from responsible sources, and how the journey from factory to packaging happens. Some brands publish sourcing information online or seek verification from third-party groups. Even with this progress, many formulas still rely on global supply networks, making things less clear than shoppers hope.
Instead of hunting for a purely “natural” or “synthetic” label, I look for companies willing to open up about their whole process, from raw materials to finished tube. Certifications like RSPO (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) or disclosures about sustainable chemistry can matter more than the natural-sounding names on a label. More brands now consider their environmental impact, shoulder social responsibility, and listen when buyers ask tough questions.
People insist on safe, effective, and ethically produced ingredients. Pushing for clearer standards and backing brands that care about responsible sourcing does more than any single word on a package ever could.
Diisostearyl Malate shows up on ingredient lists for lipsticks, balms, and other personal care products. It brings that silky texture and a bit of shine. Plenty of brands count on it for its gentle moisturizing properties. Shoppers often wonder about the safety of something they apply to their skin—or their lips—each day.
I’ve worked with people who develop skin sensitivities to unexpected things. Sometimes, an ingredient that most people tolerate causes red patches, itchiness, or even blisters in a small group. With Diisostearyl Malate, documented allergic reactions stay rare. Most scientific reports do not link this compound to widespread irritation. That’s reassuring. Still, no ingredient guarantees zero risk for everyone.
Allergic response depends on a person’s immune system. Even gentle, non-fragrant, ‘hypoallergenic’ ingredients can trigger a reaction in someone with a sensitive immune system or certain genetic traits. Fundamentally, it takes repeated contact for this kind of issue to show up. So the longer you use a product, the more likely your body might signal a problem, if it's going to react at all.
Regulatory authorities like the European Commission and the US Food and Drug Administration regularly review cosmetic ingredients. Safety data for Diisostearyl Malate tells a cozily positive story: few reports of adverse events, no glaring links to toxicity, allergy, or irritation under typical use. Dermatologists I know confirm that they rarely see complaints about this ingredient alone.
Some cases do reach the dermatologist’s office—dryness, redness, swelling, or itching. But these almost always fade after stopping the product and rarely require intensive medical care. Usually, the patient deals with other factors, like fragrance or preservatives, rather than Diisostearyl Malate itself.
Personal experience influences trust in skincare. I always test new products on a small area of my skin before official use. This single step prevents a stubborn rash or swollen lips from ruining the week. Years in healthcare have taught me: what irritates me might have no effect on my friends and family. So patch testing offers the most practical insurance for anyone—especially people with histories of allergic reactions.
People with diagnosed allergies or ultra-sensitive skin should check product labels carefully. Reading ingredient lists and watching for changes in skin texture or comfort makes a big difference. Swapping brands or formulas sometimes solves the problem, even if it’s not always clear why.
Manufacturers research ingredients and test them through independent labs before labeling a product “hypoallergenic” or “dermatologist tested.” Companies can keep updating safety information and promptly report cases of adverse reactions. Consumers help too. Reporting any skin problems directly to the brand or local health authority adds data to safety records.
Diisostearyl Malate generally earns a clean safety record, but like everything we put on our skin, individual differences matter. Trying new cosmetics with a bit of caution, knowing your skin’s history, and communicating with healthcare providers covers the bases. That’s what responsible beauty really looks like.
Diisostearyl malate pops up all over beauty product labels. Lipsticks feel smoother, balms spread silkier, all thanks to this ester made from malic acid and isostearyl alcohol. From my own background in following clean beauty trends, I’ve seen many smaller brands ask: “Can we add this to our vegan and cruelty-free lines?” That question can’t be answered off the cuff. What really matters is where the source materials come from and how the final product lands in the real world.
The heart of the vegan question comes down to whether the ingredients have animal origins. Malic acid is a natural compound, showing up in apples and many other fruits, and industry usually makes it synthetically today. That synthetic process rarely touches any animal-derived feedstock. The sticker comes from isostearyl alcohol. Most of the time, companies derive it from fatty acids—now, these can be plant-based like coconut or palm, or animal-based like tallow.
I’ve talked with formulators and checked supplier datasheets over the years. Some companies do still use animal fats because it’s cheaper or more accessible. But demand for clear vegan traceability pushes more suppliers to switch to palm or coconut sources and state this right up front. Industry certifications—like the Vegan Society trademark—do the heavy lifting: if you see that symbol, it’s a safe bet everything in the product, including diisostearyl malate, comes from non-animal sources.
Cruelty-free is a separate goal from vegan. A product can be vegan in terms of composition but still be tested on animals, sometimes due to overseas regulations or company policy. Big changes in the European Union and other regions over the past decade cracked down on animal testing. Look for third-party accreditations like Leaping Bunny, which checks both ingredients and finished products for animal testing.
The funny thing about “cruelty-free” is that some brands rely on broad statements, but not every supplier follows strict audit trails. I have spoken with advocacy groups—many stress that you should reach out and ask brands for written proof, or check their official lists. Transparency rules. The more consumers ask, the more pressure companies feel to prove their values go beyond marketing.
Consumers play a bigger role than ever in shaping this landscape. I’ve seen how friends and readers do research, scan barcodes in-store, ask customer service about ingredients, and discard products lacking certifications. My own practice is to check for publicly available vegan and cruelty-free certifications, and if there’s any doubt, write to customer support.
If you’re building a vegan or cruelty-free brand, don’t take supplier claims at face value. Request written confirmation about the origin of the fatty acids. Check the paper trail and hold onto those records for auditors or skeptical shoppers. It’s tempting to trust old habits or positive-sounding branding, but there’s nothing like feeling confident you’ve checked off every ethical box.
Clear traceability and honest labeling lead the way. Shoppers and regulators both expect ingredient lists to reflect real values, and ingredient transparency grows every year. Pushing for tougher audits, using only suppliers that certify their feedstocks as plant-based, and sticking to trusted cruelty-free badges will keep brands in the trust zone. The more brands step up, the more we all benefit from honest, cruelty-free beauty products that everyone can use with peace of mind.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Isopropyl tetradecanoate 2-hydroxybutanedioate |
| Other names |
Malic acid diisostearyl ester Diisostearyl malic acid ester |
| Pronunciation | /daɪˌaɪ.sɒˈstiː.rɪl ˈmæ.leɪt/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 27215-51-8 |
| Beilstein Reference | 3950760 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:131677 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL3296563 |
| ChemSpider | 12890079 |
| DrugBank | DB11160 |
| ECHA InfoCard | echa.europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/100.131.937 |
| EC Number | 245-502-3 |
| Gmelin Reference | 111223 |
| KEGG | C14349 |
| MeSH | D02.455.326.271.410 |
| PubChem CID | 11689782 |
| RTECS number | VV8775000 |
| UNII | 734J76102O |
| UN number | UN3082 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C37H72O4 |
| Molar mass | 585.947 g/mol |
| Appearance | Clear, colorless to pale yellow, viscous liquid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 0.96 g/cm3 |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble |
| log P | 6.6 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Acidity (pKa) | > 5.47 |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.4650 |
| Viscosity | Viscous liquid |
| Dipole moment | 2.94 D |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | May cause skin and eye irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS labelling of Diisostearyl Malate: "Not classified as hazardous according to GHS. |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Hazard statements | No hazard statements. |
| Precautionary statements | Precautionary statements: P261, P262, P305+P351+P338 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | NFPA 704: 1-1-0 |
| Flash point | > 230°C |
| LD50 (median dose) | > 2000 mg/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | Not Listed |
| REL (Recommended) | 'Rinse-off, Leave-on' |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Isopropyl malate Dibutyl malate Distearyl malate Diethylhexyl malate |
