Ingredient Dictionary/sodium-cocoyl-isethionate/SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE
Tier 1 Monograph · SSOT 15 FieldsRaw .md (GEO) ↗
Synthetic

SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE

CleansingHair Conditioning
[EU CosIng Official Definition] Fatty acids, coco, 2-sulfoethyl esters, sodium salts
Executive Regulatory & Safety Fact BoxAEO / GEO CITATION ANCHOR

What is SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE (CAS 61789-32-0) in cosmetics and what are its global regulatory limits?

SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE (CAS No. 61789-32-0) is a verified cosmetic ingredient primarily functioning as Cleansing, Hair Conditioning in topical formulations. Regulated under KR MFDS (Unregulated) and EU 1223/2009 CosIng (Unregulated) statutory frameworks, it is typically formulated at 2–35% within an optimal stability window of pH 5–7.

7-Track Official Regulatory Label Names Matrix

Primary Statutory Gazette Only · Zero Machine Translation
7-Track Official Statutory Label Names for SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE
Jurisdiction TrackOfficial Statutory Label NameOne-Click Copy
1. Korea (MFDS Standard Name)SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE (KR MFDS Registered)
2. Korea Former Nomenclature HistoryFormer KR Nomenclature Redirect Active—
3. European Union (EU CosIng Glossary)SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE
4. United States (US PCPC / MoCRA INCI)SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE
5. US FDA OTC Monograph Active Name— (Cosmetic Inactive / Non-OTC)—
6. China (NMPA IECIC Standard Name)椰油酰羟乙磺酸酯钠
7. Japan (JCIA Standard / MHLW Quasi-Drug)SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE (Standard INCI Reference)

Layer 1 — Statutory Regulatory Limits Across 6 Regions

Layer 1 Statutory Regulatory Limits Across 6 Regions for SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE
RegionStatusMax LimitConditions & Statutory Source
Korea (MFDS)UnregulatedGMPListed in official cosmetic inventory
Europe (EU)UnregulatedGMPListed in official cosmetic inventory
United States (FDA)UnregulatedGMPListed in official cosmetic inventory
China (NMPA)Listed / AllowedGMPIECIC Entry #7587
Japan (MHLW)UnregulatedGMPListed in official cosmetic inventory
ASEAN (ACD)UnregulatedGMPListed in official cosmetic inventory

Layer 2 — Toxicological & Historical Safe Use Concentrations (CIR / SCCS / CN IECIC / IFRA)

“EU SCCS Safe Opinion Limit” is the toxicological safe threshold (MoS≥100), whereas “US CIR Reported Max Use” and “CN IECIC Historical Max Use” represent historical maximum concentrations in commercial products.

Layer 2 Toxicological & Historical Safe Use Concentrations for SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE
Assessment BasisApplication ScopeConcentration RangeVerdict & Dossier Reference
CN IECIC Historical Max Useleave_on≤ 1%Safe (MoS≥100)NMPA IECIC (2025) Entry 07615 (2025)
CN IECIC Historical Max Userinse_off≤ 35%Safe (MoS≥100)NMPA IECIC (2025) Entry 07615 (2025)
⚠️ Reference Only (Legal Disclaimer): The regulatory limits, ingredient names, and formulation ranges in this dictionary are provided for R&D reference only. Because official notices may be amended or data discrepancies may exist, users must verify the latest statutory text from the competent authority before product formulation, labeling, or commercialization. UNIZ LAB assumes no legal liability for the use of this information.
Interactive Quartile Box-Plot (Min–Q1–Median–Q3–Max)

Layer 3 Formulation Concentration Box-Plot vs. Statutory Limit

Rinse-off Cleansern=96
Min 2% · Q1 5% · Median 10% · Q3 18% · Max 35%
Rinse-off Cleanser — Sulfate-free mild creamy cleansing foam & syndet primary surfactant
Verified Source: BASF Jordapon CI / Innospec Pureact I-78 TDS & CIR (cir_safety) · Colonial 48 · Evonik 28 · BASF 20
Typical Median: 10%

Layer 3 — Formulation Usage Guide (Quartiles n≥5) & Physicochemical Compatibility

Layer 3 Formulation Concentration Quartiles by Product Category for SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE
Formulation GroupMin – Q1 – Median – Q3 – Max (%)Role & MechanismSource ID
Group C — Rinse-Off Cleanser / Shampoo / Body Wash2% · 5% · 10% · 18% · 35%Sulfate-free mild creamy cleansing foam & syndet primary surfactantBASF Jordapon CI / Innospec Pureact I-78 TDS & CIR
Cutaneous Permeation Science (500 Dalton Rule)MW: 364.43 Da · LogP: N/A

Stratum Corneum Penetration Depth & Bio-Spicule Transdermal Delivery

Stratum Corneum (Brick & Mortar Barrier · 10–20 µm)500 Da Molecular Weight Cutoff BarrierViable Epidermis (Keratinocytes & Melanocytes · 50–100 µm)Target for Brightening (Tyrosinase/Melanosome) & Barrier LipidsPapillary Dermis (Fibroblasts & ECM Collagen · 150–300 µm)Target for Collagen I/III Synthesis, Peptides, PDRN & ExosomesEpidermal Passive Permeation (<500 Da)
Molecular Weight & LogP Permeation Diagnosis
Low Molecular Weight (364.43 Da ≤ 500 Da) — Passive Permeation Feasible

Under passive topical application, molecules diffuse tortuously through intercellular lipids. Hydrophilic compounds >500 Da remain primarily on the outer stratum corneum.

Estimated Target Depth
40–90 µm
Optimal Delivery System
Polyol Enhancer / Serum
Colloid Interface, pH Spectrum & Thermal Stability

pH Stability Window (0–14), Thermal Limit & HLB Colloidal Phase Behavior

Soluble in hot water (75~80°C); forms pearlescent micellar structure on cooling
Optimal Formulation pH Stability Window (0–14)pH 5.0 – 7.0
0245.5791114

Outside pH 5–7, risk of hydrolysis, viscosity loss, or ionic dissociation increases.

Maximum Thermal Processing Limit (°C)≤ 85°C
25°C45°C60°C75°C85°C100°C

Thermally stable up to 85°C during standard emulsification.

HLB Scale (0–20) & Colloidal Micelle / Lamellar Phase Simulator
O/W Oil-in-Water Micelle Emulsion (Lotion / Cream)
HLB 11.5
W/O (3–6)Lamellar (8–10.5)O/W Emulsion (11–15)Solubilizer (15–19)O/W Droplet
Biochemical Signaling & Mechanism Pathway

Cellular & Molecular Target Mechanism Flow

1. Epidermal Interaction→ Upregulation / Activation
Intercellular Lipid & Hydration Matrix
→
TEWL Reduction & Barrier Conditioning
2. Homeostasis Modulation⊣ Inhibition / Blockade
Oxidative Stress (ROS) & Irritant Cascade
⊣
Cutaneous Soothing & Homeostasis
Formulation Ontology Radial Graph

Interactive Synergy Pairings (Solid) & Incompatibility Warnings (Dashed)

+ COCAMIDOPROPYL BET…+ COCO-GLUCOSIDE+ GLYCERIN+ STEARIC ACID✕ Limited cold-water s…SODIUM COCOYL ISET…
Interactive Node Guide

Click any green synergy node to jump directly to its monograph, or click a red dashed node to inspect the chemical incompatibility mechanism.

Nominative Trade Name References (Trademark Act Art. 90(1)(2))
Jordapon® CIElfan® AT 84Hostapon® SCI

Trade names are provided strictly for descriptive identification of polymer/emulsifier grades under Article 90(1)(2) of the Trademark Act. All trademarks belong to their respective owners.

Academic & Toxicological Synthesis

Tier 1 Synthesis

Synthesized strictly from peer-reviewed PubMed abstracts and official toxicological dossiers linked to this ingredient.

■ [1. Chemical Identity & International Labeling Nomenclature] - INCI Name: SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE | CAS No.: 61789-32-0 | EC No.: 263-052-5 - Origin: SYNTHETIC | Functions: , - Physicochemical Profile: Formula C14H27NaO5S | MW 364.43 g/mol | / | Ionic Nature: anionic | PubChem CID 23665768 - Official Regional Label Names: US [SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE] · EU [SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE] · CN [椰油酰羟乙磺酸酯钠] · JP [-] · JP Quasi-Drug [-] ■ [2. Dermatological Mechanism of Action & Functional Role] - Fatty acids, coco, 2-sulfoethyl esters, sodium salts Classified under origin 'synthetic', it acts within the cosmetic vehicle or stratum corneum to deliver , performance and structural formulation stability. ■ [3. Global 6-Jurisdiction Regulatory Status & Safety Limits (Layer 1 & Layer 2)] - Regional Summary: KR: NONE | EU: NONE | US: NONE | CN: ALLOWED | JP: NONE | ASEAN: NONE (CN IECIC (2025) Entry No. 7587 (椰油酰羟乙磺酸酯钠)) - No specific Annex prohibition or numeric restriction across the 6 major jurisdictions (Permitted under general GMP safety assessment). - Official Safety & Historical Use Concentration (Layer 2): CN_IECIC_2025 (cn_iecic_max, leave_on): Max 1.0% / CN_IECIC_2025 (cn_iecic_max, rinse_off): Max 35.0% ■ [4. Formulation Dosage Guide by Product Category (Layer 3-A)] - [cleanser_rinse] Typical range: 2.0 ~ 35.0% (Median 10.0%, Ref: BASF Jordapon CI / Innospec Pureact I-78 TDS & CIR) — Sulfate-free mild creamy cleansing foam & syndet primary surfactant ■ [5. Formulation Engineering, Stability & Incompatibility Matrix (Layer 3-B)] - Addition Phase: Surfactant Phase (Heat to 75~80°C with Coco-Glucoside/Betaine to dissolve noodles/powder) - Optimal pH Range: pH 5.0 ~ 7.0 | Max Process Temp: Max 85°C | Electrolyte Tolerance: HIGH - Incompatibility / Caution: Limited cold-water solubility creates creamy pearlescent pastes; keep pH between 5.0~7.0 to prevent ester hydrolysis - Synergy Pairings: COCAMIDOPROPYL BETAINE, COCO-GLUCOSIDE, GLYCERIN, STEARIC ACID | Reference Trade Names: Jordapon® CI, Elfan® AT 84, Hostapon® SCI ■ [6. Peer-Reviewed Literature & Official Compendia Evidence] - PMID 40905482 (2026, Int J Cosmet Sci): Influence of anionic surfactants on coacervation with cationic guar gum for hair care applications - PMID 18818848 (2008, J Cosmet Sci): Visualization and quantification of skin barrier perturbation induced by surfactant-humectant systems using two-photon f - PMID 17598025 (2007, J Cosmet Sci): Why is sodium cocoyl isethionate (SCI) mild to the skin barrier? - An in vitro investigation based on the relative sizes

Linked Peer-Reviewed Literature (NIH PubMed) (8)

Influence of anionic surfactants on coacervation with cationic guar gum for hair care applications [PMID: 40905482 · 2026]
L&#xf3;pez-Sucilla GA, Bernal-Ch&#xe1;vez SA · Int J Cosmet Sci (2026)

To assess the impact of anionic surfactants on the formation of coacervates with cationic guar gum and their subsequent effects on hair care. Coacervates were prepared using ionic precipitation techniques involving four anionic surfactants: sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), sodium lauroyl sarcosinate (SNL), sodium lauryl sulfoacetate (SLSA), sodium cocoyl isethionate (SCI) and cationic guar gum. Viscosity, spreadability and stickiness sensory analysis were conducted with a panel of volunteers. The coacervates were freeze-dried, and their physicochemical properties were analysed using Raman and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy and thermogravimetric analysis. Coacervate formation and stability were dependent on the CGG-to-surfactant ratio, with 0.5% CGG/0.5% surfactant producing the most stable, uniform structures. Spectroscopic analyses confirmed stronger electrostatic and hydrogen bonding interactions at higher CGG concentrations, facilitating greater polymer-surfactant integration. Thermal analysis showed that balanced CGG/surfactant ratios enhanced coacervate stability, while excess surfactant led to lower thermal resistance and weaker deposition. SEM images revealed superior adhesion and homogeneous coverage on damaged hair fibres at 0.5% CGG/0.5% surfactant, suggesting better conditioning effects compared to lower polymer content. The findings emphasize that coacervate stability, deposition efficiency and adhesion to hair fibres are optimized when CGG and surfactants are present in balanced ratios. The 0.5% CGG/0.5% surfactant formulation consistently exhibited superior stability, coverage and interaction with damaged hair, reinforcing its potential as an effective conditioning and protective system. These insights provide a foundation for improving coacervate-based hair care formulations, ensuring enhanced performance and long-term benefits. &#xe9;valuer l'impact des tensioactifs anioniques sur la formation de coacervats avec la gomme de guar cationique et leurs effets ult&#xe9;rieurs sur les soins capillaires. M&#xc9;THODES: les coacervats ont &#xe9;t&#xe9; pr&#xe9;par&#xe9;s &#xe0; l'aide de techniques de pr&#xe9;cipitation ionique impliquant quatre tensioactifs anioniques: le laurylsulfate de sodium (SLS), le lauroyl sarcosinate de sodium (SNL), le laurylsulfoac&#xe9;tate de sodium (SLSA) et le cocoyl is&#xe9;thionate de sodium (SCI), ainsi que de la gomme de guar cationique. On a men&#xe9; une analyse sensorielle de la viscosit&#xe9;, de l'&#xe9;talement et de l'adh&#xe9;sivit&#xe9; aupr&#xe8;s d'un panel de volontaires. Les coacervats ont &#xe9;t&#xe9; lyophilis&#xe9;s et leurs propri&#xe9;t&#xe9;s physicochimiques analys&#xe9;es par spectroscopie Raman et infrarouge &#xe0; transform&#xe9;e de Fourier, ainsi qu'avec une microscopie &#xe9;lectronique &#xe0; balayage (MEB) et une analyse thermogravim&#xe9;trique. R&#xc9;SULTATS: la formation et la stabilit&#xe9; du coacervat d&#xe9;pendaient du rapport CGG/tensioactif, avec 0,5% de CGG/0,5% de tensioactif produisant les structures les plus stables et les uniformes. Les analyses spectroscopiques ont confirm&#xe9; des interactions &#xe9;lectrostatiques et hydrog&#xe8;nes plus fortes &#xe0; des concentrations plus &#xe9;lev&#xe9;es de CGG, facilitant une meilleure int&#xe9;gration du polym&#xe8;re et du tensioactif. L'analyse thermique a montr&#xe9; que des rapports CGG/tensioactif &#xe9;quilibr&#xe9;s am&#xe9;lioraient la stabilit&#xe9; du coacervat, tandis qu'un exc&#xe8;s de tensioactif entra&#xee;nait une r&#xe9;sistance thermique plus faible et un d&#xe9;p&#xf4;t plus l&#xe9;ger. Les images de la MEB ont r&#xe9;v&#xe9;l&#xe9; une adh&#xe9;rence sup&#xe9;rieure et une couverture homog&#xe8;ne sur les fibres capillaires endommag&#xe9;es &#xe0; 0,5% de CGG/0,5% de tensioactif, ce qui sugg&#xe8;re de meilleurs effets revitalisants par rapport &#xe0; une teneur en polym&#xe8;re plus faible. les r&#xe9;sultats soulignent que la stabilit&#xe9

Visualization and quantification of skin barrier perturbation induced by surfactant-humectant systems using two-photon fluorescence microscopy [PMID: 18818848 · 2008]
Ghosh S, Kim D, So P, Blankschtein D · J Cosmet Sci (2008)

In order to visualize the effects of aqueous surfactant-humectant systems on the skin barrier, an in vitro two-photon fluorescence microscopy (TPM) study, including dual-channel visualization, was carried out. TPM is a non-invasive imaging technique based on two-photon induced nonlinear excitations of fluorophores, with the capability for deep-tissue imaging (up to several hundred micrometers). The following aqueous solutions of surfactants, a humectant, and a surfactant+humectant mixture that contacted pig full-thickness skin (p-FTS) were studied: (i) a harsh surfactant solution-sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) (1 wt%); (ii) a harsh surfactant+humectant solution-SDS (1 wt%) + glycerol (10 wt%); (iii) a mild surfactant solution-sodium cocoyl isethionate (SCI) (1 wt%); (iv) a control solution-phosphate-buffered saline (PBS); and (v) a humectant solution-glycerol (10 wt%). Sulforhodamine B (SRB), a hydrophilic fluorescent probe, was used to visualize the effects of aqueous contacting solutions i-v on the skin barrier morphology. The results of the TPM visualization study revealed that SDS induces corneocyte damage by denaturing keratins and creating intracorneocyte penetration pathways. On the other hand, SDS+glycerol did not significantly induce corneocyte damage. The dual-channel TPM images corresponding to aqueous contacting solutions iii-v showed low SRB penetration into the corneocytes, as well as localization of the SRB probe within the lipid bilayers surrounding the corneocytes of the SC. Through a quantification of the amount of SRB that penetrated into the skin as a function of skin depth, we found that adding glycerol to an SDS aqueous contacting solution can significantly reduce the SDS-induced penetration depth of SRB, which provides evidence of the ability of glycerol to mitigate SDS-induced skin barrier perturbation. The distribution of SRB in the p-FTS samples was analyzed using a theoretical model that quantified changes in the skin aqueous pore characteristics induced by aqueous contacting solutions i, ii, iii, and v, relative to aqueous contacting solution iv, the control. The results of the theoretical model indicate the following ranking order in the extent of perturbation to the skin aqueous pores (from the highest to the lowest): i &gt; ii &gt; iii &gt; iv &gt; v. The development of such an in vitro visual ranking methodology, including quantification using TPM, can potentially reduce many costly in vivo screening procedures, thereby significantly reducing the cost and time-to-market of new cosmetic formulations containing surfactants and humectants.

Why is sodium cocoyl isethionate (SCI) mild to the skin barrier? - An in vitro investigation based on the relative sizes of the SCI micelles and the skin aqueous pores [PMID: 17598025 · 2007]
Ghosh S, Blankschtein D · J Cosmet Sci (2007)

Sodium cocoyl isethionate (SCI) is an important surfactant ingredient in mild, syndet (synthetic detergent) cleansing bars. In vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated that SCI is mild and less damaging to the skin barrier than soaps and surfactants such as sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS). We have recently shown that SDS forms small micelles in aqueous solutions contacting the skin relative to the aqueous pores in the stratum corneum (SC), and as a result, the SDS micelles can contribute to SDS skin penetration and induce skin barrier perturbation. In this paper, we attempt to explain the well-documented skin mildness of SCI by examining the size of the SCI micelles relative to that of the aqueous pores in the SC. For this purpose, we have conducted in vitro mannitol skin permeability and average skin electrical resistivity measurements upon exposure of the skin to an aqueous SCI contacting solution in the context of a hindered-transport aqueous porous pathway model of the SC. These in vitro studies demonstrate that an SCI micelle of radius 33.5 +/- 1 Angstrom (as determined using dynamic light-scattering measurements) experiences significant steric hindrance and cannot penetrate into the SC through aqueous pores that have an average radius of 29 +/- 5 Angstrom. We believe that this inability of the SCI micelles to contribute to SCI skin penetration and associated skin barrier perturbation is responsible for the observed skin mildness of SCI. Through in vitro quantitative skin radioactivity assays using (14)C-radiolabeled SCI and pig full-thickness skin (p-FTS), we also show conclusively that SCI skin penetration is dose-independent, an important finding that provides additional evidence that the larger SCI micelles cannot penetrate into the SC through the smaller aqueous pores that exist in the SC, and therefore, cannot induce skin barrier perturbation.

Irritancy ranking of anionic detergents using one-time occlusive, repeated occlusive and repeated open tests [PMID: 10385334 · 1999]
Tupker RA, Bunte EE, Fidler V, Wiechers JW, Coenraads PJ · Contact Dermatitis (1999)

Discrepancies between the one-time patch test and the wash test regarding the ranking of irritancy of detergents have been found in the literature. The aim of the present study was to investigate the concordance of irritancy rank order of 4 anionic detergents tested by 3 different exposure methods, namely one-time occlusive, repeated short-time occlusive and repeated short-time open tests. These detergents were sodium cocoyl isethionate (ISE), sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), soap and disodium lauryl 3-ethoxysulfosuccinate (SUC). The reactions were evaluated by visual scoring and by transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measurement. When scored visually, the rank order in the one-time test was: SOAP &gt; or = SLS &gt; or = ISE &gt; SUC. The other test methods yielded a different order: SLS &gt; ISE &gt; or = SOAP &gt; SUC. A similar rank order was obtained with TEWL measurement for all exposure methods. Generally, the concordance among the different exposure methods was high when evaluated by TEWL. The concordance was lower when evaluation was performed by visual scoring. The present study demonstrates that the choice of exposure model and evaluation method may be important variables influencing the outcome of irritancy testing. It is proposed that the repeated open test is the best way to simulate most in-use situations where the uncovered skin is exposed to detergents. The repeated occlusive test or the one-time patch test may be better to simulate situations in which the skin is occluded after irritation by detergents.

Biophysical characterization of skin damage and recovery after exposure to different surfactants [PMID: 10048655 · 1999]
B&#xe1;r&#xe1;ny E, Lindberg M, Lod&#xe9;n M · Contact Dermatitis (1999)

The majority of adverse skin reactions to personal-care products are presumed to be caused by irritant substances, like surfactants. In this study, different aspects of the irritant reaction after a single exposure to 8 surfactants were characterized during 2 weeks. Solutions of 2% sodium lauryl sulfate, 5% sodium C12-15 pareth sulfate, 5% sodium cocoyl isethionate, 10% disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, 10% sodium cocoamphoacetate, 10% cocamide DEA, 10% cocamidopropyl betaine and 10% lauryl glucoside, respectively, were applied to the forearm of 12 volunteers. Clinical assessment, an evaporimeter, a laser Doppler flowmeter and a corneometer were used for evaluation. The surfactants induced different degrees of irritation. Erythema, transepidermal water loss and skin blood flow exhibited a similar time course, which seemed to be inversely related to the delayed scaling and reduced skin capacitance. The mechanism of the damaging effect of the surfactants seems to be similar, although some minor differences were noted.

Irritancy testing of sodium laurate and other anionic detergents using an open exposure model [PMID: 27333375 · 1997]
Tupker RA, Vermeulen K, Fidler V, Coenraads PJ · Skin Res Technol (1997)

The irritant potency of soap (sodium laurate, LAU) as opposed to other anionic detergents is not uniformly agreed upon. The aim of the study was to compare the irritancy of sodium laurate with that of sodium laurylsulphate (SLS), sodium cocoyl isethionate and disodium lauryl 3-ethoxysulphosuc-cinate by means of a 4-day repeated open exposure model in order to achieve a more realistic mimicry of daily practice. The effects of the exposures were evaluated by: a) number of fulfilled exposures, b) visual score after exposures, and c) transepidermal water loss (TEWL) after exposures. In the majority of subjects, exposure to LAU had to be stopped because of burning sensations, erythema and/or scaling. The number of fulfilled exposures to LAU was lower than that of SLS. The other agents were tolerated very well. These less irritative agents had much lower visual scores and TEWL values after the repeated exposures compared with LAU and SLS. The explanation for the irritant nature of LAU in the present study might be the type of alkyl chain length distribution. Its 12-carbon chain content was &#x2264; 99%, and this agent can therefore be designated as pure sodium laurate. The same holds true for SLS. In daily practice, however, soap is a mixture of different - less irritant - chain lengths. Therefore, these findings cannot be extrapolated to commercially available soap bars.

In-use tolerability of two new syndet bars with sodium cocoyl isethionate, disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate and wheat starch as major ingredients in differing relations: results of a cross-over trial [PMID: 19272112 · 1992]
Korting HC, Lukacs A, Hamm D, Stanzl K, Braun-Falco O · Int J Cosmet Sci (1992)

Synopsis In a cross-over trial two different new syndet bars differing in their content of sodium cocoyl isethionate, disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate and wheat starch as major components were compared in the cleansing of hand skin of 72 healthy volunteers. The preparation designated 'T'containing a higher amount of wheat starch turned out to be less irritant as judged from the parameters itching and erythema (p &lt; 0.05, Wilcoxon's test for matched pairs). The present trial design looks appropriate to differentiate the irritancy potential of two chemically similar syndet bar preparations.

Solubilization of sodium cocoyl isethionate [PMID: 14730372 · 2003]
Sun JZ, Parr JW, Erickson MC · J Cosmet Sci (2003)

Sodium cocoyl isethionate (SCI) has been a predominant ingredient in syndet bar formulation for more than thirty years. Although cost effective and well recognized for good skin compatibility, SCI is not regularly found in liquid detergent systems due to its limited solubility in water. This study focuses on the understanding of enthalpy of solubilization, equilibrium of solubilization, and the structures and properties of sodium cocoyl isethionate and various surfactants. The purpose of this exercise is to help the formulator to find appropriate surfactant systems to keep sodium cocoyl isethionate in aqueous solution. The solubility of SCI in water is unfavorable in terms of enthalpy of solvation. When setting up equilibrium of solubilization, there are three possible phases, and three methods have been developed to prevent SCI from recrystallizing in aqueous solutions. The first focuses on tying CI ions within micelles made of secondary surfactants. The second focuses on the exchange of sodium ions with ammonium ions (and/or triethanolammonium). The third centers on emulsification of SCI and the subsequent change of micelles into emulsified oil drops. A combination of two or three of these methods will enable the formulator to use SCI as the primary surfactant in liquid detersive systems.

Frequently Asked Questions (AEO Position 0)

Q1. What are the official 7-track regulatory label names for SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE?
Standard label names are US PCPC INCI: 'SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE', EU CosIng: 'SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE', KR MFDS: 'SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE (KR MFDS Registered)', CN NMPA IECIC: '椰油酰羟乙磺酸酯钠', and JP JCIA: 'SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE'.
Q2. Is SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE restricted or permitted in EU, US, KR, CN, and JP cosmetics?
Regulatory status summary across 6 jurisdictions — KR: none, EU: none, US: none, CN: allowed, JP: none, ASEAN: none.
Q3. What is the typical formulation concentration and optimal pH window for SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE?
In cleanser_rinse systems, SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE is typically formulated between 2% and 35% (median 10%), with an optimal stability window of pH 5–7.
Q4. What are the known formulation incompatibilities and synergy pairings for SODIUM COCOYL ISETHIONATE?
Recommended synergy pairings include COCAMIDOPROPYL BETAINE, COCO-GLUCOSIDE, GLYCERIN, STEARIC ACID. Key incompatibilities to avoid: Limited cold-water solubility creates creamy pearlescent pastes; keep pH between 5.0~7.0 to prevent ester hydrolysis.