Scientific progress often follows a trail of curiosity and application. Chemists started tinkering with imidazolium compounds years before anyone could pronounce “Disodium 1-(2-(carboxymethoxy)ethyl)-1-(carboxymethyl)-4,5-dihydro-2-undecyl-1H-imidazolium hydroxide” in a single breath. Work on similar structures grew out of basic research on surfactants and ionic liquids that changed the way teams approached synthetic detergents and custom solvents. As environmental regulation ramped up and researchers got serious about green chemistry, industry leaders began chasing compounds that clean, emulsify, and separate without nasty byproducts. By the late 20th century, labs in Japan, Germany, and the United States converged on cationic surfactants attached to imidazolium rings. That push for efficiency and safety in cleaning agents turned basic molecules into essential workhorses in processes where phosphate bans and aquatic toxicity created urgent demand for better alternatives.
Disodium 1-(2-(carboxymethoxy)ethyl)-1-(carboxymethyl)-4,5-dihydro-2-undecyl-1H-imidazolium hydroxide sounds intimidating, but the chemistry behind it addresses everyday industrial headaches. Formulators rely on its stability in alkaline environments, long alkyl tail, and double carboxylate arms. That means it does heavy lifting as a builder, dispersant, and corrosion inhibitor, especially where water hardness or metal ion content throws a wrench into the works. Factories pouring out detergents, metal cleaners, and water treatment cocktails depend on this molecule to cut through limescale, protect critical surfaces, and keep mixtures clear. Unlike legacy surfactants, this one resists breaking down under tough conditions and sticks around only long enough to do its job.
Anyone who has handled this compound remembers the slick feeling and faint odor of hydrocarbons. At room temperature, it sits as a solid that dissolves quickly in water, thanks to the double sodium counterions nestled alongside a charged imidazolium core. Its molecular weight climbs north of 500 g/mol, and the undisturbed structure preserves ionic strength whether dissolved in cold or hot water. It handles shifts in pH spanning from mild acid up into caustic territory, which proves vital for industrial washdown and disinfection. The surface activity, driven by a lengthy undecyl tail, tackles oily residues as surely as enzyme-boosted detergents. Chemists always test for HLB (hydrophilic-lipophilic balance) values, and here the numbers point toward strong dispersing capacity in mixed aqueous-organic regimes.
Clarity in technical spec sheets and product labels keeps users safe and protects the supply chain from mishaps. This compound’s labels must stress purity level (usually >98%), moisture content, and sodium ion percentage. Quality teams measure pH (typically 10-12 in a standard aqueous solution), solubility (full in most tap water), and appearance (fine white or off-white powder, free of lumps). The CAS number, batch number, and shelf life get prominent placement to simplify recalls or audits. Handling instructions warn of irritation on skin and eyes and suggest gloves and eye protection as bare minimum. Labels point out incompatibilities with concentrated acids and strong oxidizers, calling for segregated storage in cool, dry rooms sealed from food or feed areas.
Preparation starts with an imidazole scaffold, alkylated using an 11-carbon chain. Follow-up reaction with chloroacetic acid or its sodium salt tacks on the carboxymethyl units at the right positions via nucleophilic substitution. The carboxymethoxyethyl arm requires another etherification step with sodium chloroacetate. After careful pH adjustment with sodium hydroxide and control over temperature to avoid pyrolysis, the mixture yields the target imidazolium salt. Filtration, recrystallization, and vacuum drying finish the job, leaving behind a refined, free-flowing product. Waste streams need neutralization before discharge, under tight environmental monitoring, given the risk of persistent organic residues.
Innovation never sits still in industrial chemistry. Tweaks to chain length, side group positions, or counterions earn patent filings and bring fresh functionality. Swapping sodium for potassium or magnesium shifts solubility and compatibility with brine systems. Engineering shorter alkyl chains can make the molecule a better fit for low-foam cleaners. Recent research pokes at ways to graft this imidazolium motif onto polymers, unlocking anti-static or self-healing coatings. Reactivity stays concentrated around the nitrogen atoms and carboxylate groups; acid chlorides, aldehydes, and even isocyanates open up routes to advanced derivatives with improved decomposition profiles.
Chemical producers, distributors, and regulatory agencies catalog this molecule under various monikers. Some catalogs favor code names like Imidazolium C11 Builder, or abbreviations that distill the formula down, such as DSCEU-IM-OH. Synonyms in academic papers range from “carboxymethyl imidazolium salt” to “disodium undecyl-imidazolium hydroxide,” depending on which function stands out in a given experiment. European regulators list notified substances under EINECS numbers; American sellers stick to CAS and DOT codes, with MSDS sheets cross-referencing all suspected synonyms to keep customer confusion at bay.
Manufacturers stay on top of hazard communication, aligning both with the GHS standard for chemical classification and with regional variations like OSHA or REACH. Workers need full PPE with splash goggles and chemical-resistant gloves, not just in factories but also in distribution hubs. Air monitoring sensors often sit in production bays to alert teams to any dust or mist above safe exposure limits. EPA checklists push for secondary containment and rapid spill kits, since the presence of sodium ions complicates cleanup. On the shipping side, UN numbers and DOT class codes help log transport movements and guide first-responders. Failure to observe even one of these standards can prompt fines or even shutdowns in regions with watchful inspectors.
This isn’t just a lab curiosity; its broad utility stretches from detergents to water softening, metalworking fluids, and even oilfield services. Teams in textile plants dose it into wash cycles to break up mineral films that dull fibers. Food processing line owners rely on it for non-foaming surface cleaners that keep machinery humming. Water utilities fighting biofilm and corrosion upstream of sensitive equipment pour it into mixing tanks, counting on it to chelate and suspend metals that foul pipes. The compound has even crept into pharmaceutical operations — not in pills, but as a process agent for cleaning reactors and keeping glassware pristine during scale-up runs. That kind of versatility earns it a spot in the toolkit for anyone fighting mineral scale or greasy buildup, without the mess of phosphate or EDTA fallout.
Toxicologists and environmental scientists spend years untangling what happens when new chemicals hit real-world systems. Lab studies flag moderate irritation for skin and eyes, with high-dose acute exposure creating respiratory discomfort. Chronic tests in rodents review organ health, and so far, the compound’s breakdown pathway in soils shows less persistence compared to certain quaternary ammonium surfactants. As a sodium salt, it avoids heavy metal buildup, but downstream release into waterways still draws scrutiny, particularly around algae growth. Some aquatic invertebrates respond to low concentrations, prompting ongoing research into degradation rates, adsorption to sediments, and bioaccumulation. Regulatory agencies demand routine effluent sampling whenever the compound gets used near sensitive estuaries. Eco-labeled formulas cut use-levels and install on-site treatment tanks to keep aquatic risk low.
Chemical innovation moves on a cycle of challenge and adaptation. As governments push for stricter limits on phosphorus, nitrogen, and persistent organics in all cleaning and process formulations, researchers direct attention to safer, more biodegradable surfactants and chelators. Future work on this imidazolium system will probably converge with enzyme-compatible formulas and biodegradable tail groups, reducing overall toxicity and improving end-of-life breakdown in municipal water systems. Cross-industry partnerships — from detergent giants to niche water treatment start-ups — foster smarter supply chains and more transparent data sharing on environmental testing. Further studies on chronic toxicity, aquatic safety, and soil binding could unlock new guidelines across manufacturing and downstream disposal. The future for this chemical, like many before it, will depend on a balanced approach that weights industrial performance against lasting environmental safety and the health of communities where the chemistry meets the real world.
People usually don't see the name Disodium 1-(2-(Carboxymethoxy)Ethyl)-1-(Carboxymethyl)-4,5-Dihydro-2-Undecyl-1H-Imidazolium Hydroxide in daily life. The chemical mostly finds a home in specialized cleaning products, industrial detergents, and sometimes in certain applications that demand safe, reliable surfactants. The science might seem complex, but it boils down to how molecules interact with water and oil, something anyone doing dishes or cleaning a stubborn stain wrestles with often.
Surface tension is a quiet enemy in cleaning. Water beads up, and grease clings because they're stubborn by nature. Surfactants break down that barrier. Disodium 1-(2-(Carboxymethoxy)Ethyl)–1-(Carboxymethyl)–4,5-Dihydro–2-Undecyl–1H–Imidazolium Hydroxide stands out for its dual actions: it's both hydrophilic and lipophilic. That means it grabs onto what water holds and what oil wants to keep. Greasy counters, machine parts caked with residue, even lab equipment, all clean up faster with the right surfactant in play.
Chemists understand that it’s not just about getting rid of dirt; it’s also about not leaving a mess behind. The imidazolium core gives this compound a leg up in stability, so the cleaning works well both in high temperatures and in hard water, situations where some cheaper soaps fall flat. Folks who work in food service or manufacturing, for instance, need a product that won't gum up equipment or risk contamination with leftover residues. Safety has weight here.
Questions come up, as they should, about what happens after these compounds end up in the drain. Direct contact or large doses can irritate the skin or eyes—standard for many surfactants. Regulatory agencies pay attention to how these molecules break down in the environment and how they impact aquatic life. Research in peer-reviewed journals demonstrates that, compared to old-school cleaners like nonylphenol ethoxylates, this imidazolium-based option breaks down more readily and accumulates less in the natural world. That doesn’t make it a cure-all, though. Wastewater treatment plants and regular testing keep tabs on levels to make sure safe water comes back through the tap.
Some companies aim to swap out more toxic cleaning agents with newer surfactants like this one. It isn’t just greenwashing—it’s driven by regulations and customer pressure. The European Union, for example, has phased out some harsh surfactants due to proven environmental harm. OSHA and the EPA in the United States track chemical toxicity and provide guidance for using safer alternatives. Sometimes, regulations push companies to run faster than they would otherwise. People tend to notice when their favorite laundry soap changes; they may not realize a key driver comes from safety data sheets and emission caps.
The quest for the perfect cleaner keeps going. Surfactants that clean well, rinse away completely, and don’t harm rivers or wildlife remain the golden standard. Each new compound like this one faces years of real-world testing before getting much attention. The people making the switch, from janitors to food plant managers, want proof that new compounds perform better and remain safer for both the user and the world outside.
Most shelves are stacked with products that claim to be safe for you or your pets. Safety claims often hang on certifications, ingredient lists, or fancy seals. The truth is, that doesn’t always cut it. Real safety comes from understanding not just what's inside a product, but also how it was made, what possible contaminants exist, and how it will interact with bodies—human or animal.
Many companies push a product by saying it's “GRAS”—Generally Recognized as Safe—or highlight Food and Drug Administration (FDA) compliance. These points look good on packaging, but history shows that things can slip through the cracks. Take pet food recalls in recent years, often triggered by harmful bacteria or mislabeled ingredients. It's common to think regulations alone catch everything; they don’t. Mistakes, shortcuts, and even counterfeit products make their way to market.
Personal experience makes me wary of relying on the label. I once bought a supplement for my dog that claimed USDA certification. Within a week, my dog showed signs of stomach distress. A veterinarian traced this to a protein source listed as one thing on the bag, but those tested samples revealed contamination. That memory stays with me—especially when shopping for so-called “natural” or “premium” items.
Independent lab testing matters more than clever branding. Trustworthy companies will make third-party testing results available to consumers. Real transparency means more than meeting the bare minimum or hiding behind trade secrets. It’s about making information accessible and understandable to the average buyer.
For example, some reputable pet food makers now offer QR codes right on the bag. Scan it and you get the date, lot number, full manufacturing process, and results for heavy metals, pesticides, and microbial contaminants. This doesn’t just reassure people who want peace of mind—it proves companies are willing to back up their safety claims with verifiable data.
Buzzwords sell products. “All natural,” “organic,” or “low sugar” labels tantalize. These don’t guarantee what’s inside won’t harm a person or animal. Remember peanut butter recalls caused by salmonella? Every jar had the look of a safe, routine product. Proper quality controls and traceable chains of sourcing make a bigger difference than slogans or green logos.
Customers play a role. Don’t settle for vague promises or flowery packaging. Ask to see certificates of analysis, demand answers from vendors about sourcing, and check for recall history. Sites like the FDA’s recall feed or third-party certifiers put helpful information at your fingertips.
Instead of waiting for problems, brands should invest in rigorous testing and staff training. Education campaigns help buyers spot misleading claims and report negative effects. Food for people and animals needs to be treated with same seriousness and traceability as high-stakes industries like aviation or medicine.
Food and feed safety should be a living process. Science keeps evolving, new risks pop up, and what’s once considered safe sometimes changes. Open conversations between manufacturers, regulators, and shoppers bring real progress. At the end of the day, that’s the solid ground consumers can stand on—trust earned through effort, inspection, and honesty, not just a pretty label or a government stamp.
Managing chemicals day-to-day made me appreciate cool, dry spaces as much as a good coffee break. Specific compounds never forgive a slip in storage. Heat often triggers slow degradation, and moisture easily turns powders to sticky lumps. If the label asks for storage under 25°C, an office shelf near a heat vent just won’t cut it. For some chemicals, even room light chips away at purity and strength. I once found out the hard way after uncovering a faded bottle—exposed to sunlight for months—its contents no longer matching the original analysis.
Refrigeration isn’t just for milk and lettuce. Plenty of biologicals, pharmaceuticals, and laboratory reagents demand dependable cooling at 2°C to 8°C. Enzymes or reference standards can break down in a matter of days if left on a lab bench. I remember opening a fridge to see hundreds of dollars of product gone bad because the door seal failed overnight. Prevention beats replacement every time.
Not all packaging works equally. Dark amber glass protects from UV, tightly sealed polypropylene keeps humidity at bay. In my experience, choosing the right bottle saves chemicals from avoidable reactions. I’ve seen acids tear through metal caps or dust drift into loosely closed jars. Keeping original packaging or using approved containers is more than being tidy—it keeps compounds genuine and safe.
A missing or smudged label might seem like a small issue, but it can derail a whole project. Every lab tech dreads finding a mystery vial. Label information like lot number, concentration, and expiry date means the difference between valid results and wasted work. Hand-written relabeling, if necessary, needs legible ink and good tape—not a marker that rubs off after a week. Routinely checking inventory and tidying up old stock reduces error and keeps things sharp.
Manufacturers test and validate shelf life to safeguard users. These dates aren't just suggestions; they reflect real chemical changes. Over time, even in ideal conditions, breakdown happens. Quality takes a hit: the product might smell off, stop working, or form clumps. A bottle open for years rarely matches the specs of a fresh batch. Regulatory agencies like the FDA or USP release plenty of guidance on acceptable storage and expiration practices. In regulated industries, using out-of-date stock has legal risks along with practical ones.
Poor storage hurts budgets and confidence in results. One step that made a difference for me: regular checks and keeping a log. Electronic inventory systems send reminders as expiry dates approach. Small manufacturers sometimes publish chemical stability data, so buyers can plan and order smartly. Placing temperature monitors in refrigerators, using desiccant packs for moisture-sensitive materials, or investing in amber shelving transforms storage reliability. Sharing tips across teams, keeping a few laminated “storage rule” cards nearby, avoids common mix-ups. There’s never a perfect system, but attention and respect for storage needs stretch every chemical’s life and save hassle down the road.
Every year, people bring new products into their lives, whether for cleaning, eating, or health. Some get excited about fresh packaging or big claims on labels, but it’s easy to overlook safety. I once tried a trendy household cleaner everyone was talking about online, convinced by the fresh lemon scent and “all-natural” promise. Within minutes, my skin started itching and I realized not all side effects appear on a warning label or ingredient list.
Take medicines sold over the counter. Many people trust the pills from big brands. Recent studies from the FDA show about 1 in 7 people end up with stomach pains, headaches, or allergic reactions after regular use of common pain relievers. These effects often start small—maybe a rash or a little dizziness—but, as doctors keep reporting, things can turn dangerous fast if ignored.
Even seemingly safe daily items pose problems. Before I switched laundry detergents, I noticed my son’s skin breaking out every week. Swapping brands made his rashes stop. Turns out, some fragrances and dyes in clothes soaps rank amongst the top triggers for contact dermatitis, according to dermatology research out of Stanford.
No one forgets the headlines on food recalls for additives or contaminants. My own family once had a scare after a salad mix recall involving E. coli. Digestive trouble from bacteria or unsafe preservatives isn’t rare—the CDC reports nearly 48 million Americans get sick from tainted foods each year. People think buying organic or local solves everything, but even these products can bring risk when not stored or handled right.
There’s a tendency to trust product labels and five-star online ratings. In truth, many side effects only become clear once thousands—or millions—of people share real-world stories. This isn’t just hype. According to Harvard’s Health Letter, most problems hit the public after a product’s launch rather than in early company testing.
Social networks can act as early-warning signals, though plenty of folks never speak up about problems if they don’t seem severe. The trouble is, what looks like minor discomfort in one person could spell a trip to the hospital for somebody else—especially kids, seniors, or anyone with allergies.
Direct answers matter most. I call doctors or check trusted sources like the CDC, Mayo Clinic, or American Academy of Pediatrics before trying new stuff, especially if it’s for my children. I track recalls at foodsafety.gov or the official FDA database rather than relying on word-of-mouth. If something new triggers an odd reaction, I document it, take a photo, and ask those with real expertise—never just guesswork.
More people need straightforward conversations about these issues at stores, schools, and clinics. Clear steps—like reading ingredient lists closely, patch testing cleaners or lotions, and reading peer-reviewed safety studies—set us all up for fewer nasty surprises. Dismissing small hassles or trusting marketing is a shortcut to trouble. Asking tough questions and staying alert keeps my family safer and saves real money too.
Looking at any product, especially something that comes packed with technical claims or scientific backing, the urge to figure out “how much and how often” turns into a real concern. Folks notice that the most straightforward advice rarely comes from glossy brochures or cryptic fine print. Information that matters should step out of the lab and stand firm in a regular person’s routine. That means reading the label, double-checking what doctors and manufacturers actually suggest, and remembering your own experiences with similar items.
A dose isn’t just a number on a bottle. It’s the kind of detail that separates a good result from a bad week. One family member decided to eyeball a supplement because the scooper got lost. That turned into a jittery afternoon. Over-the-top or loose applications don’t just waste product, they carry risks. This is true for garden sprays, vitamins, or prescription creams. The FDA and similar agencies don’t hand out guidelines for fun; they look at real cases and crunch data to set those numbers. Ignoring that isn’t experimenting—it’s gambling.
People skip directions, thinking they know better, and companies sometimes bury the fine points in technical jargon. That’s a recipe for misuse. Research from the CDC shows that most accidental poisonings in households happen because someone used too much disinfectant or cleaning spray during “deep cleans.” Instead of guessing, it pays to stop and read the exact measurement—and actually use the little cup or dropper provided. A few extra seconds handle more than just peace of mind; they keep everyone safer.
Careful measurement cuts both ways. Too little and the job only gets half done. In farming, underdosing cattle medicines leads to resistance and tough bugs that make ranching harder, based on USDA farm surveys. With skincare, smearing half the required lotion wastes the effort and the money spent. Sticking close to what’s written on that container may not sound exciting, but the quiet consistency builds cost savings and real results.
Manufacturers owe a lot more than bare minimum warnings. Transparent labeling, easy-to-read charts, and pictograms work better than guesswork. During years spent working at a neighborhood pharmacy, the most popular advice wasn’t “buy this new product”—it was “show me the box and let’s walk through it together.” Good brands use color coding or smart packaging to help people get it right. No one wants a side effect because the print was too small or the units too complicated.
Timers help for products meant to sit on a surface or be taken at exact intervals. Extra measurements on kitchen spoons might feel silly but save a lot of headache in the end. Parents use calendars for kids’ antibiotics and keep logs for allergy drops. Real-world habits—like marking the next use or keeping instructions taped to the fridge—beat the best legal disclaimers.
The science behind dosage and application isn’t a marketing ploy; it’s the direct outcome of field tests, medical trials, and lived experience. Whether dealing with medicine, cleaning solutions, or agricultural tools, taking those instructions to heart flags a level of care that makes everyone’s life easier and safer.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Disodium 2-(2-(1-undecyl-4,5-dihydro-1H-imidazol-1-ium-1-yl)ethoxy)acetate |
| Other names |
Disodium undecylenylamido MEA-sulfosuccinate Disodium undecylenamido MEA-sulfosuccinate Disodium N-(2-carboxymethoxyethyl)-N-(carboxymethyl)-4,5-dihydro-2-undecyl-1H-imidazolium hydroxide |
| Pronunciation | /daɪˈsoʊdiəm wʌn baɪ ˈtuː bɑːrksimɛθˈɒksi ˈiːθɪl wʌn bɑːrksimɛθəl ˈfɔːr faɪv daɪˈhaɪdroʊ tuː ʌnˈdɛsɪl wʌn eɪtʃ ɪˈmɪdəˌzoʊliəm haɪˈdrɒksaɪd/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 863679-36-3 |
| 3D model (JSmol) | `3D model (JSmol)`: `disodium 1-(2-(carboxymethoxy)ethyl)-1-(carboxymethyl)-4,5-dihydro-2-undecyl-1H-imidazolium hydroxide` **JSmol string:** `C1CN(CCN1C(C)C(=O)O)CCCCCCCCCCCOCC(=O)O.[Na+].[Na+].[OH-]` |
| Beilstein Reference | 1363746 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:31342 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2103830 |
| ChemSpider | 23730430 |
| DrugBank | DB01361 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 21e0b31f-9bfd-45d1-bd76-7fb555c41046 |
| EC Number | 946-064-8 |
| Gmelin Reference | 105398 |
| KEGG | C18759 |
| MeSH | D04.210.500.365.390 |
| PubChem CID | 16760212 |
| RTECS number | NL9300000 |
| UNII | 72GI5886A8 |
| UN number | UN3077 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C20H39N2O5Na2 |
| Molar mass | 505.74 |
| Appearance | White powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.1 g/cm3 |
| Solubility in water | soluble |
| log P | -2.2 |
| Vapor pressure | <0.01 mmHg (20°C) |
| Acidity (pKa) | 4.96 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 5.4 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -75.0·10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.486 |
| Viscosity | 700-1100 cP (20°C) |
| Dipole moment | 7.0452 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 786.2 J K⁻¹ mol⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -1618.9 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -8235.6 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | V03AB37 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | Causes serious eye irritation. Causes skin irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS05, GHS07 |
| Pictograms | GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H315: Causes skin irritation. H318: Causes serious eye damage. |
| Precautionary statements | P264, P280, P305+P351+P338, P337+P313 |
| Flash point | > 100 °C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | > LD50/oral/rat > 2000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (median dose): **10 g/kg (rat, oral)** |
| NIOSH | RR1450000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 0.05 mg/m³ |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not established |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Imidazolium compounds Carboxymethylated imidazoles Disodium salts Imidazolium hydroxides Undecyl-substituted imidazoles Ether-linked carboxylates Zwitterionic surfactants |
