DINCH (Hexamoll DINCH): Properties, Uses in Plastics and Regulatory Status

DINCH (diisononyl cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylate, CAS 166412-78-8) is a cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylate ester used as a non-phthalate primary plasticizer for flexible PVC in medical devices, toys and food-contact articles. Because its benzene ring has been hydrogenated to a cyclohexane ring, DINCH is not a phthalate at all, which is the first thing a buyer needs to establish. BASF sells the DINCH plasticizer as Hexamoll DINCH and Evonik sells it as Elatur CH.

The status behind the non-phthalate label sits in four instruments. DINCH is registered under REACH (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006), has never been placed on the REACH Candidate List, carries no harmonised classification under the CLP Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, and is authorised for EU food-contact plastics as FCM substance 775 under Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 with no individual specific migration limit of its own, but under group restriction 32 at 60 mg/kg (status 23 September 2026). DINCH is one of 56 plasticizer pages in our directory of plastic additives, each carrying the same identity, dosage and regulatory fields.

This page holds the data-sheet view and the compliance view in one document: the two CAS numbers that follow one product across the Atlantic, the hydrogenation route from DINP that turns a hydrogenated phthalate into a primary plasticizer, the physical constants from BASF's technical information of May 2023, reported use levels from 10 wt% in cling film to 40 wt% in beverage tubing, 4 plastics application areas, a regulatory matrix dated 23 September 2026, the comparison with DOTP, DINP, DEHP, TOTM, BTHC and ATBC, and the two producers a buyer can name.

Table T1. DINCH identity card.

Footnote: identity data from PubChem CID 11524680; registration status from ECHA dossier 16022; food-contact entry from the consolidated text of Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 of 14 July 2026. Status as of 23 September 2026.

What Is DINCH (Diisononyl Cyclohexane-1,2-Dicarboxylate)?#

DINCH is the diisononyl ester of cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic acid, a primary plasticizer that softens PVC on its own without a second plasticizer. Both ester groups sit on adjacent carbons of a fully saturated six-membered ring, and each one carries a branched C9 chain supplied by isononyl alcohol. The systematic name records those two raw materials exactly, cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic acid and isononyl alcohol, and the molecule they form has the formula C26H48O4 and a molecular weight of 424.7 g/mol. Which substance, then, does the abbreviation DINCH actually cover?

DINCH covers an isomer mixture, not a single molecule. The isononyl groups are branched C9 isomers rather than one defined chain, and the commercial product is reported as about 90 % cis and 10 % trans, so what arrives in the drum is a distribution of closely related diesters. Its chemical class is the cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylate, described in older supplier literature as a hydrogenated phthalate, and its function is that of a non-phthalate primary plasticizer for sensitive applications. As a primary plasticizer, DINCH belongs to the heaviest additive family used in polymers by weight; the hub on plasticizers for plastics compares every class, from ortho-phthalates and terephthalates to trimellitates, cyclohexanoates, adipates, citrates and epoxidised esters.

What does DINCH stand for, and what is the DINCH chemical?#

DINCH stands for di(isononyl) cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylate, the chemical with CAS number 166412-78-8, also written as 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid diisononyl ester and, in US CPSC documents, as DINX. A fourth name, diisononyl hexahydrophthalate, appears on supplier literature and identifies the same substance. The DINCH chemical is therefore one diester carried under four names, with EC number 431-890-2 and the formula C26H48O4. The same four letters are an English dialect verb and an internet contraction of dinner and lunch; this page covers only the plasticizer.

Is DINCH a phthalate?#

DINCH is not a phthalate: a phthalate is an ester of aromatic phthalic acid, and DINCH's ring is a fully saturated cyclohexane ring, so it is a cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylate. The synonym "diisononyl hexahydrophthalate" keeps the word phthalate in the name because the molecule is made by hydrogenating one, but no phthalate restriction names DINCH. "Non-phthalate" is the regulatory term for plasticizers that are not esters of ortho-phthalic acid, and DINCH is one of the two saturated-ring members of the non-phthalate plasticizers group that regulators treat separately from ortho-phthalates.

Three ring types account for the esters sold under that label, and only the ortho family carries the phthalate restrictions.

Neither Annex XVII entry 51 nor entry 52 names DINCH. The aromatic ring is what the hydrogenation removes, and that single change is the whole difference between DINP and DINCH.

How is DINCH made from DINP?#

DINCH is made by hydrogenating DINP: the six hydrogen atoms added to the aromatic ring turn it into a saturated cyclohexane ring, which is why DINCH (C26H48O4, 424.7 g/mol) is six mass units heavier than DINP (C26H42O4, 418.6 g/mol). Ring hydrogenation leaves the same carbon skeleton behind: both esters keep 26 carbon atoms and the same branched C9 chains, and only the ring changes. Lower polarity is the consequence that matters in the compound, because an aromatic ring becomes a cyclohexane ring and the ester loses solvating power while gaining low-temperature flexibility. The aromatic precursor, DINP (diisononyl phthalate), is restricted in mouthable toys and childcare articles in the EU; DINCH is not.

Why does DINCH have two CAS numbers?#

DINCH carries two CAS numbers for one substance: 166412-78-8 is the number used outside the United States, and 474919-59-0 is the number used for the US product and on the TSCA inventory. BASF records both on the Hexamoll DINCH technical information of May 2023, while the EU identifies the substance by EC number 431-890-2. A certificate that shows only one is not wrong, but purchase specifications for a global supply chain name both, because a DINCH CAS number search that returns one registry entry in Europe and a different one in the United States is describing the same substance, two registry numbers, and not two products.

Is Hexamoll DINCH the same as DINCH?#

Yes: Hexamoll DINCH is BASF's trade name for the substance, and Elatur CH is Evonik's, so a specification that says "Hexamoll DINCH" names one supplier's grade of the same chemical. DINCH is the generic abbreviation and Hexamoll is the brand, so a compound written against the generic name can be filled from either producer once the buyer has matched the certificate of analysis on CAS number and on residual phthalate content.

How Does DINCH Plasticize PVC?#

DINCH plasticizes PVC by placing its ester molecules between the polymer chains, weakening the dipole and van der Waals forces between them and lowering the glass transition temperature. The ester oxygen atoms solvate PVC chains by interacting with the carbon-chlorine dipoles of the backbone, the chains gain room to move, and a rigid resin becomes a flexible compound at service temperature. What does removing the aromatic ring change? Hydrogenation lowers the polarity of the ester, lower polarity means lower solvating power, and DINCH therefore needs more heat or more time to gel PVC than an aromatic ester of comparable chain length, while giving better low-temperature flexibility.

Compatibility sets the limit on that mechanism. A plasticizer stays in a polymer when the difference between the solubility parameters of polymer and plasticizer lies within about 1.5 (cal/cm3)^0.5, and an ester outside that window exudes or blooms instead of plasticizing. Dose behaves the same way: below roughly 15 phr, antiplasticization raises stiffness rather than lowering it, because a small quantity of ester fills free volume without separating the chains. The chain-length relationship for ester plasticizers points the same way, since lower polarity reduces compatibility and processability and raises viscosity, while lowering volatility and improving low-temperature flexibility.

The 4 classic plasticization theories that describe this behaviour are listed below.

• Lubricity theory, which treats the plasticizer as a lubricant between polymer chains.
• Gel theory, which treats the polymer as a three-dimensional gel whose contact points the plasticizer breaks.
• Free volume theory, which treats plasticization as an increase in free volume for chain motion.
• Mechanistic theory, also called solvation-desolvation, which treats plasticizer and polymer as being in dynamic equilibrium.

The four theories are explained with solubility parameters on how plasticizers work, and all four predict the same direction for DINCH: a saturated-ring diester that plasticizes PVC effectively but solvates it more slowly than the aromatic ester it derives from. No glass transition temperature, gelation temperature or dry-blend time for a DINCH-PVC compound sits in a source this page can cite.

What Are the Physical and Chemical Properties of DINCH?#

DINCH is a clear, colorless liquid with a pour point of -54 °C (-65.2 °F), a boiling point of 394 °C (741.2 °F) and a flash point of 224 °C (435.2 °F) measured in a Cleveland open cup. BASF's technical information of May 2023 records the pour point, the flash point, the density, the viscosity, the vapour pressure and the water solubility, while the DINCH boiling point and the molecular data come from PubChem CID 11524680.

Table T2. DINCH physical and chemical properties.

Two of these values carry the performance argument. The vapour pressure below 0.01 mbar at 20 °C (68 °F) and the water solubility below 0.02 mg/L, both from BASF's technical information, are the numbers behind the low-volatility and low-extraction behaviour discussed in the performance section, because an ester that neither evaporates nor dissolves readily has fewer routes out of the compound. The same BASF specification caps residual phthalate content at a maximum of 0.01 %, which is the figure on which a phthalate-free declaration for a DINCH compound rests.

Which Polymers Use DINCH, and at What Dosage?#

DINCH is used almost entirely in flexible PVC, at up to 40 wt% of the compound, with the level set by the application: about 10 wt% in cling film for fresh meat and about 40 wt% in beverage tubing. These are reported use levels recorded in HSDB through PubChem, not supplier recommendations: they describe where DINCH has been found in commercial articles rather than what a compounder is advised to dose.

Compound recipes state DINCH in phr (parts per hundred resin) rather than in weight percent, which raises an arithmetic question. How do phr values convert to weight percent? The conversion is wt% = phr_i / total phr x 100, so 60 phr of DINCH in a compound of 100 phr PVC plus 60 phr DINCH gives 60/160 x 100 = 37.5 wt%. A real recipe also carries heat stabilizers, fillers and lubricants, so the divisor is the full formulation total and not resin plus plasticizer alone. Compound recipes give DINCH in PHR (parts per hundred resin), which converts to weight percent with the full formulation total.

Table T3. Reported DINCH levels by application.

DINCH in flexible PVC compounds#

DINCH sits in the same loading window as the phthalates it replaces, because flexible PVC of Shore A 50 to 90 carries 5 to 65 wt% plasticizer regardless of which ester is used. Within that window the hardness target sets the dose, and the lower end has a floor: below roughly 15 phr, antiplasticization raises stiffness instead of lowering it.

How much DINCH replaces a given quantity of DEHP is the question a formulator asks next, and it is the one number this page does not supply. A substitution factor for DINCH is not published in a source we can verify, so a trial compound is the only way to fix the level. DINCH also solvates PVC more slowly than an aromatic ester of comparable chain length, which shifts gelation behaviour rather than final hardness. DINCH competes with DINP, DOTP and TOTM across the plasticizers for PVC range.

DINCH in PVC plastisols#

BASF's technical information for Hexamoll DINCH reports a lower initial plastisol viscosity and better viscosity stability than DOP or DINP, which matters in spread coating where a paste has to stay pumpable for a full shift. That figure is one supplier's measurement, reported here as such, and no plastisol viscosity in cP, no gelation temperature and no fusion curve for a DINCH paste sits in a source this page can cite. The 52 cP and 20 cP values in Table T2 are for the neat plasticizer, not for a plastisol made with it.

PVC plastisols gel and fuse across the 140 to 220 °C (284 to 428 °F) range, and a formulator who needs faster gelation adds a fast fuser such as DBP, DIBP, BBP, DIHP or dipropylene glycol dibenzoate, each of which raises paste viscosity over storage time. That trade-off between fusion speed and viscosity stability is the decision behind a DINCH paste. Fast-fuser blends and paste-viscosity behaviour are compared on plasticizers for PVC plastisol.

What Is DINCH Used For? 4 Application Areas in Plastics#

DINCH is used in 4 plastics application areas: medical devices, toys and childcare articles, food packaging and cling film, and artificial leather. Each one puts the article in prolonged contact with a person or with food, which is why substitution away from ortho-phthalates reached these markets first. The 4 areas are listed below.

• Medical devices, including PVC tubing, infusion lines and blood containers.
• Toys and childcare articles made from flexible PVC.
• Food packaging and cling film, including beverage tubing, gaskets and corks.
• Artificial leather and coated fabrics spread-coated from plastisol.

A fifth group of uses, adhesives, sealants and printing inks, falls outside this site's scope and is noted below the contextual border.

Medical devices#

DINCH is one of the 4 DEHP alternatives the European Pharmacopoeia lists for PVC blood containers, alongside BTHC, TOTM and DEHT. Bernard and colleagues measured what the devices actually contain: in a 2018 study in PLoS One on French PVC medical lines, DINCH content ran from 30.2 to 44.3 wt%, against 30 to 41 wt% for TOTM, 26.7 to 37.5 wt% for DEHT and 34.9 to 48.7 wt% for DINP. Those are measured contents in marketed products rather than formulation targets.

The commercial driver behind medical tubing is a deadline. DEHP in EU medical devices carries a latest application date of 1 January 2029 and a sunset date of 1 July 2030 under Regulation (EU) 2023/2482, so every device line has a fixed date by which the move to DEHP-free PVC has to be complete. The full DEHP-free package, covering the heat stabilizer, the plasticizer and sterilization stability, is on additives for medical plastics.

Toys and childcare articles#

DINCH is one of 5 plasticizers that have replaced restricted phthalates in PVC toys, together with ATBC, DEHT, TXIB and ESBO. Wiesinger and colleagues at ETH Zürich reported that set in Environmental Science & Technology in 2024, and the same study shows the substitution is incomplete: restricted phthalates were still detected in 11 of 118 Swiss, 89 of 700 EU and 17 of 49 New Zealand PVC toy samples.

DINCH itself is not named in Annex XVII entry 52, so the restriction that constrains its own precursor does not reach it. Which plasticizers each jurisdiction allows is tabulated on plasticizers for toys.

Food packaging and cling film#

DINCH goes into food-contact PVC across a wide loading range, from about 10 wt% in cling film for fresh meat to about 40 wt% in beverage tubing. Between those ends, HSDB reports about 35 wt% each in film for aqueous foods, artificial corks and beverage gaskets, so one substance spans 30 percentage points across food-contact articles.

Cling film is the application where DINCH shares the market. DEHA remains the main cling-film plasticizer and carries an individual specific migration limit of 18 mg/kg under Regulation (EU) No 10/2011, while DINCH as FCM 775 has no individual SML at all and is controlled only through group restriction 32. Cling film, gaskets and beverage tubing use different additive packages, compared on additives for food packaging.

Artificial leather and coated fabrics#

DINCH is used in artificial leather and coated fabrics, which are spread-coated from plastisol, so the paste rheology that BASF reports for DINCH is the property that matters on the coating line. A paste that holds its viscosity through a shift coats at constant film weight, and a paste that thickens does not. The second property that fits enclosed interiors is volatility, since the vapour pressure below 0.01 mbar at 20 °C (68 °F) in BASF's technical information is the measured basis for low-fogging behaviour, although no fogging class, no DIN 75201 or VDA 278 result and no OEM approval for DINCH is citable.

How Does DINCH Perform in PVC?#

DINCH's performance case rests on two measured properties and one missing one: a vapour pressure below 0.01 mbar at 20 °C (68 °F) and a water solubility below 0.02 mg/L, both from BASF's technical information, against no published substitution factor that we can verify. Does DINCH migrate less than the phthalates it replaces? Volatility loss depends on vapour pressure and aqueous extraction on water solubility, so the two values point that way, but no comparative migration figure for DINCH sits in a source this page can cite, and the honest answer names the test methods instead of a number.

Four standards define those measurements. Volatility is measured by ASTM D1203, Methods A and B, and by ISO 176; migration into contact media by ISO 177; extraction by ASTM D1239. ASTM D1203, ISO 177 and ASTM D1239 are explained on plasticizer migration.

Incoming quality control uses a different set. BASF's specification table for Hexamoll DINCH names ASTM D3465, D1045, D5386 and E1064 for ester content, acid number, colour and water, the four checks a goods-inwards laboratory runs on a delivered drum. Low-temperature flexibility is the direction the saturated ring improves, and no Shore A result, brittleness temperature or cold-flex value for a DINCH compound is available to cite.

The indicator that is missing is plasticizer efficiency. Our sources give typical substitution factors for 13 plasticizers, from 0.86 for DBP to 1.26 for DTDP against the DEHP reference of 1.00, and DINCH is not among them, so no value is inferred from DINP's figure here. Those 13 factors, and the reason DINCH is missing from the set, are listed on plasticizer efficiency and substitution factors.

Table T4. DINCH performance indicators and the test methods behind them.

How Does DINCH Interact with Other Plasticizers and Additives?#

DINCH is combined rather than used alone in demanding compounds: formulators pair it with a fast-fusing ester when gelation speed matters, with epoxidized soybean oil as a co-stabilizer at 1 to 2 wt%, and with heat stabilizers chosen for the same end use. The 3 interaction routes are listed below.

• Fast-fusing esters, namely DBP, DIBP, BBP, DIHP and dipropylene glycol dibenzoate, which offset DINCH's lower solvating power at the cost of paste viscosity rising over storage time.
• Epoxidised esters, above all epoxidized soybean oil, which appears beside DINCH in the PVC toy replacement set.
• Heat stabilizers matched to the end use, since a medical or food-contact compound needs a stabilizer whose own regulatory position matches DINCH.

Compatibility governs those combinations. Two esters coexist in PVC when each sits within about 1.5 (cal/cm3)^0.5 of the resin's solubility parameter, and a blend that ignores the window exudes at the surface. ESBO (epoxidized soybean oil) acts as a co-stabilizer at 1 to 2 wt% and as a main plasticizer at 25 to 45 wt%, the range Czogała and colleagues recorded in 2021, which makes it the one co-additive with a sourced dosage range on this page. No named DINCH blend ratio exists in a source this page can cite, so the roles are described and the proportions left to a trial compound.

What Is the Regulatory Status of DINCH?#

DINCH is REACH-registered, is not a Substance of Very High Concern, is not restricted under REACH Annex XVII and is authorised for EU food-contact plastics as FCM substance 775, with no individual specific migration limit but under group restriction 32 (status 23 September 2026). The two US cells of the matrix below are now filled: DINCH is on the TSCA Inventory under the US CAS number 474919-59-0 with an active commercial status, and it has no US food-contact clearance, because it appears neither in 21 CFR nor in the FDA inventory of effective food contact notifications (checked 25 September 2026).

Table T5. DINCH regulatory matrix, as of 23 September 2026.

The negative rows above are absences derived from closed lists. Entries 51 and 52, neither of which names DINCH, are explained on REACH Annex XVII restrictions, and the same reasoning applies to 16 CFR 1307 and SOR/2016-188.

The food-contact row works differently, because a group restriction is a shared ceiling and not an exemption. The full table of specific migration limits (SML) shows which plasticizers carry an individual limit and which are covered only by a group; DINCH sits in the second category.

Is DINCH REACH registered, and is it an SVHC?#

Yes, DINCH is registered under REACH (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006), and no, it is not a Substance of Very High Concern: it is absent from the Candidate List as of 23 September 2026. The registration is recorded as active in ECHA dossier 16022, and the tonnage band is not captured in our record, so none is stated here. DINCH is equally absent from Annex XIV, so no authorisation requirement and no sunset date apply to it. DEHP has been on the SVHC Candidate List since 28 October 2008; DINCH has never been added.

Is DINCH allowed in food-contact plastics?#

Yes, in the EU: DINCH is listed in Annex I of Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 as FCM substance 775, with no individual specific migration limit of its own but under group restriction 32, which caps the sum of 22 listed plasticizers at 60 mg/kg. The entry carries reference 45705 and CAS 166412-78-8, and rests on an EFSA opinion issued in 2006.

What "no individual SML" means in practice is a calculation rather than a free pass. Group restriction 32 covers 22 FCM substances, among them 138 (ATBC), 283 (DEHP), 728 (DINP), 729 (DIDP), 775 (DINCH), 783 (COMGHA), 798 (DEHT) and 1085 (DIBP), verified in the consolidated text of 14 July 2026, so a compliance calculation sums the migration of DINCH with that of every other group-32 plasticizer in the article and compares the total against 60 mg/kg. The overall migration limit applies on top of that sum: 10 mg/dm2, or 60 mg/kg for articles intended for infants and young children. Group restriction 32 and the overall migration limit are explained on EU 10/2011.

The US position is the opposite of the EU one and it is now verified. DINCH has no US food-contact clearance: neither CAS 166412-78-8 nor 474919-59-0 appears in 21 CFR, in the FDA inventory of indirect additives used in food contact substances, in the inventory of effective food contact notifications or in the threshold of regulation exemption inventory, all checked on 25 September 2026. A US food-contact use would therefore need its own effective notification first, and no 21 CFR section or notification number may be quoted for DINCH today.

Is DINCH allowed in toys and medical devices?#

DINCH is not restricted in toys under REACH Annex XVII, US 16 CFR 1307 or Canada's SOR/2016-188, because none of these rules names it. Entry 51 covers DEHP, DBP, BBP and DIBP; entry 52 covers DINP, DIDP and DNOP in mouthable toys and childcare articles; 16 CFR 1307 restricts DEHP, DBP and BBP permanently and DINP, DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP and DCHP from 25 April 2018; SOR/2016-188 lists DEHP, DBP, BBP, DINP, DIDP and DNOP. From 1 August 2030 the EU Toy Safety Regulation (EU) 2025/2509 bans CMR substances and endocrine disruptors in toys outright, and DINCH carries no harmonised CMR classification that the ban would catch.

Medical devices follow a listing rather than a restriction. The European Pharmacopoeia lists DINCH among the 4 DEHP alternatives for PVC blood containers, and the authorisation for DEHP in medical devices carries a latest application date of 1 January 2029 and a sunset date of 1 July 2030 under Regulation (EU) 2023/2482. Neither statement means DINCH is approved for toys or approved for medical devices: the verified position is that no rule restricts it and that the Pharmacopoeia names it as an alternative. The DEHP authorisation dates and the MDR Annex I 10.4 duty are set out on plastic additives in medical devices.

Is DINCH listed under California Proposition 65?#

No, DINCH is not on the Proposition 65 list as of the OEHHA list edition of 31 July 2026, whereas DINP was listed for cancer on 20 December 2013 and DEHP has been listed since 1 January 1988. DEHP carries a second Proposition 65 listing for developmental and male reproductive toxicity dated 24 October 2003, and DINP's cancer listing carries a no significant risk level of 146 µg/day. Listing dates for every plasticizer are on California Proposition 65.

Is DINCH Safe? Health, Safety and Environmental Profile#

DINCH has no harmonised hazard classification under the EU CLP Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008, and all 136 companies that notified it to ECHA report that it does not meet the GHS hazard criteria. That is a classification status recorded in the ECHA classification and labelling inventory, and it is the strongest verified hazard statement this page makes. DINCH is also absent from the POPs Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 and from the REACH Candidate List. Consumer concern summarised on phthalates: health effects attaches to ortho-phthalates and to the monoesters they form in the body, and it does not transfer automatically to a saturated-ring diester.

Two assessments place DINCH among the alternatives rather than among the substances of concern. EFSA issued an opinion on DINCH in 2006, and that opinion underpins the EU 10/2011 listing as FCM 775. The Danish Environmental Protection Agency names DINCH among the 3 most promising DEHP alternatives, together with DEHT and COMGHA. How the EU identifies endocrine disruptors in plastics is a procedural question answered through CLP classification and the REACH Article 57(f) route, and DINCH carries no such identification.

The 3 positions this page holds on DINCH safety are listed below.

• Classification: no harmonised CLP entry, and 136 of 136 notifiers reporting that the GHS hazard criteria are not met.
• Assessments: an EFSA opinion of 2006 behind the food-contact listing, and the Danish EPA shortlist of 3 DEHP alternatives.
• Not settled: an absence of classification is not a finding of safety, and the human biomonitoring literature on DINCH metabolites lies outside the sourced scope of this page as published.

What Are the Alternatives to DINCH?#

The 5 main alternatives to DINCH in flexible PVC are DOTP (DEHT), DINP, TOTM, BTHC and ATBC, while DEHP (DOP) is the ortho-phthalate that DINCH was created to replace. The choice between them is rarely a performance choice alone, because these 6 esters differ further in regulatory standing than in what they do to a PVC compound. The table below compares identity, class and dated status.

Table T6. DINCH compared with 5 alternative plasticizers.

Footnote: statuses are dated 23 September 2026. Substitution factors are not shown because no verifiable value exists for DINCH.

Full property data for all five sit on the plasticizer comparison page, and the five comparisons below take each pairing in turn.

DINCH vs DOTP (DEHT)#

DOTP and DINCH are both non-phthalate general-purpose plasticizers with near-identical regulatory standing, and the honest differentiator is structural: DOTP keeps an aromatic ring and solvates PVC faster, while DINCH's saturated ring trades solvating power for low-temperature flexibility. DOTP is the para-substituted terephthalate, CAS 6422-86-2 at 390.6 g/mol; DINCH is the saturated cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylate, CAS 166412-78-8 at 424.7 g/mol. The pairing repeats one level up as well, since DEHCH is the hydrogenated form of DOTP exactly as DINCH is the hydrogenated form of DINP.

One hard regulatory difference separates the two. DOTP / DEHT (dioctyl terephthalate) carries its own specific migration limit of 60 mg/kg under FCM 798, while DINCH has no individual SML and is controlled only through group restriction 32, so a compliance calculation treats them differently even though the numerical ceiling is identical. Neither ester is an SVHC, neither is restricted under Annex XVII, and neither carries a harmonised classification. Cost and solvation-rate claims circulating on comparison blogs are not repeated here, because no verifiable source for them exists.

DINCH vs DINP#

DINP is DINCH's own precursor, and the difference the market pays for is regulatory rather than technical: DINP is restricted in mouthable toys in the EU, restricted in US children's products and listed under Proposition 65 for cancer, while DINCH is named in none of those rules. The EU restriction has a precise scope, because Annex XVII entry 52 applies to mouthable toys and childcare articles only, so DINP is not banned in the EU and remains in use across flooring, wire and cable and general flexible PVC.

The US position adds three further instruments. DINP is cleared for food contact under 21 CFR 178.3740 at up to 43 wt% in vinyl chloride polymers, restricted in children's products under 16 CFR 1307 since 25 April 2018, listed under Proposition 65 for cancer since 20 December 2013 with a no significant risk level of 146 µg/day, and assessed under TSCA as presenting an unreasonable risk to workers only (90 FR 3828, 15 January 2025). In EU food contact the two diverge: DINP sits in group 26 with DIDP at an SML(T) of 1.8 mg/kg since Regulation (EU) 2023/1442, against the 60 mg/kg group-32 ceiling for DINCH.

DINCH vs DEHP (DOP)#

DINCH replaces DEHP in the applications where DEHP can no longer be used: DEHP carries a harmonised Repr. 1B classification (H360FD), sits on the REACH Candidate List since 28 October 2008 and needs an authorisation after the 21 February 2015 sunset date, while DINCH carries no harmonised classification at all. DEHP is additionally restricted to 0.1 % in all articles under Annex XVII entry 51 since 7 July 2020, and it has been on the Proposition 65 list since 1 January 1988 for cancer and since 24 October 2003 for developmental and male reproductive toxicity.

The food-contact contrast is a factor of 100. The specific migration limit for DEHP under FCM 283 is 0.6 mg/kg since Regulation (EU) 2023/1442, one hundred times tighter than the 60 mg/kg group-32 ceiling that applies to DINCH. DEHP (DOP, dioctyl phthalate) requires a REACH authorisation after the 21 February 2015 sunset date, and its remaining window in medical devices closes on 1 July 2030.

DINCH vs TOTM and BTHC in medical PVC#

Within the 4 Pharmacopoeia-listed DEHP alternatives, the split is by device: BTHC is the platelet-storage choice because BTHC-PVC passes oxygen and carbon dioxide more readily than DEHP-PVC, TOTM is the high-temperature and low-migration choice at 546.8 g/mol, and DINCH and DEHT cover general medical tubing. Trioctyl trimellitate is the heaviest of the four, with three ester arms rather than two and a very low vapour pressure, which is why it resists migration at elevated service temperature. TOTM (trioctyl trimellitate), CAS 3319-31-1 with EC number 222-020-0, is not listed in Annex I of Regulation (EU) No 10/2011.

BTHC (butyryl trihexyl citrate), CAS 82469-79-2, C28H50O8 at 514.7 g/mol, is the citrate used in the PL 2209 platelet-storage container, and it is likewise absent from Annex I. The higher oxygen and carbon dioxide permeability of BTHC-PVC compared with DEHP-PVC is a published study result that benefits platelet storage, reported here as that result rather than as a general property of citrate esters. Measured contents in French PVC medical lines place DINCH at 30.2 to 44.3 wt% against 30 to 41 wt% for TOTM (Bernard et al., PLoS One, 2018), so the esters occupy overlapping loading bands and are separated by device requirement rather than by dose.

DINCH vs ATBC and bio-based plasticizers#

ATBC is the bio-based-origin alternative that overlaps most with DINCH, covering toys, food cling film and medical PVC at 10 to 35 wt%, and unlike DINCH it carries named US food-contact clearances in 21 CFR 181.27, 172.515, 175.105, 175.300, 175.320 and 178.3910. Acetyl tributyl citrate, CAS 77-90-7, C20H34O8 at 402.5 g/mol, is listed in the EU as FCM 138 with no individual SML and the same group restriction 32 that covers DINCH, so the two share one EU ceiling and diverge on the US route. ATBC (acetyl tributyl citrate) also appears beside DINCH in the PVC toy replacement set.

The Danish EPA shortlist names three candidates: DINCH, DEHT and COMGHA. COMGHA and the other bio-based plasticizers are compared separately, because COMGHA is a UVCB acetylated monoglyceride rather than a defined diester, so a direct property comparison with DINCH is not possible from the sources behind this page.

Who Manufactures DINCH? Grades and Suppliers#

DINCH is produced by two named suppliers: BASF, which sells it as Hexamoll DINCH from Ludwigshafen in Germany, and Evonik, which sells it as Elatur CH. BASF's technical information of May 2023 carries the physical constants used on this page and the specification that caps residual phthalate content at a maximum of 0.01 %. No production site or grade breakdown for Elatur CH is recorded, so none is stated in the table.

Table T7. DINCH producers and trade names.

Footnote: distributors that stock DINCH, for example Univar Solutions, are not producers and belong in the supplier directory rather than in this table.

Demand behind those two names is regulatory in origin. Global plasticizer consumption runs at 8.4 Mt/yr according to European Plasticisers, more than 85 % of European plasticizer volume goes into flexible PVC, and the ECHA PVC investigation report of November 2023, which covered 63 PVC additives, recommends a REACH restriction on ortho-phthalate plasticisers and organotin stabilisers rather than on PVC itself. More producers and distributors are in the directory of plasticizer manufacturers.

Buyers should request the supplier's technical data sheet and safety data sheet, the CAS number printed on the certificate (166412-78-8 or 474919-59-0) and the residual phthalate content statement, because those three documents settle identity, hazard communication and the phthalate-free claim in one exchange. Price drivers for non-phthalates are tracked on plasticizer prices.

How Do Cyclohexane Dicarboxylates Fit into the Wider Plasticizer Family?#

DINCH is the commercial leader of the cyclohexane dicarboxylate class, the ring-hydrogenated group that sits beside ortho-phthalates, terephthalates, trimellitates, adipates and citrates in the plasticizer family. The class has exactly two members with pages on this site, and each one is the hydrogenated form of a named aromatic ester: DINCH from DINP, and DEHCH from DOTP. Ring hydrogenation is therefore a route rather than a chemistry of its own, which is why the cyclohexane dicarboxylates inherit their chain lengths from the aromatic esters they are made from.

Scale puts the class in proportion. Against the 8.4 Mt/yr of global plasticizer consumption recorded by European Plasticisers, the cyclohexane dicarboxylates are a specialty slice concentrated in medical, toy and food-contact articles rather than in flooring and cable volumes. The class is covered on cyclohexane dicarboxylate plasticizers.

DEHCH and the 1,4-cyclohexanedicarboxylate route#

1,4-Cyclohexanedicarboxylic acid is the saturated form of terephthalic acid, and its bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester is DEHCH (CAS 84731-70-4, 396.6 g/mol), the hydrogenated analogue of DOTP that Hanwha Solutions sells as Eco-DEHCH. DEHCH carries EC number 283-829-2 and the formula C24H44O4, it appears in flooring, wallcovering and toys, and 13 of 13 notifiers to ECHA report it as not classified.

The regulatory contrast with DINCH runs along one line. DINCH is on the Union list as FCM 775, while DEHCH is not listed in Annex I of Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 as of the consolidated text of 14 July 2026, so DEHCH is not available for EU food-contact plastics on that route. DEHCH is the ring-hydrogenated form of DOTP, and the 1,4 substitution is what separates it from the 1,2 substitution of DINCH.

DINCH outside plastics: adhesives, sealants and printing inks#

DINCH is also used in adhesives, sealants and printing inks, which sit outside this site's scope: those uses are noted here only so that a reader comparing supplier literature knows why they appear on a DINCH data sheet. This site covers additives used in plastics, meaning thermoplastics, thermosets used as plastics, compounds and masterbatch, so no product names, dosages or performance data for those three markets appear here. A data sheet that lists them is describing one substance in a different industry, and the identity, the two CAS numbers and the hazard communication carry across unchanged.

Is DINCH banned anywhere?#

No: DINCH is not banned or restricted under the EU, US or Canadian rules covered on this page (status 23 September 2026). It holds no REACH Annex XVII entry, no place on the Candidate List or on Annex XIV, no listing under the POPs Regulation (EU) 2019/1021, and no place among the 8 phthalates of 16 CFR 1307 or the 6 of SOR/2016-188. Country rules are compared on phthalate restrictions worldwide.

Does DINCH migrate out of PVC?#

Yes, like every external plasticizer DINCH can migrate, which is why the EU caps the sum of 22 listed plasticizers, DINCH among them, at 60 mg/kg under group restriction 32. The two properties that limit the rate are a vapour pressure below 0.01 mbar at 20 °C (68 °F) and a water solubility below 0.02 mg/L, both recorded in BASF's technical information. Migration into contact media is measured by ISO 177, volatility by ASTM D1203 and ISO 176, and extraction by ASTM D1239; no migration value for DINCH is published here, because none sits in a citable source.

Does DINCH need an SDS?#

Yes: suppliers provide a safety data sheet for DINCH as for any traded chemical, even though it carries no harmonised CLP classification. An EU safety data sheet follows the format set out in REACH Annex II, and the absence of a hazard classification changes what the hazard sections contain rather than whether the document has to exist.