DOTP vs DINCH: Choosing the Right Non-Phthalate Plasticizer

DOTP vs DINCH is a shorter question than it looks, because both answers are non-phthalate. DOTP (bis(2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate, DEHT; CAS 6422-86-2) is a terephthalate ester. DINCH (1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, di-isononyl ester; CAS 474919-59-0 in the United States, 166412-78-8 elsewhere) is BASF's Hexamoll® DINCH. Neither is an ortho-phthalate, neither is named in the REACH Annex XVII phthalate restrictions, and choosing between them is not a compliance exercise. It is a comparison of four things: low-temperature performance, plastisol viscosity, supply structure and cost.

This guide runs both materials through the same checkpoints and names a winner at each one. For the terephthalate basics, start with our DOTP plasticizer guide; if you are replacing a phthalate rather than a phthalate substitute, read the DOTP vs DINP comparison.

What Is DINCH? Identity and Specification

DINCH is BASF's trade name for 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, di-isononyl ester, a non-aromatic dicarboxylic diester. It is the material most often named when a formulator asks what a non-phthalate plasticizer should deliver. The specification below is BASF's technical data sheet, revised May 2023.

Two rows carry more weight than the rest. The phthalate content of ≤0.01% is the hard evidence behind the non-phthalate label: BASF measures it, and the honest way to state it is that the number is small and not zero. The pour point of −54 °C decides where DINCH belongs, and it is also where a fair comparison stops, because we publish no DOTP pour point.

BASF recommends DINCH for medical products, toys and food packaging, and says only minor processing adjustments are needed to compound flexible PVC with it.

DOTP at a Glance: Three Grades, One Molecule

Our DOTP is bis(2-ethylhexyl) terephthalate (DEHT), CAS 6422-86-2, molecular formula C24H38O4, molecular weight 390.56, exported under HS code 2917399090. The superior and first grades share one specification and differ only in the colour ceiling; the qualified grade keeps the same composition and is priced 10–15% below superior.

Volume resistivity of ≥2×10¹² Ω·cm is the line that makes DOTP a cable material rather than a general-purpose one. Cable compounds are specified against IEC 60332 and UL 94, and electrical insulation is where a plasticizer's molecular behaviour shows up as a pass or a fail. Our DOTP technical properties guide covers the rest of the parameter set, and our DOTP product page carries the current grade list.

On paperwork, our DOTP arrives with three SGS reports: a 17-item phthalate screen (CPSC-CH-C1001-09.4), EN 71-3:2019+A2:2024 soluble element migration in Category III, and PFAS total fluorine (EN 14582:2016) against a 50 mg/kg limit our own specification sets. The phthalates were not detected, all 19 elements came back not detected, and total fluorine came back not detected, below the 20 mg/kg detection limit. The 50 mg/kg figure is our own purchase specification, not a regulatory limit.

Regulatory Status: Both Non-Phthalate, Different Footprints

Start with the two REACH Annex XVII entries that matter here. Entry 51 names DEHP, DBP, BBP and DIBP and caps each at 0.1% by weight of the plasticised material. For toys and childcare articles that limit has applied since the entry was rewritten; since 7 July 2020 it also applies to articles in general, with derogations for industrial and outdoor-only use, aircraft, motor vehicles, articles placed on the market before that date, laboratory measuring devices, food contact materials, medical devices, electrical and electronic equipment, medicinal product packaging, and toys and childcare articles. Entry 52 caps DINP, DIDP and DNOP at 0.1% in toys and childcare articles a child can put in their mouth. Neither entry names DOTP or DINCH, so both sit outside the phthalate restrictions these two entries create. Buyers sometimes ask whether DINCH is the compliant option and DOTP the risky one. The answer is backwards.

That does not make regulation irrelevant, because the surrounding rules are not identical. In the United States, the FDA currently allows nine phthalates for food contact use, eight as plasticizers and one as a monomer. It revoked the food contact authorisations of 23 phthalates in 2022, and on 27 May 2026 it released a scientific evaluation of the eight phthalate plasticizers that remain authorised, to decide whether they should be grouped as chemically or pharmacologically related substances for a future cumulative risk assessment. It proposed that grouping for DEHP, DCHP, DIOP and DINP. Non-phthalate is not a static claim, and the file behind it needs a date on it.

Food contact permissions differ between these two materials, and this is the one place where the comparison is not symmetric. A 2022 peer-reviewed review lists DINCH as holding food contact permissions in Europe, Japan, China, Canada and Australia, and records no specific US FDA authorisation for it. DOTP appears in the US rules themselves: 21 CFR 177.1210 authorises di-2-ethylhexyl terephthalate for use as a plasticizer in closures with sealing gaskets, and five effective Food Contact Notifications cover CAS 6422-86-2. In Europe both materials sit in Regulation (EU) No 10/2011: DOTP carries its own 60 mg/kg specific migration limit, while DINCH has no individual limit and falls inside a group restriction that caps the listed plasticisers at 60 mg/kg in total. In China both are on the GB 9685-2016 positive list, each with a 60 mg/kg specific migration limit.

On toxicology, a 2022 peer-reviewed review of common non-ortho-phthalate plasticizers reports that DOTP produced no adverse reproductive effects in two-generation studies, with 614 mg/kg body weight per day taken as the no-observed-effect level for the reproductive endpoints, and that ANSES did not regard DOTP as a reproductive toxicant.

One caveat, and it belongs here rather than in a footnote. Non-phthalate does not mean absent. A 2013 study detected DINCH in samples from US adult environments. Environmental presence is a different question from regulatory status, and no one should read not-a-phthalate as no-exposure. The wider regulatory map is in our phthalate-free plasticizer guide.

Chemical Structure and Why It Matters

Phthalate rules are written by position on the ring. An ortho-phthalate carries its two ester groups on adjacent carbons of a benzene ring. DOTP puts them opposite each other on the same ring, which makes it a terephthalate. DINCH uses no benzene ring at all; it is a 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylate diester. Neither is an ortho-phthalate ester, and neither is named in the Annex XVII entries that restrict them.

Molecular weight is where the practical consequence appears. DOTP is 390.56; DINCH is 424.7, the heavier of the two. A heavier plasticizer has less incentive to leave the PVC matrix. That is the mechanism behind the lower migration tendency formulators notice in long-term outdoor and food-contact applications. A peer-reviewed review puts migration of DINCH, DOTP and TOTM into aqueous simulants below the applicable limits, from under 0.02 to 0.165 mg/kg.

Low-Temperature and Cold-Flex Performance

Cold performance is DINCH's clearest win, and the manufacturer claims it without hedging: relative to DEHP (CAS 117-81-7) and DINP, DINCH offers improved low temperature performance. Its pour point of −54 °C decides whether a plasticized compound still flows, or stays soft, in a cold store or on a winter road.

We are not going to print a DOTP pour point against it, because we have no verified value to print. A comparison that invents the other side of the gap is a sales claim, not a comparison. If your application runs cold, test your own compound with both materials at your own service temperature. Our DOTP cold-flexibility comparison against DOA and DOZ covers how we handle low-temperature claims.

Plastisol and Viscosity Stability

In plastisol, DINCH wins on the second axis as well. The data sheet states that in plastisol applications DINCH has lower initial viscosity and better viscosity stability. On a dipping line that means less material carried to the bath and a viscosity that holds through a shift; on a slush moulding line, fewer viscosity corrections between the first and the last shot of a batch.

That is a genuine advantage, and it is why the comparison comes up so often in the glove, coating and artificial leather industries. The question is not whether DINCH is better there, but whether the processing difference is worth the supply difference. Our DOTP guide for PVC medical gloves covers the plastisol side.

Heat, Volatility and Processing

Heat and volatility are where the two materials' numbers are hardest to compare, and the honest reason is that they come from different test methods. BASF publishes a flash point of 224 °C for DINCH by open cup. Our DOTP specification states a flash point of 210 °C or higher, with the cup type set on our data sheet. Different laboratories and methods, with no shared test report between them, so we will not turn those two numbers into a ranking.

What flash point actually tells you is narrower than buyers assume: it is a handling and storage safety number. It does not tell you how a compound ages at service temperature, and it is not a substitute for a heat ageing test. On heat loss, we publish no figure for either material, because we have no first-hand value for DOTP.

Cost, Supply and Sourcing Reality

This is where the comparison stops being technical and starts being procurement. DINCH is a single-brand material. BASF manufactures it and sells it under the Hexamoll® name, so a buyer choosing DINCH is choosing one supplier, one production footprint and one set of allocation decisions. For a compound consuming twenty tonnes a month, that is a structural exposure whatever the price.

DOTP is a different structure. Several producers make it, grades are comparable across suppliers, and the qualified grade of our material is priced 10–15% below the superior grade. On our side, group plasticizer capacity is 230,000 tonnes a year once fully built out: Wansheng at 180,000 tonnes, with Phase I of 80,000 tonnes in operation and Phase II of 100,000 tonnes under construction, and Changxing at 50,000 tonnes.

We do not publish a DINCH price, and we are not going to imply a price gap we cannot show. What we can show is the shape of the risk: a single-source branded material carries allocation and currency exposure that a multi-supplier commodity does not. For a buyer comparing material families rather than grades, our DOTP vs TOTM comparison covers the third option.

Selection Guide: Which One Fits Your Application

The table below is a starting position built from published data and manufacturer statements, not a substitute for a trial on your own line.

Read that table as a starting position rather than a verdict. The two materials are closer than the marketing on either side suggests, and the decision usually turns on one constraint: the coldest service temperature your product sees, or the line that cannot tolerate viscosity drift.

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources and Verification

• DINCH identity, specification and manufacturer statements come from the BASF technical data sheet for Hexamoll® DINCH, revision May 2023, published at chemicals.basf.com. REACH Annex XVII entries 51 and 52 were read from the consolidated REACH text as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/2005. The FDA position comes from the FDA page Phthalates in Food Packaging and Food Contact Applications, the FCN inventory on fda.gov, and 21 CFR 177.1210.
• DOTP identity, grades and specification come from Shandong Changxing's own production specification, with three SGS reports on file: 17-item phthalate screening (CPSC-CH-C1001-09.4), EN 71-3 soluble element migration (Category III), PFAS total fluorine (EN 14582:2016).
• Food contact permissions and toxicology come from A review of common non-ortho-phthalate plasticizers for use in food contact materials (ScienceDirect, 2022); detection of DINCH in US adult environments from Silva et al. 2013. The EU migration limit and the Chinese positive-list entries come from Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 and GB 9685-2016.