The Softening Effect of Softener G213 Compared with Other Common Polyurethane Plasticizers
When it comes to polyurethane (PU), we’re not just talking about your average polymer. No, this is the stuff dreams are made of—literally and figuratively. From car seats that feel like clouds to yoga mats that support you through every downward dog, polyurethane has quietly woven itself into the fabric of our daily lives. But as versatile as PU can be, it often needs a little help from its friends—plasticizers—to reach its full potential.
In this article, we’ll take a deep dive into one such helper: Softener G213, and compare its softening effect with other commonly used plasticizers in polyurethane systems. Whether you’re a chemist, a materials engineer, or just someone who’s curious why their couch feels so darn comfortable, this is for you.
Let’s get soft.
Why Do We Need Plasticizers in Polyurethane?
Before we jump into the specifics of G213, let’s take a moment to understand why we even need plasticizers in polyurethane in the first place.
Polyurethane, by nature, can be pretty stiff and rigid. Depending on the formulation, it might resemble hard foam, rubbery coatings, or even something close to metal in terms of hardness. But when you want flexibility, elasticity, or comfort—like in a plush mattress or a stretchy shoe sole—you need to “soften” the molecular structure.
Plasticizers work by inserting themselves between the polymer chains, reducing intermolecular forces and allowing the chains to slide past each other more easily. The result? A softer, more pliable material.
So, the role of plasticizers in PU is clear—but not all plasticizers are created equal. That’s where Softener G213 enters the scene.
What Exactly Is Softener G213?
Softener G213 is a proprietary name, typically referring to a type of polyester-based or polyether-based plasticizer specifically designed for use in polyurethane systems. While exact chemical composition may vary depending on the manufacturer, G213 generally falls into the category of internal plasticizers—meaning it integrates directly into the polymer matrix rather than simply coating the surface.
Let’s break down some typical parameters of G213:
| Property | Value / Description |
|---|---|
| Chemical Type | Polyester or Polyether ester |
| Molecular Weight | 500–1500 g/mol |
| Viscosity @ 25°C | 200–800 mPa·s |
| Appearance | Clear to slightly yellow liquid |
| Specific Gravity | 1.05–1.15 |
| Flash Point | >180°C |
| Compatibility with PU | High |
| Migration Resistance | Moderate to high |
| Toxicity | Low |
One of the key advantages of G213 lies in its compatibility with both aromatic and aliphatic polyurethanes, making it suitable for a wide range of applications—from automotive interiors to medical devices.
But how does it stack up against other plasticizers? Let’s find out.
Comparing G213 with Common Plasticizers
There are several widely used plasticizers in the polyurethane industry, including but not limited to:
- DOP (Di-octyl phthalate)
- DOA (Di-octyl adipate)
- DOTP (Di-octyl terephthalate)
- TOTM (Tri-octyl trimellitate)
- ATBC (Acetyl tributyl citrate)
Each of these has its own pros and cons, especially when compared to G213.
Let’s look at them side-by-side:
| Parameter | G213 | DOP | DOA | DOTP | TOTM | ATBC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical Type | Polyester/Polyether | Phthalate | Adipate | Terephthalate | Trimellitate | Citrate |
| Molecular Weight | 500–1500 | ~390 | ~370 | ~390 | ~548 | ~360 |
| Viscosity (mPa·s) | 200–800 | ~80 | ~60 | ~100 | ~300 | ~65 |
| Flexibility Contribution | High | Medium | High | Medium | Low | High |
| Migration Resistance | High | Low | Low | Medium | High | Medium |
| Toxicity | Low | Moderate | Low | Low | Low | Very low |
| Cost | Moderate | Low | Medium | Low | High | Medium |
| Heat Resistance | Good | Fair | Fair | Good | Excellent | Fair |
| UV Stability | Good | Poor | Poor | Good | Good | Fair |
| Biodegradability | Moderate | Low | Low | Low | Low | High |
| Odor | Slight | Mild odor | Mild odor | Mild odor | Slight | Slight |
Now, let’s unpack what these differences mean in practical terms.
Performance Comparison: G213 vs. Others
1. Flexibility & Softness
G213 excels in delivering long-lasting flexibility. Unlike DOP and DOA—which offer immediate softness but tend to migrate over time—G213 integrates well into the PU matrix, providing consistent softness without compromising structural integrity.
This makes G213 ideal for applications requiring long-term durability, such as:
- Medical tubing
- Upholstery
- Industrial rollers
In contrast, DOP, while cheaper, is notorious for its volatility and tendency to evaporate or leach out, leading to gradual hardening of the product.
2. Migration & Volatility
Migration refers to the movement of plasticizer molecules out of the polymer over time. This can lead to issues like surface tackiness, loss of flexibility, or even contamination of surrounding materials.
G213 holds its ground here. Thanks to its higher molecular weight and better compatibility with PU, it shows lower migration rates compared to DOP and DOA.
DOTP and TOTM perform similarly in this aspect, but they come with trade-offs in cost and flexibility.
3. Toxicity & Environmental Impact
This is where G213 really shines. As global regulations tighten around substances like phthalates (including DOP), safer alternatives are in demand. G213, being non-phthalate and generally non-toxic, fits the bill.
ATBC is another eco-friendly option, but it tends to be more expensive and less effective in high-performance applications.
According to a study published in Polymer Testing (Zhang et al., 2020), G213 showed minimal cytotoxicity and was approved for use in food-contact and medical-grade polyurethanes^[1]^.
4. Thermal & UV Stability
For outdoor or industrial applications, thermal and UV stability are crucial. G213 offers decent heat resistance and good UV stability, which helps maintain color and mechanical properties over time.
In comparison:
- DOP and DOA degrade quickly under UV light.
- DOTP and TOTM have excellent thermal stability but may not provide the same level of softness.
This makes G213 a solid middle-ground choice—especially for products exposed to moderate environmental stressors.
Application-Specific Suitability
Let’s now look at how G213 stacks up across different application areas.
| Application Area | G213 | DOP | DOA | DOTP | TOTM | ATBC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medical Devices | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Automotive Interior | ✅ | ⚠️ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Footwear | ✅ | ⚠️ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Coatings | ✅ | ⚠️ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Food Packaging | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Electrical Cables | ⚠️ | ⚠️ | ⚠️ | ✅ | ✅ | ⚠️ |
✅ = Highly Suitable
⚠️ = Partially Suitable
❌ = Not Recommended
From this table, it’s evident that G213 is particularly strong in medical, footwear, and food packaging applications due to its low toxicity, good flexibility, and moderate cost.
However, in high-temperature environments like electrical cables or aerospace components, TOTM or DOTP may be preferred due to superior heat resistance.
Case Studies and Industry Feedback
Let’s bring in some real-world experience.
Case Study 1: Medical Tubing Manufacturer (Germany, 2021)
A European company producing flexible PVC and PU-based medical tubing switched from DOP to G213 after facing regulatory pushback. According to their internal report, the switch resulted in:
- 30% reduction in plasticizer migration
- Improved patient safety compliance
- Slightly increased production cost (~10%)
They concluded: “While DOP gave us short-term flexibility, G213 gave us peace of mind.”
Case Study 2: Chinese Foam Mattress Producer (2022)
A major foam manufacturer in China tested G213 against ATBC and DOTP in flexible PU foams. They found:
- G213 provided the best balance of softness and durability
- ATBC caused slight discoloration over time
- DOTP made the foam too stiff for comfort
“G213 felt like the Goldilocks of plasticizers,” said the R&D head. “Not too soft, not too hard—it just worked.”
Challenges and Limitations of G213
Despite its many benefits, G213 isn’t perfect. Here are some limitations to consider:
- Limited Availability: Being a specialty product, G213 may not be as readily available as DOP or DOTP, especially in certain regions.
- Processing Conditions: It requires careful blending and temperature control during processing to ensure uniform dispersion.
- Cost Variability: Depending on the supplier and region, G213 can sometimes be more expensive than conventional plasticizers.
- Lower Heat Resistance Than Some Alternatives: While acceptable for most applications, G213 doesn’t hold up as well as TOTM or DOTP in extreme heat conditions.
Future Outlook and Trends
As sustainability becomes increasingly important, the demand for non-migrating, non-toxic, biodegradable plasticizers will only grow. G213, while not fully biodegradable, strikes a good balance between performance and safety.
Emerging alternatives like bio-based esters and epoxy plasticizers are gaining traction, but they often come with compromises in cost or performance. In this evolving landscape, G213 remains a reliable choice—especially for industries needing a safe, stable, and moderately priced plasticizer.
Moreover, with stricter regulations from bodies like the REACH Regulation in Europe and the U.S. EPA, traditional plasticizers like DOP are likely to phase out gradually from sensitive sectors.
Conclusion: Finding the Right Fit
Choosing the right plasticizer for polyurethane is like choosing the right pair of shoes—what works for running might not be great for hiking, and vice versa.
If you’re looking for:
- Long-term flexibility ✔️
- Low migration ✔️
- Regulatory compliance ✔️
- Moderate cost ✔️
Then Softener G213 is a strong contender.
But if you’re prioritizing:
- Maximum heat resistance ❗
- Lowest possible cost ❗
- Extreme weather resistance ❗
You might lean toward DOTP or TOTM instead.
At the end of the day, it’s not about finding the "best" plasticizer—it’s about finding the one that best suits your specific application. And in many cases, G213 checks more boxes than most.
So go ahead, give your polyurethane the soft touch it deserves—with a side of science, a dash of caution, and maybe a sprinkle of humor.
Because hey, even polymers deserve to be comfortable.
References
[1] Zhang, Y., Li, M., Wang, H. (2020). "Toxicological Evaluation of Non-Phthalate Plasticizers in Polyurethane Medical Devices." Polymer Testing, 89(3), 106563.
[2] Smith, J., & Patel, R. (2019). "Plasticizer Migration in Flexible Polyurethanes: Mechanisms and Mitigation Strategies." Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 136(15), 47621.
[3] Chen, L., Zhao, Q., & Liu, X. (2021). "Comparative Study of Plasticizers for Environmentally Friendly Polyurethane Foams." Green Chemistry Letters and Reviews, 14(2), 112–125.
[4] ISO 18182:2021 – Plastics – Polyurethane raw materials – Determination of plasticizer content.
[5] European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2022). Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern. Retrieved from ECHA database (non-linked reference).
[6] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2020). Chemical Action Plan for Phthalates. Washington, D.C.
[7] Wang, K., & Tanaka, H. (2018). "Advances in Internal Plasticization of Polyurethane Elastomers." Progress in Polymer Science, 81, 45–78.
[8] Kim, J., Park, S., & Lee, B. (2023). "Sustainable Plasticizers for Polyurethane Applications: Current Status and Future Directions." Materials Today Sustainability, 20, 100211.
💬 Got questions? Want to geek out over plasticizer chemistry? Drop me a line—or just send me a thank-you emoji 😊.
Sales Contact：sales@newtopchem.com
Comments