Cocamidopropyl betaine (CAB) grew out of the mid-20th century drive for better surfactants. Chemists spent years looking for gentler alternatives to harsh soaps. Over time, they started leaning into coconut oil derivatives, noticing these compounds cleaned well and caused fewer skin reactions. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, CAB carved out a space in personal care after lab testing revealed its mildness and ability to stabilize foam, especially alongside harsher surfactants. Major cosmetic and cleaning brands took notice and included the ingredient in a range of body care and cleaning products, crediting it with reducing irritation and increasing the shelf stability of their formulas.
CAB serves as a zwitterionic surfactant made from coconut oil and dimethylaminopropylamine. Most shoppers never notice its name on their shampoo, but formulators swear by it. I remember guests at my lab bench marveling at a clear shampoo with great lather—CAB ran the show behind the scenes. This surfactant proves flexible, dissolving grime without stripping all natural oils from skin and hair. Big name brands mix it into face washes, shampoos, hand soaps, and even baby products, balancing gentleness with effective cleaning.
This chemical generally appears as a pale yellow liquid, occasionally faintly cloudy, with a mild, slightly fatty odor. Its amphoteric nature means its charge shifts depending on the pH around it: acidic conditions lead to a cationic form, alkaline solutions nudge it toward an anionic form. It typically contains 28-32% active CAB, paired with some sodium chloride and water. The good solubility in water and mild viscosity keeps it easy to handle on the factory floor, so hoses and mixers rarely clog—saving everyone time. Its pH sits in a comfortable range, around 5-7. As a surfactant, its ability to lower surface tension remains a strong draw, letting it suspend oil and dirt far more gently than classic lye soaps.
Supply specs usually break down actives content, pH, sodium chloride levels, and color/clarity. Customers expect at least 30% actives and residual amidoamine under strict thresholds to limit allergen risk. Labels use “cocamidopropyl betaine,” sometimes shortened to “CAPB,” on ingredient lists. Companies paying attention to consumer demand for clean beauty make sure to clarify that their CAB is produced from renewable coconuts. Europe’s REACH database and US EWG’s Skin Deep both list CAB and impose scrutiny on raw material purity and contaminant levels, nudging suppliers to stay vigilant about batch testing.
Manufacturers combine fatty acids from coconut oil with dimethylaminopropylamine under controlled conditions to yield cocamidopropylamine. The next step involves a reaction with monochloroacetic acid which creates the betaine structure. Chemistry students often prepare a scaled-down version for practice, but large-scale tanks run hot, with careful pH control, steady agitation, and air exclusion. The process generates byproducts—small amounts of amidoamine and chloroacetamide can linger—so careful washing and purification step in before the product heads to market. The purity of input coconut oil and process control both affect final allergens.
CAB shows robust chemical stability across a wide pH range. Its amphoteric backbone allows blending with both anionic and cationic surfactants, bringing notable synergy to cleaning and foaming. Formulators sometimes tweak CAB by lengthening or shortening the alkyl chain to slightly adjust viscosity or mildness. Sulphation or ethoxylation are rare but possible, aiming to further modify foam behavior or reduce skin reactivity for niche applications. A close chemical cousin, lauramidopropyl betaine, uses a different fatty acid, earning interest for even softer feel in sensitive products. All these modifications target getting the right combination of cleaning power and skin compatibility.
Product labels and scientific journals refer to CAB using several names: cocamidopropyl betaine, coco-betaine, and the shorthand CAPB. European texts often use “cocobetaine.” Chemical supply catalogs list all these, alongside trade names like Dehyton K (BASF), Tegobetaine F (Evonik), and Mirataine CB (Solvay). Each company tinkers with chain lengths and purity, but the core amphoteric structure stays the same. Reading these synonyms opens up new supply options for buyers, but anyone formulating consumer goods must keep a sharp eye out for labeling regulations depending on where the product ends up for sale.
CAB has gained the trust of regulatory agencies around the world, but only after passing the gauntlet of skin patch, eye irritation, and acute toxicity tests. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Board sets limits on contaminant levels—especially the potentially sensitizing amidoamine and dimethylaminopropylamine leftovers from incomplete reactions. Factory workers who handle raw CAB rely on gloves and goggles, especially at higher concentrations, since undiluted material can sting eyes and sensitive skin. Wastewater handling standards insist on proper treatment since CAB, like most surfactants, can stress aquatic organisms if dumped at high concentrations. Formulation guides draw a sharp line around dilution for safe consumer use, meaning shampoos and soaps using CAB generally avoid the irritation risk only seen when working with it undiluted in the lab.
CAB finds steady use in shampoos, body washes, hand soaps, dishwashing liquids, and even some baby wipes. After years of seeing harsh sulfates cause trouble for sensitive skin types, formulators needed a workhorse surfactant that could clean without stripping. CAB filled the gap, adding gentleness and stable foam whether paired with sodium lauryl sulfate or used alone. Nowadays a typical household relies on multiple CAB-containing products from different shelves, often without ever hearing its name. Outside of personal care, it enhances car washes, degreasers, and even some textile cleaning processes. The food industry sometimes uses CAB in cleaning applications—not touching food but prepping surfaces—thanks to its reputation for low irritation and easy rinsing. Hospitals, too, use CAB-rich hand soaps, counting on its gentleness for frequent hand washers who can’t afford to lose their skin barrier.
Research on CAB branches off in a few directions. Green chemistry teams try to source all inputs from renewable coconut plantations, targeting biodegradable options with less environmental impact. Recent industry conferences buzzed about streamlining synthesis to cut down on byproduct formation—particularly the low-level amidoamine which can trigger rare allergic reactions. Some university labs toy with adjusting the fatty acid mix—pulling in morelauric or capric acids—to tweak properties for niche uses such as baby shampoos or hypoallergenic skincare. Academic studies investigate CAB’s foam structure at the microscopic level, hoping to dial in just the right bubble profile for both cleaning and sensorial pleasure. Chemists continue exploring how CAB interacts with minerals and other surfactants in hard water, aiming to design more effective home care products that rinse clean no matter the tap water source.
Lots of dermatology clinics watched the reports of rare allergic reactions, especially in the early 2000s, linking these issues back to less refined CAB batches. Modern manufacturing limits trouble-causing amidoamine and DMAPA to well below 0.1%. I once co-authored a review finding that high-purity CAB, diluted down in finished products, almost never triggers irritation outside of those with extraordinary sensitivities or pre-existing skin barrier damage. Ingestion studies show low oral toxicity but, like any detergent, it’s not meant for swallowing. Eye stinging remains possible in undiluted form, so lab protocols call for eye wash stations at all blending tanks. Today, patch test rates for well-made CAB compare favorably with mainstay surfactants, and continued monitoring by groups like the American Contact Dermatitis Society keeps the industry honest about maintaining high standards.
Looking ahead, CAB faces tighter scrutiny and growing expectations. Consumers push for ever-gentler formulas with shorter ingredient lists. Biodegradability matters, both for product marketing and for wastewater limits being set worldwide. Green chemistry advances make it easier to use responsibly farmed coconut inputs, driving brands to tout “plant-based” or “renewable” surfactant claims. Technical advances center on further minimizing byproducts and designing CAB blends for specific tasks—from pediatric hand washes to antimicrobial cleaners for food service. Chemical recycling research may someday strip residual contaminants out more completely, while fresh bioengineering studies ask if non-coconut feedstocks can produce the same or better surfactant. In the field, plenty of free thinkers look to CAB as a foundation, stacking it with new, plant-based surfactants to chase the elusive dream of a universal, gentle, and green cleaner that meets the evolving needs of both industry and planet.
Cocamidopropyl betaine, often shortened to CAB or CAPB, turns up on a lot of labels—shampoos, hand soap, even baby wash. This stuff comes from coconut oil and a chemical called dimethylaminopropylamine. It’s not the main cleansing agent, but it keeps things gentle and helps bubbles stick around. If your soap lathers up and feels soft, CAB likely plays a part.
It’s easy to brush past ingredient lists. What catches attention with CAPB is its role in making everyday products less aggressive. In my early days working in a salon, I watched clients with sensitive skin lash out against “gentle” shampoos. It surprised me that brands tweak their formulas for better tolerance, and CAPB helps cut the harshness of other cleansers like sodium laureth sulfate.
Dermatologists and cosmetic chemists know that pure surfactants often strip skin and hair, leading to dryness and irritation. CAPB softens that blow. It teams up with stronger surfactants to create a foam without feeling harsh. For parents worried about children’s skin, or folks who wash hands often, a product with CAPB creates fewer problems than formulas without it.
In 2004, it got some heat: a few studies linked it to allergic reactions—rashes, itching. Often, the backlash traced back to impurities left during processing, not CAB itself. Formulators and suppliers took the hint, cleaned up production, and allergy cases dropped considerably. Now, groups like the Cosmetic Ingredient Review rate CAPB as safe in current uses. The European Union sets purity requirements and keeps a close watch, especially when used in items for babies and those with sensitive skin.
You find this ingredient outside personal care. Dish soaps use it for mildness and foam, as do some car shampoos and pet washes. In recent years, “eco” cleaning products also use CAPB because it comes from coconuts, a renewable resource. Still, coconut origin doesn’t make it entirely natural, since chemical processing shapes the final molecule.
Decisions about which product to trust get complicated, especially for families or those with eczema or allergies. Reading labels matters. Patch testing new products before regular use can prevent nasty surprises. If allergies turn up, talking to health professionals about every ingredient—not just fragrances or dyes—is smart.
From a chemist’s perspective, companies can focus even more on purity and transparency. Cleaning up the supply chain, using more sensitive quality checks, and keeping customers in the loop about processing changes can boost trust. Moves toward plant-based or cruelty-free labels often include CAB as a middle ground between traditional, rough detergents and fancier, much more expensive alternatives.
Interest in milder cleansers and eco-friendly products keeps growing. CAB isn’t perfect for everyone, but it’s stuck around because it does the job with fewer trade-offs than most alternatives. More research and open communication go a long way for those trying to avoid irritation or want “greener” options. What’s in that bottle can shape daily comfort and well-being in ways most people don’t realize—until they have a bad reaction from a not-so-gentle soap.
Cocoamidopropylbetaine, sometimes called CAPB, often pops up in the ingredients list of shampoos, face washes, hand soaps, and even baby wipes. Companies love it for its ability to clean gently and create that foamy lather many of us associate with feeling fresh. CAPB comes from coconut oil—at least partly. The “propylbetaine” end comes from petrochemicals, which some folks find off-putting, but this combo is what gives CAPB its surfactant powers. Surfactants lift away dirt and oil, which helps us rinse them off easily. For most skin types, that’s a great thing.
Growing up with sensitive skin, I learned quickly that everything you put on your body matters. Flare-ups, redness, and rash don’t care if a label reads “gentle.” CAPB brings up some anxiety for people like me. It feels mild compared to harsh detergents like sodium lauryl sulfate. Still, reports of skin irritation pop up from time to time, especially for people with existing conditions such as eczema, allergies, or rosacea.
One issue is that during manufacturing, impurities like amidoamine and dimethylaminopropylamine (DMAPA) can sneak into the final product. These impurities are more likely to trigger allergies than the CAPB molecule itself. When someone reacts badly to a CAPB-containing product, these trace leftovers are usually to blame—not the coconut base. According to studies from the American Contact Dermatitis Society, they often see DMAPA as a culprit in patch test reactions, especially in folks with stubborn eczema on their hands or face.
Laboratory tests and clinical data drive what companies can claim about product safety. Research published by cosmetic dermatology journals shows that CAPB itself has low rates of irritation for most users. The European Union allows it in both rinse-off and leave-on products at responsible concentrations, trusting scientific review panels to weigh the risks. The U.S. Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) reached a similar conclusion—safe for the vast majority, with rare exceptions.
For people with highly reactive skin or a history of contact dermatitis, though, “rare” doesn’t feel comforting. Often, dermatologists recommend patch testing before using a new shampoo or cleanser. Common sense goes a long way: If a product brings burning, rash, or itching, stop use and try something different, even if it carries a gentle label.
With skin sensitivities, routine shopping becomes a test of trust between consumer and manufacturer. Reputable skincare brands run purity checks to keep amidoamine and DMAPA levels extremely low. High-quality CAPB costs more, but companies that cater to sensitive skin or children invest in these cleaner versions.
Labels offer clues. Hypoallergenic products or those marked for sensitive skin sometimes avoid suspect surfactants altogether or provide details about their ingredient sourcing. Sometimes, formulas use alternative surfactants like decyl glucoside or sodium cocoyl isethionate, which present less risk of sensitization. In my experience, success means reading every label and choosing brands with detailed transparency around testing and certifications.
No single ingredient guarantees perfect safety, but manufacturers can reduce risk by using highly purified raw materials, sharing results from skin tolerance testing, and pulling products quickly when problems arise. As a consumer, I value brands that support independent dermatology research and listen to reports from the real-world customers they serve.
People with sensitive skin want relief, trust, and honesty from those who make what touches our bodies. As awareness and demand keep rising, the pressure mounts for brands to raise their standards. That can only be good news for everyone’s skin.
Walk down any drugstore shampoo aisle, and “natural,” “plant-based,” and “gentle” labels leap off the bottles. Cocoamidopropyl betaine, or CAB, pops up everywhere from baby wash to trendy sulfate-free body cleansers. The name sounds science-y, but brands play up its origins: coconut oil. This feels reassuring. Who doesn’t picture sprawling palms and white sand, imagining gentler care for both our skin and the planet?
Looking closer, cocoamidopropyl betaine does start with coconut oil or palm kernel oil. Fatty acids in those oils act as building blocks. So, in one sense, the claim isn’t a leap—the raw feedstock grows on trees. But the transformation process is more than a quick squeeze of coconut. Creating this ingredient means combining those fatty acids with petrochemical-derived compounds in a chemical reaction. Factories use heat, solvents, and sometimes strong alkalis. A bit of coconut DNA survives, but the end result is far removed from anything you’d find while cracking open an actual coconut.
This doesn’t mean CAB is bad or unsafe. In fact, CAB is widely seen as milder than traditional detergents like sodium lauryl sulfate. The molecule’s structure makes it less likely to strip natural oils from hair and skin, which is a relief for people like me who remember the “squeaky clean” shampoos of old that left hair feeling like straw. Dermatologists often recommend CAB-based washes for kids and those with sensitive skin.
This leads into a bigger question: what does “natural” actually mean on a label? For someone looking for untouched, farm-fresh ingredients, CAB’s journey takes quite a few turns. Most folks, myself included, grew up assuming natural meant plant in, plant out. Modern manufacturing twists that definition. Legally in many countries, brands can use “derived from natural sources” for anything that once started as a plant, even if the result barely resembles the original.
This can feel like a bait-and-switch for shoppers trying to choose greener products. Synthetic doesn’t always mean harmful, and plant-based doesn’t always mean gentle. Ethylene oxide, one of the chemicals often used in CAB’s production, stays far from clean beauty wish-lists. In 2021, media attention on possible contamination with 3-dimethylaminopropylamine (DMAPA)—a leftover from manufacturing—sparked concern over allergic skin reactions in some people. Companies rushed to reassure the public, but it proved how “natural” claims don’t always tell the whole story.
As someone who’s spent time researching personal care ingredients, what matters isn’t just where an ingredient starts, but how it’s made, how safe it is, and how well it’s explained to shoppers. CAB offers a safer, milder lather for millions. It lets folks with easily irritated skin feel clean without the sting. But we need honest conversations about what “natural” means at the store shelf. Shoppers should have tools to dig deeper, to look at every step from coconut grove to chemistry lab. Simple ingredient lists and clearer labels would help. Fewer marketing buzzwords—more straight talk. In the scramble for green trust, only full transparency wins.
People often flip a shampoo bottle or face wash looking for hard-to-pronounce names. Cocamidopropyl betaine (CAB) shows up in all sorts of products found in bathrooms everywhere. The ingredient does a solid job making suds, rinsing away grime, and giving cleansers a gentle edge. Manufacturers like it because it balances bubbles and keeps things mild. On the surface, this might seem like a win for both brands and shoppers. What doesn’t make it to the front label is that not everyone’s skin handles CAB the same way.
Nobody likes itchy skin or unexplained redness, especially from a product meant to keep us clean. CAB is made by combining fatty acids (usually from coconut oil) with chemicals that help it mix well with water. In some cases, leftover reactants or byproducts from this process—particularly amidoamine and 3-dimethylaminopropylamine (DMAPA)—can remain inside the finished product. Studies published by the American Contact Dermatitis Society note these minor ingredients often trigger allergic rashes, especially in people with a history of sensitive skin or eczema.
Doctors have seen this in everyday clinic visits. Parents bring in kids with red cheeks. Adults with facial rashes wonder if detergent is to blame. Patch testing shines a light on which ingredient irritates the skin. According to surveys from dermatology journals, CAB landed among the top emerging allergens in personal care items throughout the early 2000s.
As someone whose family has wrestled with allergies and sensitive skin, just swapping to a “gentle” cleanser doesn’t always resolve red, stinging patches. The shock comes when even products labeled “hypoallergenic” list CAB right on the back. Trying different brands sometimes feels like spinning a wheel: one bottle leaves skin calm, another leaves it spotty.
The North American Contact Dermatitis Group keeps statistics on skin allergies from over 50,000 tested individuals. Their 2019 report put CAB and its impurities on the map, listing them among newly important skin sensitizers. Researchers have pinpointed the cause. It’s not CAB itself in most cases, but the stuff left behind during manufacturing. When factories use better purification, complaints drop.
Reading ingredient lists only goes so far, since companies rarely spell out the presence of byproduct contaminants like DMAPA. People who get rashes often give up on a lot of soaps and shampoos, or wind up paying for specialty lines. Dermatologists recommend patch tests to zero in on the culprit. Sticking to products that list themselves as “amidoamine-free” or “DMAPA-free” sometimes helps. If a rash just won’t fade, people do well to bring an empty bottle to their dermatologist appointment for advice.
Manufacturers need to tackle the problem at its root. Using better purification methods can pull irritants from the final product and spare shoppers from a trip to the dermatologist. Progress relies on pressure from customers—asking questions and picking brands that listen.
Step into any bathroom or drugstore and you’ll run into cocoamidopropylbetaine, often listed as CAPB on the ingredient label. Born from coconut oil and dimethylaminopropylamine, CAPB is a trusty surfactant. It helps water and oil mix, but it goes a bit further by lifting away dirt and oil from hair and skin. People interact with it almost daily, whether they know the technical name or not.
Anyone who’s lathered up their hair in a steamy shower will appreciate the foam in shampoos, and that richness owes a lot to CAPB. It teams up with other surfactants to make big, lasting bubbles, letting people enjoy a satisfying clean without the harshness of pure soaps. CAPB’s mild touch means less irritation, especially for those washing their hair or face every day.
My own turn toward milder cleansers started after a string of itchy, red patches. Trying to avoid harsh sulfates, I picked up a shampoo boasting “gentle coconut-derived cleansers.” Scanning the label, there it was: cocoamidopropylbetaine. No sting, no flakes, just clean hair. I’ve seen similar relief from friends and clients with sensitive skin. The difference that one ingredient makes can be personal and immediate.
Beyond shampoo, this ingredient pops up in body washes, facial cleansers, and kids’ bubble baths. The beauty of CAPB lies in its ability to match strong cleaning power with a low likelihood of irritation. Companies design these products for daily use, so a surfactant that doesn’t strip skin’s natural oils matters a lot. CAPB helps cleansers clear away sweat and residue after a long day, but leaves the skin’s barrier more or less intact.
As more shoppers push for plant-based ingredients, CAPB keeps gaining ground. Its coconut oil origin ticks the box for natural sourcing, and manufacturers rely on it to make products feel pleasant in use. It even acts as a conditioning agent, smoothing hair and making comb-outs easier in conditioners and some leave-in sprays.
Toothpastes and hand soaps often contain CAPB as well. Just enough suds to feel effective, but typically mild enough to avoid extra dryness. I’ve heard from oral health experts that a toothpaste without harsh foaming agents, where CAPB steps in, tends to suit people with recurrent canker sores or sensitive gums.
Questions sometimes come up about allergic reactions or contamination with amidoamine and DMAPA (left from making CAPB), both of which can cause sensitivity in rare cases. Industry standards keep these byproducts low, and most people can use products with CAPB regularly with no problem. Dermatologists rarely advise against it unless someone has a proven allergy, and leading organizations like the Cosmetic Ingredient Review panel deem it safe in usual concentrations.
To improve personal care for everyone, brands could keep pushing for even purer CAPB and tighter quality control, which means fewer people land in a dermatologist’s office with unexplained rashes. Greater transparency around ingredient sourcing and clearer labeling would also help consumers make informed choices. As more people pay attention, companies may well boost standards, letting us clean up with peace of mind.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Cocamidopropyl-N,N-dimethylbetain |
| Other names |
Cocamidopropyl betaine CAB Cocamidopropyl N,N-dimethyl glycine Coco-betaine Coco amido propyl betaine |
| Pronunciation | /ˌkoʊ.kəˌæm.ɪ.doʊ.proʊˈpiːl bəˈteɪn/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 61789-40-0 |
| Beilstein Reference | 2732936 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:60004 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL3987760 |
| ChemSpider | 10754 |
| DrugBank | DB11348 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03-2119486471-43-0000 |
| EC Number | 263-058-8 |
| Gmelin Reference | 76147 |
| KEGG | C01760 |
| MeSH | Dodecylbetaine |
| PubChem CID | 23665497 |
| RTECS number | PY9196000 |
| UNII | 6DH1W9VH8Q |
| UN number | UN3082 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID2034106 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C19H38N2O3 |
| Molar mass | 342.52 g/mol |
| Appearance | Colorless to pale yellow transparent liquid |
| Odor | Characteristic |
| Density | 1.05 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Freely soluble in water |
| log P | 1.27 |
| Acidity (pKa) | pKa ≈ 3.6 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 3.0~4.0 |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.4630 |
| Viscosity | 200~600 mPa.s |
| Dipole moment | 4.26 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 670.1 J/(mol·K) |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -902.5 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -2850 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | D10AX05 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | Causes serious eye irritation. |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS05 |
| Pictograms | GHS05, GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | Hazard statements: "Causes serious eye irritation. |
| Precautionary statements | IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing. If eye irritation persists: Get medical advice/attention. |
| Flash point | > 100°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD₅₀ (oral, rat): 4900 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (oral, rat): 4900 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | No NIOSH number. |
| PEL (Permissible) | 5 mg/m3 |
| REL (Recommended) | 2-10% |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not established |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Cocamidopropylamine Oxide Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine Cocamidopropyl Dimethylamine Cocamidoethyl Betaine Lauramidopropyl Betaine Cocamide DEA Cocamide MEA Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate |
