Sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate
Monosodium phosphate monohydrate – NaH₂PO₄·H₂O
Synonyms: MSP, sodium dihydrogen phosphate (monohydrate); food additive E339(i)
INCI / Functions: pH buffer (acid component), acidity regulator, aqueous-phase stabilizer, processing aid in oral care
Definition
Sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate (MSP·H₂O) is the acidic sodium salt of phosphoric acid in its monohydrate form. It is a white, odorless, freely water-soluble crystalline solid that yields acidic solutions. In cosmetics, oral care, foods, and pharmaceuticals it serves as the acid component of the classic phosphate buffer system, paired with sodium phosphate dibasic (Na₂HPO₄) to establish and maintain near-neutral pH.
Calories (energy value)
0 kcal per 100 g (inorganic salt; no metabolizable energy).
Identification and specifications
Formula: NaH₂PO₄·H₂O | Molar mass: 137.99 g/mol
CAS: 10049-21-5 (monohydrate) | CAS (anhydrous): 7558-80-7
Appearance: white crystals/powder | Odor: none
Water solubility (25 °C): high (tens of g/L; dissolves rapidly) | Insoluble in ethanol
Typical pH (1–2% aq.): ~4.3–4.8 (acidic)
Hygroscopicity: moderate (retain in tight containers)
Stability: loses crystal water on heating; dissolved CO₂ has minimal effect (acidic regime)
Acid–base characteristics and buffering
Phosphoric acid pKa at 25 °C: pKa₁ ≈ 2.15, pKa₂ ≈ 7.20, pKa₃ ≈ 12.35.
MSP (NaH₂PO₄) acts as the acid member of the NaH₂PO₄ / Na₂HPO₄ buffer pair, which buffers optimally around pH 6.2–8.2—ideal for cosmetic and oral-care systems. Adjusting the MSP:DSP ratio precisely sets the target pH in this window.
Functional role and note on “chelating”
Primary role is pH buffering / pH trim toward acidity. Interaction with Ca²⁺/Mg²⁺ is not true chelation; in some conditions phosphate may form insoluble calcium/magnesium phosphates. For metal control or hard-water robustness, complement with sodium citrate or EDTA at low levels rather than relying on phosphate alone.
Formulation compatibility
Surfactants: excellent with anionics, amphoterics, and many nonionics; evaluate high-level cationics case-by-case.
Polymers/gellants: broadly compatible with neutralized carbomers, natural gums, acrylates—ensure the final pH suits the polymer.
Pigments/minerals: stabilizes aqueous phase; watch Ca²⁺-rich systems for haze/precipitates.
pH-sensitive actives: enables tight control for enzymes, fluorides (oral care), and color-critical systems.
Indicative use levels and handling
Cosmetics (leave-on/rinse-off): 0.05–0.50% total phosphate salts for fine pH control and routine stability.
Oral care (toothpastes/mouthwashes): 0.2–2.0% as MSP/DSP buffer targeting pH 6.0–7.5 with fluorides/antitartar strategies.
Food (E339(i)): levels per category-specific regulations.
Buffer preparation: dissolve MSP (acid) and DSP (base) separately, combine under stirring; fine-tune pH with small additions of MSP (to lower pH) or DSP (to raise pH). Confirm after thermal equilibration.
Quick phosphate buffer recipes (purified water, 25 °C, indicative)
pH ≈ 6.5: 80–85% MSP + 15–20% DSP (mass of anhydrous equivalents)
pH ≈ 7.0: 60–65% MSP + 35–40% DSP
pH ≈ 7.4: 45–50% MSP + 50–55% DSP
pH ≈ 8.0: 25–30% MSP + 70–75% DSP
(Actual pH shifts slightly with ionic strength and total concentration—verify on bench.)
Typical applications
Mild cleansers, shampoos, body washes: establish and hold pH in the physiological range.
Gels and lotions: stabilize viscosity and pH-sensitive actives in the aqueous phase.
Oral care: physiological buffering with fluorides/antitartar systems; supports enamel-friendly pH.
Water-based make-up: pH stabilization for color/pigment dispersion.
Food: acidity regulation/stabilization per E339(i).
Grades, quality, and specifications
Available as technical, food (E339(i)), and pharmaceutical grades. Typical specs include assay, heavy metals (Pb, As, Cd) at very low limits, loss on drying (crystal water), solution pH, insolubles, and microbiological criteria for food/pharma grades.
Safety, regulatory, and environmental notes
Irritation: low at cosmetic use levels; powders/concentrates may irritate eyes/skin/airways.
Allergenicity: not a contact allergen.
EU Cosmetics (Reg. 1223/2009): no specific restrictions; use per GMP and appropriate pH targets.
IFRA: not applicable (non-fragrance).
Food: E339(i); follow category-specific maximums and conditions.
Environmental: phosphates may contribute to eutrophication—manage use and effluent responsibly.
Storage: airtight, cool, dry; avoid moisture uptake; keep away from strong bases/acids (neutralization or pH drift).
Formulation troubleshooting
Haze/precipitates with hard water or calcium salts: lower target pH, reduce total phosphate, add citrate/EDTA at low dose, or switch to DI water.
pH drift over 24–48 h: verify buffer capacity (total molarity), temperature, and dissolved CO₂; re-trim with small additions of MSP/DSP.
Active interactions: confirm compatibility with enzymes, aluminum salts (antiperspirants), and high-level cationics; optimize order of addition.
Conclusion
Sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate is the acid cornerstone of the phosphate buffer pair used across cosmetics, oral care, food, and pharma. In tandem with disodium phosphate, it provides reliable, tunable pH control, broad excipient compatibility, and industrial repeatability. Where genuine metal chelation is required, supplement with sodium citrate or EDTA. With appropriate control of pH, hardness, concentration, and storage, MSP-based buffers underpin stable, safe, and compliant water-based formulations.
References__________________________________________________________________________
Buck CL, Wallman KE, Dawson B, Guelfi KJ. Sodium phosphate as an ergogenic aid. Sports Med. 2013 Jun;43(6):425-35. doi: 10.1007/s40279-013-0042-0.
Abstract. Legal nutritional ergogenic aids can offer athletes an additional avenue to enhance their performance beyond what they can achieve through training. Consequently, the investigation of new nutritional ergogenic aids is constantly being undertaken. One emerging nutritional supplement that has shown some positive benefits for sporting performance is sodium phosphate. For ergogenic purposes, sodium phosphate is supplemented orally in capsule form, at a dose of 3-5 g/day for a period of between 3 and 6 days. A number of exercise performance-enhancing alterations have been reported to occur with sodium phosphate supplementation, which include an increased aerobic capacity, increased peak power output, increased anaerobic threshold and improved myocardial and cardiovascular responses to exercise. A range of mechanisms have been posited to account for these ergogenic effects. These include enhancements in 2,3-Diphosphoglycerate (2,3-DPG) concentrations, myocardial efficiency, buffering capacity and adenosine triphosphate/phosphocreatine synthesis. Whilst there is evidence to support the ergogenic benefits of sodium phosphate, many studies researching this substance differ in terms of the administered dose and dosing protocol, the washout period employed and the fitness level of the participants recruited. Additionally, the effect of gender has received very little attention in the literature. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to critically examine the use of sodium phosphate as an ergogenic aid, with a focus on identifying relevant further research.
Curran MP, Plosker GL. Oral sodium phosphate solution: a review of its use as a colorectal cleanser. Drugs. 2004;64(15):1697-714. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200464150-00009.
Abstract. Oral sodium phosphate solution (Fleet Phospho-soda, Casen-Fleet Fosfosoda is a low-volume, hyperosmotic agent used as part of a colorectal-cleansing preparation for surgery, x-ray or endoscopic examination. The efficacy and tolerability of oral sodium phosphate solution was generally similar to, or significantly better than, that of polyethylene glycol (PEG) or other colorectal cleansing regimens in patients preparing for colonoscopy, colorectal surgery or other colorectal-related procedures. Generally, oral sodium phosphate solution was significantly more acceptable to patients than PEG or other regimens. The use of this solution should be considered in most patients (with the exception of those with contraindications) requiring colorectal cleansing. PHARMACOLOGICAL PROPERTIES: After the first and second 45 mL dose of oral sodium phosphate solution, the mean time to onset of bowel activity was 1.7 and 0.7 hours and the mean duration of activity was 4.6 and 2.9 hours. Bowel activity ceased within 4 hours of administration of the second dose in 83% of patients. Elevations in serum phosphorus and falls in serum total and ionised calcium from baseline occurred during the 24 hours after administration of oral sodium phosphate solution in seven healthy volunteers. These changes were not associated with significant changes in clinical assessments. The decrease in serum potassium levels after administration of oral sodium phosphate solution was negatively correlated with baseline intracellular potassium levels. Therapeutic use: A regimen that administered the first dose of sodium phosphate on the previous evening and a second dose on the morning of the procedure (10-12 hours apart) was significantly more effective than PEG-based regimens for colorectal cleansing in preparation for colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy or colorectal surgery. A regimen that administered both doses of oral sodium phosphate on the day prior to the procedure offered no colorectal cleansing advantage over PEG-based regimens and was significantly less effective than an oral sodium phosphate solution regimen that administered one dose on the previous evening and a second dose on the morning of the procedure. Oral sodium phosphate solution was generally as effective as other colorectal cleansing solutions (including magnesium citrate-containing regimens with sodium picosulfate). The direct costs of a diagnostic colonic examination with oral sodium phosphate solution were less than those with PEG (US465 dollars vs US503 dollars per patient; 1995 values), according to data from a US study. Oral sodium phosphate solution was significantly more effective than a commercially available tablet formulation as a colorectal cleanser prior to colonoscopy (data from one study only). Tolerability: Oral sodium phosphate solution administered as two 45 mL doses (generally 10-12 hours apart) was well tolerated in well designed trials in which adults with major comorbid conditions were excluded. Sodium phosphate-associated adverse events were mostly gastrointestinal (including abdominal pain/cramping, abdominal fullness and/or bloating, anal or perianal irritation or soreness, nausea, vomiting or hunger pains), although dizziness, weakness/fatigue, thirst, chest pain, chills, headache and sleep loss were also reported. Faecal incontinence was commonly reported in the elderly. Three doses (administered 10 minutes apart) of 15 mL of oral sodium phosphate solution, each diluted in 250 mL of clear fluid was associated with less vomiting than one 45 mL dose of the solution diluted in 250 mL of clear fluid (data from one study). In patients without major comorbid conditions, oral sodium phosphate has been associated with transient and clinically inconsequential changes in intravascular volume and electrolyte disturbances. Serious electrolyte disturbances have been associated with oral sodium phosphate administration in patients in whom sodium phosphate is contraindicated or should be use with caution (the elderly and those with bowel obstructions, small intestinal disorders, poor gut motilderly and those with bowel obstructions, small intestinal disorders, poor gut motility, renal insufficiency, cardiovascular disease or taking concomitant medication) or in patients ingesting more than the recommended dosage. Changes in the colonic mucosa have been reported in patients treated with oral sodium phosphate solution; however, the exact role of this agent in the appearance of these changes has not been fully clarified. The tolerability profile of oral sodium phosphate solution was similar to, or significantly better than, that of PEG or other colorectal cleansing regimens. Oral sodium phosphate solution was generally significantly more acceptable than PEG or other colorectal cleansing regimens. Oral sodium phosphate solution had similar tolerability, but was considered to be more acceptable than commercially available oral sodium phosphate tablets prior to colonoscopy (data from one study).
Cheng J, Tao K, Shuai X, Gao J. Sodium phosphate versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy bowel preparation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc. 2016 Sep;30(9):4033-41. doi: 10.1007/s00464-015-4716-6.
Abstract. Background: Adequate bowel cleansing is of great importance for a high-quality colonoscopy examination. Nevertheless, whether sodium phosphate or polyethylene glycol is a gold standard agent for bowel preparation is still under debate. In consideration of the clinical needs, we thus performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials concerning the comparison between both regimens. The efficacy, safety and acceptability of each regimen are major indicators to measure and appraise. Methods: By searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases, 15 original trials published from 2000 to 2014 were included as eligible studies. We carried out data extraction and subsequent pooling analysis for each indicator in a standard manner. Sensitivity analysis was performed by elimination of low-quality trials, while a funnel plot and Egger's test were employed to analyze the publication bias across studies. Results: Our pooling analysis revealed that patients undergoing sodium phosphate as a cleansing agent displayed better acceptability, compliance, cleansing scores, preparation taste, polyp detection rate and less adverse effects including nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain (P < 0.05). In terms of procedure time, adequate preparation rate and electrolyte concentration, there was no significant difference between both regimens (P > 0.05). The pooling analysis offered stable conclusions which were verified by our sensitivity analysis. There was no publication bias across studies as a symmetric funnel plot was demonstrated and the result of Egger's test was P = 0.56. Conclusions: Regarding preparation efficacy, safety and acceptability, sodium phosphate was a better agent than polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy bowel cleansing, with its advantages of higher efficacy, better tolerability and acceptability as well as comparable safety.
Hoffmanová I, Kraml P, Anděl M. Renal risk associated with sodium phosphate medication: safe in healthy individuals, potentially dangerous in others. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2015 Jul;14(7):1097-110. doi: 10.1517/14740338.2015.1044970.
Abstract. Introduction: Sodium phosphate purgatives are used for bowel preparation before endoscopic or radiologic examination and occasionally for treatment of severe obstipation. Generally, they are well tolerated and effective; however, safety concerns exist regarding serious renal injury and electrolyte disturbances after administration of these drugs. Areas covered: The review presents complications associated with the use of agents containing sodium phosphate with regard to electrolyte disorders and renal impairment, namely acute phosphate nephropathy (APhN). This paper discusses the pathophysiology, histopathological findings, clinical symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of APhN. Additionally, it examines the epidemiology of adverse renal events and the safety of using sodium phosphate preparations prior to colonoscopy. Expert opinion: Because of safety concerns, sodium phosphate purgatives are not recommended for routine bowel cleansing. Despite some serious and even fatal adverse events associated with these drugs when used with at-risk patients, available data suggest that administration of sodium phosphate purgatives is relatively safe in nonrisk individuals(i.e., in adequately hydrated, otherwise healthy adults, younger than 55 years with evidence of normal renal function).