MODIFIED STARCH · HYDROXYPROPYL DISTARCH PHOSPHATE
E1442 / Hydroxypropyl Distarch Phosphate Technical Review
If you are sourcing E1442 modified starch, hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate or modified potato starch for a food formulation, this page helps you separate what the DM-750 and DM-754 reports actually prove from the additional documents still needed for commercial approval. The supplied records support the product name, GB 29931-2013, 25 kg/bag packaging and real batch test results, but they do not themselves print E1442 / INS 1442 or identify the botanical source of the base starch.
For a buyer, R&D team or QA manager, the practical task is not to choose a modified starch from a page title alone. Compare the exact commercial model, current TDS, proposed-batch COA, E/INS identity, botanical-source declaration and application evidence, then validate the selected grade in the actual pH, temperature, shear, freezing, storage and reheating conditions of your food process.
SOURCE BOUNDARY
What DM-750 and DM-754 prove — and what still needs verification
DM-750 and DM-754 are two documented hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate models with different reported batch values. They give a useful starting point for reviewing a modified starch supplier because the buyer can compare product identity, report limits, hydroxypropyl content, fineness, whiteness, pH, sulfur dioxide and other quality indicators instead of relying on a generic E1442 sales description.
The reports support the chemical product name, 25 kg/bag packaging, reference to GB 29931-2013 and the individual test results shown below. They do not state the botanical source of the base starch, do not directly print E1442 / INS 1442, and do not contain finished-food evidence for heat stability, shear resistance, acid resistance, freeze-thaw stability, water management or texture retention.
When your specification says E1442 modified starch or E1442 modified potato starch, treat those words as buyer approval requirements. Ask the supplier to connect the commercial grade to the regulatory identity, botanical source, current TDS and batch COA, and then compare DM-750, DM-754 or another proposed grade in your real formulation. Base approval on the documented identity and trial results for the proposed commercial grade.
If the purchase specification requires E1442 modified starch, confirm the E/INS designation in the current TDS, regulatory declaration or manufacturer document. If the requirement is specifically E1442 modified potato starch, also obtain documentary confirmation that the base starch is potato-derived.
REPORTED DATA
DM-750 and DM-754 hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate results
Choose DM-750 or DM-754 to review the most useful reported batch indicators first. Each metric card shows the tested result, the requirement shown in the report and an explanation of how the number can support supplier qualification. The complete report table remains available on demand for QA and R&D teams that need every test item.
DM-750
DM-750 · Quality report
The DM-750 report identifies hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate, model DM-750, 25 kg/bag packaging and GB 29931-2013. Its batch results include 4.2 g/100g hydroxypropyl, 94.5% passing the 80-mesh sieve, 89.9% whiteness, 4.9% loss on drying, pH 6.7 and 5.9 mg/kg sulfur dioxide. These figures are useful for batch and supplier review, but they do not by themselves prove E1442 identity, potato botanical origin or application performance.
Use this reported hydroxypropyl value to compare the DM-750 batch with the approved commercial specification; do not convert it directly into a claim about heat, shear, acid or freeze-thaw performance.
The 80-mesh passing rate supports powder-size and incoming-material review. It does not prove dispersion speed, sauce stability, noodle texture or another finished-food result.
Whiteness is a useful appearance and batch-consistency parameter for supplier qualification, but it is not a measure of functional modified-starch performance in a formulation.
Loss on drying helps QA review moisture-related batch consistency and storage handling. It should be compared with the current TDS and proposed-batch COA before shipment approval.
Reported pH helps characterize the supplied batch. It does not demonstrate that the finished food will remain stable under an acidic formulation or retort process.
Sulfur dioxide is a reportable quality and compliance parameter. Review the proposed batch against the applicable specification and destination-market requirements.
What this evidence supports
The DM-750 report supports the hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate product name, model DM-750, reference to GB 29931-2013, 25 kg/bag packaging and the individual tested values shown for that batch. It is useful evidence for incoming-material and supplier-document review.
What it does not prove
The report does not directly print E1442 / INS 1442, does not state potato or another botanical base-starch source, and does not prove heat, shear, acid, freeze-thaw, water-retention or finished-food texture performance.
Recommended buyer action
Ask for the current DM-750 commercial TDS, proposed-batch COA, E/INS regulatory identity, botanical-source declaration and relevant application data. If the formulation result matters, qualify a representative sample under your real process conditions before bulk approval.
Open complete DM-750 batch dataFull QA / R&D table on demand
The complete DM-750 table reproduces the reported limits and tested values for the supplied batch. Use it for detailed QA review, but obtain the current commercial TDS and proposed-batch COA before approving a new order.
| Parameter | Report requirement | DM-750 result |
|---|---|---|
| Loss on drying | ≤10.0% | 4.9% |
| pH | 5.5–7.5 | 6.7 |
| Spots | ≤0.50 /cm² | 0.10 /cm² |
| Whiteness | ≥89.0% | 89.9% |
| Fineness — 80 mesh pass | ≥80.0% | 94.5% |
| Residual phosphate (as P) | ≤0.04% | <0.04% |
| Hydroxypropyl | ≤7.0 g/100g | 4.2 g/100g |
| Chloropropanol | ≤1.0 mg/kg | <1.0 mg/kg |
| SO₂ residue | ≤30 mg/kg | 5.9 mg/kg |
| Total arsenic (as As) | ≤0.5 mg/kg | <0.5 mg/kg |
| Lead (Pb) | ≤1.0 mg/kg | <1.0 mg/kg |
MODEL COMPARISON
Compare DM-750 and DM-754 without turning batch differences into a quality score
Four reported indicators are visualized below so a buyer can see the main batch differences at a glance. The bars only normalize the two report values for visual comparison; they do not mean that a longer bar is better, nor do they predict application performance.
Hydroxypropyl
The supplied reports show 4.2 g/100g for DM-750 and 2.9 g/100g for DM-754. This difference should be reviewed against the exact commercial model specification and technical purpose.
Fineness — 80 mesh pass
DM-750 reports 94.5% and DM-754 reports 99.8% passing the 80-mesh sieve. Fineness is useful for physical incoming inspection but does not alone determine functional performance.
Whiteness
The reported whiteness values are close: 89.9% for DM-750 and 89.2% for DM-754. Use them as batch-appearance data rather than as a functional ranking.
Loss on drying
Loss on drying is reported as 4.9% for DM-750 and 6.6% for DM-754. Both results belong to their respective historical batches and should be compared with the current grade limits before purchase.
Visual bar length is only a normalized comparison of the two reported numbers. It is not a quality score and does not show which model will provide better heat stability, shear resistance, acid resistance, freeze-thaw stability or finished-food texture.
BUYER REVIEW
Five points that can be verified from the current evidence
Use the supplied reports as a controlled evidence set for reviewing a hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate or E1442 modified starch supplier. The five points below show what can be documented from the actual DM-750 and DM-754 records, while keeping E/INS identity, botanical source and finished-food performance as separate approval questions.
Product name is documented
Both supplied reports explicitly identify the tested material as Hydroxypropyl Distarch Phosphate and record the commercial model as DM-750 or DM-754. This gives buyers a document-supported chemical product identity, but it should not be silently extended to E1442 / INS 1442 or modified potato starch unless current supporting documents state those facts.
GB 29931-2013 is referenced
Both reports reference GB 29931-2013 within the stated quality-control framework. A buyer can use that reference when reviewing the reported test limits, while still checking which regulatory specification and market requirements apply to the actual E1442 modified starch shipment being approved.
25 kg packaging is recorded
The DM-750 and DM-754 reports both record 25 kg/bag. This is valid packaging evidence for those documented materials, but packaging alone does not prove E1442 identity, potato botanical origin, pallet configuration, container loading quantity or another order-specific logistics condition.
Batch quality values are available
The reports include loss on drying, pH, spots, whiteness, 80-mesh fineness, residual phosphate, hydroxypropyl, epichlorohydrin, SO₂, arsenic and lead. These values provide a practical batch-quality data set for QA review and supplier comparison, but should still be checked against the current TDS and proposed-batch COA.
The listed items were qualified
Both quality reports conclude that the listed test items comply with their stated requirements. That supports the quality status of the tested batches; it does not replace current commercial documents or demonstrate how DM-750 or DM-754 will perform in the buyer's sauce, frozen food, meat product, noodle, coating or bakery formulation.
BEFORE COMMERCIAL APPROVAL
What still needs confirmation for an E1442 purchase
A commercial purchase described as E1442 modified starch, hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate or E1442 modified potato starch should be approved as a chain of evidence rather than as a name match. The buyer needs to connect the exact model to regulatory identity, botanical source, current specification, proposed shipment batch and application requirements before the material is added to an approved-supplier list.
For a controlled B2B purchase, connect the search term E1442 modified starch to the exact commercial model you will receive. The approval file should show regulatory identity, botanical source, current TDS, proposed-batch COA, packaging, shelf-life or storage information where applicable, and application evidence relevant to the customer's process.
Technical Specifications →- Obtain a current TDS or regulatory declaration that explicitly states E1442 / INS 1442 if that designation is required by the purchase specification.
- If the specification requires modified potato starch, obtain documentary confirmation of the botanical/base-starch source.
- Request the current batch COA and compare it with the approved commercial specification rather than using these historical batch results as permanent limits.
- Request grade-specific technical evidence for any claimed heat, shear, acid, freeze-thaw, texture or water-management performance.
- Run a controlled application trial in the buyer’s actual formulation before bulk approval when finished-food performance is formulation-sensitive.
E1442 BUYER FAQ
Hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate questions for technical and procurement review
Page-specific answers covering E1442 terminology, DM-750 and DM-754 batch data, modified potato starch verification, TDS, COA and application testing.
01Do the DM-750 and DM-754 reports prove that these products are E1442 modified starch?+
The supplied DM-750 and DM-754 reports prove that the tested products are identified as hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate and that GB 29931-2013 is used for the listed quality requirements, but the report pages themselves do not print the E1442 or INS 1442 designation. A buyer sourcing E1442 modified starch should therefore request the current TDS, regulatory declaration or manufacturer document that explicitly confirms the required E/INS identity. The existing reports remain useful batch-quality evidence, but the E1442 designation should be verified separately rather than inferred only from the chemical product name.
02Can DM-750 or DM-754 be described as E1442 modified potato starch from the current reports alone?+
Not from the supplied reports alone. The current DM-750 and DM-754 documents identify hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate, but they do not state the botanical source of the base starch. If a buyer specifically requires E1442 modified potato starch, the supplier should provide both current E1442 identity documentation and a botanical or base-starch declaration confirming potato origin. This distinction matters for food manufacturers whose approved specification, labeling review or supplier qualification separates potato starch from corn, tapioca or other starch sources.
03What batch data are available for DM-750 when reviewing an E1442 modified starch supplier?+
The DM-750 report records 4.9% drying loss, pH 6.7, 0.10 spots/cm², 89.9% whiteness, 94.5% 80-mesh passing rate, residual phosphate below 0.04%, hydroxypropyl content of 4.2 g/100g, epichlorohydrin below 1.0 mg/kg, sulfur dioxide of 5.9 mg/kg, total arsenic below 0.5 mg/kg and lead below 1.0 mg/kg. These are useful reported batch values when comparing an E1442 modified starch supplier, but they should not be treated as permanent guaranteed specifications. Check the current TDS and proposed-batch COA for the actual order.
04How does the DM-754 hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate batch compare with DM-750?+
The DM-754 report uses the same listed requirement framework but records different batch results: 6.6% drying loss, pH 6.5, 0.10 spots/cm², 89.2% whiteness, 99.8% 80-mesh passing rate, residual phosphate below 0.04%, hydroxypropyl content of 2.9 g/100g, epichlorohydrin below 1.0 mg/kg, sulfur dioxide of 5.6 mg/kg, total arsenic below 0.5 mg/kg and lead below 1.0 mg/kg. A buyer reviewing E1442 modified starch should treat these as model/batch differences and ask for the current commercial TDS before assuming that either model has a specific application advantage.
05Does E1442 hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate automatically prove heat, shear, acid or freeze-thaw stability?+
No application-performance claim should be assumed only from the term E1442 or hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate. The supplied reports provide product identity and quality-test information, but they do not include a finished-food study proving heat stability, shear resistance, acid resistance, freeze-thaw stability, water binding, texture retention or another formulation result. A food manufacturer evaluating E1442 modified starch should request grade-specific technical evidence and then test the candidate under the actual pH, temperature, shear, freezing, storage and reheating conditions of the intended product.
06Which TDS and COA documents should a buyer request before ordering E1442 modified starch?+
Before a bulk E1442 modified starch purchase, request the current TDS, the COA for the proposed batch, exact commercial model or grade, applicable E/INS or regulatory identity, botanical/base-starch declaration, packaging specification, storage or shelf-life information where applicable and any application data relevant to the food process. If the purchase specification says E1442 modified potato starch, the documents should explicitly support both the E1442 identity and potato-starch origin. Compare the proposed batch COA with the approved TDS instead of using only the historical DM-750 or DM-754 results shown on this page.
07Should a food manufacturer test DM-750 or DM-754 before a bulk E1442 modified starch purchase?+
Yes, when the project depends on processing or finished-product performance, a representative DM-750, DM-754 or other proposed E1442 modified starch grade should be tested before bulk approval. Keep the base formula, starch dosage and process conditions controlled, and measure the criteria relevant to the product, such as viscosity, texture, appearance, water separation, processing behavior or storage performance. Link the approved sample to the exact commercial model, current TDS and batch COA so the tested material can be traced to the intended supply. This is more reliable than approving modified starch from an E1442 name alone.
DOCUMENT-LED SOURCING
Request the current hydroxypropyl distarch phosphate documents before approval
Share the required E/INS identity, whether potato botanical origin is mandatory, the target food application, process conditions and expected purchase quantity. We can then organize the relevant TDS, proposed-batch COA, packaging information and sample review so your technical team can compare DM-750, DM-754 or another proposed modified starch grade against a defined approval checklist before commercial discussion.
For a faster technical review, include the target product type, whether potato botanical origin is mandatory, required E/INS identity, pH and temperature range, shear or pumping conditions, freezing or storage profile, current starch specification and expected purchase quantity. That information makes it easier to compare DM-750, DM-754 or another proposed modified starch grade on evidence rather than on a product name alone.
Modified starch: sourced for supply; available types confirmed per order
Next: confirm specifications and trial requirements
- Describe the food, dosage, heating, shear, pH and storage conditions.
- Confirm the exact type, specification version and viscosity method; batch data does not represent every grade.
- Confirm manufacturer, packaging, delivery plan and applicable batch documents.
Specify the grade and application so document availability, samples, packaging and delivery can be confirmed.