Contact Us
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
© 2025 Jeifer Pharmaceutical, All Right
Reserved.
Methacrylic acid derivatives have played a key role in pharmaceutical coating technology since researchers saw the need to control drug delivery timing and location inside the body. Early enteric coatings, relying on basic cellulose and shellac, proved unreliable. The push for more consistent, pH-sensitive release led to copolymers like ethyl acrylate and methacrylic acid. By the late 20th century, major suppliers focused on polymerizing these monomers, bypassing earlier solvent-based risks, and pivoting toward water-based dispersions. Regulatory bodies eventually codified these copolymers in pharmacopeias such as BP, EP, and USP, reflecting a worldwide move to rigorous standards for both manufacturing and quality control. As someone who has handled formulation projects in a GMP facility, I’ve seen how these developments cut risk and improved batch consistency—key for regulatory approval and patient safety.
This polymer blend acts as the backbone of many delayed or enteric drug coatings. In its aqueous dispersion form, it gives formulators a compact, safe, and reliable material. Brands such as Eudragit and Kollicoat MAE are household names in pharmaceutical development labs across the world. The BP, EP, and USP grades signal it has passed through strict compositional and safety gates. Usually, these dispersions turn up as milky-white, odorless liquids, and the industry recognizes them by various synonyms—including Methacrylic Acid Copolymer Type C, Eudragit L30 D-55, and similar brand extensions. Each batch ships with lot-specific certificates, and labeling always points to the respective pharmacopeial monograph so manufacturers can cross-check every parameter.
A typical copolymer dispersion contains about 30% polymer solids in purified water, sometimes with sodium lauryl sulfate or polysorbate 80 for stability. The polymer’s molecular weight sits in the low hundreds of kilodaltons. Industry experts look closely at glass transition temperature (around 50°C), pKa (roughly 5.5), and film-forming properties. Its aqueous nature minimizes volatile organic compound exposure compared to classic solvent-based coatings. The finished film resists breakdown until it meets pH levels above 5.5, making it a reliable shield against stomach acid. I remember running simple wet-mass loss tests after curing—water resistance holds up well, and polymer films rarely crack or turn brittle under routine heat cycling.
Certifiers like the USP and EP list clear benchmarks: solid content must not drift, viscosity tested at low and moderate shear stays inside narrow ranges, and monomer residues (especially methyl methacrylate and ethyl acrylate) fall well below toxic thresholds. Heavy metal content—especially lead, cadmium, and arsenic—faces sharp limits, with cumulative levels measured in parts per billion. Labels reflect grade, percent solids, batch number, storage instructions, shelf life, and even the type of surfactant used. During audits, inspectors spend a lot of time back-tracing each label through the site’s material ledger, helping close the loop on product stewardship.
The industry usually relies on emulsion polymerization for efficient and reproducible synthesis. Water, monomers, surfactants, and initiators mix under agitation, with temperature ramps controlling the process. Particle size distribution matters—if polymer particles get too large, dispersion stability fails and the product settles or gels. Finished batches pass through filtration and quality checks before transfer to sterile or dust-free containers. Research facilities I’ve worked with sometimes swap surfactants to control viscosity or to ensure compatibility with sensitive actives, yet the backbone process remains largely unchanged across different suppliers and continents.
Methacrylic acid and ethyl acrylate copolymers can be tweaked through post-polymerization modifications. Standard grades resist hydrolysis under neutral conditions, but acid or base catalysis may break down the backbone into monomeric acids or small oligomers. Crosslinking adjustments—whether during production or blending—alter resilience, flexibility, and disintegration time. Addition of plasticizers like triethyl citrate modifies film softness, crucial for vulnerable tablet cores. I recall a project where minor switch-ups in the acid/ester ratio produced measurable changes in release profiles, demonstrating how fine-tuning synthesis translates directly to clinical outcomes. Some advanced projects even attach bioactive ligands to the polymer chain, opening the door to targetable coatings or triggered release profiles.
Brand recognition shapes much of the conversation among pharmaceutical buyers. Eudragit L30 D-55, Kollicoat MAE 30 DP, and Acryl-EZE EC represent the main global players, though generics and regional brands abound. Regulatory catalogs list synonyms such as Methacrylic Acid Copolymer Type C, MAE 30, and sometimes just “enteric aqueous copolymer.” In the supply chain, accurate synonym mapping helps head off critical communication failures, especially in multinational projects where procurement and regulatory teams track slightly different naming conventions.
Aqueous polymer dispersions replace many of the health and flammability risks found in solvent-based alternatives, but they still demand full PPE. Inhalation and skin contact remain minor concerns due to the presence of unreacted monomers and surfactants. Safety data sheets mandate splash-resistant goggles and gloves during handling, and workspaces need good ventilation. Fire risk drops considerably compared to historical coatings, making them friendlier for large-scale fluid-bed coating lines and pan coaters. Regulatory audits dig deep into trace chemical safety, with particular scrutiny for residual methyl methacrylate, which can irritate eyes and skin and act as a weak sensitizer. Most plants operate under cGMP or ISO-based quality systems, which spell out routine equipment cleaning, cross-contamination controls, and frequent staff training to keep safety at the forefront.
Methacrylic acid ethyl acrylate copolymer aqueous dispersions dominate drug delivery systems targeting intestinal, not gastric, release. Products using these dispersions avoid premature drug breakdown in stomach acid and minimize gastric irritation. They show up most often on acid-labile actives like omeprazole, mesalazine, and certain antibiotics. Beyond solid dosage coatings, some producers investigate their use for taste-masking, pellet bead application, multiparticulate sachets, and even microencapsulation. Decades of data back these uses, and I have seen major firms scale from pilot to commercial runs without surprise regulatory hiccups—attesting to their reliability under pressure. Expansion in veterinary and nutraceutical fields continues at a steady pace as well.
Current research trends look beyond simple enteric coatings, diving into smart drug delivery. Teams study how ionic crosslinkers or embedded nanoparticles in the polymer layer might allow for stimuli-responsive release, targeting areas of local inflammation or infection. Work also probes whether environmental triggers—temperature, enzyme presence, mechanical abrasion—could prompt polymer breakdown in finely controlled fashion. Publications out of university pharmaceuticals departments focus on new copolymer blends and bioadhesive modifications. As a former member of a formulation methods lab, I’ve watched university–industry partnerships tackle scalability challenges, yielding pilot-ready processes faster than previous decades. These collaborations often push suppliers to supply ever-tighter grade specifications, especially for highly potent or narrow-therapeutic-range drugs.
Methacrylic acid ethyl acrylate copolymer dispersions possess extensive nonclinical safety data, accumulated over years of repeat-dose toxicity, teratogenicity, and mutagenicity studies. Both FDA and EMA have historically flagged concern over residual unreacted monomers, but studies show oral ingestion at pharmaceutical use levels leads to low absorption and rapid excretion. Chronic dosing panels in rats and dogs—standard in regulatory toxicology—fail to flag acute toxicity or carcinogenic potential. Human patch testing occasionally highlights local irritation, yet reports of systemic toxicity from final-dose pharmaceuticals are virtually absent from global pharmacovigilance databases. Lately the research angle has shifted to environmental toxicity; regulatory trends point to more pressure on suppliers to further minimize aqueous waste, though the product itself does not bioaccumulate or act as a persistent pollutant.
Industry watchers expect further innovation in the area of functional polymers. Regulatory appetite for improved patient adherence, combined with expanding demand for complex, multi-release dosage forms, will drive research funding into novel syntheses and modifications. As more biologics and peptide drugs hit the market, new grades boasting improved film flexibility, permeability modulation, and compatibility with sensitive actives are in the works. Automation and digital QA systems now support precise control of batch-to-batch product, closing the gap between lab development and commercial scale-up. Companies investing in greener processes—cutting surfactant levels, reducing energy use during synthesis, and designing closed-loop water systems—stand to capitalize on tightening regulatory and consumer expectations. Looking ahead, the same practical, empirical approach that brought this copolymer to pharmaceutical prominence remains the best bet for moving technology forward while upholding high safety, quality, and sustainability standards.
Pharmacists and formulation scientists often reach for Methacrylic Acid Ethyl Acrylate Copolymer Aqueous Dispersion when tackling tough drug delivery problems. This copolymer, recognized under strict regulatory monographs like BP, EP, and USP pharma grades, shows up in a surprising range of medications—not because it sounds technical, but because it delivers real results for patients and manufacturers alike.
The main draw of this copolymer is its acid-resistant nature. Swallow a tablet coated with this material, and it will hold off on releasing its ingredients until it reaches the less acidic environment of the intestine. This means fewer stomach upsets for drugs that irritate. And for medicine that breaks down quickly in gastric acid, this layer buys it much-needed time, keeping it stable until it hits the right spot.
I’ve handled various tablet coatings on the production floor. Some clog up spray guns or gum up machinery, but this copolymer goes on smooth in aqueous dispersions, cutting down processing problems. Its water-based system stays friendly to sensitive active ingredients—no harsh solvents needed. Manufacturing sees fewer headaches. Patients see consistent results, pill to pill.
Taste and odor rank high among the fastest ways a patient rejects medicine. I’ve watched parents struggle to convince kids to take a truly bitter antibiotic. This copolymer acts like an invisible lid—covering up harsh flavors until the tablet reaches the intestine, making life easier for everyone on both sides of the pharmacy counter.
Methacrylic Acid Ethyl Acrylate Copolymer really shines when you need to fine-tune where and when a drug works inside the body. For example, one team I worked with developed colon-targeted therapies for inflammatory diseases. Standard coatings would flake or dissolve too soon. Using this polymer, the release profile shifted right into the part of the gut that’s hardest to reach. Absorption improved, side effects went down, and adherence picked up as folks felt the difference.
Drug makers depend on consistency. Variations in coating can spell trouble—sometimes as little as one batch that doesn’t dissolve at the right pH could prompt recalls. The recognized grades of this copolymer, with tight regulatory oversight, support quality testing and traceability. Blister packs sit in trucks, bake in hot climates, and rattle in purses. A robust, stable coating is the difference between a drug that works as promised and one that fails under real-world conditions.
Production methods keep advancing; I’ve seen spray systems and granulation technology evolve to pair with better polymers. Still, the core needs remain unchanged—safe deliveries, reliable performance, less waste. Research teams continue to tweak the chemical backbone of these copolymers for more precise targeting and easier processing, but even today, the current forms help solve some of the thorniest drug delivery puzzles.
At the end of the day, Methacrylic Acid Ethyl Acrylate Copolymer isn’t just a mouthful of chemistry. It represents a practical bridge between scientific progress and real patient outcomes. Every improvement in tablet coating ripples outward—lowering side effects, boosting compliance, and helping people get the full value of modern pharmaceuticals.
Many folks working with copolymer dispersions ask, “What’s the normal concentration?” It’s a fair question, because the solid content touches everything from processing to performance. Across most water-based copolymer dispersions seen in adhesives, coatings, or paints, the solid content usually lands between 45% and 55%. Some grades reach up to 60% solids, but a jump to that zone often brings sticky problems—higher viscosity, trouble handling, and tricky application.
Raising solid content can sound like a way to squeeze out more value, especially since less water means lower shipping weight and quicker drying. Yet, run the concentration up too high and the product starts getting hard to pump, can gum up filters, and might even lose the easy flow that users rely on during production. Solids closer to 50% mark a sweet spot for most folks on the factory floor. You get decent film build, manageable storage, and you don’t have to fight clogged pipes or pumps.
Look at the workflow. Whether it's a flooring adhesive or a low-VOC wall paint, if the solid content is too thin, workers find themselves needing several coats or thick, slow-drying films. On the other hand, if it’s overly concentrated, pouring or spraying turns into a wrestling match. In my own experience with waterborne construction adhesives, anything beyond 55% solids ramped up tank cleaning time and led to breakouts where the material started to set up inside valves.
Quality checks often focus on making sure the emulsion remains stable across temperature shifts. At higher solids, dispersions get testier if exposed to freeze-thaw cycles in warehouse storage. Once this stability is out of balance, end users see inconsistent results, wasted material, and lost time troubleshooting.
Many leading manufacturers post product data sheets showing solid content between 45% and 55%. A well-cited industry reference, Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, lists a typical range for acrylic and styrene-acrylic emulsions—spanning from 40% to 55%, with most commercial formulations clustering near 50%. Vinyl acetate dispersions, often used in wood glues, tend to mirror these numbers.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s reviews on architectural coatings highlight 50% solids as a driver for lower VOC emissions and improved application. Go past 60%, and most plants in the U.S. and Europe start reporting higher rates of equipment fouling and customer complaints, a trend backed by published surveys and manufacturing audits.
Getting reliable results requires more than aiming at a number. Whether you’re in R&D or production, tight quality control on the solids content pays off across the board. Handheld solids analyzers give instant readings and catch drift before it takes down whole batches. Teams doing batch-up adjustments often set their own “house standards,” tweaking with water or co-solvents to hit flow targets. Partnering with suppliers willing to run pilot-scale samples ensures surprises stay out of the plant.
In sum, solid content in copolymer dispersions isn’t just a technical detail—it turns up in everything from how materials move in the plant to how a finished job looks and lasts. Hitting the right concentration not only keeps equipment running smoother but saves money and frustration on the job site. Industry evidence and first-hand experience both keep pointing toward that reliable 45% to 55% range, and for good reason.
A product labeled as compliant with BP (British Pharmacopoeia), EP (European Pharmacopoeia), and USP (United States Pharmacopeia) carries a big promise. It’s not just a badge—it signals to regulators, pharmacists, and patients that what’s inside the container matches a published gold standard. This touches on everything from how pure the material is to what impurities show up in lab results.
My work with quality teams in pharmaceutical environments has taught me that compliance isn’t just about ticking boxes. These pharmacopeias create detailed monographs—a set of rules—for substances used in making medicines. Each monograph spells out identity, purity, strength, and allowable limits for things like heavy metals, residual solvents, and microbiological contamination.
Put simply, mistakes can cause real harm. In some cases, unsafe batches have made it past weak supply chains, leading to recalls or adverse reactions. In the world of pharmaceuticals, nearly every country checks imports against national or recognized pharmacopeias. Regulatory authorities—like the US FDA or the UK’s MHRA—expect ironclad documentation, and they do not shy away from surprise audits.
Actual compliance runs deeper than a single line on a certificate. Manufacturers need rigorous, traceable records from raw materials, through production, to packaging. Analytical test results should be available for independent review. I’ve seen facilities shut down for skipping steps in this chain, even when products looked fine on the surface.
A genuine Certificate of Analysis does much more than list “BP/EP/USP Compliant.” Detailed references link batch numbers to test results. Each number ties back to validated analytical methods—chromatography reports, infrared spectra, titration data. During audits, I learned not to accept summaries but instead to ask for original chromatograms and spectroscopic data, with signatures and calibration logs.
Testing for BP, EP, and USP compliance often asks more than one question about quality. Not only does the product need to pass chemical identity, but also meet strict standards on content uniformity, dissolution, and sometimes even particle size, depending on the monograph. Even if two books list similar criteria, small differences in limit values may exist. Suppliers must check for changes in standards yearly since pharmacopoeias get revised as science progresses.
Sometimes, suppliers slap “Complies with BP/EP/USP” on their products without running the full battery of required tests. I’ve encountered cases where manufacturers assumed USP acceptance meant automatic BP or EP approval. This just isn’t true—each pharmacopeia may require additional tests or set different thresholds for impurities. Companies get caught out when an inspector requests proof for a specific region, only to find gaps in their data.
Those in charge of procurement have a responsibility to double-check claims. My advice? Always request full test reports and match them directly to current monographs. For new suppliers, site audits can reveal underlying practices that paperwork sometimes hides. A compliance mindset doesn’t come from slogans; it grows from a culture of transparency, detailed recordkeeping, and regular third-party verification.
True compliance protects patients, brand reputation, and public health. Relying on three-letters stamped on a label invites risk. Companies that invest in strong quality systems, keep up with regulatory changes, and work with accredited labs stand out, not just to auditors, but to healthcare professionals who depend on them every day. This attention to detail is what separates reliable partners from those who simply meet the lowest bar.
Aqueous dispersions show up just about everywhere—paints, coatings, adhesives, cosmetics, even food processing. Many folks outside the lab don’t think much about what happens to these materials after they leave manufacturing, but one mistake in storage can send product quality into a nosedive and spark safety headaches. I remember watching a batch of water-based latex lose half its life in a warehouse that didn’t respect temperature swings—watching costs and effort go straight down the drain. Keeping things simple and sticking to tried-and-true methods keeps the value high for everyone down the line.
Most water-based dispersions perform best between 5°C and 30°C (about 41°F to 86°F). Straying far from this range invites trouble. Cold snaps can bring on thickening, even ice crystals, and that never mixes back in cleanly. A warm storage space speeds up bacterial growth and can kick off both foul odors and chemical breakdown. Sudden temperature shifts? That can mean clumped particles and separation. Simple solutions work: a climate-controlled space, or at least a solid buffer from hot sun and winter chill, can be worth its weight in gold. Data from materials science journals suggests that even a few degrees in the wrong direction can shorten product lifespan by 20% or more.
Any time air gets in, so can microbes and dust. Even small mistakes—forgetting to screw a lid back tight or neglecting those tiny cracks around a drum bung—can start a chain reaction. I’ve seen entire batches sour from a single weekend of lazy sealing. Any contact with copper, iron, or rusted steel speeds up the breakdown even more, leading to color changes and gunky deposits. Taking a few seconds to check seals and use clean, corrosion-free tools keeps the whole process more predictable and saves on clean-up later. Smart companies use dedicated tools for every type of dispersion, and keep lids closed at all times except during dosing.
Long-term storage often means some particles settle out. People try to cheat this by shaking or using whatever stick is around, but rough mixing only adds bubbles and sometimes damages the particles you want to preserve. Gentle, regular agitation works best. For bulk storage, slow paddle mixers or rolling drums provide enough motion without turning the barrel into a froth machine. Automation helps, but even a checklist reminder for a weekly stir can mean a big difference in product quality at point-of-use.
Proper labeling isn’t just about compliance—it’s a frontline defense against mix-ups. Every time someone relabels or “just borrows” a container, tracking gets tougher. I’ve seen plant workers stay ahead by dating every drum after each use and keeping records by the door. If something starts looking off-color, smelling odd, or forming films across the top, set it aside. Don’t risk mixing tainted batches with fresh ones. For high-value or sensitive dispersions, installing simple monitors for temperature and pH pays off, with alerts sent to a manager’s phone before a situation gets bad.
Fixing storage problems doesn’t always require fancy equipment. Staff training, good housekeeping, and open lines from the warehouse to the lab can do more than high-priced gadgets. Teams should run drills every year, practicing what to do if spills or contaminations pop up. Feedback from those handling products daily can help catch overlooked hazards or process gaps. Over the years, the most reliable sites I visited relied less on procedures pinned to walls and more on a crew that actually understood why these steps matter—and had the tools on hand to take care of business without shortcuts.
Drug development demands more than coming up with a compound that works. Medicine needs to hold together over time, stay safe for patients, and remain effective from the first dose to the last. In any tablet or capsule, excipients serve more than a background role—they help shape how the active agent performs. If these “supporting actors” react with the API, the whole project stumbles.
Common problems usually involve chemical reactions or physical changes. Water-loving carriers might pull moisture into the mix and spark hydrolysis. Lactose, a favorite filler, can react with amine drugs, leading to color changes and reduced strength thanks to Maillard reactions. Magnesium stearate can turn a stable powder into a sticky mess if the wrong agent tags along. Heat, light, and pH swings can make matters worse.
Industry teams don’t gamble when mixing ingredients—each combination goes through stress tests before hitting the market. Studies have shown that certain excipients, such as microcrystalline cellulose, play nice with most APIs, while sorbitol and other sugars may not. Accelerated studies under heat and humidity help spot weak links early. High-throughput screening and spectroscopy catch subtle shifts—a yellow pill when there should be white, a new impurity creeping in.
I’ve watched projects drift off course after chasing an appealing-looking carrier or sweetener. In one case, a pain medication lost half its strength after just six months on the shelf—turns out the starch used was holding moisture that kickstarted degradation. Another time, a flavoring agent seemed harmless, but testing revealed it sped up oxidation of the active agent.
Once, we relied on data sheets that looked promising, but as soon as the heat and humidity ramped up, tablets fused into unusable clumps. Storage trials revealed the truth that brochures couldn’t: paper facts don’t always survive real storage.
The FDA doesn’t only inspect recipes. They expect detailed studies showing that every ingredient, active or not, works well together. Regulators look for studies that mimic the real world—exposing drugs to shifting temperatures, light, and humidity, with reports that track possible breakdown products. Skipping these steps brings recalls, patient risks, and massive financial pain.
Market trust relies on proving these combinations won’t create toxic byproducts or weaken the drug. Companies switching suppliers or tweaking formulas run new studies even if the change seems minor. The cost up front stings less than a recall or lawsuit.
Pharma teams learn quickly to value reliable reference data and broad testing over wishful thinking. Standardized databases like ExcipientInfo help flag red flags before costly mistakes unfold. New technologies such as predictive modeling and artificial intelligence, when used by experienced scientists, pick out risky combinations faster. Collaboration between chemists, formulators, and pharmacists cuts down surprises.
Formulators do best when they lean on established partnerships and share data openly across disciplines. Keeping one eye on long-term patient safety and the other on real storage conditions beats any shortcut relying only on lab numbers or theory.
Compatibility and stability show the difference between medicine that reaches patients and ideas that end on the drawing board. Getting this right comes not from luck or shortcuts but from disciplined testing, open collaboration, and tough lessons learned through experience.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | poly(ethyl 2-methylprop-2-enoate-co-prop-2-enoic acid) |
| Other names |
Eudragit NE 30D Ethyl Acrylate-Methacrylic Acid Copolymer Ethyl Acrylate and Methacrylic Acid Copolymer Aqueous Dispersion Methacrylic Acid Copolymer - Dispersion Ethyl Acrylate Methacrylic Acid Copolymer USP |
| Pronunciation | /ˌmɛθ.əˈkrɪ.lɪk ˈæs.ɪd ˈiː.θəl əˈkrɪ.leɪt ˈkəʊ.pəˌlɪ.mər ˈeɪ.kwi.əs dɪˈspɜː.ʒən biː piː iː piː juː ɛs piː ˈfɑː.mə ɡreɪd/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 25086-15-1 |
| Beilstein Reference | 13329954 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:53406 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1209773 |
| ChemSpider | 25097347 |
| DrugBank | DB09452 |
| ECHA InfoCard | echa-info-card-100.135.616 |
| EC Number | 603-334-5 |
| Gmelin Reference | Gmelin 84068 |
| KEGG | C01197 |
| MeSH | D000398 |
| PubChem CID | 10484455 |
| RTECS number | RTECS number: **UD0180000** |
| UNII | F0A3XM7PEF |
| UN number | UN3082 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | CompTox Dashboard (EPA) identifier for "Methacrylic Acid Ethyl Acrylate Copolymer" is: **DTXSID40930716** |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | (C5H8O2)x•(C7H12O2)y |
| Molar mass | 158.17 g/mol |
| Appearance | Milky-white liquid |
| Odor | Faint characteristic odor |
| Density | 1.03 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Dispersible in water |
| log P | 2.21 |
| Acidity (pKa) | 4.5 – 5.5 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 6.6 (pKb) |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.42 - 1.47 |
| Viscosity | 80 - 300 mPa.s |
| Dipole moment | 1.88 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 224 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | A07AA21 |
| Hazards | |
| GHS labelling | GHS02, GHS07 |
| Pictograms | GHS07,GHS09 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H315: Causes skin irritation. H319: Causes serious eye irritation. H335: May cause respiratory irritation. |
| Precautionary statements | P261, P264, P280, P305+P351+P338, P337+P313, P501 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-2-0 |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 Oral Rat: >2000 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | LD50 (oral, rat): > 5000 mg/kg |
| NIOSH | NA |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL not established |
| REL (Recommended) | 35 mg/m³ |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Methacrylic Acid Ethyl Acrylate Methacrylic Acid Copolymers Poly(methacrylic acid-co-ethyl acrylate) Methacrylate Copolymer Acrylate Copolymer Eudragit L Eudragit S Acrylic Resin Polyacrylate |
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
