Contact Us
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
© 2025 Jeifer Pharmaceutical, All Right
Reserved.
The road to producing pharmaceutical-grade polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) saw its first major turn in the early 20th century, right around the time when chemists were vying for new transparent plastics. The earliest patents for PMMA appeared in Germany in the 1920s, with Otto Röhm pushing the material into commercial use by the early 1930s. Back then, nobody could have guessed how this glass-like polymer, resins first branded under trade names like Plexiglass and Perspex, would turn up in so many corners of modern healthcare. Past generations looked at PMMA as an alternative to glass; surgeons grabbed it for bone cement, and dentists shaped it into dentures. That right there marked the start of its slow but relentless march into pharmaceutical manufacturing. Over the years, the pharma industry hammered out more rigorous standards, and regulatory bodies like the British and European Pharmacopoeias, along with the United States Pharmacopeia, responded with solid benchmarks for purity, consistency, and biocompatibility. Now, when pharma labs ask for PMMA, they mean a grade tailored for patient safety and ultra-clean processing—not the stuff going into car headlights or storefront windows.
PMMA in its BP, EP, and USP pharma grades stands apart from industrial grades thanks to strict control over every trace of impurity and the demand for a consistent particle size. These beads or powders typically end up forming coatings over pharmaceutical tablets, building up into sustained-release matrices, or acting as key ingredients in bone cements. In my experience working with tablet formulations, PMMA helps tablets survive stomach acids, only breaking down further along the intestine. That sort of selective, pH-dependent solubility means better protection for active medications and improved patient outcomes. Unlike lower purity plastics, pharma-grade PMMA rejects contaminants and coloring agents, minimizing risks every step from production to patient use.
Chemically, PMMA consists of long chains of methyl methacrylate units, turning into clear, solid thermoplastics known for their fine balance of robustness and light transmission. It melts just above 160 °C and resists breakage far better than glass. In practical terms, that provides stability even after years in storage. PMMA repels water, resists many common chemicals, and holds up against UV light—attributes that pay off in both sterile packaging and drug delivery systems exposed to tough conditions. This is a polymer that lets light in, keeps contaminants out, and stands up to mechanical stress. Whether molded for contact lenses or pressed into coating powders, it maintains the same clarity and strength every time.
Regulators demand precise specifications for PMMA labeled under BP, EP, or USP pharma grades. Every batch needs a detailed certificate of analysis reporting purity, residual monomer content, particle size distribution, and limits on heavy metals. If you’ve ever seen a PMMA pharma label, you know the listings don’t stop there—viscosity in standard solvents, glass transition temperature, and average molecular weight end up right beside pellet or powder form. Labeling never glosses over production dates, manufacturer code, and batch numbers since traceability underpins pharmaceutical safety. Compared to industrial supply chains, pharma PMMA batches move under heavier regulatory scrutiny; one misstep in labeling might trigger a recall or regulatory investigation, so documentation trails grow long and thorough.
Polymerizing methyl methacrylate monomers into pharma-grade PMMA takes precision. The process kicks off by introducing a free-radical initiator, usually under nitrogen gas, to keep the mix oxygen-free and sidestep unwanted byproducts. Reaction conditions—temperature, solvent choice, initiator concentration—determine the resulting polymer’s properties, so tight process controls replace shortcuts. Once the reaction concludes, purification steps pull out unreacted monomer, residual catalyst, and stray fragments, often through extraction and repeated washing. Drying, milling, and sieving bring the product to the particle size specs demanded by formulators. Only after exhaustive purity testing do these high-grade beads or powders head out for packaging. Skipping even one cleanup stage can send monomer content above permissible limits, risking toxicity and regulatory fallout. Labs document every step, keeping their process transparent for future audits and process validation.
PMMA molecules stand resilient but not totally inert. In pharma formulation, chemists often tweak PMMA’s surface or blend modifiers into the mix. By grafting hydrophilic groups onto chains, formulators can program PMMA to break down or swell under specific pH conditions, something I’ve seen deployed in enteric coatings. Copolymerization brings in other monomers like butyl methacrylate or itaconic acid when elasticity or different solubility is desirable. These tweaks open up drug release profiles that target absorption in different sections of the gut or tweak the mechanical grip in biomedical adhesives. Under high-energy UV or gamma irradiation, side chains can cross-link or degrade, so every processing step in pharma settings sidesteps harsh conditions that could affect product stability. The room for chemical modification, combined with the proven backbone of PMMA, makes it a reliable canvas for modern pharmaceutical innovation.
Across the globe, PMMA shows up under many names: Plexiglass, Acrylite, Lucite, and Perspex top the list for industrial and medical-use plastics. In pharma-grade manufacturing, terms like “methacrylate copolymer,” “methyl methacrylate polymer,” and more technical code numbers—many laid out in pharmacopoeial monographs—often show up on documentation. In regulatory filings and patent applications, the chemical name might share space with brand trademarks, but any supplier selling into regulated healthcare must stick closely to approved nomenclature and grades. The jumble of names can confuse procurement teams, so clear technical communication and certificate verification become daily realities in pharma supply chains.
Manufacturing, handling, and formulating PMMA in pharmaceutical environments brings strict requirements for ventilation, protective equipment, and waste containment. Serious risks show up most during polymerization, especially if methyl methacrylate monomer drifts above exposure limits. Industrial safety researchers have traced respiratory irritation and skin sensitization back to the liquid monomer, prompting tight engineering controls in production lines. For finished PMMA, the risk drops dramatically, yet good practice keeps dust exposures in check during milling and sieving. Facilities follow cleaning and sterilization regimes to prevent microbial contamination, building in batch segregation protocols for full traceability. Employees who mix PMMA for in vivo applications train in cleanroom gowning, spill management, and emergency decontamination. Regulatory audits often target environmental discharge and hazardous waste handling, pushing companies to upgrade emissions controls and invest in closed-loop recycling where possible.
No other polymer covers such ground in healthcare as PMMA. It lines up as a pharmaceutical tablet coating, churning out controlled- and sustained-release profiles that keep blood drug levels within safe, effective zones. Dentists and surgeons rely on PMMA’s acrylic resins for dentures, dental fillings, bone cements, intraocular lenses, and cranial implants. Ophthalmology clinics use pure PMMA for hard contact lenses—its clarity brings high optical performance, and its biostability resists the body’s attempts to break it down. Drug developers often turn to PMMA’s enteric versions for delayed-release formulations, skipping breakdown in the acidic stomach and only dissolving in the gentler intestine. Even outside direct patient care, PMMA forms the backbone for research tools, cell culture dishes, and labware where glass isn’t practical. That strength under harsh sterilization makes life easier for techs running repeat cycles in the lab.
Every year brings new uses for PMMA in pharma. Academic teams test nanoparticles and microspheres based on PMMA for targeted drug delivery, using surface modifications to shuttle expensive biologics or sensitive APIs directly to tumors or inflamed tissues. Combining PMMA with biodegradable polymers, researchers chase both long-acting release and bioresorption—two goals that seemed at odds a decade ago. From my years reading pharma literature, companies often publish about new PMMA-based hydrogels, which can deliver site-specific drugs to hard-to-treat disease areas like the colon. With increased demand for digital healthcare, interest in PMMA-based biosensors has also picked up—these sensors mix PMMA’s optical clarity with the electronic reactivity of embedded nanoparticles. That blend of sturdy chemistry and willingness to experiment keeps PMMA at the edge of pharmaceutical R&D.
Scientists keep a close eye on PMMA’s safety, pressured by regulatory agencies demanding proof that every new application won’t trigger cell death or immune flares. Toxicity data, collected over decades, show that finished polymer rarely migrates into tissues, especially compared with earlier generations of plastics that shed additives. Oral, dermal, and ocular toxicity tests for PMMA confirm its standing as a biocompatible material, although residual monomer—if left unchecked—causes inflammation in tissue and toxicity in animal studies. Reports from implant surgeons have flagged scattered granuloma or allergic responses in a few patients, but such cases remain rare against the millions of PMMA-containing devices used worldwide. Inhalation of fine PMMA dust, primarily an occupational hazard during production or surgery, ties to mild respiratory symptoms rather than long-term disease. Regulators fixate on impurity levels rather than the polymer itself, pushing manufacturers to spend millions every year keeping monomer and heavy metal content at safe levels.
Looking ahead, pharma-grade PMMA’s role won’t shrink anytime soon. Personalized medicine and slow-release injectables both crave materials able to stand up to biological stress and deliver repeat results over years or decades. Advances in polymer chemistry let formulators graft antibody fragments, peptide ligands, or fluorescent tags onto PMMA chains, tying drug release to disease markers or imaging signals. Sustainability trends ask producers to engineer PMMA from renewable starting materials—acrylics sourced from bio-based methanol, for example—and to trim waste by closing recycling loops. The next generation of digital-health implants could demand PMMA grades processed for both electronics compatibility and drug elution, putting new pressure on regulatory compliance and innovation. For all these ambitions, keeping PMMA formulation safe and pure remains the bedrock. Emerging research into nanostructured PMMA promises devices that can detect illness, deliver therapy, and disappear when no longer needed. Pharma-grade PMMA, with all its history behind it, keeps evolving with each discovery and regulation, ensuring a solid future as medicine pushes deeper into technology-driven care and patient-tailored therapies.
Polymethyl methacrylate, better known to folks in the pharma world as PMMA BP EP USP pharma grade, holds its ground as a tough and reliable plastic. My years in health writing have shown just how critical this material becomes, especially once you set foot in the maze of medical applications. The combination of clarity, stability, and safety checks all the boxes for pharma use, especially when patients’ well-being rides on the outcome.
Walk into any hospital and you’ll see PMMA in action. Intraocular lenses, those tiny optical devices that go inside the eye during cataract surgery, rely on PMMA’s optical clarity and biocompatibility. Surgeons trust that the material will not cloud up or warp from the heat and pressure inside the human body. This isn’t about a perfect view alone — it’s about patients seeing the world again after years of blurred vision.
Dentistry also puts PMMA to work in full swing. Denture bases and temporary crowns owe much of their strength and comfort to this resin. Unlike porcelain, which can chip and crack, PMMA-grade plastics bounce back from daily wear. Dentists and patients alike appreciate how easy it becomes to adjust and polish these appliances, offering comfort and durability in one package.
Drug delivery systems need materials that won’t leach chemicals or react with the body. PMMA answers the call here as well, acting as a sturdy carrier in implantable drug reservoirs and diagnostic devices. Manufacturers turn to pharma grade PMMA since it keeps impurities out, meeting tough regulations around patient safety. During my research visits to medical labs, engineers talked at length about strict batch testing — every run gets scrutinized for purity so that no rogue compound makes it onto the operating table.
Beyond ocular and dental work, PMMA shows up in orthopedic surgery too. Bone cement, used for joint replacements, relies on this resin to anchor metal implants and fill in gaps. The material holds fast under stress, keeping hips, knees, and spinal fixations stable for years. Surgeons choose it again and again for how consistently it mixes, sets, and supports the healing process.
Years of real-world feedback — and stacks of clinical trials — keep regulatory bodies on board with pharma grade PMMA. Pharmacopeia listings (BP, EP, USP) spell out strict thresholds for purity so pharmacists and manufacturers never have to play guessing games. These rules help make sure every batch matches the safety profile expected in life-saving treatments.
While PMMA’s stability wins praise, researchers know there’s ground to cover. Some patients experience mild allergic reactions, and implant makers keep searching for ways to blend toughness with even better tissue compatibility. Investments in new manufacturing processes, cleaner raw materials, and smarter compounding continue — because the fewer the side effects, the safer the patient.
In practice, PMMA grade plastics have become part of the medical landscape, anchoring treatments from eyes to bones. With the right quality standards, this material keeps pushing boundaries in patient care, giving both doctors and patients new reasons to trust plastic’s place in medicine.
Polymethyl methacrylate, known by many as PMMA, pops up in a surprising number of places. Dentists use it for dentures, doctors see it in bone cement, and the pharmaceutical world knows it as a potential ingredient in medication coatings and drug delivery systems. The “BP EP USP” label means pharma-grade quality under British, European, and US standards—a layer of strict oversight meant to keep people safe. But does that automatically guarantee safety when used in medicines?
Pharmaceutical grades of PMMA rank above industrial versions due to tighter controls on impurities and contaminants. What not everyone realizes: even a trace of leftover monomer (the building block used to make PMMA) can cause inflammation or allergic reactions. The final resin is stable, but the devil’s often in the details of how it’s made and purified. Clinical literature points out that improper processing or formulation could allow these problematic leftovers to sneak past quality checks.
Working with PMMA in research, I’ve noticed how batches from unreliable sources can differ in particle size and purity—small changes that seriously impact how a tablet dissolves, protects its active ingredient, or behaves in the body. Patients can’t afford those risks. Only consistently pure, well-characterized PMMA should go into a pharmaceutical product. That’s not just a matter of professional pride; the law demands it.
Doctors have deployed PMMA medical devices in hips, teeth, and the face for decades with relatively few problems. Adverse effects in these areas tend to involve surgeries and implants—very different from swallowing a medicine. Reports rarely suggest the material itself harms patients when used by the book. Regulatory agencies like the US FDA and Europe’s EMA both clear pharma-grade PMMA for medicinal products, especially as a coating agent or in sustained-release formulations.
Still, I’ve seen understandable concerns from patient advocacy groups and some clinicians, especially around long-term or high-dose exposure. Chronic use means the risk profile shifts over time, making rigorous long-term research vital. No ingredient should skate by on yesterday’s safety data alone.
Pharma-grade PMMA must pass forceful scrutiny to hit BP, EP, and USP benchmarks. Regular lab tests assess heavy metals, chemical composition, and how the substance naturally breaks down. Companies have to show low or zero migration of risky monomers, tight limits on additives, and consistency from batch to batch. These checks matter far more to patient safety than the marketing claims stamped on a drum of powder.
I’d like to see better labeling all the way to the pharmacy counter—clearer explanations of inactive ingredients, especially for those with a history of allergies. Improved transparency builds trust. It also lets doctors and patients catch problems sooner if something goes wrong. As for manufacturing, the industry could learn from the best practices borrowed from medical device production, not just pharmaceutical norms.
Polymethyl methacrylate has a solid safety record in regulated uses, partly because experts scrutinize its preparation, purity, and long-term effects. Trust in this ingredient isn’t about the fancy names on the label. It’s about the real-world checks, honest handling, transparency with end-users, and a tight loop between laboratory data and patient reality.
Polymethyl methacrylate, or PMMA, shows up on pharma ingredient lists for tablet coatings, capsules, and even controlled-release systems. One item that surfaces quickly: How does this specialty material get packed and shipped? My experience working alongside pharmaceutical formulators and purchasing teams made it clear—packaging isn’t an afterthought. The wrong size costs money or time, and poorly designed containers lead to contamination or waste. These details matter in ways many outside the pharma industry might overlook.
Vendors usually supply pharma grade PMMA in sizes designed for safety and ease of use. The 25-kilogram fiber drum appears as the most common choice. This size strikes a balance: manageable for lifting and transfer into clean areas, large enough to support mid-scale manufacturing, and protects the powder from moisture or airborne contamination. For high-volume plants, 50-kilogram drums might offer efficiency, but most labs or compounding pharmacies prefer that 25-kilo drum—they’re stackable and can fit through cleanroom doors without wrangling.
Smaller lots exist, too. Contract manufacturers or small-batch facilities often order 5 or 10 kg polyethylene-lined bags. These options help with specialty medicines or pilot batches, where reducing leftovers lowers costs and limits potential cross-contamination risks. I’ve seen teams split a 25-kg drum between two development projects and run into labeling headaches that would have been avoided had the supplier stocked smaller bags to begin with.
It’s rare to see PMMA packed in unlined containers. High-density polyethylene liners inside the drums add a shield against moisture. Pharma grade PMMA absorbs water from humid air, leading to clumping and measurement errors in the plant. Some manufacturers double-bag the material and use tamper-evident seals or oxygen absorbers to keep everything in spec—that extra packaging step isn’t just marketing, it addresses real regulatory and stability concerns.
Western suppliers typically print batch numbers and expiration dates right onto drum labels. In regulated environments, traceability trumps aesthetics. I remember a customer recall where drums with barely readable batch numbers forced hours of detective work. Clear, consistent labeling saves enormous headaches long before any inspector steps through the door.
Global supply chains changed how pharmaceutical companies think about packaging. Shipping half-ton pallets of chemical drums between continents creates risks for weather exposure, handling damage, and customs holdups. A drum can’t seal out ocean humidity forever. Some bigger players ship in steel drums instead of fiber, then repackage inside a controlled area before sending smaller units to local plants. That adds cost, but it’s cheaper than writing off a shipment ruined at the port.
Some suppliers stay stuck on tradition. Greater flexibility could help smaller innovators keep costs down—think customizable bag sizes or returnable, traceable drum systems. With serialization and tracking tech now available, suppliers who invest in smarter packaging stand out when clients face audits. Packaging gets little fanfare, but the right choices avoid waste, keep people safe, and keep products moving, all while addressing sustainability and regulatory pressure at once.
Everyday folks trust that the things they buy will still be safe and useful when they pull them off the shelf. Shelf life isn’t just a technical detail—it's about whether you're getting your money’s worth and not dodging problems down the road. Imagine milk left out too long—no one wants that surprise at breakfast. With food, medicine, or even cleaning products, time chips away at quality.
The length of time something stays good depends a lot on what it is. Take aspirin—heat and moisture break it down quicker, wrecking both strength and purity. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration points out that even unopened medicine stored in bathroom cabinets may lose punch long before you notice. With food, microbes and oxidation lurk, slowly spoiling taste and safety. Chips go stale, vitamins fade, and even canned soup loses nutrients.
That stamped “best by” date means little if the package sits by a sunny kitchen window or the basement sees a hot spell in summer. A study from Harvard found vitamins A and C in orange juice vanish much faster above 80°F—even in sealed cartons. My own kitchen saw brown rice crawling with bugs after one muggy summer, because I thought “sealed” meant “safe.” On another occasion, I nursed a sore throat for days because an all-natural lozenge box said “still good,” but the flavor and kick had disappeared. A long date fools people into trusting the label over common sense.
Storage tells the real story. Big manufacturers might recommend cool, dry places just to cover bases, but with a little sweat, folks get creative: tossing packets in glove compartments, garages, even near heat vents. That’s a recipe for disappointment and sometimes danger. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that medications left in hot cars can degrade in days. Oils turn rancid in humid spots, and batteries pop if they freeze.
A thermometer in the pantry might feel old-fashioned, but it helps. Dry means below 60% humidity—hard to judge by eye. If unopened, many items last longer, but once the seal breaks, spoilage gets a head start. Meats and dairy should go in the coldest section of the fridge, and dry goods last longer in airtight glass rather than plastic.
Some companies use clever packaging and oxygen absorbers to stretch usable time. Grandma used to stuff bread in a tin and keep cheese in wax paper—less science, more habit. The advice holds up. Direct sunlight, shifts in temperature, and broken packages all spell trouble. My own shelves do better after swapping their plastic bins for glass: grains don’t go stale, and spices hold their kick longer.
More brands now offer real-time tracking on freshness, using QR codes and smart labels. I follow those cues, but whenever I spot clumping, weird smells, or faded colors, I don’t wait for science—I toss them.
People get the most out of their purchases by thinking less about perfect environments and more about steady habits. Don’t stock up more than you’ll use. Keep storage spaces clean, out of direct light, and manage humidity as best you can. Read storage advice that comes from trusted sources, such as USDA or manufacturer guidelines—not just from influencers chasing clicks. If something doesn’t seem right, trust your senses. In the end, shelf life turns on common sense as much as the label date.
The question of whether a pharmaceutical grade matches up with BP, EP, and USP standards isn’t just about ticking boxes. Out on the shop floor or in the lab, those benchmarks translate into trust—trust for patients, health professionals, and everyone down the line. I’ve watched a batch held up because of a single out-of-spec reading on a certificate; nobody in the chain could sign off until every expectation traced back to those compendial references.
These pharmacopeias—the British, European, and United States—spell out tight boundaries for things like purity, identification, moisture, residual solvents, and microbial contamination. Falling short on any of those points can halt production, delay shipments, and create compliance nightmares. BP and EP sometimes align on requirements, but USP occasionally carves its own path, which means global players must balance three sets of standards. That tension is real; a few years ago, manufacturers reformulated products and had to retest at significant cost just because one updated guideline changed the heavy metal threshold in a new edition.
I’ve seen quality teams pulling double shifts when new EP updates roll out, scrambling to verify that their product matches every new test method. You can’t sell to several countries if only one standard is covered. In the case of excipients or active ingredients, everything—right down to trace elements—faces scrutiny. I recall a colleague who worked six extra weekends to resolve a tiny spike in an impurity. The labs double-checked every analytical method, cross-referenced results with all three compendia, and still couldn’t ship until conformity across the board was documented.
Some in the supply chain might ask if it’s really necessary to check each box. The reality is that a small shortcut opens the door to recalls, import bans, and, worst of all, patient harm. Recalls eat into trust; business partners remember who shorted a standard. Regulators around the globe reference these standards. One batch that skips the BP requirement for microbial counts can trigger an audit. Everyone gets caught up in the fallout, from manufacturers to downstream distributors.
I’ve worked with companies who invest thousands in annual supplier audits just because they want that traceability—each lot with a trail demonstrating full compliance. It isn’t about red tape. It’s about knowing no hidden impurity or incorrect identification will slip through. Auditors, too, look for more than just a certificate—they demand routine trend analyses, validation of methods, and frequent cross-checks against updated chapters. Clean paperwork keeps everyone sleeping at night.
Continuous monitoring does the heavy lifting, not just the initial testing. Changes in raw materials, shifts in source water, or tweaks in equipment can throw well-established suppliers off course. I’ve witnessed situations where something as simple as a new cleaning agent in the plant changed residual solvent results. Staying ahead means ongoing education, not only on the letter of the standards but on practical fallout. Open lines between quality teams and production matter far more than generic assurances.
Stronger communication across departments helps catch problems early. Investing in rapid testing technologies speeds up confirmation. I encourage firms to keep an eye on upcoming compendial revisions—if you spot a trend ahead of time, pre-emptive updates to processes can avoid last-minute rushes. Supporting continuous learning, instead of short courses every few years, also builds a culture that recognizes the high stakes. Meeting BP, EP, and USP standards isn’t an optional step. It’s a daily, sometimes gritty process, and it’s what separates the reliable supplier from the ones everyone remembers for the wrong reasons.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Poly(methyl 2-methylpropenoate) |
| Other names |
Acrylic Resin PMMA Plexiglass Acrylic Glass Polymethyl 2-methylpropenoate |
| Pronunciation | /ˌpɒl.iˌmiː.θəl ˌmeθ.əˈkrɪ.leɪt/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 9011-14-7 |
| Beilstein Reference | 802436 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:60712 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL2105788 |
| ChemSpider | 8664 |
| DrugBank | DB11150 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03b5e069-75ec-4cf2-bb44-8aefa79b60b7 |
| EC Number | 9011-14-7 |
| Gmelin Reference | 133910 |
| KEGG | C04837 |
| MeSH | D016169 |
| PubChem CID | 8569 |
| RTECS number | UUAVB9168D |
| UNII | 2B82ZVV3KR |
| UN number | 'UN1247' |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | (C5O2H8)n |
| Molar mass | 100.12 g/mol |
| Appearance | White or almost white powder |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.19 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Insoluble in water |
| log P | 0.97 |
| Vapor pressure | Negligible |
| Acidity (pKa) | ~5.5 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 8.2 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -11.1 × 10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.490 to 1.492 |
| Viscosity | 50 to 150 mPa.s |
| Dipole moment | 1.60 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | Polymethyl Methacrylate does not have a widely established standard molar entropy (S⦵298) value in common chemical thermodynamics databases. |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -580.8 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -3027 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | D01AX04 |
| Hazards | |
| GHS labelling | GHS07, GHS08 |
| Pictograms | GHS07, GHS09 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | Hazard statements: H317: May cause an allergic skin reaction. H319: Causes serious eye irritation. H335: May cause respiratory irritation. |
| Precautionary statements | P261, P264, P271, P272, P280, P302+P352, P304+P340, P305+P351+P338, P312, P321, P332+P313, P337+P313, P362+P364, P501 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-3-1 |
| Autoignition temperature | Approximately 400°C |
| LD50 (median dose) | > 8,500 mg/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | NIOSH: RR0186000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) for Polymethyl Methacrylate: Not established. |
| REL (Recommended) | Not established |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Polyethyl methacrylate Polymethyl acrylate Poly(butyl methacrylate) Polymethyl methacrylimide Polymethylmethacrylate copolymers |
Chengguan District, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
