METHYL ACRYLATE-DVB(2%), COPOLYMER, AMINOLYZED WITH DMAPA

CAS: 977083-09-2 PROCESSING AID

METHYL ACRYLATE-DVB(2%), COPOLYMER, AMINOLYZED WITH DMAPA is an ion-exchange resin used as a processing aid in food applications under FDA regulation 21 CFR 173.25.

What It Is

METHYL ACRYLATE-DVB(2%), COPOLYMER, AMINOLYZED WITH DMAPA (CAS 977083-09-2) is a synthetic copolymer derived from methyl acrylate and divinylbenzene with approximately 2% divinylbenzene content, modified by aminolysis with dimethylaminopropylamine. It belongs to the broad class of ion-exchange resins, which are high-molecular-weight polymers capable of selectively binding and exchanging specific ions in aqueous solutions. In the context of food processing technology, this class of polymeric resins functions as a processing aid, meaning it is used during food production but is not intended to remain in the finished food product. Examples of resins in this category include copolymers of various olefinic monomers that have been chemically treated to introduce functional groups that facilitate ion exchange. The INPUT chemical is specifically tailored to have functional amine groups introduced through aminolysis, which can confer selectivity for anionic or cationic species depending on the application conditions. Ion-exchange resins like the one described here have long been used in the food industry and in water treatment because of their ability to alter the ionic composition of solutions, helping to purify or condition ingredients. The technical function of this polymer as a processing aid underlines that it is used to achieve a specific transformation or purification step, such as removing undesirable ions or modifying solution properties, rather than contributing nutritive or sensory attributes to food products. Regulatory inventories, such as the U.S. FDA’s Substances Added to Food (formerly EAFUS), include this substance with its CAS number and defined use category, indicating recognition of its technical use in food processing under specific regulatory conditions. The EAFUS inventory listing confirms that this substance has been identified for processing aid use but does not, on its own, constitute a direct additive approval; instead, it points to the applicable regulatory framework that allows use of ion-exchange resins under defined conditions. Inclusion in EAFUS indicates that FDA acknowledges the substance’s technical function and regulatory context. Outside the U.S., specific regulatory status may vary. In the European Union, food processing aids such as ion-exchange resins are generally regulated under broader food contact materials or processing aids frameworks rather than specific food additive lists, and manufacturers must ensure compliance with applicable materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. Internationally, authoritative bodies such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission provide guidelines related to processing aids and food contact materials, but the specific listing of this polymer would depend on regional regulations and assessments. There do not appear to be widely established international approvals with specific E-numbers or INS numbers assigned to this specific polymer, and authoritative international databases may not list it as a food additive separate from processing aid categories. Regulatory databases such as JECFA’s searchable database provide a mechanism for evaluating food additives globally, but specific entries for this substance may not be available or may not include numerical Acceptable Daily Intake values published, indicating that comprehensive international evaluation may not have been undertaken or documented for this specific resin under typical food additive categories. Authoritative safety research for complex polymers often focuses on analogous materials in the same functional category rather than on every specific substance. Scientific assessments of acrylate copolymers and related cross-linked polymers used in various applications have indicated that high-molecular-weight polymers with low residual monomers and tightly bound functional groups typically have low systemic bioavailability if contact occurs, because they are not readily absorbed through biological membranes. However, detailed toxicological data specific to this polymer are limited in publicly accessible scientific literature. Databases such as those maintained by environmental or chemical registries may list hazard data or lack specific toxicity studies for this substance, highlighting gaps in comprehensive clinical or chronic toxicity profiles. The absence of definitive toxicological data in open sources suggests that regulators rely on indirect information, manufacturing controls, and regulatory limits on extractables rather than on extensive substance-specific study results when setting conditions for processing aid use. In practice, food processors using ion-exchange resins follow industry best practices to condition and monitor resins so that residual extractables are minimized. Laboratory tests measuring organic extractives in water or food simulants are performed to confirm compliance with regulatory expectations. Because the resin itself is not ingested, the health research focus remains on potential trace migration and its implications rather than on direct pharmacological or nutritional effects. Accordingly, safety evaluations emphasize process control, material purity, and compliance with regulatory extraction limits rather than assigning definite health outcomes to consumption of the polymer itself.

Adi Example Calculation

Because METHYL ACRYLATE-DVB(2%), COPOLYMER, AMINOLYZED WITH DMAPA does not have a specific numeric Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) established by authoritative bodies such as JECFA or EFSA, a representative numerical calculation cannot be provided with verified data. Consequently, this section focuses on explaining the conceptual basis for ADI calculations rather than performing a specific numeric example. An ADI is typically derived by identifying a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) in toxicological studies and dividing that value by safety factors to account for uncertainties and individual variability. For example, if a NOAEL of a substance is identified in animal studies as X mg/kg bw/day, regulatory authorities often apply safety factors of 100 or more to derive an ADI. The resulting ADI would be X divided by 100, yielding a value intended to be protective for human populations, including sensitive subgroups. However, because this polymer is used as a processing aid and does not remain in food, regulators manage potential exposure through manufacturing and extraction criteria rather than by setting an ADI. This approach is consistent with how secondary direct additives or indirect food contact substances are regulated, where limiting migration into food is a primary control rather than consumption-based intake values. If in the future toxicological data were published and a regulatory committee established an ADI for a similar class of ion-exchange resin, a hypothetical calculation for a person weighing 60 kg would multiply the ADI (in mg/kg bw/day) by the body weight to determine a daily allotment. For instance, if an ADI were established at Y mg/kg bw/day for a given polymer, a 60 kg person could theoretically consume up to 60 times Y milligrams of that substance per day over a lifetime without appreciable health risk, according to the principles used in ADI derivation. Because such a value is not established for this specific substance, the numeric fields remain null with notes explaining the absence of a defined ADI.

Acceptable Daily Intake Explained

An Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is a regulatory concept used to describe the amount of a substance that can be consumed every day over a lifetime without appreciable health risk. It is typically expressed in milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg bw/day) and is established by expert committees such as the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) when sufficient toxicological data exist. ADIs are important for food additives that remain in the final food product because they reflect cumulative exposure estimates and safety factors based on toxicology studies. For processing aids like METHYL ACRYLATE-DVB(2%), COPOLYMER, AMINOLYZED WITH DMAPA, an ADI value is not readily available in authoritative databases because these substances are not intended to remain in the finished food product and thus are not evaluated in the same way as direct food additives. Regulatory conditions, such as those in the U.S. FDA’s 21 CFR 173.25, are set to control the use and condition of these materials so that any potential extractables in food are minimized to levels considered negligible. Because there is no specific ADI established for this substance due to its functional category and because comprehensive toxicological evaluations may not have been published that quantify dose–response relationships, numeric ADI fields are set to null with notes explaining this absence in the regulatory_safety section. The absence of an ADI does not imply a confirmed hazard; rather, it reflects the functional role of the substance and the way regulators manage exposure through indirect means such as extraction limits and conditioning requirements. Understanding ADI principles helps readers contextualize how safety is assessed differently for processing aids versus food additives that remain in food products.

Comparison With Similar Additives

Ion-exchange resins like METHYL ACRYLATE-DVB(2%), COPOLYMER, AMINOLYZED WITH DMAPA can be compared with other polymeric processing aids that serve similar technical functions in food processing. One example is sulfonated polystyrene-divinylbenzene copolymer resins used for cation exchange and water softening. These resins have sulfonic acid functional groups that preferentially bind cations such as calcium and magnesium, helping reduce hardness in water used for beverage production or ingredient preparation. Another comparable material is methacrylic acid-divinylbenzene copolymer resins, which possess carboxylic acid groups that facilitate cation exchange under specific conditions. Both of these classes, like the INPUT polymer, are high-molecular-weight networks used in packed columns or beds during processing steps to modify the ionic composition of fluids without contributing taste or nutritional value. A third comparable category is cross-linked polystyrene resins that have been chloromethylated and then aminated with various amines, such as dimethylamine or trimethylamine. These resins have tertiary amine functionalities and are used for anion exchange in water treatment or purification of process streams. While the fundamental backbone (polystyrene vs methyl acrylate/divinylbenzene) differs, the functional outcome—selective ion exchange—serves similar technical goals. A key distinction among these materials lies in their functional group chemistry: sulfonic acid groups are strong cation exchangers, carboxylic acids are weaker cation exchangers, and amine groups act as anion exchangers under appropriate pH conditions. The selection of a specific resin depends on the target ions to be removed and the processing conditions such as pH, temperature, and flow rate. In all cases, these resins are utilized for process optimization, impurity removal, or conditioning of ingredients rather than as direct food additives, and regulatory frameworks treat them accordingly.

Safety & Regulations

FDA

  • Approved: True
  • Regulation: 21 CFR 173.25

EFSA

  • Notes: No specific EFSA evaluation or E-number identified in available regulatory sources

JECFA

  • Notes: No specific JECFA numeric ADI or INS number found in authoritative JECFA database entries

Sources

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to share!