EZHOU ANJEKA TECHNOLOGY CO.,Ltd

Choosing the Right Defoamer is Half the Battle for Waterborne Formulations: An Anjeka High-Frequency Problem Analysis     In the R&D and production of waterborne coatings, inks, and adhesives, foam issues are like a persistent ailment. They not only affect production efficiency and equipment utilization but can also lead to fatal defects in the film such as craters, fisheyes, and pinholing, severely impacting the final product's appearance and performance. Faced with a dazzling array of defoamer products on the market, how can one make a precise choice and avoid "robbing Peter to pay Paul"? Today, drawing on the extensive practical cases accumulated by Anjeka Technology, we provide a clear logic chart for selecting waterborne defoamers.   I. Primary Principle: Define Core Needs, Go Beyond Just "Defoaming" The first step in choosing a defoamer is to move beyond the single-minded thinking of "just needing to eliminate foam." An excellent defoamer solution needs to balance the following multi-dimensional objectives: Long-lasting foam suppression: Inhibits foam generation during dynamic processes like production stirring, pumping, and filling. Rapid bubble breaking: Quickly bursts existing foam, especially large bubbles. Excellent compatibility: Must not introduce new surface defects like craters, oil spots, or floating oil. System adaptability: Coexists peacefully with resin systems (acrylic, epoxy, PU, etc.), pigments/fillers, and other additives in the formulation. Meeting special requirements: Such as not affecting recoatability, transparency, or high-temperature resistance. Several of Anjeka's waterborne defoamer models, such as Anjeka5063 5062A, are designed based on the composite goal of "foam suppression, defoaming, and addressing cratering risk," providing a good compatibility foundation with mainstream waterborne resin systems.   II. High-Frequency Scenarios and Direct Selection Strategies Based on frontline feedback from our extensive interactions with engineers, the following scenarios are most common: Scenario 1: General-purpose waterborne industrial paints/inks, pursuing stability and compatibility Pain point: Diverse formulation systems (acrylic, epoxy, PU, etc.), requiring a defoamer with strong versatility and low risk of error. Strategy: Choose a model with both foam suppression and defoaming properties that is explicitly labeled as "addressing cratering risk" as a base. For example, Anjeka-5062A, which has a wide application range and can be post-added, providing flexibility for formulation adjustments.   Scenario 2: Waterborne epoxy systems (e.g., floor coatings), where thick-film application and defoaming are challenging Pain point: Epoxy systems themselves tend to stabilize foam; bubbles struggle to escape during thick-film application, easily leading to pinholing. Strategy: Select models specifically enhanced for defoaming capability. Anjeka-5063 and Anjeka-5062A are particularly noted as "especially suitable for waterborne epoxy flooring applications." For mechanical foam generated during spraying or micro-bubbles in thick films, consider combining with Anjeka-7414. Its property of reducing dynamic surface tension helps with bubble coalescence and release.   Scenario 3: Waterborne baking paints or systems requiring good recoatability Pain point: After high-temperature baking, some defoamers may migrate to the surface, affecting intercoat adhesion. Strategy: Avoid using a single defoamer that might affect recoatability. Case studies show that in waterborne baking paint systems, using a combination of Anjeka-5062A and Anjeka-7414 can ensure defoaming capability while also considering intercoat adhesion requirements.   Scenario 4: High-speed dispersion (e.g., adding matting agents) or continuous foam generation during production Pain point: Large amounts of foam are generated during production processes (like grinding, high-speed dispersion), requiring strong foam suppression. Strategy: Adding the defoamer before grinding or stirring maximizes its foam suppression performance. For extreme foam generation conditions, evaluate the defoamer's long-lasting foam suppression.   III. "Pitfalls" to Avoid and Golden Rules of Use The "Instant Effect" Misconception: The full effect of a defoamer after addition requires 24 hours to stabilize. Therefore, testing and evaluation must allow sufficient time to avoid misjudgment. Addition Method Determines Effect: For the best foam suppression effect, add it during the grinding stage. If post-added as a remedy, ensure thorough and uniform stirring, otherwise, it may cause local compatibility issues. Storage and Pre-treatment: Product storage below 5°C may cause separation. Before use, please heat to 20°C and mix thoroughly. Using a separated product directly will greatly reduce effectiveness and pose high risks. Dosage is Not Higher the Better: The recommended dosage range is 0.05%-1.0%. It is essential to determine the optimal point through gradient experiments. Excessive addition not only increases costs but may also cause side effects like craters and oil spots.   IV. When a Single Model is Insufficient: Blending Strategy   No single defoamer is a panacea. Faced with complex systems or stubborn foam, blending is a common strategy for experienced engineers: Suppression + Breaking: For example, using 5062A to provide persistent foam suppression, combined with 7414 to enhance bubble breaking and dynamic defoaming capability, tackling spraying and thick-film application challenges. Silicone + Non-silicone: In systems extremely sensitive to compatibility or requiring silicone-free formulations, consider blending silicone-based types with non-silicone types to balance defoaming power and compatibility.   Selecting a waterborne defoamer is an art of balance. It tests the comprehensive understanding of the system's nature, production processes, and the root causes of defects. Anjeka Technology, deeply rooted in the industry, has accumulated a complete library of waterborne defoamer solutions, from general-purpose to specialty, from single-use to blended. We not only provide products but are also willing to share these selection logics and experience in avoiding pitfalls derived from practical applications.

 EZHOU ANJEKA TECHNOLOGY CO.,Ltd                                                professional additives manufacturer Experiment Record Form Test Name: Epoxy Resin Silica Microsphere Filler Slurry Temperature/Humidity:   Client:   Applicant: Mr Yang Test Date: February 26, 2026     Objective: Testing viscosity reduction, defoaming, and anti-settling properties of filler slurry for epoxy potting compounds Pigment Paste Formulation  40  692 1.2  Dispersant 0.2 6912, 6910A, 6911A Defoamer 0.2 5680A, 5088 Anti-settling Agent 0.2 6710, 4410S Silica Microsphere 60 Customer 128 Resin 40 Customer           692 1.2 Customer           Dispersant 0.2 6912,6910A,6911A           Defoamer 0.2 5680A,5088           Anti-settling Agent 0.2 6710,4410S           Silica Microsphere 60 Customer           Experimental Method High-speed stirring at 2000 rpm for 15 minutes for comparison. Test Results Test  6710 4410S 6912 6910A 6911A 6912 6910A 6911A  382123 179552 276233 244006 110493 138117 178266  375217 377519 379821 195665 Gloss 20°:22.2 60°:93.8 20°: 66.4 60°: 99.4 20°: 38.5 60°：83.1 20°: 16.2 60°: 92.6 20°: 38.9 60°：90.7 20°: 43.5 60°：89.5 20°: 42.2 60°: 92 Anti-settling Soft sedimentation No sedimentation No sedimentation No sedimentation Soft sedimentation No sedimentation Soft sedimentation Test Blank 6710 4410S 6912 6910A 6911A 6912 6910A 6911A Pre-Heat Storage Viscosity 382123 179552 276233 244006 110493 138117 178266 Viscosity after 1 day thermal storage   375217 377519 379821   195665   Gloss 20°:22.2 60°:93.8 20°: 66.4 60°: 99.4 20°: 38.5 60°：83.1 20°: 16.2 60°: 92.6 20°: 38.9 60°：90.7 20°: 43.5 60°：89.5 20°: 42.2 60°: 92 Anti-settling Soft sedimentation No sedimentation No sedimentation No sedimentation Soft sedimentation No sedimentation Soft sedimentation Defoaming: 6910A demonstrated the best defoaming effect in 4410S, with minimal bubbles around the cup and no surface bubbles. Testing 4410S 5088 5680A 6910A(0.2%) 6910A(0.4%) 6910A (0.4%) Viscosity before thermal storage 225591 250912 262422 Viscosity after 1 day thermal storage 264724 375279 271779 Gloss 20°: 58.4 60°：98.5 20°: 70.8 60°：99.1 20°: 60 60°: 93.7 Settling No sediment No sediment No sediment Defoaming Minimal bubbles around cup, no surface bubbles Surface bubbles present Test 4410S         5088 5680A         6910A(0.2%) 6910A(0.4%) 6910A(0.4%)         Viscosity before thermal storage 225591 250912 262422         Viscosity after 1 day thermal storage 264724 375279 271779         Gloss 20°: 58.4 60°：98.5 20°: 70.8 60°：99.1 20°: 60 60°: 93.7         Anti-settling No sedimentation No sedimentation No sedimentation         Defoaming Minimal bubbles around the cup, no surface bubbles Surface bubbles present         Conclusion The best results were achieved using 4410S as the anti-settling agent, 6910A as the dispersant, and 5088 as the defoamer.

Domestic Substitution in Supply Chain Security: A Necessary Backup or the Starting Point for Value Reinvention?   In recent years, “domestic substitution” has evolved beyond a temporary slogan during supply chain tensions, becoming a deeply ingrained strategic consideration in industries like coatings, inks, and adhesives. From the 14th Five-Year Plan's emphasis on self-reliance in critical raw materials to the supply chain uncertainties brought by geopolitical fluctuations, “using domestic products” has acquired multiple meanings beyond mere cost considerations. Yet within technical circles, discussions about domestic additives remain fraught with tension: some view them as a “lifeline” for supply security, while others harbor lingering doubts about their performance stability. What path does domestic substitution truly entail?   I. The Core Controversy: Substitution Extends Beyond “1:1” Replacement Whenever “substitution” is mentioned, engineers' first reaction is often: “What percentage of the original product's performance parameters can it achieve?” This question reflects an extreme pursuit of stability and reliability. Decades of application data and brand reputation for imported products form a formidable trust barrier. Yet true substitution may not be a simple “copy-paste” operation. It occurs across at least three dimensions: Functional Substitution: Achieving equivalent or superior performance in specific core functions (e.g., carbon black dispersion, anti-settling, defoaming). System Substitution: Addressing identical pain points (e.g., cratering, poor leveling) within the customer's specific formulation system (water-based/solvent-based/UV). Cost and Supply Chain Substitution: Delivering superior cost-effectiveness and stable, reliable supply assurance while meeting fundamental performance requirements. Domestic additives are rapidly evolving from early-stage “solving availability issues” to “deep optimization for niche scenarios.” Benchmarking R&D is the starting point, but the ultimate goal lies in integrating and enhancing the customer's formulation ecosystem.   II. The Advancement of Domestic Additives: From “Benchmarking” to “Tailored Solutions” The market offers no mercy to the weak. Domestic additive manufacturers survive by responding more nimbly to market demands. We observe: Response Speed: When the market demands substitutes for specific imported grades (e.g., BYK-110, BYK111), they swiftly provide validated alternatives (e.g., 6110, 6860), shortening customer R&D cycles. Solution Flexibility: For a single imported product, multiple replacement options with distinct focuses may be offered. For dispersants, choices range from cost-effective solutions to formulations optimized for demanding systems. This flexibility reflects domestic manufacturers' market proximity. Localized Application Support: Streamlined technical communication, rapid sample response times, and deep understanding of common domestic raw material systems form unique service advantages.   III. A Rational Decision-Making Framework for Product Managers and Technical Readers When addressing domestic substitution, neither emotional endorsement nor rejection is advisable. We recommend a rational evaluation framework: Define Substitution Goals: Is the objective to address short-term supply chain disruptions or achieve long-term cost reduction and efficiency gains? Is it a comprehensive replacement, or a pilot test starting with a specific product or secondary performance aspect? Establish a Scientific Validation Process: Discussing substitution without considering the specific system is meaningless. Candidate domestic additives must be tested within the complete formulation, evaluating the entire chain from processability and storage stability to final coating film performance. Focus on Comprehensive Value: Evaluation dimensions should include unit price, dosage rate, impact on other system properties, supplier technical support capabilities, and long-term supply stability. Sometimes, domestic additives may offer greater advantages in total cost (including risk costs). Embrace a “Re-optimization” Mindset: Replacement isn't merely substitution. It presents an opportunity for reformulation optimization. Leveraging the distinct characteristics of domestic additives may uncover new performance balance points.   IV. Anjeka's Role: Providing Reliable “Replacement Options” We understand that trust is built on every reliable delivery. At Anjeka, we are committed to: Clear Benchmarking: Based on extensive market feedback and testing, we clearly define our products' primary applications and the range of import products they can replace, guiding your selection process. Scenario-Based Recommendations: We don't just answer “Can it be replaced?” but focus on “How to use it effectively in your system.” Whether addressing dispersion challenges in inks or special requirements in rubber systems, we provide targeted advice. Open Verification: We firmly believe “results are the sole criterion for truth.” We provide samples to support your most authentic evaluations within your own production lines and formulations. The wave of domestic substitution has arrived—it presents both challenges and opportunities to reshape the industry landscape. Whether we view it as a “backup option” or embrace it as a “new value partner” depends on our careful evaluation and experimentation with each product.    

In the production and application of coatings, inks, and adhesives, bubbles are a persistent and troublesome “regular guest.” They not only impact production efficiency and material utilization but also cause defects like pinholes and cratering in the final film layer, severely compromising product appearance and protective performance. Selecting the right defoamer is like hiring a professional “foam management expert” for your system. But with countless products available, how do you precisely match them to resin systems, application processes, and replacement needs? This article systematically breaks down defoamer mechanisms and explores the critical “balancing act” through real-world scenarios.   I. Foundational Principle: How Defoamers Play the Role of “Foam Terminators” Foam is fundamentally a thermodynamically unstable system where gas is dispersed within a liquid. The presence of surfactants temporarily stabilizes this system. The role of defoamers is precisely to disrupt this stability. Penetration and Spreading: Defoamers possess extremely low surface tension, enabling them to rapidly penetrate the liquid film of bubbles and spread across its surface. Thinning the Film Layer: During this spreading process, they remove surfactants from localized areas of the liquid film, leading to uneven film thickness and reduced strength. Rupture and Coalescence: Weak points rupture first, causing adjacent bubbles to merge. Ultimately, large bubbles rise to the surface and escape or burst and disappear. An effective defoamer must simultaneously possess strong “foam suppression” (preventing new bubble formation) and “bubble rupture” (eliminating existing foam) capabilities. This depends on its degree of “incompatibility” with the system—requiring just the right level of incompatibility to disrupt foam, yet avoiding excessive incompatibility that could cause pinholes or cloudiness.   II. Three Dimensions of Selection: Resin, Process, and Special Requirements Discussing defoamers without considering specific applications is meaningless. Selection must be evaluated within a three-dimensional framework. Dimension One: Resin System—The Foundation for Compatibility Epoxy Resin Systems: Widely used in flooring, anti-corrosion, encapsulation, and other fields. These systems feature high viscosity and trapped air bubbles that are difficult to release, often requiring strong defoaming additives. For example, Anjikon 5630 and 5530 are specifically recommended for epoxy systems. They effectively prevent air entrapment during production and processing (including pultrusion), helping achieve dense coatings. Experiments also demonstrate that multiple defoamers achieve rapid defoaming within one minute in 828 epoxy. Acrylic and Polyurethane Systems: Commonly found in wood coatings, automotive refinish paints, and plastic coatings, these systems demand high transparency and recoatability. Silicone-free defoamers (e.g., Angikon 5053, 5300A) are preferred due to their minimal impact on interlayer adhesion. Internal testing shows that 5053 not only defoams rapidly in hydroxy acrylic systems but also exhibits excellent compatibility, maintaining clear transparency in both solutions and paint films. Alkyd and Polyester Systems: These systems offer a broader compatibility window. For instance, in alkyd systems, 5300A demonstrates outstanding defoaming speed and good transparency. In oil-based polyester inks, 5057 is often recommended for its balanced defoaming and recoatability performance.   Dimension Two: Application Process — Defining Performance Priorities Spray Application (especially airless spraying): Introduces significant mechanical bubbles, requiring defoamers with superior foam suppression and rapid bubble rupture capabilities. For mechanical bubbles in thick-film waterborne epoxy primers, 5062A has proven effective. Squeegee/Roller Application: Thicker film layers provide longer escape paths for bubbles, necessitating stronger defoaming power to help internal bubbles rise to the surface and rupture. For polyurethane sealants and thick-film epoxies, products like 5680A and 5530 are often recommended. Screen Printing/Flood Coating: High process shear forces readily generate microbubbles, and these applications are sensitive to leveling properties and surface defects. Here, additives that combine defoaming with leveling improvement (e.g., 5300A) may offer the convenience of “multiple functions in one agent.” High-Temperature Baking: Consider the thermal stability of defoamers to prevent “boil-out” pinholes caused by volatilization or decomposition during baking. 5300A is specifically noted for its boil-out prevention effect in baked coatings.   Dimension Three: Special Requirements—Defining Selection Boundaries Transparency Requirements: For clear coats, electronic adhesives, and high-end wood finishes. Products with exceptional compatibility must be selected to avoid haze or cloudiness. 5053 exemplifies superior transparency in acrylic systems. Regulatory & Safety: Food packaging inks, toy coatings, etc., require compliance with specific regulations (e.g., Swiss Ordinance). Angikon 5053 is confirmed free of aromatic hydrocarbons, while 5057 offers environmentally compliant solvent options or custom odorless formulations. Replacement Requirements: This represents a highly practical scenario. Anjikon maintains an extensive library of benchmark products. For instance: - 5680A can be tested as a replacement for Tego 900 and DC65 - 5141/5066N can be tested as a replacement for EFKA 2040 - 5053 can be tested as a replacement for Zhanxin PC-1244 However, it must be emphasized: Any replacement must undergo rigorous in-system testing and validation.   III. The Art of Balance: The Triad of Efficacy, Compatibility, and Cost Selecting a defoamer always involves finding the optimal balance among defoaming efficacy, system compatibility, and overall cost. Pursuing only strong defoaming power may introduce new issues like cratering or oil separation due to poor compatibility. Conversely, overly cautious selection of mild products for compatibility risks failing to resolve the foam problem. Angikon's product line is designed to offer options at different equilibrium points: from the highly defoaming epoxy-specific agent (5630) to the highly compatible acrylic-optimized agent (5053), and the multifunctional compound (5300A), enabling engineers to achieve precise matching for specific formulations.   IV. Practical Recommendations: Moving from Experience to Science in Selection Identify the pain points: Are production agitation bubbles, application mechanical bubbles, or residual microbubbles after curing the issue? Is it insufficient defoaming speed or inadequate long-term foam suppression? Initial product screening: Based on resin polarity, application process, and special requirements (e.g., silicone content, transparency), pre-select 2-3 products from the product library. System Testing: Always test within the complete formulation system. Evaluate how dosage affects key properties like defoaming efficiency, compatibility (clarity, pinholes), interlayer adhesion, and gloss. Remember: full defoamer efficacy requires 24-hour evaluation post-addition. Process Optimization: Prioritize addition during the grinding stage. If post-addition is necessary, ensure sufficient shear dispersion.   Bubble challenges vary from person to person. There is no “universal” defoamer—only the “most suitable” solution. With our extensive product portfolio and deep application data, Angikon is dedicated to providing precise defoaming solutions tailored to your specific system. If you're grappling with foam issues or seeking optimized alternatives to existing products, feel free to contact us anytime. Request complimentary samples and technical documentation—let us help you strike that critical balance and achieve a seamless transition from formulation to finished product.  

Abstract In polyurethane resin systems, Anjikon dispersant was selected to disperse titanium dioxide and carbon black for evaluation experiments. The dispersant's effectiveness was assessed by observing paste viscosity, scraper finger rub color difference, and floating pigments in the can. Polyurethane resin, titanium dioxide, and carbon black were ground into color paste, formulated into paint, and observed. Coatings prepared with Anjikon dispersant exhibited a ΔE ≤ 0.3 color difference after 7 days of static storage at 60°C, with no floating color observed in the can.   Keywords: dispersant, finger rub color difference   1. Experiment Objective Compare dispersants provided by suppliers to select those with superior viscosity reduction and anti-floating color properties. 2. Experimental Procedure Apply dispersants to polyurethane resin systems, grind color pastes, observe paste consistency, formulate paint, and conduct finger rub tests on scrapers to evaluate color differences. 3. Results and Discussion   3.1 procedure Prepare color paste according to the formulation in Table 1 below. After grinding, filter out glass beads, perform finger rubbing with a scraper, and test the color difference of the rubbed area using a color difference meter. Place the paste in a 60°C oven for 24 hours for observation. Prepare black and white monochrome color pastes according to Table 1. After grinding, test viscosity and color development. Prepare gray paint according to Table 2. Perform finger rubbing with a scraper and test the color difference of the finger-rubbed section using a color difference meter. Place the paste in a 60°C oven for 7 days for observation. 3.2 Performance Testing 3.2.1 Experimental Formulations                                         Black and White Monochrome Formula   White Paste   Black Paste Remarks Polyurethane Resin 10 10 PU-5335 solvent 23.5 63 DMF dispersant 1.5 2   Titanium Dioxide 65   Lomon R996 Carbon Black   25 Zhihua C311 Total 100 100   Prepare the slurry according to the formula in the table above. Add glass beads (particle size 3 mm) equivalent to 1.2 times the slurry mass. Place the mixture in a shaker and grind to a fineness of ≤ 5 μm.                                     Black and White Monochrome Paint Formulation   Amount Remarks Polyurethane Resin 45 PU-5335 solvent 15 DMF White Paste 36   Black Paste 4   Total 100     Mix thoroughly according to the table above to prepare the gray paint.   3.2.3 Experimental Results and Discussion Color Paste Comparison mpa.s（25℃） White Paste Black Paste   Sample 1 AJK 6150 Sample 2 AJK 6130 Initial Viscosity 1300 1320 2350 2400 Initial Fineness ≤ 5 μm ≤ 5 μm ≤ 5 μm ≤ 5 μm   Anjeka dispersant exhibits nearly identical viscosity reduction properties to the sample dispersant. When used with white paste, Anjeka dispersant yields a brighter white hue, while with black paste, it produces a deeper black color.   60°C*7 days Scraper finger comparison: ∆E Sample 1 White Paste+ Sample 2 Black Paste AJK 6150 White Paste+ AJK 6130 Black Paste Initial Finger-Pressed Color Difference 0.28 0.17 Heat Storage Finger-Pressed Color Difference 0.5 0.3 Color Difference Before and After Heat Storage 0.4 0.1                 Initial Finger Research                    Post-Heat Storage Finger Research   Anjeka dispersant exhibits minimal color difference in both finger rub and heat storage tests compared to the sample.                Anjekon Dispersant                        Sample Dispersant No floating color                              Slight floating black   4. Conclusions Testing demonstrated that in polyurethane resin systems, white paste prepared using Anjeka 6150 dispersant and black paste prepared using Anjeka 6130 exhibit excellent viscosity reduction properties and stability against color floating.

 EZHOU ANJEKA TECHNOLOGY CO.,Ltd                                                                             Professional Additive Manufacturer Experiment Record Form Experiment Name FW200/F255 Carbon Black Dispersant Comparison Temperature/Humidity 7℃/65 Client / Applicant Mr. Wang Experiment Date Jan. 21,2026     Obejective: Compare the existing dispersant 889 (98% solids content) with FW200/F255 carbon black in terms of blackness development. Measure viscosity after 60°C heat storage.Blackness (Colorimeter): L > 25. Color Paste Formulation 1.Black Paste for PC/ABS         Resin Binder (Containing CAB) 70             dispersant 2.6 889 6881 6622 6200C 6880   Ethyl Acetate 10.4             Carbon Black 2.6 FW200 F255         Nano Barium Sulfate Sample 12             Tosoh E1011 Matting Agent 2             R972 Silica Gel 0.2             Deqian 299 Wax 0.2               100             2.Black Paste             Resin Binder (Containing CAB) 70             dispersant 10 889 6881 6200C 6880 6622   Carbon Black 10 FW200 F255         Ethyl Acetate 10             Procedure: Prepare two different black pastes sequentially, grind to a fineness ≤10 μm, measure color development, dilute, compare with clear coat, and test after 7 days of heat storage.   Result       889 6881 6200C 6622 6880   Black Paste for PC/ABS Fineness before heat aging FW200/F255 ＜10um ＜10um ＜10um ＜10um ＜10um     Fineness after heat aging FW200/F255 ＜10um ＜10um ＜10um ＜10um ＜10um     Viscosity before heat aging FW200/F255 1658/2211 2716/2283 1826/2091 1601/2259 2932/2451     Viscosity after heat aging FW200/F255 1298/2812 2932/2449 1875/1778 1322/2499 2283/2379                           889 6881 6200C 6622 6880   black paste Fineness before heat aging FW200/F255 ＜10um ＜10um ＜10um ＜10um ＜10um     Fineness after heat aging FW200/F255 ＜10um ＜10um ＜10um ＜10um ＜10um     Viscosity before heat aging FW200/F255 3773/4061 9949/4758 6753/7330 4182/4927 8892/6008     Viscosity after heat aging FW200/F255 4284/13282 14377/11282 10616/8140 4094/7762 23349/7046                     Conclusions: F255 carbon black produced the darkest color paste with 6622 base color and no topcoat, while 6880 base color produced the darkest color paste with topcoat. FW200 carbon black produced consistent color paste shades with both 6622 base color and 889 dispersant, with identical results for base color paste and topcoat. Blackness difference meter L values all >25. After thermal storage, 6622 viscosity is lower than 889 dispersant. Recommend testing 6622 and 6880 for comparison with the currently used 889 dispersant.

In the world of coatings, inks, and adhesives, a crucial yet often overlooked component—the thixotropic agent—quietly determines a product's success or failure. It affects whether the product is uniform upon opening, influences precise build during application, and ultimately impacts the final film's appearance. An inappropriate choice can lead to a series of issues like settling, sagging, and uneven gloss. Today, let's move beyond marketing terms and delve into how to select the "right" rheological assistant for your formulation, from the perspective of action mechanisms and system compatibility.   Thixotropic Agents: Not Just "Thickening," but Dynamic Rheology Management A thixotropic agent is essentially an additive that imparts a "time-dependent shear-thinning" property to a fluid. Under static or low shear conditions, it forms a weak three-dimensional network structure through mechanisms like hydrogen bonding, molecular chain entanglement, or hydrophobic association, significantly increasing viscosity and effectively locking pigment particles to prevent settling. Once subjected to high shear forces during application (e.g., stirring, brushing, spraying), this network structure is temporarily broken down, viscosity drops rapidly, making the material easy to flow and apply. After application stops, the network structure gradually recovers, viscosity increases, thereby preventing wet film sagging on vertical surfaces. Therefore, an excellent thixotropic agent is key to balancing storage stability, application convenience, and film appearance.   The Full Scope of Action: The "Stabilizer" and "Shaper" Throughout the Product Lifecycle   The role of thixotropic agents extends far beyond preventing pigment settling. Their value is evident in every stage from production to film formation: Storage Stage: Provides sufficient static viscosity to prevent hard settling, ensuring good can appearance and batch consistency. Application Stage: Thins under shear, ensuring good pumping, spraying, or brushing performance; rapidly recovers viscosity after shear stops, enabling thick application without sagging—critical for floor coatings, anti-corrosion paints, and high-build coatings. Film Formation Stage: Moderate thixotropy aids leveling, but overly rapid recovery can hinder it, requiring fine balance. Some thixotropic agents (e.g., polyurethane-based) have minimal impact on leveling and gloss, while others (e.g., cellulose-based) may sacrifice leveling.   Selection Logic: No "Universal Key," Only "System Matching" Selecting a thixotropic agent is a complex science of matching, centered on understanding the compatibility and responsiveness between its chemical type and your system. Key considerations include:   System Polarity (Solvent-based/Water-based/Solvent-free): This is the primary filter. For example, modified polyurea thixotropic agents (e.g., Anjeka 4410) are effective in medium to low polarity solvents but have minimal effect in high polarity solvents (e.g., ethanol). Water-based systems require water-compatible products, like water-based polyurea (Anjeka 4420) or water-based polyamide wax paste (Anjeka 4561). Resin Chemistry: Different resins interact differently with thixotropic agents. Test data shows that the same thixotropic agent may have varying impacts on gloss and degrees of sag resistance improvement across different resins (acrylic, epoxy, alkyd). For instance, in amine curing agents, traditional hydrophilic fumed silica may be ineffective, while specialized modified polyamide thixotropic agents (e.g., Anjeka 4610) can exhibit excellent thixotropy. Performance Priority: Clarify the core need: Is it anti-settling, anti-sagging, or a need for certain leveling? Polyamide wax types typically excel at anti-settling/sagging but may affect gloss; polyurea types provide thixotropy with relatively less impact on gloss and leveling. Process & Cost: Consider addition method (pre-dispersion or post-addition), dispersion difficulty, impact on production efficiency, and overall cost. Liquid thixotropic agents are usually more convenient for post-addition, suitable for continuous production.   Special Considerations Regarding "Different Material Surfaces" Here, "material surface" more accurately refers to the substrate the coating is applied to and its final service environment, which influences the choice of formulation system and indirectly affects thixotropic agent selection. Porous Substrates (e.g., wood, mortar): Formulations may require rapid thixotropic recovery to reduce penetration, needing thixotropic agents focused on anti-sagging and anti-settling. Metal Substrates (especially vertical surfaces, steel structures): Extremely high anti-sagging requirements necessitate selecting products with outstanding anti-sagging data in relevant resin systems (e.g., epoxy, acrylic), potentially combined with fumed silica for very high film build requirements. Special Environments (e.g., high humidity, chemical exposure): Ensure the selected thixotropic agent itself and the properties it imparts (e.g., water resistance) meet requirements. For example, some agents may introduce water resistance issues.   Rheology control is the essence of coating formulation design. Selecting a thixotropic agent is an exercise in precise matching based on a deep understanding of your product system. There's no standard answer, but there is scientific logic. Instead of trial and error, start by clarifying your system's polarity, resin characteristics, and core pain points.   If you are seeking solutions for settling or sagging issues in a specific system, or wish to optimize existing rheological performance, we can provide technical consultation and sample testing based on your specific system. Feel free to contact us to obtain more detailed product technical information or arrange a sample evaluation.

 EZHOU ANJEKA TECHNOLOGY CO.,Ltd                                                                                           professional additive manufacturer Experiment Record Sheet Test Name Polyester Black Paste Dispersant Screening Temperature/Humidity   Client Applicant:  Mr. Li Test Date Feb.11 2026     Objective: 1. The customer requires compatibility between the dispersant and resin; turbidity is unacceptable. After testing 6622, feedback indicated poor compatibility. The customer tested 6040 and 6161A, which showed good compatibility without turbidity, but poor color development with a yellowish tint. The customer requires that the original color paste not be diluted during color development. Color Paste Formulation           Polyester Resin 500 15           Dispersant 90 2.7 6050 6173 9613 6062A 6062B 1035 Carbon Black/2500 Carbon Black 150 4.5           S01:S05 760 22.8             Results: The 6050 dispersant in both 1035 carbon black and 2500 carbon black exhibits a blue-shifted hue, meeting the customer's color development requirements.