EZHOU ANJEKA TECHNOLOGY CO.,Ltd

UV-curable systems offer significant advantages in productivity and environmental compliance, but they also impose strict constraints on additive performance. High solids content, rapid curing, and dense crosslinked networks leave little tolerance for inappropriate additive selection. As a result, additives used in UV formulations must be designed to meet several critical requirements.   Photostability is a primary consideration. Additives should not absorb UV radiation within the curing wavelength range, as this may interfere with light penetration and reduce curing efficiency. Inadequate photostability can lead to incomplete curing, surface tackiness, or uneven film properties, particularly in pigmented systems.   Low volatility is equally essential. UV formulations are typically solvent-free, meaning any volatile component can generate surface defects during curing. Additives with insufficient thermal or chemical stability may contribute to pinholes, craters, or surface irregularities as curing progresses.   Compatibility with photoinitiators, oligomers, and reactive diluents is another key requirement. Poorly compatible additives may phase-separate, inhibit radical polymerization, or migrate during curing. Such effects often result in gloss loss, adhesion issues, or long-term performance instability.   Beyond basic compatibility, additives must retain their functional effectiveness under rapid curing conditions. The extremely short time window between application and solidification challenges conventional additive mechanisms that rely on slow diffusion or equilibration. Technical Challenges and Formulation Approaches   One common challenge in UV systems is color paste stability. Insufficient pigment stabilization can cause sedimentation before curing, leading to non-uniform color strength and uneven curing across the film. This issue is typically addressed through the use of high-molecular-weight dispersants with strong pigment anchoring groups, designed specifically for UV oligomer environments to ensure both dispersion efficiency and long-term stability.   Foam control presents another critical difficulty. Due to the rapid curing process, entrapped air has limited time to escape. Residual bubbles can block UV light, resulting in incomplete curing in the lower layers of the film. Effective defoaming in UV systems requires low surface tension defoamers with excellent compatibility, capable of eliminating microfoam without introducing opacity or causing surface defects. Conclusion   In UV-curable formulations, additives are not auxiliary components but integral contributors to curing reliability and final film performance. Meeting the special requirements of photostability, low volatility, compatibility, and functional efficiency is essential for addressing key technical challenges such as dispersion stability and rapid defoaming. Careful additive selection, tailored specifically for UV systems, remains a critical factor in achieving consistent and high-quality results.   We have developed several proven additive combinations specifically for UV-curable systems. Samples are available upon request—please feel free to contact us for technical support.

 EZHOU ANJEKA TECHNOLOGY CO.,Ltd professional additive manufacturer   Experimental record sheet Experiment name Conduct a comparative screening for a universal (water- and solvent-compatible) dispersant against the currently used Dispersant 1252. The key performance criteria are the rub-out color difference test and the thermal storage stability against floating and flooding. Temperature/humidity 5-13℃/95 Client / Applicant Mr. Wang Test date Jan.22 2026     Objective: To evaluate and screen dispersants based on the specific types and ratios provided by the client. color paste formula             C311 black Iron Oxide Yellow 15:4 Phthalocyanine Blue Titanium Dioxide Lanxess 4110 Iron Oxide Red     Pigment content 35 40 35 60 50     A171（Ethylene glycol butyl e ther ） 13 13 13 13 13     Purified water 34.5 41 34.5 24 32     Dispersing agent 1252/6162A/6622/6881/ 6240 17.5 6 17.5 3 5     Paint mixing formula   Grey 1252/6240 Blue 1252/6240 Yellow 1252/6240   Viscosity S fineness um color difference △E 2233 Water based acrylic acid dispersion 65 65 65 gray 1252 6128 ＜15 0.18 White paste 25 20 5 gray 6240 4662 ＜15 0.13 black paste 1.2 0.5 2 blue 1252 2115 ＜15 0.7 blue paste 0.5 3   blue 6240 2451 ＜15 0.27 Iron yellow paste 0.5   15 yellow 1252 504 ＜15 0.12 Iron red paste 0.4     yellow 6240 721 ＜15 0.35 AMP-95PH additive 0.25 0.25 0.25         Anjeka7412 Wetting agent 0.3 0.3 0.3         Anjeka5062A defoamer 0.1 0.1 0.1         DPNB solvent 2 2 2         DPM solvent 2 2 2         DB solvent 2 2 2         Deionized water 0.45 4.55 6.05         299 Thickener 0.3 0.3 0.3           100 100 100         Experimental Procedure: Paste Preparation: Prepare color pastes by grinding with various dispersants according to the specified steps. Select only those pastes that exhibit good flowability and achieve a fineness of

Ensuring Long-Term Defoaming Performance in Waterborne Coatings Ensuring long-term defoaming performance in waterborne coatings is more complex than it appears.   Foam may not be noticeable immediately after mixing, but changes in pH, ionic strength, or temperature during storage can gradually reduce defoamer effectiveness. A coating that appears stable in the lab may develop bubbles or craters weeks later if interfacial control is not properly maintained. Chemical Stability and Interfacial Behavior Are Key Defoamer performance is dictated by both chemical stability and interfacial behavior. Even small changes in the waterborne matrix—resin polarity, surfactant migration, or ionic shifts—can alter how a defoamer spreads at air–liquid interfaces. Selecting a defoamer that remains active under these evolving conditions is essential for preventing delayed foam defects. Performance Across the Entire Coating Lifecycle Defoamers must perform across multiple stages of the coating lifecycle. From mixing and pumping to storage and final application, air can be entrained at various points, and viscosity changes over time can affect how easily bubbles migrate to the surface. A defoamer that loses activity too quickly or separates from the formulation can allow trapped air to remain or re-form, leading to surface defects. Optimizing defoamer choice therefore involves evaluating both chemical stability and dynamic performance under real-world process conditions. A System-Level Perspective Is Essential Choosing the right defoamer requires a system-level perspective. Laboratory tests under static conditions may show excellent bubble suppression, but only dynamic evaluation—through mixing, pumping, and simulated storage—can reveal how long the defoamer maintains interfacial activity. Formulators must assess both chemical stability and physical migration to ensure consistent performance throughout the coating lifecycle. Long-Term Foam Control Is a Formulation Design Challenge Ultimately, long-term defoamer performance is a question of formulation design. By integrating defoamer selection into the broader system—considering resin, surfactants, co-solvents, and processing conditions—formulators can achieve consistent foam control from mixing through application and storage. This proactive approach ensures both aesthetic quality and functional reliability in waterborne coatings.

Dispersants Impact More Than Pigment Stability The effectiveness of a dispersant influences not only pigment stability but also the rheology of the coating under shear. This directly affects how the material flows through spray equipment. Inconsistent dispersion can result in nozzle clogging, uneven atomization, and variable film thickness in refinish applications. Visible Defects in Applied Coatings Poor dispersion often manifests as orange peel, streaking, or mottling in the final film. These issues are particularly pronounced in metallic and pearlescent finishes, where uneven pigment distribution can alter color perception and visual depth. Compatibility and Selection Are Key Selecting dispersants that are compatible with both the pigment and resin system is critical. Effective dispersants provide rapid pigment wetting, long-term stabilization of high-strength or effect pigments, and maintain the desired rheology, ensuring smooth sprayability and consistent film build. From Lab to the Body Shop When dispersants perform as intended, coatings flow smoothly through spray equipment, atomize evenly, and form uniform films without defects. This reduces rework, minimizes material waste, and ensures consistent appearance and color accuracy. Ensuring Predictable, High-Quality Results In automotive refinish coatings, effective dispersants bridge the gap between formulation and application, transforming lab-tested pigment stability into reliable spray performance. The result is smoother application, uniform film build, and reduced operational risk.

Why Import Substitution Matters Global supply chain uncertainty and rising costs are forcing formulators to rethink their reliance on imported additives. For dispersants, defoamers, and rheology modifiers, qualified import alternatives are no longer a compromise—but a strategic choice. Today’s domestic additive solutions are engineered to deliver consistent performance, formulation stability, and reliable supply, meeting the practical demands of modern coatings and ink systems. Performance Under Real Formulation Conditions Successful import substitution depends on how well an additive performs under actual formulation and processing conditions. Key factors such as dispersion efficiency, defoaming persistence, rheology control, and compatibility with existing resin systems must be carefully evaluated. Through application-driven development and systematic benchmarking, domestic additives can achieve stable results with minimal formulation adjustment. Consistency Across Production and Storage As adoption expands, long-term consistency becomes a defining factor. Additives designed for sustained use demonstrate reliable performance across extended storage periods and repeated production cycles. This stability supports continuous manufacturing and reduces the need for frequent reformulation, making import alternatives viable for long-term production rather than short-term trials. Quality Control and Operational Efficiency Stable additive performance contributes directly to smoother quality management. Reduced formulation variability and fewer process adjustments help maintain uniform product quality, particularly in high-volume or multi-batch production environments. This predictability simplifies production planning and improves overall operational efficiency. Technical Support and Application Expertise Backed by in-house development, application testing, and responsive technical support, qualified additive solutions can be tailored to specific formulation needs. Through close collaboration and practical benchmarking, formulators gain access to reliable alternatives that integrate smoothly into existing systems. These capabilities support long-term performance, supply stability, and formulation confidence.

From mixing to application, rheology control in high-filled solvent pastes is rarely linear. A formulation that appears well-controlled during mixing can behave very differently once shear conditions change during pumping, filling, or application. In high-filled systems, rheology is not a single property—but a sequence of responses to changing stress and time.  Under the high shear conditions of mixing, high-filled pastes often behave more forgivingly. Particle networks are temporarily broken down, viscosity is reduced, and flow appears manageable. The challenge is that this apparent stability does not necessarily predict performance during later stages, where shear becomes intermittent or much lower. Problems typically emerge as the paste transitions from mixing to downstream processes. As shear decreases during pumping, storage, or application, internal structures begin to rebuild. In high-filled systems, this structural recovery can be rapid and uneven, directly influencing flow behavior, transfer efficiency, and surface quality. Once structure begins to rebuild, small formulation differences are amplified. Pastes that flowed smoothly in the mixer may show unstable pumping pressure, poor filling consistency, or uneven application. These are not sudden failures, but cumulative consequences of uncontrolled structural recovery. This shifts rheology control from fixing flow problems downstream to designing how structure breaks down and rebuilds across the entire process. In high-filled solvent pastes, structural recovery is not an accidental side effect—it is a behavior that must be intentionally engineered. At this stage, additives act as structural regulators rather than simple performance enhancers. Dispersants, wetting agents, and rheology modifiers collectively define particle spacing, network strength, and the rate at which structure reforms once shear is reduced. If these interactions are not balanced, recovery becomes either too rapid—leading to poor transfer and application—or too weak, resulting in segregation and instability. Effective rheology control therefore depends less on achieving a target viscosity under mixing conditions, and more on controlling behavior under low and intermittent shear. Additives must remain active beyond the mixer, maintaining interfacial control as particles re-approach and networks rebuild. When this balance is achieved, flow becomes predictable across mixing, pumping, and application—without relying on excessive shear or corrective processing. High-filled solvent pastes leave little margin for correction once structure rebuilds. Designing rheology around how and when structure recovers is therefore essential. The question is no longer whether a paste can flow under shear—but whether its structure is controlled well enough to behave consistently when shear is removed.

Ezhou Anjikang Technology Co., Ltd.  a professional additive manufacturer Experimental record sheet Experiment Name: Compare the color development and viscosity of the color paste sent by the customer     Client / Applicant Mr. Feng Experiment date:  Jan.29 2026     Objective Color paste formulation Black         E40b010H resin 51.43             6# carbon black 10             PM/S08 11.83             BCS/A171 20.57             Dispersant 6.17 6062A 6062B 6622 6050     Procedure:Add materials step by step, grind for 3 hours, and test the fineness, viscosity, and color development   Result     Fineness um Viscosity S           6062A ≤15 1947           6062B ≤15 2187           6622 ≤15 2139           6050 ≤15 1899           Color paste from customer ＞40 4590           Remaining thermal storage tests are pending. Color development comparison results             Conclusion:6050 is the bluest, 6622 is medium, and 6062A is consistent with the customer's sample.

 Ezhou Anjeka Technology Co., Ltd. a professional additive manufacturer Experimental record sheet Experiment Name:  Comparison of 6062A vs. 4063 for Anti-Floating Performance in Acrylic Systems     Client: / Applicant:  Mr. Wang Test date: Jan.22 2026     Objectives: Color paste formulation:     Name of raw material: White Black phthalocyanine blue 15:1 Red F3RK Permanent Violet Phthalocyanine Green   3760 resin 40 30 40 20 30 40   Mixed solvent: xylene: butyl acetate: PMA 4：3：3 8 25 30 34 53 27   Anjeka6402 1             Anjeka6104S 1             Anjeka6062A/4063   15 10 12 6 11   Pigment 50 30 20 24 11 22   Organic Bentonite 0.5             Total 100.5 100 100 90 100 100   Procedure After configuring various color pastes according to the recipe, grind them for 3 hours until the fineness is less than 10um. Then, prepare 6062A/4063 blue-gray topcoats for brushing and finger sanding. Add 25% thinner to the original paint (3 hours) and compare the floating color situation   3760 Blue-Grey Paint 3760 resin 60   3760 resin 60       white paste6402/6104S 20   White paste without dispersant 20       6062A black paste 2   4063 black paste 2       6062A blue paste 2.5   4063 blue paste 2.5       6062A purple paste 0.8   4063 purple paste 0.8       Mixed solvent: xylene: butyl acetate: PMA 4：3：3 14.3   Mixed solvent: xylene: butyl acetate: PMA 4：3：3 14.3       7333 0.4             Paint ratio: paint: solid: mixed thinner = 100:15:9.2 for brushing. Add 25% mixed thinner to the original paint to observe the dilution and floating color.  Result:           Conclusion:In terms of brushing, dilution, and storage anti-floating color, 6062A outperforms 4063, with the smallest total color difference in the research.