EZHOU ANJEKA TECHNOLOGY CO.,Ltd

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.

EZHOU ANJEKA TECHNOLOGY CO.,Ltd professional additives supplier Experimental record sheet Test name Comparative test of 75% water-based white paste dispersant Temperature/humidity： 4-5/100 Customer Qiyuan Applicant Mrs Xv Test date Jan.16 2026     Objective： In this system, the dispersants compared to BYK190 were screened and compared color paste formula color paste formula Sedimentation Status After Storage       material amount note       water 18.8             dispersant 6 Anjiakang 6070, 6871, 6210, 6220 and BYK-190         defoamer 0.2 Anjeka5062A           titanium dioxide 75 sample from customer                           Experimental Method After the color paste is configured, disperse the color paste at a high speed of 2000r/min * 30min Place at room temperature to compare the fineness, viscosity, and settling state of the color paste after thermal storage“ Result Initial Paste Item BYK-190 Anjeka6070 Anjeka6871 Anjeka6210 Anjeka6220     Fineness μm ≤20 ≤20 ≤15 ≤15 ≤25     Viscosity mpa.s 1130 1442 1754 2403 5119     Paste after Heat Storage at 54℃ for 2 Days Item BYK-190 Anjeka6070 Anjeka6871 Anjeka6210 Anjeka6220     Fineness μm ≤20 ≤20 ≤15 ≤15 ≤25     Viscosity mpa.s 385 2595 3365 2908 19804     Sedimentation Status Small amount of hard sediment A small amount of soft sediment Slight thixotropy/No settling Slight thixotropy/No settling Thick/No settling                     Experimental Conclusion 1. Dispersion Efficiency: 6871 and 6210 are superior to BYK-190. Anjeka-6070 shows comparable efficiency to BYK-190. 2. Viscosity Reduction: 6871 and 6070 are slightly inferior to BYK-190 in viscosity-lowering capability. 3. Thermal Storage Settling: 6871: No settling. 6070: Soft settlement (easy to redisperse). BYK-190: Hard settlement (difficult to redisperse).

 EZHOU ANJEKA TECHNOLOGY CO.,Ltd  Professional additive manufacturer Experimental record sheet Test name: Solvent-free saturated polyester color paste with high pigment loading Temperature / Humidity: 12/68 Customer Long xing Applicant Lihui Feng Test date Jan.23 2026     Test Objective: To screen suitable dispersants using the customer-specified pigment loading. Both pigment and resin are customer-provided samples. Color paste formula             white black green 5RK redMiddle Yellow 15:3 blue   saturated polyester 23 76.5 70 70 33 70   dispersant 6111/6911/6860 6976A/6173 6976A/6173 6976A/6173 6111/6911/6860 6976A/6173   dosage of dispersant  7 8.5 10 10 7 10   pigment content 70 15 20 20 60 30   Procedure After adding the materials step by step, disperse at 1500 rpm for 15 minutes. Then incorporate the color paste into the unsaturated base resin and store at room temperature for 7 days. The color paste should remain visually flowable, with no thixotropy observed. Result   Unsaturated resin base     grey     blue   Unsaturated resin 9109 60   Unsaturated base material 77.8   Unsaturated base material 82.6 dispersant 6910 0.5   White paste 20   White paste 15 Calcium carbonate 39.5   blue paste 0.2   blue paste 2       yellow paste 0.3   red paste 0.4       black paste 0.6             red paste 0.2                       Appearance Flow   Viscosity   Viscosity       dispersant name 6860  Medium Chrome Yellow 19033 6860 white 32313 6173 red 6998     6911 Medium Chrome Yellow 16567 6911white 11568 6976A red 6849     6111 Medium Chrome Yellow no flow 6173 green 7902 6173 black 13329     6173 Medium Chrome Yellow 31870 6976A green 23128 6173 blue 37514     6111 white no flow 6500-50 green 10759 6976A blue 45370                    Finger Research Comparison                When adding unsaturated base materials, pay attention to the temperature during stirring                           Conclusion: 1. Color paste visually appears flowable without thixotropy: 6860 yellow, 6911 yellow, 6173 yellow, 6173 green, 6976A green, 6500-50 green, 6173 red, 6976A red, 6860 white, 6911 white, 6173 black, 6976A blue, 6173 blue. 2. Unsaturated base gray and blue storage passes the finger rub test.

  EZHOU ANJEKA TECHNOLOGY CO.,Ltd   professional additive manufacturer Experimental test sheet Test name: Testing of 6881 Universal (Water/Oil) Color Paste in Water-Soluble Baking Paint Temperature/Humidity:   Customer:   Applicant Mr. Chen Test name Jan. 15 2026     Color paste formula pigment paste formulation   Base Paint Formulation   titanium white paste（R996） carbon black paste （MA100) Note   Material Amount Note Solvent 24 55 BCS   water-soluble resin 40 Propylene glycol Dispersant 6 15 AJK 6881   DMEA 3   Pigment 70 30     amino resin 10   Total 100 100     BCS 18             ethanol 9             Water 20             Total 100   paint formula           White Black           the above color paste 20 10           Base Paint 80 90                           Procedure Preparation of Universal Paste: Grind and prepare a universal (water- and solvent-compatible) color paste according to the specified formulation. Preparation of Base Paint: Using a high-speed disperser, prepare the base paint by mixing at 800 rpm for 10 minutes. Tinting: Separately add the prepared black paste and white paste into portions of the base paint. Evaluation: a. Observe the tinted paints for any signs of flocculation or grit formation. b. Draw down each tinted paint and cure the films at 140°C for 10 minutes. c. Evaluate the gloss of the cured panels. Test results     White Paste White Paste Black Paste Black Paste Blank     Fineness（μm） ≤10 ≤10 ≤10 ≤10 ≤5     20° Gloss   43   86 87     60° Gloss   80   94 126 (The high reading may be attributed to light reflection from the tinplate substrate.)                     Conclusion The universal color paste prepared with Anjeka6881 demonstrates good incorporation and excellent gloss in water-soluble amino baking paints.

Selection of UV defoaming agent   Objective: The customer's UV coating requires the selection of a defoaming agent, with the goal of not affecting transparency and having strong defoaming ability   Procedure: Take 10g of the customer's sample paint, add a defoaming agent until it is slightly mixed, and then add another 10g of sample paint; Stir and test for foaming property and compatibility (with a maximum turbidity of 5%) Defoamer Dosage Hand-whipping foaming ability and compatibility Note 5052 1% Slight turbidity, with particles precipitating   5053 1% Slight turbidity, with particles precipitating   5055 1% Slight turbidity, with particles precipitating   5055A 1% Slight turbidity, with particles precipitating   5057 1% Slight turbidity, with particles precipitating   5066N 1% Slightly turbid, with defoaming and foam-suppressing effects   5088 1% Slightly turbid, with defoaming and foam-suppressing effects   5141 1% Slightly turbid, with defoaming and foam-suppressing effects   5300A 1% Slight turbidity, with particles precipitating   5530 1% Slight turbidity, with particles precipitating   5680A 1% Slight turbidity, with particles precipitating   7356 1% Clear, without defoaming or foam suppression effect   7358A 1% Clear, without defoaming or foam suppression effect   7361 1% Clear, without defoaming or foam suppression effect   7377 1% Clear, without defoaming or foam suppression effect   7380 1% Clear, without defoaming or foam suppression effect   7410 1% Severely turbid, with many bubbles   7422 1% Clear, without defoaming or foam suppression effect   Key Experiments                 Procedure: Select products that showed better compatibility from the previous tests. Determine their dosage that does not adversely affect the appearance. For each selected product, prepare two samples at its minimum (0.1%) and maximum (2.0%) effective dosage. Place each sample in a glass bottle and shake vigorously for 10 minutes. Immediately after shaking, observe and record the following: Foam Generation (amount of foam formed) Defoaming Rate (speed of foam collapse) Compatibility (transparency, haze, or separation) Item Dosage 0.1% Dosage 2% Note   Foam Height Defoaming Time Compatibility Foam Height Defoaming Time Compatibility All ratings are on a scale from 0 to 9, with 0 being the best and 9 the worst. without defoamer 3mm ＞2H clear and transparent 3mm ＞2H clear and transparent 1#5066N 2.5mm ＞2H clear and transparent 1mm 21min Severely turbid 2#5141 2.5mm ＞2H clear and transparent 1mm 27min Severely turbid 3#5088 2.5mm ＞2H clear and transparent 1mm 55min Severely turbid                   Quantitative Experiment 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.50% 0.80% 1% 2%   Defoamer 5066N               Foam Height       2mm 1.5mm 1.5mm   Defoaming Time       60min 33min 30min   Compatibility       almost transparent slightly turbid slightly turbid   Conclusion We recommend using 5066N as the UV defoaming agent for this customer, with a recommended dosage of 0.5-1%

The Erasability Equation: How Additives Enable Clean Wiping Without Ghosting or Staining A whiteboard makes a simple promise: write clearly, erase completely. Yet this promise is routinely broken by ghosting, staining, and stubborn residue—frustrating users and eroding brand trust. The root cause is rarely the board itself. More often, it lies hidden within the ink's formulation. Achieving true, lasting erasability isn’t about a single ingredient. It’s about solving a precise chemical equation, where specialized additives are the essential variables. Part 1: The Core Paradox – A Film That Is Strong Yet Weak The solution resides at the ink-board interface—a nanoscale frontier where every wipe succeeds or fails. The ideal ink forms a film that is internally cohesive yet interfacially weak, allowing it to lift off cleanly as a unified layer. This delicate balance is achieved through additive-driven interfacial engineering, where components strategically position themselves during drying: Migration: Additives like specific waxes travel to the surface, forming a thin, lubricating top layer. Segregation: Low-surface-energy agents create a release-friendly interface, chemically distinct from the bulk ink. Anchoring Control: Adhesion promoters are carefully dosed to provide initial hold without forming a permanent bond. These additives don't just blend in; they perform precision interfacial assembly exactly where it matters. Part 2: Selecting the “Interfacial Engineers” Formulating for erasability means choosing additives that execute specific interfacial roles: 1. For Surface Migration & Lubrication Primary Tools: Specialized micronized waxes (PE, PTFE) and silicone-based additives. Key Consideration: Compatibility dictates migration speed and surface concentration. The goal is optimal lubrication without cratering or harming intercoat adhesion in layered applications. 2. For Controlled Segregation & Release Primary Tools: Low-surface-energy polymers and select fluorosurfactants. Key Consideration: These components must permanently modify the interface, creating a durable release layer that withstands repeated cleaning. 3. For Precise Anchoring Primary Tools: Tackifying resins or low-polarity adhesion promoters. Key Consideration: Dosage is critical—enough to anchor, but never enough to override the engineered release layer. The fundamental challenge is system compatibility. A perfect wax can be destabilized by an incompatible dispersant. Thus, formulation transforms into a holistic exercise in interfacial design. Part 3: Validation – A Systems Approach to Testing This integrated design demands validation beyond single-variable tests. Success requires evaluating the entire additive package through a rigorous, three-stage protocol: Stage 1: Compatibility Screening Objective: Ensure foundational stability in the liquid state. Method: Monitor for seeding, haze, or viscosity drift over 72+ hours of storage. Stage 2: Migration Efficiency Analysis Objective: Verify that interfacial assembly occurs as designed. Method: Use surface-analysis techniques (e.g., ATR-FTIR) to confirm the enrichment of key additives at the air interface on cured films. Stage 3: Functional Cycle Testing Objective: Assess real-world performance and long-term durability. Method: Conduct accelerated write-erase cycling on actual whiteboards. This reveals not only initial erasability but also resistance to residue buildup over time. Failure at any stage necessitates reevaluation. Success, however, signifies something greater: you have engineered not a simple mixture, but a self-organizing system—where each component performs its precise, timed role in the dynamic process of film formation and erasure. Conclusion: From Chemical Equation to User Confidence Mastering the erasability equation does more than solve a formulation challenge—it fulfills a fundamental product promise. When additives are strategically designed to manage the ink-board interface, the result is an experience of effortless clarity and reliable performance. In a competitive market, this invisible science becomes a visible brand advantage, building trust one clean wipe at a time. Ready to solve the erasability equation in your formulations? Let’s discuss how a strategic additive approach can eliminate ghosting and build lasting product integrity. #WhiteboardInk #Erasability #Additives #Formulation #SurfaceScience #CoatingsTechnology #ProductDesign

In formulation work, additives are often categorized by function—dispersant, defoamer, wetting agent, flow modifier. On paper, products within the same category appear interchangeable. In practice, however, replacing one additive with another that claims the same function frequently leads to unexpected performance changes.   This is because functional labels describe intended roles, not behavior within a specific system. Additives differ in chemistry, molecular architecture, polarity, and mobility—factors that determine how they interact with resins, pigments, solvents, and other additives once incorporated into a formulation.   During coating application and film formation, additive behavior becomes especially sensitive. Variations in mobility and compatibility influence how additives migrate, orient, and remain active as viscosity increases and solvents evaporate—directly affecting appearance, uniformity, and long-term performance   When these interactions are not fully understood, performance shifts often appear only during application or curing. Issues such as cratering, edge defects, poor leveling, or inconsistent film build may emerge—despite unchanged raw material specifications and similar laboratory data.   This is why additive replacement should never be treated as a simple one-to-one exchange. Even when additives share the same functional label, their behavior within a coating system can differ significantly—making system-level evaluation essential before implementation.   A successful additive replacement strategy is therefore based on understanding system behavior—not matching product labels. Performance consistency comes from evaluating interactions, timing, and compatibility across the entire formulation.