Hits: 1895 img
When purchasing teams look for an alternative fumed silica supplier, one concern often appears:
“Will we have to change our entire formulation if we change the silica?”
Not necessarily.
A more practical first step is to run a controlled parallel trial.
The objective is not to immediately reformulate around the new silica. It is to determine how the candidate material behaves against the current product under comparable conditions.
Before testing, compare the candidate and current silica for relevant specifications such as:
For example, IOTA HL7200 is a hydrophilic fumed silica with a published BET surface area of 200±20 m²/g, pH of 3.9–4.5, and SiO₂ content of at least 99.8%.
However, similar specifications do not automatically guarantee identical formulation performance.
For the first screening test, avoid changing several variables at the same time.
A practical approach is:
Current formulation + current dosage + current process
and change only:
Current silica → Candidate silica
This gives a much clearer comparison.
The evaluation criteria should depend on the customer's actual product.
For sealants and adhesives, compare processing, extrusion, rheology, anti-sagging and finished-product performance.
For silicone rubber, compare processing, dispersion, reinforcement and finished mechanical properties.
For coatings, compare dispersion, rheology, application behavior and storage stability.
HL7200 is currently positioned for coatings, HTV/RTV silicone rubber, adhesives and sealants.
If the first trial shows a small difference, determine whether it comes from:
before reaching a conclusion.
The purpose of the first trial is to identify the difference—not to assume that every alternative silica must behave identically without any process adjustment.
A useful evaluation sequence is:
COA comparison → Equal-dosage lab trial → Application comparison → Minor optimization if required → Finished-product verification → Production trial
This reduces the risk of changing multiple variables at once.
Instead of simply asking:
“Do you have an equivalent 200-grade fumed silica?”
provide:
This makes supplier recommendations much more relevant.
Can IOTA HL7200 directly replace another 200 m²/g hydrophilic fumed silica?
It can be evaluated as a candidate, but direct replacement should be confirmed through parallel formulation testing.
Should I change the formulation before testing a new silica?
Usually the first trial is more informative when the existing formulation and process are kept unchanged.
Is the same BET enough to confirm equivalence?
No. Actual formulation and finished-product performance should also be compared.
What should be tested first?
Start with the properties that directly affect your application and current production process.
When should production-scale testing begin?
After the laboratory comparison has shown acceptable performance and any necessary minor adjustments have been identified.
Product Reference:
IOTA HL7200 Hydrophilic Fumed Silica
