Distinguish rubber from TPR and provide the actual component. The factory catalogue separates rubber treatment and TPR treatment, and it also distinguishes printing ink from spray-coating products. Those distinctions prevent misleading cross-category recommendations.
A material-led evaluation workflow
| Process stage | Source-backed selection boundary |
|---|---|
| Cleaning | Describe the actual surface condition and the cleaner currently used. |
| Pretreatment | SQ-333 and SQ-335 identify different rubber-treatment contexts. Confirm component and substrate colour. |
| Printing | RP rubber ink is listed; review the stated stain-removal-solvent limitation. |
| Coating / finish | RP and HRP are distinct coating routes with different source statements. |
| Hardener | Use only the specified component for the chosen treatment or coating. |
| Bonding | Identify the second substrate and any vulcanization or assembly context. |
| Testing | Include relevant cleaning and bonding exposures in the trial plan. |
What to send for evaluation
- The actual Rubber material, including surface finish and colour.
- Current treatment, ink or coating model and the sequence used.
- A photograph of the failure and when it appears in production.
- The test method, conditioning and acceptance requirement you need to meet.
How to use this guide
The stages above organize the technical enquiry. They do not prescribe that every material needs every chemical step. A missing product recommendation means evaluation is required, not that a generic substitute should be added.
Keep the chosen material, basecoat, colour layer and finish together during trials. Record any change so results can be traced to the actual construction. Confirm a successful factory trial before transferring the route to production.
Related products and troubleshooting
Evaluate it on your own material
Send the material type, surface finish, current process and required test. Our technical team can help identify a trial candidate and the appropriate TDS / SDS.