Phil Phillips, Contributing Editor06.05.17
CHEMARK Interviews Chris Reding, manager, Business Development, DSM Powder Coating Resins, Inc.
CHEMARK: Why should we be interested in powder coating for heat-sensitive substrates?
Reding: The operational, environmental and performance benefits of powder simply make it a better choice than incumbent coating technologies for many applications. By lowering operational costs, increasing end-product value and providing a mechanism for meaningful differentiation, powder is a competitive advantage.
CHEMARK: Given those advantages, and despite significant investments made, powder hasn’t achieved much in the way of commercial success beyond metal substrates. To what do you attribute the slow progress?
Reding: Technology gaps have taken some time to work through. From the first efforts in the early 1990s until only a few years ago, the technologies that were available to choose from made transitioning to powder an “iffy” proposition that came with a fair degree of uncertainty about the results that doing so would yield. By the mid-2000s, the technologies had improved to a point that powder was a more practicable option, and promising opportunities were developing – only to be derailed when domestic manufacturing took a nose-dive. With the slow pace of the recovery since then, most manufacturers have been understandably cautious about embracing new technologies. The technology has advanced to such a degree that, for those who have taken a close look at the possibilities, converting to powder coatings is no longer an iffy proposition. Rather, as those who have made the conversion in recent years will attest, converting to powder coating for heat-sensitive substrates is steadily developing into a competitive necessity.
CHEMARK: Tell us more about the the “technology gaps” that you referenced.
Reding: Essentially, we had to advance the technologies to a point that the pros of conversion outweighed the cons.
In terms of the formulated powder, the hurdles included lowering the cure temperature and curing faster, with an approach that was suitable for complex parts (so that parts could be cured without a lamp requiring line-of-sight to the substrate). Storage stability also had to be addressed. Aesthetic properties had to be improved, to provide for smoothness and gloss versatility to be truly competitive with the looks achieved by incumbent technologies. Finally, we needed a powder coating that could be used with the substrates that manufacturers are already coating. With the introduction just a few years ago of a binder system based on unsaturated polyester (imparting flexibility) + urethane (durability), we finally have a powder coating technology with the ability to close those gaps.
Solving the formulary puzzle wasn’t enough. The electrostatic variables associated with non-metal substrates required a new approach. The development of regulated counter electrodes provided the solution. Finally, we needed an efficient and reliable way to cure powder on heat-sensitive substrates, which requires precision control to direct sufficient heat to the powder while minimizing the heat absorbed by the substrate. The answer came in the form of catalytic infrared curing.
CHEMARK: What is it going to take for powder to move beyond its current, modest position on non-metal applications?
Reding: We already see very good momentum in Europe, which began with adoption by leading furniture and cabinet manufacturers. In North America manufacturers have been more conservative. That said, the wheels are in motion. I’m very confident that there will be a nice success story for me to tell you about by the close of next year.
CHEMARK: Beyond having closed the technology gaps, what are the essentials to build on the success?
Reding: Manufacturers need assurance that the investment will yield the benefits that we promise; and, as a raw materials supplier, we can’t make the case without help. We are working in a collaboration with companies representing every downstream element of our value-chain.
CHEMARK: What else should we know?
Reding: When we promote the advantages of powder coatings, the focus is usually to convey how the technology allows a manufacturer to more efficiently produce a finish that will look and perform like their existing finish; in a way that is friendlier to the environment. Of cousrse, cost and environmental advantages are essential; but there is more to the story.
Specifically, those of us who have been in powder coatings for the long haul sometimes take for granted another important element of the value proposition – the opportunity to differentiate products with powder coatings. It has the ability to look very different (hammer tones, veins, speckles, etc.). Further, fast and efficient color change without the addition of floor space is now a reality due to advancements made by application and recovery equipment suppliers. To the point, with the strengthening trend towards “mass-customization” in view, powder can provide both operational solutions and design options that are simply not possible with the incumbent coating technologies.
CHEMARK: Why should we be interested in powder coating for heat-sensitive substrates?
Reding: The operational, environmental and performance benefits of powder simply make it a better choice than incumbent coating technologies for many applications. By lowering operational costs, increasing end-product value and providing a mechanism for meaningful differentiation, powder is a competitive advantage.
CHEMARK: Given those advantages, and despite significant investments made, powder hasn’t achieved much in the way of commercial success beyond metal substrates. To what do you attribute the slow progress?
Reding: Technology gaps have taken some time to work through. From the first efforts in the early 1990s until only a few years ago, the technologies that were available to choose from made transitioning to powder an “iffy” proposition that came with a fair degree of uncertainty about the results that doing so would yield. By the mid-2000s, the technologies had improved to a point that powder was a more practicable option, and promising opportunities were developing – only to be derailed when domestic manufacturing took a nose-dive. With the slow pace of the recovery since then, most manufacturers have been understandably cautious about embracing new technologies. The technology has advanced to such a degree that, for those who have taken a close look at the possibilities, converting to powder coatings is no longer an iffy proposition. Rather, as those who have made the conversion in recent years will attest, converting to powder coating for heat-sensitive substrates is steadily developing into a competitive necessity.
CHEMARK: Tell us more about the the “technology gaps” that you referenced.
Reding: Essentially, we had to advance the technologies to a point that the pros of conversion outweighed the cons.
In terms of the formulated powder, the hurdles included lowering the cure temperature and curing faster, with an approach that was suitable for complex parts (so that parts could be cured without a lamp requiring line-of-sight to the substrate). Storage stability also had to be addressed. Aesthetic properties had to be improved, to provide for smoothness and gloss versatility to be truly competitive with the looks achieved by incumbent technologies. Finally, we needed a powder coating that could be used with the substrates that manufacturers are already coating. With the introduction just a few years ago of a binder system based on unsaturated polyester (imparting flexibility) + urethane (durability), we finally have a powder coating technology with the ability to close those gaps.
Solving the formulary puzzle wasn’t enough. The electrostatic variables associated with non-metal substrates required a new approach. The development of regulated counter electrodes provided the solution. Finally, we needed an efficient and reliable way to cure powder on heat-sensitive substrates, which requires precision control to direct sufficient heat to the powder while minimizing the heat absorbed by the substrate. The answer came in the form of catalytic infrared curing.
CHEMARK: What is it going to take for powder to move beyond its current, modest position on non-metal applications?
Reding: We already see very good momentum in Europe, which began with adoption by leading furniture and cabinet manufacturers. In North America manufacturers have been more conservative. That said, the wheels are in motion. I’m very confident that there will be a nice success story for me to tell you about by the close of next year.
CHEMARK: Beyond having closed the technology gaps, what are the essentials to build on the success?
Reding: Manufacturers need assurance that the investment will yield the benefits that we promise; and, as a raw materials supplier, we can’t make the case without help. We are working in a collaboration with companies representing every downstream element of our value-chain.
CHEMARK: What else should we know?
Reding: When we promote the advantages of powder coatings, the focus is usually to convey how the technology allows a manufacturer to more efficiently produce a finish that will look and perform like their existing finish; in a way that is friendlier to the environment. Of cousrse, cost and environmental advantages are essential; but there is more to the story.
Specifically, those of us who have been in powder coatings for the long haul sometimes take for granted another important element of the value proposition – the opportunity to differentiate products with powder coatings. It has the ability to look very different (hammer tones, veins, speckles, etc.). Further, fast and efficient color change without the addition of floor space is now a reality due to advancements made by application and recovery equipment suppliers. To the point, with the strengthening trend towards “mass-customization” in view, powder can provide both operational solutions and design options that are simply not possible with the incumbent coating technologies.
