One of the more persistent challenges in silicone coating is how deeply ingrained trade names have become in our formulation habits. For decades, we’ve worked with well-known systems: using this brand of polymer, paired with that brand of crosslinker, modifier, and catalyst—each with a proprietary name.
Many companies even enshrine these trade names in their ISO 9001 documentation, making it difficult to adapt when equivalent materials are available—especially when those materials are potentially more sustainable, cost-effective, or regionally sourced.
But here’s the reality: silicone raw materials are often commodities. Over the years, I’ve observed the same molecule sold under multiple trade names, sometimes even originating from the same production site. In some cases, material is exchanged between suppliers to reduce freight or balance supply, only to be rebranded and resold.
As new suppliers enter the market, they offer transparency—labeling materials as “Vinyl-functional polymer, with a visosity of 500 mm²/s, and a reactivity: 0.4 mol% Vi,” for example. But many in the industry struggle to compare that directly to decades-old recipes built around legacy names.
At one point, I worked with a team that managed over 10,000 silicone formulations. Many were functionally identical, differing only by the brand names listed on the spec sheet.
This model of working is no longer sustainable in a world moving toward lean operations, cost transparency, and environmental accountability.
The way forward is to define materials by their function and chemistry, not their marketing identity. Documenting molecular specifications and internal naming conventions allows for flexibility, supplier diversification, and a smarter, more sustainable approach to formulation.
The industry doesn’t need a revolution—but it does need more clarity. And clarity begins with chemistry.