PFAS-Free Coating Additives

Evaluate surface-control alternatives against substrate wetting, leveling, cratering and downstream adhesion requirements, with an explicit PFAS declaration scope.

General technical information published by PAXOMER Inc. to support preliminary material evaluation. It is compiled from the sources cited on this page and has not been independently reviewed or certified by a professional engineer, laboratory or certification body. Values marked typical, illustrative or requiring confirmation are not specifications. Confirm properties, standard editions, regulatory status and suitability for your specific application with the manufacturer and, where the use is regulated or safety-related, with a qualified professional or the relevant authority.

1. Quick answer

PFAS replacement is a function-by-function formulation task. A coating may need wetting, slip, leveling or foam control; a single replacement is not assumed to reproduce every function of the incumbent. Silicone-containing and silicone-free options must be screened separately where recoatability or contamination sensitivity matters.

2. What is the product, and what function does it perform?

PFAS replacement is a function-by-function formulation task. A coating may need wetting, slip, leveling or foam control; a single replacement is not assumed to reproduce every function of the incumbent. Silicone-containing and silicone-free options must be screened separately where recoatability or contamination sensitivity matters.

Educational qualification guidance. No manufacturer agreement, stocked grade, certification, sample availability or equivalence is established. All numerical limits must come from a verified grade and an agreed test method.

3. Which technical differences distinguish the candidates?

4. How should buyers select a candidate for the application?

5. What information should a structured specification request contain?

6. How should an application trial establish acceptance?

Start with the control formulation and identify which incumbent functions are essential. Screen candidate and control at documented active-content bases, keeping substrate preparation, application speed and film thickness fixed. Record foam, craters, gloss and recoat adhesion both initially and after storage.

• Obtain exact-grade TDS and SDS before handling; follow supplier guidance for addition order, storage and equipment.
• Agree acceptance limits, sample identifiers and measurement conditions before the first comparison.
• Retain formulation, batch and process records; repeat promising conditions to check reproducibility before scale-up.

7. What limitations and tradeoffs affect selection?

A smoother film can still fail a later printing or recoating operation. If wetting improves while adhesion falls, investigate migration, contamination and cure before increasing addition. A fluorine-related analytical result does not by itself establish every possible PFAS claim.

8. What should a technical enquiry include?

Send the following requirements so an inquiry can be assessed against an actual application: Binder; aqueous/solvent/UV system; substrate and pretreatment; incumbent function; silicone tolerance; coating method; recoat/print requirements; required PFAS definition.

State trial quantity, recurring demand, destination, timing, required origin and document needs. Commercial capability, export suitability and terms require separate confirmation. No purchasing commitment is created by this page.

9. What evidence is required before approval?

Require grade identity, revision-controlled TDS/SDS, declaration scope, representative trial results and agreed lot acceptance. Ask how changes in composition or production are communicated. Record unresolved questions instead of inferring a specification from a family name.

10. Which sources support the guidance, and what are their limits?

BYK: PFAS-free surface additives (opens in a new tab)

Public manufacturer sources establish family/function context only. They do not establish PAXOMER authorization, an offer or applicability of a named grade. Trial plans and buyer-request fields on this page are planning aids that need qualified technical review before use. No full product dossier or restricted-substance declaration was obtained.

11. How should an application trial establish acceptance?

Replace the required function, not merely a chemical label. Identify whether the incumbent contributes foam control, wetting, slip or another measured effect. Keep a reference coating and define acceptance for each affected function before choosing a candidate described as PFAS-free.

12. Which checks distinguish compatibility problems from process problems?

Agree a written material-declaration scope for the exact grade and its supplied carrier. Qualify incorporation, coating appearance, storage and downstream operations independently of that declaration. A candidate can meet an agreed composition criterion and still fail the coating performance requirement.

13. Which technical differences distinguish the candidates?

14. Which manufacturer documents support the purchasing decision?

Ask manufacturers to identify candidate functions and provide current technical and safety documents plus an appropriately scoped declaration. Record formulation version, incorporation and test conditions. BYK presents PFAS-free additive solutions, including defoamer examples; the label does not establish blanket compliance or direct interchangeability across product families.

15. Which sources support the guidance, and what are their limits?

BYK: PFAS-free additive solutions (opens in a new tab)

16. Separate fluorine-related claims from coating-surface performance

A change away from a fluorinated additive may require a different balance of wetting, slip, levelling and foam control. Begin with the role of the incumbent, the coating binder and the application method. Avoid assuming that one replacement ingredient reproduces every function of a previous package.

Define the PFAS declaration scope separately from the functional trial. Ask what the supplier’s statement covers and how it aligns with the buyer’s requirement. A chemical-family substitution can change surface enrichment, recoating and stain or cleaning response. Test the actual multilayer construction and intended exposure rather than a single fresh drawdown.

Use clear acceptance photographs, controlled panels and relevant measurements for appearance, adhesion and subsequent processing. Keep dosage basis, mixing sequence, cure and film thickness consistent. Do not describe a candidate as universally compliant, non-toxic or environmentally superior merely because a selected substance family is excluded.

17. How should production problems be investigated?

Use the observations below to structure an investigation. They identify possible mechanisms, not a diagnosis from appearance alone. Compare candidate and control under the same defined conditions.

18. Which sources support the guidance, and what are their limits?

These references support the named material or test scope. They do not establish supplier representation, a complete claim audit or a PAXOMER product approval.

https://local.byk.com/products/additives-for-the-coatings-industry (opens in a new tab)

19. How should a non-fluorinated surface-additive substitution be validated?

Define the claimed chemical scope separately from performance. Obtain a supplier statement for the exact grade and ask what the statement covers. Run wetting, appearance, foam and downstream adhesion checks in the complete formulation. A replacement that improves spreading may change slip or recoat behaviour. Do not infer a complete formulation's fluorine status from one additive's marketing label.

BASF: alternative coating-additive technologies — Technology families only; no absence claim transferred to an offered grade. (opens in a new tab)

20. What should a PFAS-related declaration say before a coating additive is shortlisted?

Ask the supplier to identify the exact product, production scope, declaration date and definition being used. A statement about intentionally added ingredients, a targeted analytical result and a complete composition declaration answer different questions. Preserve the original wording; do not shorten a qualified statement into an absolute absence claim. Definitions and applicable obligations require destination-specific review.

Hypothetical reporting example: a laboratory result of “less than 10 mg/kg” under a named method means below that reported threshold for the stated analyte and sample. It does not mean zero, and it does not establish the absence of every substance in a broad chemical class. The invented threshold is not a legal limit, a recommended detection limit or an actual product result.

21. How should a PFAS-related additive substitution trial be evaluated?

Agree the control and decision criteria before the trial.

22. Which observations can change the substitution decision?

If the candidate passes a declaration check but changes coating defects, evaluate function and compatibility under a controlled trial. Record which surface-control role the original additive provided. A composition statement cannot demonstrate that a substitute will produce the same appearance, application window or downstream adhesion.

23. Frequently asked questions

24. References

Links inside sections are supplier or standards-body context for the statements they accompany.

Last revised 2026-10-27.

Related guides

• Silicone Wetting & Surface-Control Additives
• Specialty Coating Additives: Dispersion, Flow & Application

Explore further

Product and material pages

• Silicone Surface-Control Additives
• Industrial Coating Additives
• PFAS-Free Additives for Coatings & Inks

Material card: PFAS-Free Coating Additives (listed in Products & Solutions).

Glossary terms

Drop-in replacement · Functional equivalence

Tools

Product Finder · Manufacturer Finder · RFQ brief