PFAS-Free Additives for Coatings & Inks

Fluorine-free surface, wetting and repellency additives for coatings and inks: function mapping, comparative trials and documentation.

Buyer summary

What it is: Fluorine-free additives that replace fluorinated wetting, levelling, slip and repellency additives in coatings and inks.
Main applications: Architectural and industrial coatings, wood finishes, printing inks and varnishes, food-packaging, textile and paper coatings, electronics coatings and floor care.
Critical purchasing specifications: The function the incumbent fluorinated additive provides
Performance window to match: wetting, levelling, repellency or slip
Written PFAS-status statement, with its definition and test basis
Regulatory information for each target market
Qualification considerations: No single drop-in covers every function, and oil repellency is often the hardest to replace. Run comparative trials of the whole system, including recoat, intercoat adhesion, foam and durability.
First step: Document what the current additive does and the performance your customers expect.
How PAXOMER can assist: Replacing fluorinated additives is a formulation project with regulatory and performance goals. PAXOMER can help document the function the incumbent additive provides, the performance window and the documentation customers expect, identify manufacturers offering PFAS-free alternatives, and coordinate comparative trials. Commercial discussions with the manufacturer can follow a documented result. Manufacturer identification, qualification support and pricing discussions depend on manufacturer confirmation, specifications, quantities and terms.

Prepare an RFQ Send an Inquiry

Detailed technical guidance, data tables, FAQs and technical references follow below.

Regulated uses. Food-contact, drinking-water, medical, pharmaceutical, electrical, fire-rated and other regulated uses need documentation and approvals for the exact product, use and market. This page is general information and confirms none of them; request the evidence in writing.

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.

Fluorinated additives have long been used in coatings and inks for strong surface-tension reduction, substrate wetting, levelling, anti-cratering, oil and water repellency, and stain or anti-graffiti performance. Regulatory pressure and customer requirements around per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are driving formulators to replace them with fluorine-free alternatives based on silicones, polyacrylates, hydrocarbons, waxes and other chemistries.

This page is for coating and ink formulators, product stewards and purchasing teams planning a PFAS-free reformulation. It explains how to map the function of the incumbent additive, which alternative families exist, how to design comparative trials and which documentation customers usually expect. It does not state that PAXOMER stocks or has qualified any additive, gives no regulatory advice, and its tables are a framework rather than confirmed values.

A. Product identity and terminology

1. What do fluorinated additives do in coatings?

Fluorosurfactants and fluoropolymer additives lower surface tension further than most hydrocarbon or silicone surfactants, helping coatings wet low-energy or contaminated substrates, level without craters and resist oils and water. Some provide stain release, anti-graffiti or easy-clean surfaces. Their effect at very low dosage made them attractive; replacing them usually means accepting a different balance of properties or a higher dosage of an alternative.

2. Which PFAS-free alternative families are available?

Alternative additive families (qualitative orientation)
Family	Typical functions	Points to evaluate
Polyether-modified siloxanes	Substrate wetting, levelling, slip, anti-cratering	Recoatability, foam, intercoat adhesion
Polyacrylate levelling agents	Levelling, anti-cratering without silicone	Efficiency, compatibility
Hydrocarbon and acetylenic surfactants	Wetting in water-borne systems	Foam, water sensitivity
Waxes and wax dispersions	Slip, scratch and block resistance	Gloss, clarity
Silicone resins and hybrid binders	Water repellency, easy-clean	Binder change, cost

3. Which terms appear in this area?

PFAS, fluorosurfactant, fluoropolymer additive, static and dynamic surface tension, contact angle, wetting, levelling, cratering, recoatability, intercoat adhesion, oil repellency, water repellency, stain resistance, total fluorine, targeted PFAS analysis, product stewardship statement.

B. Properties and performance

4. How should the incumbent additive's function be mapped?

Run the formulation without the fluorinated additive and record what fails: craters, poor wetting on specific substrates, orange peel, loss of repellency or stain resistance, foam behaviour. This "minus-one" test shows which functions must be replaced and on which substrates. Then select alternatives per function rather than looking for one universal replacement.

5. Which properties should be measured in comparative trials?

Surface tension of the liquid (static and, for fast application, dynamic), contact angle or wetting on the actual substrates, appearance (craters, levelling, gloss), repellency or stain tests where relevant, recoatability and intercoat adhesion, foam, and durability after ageing. Gloss can be measured to ASTM D523 and tape adhesion to ASTM D3359 where those properties matter (S5, S6).

Comparative trial parameters

Illustrative framework only. Measure incumbent and candidates in the same formulation under the same conditions.

Comparative trial parameters
Property	Value or range	Unit	Test conditions	Test method	Grade or construction	Source	Verification status
Static surface tension	measured	mN/m	Temperature and method stated	Agreed method	Liquid coating	None	Application-specific verification required
Wetting on substrate	rating or contact angle	° or rating	Substrate and cleaning stated	Agreed method	Applied film	None	Manufacturer confirmation required
Craters per panel	count	count per area	Panel size and contamination challenge stated	Agreed method	Applied film	None	Manufacturer confirmation required
Gloss	measured	gloss units	Geometry stated	ASTM D523	Cured film	S5	Application-specific verification required
Intercoat adhesion	rating	ASTM D3359 class	Recoat window stated	ASTM D3359	Multi-coat system	S6	Manufacturer confirmation required
PFAS status statement	written	n/a	Definition and analytical basis stated	Supplier statement	Additive	S1	Manufacturer confirmation required

6. How can dosage changes affect formulation cost?

Fluorinated additives often work at very low dosages; alternatives may need more. A simple comparison multiplies dosage by additive price to give additive cost per kilogram of coating. It ignores performance differences and other formulation changes, so treat it as a planning figure only.

Hypothetical additive cost per kilogram of coating

Hypothetical example to show the arithmetic. Dosages and prices are illustrative, not market data.

Hypothetical additive cost per kilogram of coating
Property	Value or range	Unit	Test conditions	Test method	Grade or construction	Source	Verification status
Incumbent dosage	0.10	% on total	Example	Input	Hypothetical incumbent	None	Hypothetical calculation
Incumbent price	120	currency units per kg	Example	Input	Hypothetical incumbent	None	Hypothetical calculation
Incumbent cost per kg coating	0.12	currency units	0.0010 × 120	Arithmetic	Hypothetical	None	Hypothetical calculation
Alternative dosage	0.40	% on total	Example	Input	Hypothetical alternative	None	Hypothetical calculation
Alternative price	25	currency units per kg	Example	Input	Hypothetical alternative	None	Hypothetical calculation
Alternative cost per kg coating	0.10	currency units	0.0040 × 25	Arithmetic	Hypothetical	None	Hypothetical calculation

7. How should regulatory and customer requirements be handled?

PFAS rules are developing and differ by jurisdiction, product category and definition. The US EPA publishes information on PFAS and related actions (S3); Canadian, European and state-level measures also apply in some markets. Customers increasingly ask for statements that a product is "PFAS-free" under a stated definition. Ask additive suppliers for written statements that define the term and the basis (formulation knowledge, total fluorine or targeted analysis), and have your product steward review them. This page does not provide regulatory advice.

8. How is a PFAS-free status verified?

Suppliers support PFAS statements in different ways. Some rely on formulation knowledge: no fluorinated substances are intentionally added and raw-material suppliers have confirmed the same. Others add analytical evidence, such as total organic fluorine screening, which detects fluorine-containing substances broadly, or targeted analysis for a list of named PFAS compounds, which is more specific but covers only the listed substances. Each approach answers a slightly different question, and detection limits matter. Because the definition of PFAS also differs between regulations and customer policies, a statement is only meaningful when it names the definition, the basis and the scope (for example, intentionally added versus any detectable level). Ask for this information for every candidate additive and keep it with the formulation records, so that the finished coating's own statement can be built on documented inputs.

C. Manufacturing and processing

9. What changes in production when additives change?

Alternatives may need different addition points, mixing times or order of addition; some silicone additives increase foam and need defoamer adjustment; water-borne systems may need wetting and defoaming rebalanced together. Run plant-scale batches before full conversion.

10. Which problems appear in PFAS-free reformulation?

Problems, possible causes and first checks
Problem	Possible causes	First checks
Craters return	Lower surface-tension reduction, contamination sensitivity	Contamination challenge test; levelling additive ladder
Poor recoat adhesion	Silicone migration to surface	Intercoat adhesion test; alternative chemistry
Increased foam	Surfactant change	Defoamer rebalance; see defoamers
Loss of oil or stain repellency	No equivalent alternative at that dosage	Repellency tests; binder-based solution
Haze or reduced gloss	Incompatibility of alternative	Compatibility ladder; gloss

11. Are there storage or handling differences?

Follow each alternative's safety data sheet and technical data sheet. Some silicone and wax products need stirring before use or protection from freezing. Keep lots traceable so performance changes can be linked to additive batches.

D. Applications and qualification

12. Where are PFAS-free alternatives being adopted?

Architectural and industrial coatings, wood and furniture finishes, printing inks and overprint varnishes, food-packaging coatings, textile and paper coatings, electronics coatings and floor care. Applications needing strong oil repellency are often the hardest to convert.

13. How should a formulator select candidates?

Map the functions the incumbent provides with a minus-one test.
Shortlist alternative families per function.
Ask manufacturers for candidates with data, dosage guidance and PFAS statements.
Run ladder studies on the actual substrates and application method.
Confirm durability, recoatability and production behaviour before conversion.

14. How should comparative trials be organised?

Use the same base formulation, application method, film thickness and substrates for incumbent and candidates. Include a contamination challenge for crater sensitivity and an ageing step for durability. Record all additive lots. Decide on the lowest dosage that meets every function, not only the most visible one.

15. Which documents should be requested?

Technical data sheet; safety data sheet; written PFAS status statement with definition and basis; regulatory information for the target markets; dosage and compatibility guidance; and change-notification commitment.

E. Procurement, comparisons and decisions

16. How do PFAS-free options compare with fluorinated additives?

Options compared (qualitative)
Option	Where it may be preferred	Trade-offs to evaluate
Fluorinated additive (incumbent)	Very low surface tension at low dosage	Regulatory and customer pressure
Siloxane-based additive	Wetting, levelling, slip	Recoatability, foam
Polyacrylate levelling agent	Silicone-sensitive systems	Lower efficiency in some systems
Binder or resin change	Repellency built into the film	Larger reformulation

17. What determines total cost of conversion?

Additive price and dosage, development and testing time, any binder or defoamer changes, production adjustments, documentation work and the commercial value of meeting customer PFAS requirements. Plan the project, not only the additive price.

18. How should a reformulation be communicated to customers?

Many industrial customers have approved the incumbent product and expect notification of formulation changes. Plan the change-control steps early: internal approval of the new formulation, updated technical and safety data sheets, a revised PFAS statement built on the documented inputs, and, where customer approvals exist, samples and data for their own qualification. Keep the incumbent available long enough for customers to complete trials, and record which batches contain which additive so that any field issue can be traced. Clear communication turns a regulatory necessity into evidence of product stewardship.

19. What should a PFAS-free additive RFQ include?

Formulation type, binder, solvent system and application.
Incumbent additive, dosage and the functions it provides.
Substrates and performance targets with methods.
Required PFAS statement definition and target markets.
Pack size, annual volume and delivery location.

Prepare and submit these through the RFQ brief.

20. Which manufacturer qualification questions should be asked?

Alternative range per function; laboratory support; basis of PFAS statements; regulatory documentation; production sites; and change control. PAXOMER does not confirm any manufacturer's statements on this page.

Guide: PFAS-free coating additives
Related page: PFAS-free polymer processing aids
Related page: Silicone surface-control additives
Related page: Flexible packaging inks and functional coatings

Manufacturing Regions & International Supply

No country-level manufacturing evidence specific to PFAS-Free Additives for Coatings & Inks was confirmed in the review.

If you are evaluating manufacturers abroad, list in your RFQ brief the destination market, the documents you require and the delivery terms.

Engineering and purchasing FAQs

Each answer is general technical information, not a specification or a quotation.

Is there a drop-in PFAS-free replacement for my fluorosurfactant?

Sometimes for a single function, but often not for all. Map the functions the incumbent provides and test alternatives for each.

Do silicone additives cause recoat problems?

Some can migrate to the surface and reduce intercoat adhesion. Test recoatability and adhesion within the recoat window you use.

What should a PFAS-free statement include?

The definition of PFAS used, the basis (formulation knowledge, total fluorine or targeted analysis), the product code and the date. Have it reviewed by your product steward.

Will dosage increase after conversion?

Often yes, because many alternatives are less efficient than fluorinated additives. Compare additive cost per kilogram of coating and the full performance picture.

Which applications are hardest to convert?

Typically those needing strong oil repellency or stain release at very low dosage. These may need binder changes as well as additive changes.

Can PAXOMER help find PFAS-free additives?

This page does not confirm supply or regulatory status. Send your formulation type, incumbent additive and targets, and PAXOMER will review whether a suitable manufacturer-development opportunity exists.

Technical References

References below were opened on the access date shown. A source supports only the statement it is cited for. Standards are cited by number and title from public catalogue entries; their full text was not read unless stated.

S1. PFAS-Free Surface Additives. BYK. www.byk.com/en/product/highlights/pfas-free-additive-solutions/surface-additives (opens in a new tab) manufacturer literature · accessed 2026-10-28
Product page opened 2026-10-28 to confirm title; cited for the existence of PFAS-free surface-additive ranges. Not an endorsement.
S2. Additives for PFAS alternatives. BASF. www.basf.com/us/en/products/dispersions-resins-additives/industries/additives/ad (opens in a new tab) manufacturer literature · accessed 2026-10-28
Product page opened 2026-10-28; cited for the existence of PFAS-alternative additive offerings only.
S3. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). US Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.gov/pfas (opens in a new tab) regulatory · accessed 2026-10-28
Topic page opened 2026-10-28; cited for the existence of public US information on PFAS. No specific rule is summarised.
S4. PFAS-free coating additives (PAXOMER guide). PAXOMER Inc., 2026-10-28. /products/pfas-free-coating-additives/ technical literature · accessed 2026-10-28
PAXOMER’s own guide; not an external source and not independently reviewed.
S5. ASTM D523: Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss. ASTM International. store.astm.org/standards/d523 (opens in a new tab) standard catalogue · accessed 2026-10-28
Catalogue entry opened 2026-10-28 to confirm number and title; full text not read.
S6. ASTM D3359: Standard Test Methods for Rating Adhesion by Tape Test. ASTM International. store.astm.org/standards/d3359 (opens in a new tab) standard catalogue · accessed 2026-10-28
Catalogue entry opened 2026-10-28 to confirm number and title; full text not read.

Evidence notes and limitations

What the information on this page does not establish. Confirm these points with the manufacturer, the current standard or the relevant authority before relying on them.

No jurisdiction's PFAS rules are summarised; regulatory status must be checked for each product and market.
Alternative family characteristics are general practice and not supported line by line by a recorded source.
The cost example is hypothetical arithmetic with illustrative numbers.
This page has not been independently technically reviewed or certified.

Facts checked against the cited sources

The BYK PFAS-free surface additives page, the BASF PFAS-alternatives page and the EPA PFAS page were confirmed to exist on 2026-10-28.
Titles of ASTM D523 and D3359 were confirmed on the ASTM catalogue on 2026-10-28.
The cost arithmetic (0.0010 × 120 = 0.12; 0.0040 × 25 = 0.10) was checked.

Where this connects to the full guide

The primary technical guide behind this page is PFAS-Free Coating Additives. All its topics are indexed below.

Topics in the full guide

See all 23 topics in the guide

Glossary: Drop-in replacement · Functional equivalence

Tools: Product Finder (Industrial coating additives; Silicone wetting and surface-control additives) · Solution Finder (Poor wetting on a substrate) · Manufacturer Finder

How can I submit an inquiry?

Describe your application, the specifications above and the qualification stage. The material and this page are carried into the form for you. PAXOMER replies by email; the form does not confirm stock, representation or qualification.

Prepare an RFQ Send an Inquiry Product Finder Solution Finder Manufacturer Finder