A common but easily overlooked scenario: A new materials company's R&D team developed a pressure-sensitive adhesive whose performance in internal tests was "close to top international brands." However, when it went to the client for benchmarking tests, they found—Tg was off by 5°C, peel strength off by 15%, and G' off by an order of magnitude. The problem wasn’t with the formula, but with inconsistent testing systems.

The DSC the company used for in-house testing might be a low-sensitivity model, and the heating rate chosen was non-standard (like 30°C/min). For example, the Tg measured with a TA Instruments Discovery DSC at the standard 10°C/min versus a basic model at 30°C/min can normally differ by 3-5°C—but in R&D, that 3-5°C can decide whether something "meets the standard" or "doesn’t."

Differences in rheometers are even more obvious. The G' data from a high-precision rotational rheometer (like the Discovery HR) at 1Hz and 0.1% strain can differ by 10-20% from a basic model, due to torque resolution and normal force sensor differences. If your client uses a high-end TA rheometer while you’re using a low-end model, it’s almost inevitable that the data won’t match.

That’s why top companies (like Sika, Tesa, 3M) and major university labs often choose top international brands like TA Instruments, Instron, Mettler Toledo when buying equipment—not just due to brand preference, but more importantly to ensure data aligns with international literature and client standards. For new materials companies aiming for high-end supply chains, equipment choice determines the credibility of their testing capabilities—which in turn affects pricing power and influence in the industry.

Dehuisci (www.dehuisci.com) helps companies build reliable testing systems. Phone: 0512-67071902.