Titanium Dioxide for Paper
Evaluate a TiO2 candidate against the paper result you need, using an identified baseline, the actual paper system and method-matched finished-paper data. A similar technical data sheet field can support screening; it does not establish a replacement result.
This page supports general paper evaluation. The detailed framework centres on decorative and lightweight paper because those are the defined technical contexts behind this guidance. It does not treat those or other paper constructions as interchangeable.
Define the paper result and system
Start with the finished-paper outcomes the candidate must reproduce or otherwise satisfy. Then record the system that gives those outcomes meaning:
- paper type, end use, furnish and construction;
- basis weight or grammage, when relevant to the comparison;
- wet-end, coating or another buyer-defined addition route;
- chemistry and process conditions that your team considers material;
- current Grade, candidate identity and the reason for the comparison;
- target finished-paper properties and the named method for each; and
- rejection conditions for the finished paper.
Decorative and lightweight papers can use the same evaluation discipline, but their furnishes, constructions, routes and targets can differ. If a material input is unknown, state that it is unknown and identify who may hold it. Do not fill the gap with a generic paper assumption.
A 2016 BioResources review explains TiO2's strong opacifying role in paper through its refractive-index contrast with other paper components. The same review notes that filler brightness and paper brightness can have only an indirect relationship and that particle agglomeration can reduce light-scattering efficiency. These observations explain why the actual paper system matters; they do not predict the result of a TiO2 Malaysia Grade.
Keep brightness, whiteness, colour and opacity distinct
Optical labels can look interchangeable even when they belong to different measurement families. Classify the property first, then keep its named method and relevant conditions with every baseline and candidate result.
| Property | Public method scope | Context to retain |
|---|---|---|
| ISO brightness | ISO 2470-1:2016 measures diffuse blue reflectance for white and near-white pulp, paper and board. | Instrument illumination is adjusted to CIE illuminant C, including the specified UV basis. |
| CIE whiteness, D65/10° | ISO 11475:2017 uses reflectance across the visible spectrum for paper and board viewed under the D65 daylight basis. | Results involving fluorescent whitening agents depend on the UV content described by the method. |
| Paper colour, D65/10° | ISO 5631-2:2022 measures colour by diffuse reflectance with specular gloss eliminated. | Keep the stated illumination, observer and fluorescent-material conditions; L* is not another name for brightness. |
| Paper-backing opacity | ISO 2471:2008 determines opacity by diffuse reflectance. | Keep backing and applicable UV/FWA conditions with the result. |
For each result, record the property definition, named method, sample preparation, instrument and reporting conditions. Compare like with like. Do not convert a brightness value into whiteness, colour or opacity, and do not apply a universal tolerance that the public source does not provide.
Separate pigment information from paper performance
A method-compatible pigment value is still not a finished-paper result. Keep four evidence roles apart:
| Evidence role | What it can answer | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| Supplier-declared pigment information | What the supplier states for the identified product, method and document revision | It does not establish finished-paper performance. |
| System observation | What was observed about dispersion or agglomeration in the declared furnish and route | It does not prove a root cause by itself. |
| Retention-related observation | What was observed after the pigment entered the system | It does not create an unmeasured retention percentage. |
| Finished-paper result | How the identified paper performed under a named method and condition | It applies to the declared furnish, construction, route and result basis. |
This separation keeps general TiO2 behaviour from becoming a statement that a specific candidate is compatible, stable, retainable or able to deliver a particular paper result. When observations differ, compare their material identities, methods and system conditions before assigning a cause.
Keep documents, samples, lots and methods connected
Bind each document and result to the exact candidate identity, document revision, lot and sample identity, sampling basis, method and applicable conditions. Missing links should remain visible until they can be verified; do not assume that two records describe the same material or test basis.
ISO 186:2002 describes representative sampling from a paper or board lot to determine average quality against specifications. Its public abstract says the method is unsuitable for determining variability within a lot. A representative sample therefore does not establish within-lot variability or between-lot consistency. If consistency matters, define the repeated-lot evidence needed for that question.
Use the current TDS for Grade-level screening, the SDS for safety communication, a relevant lot CoA for results on an identified lot and application or trial records for their declared paper system. Select the records that answer your current question; early screening can continue while missing lot or application context is recorded for later verification.
Use laboratory work as a bounded screen
A laboratory comparison can help decide whether a candidate merits further work in the declared paper context. It cannot by itself establish mill performance or replacement equivalence.
ISO 5269-1:2005 covers conventional laboratory-sheet preparation from pulp for subsequent physical testing and applies to most pulps within its stated limits. Its public abstract says the method is not suitable for preparing laboratory sheets for diffuse-blue-reflectance determination under ISO 3688. Sample preparation must remain tied to the property being measured.
For a controlled comparison:
- define the finished-paper decision, properties and method-comparability basis;
- identify the baseline and candidate documents, lots, samples and sampling bases;
- keep the declared furnish, construction, addition route and material conditions visible during preparation; and
- compare method-matched paper outcomes while retaining dispersion, agglomeration, retention-related and process observations as separate evidence.
Your laboratory or paper team selects the full applicable methods, preparation and acceptance requirements. This page supplies no universal recipe, dosage, process setting or pass threshold.
Compare cost-in-use from accepted results
Purchase price alone does not answer the economic question. Compare cost only after the baseline and candidate reach the same accepted finished-paper endpoint in the same tested context.
Use your own current records for delivered material cost, actual use, retained-performance information, method-matched finished-paper results, observed chemical or process changes, off-spec or rejected output and processing effects. Keep currency, date, commercial terms and destination comparable. If the technical, process or commercial inputs are incomplete, collect the missing information instead of projecting a saving or a Grade winner.
Grades to Review
| Product Grade | Continue your review |
|---|---|
| M-350 | View M-350 |
| M-2377 | View M-2377 |
Open the Grade page for a candidate you are considering and review its public information against your defined paper system. If you are considering several candidates, compare the relevant pages and keep each candidate's documents and trial results separate. The order is not a ranking; determine fit from evidence in your own system and your stated acceptance requirements. If you do not know the Grade, continue with the paper context you already have.
Prepare your request
Bring the paper type, furnish, construction, addition route, material conditions, end use, current baseline, target properties, methods, rejection conditions and any available document, lot, sample or result identities. Mark missing details as unknown.
- Request Technical Documents when you know one Product Grade and need one or more document types. Submit a separate request for another Grade. The team reviews document availability and applicable scope.
- Request a Sample with a known Grade or an unknown-Grade selection, your Paper application, destination and test objective. Submission starts a review; any arrangement is confirmed separately.
- Discuss Your Paper Application with a known lead Grade or
Not sure / Need help. Tell us your application, required or estimated quantity in metric tonnes, destination and any other context you already know. If several Grades are under consideration, list the others inAdditional Requirements.
After an RFQ is submitted, the team reviews the requirements and details and contacts you using the information provided.
Technical sources
- Martin A. Hubbe and Robert A. Gill. Fillers for papermaking: A review of their properties, usage practices, and their mechanistic role. BioResources 11(1), 2886–2963, 2016. Publisher-hosted review; the cited use is limited to category-level filler and TiO2 mechanism context, not a project Grade result or formulation.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 2470-1:2016 — Paper, board and pulps — Measurement of diffuse blue reflectance factor — Part 1: Indoor daylight conditions (ISO brightness). Official standard landing page; edition 2, published September 2016 and confirmed in 2022.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 11475:2017 — Paper and board — Determination of CIE whiteness, D65/10 degrees (outdoor daylight). Official standard landing page; edition 3, published May 2017 and confirmed in 2022.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5631-2:2022 — Paper and board — Determination of colour by diffuse reflectance — Part 2: Outdoor daylight conditions (D65/10°). Official standard landing page; edition 4, published July 2022.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 2471:2008 — Paper and board — Determination of opacity (paper backing) — Diffuse reflectance method. Official standard landing page; edition 4, published December 2008 and confirmed in 2023.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 186:2002 — Paper and board — Sampling to determine average quality. Official standard landing page; edition 4, published March 2002 and confirmed in 2023. When checked on 7 September 2026, the page marked this edition for revision and pointed to ISO/DIS 186 as the version under development.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5269-1:2005 — Pulps — Preparation of laboratory sheets for physical testing — Part 1: Conventional sheet-former method. Official standard landing page; edition 3, published February 2005; the current page marks it published and confirmed.