PRINTING INKS APPLICATION
Titanium Dioxide for Printing Inks
Compare a TiO2 candidate in the white ink and print you actually need. Define the vehicle, printing process, substrate, deposited film, drying or cure, end use, incumbent and rejection conditions before interpreting opacity, dispersion or cost.
Define the ink and print system
Start with the system in which the pigment will be evaluated. Record what you know about:
- ink chemistry and vehicle;
- printing process and relevant equipment context;
- substrate and any surface treatment;
- deposited white-ink film and how it is prepared;
- drying or cure conditions;
- end use and any later converting step that affects the evaluation;
- incumbent ink or pigment reference;
- optical and colour targets; and
- rejection conditions for the printed result.
If a detail is unknown, state that it is unknown and identify the person or supplier who may hold it. You can still prepare a focused request without guessing a process, Grade or target.
Judge opacity in the printed white layer
Opacity is a result of the prepared ink, deposited layer, substrate and measurement basis. Keep it separate from coverage or pinholes and from colour. A more opaque reading does not by itself show that the white layer is uniform or that the overprinted colour result is acceptable.
A 2023 Applied Sciences study examined a solvent-based opaque white reverse-flexographic layer on treated BOPET while varying anilox volume under otherwise stated print conditions. It assessed opacity and ink-layer uniformity, including pinholes, separately. The study did not compare TiO2 candidates, and its measurements were taken before varnishing and lamination. Its results therefore illustrate why deposited-layer conditions belong in the comparison; they do not supply a target for another ink, press, substrate or converted structure.
ISO 23498:2022 describes a method for visual opacity assessment of printed white ink on transparent and opaque substrates. ISO 13655:2017 covers spectral measurement and colorimetric computation for graphic-arts images. Use the full method selected by your laboratory and record the specimen, backing, instrument conditions and acceptance basis. These public scope pages do not provide a universal opacity threshold or convert a printed-ink colour result into a raw-pigment whiteness result.
Read dispersion, rheology and storage together
Dispersion state, viscosity and stability can move together or trade off under a particular formulation and method. Record the vehicle, pigment state, dispersant context, solids basis, preparation, shear or measurement conditions and observation period before comparing results.
A 2025 ACS Omega study investigated aqueous dispersions of untreated primary rutile TiO2 with poly(acrylic acid) sodium salt dispersants of different molecular weights. It measured viscosity, zeta potential and stability with multiple-light-scattering methods in that research system. This is evidence that dispersion, rheology and stability should be read together. It is not a finished commercial printing ink, a surface-treated Grade comparison, a dispersant recommendation, a dosage instruction or a shelf-life claim.
When results differ, first check whether the preparation, solids basis, temperature, shear history, method or observation period also changed. Do not assign the difference to the pigment alone unless the comparison supports that conclusion.
Keep grind and particle measurements in context
ISO 1524:2020 covers the use of a graduated gauge to determine fineness of grind for paints, inks and related products. A fineness-of-grind gauge reading is taken under specified conditions at the groove depth where discrete solid particles become readily discernible. It is not the pigment's primary particle size, a complete particle-size distribution or proof of nozzle, screen or filtration performance.
Record the full method, sample preparation, gauge range, reading basis and units. Pair the result with the rheology, stability and printed-film evidence needed for your own system rather than treating one grind reading as a complete dispersion verdict.
Use supplier documents to frame the comparison
| Record | What it can support | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| Current TDS | Grade-level screening information | Product identity, revision, method, units and whether a value is typical or specified |
| SDS | Safety communication | Correct product identity and revision; it is not an application-performance report or a compliance conclusion |
| Relevant lot CoA | Results for an identified lot | Lot identity, method, units and scope; it does not establish finished-ink or print performance by itself |
| Application or trial data | Evidence for a tested system | Vehicle, process, substrate, deposited film, drying or cure, reference, method and endpoint |
Select the records that answer the question you are working on. A TDS may support early Grade screening, while an SDS provides safety information. Add lot evidence when a lot is identified and application data when a tested system needs to be assessed. Record missing context for later verification; incomplete records do not require you to invent a conclusion.
Compare incumbent and candidate on matched conditions
Keep the incumbent and candidate trials aligned wherever the comparison depends on the same condition. Record formulation basis, preparation, print method, substrate, deposited film, drying or cure, conditioning, measurement method, reference and acceptance requirement. If one factor must change, disclose it and judge what the resulting comparison can still answer.
ISO 2834-2:2022 covers preparation of test prints with liquid printing inks for processes including flexography and gravure. Its public scope includes water-based, solvent-based and radiation-curing inks and excludes inkjet inks. It does not declare a pigment suitable for a process or provide a complete production setting.
Assess opacity, coverage or pinholes, colour, rheology, stability and other required print or conversion results as separate stated endpoints. If a result reaches its acceptance requirement, decide whether a representative repeat or next test is needed. If information is missing, record the question and repeat or extend the relevant test. If a result does not reach the requirement, retain that result for the declared system. These outcomes do not recommend or rank a Grade for another system.
Compare cost on accepted printed output
Price per kilogram, nominal TiO2 content and ink loading form a meaningful cost comparison only after both the incumbent and candidate inks reach the same accepted endpoint in the declared printed output.
Use your own current delivered prices, actual consumption, accepted print yield, waste, rework, downtime and allocated trial or change costs. Keep currency, date, commercial terms and destination comparable. If the technical endpoint or current cost inputs are not aligned, collect the missing evidence instead of projecting a saving or a Grade winner.
Grades to Review
| Product Grade | Continue your review |
|---|---|
| M-350 | View M-350 |
| M-510 | View M-510 |
| M-52 | View M-52 |
| M-2377 | View M-2377 |
Open the Grade page for a candidate you are considering and review its public information against your defined ink and print system. If you have 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 your ink system and the context you already have.
Prepare your request
Bring the known ink and print context: vehicle, printing process, substrate, deposited white layer, drying or cure, end use, incumbent reference, required endpoints, rejection conditions and methods already used. Mark any missing detail as unknown.
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 in Additional Requirements.After an RFQ is submitted, the team reviews the requirements and details and contacts you using the information provided.
Technical sources
- Renata Tomerlin, Dean Valdec, Mario Tomiša and Damir Vusić. The Impact of Underlying Opaque White Coating Parameters on Flexographic Print Quality. Applied Sciences research article, 2023. The cited use is limited to its stated reverse-flexographic white-ink layer, treated BOPET, anilox-volume comparison and pre-varnish/pre-lamination measurements.
- Liu et al. Designing Titanium Dioxide Aqueous Dispersion with High Solid Content and Low Viscosity. PubMed record for an ACS Omega research article; electronically published 10 April 2025. The cited use is limited to the declared untreated-rutile aqueous PAAS dispersion and its viscosity, zeta-potential and stability measurements.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 2834-2:2022 — Graphic technology — Laboratory preparation of test prints — Part 2: Liquid printing inks. Official standard landing page; edition 3, published December 2022.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 23498:2022 — Visual opacity of printed white ink. Official standard landing page; edition 2, published December 2022.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 13655:2017 — Spectral measurement and colorimetric computation for graphic arts images. Official standard landing page; edition 3, published July 2017 and confirmed in 2022.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 1524:2020 — Paints, varnishes and printing inks — Determination of fineness of grind. Official standard landing page; edition 5, published June 2020 and confirmed in 2026.