Choose a titanium dioxide grade for the coating’s intended finish, exposure and formulation. Opacity is only one part of the decision: gloss, dispersion, durability and processing behavior can determine whether the pigment works in the finished paint. Rutile versus anatase is an important distinction, but it is not a complete purchasing specification.
This guide helps a formulator compare candidate grades for a coating. The TiO₂ material reference explains the material and its classifications. The separate loading and extender-spacing article concerns optimization of the formulation, rather than initial grade selection.
Start with the coating specification
List the binder system, waterborne or solventborne medium, target sheen, color range, intended substrate, dry film thickness and indoor or outdoor exposure. Add the agreed tests and acceptance limits from the product specification. A pigment chosen for a matt interior wall paint is not automatically the best candidate for a high-gloss exterior finish.
Describe the existing production process as well. Record how the pigment is introduced, the dispersion equipment, the current dispersant system and whether powder or an aqueous slurry can be handled. These are useful screening questions before ordering samples, not universal instructions to change a paint formulation.
Separate mandatory requirements from improvement goals. “Retain the current exterior performance while improving dispersion” is a more testable brief than “find a better white pigment.” Keep a control formulation so that any improvement has a defined comparison.
Grade-selection matrix
The following matrix is an editorial screening framework. Chemours publishes distinct application guidance for architectural and industrial coatings, supporting this application-led approach. It does not establish a universal winning grade, nor confirm PLAXRAW supply of the manufacturer’s products.
| Coating | Main comparison | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Matt interior architectural paint | Hiding and appearance within the formulation's pigment/extender balance | Drawdown at the agreed thickness and coverage test |
| Gloss or semigloss finish | Opacity together with the target sheen and surface quality | Gloss measurement, dispersion and matched drawdowns |
| Exterior architectural paint | Initial appearance and retention during exposure | Relevant weathering results and the exact grade's documentation |
| Industrial or powder coating | Appearance after the specified application and cure cycle | Compatibility with the coating system and performance under its cure conditions |
| Plant considering pigment slurry | Compatibility with handling and formulation water balance | Slurry specification, process requirements and comparative trial |
Do not treat every row as an equal priority. An exterior product that fails its durability requirement cannot be accepted just because its initial hiding is attractive. Define the required pass conditions first, then compare cost and operational convenience among the candidates that meet them.
Read surface-treatment information in context
The manufacturer’s technical guidance for coatings describes differences in surface treatment and particle-size distribution as relevant to performance. Its grade-selection resources are organized by coating application. This is why a “rutile pigment” description alone is too broad.
Ask what surface treatments are declared for the candidate and which coating systems the supplier’s evidence addresses. Do not assume two grades with the same crystal form have the same dispersion or exterior behavior. Conversely, do not infer that the most heavily treated grade will be the best for every paint.
For the general crystal-form comparison, use the material reference. For color fading in printed systems, use the ink lightfastness reference; an ink formulation is a different qualification case from the coating examined here.
Compare pigments without confusing formulation changes
Agree a first comparison that holds the binder, extender package, test thickness and evaluation method constant. Identify pigment loading and whether the comparison uses mass, pigment volume or another agreed basis. Record changes needed to the dispersant or process instead of making them silently.
A second stage can optimize each candidate within the allowed formulation window. Keep its results separate from the first comparison: one shows behavior under matched conditions, while the other shows what can be achieved after formulation adjustment.
This two-stage approach is a proposed trial design, not a standard certification procedure. The product’s own specification and qualification process determine the tests and sample count. It avoids attributing a favorable result solely to the pigment when several formulation variables changed at once.
What should the trial record contain?
Use a record that allows a colleague to reproduce the comparison:
- Supplier, exact grade, sample lot and document revisions.
- Formulation version, loading basis and any dispersant changes.
- Dispersion equipment and process conditions.
- Substrate, application method, film thickness and cure or drying conditions.
- Agreed appearance, hiding, gloss, stability and exposure tests.
- Control results, candidate results and reasons for acceptance or rejection.
When dispersion is the limiting issue, review pigment dispersant selection. A poor trial result may require investigating the formulation or process rather than assuming the crystal form is wrong.
Evaluate value after the coating passes
Avoid comparing pigment prices without the performance and formulation context. An internally useful comparison can record the pigment consumed per accepted batch or coated area, together with manufacturing changes and rejected output. Use actual quotations and plant data; this guide supplies no pigment price, saving percentage or recipe.
If a candidate passes the required tests but needs extra dispersion time, include that operational change in the evaluation. If a candidate permits a different loading, document the trial that supports the change. Do not promise universal savings from a supplier’s example or from a result on another paint.
Documents and a useful enquiry
Request the current TDS and SDS, grade identity, relevant performance reports and the required application or destination-market documents. A generic TiO₂ description or a typical datasheet is not a batch certificate or approval of the finished coating. Check supply availability separately from technical suitability.
For a technical enquiry, include the coating type, binder, medium, sheen, exposure, current pigment, principal failure or improvement goal, mandatory tests and intended trial. After that, discuss the material requirement. The page describes selection evidence; it makes no claim that a named manufacturer grade is stocked.
Technical sources and scope
Prepared as PLAXRAW reference guidance on 5 October 2026. The comparison and trial workflow is editorial guidance, not a reported PLAXRAW paint-development experiment.
- Chemours Ti-Pure — Coating application and grade-selection resources.
- Chemours Ti-Pure — Technical guidance for coating pigments.
- Chemours Ti-Pure — Attributes to consider when selecting TiO₂.
Manufacturer recommendations concern their documented grades and stated applications. Confirm the current documents and test the proposed pigment in your coating before qualification.
Content updated:
