Why Quality Control Made Me Choose Kemira for Coating Additives (And Why I Almost Didn't)

I still kick myself for not running a proper stability test on a batch of defoamers back in 2022. We were sourcing from a smaller supplier, trying to save about 8% on the unit cost. The emulsion looked fine on paper—matched viscosity specs, passed the initial foam knockdown test. But after three days in the tank, it separated. That quality issue cost us a $22,000 redo and delayed our powder coating line launch by a week. I spent the next quarter auditing our additive supplier list with a much finer comb.

This gets into selection territory that isn't my primary role, but from a quality management perspective, I can tell you how I ended up sticking with Kemira as a preferred chemical company for our coating raw materials. It wasn't a no-brainer at first—I was skeptical going in.

The Setup: Why We Were Looking at Suppliers

We produce industrial wood coatings and liquid primers for metal substrates. By early 2023, our purchasing team wanted to diversify suppliers for polyacrylamide and defoamers. Our current vendor, while reliable, had a single production facility in the Midwest, and shipping delays were becoming a headache. The director of purchasing flagged three potential chemical companies. Kemira was one of them.

To be fair, I was biased going in. I had read a few comments on finishing forums about consistency issues with European brands transitioning to US supply chains. But I also knew that most companies find that global suppliers bring stricter documentation standards—and documentation is my department's bread and butter.

Here's the thing: I'm not a chemist, so I can't speak to the molecular formulation details of their Kemira defoamer for paper coating or how it compares to alternatives at the reaction kinetics level. What I can tell you from a quality inspector's perspective is how we evaluated their materials across three critical checkpoints.

The Process: Testing Under Real Conditions

Round One: Documentation Audit

I requested SDS sheets, certificate of analysis (CoA) templates, and batch traceability documentation from all three candidates. Kemira’s team responded within 48 hours with full PDFs, including a regulatory compliance summary for the chemical solvent disposal guidelines under EPA RCRA standards. By comparison, one competitor sent a generic CoA that didn’t match the product lot numbers we requested.

Per FTC guidelines (ftc.gov), claims like “consistent quality” need substantiation. Kemira provided third-party lab reports for their Kemira chemicals across three production batches. Their variance in viscosity was within 3%, which is tighter than the industry standard of 5%. That mattered to me.

Round Two: The Defoamer Trial

We ran a comparative test on our waterborne wood coating line. Two shifts, same substrate, same applicator settings. The Kemira defoamer for paper coating formulation was tested against our incumbent product and a budget option from a third supplier.

I ran a blind test with our finishing team: same coating formula with Defoamer A, B, and C. 74% identified Defoamer A (the budget option) as having “microbubble issues” without knowing which was which. The Kemira product performed comparably to our incumbent on foam knockdown time, with a slight edge in air release over the first four hours.

But here’s the catch: the budget option was $0.18 per pound cheaper. On a 2,000-pound order, that’s $360 in savings. The purchasing manager was leaning toward it until I flagged a data gap: we didn’t have any storage stability data beyond 7 days. I recommended consulting our legal team before approving a switch based solely on initial performance. That hesitation saved us—later testing showed the budget defoamer gelled after 30 days in storage. Grant it, our storage conditions are humid (Florida), but it was a deal-breaker for us.

Round Three: Powder Coating Application

One of the keywords we were targeting was Florida powder coating, and for good reason—our facility in Tampa sees high humidity year-round. We tested Kemira’s additives in a polyester TGIC powder coating formulation. The challenge was preventing cratering during the curing cycle.

Take this with a grain of salt: my data on powder coating failure rates is anecdotal, not statistical. But in our Q1 2024 quality audit, we had a 12% rejection rate on parts with visible surface defects when using a non-specialized flow additive. Switching to Kemira’s recommendation for their additives for wood coatings series (adapted for powder) brought that down to about 4% over the next three months.

Don’t hold me to this, but I’d estimate the time savings in rework alone was in the $800-1,200 range per production run. On a 50,000-unit annual order, getting that right matters.

The Turn: When I Almost Walked Away

Here’s where the story gets less tidy. The logistics team flagged that Kemira’s standard delivery window from their North America plant was 10-14 business days. Our incumbent supplier could do 5-7 days. The purchasing director was not happy.

I was on the fence. A longer lead time could hurt our responsiveness. But then I looked closer at the shipping documentation. Kemira’s packaging was double-lined poly drums with humidity indicators. The incumbent’s drums occasionally arrived with dented rims—which we rejected about 5% of the time. That incoming inspection cost roughly $75 per rejected drum in labor and storage, which nobody had factored into the price comparison.

What was best practice in 2020 may not apply in 2025. Back then, lead time was the king metric in our purchasing department. But as supply chains have tightened, consistency of delivered quality has become more important. I’m not saying longer lead times are better. I’m saying the trade-off is more nuanced than most people realize.

We compromised: Kemira agreed to a six-month rolling forecast commitment in exchange for priority 7-10 day delivery. It wasn’t ideal for either side, but it worked.

The Result and What I Learned

As of our most recent review (Q3 2024), we’ve sourced approximately 60% of our defoamer and specialty polymer needs from Kemira. The rejection rate for incoming Kemira materials is 1.2%, compared to an overall vendor average of about 4.7%. That includes our incumbent supplier who had a 3.8% rate.

What I’d tell anyone evaluating Kemira chemical company products:

• Request the CoA for three different batch lots. Not one. Variance between batches tells you more about their quality system than any single test.
• Get the lead time in writing, including force majeure clauses. Their global network is a real advantage if managed well, but you need to plan around it.
• Test the defoamer under actual storage conditions for at least 30 days. Don't trust the initial pour test alone. That’s the mistake I made in 2022.
• Ask about their chemical solvent disposal recommendations. In our case, their team provided a compliance checklist that saved us about a day of research during our EPA audit prep. That’s soft value, but it’s real.

I’m not 100% sure if Kemira is the right fit for every shop. If you’re running a small job shop with very low volume and need same-day supplier pickup, their model probably doesn’t match. But for mid-to-high volume production with a need for consistent quality documentation and broad technical support, they’re worth a serious look. The fundamentals of quality haven’t changed, but how we evaluate suppliers has transformed—and my lesson from this whole experience is that taking the time to test properly always pays off.

Note: Pricing data and lead times referenced are from our specific contract terms. Actual rates may vary. Always confirm current specifications with Kemira directly.