GreenZn English insights · One useful digest a weekSubscribe →

From Our Journal · 中文版

POWDERS · INTERFACES · FORMULATION

Yes, We Sell Powders. No, That's Not the Whole Formula.

The same titanium dioxide name can hide very different formulation behaviour. Five powder grades and a phase-inversion system show why we want the conversation to go beyond the quotation.

Published on GreenZn · November 10, 2026 · 6 min read

Illustrated powder and formulation textures
Original AI-generated editorial illustration; not a product or experiment photograph.

A fair question. Just not the last one.

“What is the price per kilo?” It is one of the questions we hear most often. Of course price matters. But the value of a powder also depends on what you can make with it.

Change the surface-treated grade, even when both materials are called titanium dioxide, and the grinding behaviour, viscosity or storage behaviour can change. We want to help answer the next question: what changed, and how do we check it?

A fine dispersion is not the same as a stable emulsion

Wetting, dispersion and interfacial stabilisation are different jobs. A smooth drawdown does not tell you whether the powder will settle. An even dispersion does not show that the particles can stabilise an oil–water interface.

Before we describe a powder as doing more, we need to be clear about which job it is doing.

THREE SEPARATE JOBS

01

Wetting

Does the medium spread over the powder?

02

Dispersion

Can the agglomerates be broken up?

03

Interface

Can the particles help stabilise droplets?

Conceptual distinctions, not test results.

Pickering and Janus are not two names for an upgrade

Pickering describes a mechanism: solid particles adsorb at an oil–water interface and help stabilise droplets. Janus describes a structure: different regions of the same particle have different properties.

The distinction matters. One study used starch microparticles as co-stabilisers within an established emulsion platform. Another used deliberately engineered titania-cored Janus multipods. Neither is a reason to assume that any surface-treated commercial powder will behave in the same way. [1, 2]

STRUCTURE IS NOT A MECHANISM

Surface treatment

Changes the particle’s surface composition.

Janus

Different regions on one particle.

Pickering

Particles stabilise an oil–water interface.

These are not three steps on an upgrade ladder. Schematic only.

PI-100F gives us something concrete to investigate

PI-100F is one of GreenDee’s innovative raw materials. It combines silica with emulsifying components in a composite phase-inversion system. The design ambition is straightforward: a water-light feel while spreading, followed by a film that stays in place.

Its supplier describes the proposed route as “non-conventional Pickering”, involving particles and water-loss-driven phase inversion. Because the composition also includes PEG-100 stearate and other emulsifying components, particle–emulsifier cooperation is the more useful description. This is not a surfactant-free particle-only system, and it is not a claim of Janus structure. [4]

There is a measurement behind the discussion. In a company sunscreen prototype, the original sample and material scraped from the forearm after approximately two minutes were each prepared as a 10% dilution. Conductivity readings were 18.10 and 2.16 µS/cm, respectively. The readings support a change in the sampled state; they do not quantify an improvement in water resistance or wear. [5]

COMPANY PROTOTYPE · CONDUCTIVITY

Original sample18.10 µS/cm
After spreading2.16 µS/cm

Both prepared as 10% dilutions. The second sample was scraped from the forearm after approximately 2 minutes.

A change in sample state, not a water-resistance or wear score.
Original company instrument photographs and Chinese annotations, retained without alteration.
Original company instrument photographs and Chinese annotations, retained without alteration.

A concept becomes useful when there is a formula to try

The September application materials set out three starting formulations: a rich cream, a foundation cream and a phase-inversion sunscreen lotion. That makes the discussion practical: there is something to make, feel and test.

The foundation and sunscreen prototypes also contain AquaFuse PG. Their finished-formula behaviour cannot be assigned to PI-100F alone. [7]

THREE FORMULATION STARTING POINTS

2.5%

Rich cream

PI-100F in the reference formulation

4%

Foundation cream

Also contains 3% AquaFuse PG

4%

Phase-inversion sunscreen lotion

Also contains 3% AquaFuse PG

Commercial ingredient use levels from the published September reference formulations, not pure-active concentrations. Prototype stability and finished-product performance require their own evaluation.

Five powders, one base, a useful difference

The five samples in the published comparison are CR-50TMS, CR-50ASM, TR-586AS, CR-50AS and TR-586AS-LL-MQ-ITT.

In the same cushion-foundation base, with each commercial powder used at 10%, the TMS grade gave the lowest readings on both measurements and the complex-treated grade the highest. That is a useful formulation difference to investigate, not a league table of finished-product performance. [3]

FIVE GRADES · SAME CUSHION BASE

Two viscosity readings

10% commercial powder · mPa·s

First readingRepeat reading

CR-50TMS

5540.6
5026.1

CR-50ASM

8508.8
6569.6

TR-586AS

8172.4
6787.2

CR-50AS*

8548.4
6846.6

TR-586AS-LL-MQ-ITT

10685.5
8706.7
Existing company records, not new tests. *CR-50AS is a working reference; its label/code requires confirmation. These readings are not independent replicate statistics or a significance ranking. The original compilation does not specify spindle, speed or viscosity test temperature.

The next questions belong in the formula

The original article proposed a follow-up comparison of dispersion, powder loss on contact with oil, rub transfer and darkening over time. These are the next questions, not new results reported here.

Once there are controlled comparisons, we can separate what comes from the powder from what depends on the whole formula. We are less interested in naming a winner than in finding the right material for the job.

PROPOSED IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE

  1. Change the oil: does the powder still disperse?
  2. On contact with oil: is powder lost more easily?
  3. After rubbing: how much remains?
  4. As colour darkens: what comes from time, and what comes from oil?
A follow-up test plan, not completed results.

A good raw material needs a place in the formula

Not every powder needs a new technical label. Connecting material identity, behaviour at the interface and finished-formula performance is more useful.

We will still answer the price question. We would also like to know what you are trying to make.

TAKE IT TO THE LAB

Tell us what you are trying to make.

Ask about product information, reference formulations or sample support. Share your application, company and location so the right team can follow up.

Sources & reading

[1] Spena et al. · RSC Advances, 2026

[2] Kwon et al. · Small, 2025 (online 2024)

[3] Company powder comparison records, reproduced in the original article.

[4, 5, 7] PI-100F product documentation, conductivity test and September application materials. Company measurements and reference formulations are distinct from the papers above.

Read the published Chinese WeChat article