The Adhesion Promoter Advice Everyone Repeats Can Make Paint Stick Worse
“Just spray adhesion promoter on it.”
That advice is repeated constantly in videos, social-media groups by "professionals" as well as DIY people, and conversations about painting automotive interior plastics. Sometimes it is presented as though adhesion promoter is a universal insurance policy: spray it on every plastic, make sure the surface is thoroughly covered, and whatever coating follows will stick better.
That is not how adhesion promoter works.
Different promoters use different chemistry. Different plastics respond differently to those chemicals. Some promoters temporarily soften the substrate without leaving a conventional film. Others deposit a resin-based tie coat between the plastic and the coating. The correct amount, flash time, topcoat window, and application method can change with both the product and the substrate.
More is not automatically better. In some cases, applying too much adhesion promoter can produce worse adhesion than using none at all.
A recent conversation with a customer demonstrated exactly why understanding the process matters more than copying what appears to work in a social-media video.
A Customer Called About His Door Panels
The conversation began with a customer requesting an estimate for restoring his door panels. During the call, he explained that he would have liked to have the rest of his interior professionally restored as well, but it was not within his budget.
That was a completely reasonable position. He had done some of the other interior work himself using the products and equipment available to him.
Because we custom-match and mix our colors in-house, I explained that I would need a sample of the color he had already applied. We do not choose a premixed aerosol based only on the color name printed on its label. We create the color needed for the specific project.
That led him to ask more questions about our materials and process.
He had already seen some of our older videos explaining the difference between professional plastic refinishing and simply applying a premixed aerosol coating. He said that knowing we mixed our colors in-house was a green flag to him.
Later in the conversation, he returned to that point on his own. He explained that if he brought his parts to a professional shop and the shop immediately pulled out the same spray cans available to the general public, he would begin questioning what he was paying the shop to provide.
He also acknowledged that his assumption was not necessarily fair in every situation. A product is not automatically bad because it comes in an aerosol can, just as a product is not automatically good because it is mixed and applied through professional spray equipment.
However, from a consumer’s perspective, he felt that specialized materials, custom color mixing, and a process developed by the shop suggested a greater distinction between professional work and something he could have attempted himself.
That perception is understandable, but the container alone does not determine quality. The more meaningful questions are what the product contains, whether it is appropriate for the substrate, how it is applied, and whether the complete coating system has been tested.
He Mentioned Adhesion Promoter Without Mentioning a Failure
While we were discussing his process, he mentioned using adhesion promoter on his interior plastics.
At that point, he did not say that anything had failed. He did not complain about peeling, poor durability, or any other problem. He simply said that he had used adhesion promoter.
I asked how he had applied it and approximately how much he had used.
He explained that he followed the application methods he had seen demonstrated by several very popular creators on Facebook and TikTok. These creators have large audiences, strong personalities, and are widely recognized for painting automotive plastics. He named them during the conversation, but their identities are not important to this article.
What mattered was that he had treated their visible application methods as practical instructions.
Because he was genuinely interested in the process and wanted to understand the reasons behind it, I explained how adhesion promoters work, why the plastic matters, and why the amount being applied cannot be treated as universal.
I did not share any proprietary details of our process. A professional shop can protect its specific products, formulas, and procedures while still demonstrating that its decisions are based on something more substantial than habit or marketing.
Adhesion Promoter Is Not One Universal Product
The term adhesion promoter describes a purpose, not one chemistry.
Depending on the formulation, an adhesion promoter may:
Temporarily soften or swell the surface of a compatible plastic.
Modify the surface so a coating can wet it more effectively.
Deposit a thin resin layer that bonds with both the substrate and the coating.
Use a chlorinated-polyolefin or acrylic component to create a compatible interface.
Function as a wet-on-wet surface conditioner.
Function as a dry tie coat with a specific film thickness.
Be intended only for certain plastics or coating systems.
These products should not automatically be substituted for one another.
A promoter designed to soften ABS and PVC does not necessarily perform the same job as one designed to leave a tie coat on polypropylene. A promoter intended for solvent-based coatings may not be suitable directly beneath a waterborne coating. A product intended for a waterborne acrylic adhesive may not carry published approval for every automotive refinishing system.
The words adhesion promoter on the container do not eliminate those differences.
SEM Sand Free Does Not Turn a Coating Into a Dye
SEM describes Sand Free as a wet-on-wet adhesion promoter for ABS, PVC, and similar plastics. Its technical data sheet explains that its solvent blend softens the plastic and that color should be applied while the Sand Free remains wet.
The manufacturer markets this by saying the process “melts color into the substrate.”
That phrase requires clarification.
Sand Free does not convert a pigmented coating into a dye. It does not make the coating cease being a coating, and it does not permanently recolor the plastic from within.
Its safety data sheet reports 100% organic solvents and 0% solids. Therefore, Sand Free does not leave a conventional resin-based dry film after its solvents have fully evaporated.
The solvents temporarily soften a receptive plastic surface. The first light coat of color is applied while that surface remains softened. As the Sand Free evaporates, the coating becomes more securely anchored at the interface.
The coating is still a pigmented coating. The adhesion promoter is what chemically affects the surface, and the wet-on-wet application helps create the connection between that surface and the coating.
That is different from dyeing the plastic.
It is also why the application window matters. Allowing a wet-on-wet product to dry completely before applying the coating would defeat the mechanism its instructions describe. Applying excessive material can over-soften the surface, prolong solvent release, or interfere with the coating’s ability to develop a dependable interface.
A product that works through controlled solvent interaction must be applied with control.
Bulldog Leaves a Physical Tie-Coat Film
Bulldog Adhesion Promoter uses a different approach.
The manufacturer describes the aerosol version as an adhesion promoter specifically for polyolefin plastics. Its technical data sheet calls for one medium, closed coat and specifies a dry-film thickness of approximately 0.2–0.4 mil.
That means Bulldog is not simply a volatile surface conditioner that disappears. It leaves a continuous tie-coat film between the plastic and the coating.
Its aerosol technical data reports approximately 90.4% volatile material by weight. The volatile portion evaporates, while the remaining material creates the interface to which the following coating must adhere.
A film-forming product has potential benefits. It can create a more uniform and coating-friendly surface over a difficult substrate. It may also help connect different layers within a compatible coating system.
However, a tie coat introduces another physical layer into the system. Its thickness, uniformity, compatibility, solvent release, and condition when topcoated all matter.
If that layer is applied too heavily, it does not necessarily create a stronger bond. It may instead become the soft, solvent-rich, or poorly cured layer upon which everything else depends.
The topcoat can adhere strongly to the promoter while the promoter itself becomes the weakest connection in the complete system.
ABS and Polypropylene Do Not Require the Same Treatment
ABS and polypropylene are both commonly found in automotive interiors, but their surfaces behave very differently.
ABS normally has considerably higher surface energy than polypropylene and is more receptive to many coating systems. It can also be sensitive to aggressive solvents.
Because of that sensitivity, it is extremely easy to apply too much of certain adhesion promoters to ABS. The surface can become excessively softened or swollen. A film-forming promoter can also be deposited more heavily than necessary, creating an unnecessary intermediate layer.
The exact failure mechanism depends on the product’s chemistry, but the general lesson is the same: more promoter does not automatically produce more adhesion.
If someone is uncertain about the correct use of a promoter on ABS, no promoter may produce better results than a promoter applied excessively or incorrectly. That does not mean adhesion promoter is always unnecessary on ABS. It means a misapplied product can become more harmful than helpful.
Polypropylene presents a different challenge.
Polypropylene is a low-surface-energy polyolefin. Many coatings have difficulty properly wetting and bonding to untreated polypropylene. A promoter or surface treatment specifically compatible with polypropylene can therefore be much more important.
That still does not mean the part should simply be saturated.
The appropriate product, amount, number of coats, flash time, and topcoat window remain important. Polypropylene may require a more deliberate treatment than ABS, but “more difficult to bond” does not mean “apply as much promoter as possible.”
In our experience, the application instructions in a manufacturer’s technical data sheet are generally an excellent starting point for polypropylene. The difficulty is that not every technical data sheet provides a detailed breakdown for every plastic, and not every product marketed for “plastic” uses the same chemistry.
This is where substrate knowledge and product knowledge must work together.
The Customer Then Revealed What Had Happened
Only after I explained the differences between ABS, polypropylene, surface energy, promoter chemistry, film formation, application amount, flash time, and coating windows did the customer describe his results.
He said the explanation made sense because some of his A-pillars and other harder interior plastics had not produced the durability he expected. The coating seemed unusually easy to remove.
That information was not supplied before the explanation. I was not working backward from a failure he had already described and creating a convenient theory to fit it.
He had initially mentioned only that he used adhesion promoter and that he copied the application method demonstrated by popular social-media creators. After hearing how easily excessive promoter can reduce adhesion on solvent-sensitive plastics, he recognized that it matched what he had experienced.
He again mentioned the same well-known creators and explained that he had applied the product the way he had watched them apply it on Facebook and TikTok.
He had followed a visible process without being given the technical information needed to understand whether that process applied to his product, his plastic, or his coating system.
Once he understood the reason, his earlier results were no longer mysterious.
Popularity Is Not Technical Documentation
This does not prove that every method demonstrated by a popular creator is wrong. It also does not prove that the creators named by the customer used the same substrate, product, film thickness, or coating system.
A short video rarely provides enough information to establish those details.
The concern is what viewers learn from it.
If a demonstration shows someone generously spraying adhesion promoter over multiple plastics and then applying color, viewers may reasonably assume that this is the correct procedure. The creator’s confidence, reputation, charisma, finished results, and large following can make the method appear authoritative.
None of those qualities prove that the method is incorrect, but they do not provide evidence that it is correct either. When someone does not identify the substrate, cite the product’s technical instructions, explain the chemistry, account for application amount and timing, or support the method with meaningful testing, the viewer is being shown a procedure presented with confidence—not technical proof that the procedure is dependable.
In our experience, many widely repeated social-media practices conflict with manufacturer instructions, basic material behavior, or results revealed through comparative testing. An unsupported method may occasionally work, but without the information required to explain why, there is little reason to automatically treat it as reliable guidance. It should remain unverified until it is supported by something more substantial than appearance and presentation.
The same standard should apply to us. Consumers should not accept our claims simply because we present them confidently, show attractive finished work, or have years of experience. Our conclusions should be evaluated by the substrate knowledge, manufacturer documentation, testing, stated limitations, and observable results supporting them. We can make mistakes too, and our process should change when better evidence becomes available.
The point is not that our shop should automatically be considered superior. It is that consumers should expect any professional—including us—to support important claims with something more substantial than confidence and presentation. A following is not a technical data sheet. Confidence is not evidence, and charisma is not a substitute for knowledge.
A finished part shown immediately after painting does not establish long-term adhesion. It does not show what the coating will do after installation, heat cycling, cleaning, impacts, flexing, or years of use. It may not even show what would happen during a controlled adhesion test several days after curing.
Social media can introduce people to useful products and techniques. It cannot replace substrate identification, product documentation, controlled testing, or understanding why the process works.
Promoters Can Leave No Film, a Minimal Film, or a Defined Tie Coat
The products we have evaluated over the years illustrate how different the chemistry can be.
SEM Sand Free
SEM Sand Free is a solvent-only surface conditioner according to its published safety data. It contains no solids and therefore leaves no conventional resin film after complete evaporation.
Its intended mechanism is temporary softening of ABS, PVC, and similar plastics followed by wet-on-wet coating application.
Its primary benefit is direct interaction with a compatible solvent-sensitive substrate without depositing another resin layer.
Its limitation is that its success depends heavily on the substrate responding properly and the coating being applied during the correct wet-on-wet window.
Bulldog Adhesion Promoter
Bulldog aerosol is a film-forming tie coat intended for polyolefin plastics. Its manufacturer specifies a 0.2–0.4 mil dry film.
Its benefit is the creation of a continuous intermediate layer designed to connect a difficult polyolefin surface with a compatible coating system.
Its limitation is that the deposited film becomes another layer whose thickness, solvent release, compatibility, and adhesion must all be correct.
SEM and Bulldog may both be called adhesion promoters, but they do not perform their jobs in exactly the same way.
PM
A third product, identified here only as PM, uses a solvent-rich chlorinated-polyolefin and resin-based formulation.
Chlorinated polyolefin is commonly used to improve coating adhesion to low-surface-energy polyolefin plastics. PM contains far less film-building material than a product designed to create a comparatively substantial tie coat, but the presence of chlorinated polyolefin and proprietary resin means it should not be described as a purely film-free solvent treatment.
It is more accurately described as a low-resin surface modifier that leaves a minimal adhesion-promoting interface after the solvents evaporate.
APT-4
The final product will be identified here as APT-4, referring to the acrylic pretreatment that became the fourth major promoter evaluated during this progression.
Its technical data identifies an acrylic base and approximately 4.6% solids, with a published tolerance of plus or minus 2%. Therefore, it is not film-free.
Its solvents flash quickly, but a very thin acrylic residue remains on the treated substrate. The product alters or interacts with the surface while also leaving an acrylic interface for the following material.
Its technical data lists the film specification as “N/A.” That should not be interpreted to mean that no material remains. A product containing acrylic solids necessarily leaves something behind after the volatile solvents evaporate. “N/A” more reasonably indicates that the manufacturer did not publish a conventional dry-film specification.
APT-4 was originally formulated as a pretreatment for certain polypropylene alloys and other difficult-to-bond substrates beneath waterborne acrylic flock adhesives. That published intended use is narrower than every possible automotive interior coating application.
Our use of it is based on our own comparative testing within our coating system. That distinction is important. Manufacturer documentation helps explain a product’s chemistry and intended purpose, but in-house testing determines whether it performs appropriately within a shop’s complete process.
Our Product Selection Changed Through Progressive Testing
We did not purchase all four products at the same time, conduct one large comparison, and declare a winner.
The process developed over years.
Whenever we discovered or researched a product that appeared promising, we tested it against the product we were currently using. A new product did not need to defeat every promoter we had ever purchased. It needed to outperform the current standard that had already defeated or replaced the previous one.
The SEM and Bulldog products we evaluated produced relatively similar results. Neither established such a decisive advantage that the other appeared categorically inferior. At that stage, product preference and the details of the application played a substantial role in which one was selected.
Later, we discovered PM and tested it against the promoter then being used in our process.
PM produced better adhesion on both ABS and polypropylene within our coating system. It therefore replaced the previous product as our standard.
We continued researching rather than assuming the improvement meant the search was permanently over.
When APT-4 showed promise, we tested it directly against PM—the product that had already outperformed our earlier choices.
APT-4 then produced better adhesion than PM on both ABS and polypropylene within our process. It became the new standard because it earned that position through comparison with the best-performing product we had at the time.
This is progressive product testing:
Use the best-performing product currently available to us.
Research possible alternatives.
Compare a promising alternative with the current standard.
Replace the current product only when the alternative demonstrates a meaningful improvement.
Continue observing its performance in actual service.
Remain willing to test another product when better chemistry or information becomes available.
The testing was practical in-house testing, not certified laboratory analysis. The products were not all evaluated simultaneously, and these results should not be interpreted as a universal ranking for every substrate, coating, preparation method, or environment.
They establish what performed best within our process.
That is also why we do not simply recommend one promoter to every person who asks. The product alone is only one part of a complete system.
Following the TDS Is More Valuable Than Copying a Video
A technical data sheet does not reveal every proprietary detail of a formulation, but it normally provides essential instructions such as:
Suitable substrates.
Required surface preparation.
Number of coats.
Wet- or dry-film expectations.
Flash time.
Topcoat window.
Compatible coating types.
Recommended application equipment.
Environmental limitations.
Reapplication requirements.
Those instructions are not optional suggestions added to make the document look technical.
They describe the conditions under which the manufacturer expects the product to work.
A person who identifies the substrate and follows the correct TDS will generally be working with far more useful information than someone who copies the number of passes seen in a social-media video by a charismatic individual who has a large following.
The visible spray pattern does not reveal the product’s transfer rate, distance, fluid delivery, film thickness, ambient temperature, substrate sensitivity, or whether the creator edited out the actual flash time.
“Two passes” is not a technical measurement unless the conditions producing those passes are also known.
An Aerosol Can Is Not Automatically a Red Flag
The customer’s reaction to professional shops using aerosol products raises an important point.
An aerosol product is not automatically inferior.
Some professional products are packaged as aerosols for convenience, consistency, reduced cleanup, spot repairs, or accessibility. A carefully formulated aerosol used on its intended substrate according to its TDS may produce excellent results.
Likewise, material poured into professional spray equipment is not automatically high quality. A shop can apply the wrong chemistry through expensive equipment just as easily as someone can misuse an aerosol.
A product also does not become the best available option simply because it is used by a popular creator, a well-known shop, or many people throughout the industry. Widespread use may demonstrate familiarity, availability, or successful applications, but it does not prove that the product has been compared with better-performing alternatives.
It is understandable that consumers and even professionals often assume otherwise—especially when a brand has mastered its marketing. When the same product repeatedly appears in advertisements, instructional videos, social-media posts, supply stores, and professional shops, familiarity can begin to feel like proof of superiority. The product may eventually be treated as the industry standard simply because it is the product everyone recognizes.
That visibility proves that the company has successfully placed and promoted its product. It does not prove that another, less familiar product cannot perform better.
The word professional printed on a can or bottle does not establish superiority either. A legitimately useful professional product may still be outperformed by a less familiar product on a particular substrate or within a particular coating system.
In fact, many of the professional supplies used in our shop carry names that most consumers—and even many people within the industry—would not recognize or may never have heard before. We use them because our research and testing showed that they outperformed far better-known products whose marketing had established them as the familiar or expected professional choice.
Those products did not earn their place in our process through name recognition. They earned it through testing and performance.
The container is not the science. Neither are the marketing language, the reputation of the person holding it, the number of people seen using it, or the familiarity of the logo.
The chemistry, substrate compatibility, technical documentation, correct application, controlled comparisons, and long-term performance are what determine whether a product deserves its place in a professional process.
However, a consumer is justified in asking questions when a shop appears to use the same can and the same application method on every interior plastic without identifying the substrate or explaining why the product belongs there.
The concern is not that the product came from a spray can. The concern is whether the shop’s complete process extends beyond spraying a familiar product because its label says it works on plastic.
What Consumers Should Ask a Shop
Consumers do not need to become chemists before having their interiors restored. They also do not need access to a shop’s proprietary product names or formulas.
They should, however, be able to ask reasonable questions:
Does the shop identify the type of plastic before refinishing it?
Does it change its preparation process for ABS, polypropylene, and other substrates?
Is its adhesion promoter intended for that substrate?
Does the promoter soften the surface, leave a residual film, or create a defined tie coat?
Does the shop follow the product’s stated flash and topcoat windows?
Has the complete coating system been tested on the plastics it is used on?
Does the shop test new materials against its current process before changing products?
Can it explain why the process works without relying only on a brand name?
Does it evaluate cured adhesion rather than judging success only by immediate appearance?
Is it willing to change its process when testing reveals a better option?
A knowledgeable shop may not disclose every proprietary detail. It should still understand the reasoning behind its own procedures.
“We always use this because it works” is not the same as explaining what the product does, why it is compatible with the substrate, and how its application changes between different plastics.
Adhesion Promoter Is Not Insurance Against Poor Preparation
No promoter can compensate for every other weakness in a refinishing process.
The substrate must still be properly cleaned. Mold-release agents, silicone, dressings, oils, old coatings, and other contaminants can interfere with adhesion. The plastic must be correctly identified. The coating must be compatible with both the substrate treatment and the materials applied above it.
Promoter cannot automatically correct:
Incomplete cleaning.
Remaining contamination.
Incorrect sanding or scuffing.
An incompatible coating system.
Excessive film thickness.
Insufficient flash time.
Solvent trapped beneath subsequent layers.
Application outside the product’s topcoat window.
Poor curing conditions.
Failure to test the completed system.
Adhesion promoter is one controlled part of surface preparation. It is not a substitute for surface preparation.
“Spray It on Everything” Is Not Professional Guidance
The simplest advice is often the easiest to repeat:
Spray adhesion promoter on every plastic. Make sure it is thoroughly covered. Then paint it.
The reality is less convenient.
ABS and polypropylene do not behave the same way. A solvent-only conditioner and a film-forming tie coat do not work the same way. A product that leaves no solids cannot be applied like one intended to create a continuous dry film. A promoter that must be topcoated while wet cannot be treated like one with a 24-hour open window.
Even two products intended to achieve the same general goal may use different chemistry and produce different results within the same coating system.
The customer in this story did what many reasonable people would do. He watched several popular creators who appeared confident and experienced, used the products available to him, and repeated the application method he had been shown.
Only after learning what adhesion promoter actually does did he recognize why the coating on some of his parts had been so easy to remove.
He was not upset by the explanation. He was grateful to finally understand it.
That kind of conversation is uncommon, but it demonstrates the purpose of technical knowledge. The objective is not to embarrass someone for getting a process wrong. It is to explain the cause clearly enough that the same failure does not have to happen again.
An adhesion promoter can improve a coating system when the correct product is applied correctly to the correct substrate.
It can also reduce adhesion when the chemistry, amount, timing, or substrate is misunderstood.
“Spray it on and it sticks” is marketing-level advice, not real advice.
Knowing what remains after it flashes, how it changes the surface, and why that particular plastic requires it is the beginning of a professional process.
Works Cited and Testing Basis
Published Technical Sources
Bonnerup, C., and P. Gatenholm. “The Effect of Surface Energetics and Molecular Interdiffusion on Adhesion in Multicomponent Polymer Systems.” Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, vol. 7, no. 3, 1993, pp. 247–262. The study examines polypropylene coatings, chlorinated-polyolefin primers, surface energetics, and solvent-assisted molecular interdiffusion. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856193X00691
Klean-Strip Automotive. “Bulldog Adhesion Promoter—Aerosol.” Manufacturer product information for ETPO123B. Accessed August 14, 2026. https://www.kleanstripauto.com/products/adhesion-promoters/bulldog-adhesion-promoter-aerosol
Klean-Strip Automotive. Bulldog Aerosol Adhesion Promoter Technical Data Sheet. Effective January 23, 2024. Manufacturer instructions and specifications concerning intended substrates, application, flash time, open time, volatile content, and specified dry-film thickness. Bulldog Technical Data Sheet
SEM Products, Inc. “Sand Free Adhesion Promoter.” Manufacturer product information for part number 38363. Accessed August 14, 2026. https://semproducts.com/product/sand-free-adhesion-promoter
SEM Products, Inc. Sand Free Technical Data Sheet. Manufacturer description and instructions concerning ABS, PVC, surface softening, substrate testing, and wet-on-wet application. SEM Sand Free Technical Data Sheet
SEM Products, Inc. 38363 Sand Free Aerosol Safety Data Sheet. Reviewed June 20, 2017; printed March 14, 2018. Manufacturer safety data identifying the disclosed solvent composition, 100% organic-solvent content, and 0% solids. SEM Sand Free Safety Data Sheet
Stribick, Sascha, and Basel Alhadad. “Laser Surface Texturing for Surface Preparation of Adhesive Bonding of Polypropylene.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 140, 2025, pp. 4339–4354. Research concerning polypropylene’s low surface energy, surface modification, wettability, and resulting adhesive performance. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-025-16466-y
Anonymous Manufacturer Documentation
The product identified as PM was evaluated using its manufacturer’s current product information, technical instructions, and safety data. The reviewed safety data identifies a solvent-rich formulation containing chlorinated polyolefin and proprietary resin. The manufacturer and complete product name have been intentionally withheld to protect proprietary process information.
The product identified as APT-4 was evaluated using its manufacturer’s technical and safety data sheets. The technical data identifies an acrylic base, approximately 4.6% solids with a stated tolerance of plus or minus 2%, and intended use as a pretreatment for certain polypropylene alloys and other difficult-to-bond substrates. The manufacturer and complete product name have been intentionally withheld to protect proprietary process information.
Safety data sheets disclose hazardous ingredients subject to applicable reporting requirements. They should not automatically be interpreted as complete product formulas because nonhazardous and proprietary components may not be individually disclosed.
Carr Designs Testing and Observations
Statements comparing SEM, Bulldog, PM, and APT-4 are based on progressive in-house testing and practical observations performed by Carr Designs over multiple years.
The products were not all tested simultaneously. When a promising product was discovered, it was compared with the best-performing product then being used. A replacement was adopted only when it demonstrated better adhesion within the shop’s preparation and coating system.
The reported progression was:
The evaluated SEM and Bulldog products produced sufficiently similar results that selection largely became a matter of preference.
PM subsequently produced better adhesion than the previous standard on both ABS and polypropylene.
APT-4 later produced better adhesion than PM on both ABS and polypropylene and became the current standard.
These comparisons were practical shop testing rather than testing conducted by an independent or accredited laboratory. The results describe performance within Carr Designs’ materials, preparation procedures, coating system, application conditions, and evaluation methods. They should not be interpreted as a universal product ranking for every coating system or application.
Comments