TY-70C and TY-82EC are both NMP-based SWCNT conductive slurries, but they are positioned for different evaluation priorities: TY-70C for performance-oriented screening and TY-82EC for process stability and scale-up fit.
Start with TY-70C when the first question is performance fit in high-Ni cathodes, silicon-graphite anodes, or fast-charging battery development.
Start with TY-82EC when the first question is compatibility with existing NMP workflows, dispersion consistency, and manufacturing-oriented evaluation.
Both are slurry-based and NMP-based, but they serve different evaluation priorities: one is more performance-oriented, while the other is more process- and scale-up-oriented.
| Parameter | TY-70C | TY-82EC |
|---|---|---|
| Product positioning | High-performance NMP-based SWCNT conductive slurry. | Industrial-stability NMP-based SWCNT conductive slurry. |
| Solvent system | NMP-based | NMP-based |
| Format | Slurry | Slurry |
| Best-fit evaluation priority | Performance-oriented screening and conductive-network-focused evaluation. | Process-fit, repeatability, and manufacturing-oriented evaluation. |
| Best-fit systems | High-Ni cathodes, silicon-graphite anodes, fast-charging battery evaluation. | Existing NMP-based manufacturing workflows, scale-up evaluation, production-line compatibility. |
| Appearance | Black slurry | Black slurry |
| Solid content | 1.60% ± 0.03% | 1.53% ± 0.03% |
| Carbon nanotubes | 0.70% ± 0.07% | 0.82% ± 0.02% |
| Dispersant system | PVDF + PVP, 0.90% ± 0.02% | PVDF + PVP, 0.71% ± 0.02% |
| Viscosity | ≤ 4500 mPa·s | ≤ 4500 mPa·s |
| Water content | ≤ 1000 ppm | ≤ 1000 ppm |
| Magnetic substances | ≤ 0.15 ppm | ≤ 0.15 ppm |
| Fe | ≤ 5 ppm | ≤ 5 ppm |
| Co | ≤ 5 ppm | ≤ 5 ppm |
| Ni | ≤ 2 ppm | ≤ 2 ppm |
| Cu | ≤ 1 ppm | ≤ 1 ppm |
| Zn | ≤ 1 ppm | ≤ 1 ppm |
| Cr | ≤ 1 ppm | ≤ 1 ppm |
the main goal is to test performance-oriented fit in high-Ni, silicon-graphite, or fast-charging development before expanding the process matrix.
the main goal is to assess NMP workflow compatibility, repeatability, and production-line-oriented slurry behavior.
the team needs to compare performance-oriented screening against manufacturing-oriented fit under the same chemistry, process route, and evaluation ladder.
1. Loading ladder and additive ratio
Keep the dosage ladder comparable so the first difference you see is still interpretable.
2. Process compatibility with current NMP workflow
Confirm whether both products fit the same solvent route, mixing logic, and handling window.
3. Dispersion and coating behavior
Review how each slurry behaves through dispersion, coating, and practical line handling.
4. Rate performance / resistance behavior
Track performance-oriented outputs together with resistance indicators under the same conditions.
5. Consistency and scale-up handling
Check whether the chosen route stays credible once repeatability and manufacturing handling are part of the decision.
See the performance-oriented TY-70C page in full.
See the manufacturing-oriented TY-82EC page in full.
Use the application page when nickel-rich cathodes are part of the decision.
Use the application page when silicon-graphite evaluation is part of the matrix.
Use a structured screening framework before making the first product choice.
The main difference is evaluation priority. TY-70C is positioned for performance-oriented screening in high-Ni, silicon-graphite, and fast-charging programs, while TY-82EC is positioned for process stability, repeatability, and scale-up fit in existing NMP-based workflows.
If the first question is performance-oriented screening in high-Ni cathodes, TY-70C is usually the more direct starting point. Teams may still compare TY-82EC if process compatibility and manufacturing-oriented evaluation are also part of the decision.
TY-82EC is the more suitable starting point when the main priority is fit with existing NMP production lines, stable dispersion consistency, and manufacturing-oriented evaluation.
Yes, when the team needs to compare performance-oriented screening against manufacturing-oriented fit under the same chemistry, process route, and evaluation matrix.
Start with loading ladder and additive ratio, process compatibility with the current NMP workflow, dispersion and coating behavior, rate performance or resistance behavior, and consistency with scale-up handling.
Share the chemistry, the NMP workflow, and whether the first priority is performance screening or manufacturing fit. That is usually enough to define the most useful first comparison.