Material Selector

Use data to connect material choice, waste reduction, and compliance readiness.

ERIKS material selector work is framed as a practical material review. A cleaner material path should reduce preventable waste, improve documentation discipline, and make substitution choices easier to explain to customers, regulators, and internal approval teams.

Dashboard

Metrics to track before making a green claim

25-50%PCR target range many packaging programs are discussing for 2030 planning.
6-18 moQualification window that can be disrupted when a material change is poorly documented.
4 filesMinimum review packet: SDS, compliance statement, technical data, and change record.
3 lanesWaste reduction through yield, packaging format, and replacement frequency.

Material Selector language becomes credible only when it is tied to measurable operating facts. A tape that reduces rework may lower scrap even if its unit price is higher. A packaging component with recycled content may create risk if mechanical tolerance, color stability, or food-contact documentation is incomplete. A rubber seal with longer service life may prevent repeated maintenance visits and discarded parts. The dashboard approach helps teams compare those tradeoffs with evidence instead of treating material selector as a separate marketing claim.

Documents buyers should request early

Regulatory summary

REACH, RoHS, Prop 65, FDA 21 CFR, or customer-specific declarations mapped to the market where the finished product will sell.

Technical data sheet

Material properties, processing notes, storage conditions, temperature range, and installation guidance that affect real application performance.

Change control note

Clear record of why a product was selected, what incumbent it replaces, and what tests still need customer or internal approval.

Regulatory timeline

Step 1

Market screen

Identify whether the end product enters automotive, medical, food-contact, electronics, marine, or general industrial channels. This changes the evidence burden before samples move.

Step 2

Material substitution review

Compare performance and compliance impacts together. Replacing an adhesive, rubber tape, filler, or plastic film without this review can create retesting work later.

Step 3

Claim and record alignment

Align waste reduction, recycled content, longer life, or safer handling statements with the documents available to the buyer and customer.

Selection considerations with both sides visible

Silicone versus fluoroelastomer

Silicone supports a broad temperature window and weathering resistance, while fluoroelastomer is often screened for hydrocarbon and aggressive-fluid exposure. Neither choice is universal: compression set, swell, cure system, hardness and actual media exposure decide the service fit.

TPE versus vulcanized rubber

TPE can shorten molding cycles and allow reprocessing of clean runner material; vulcanized rubber can retain sealing behavior in demanding heat and dynamic service. Compare Shore hardness, tensile strength, tear strength and compression set under the intended duty cycle.

Repeatable screening path

Where the cited method calls for it, condition specimens at 23°C and 50% relative humidity, record lot number and specimen geometry, run the named ASTM or ISO method, retain an untreated control, and report the value with units and acceptance criterion.

Limitations remain explicit: typical datasheet values are not release specifications; compatibility is media-, concentration-, stress- and time-dependent; and declarations are grade-, site-, market- and revision-specific. Request the current lot-specific CoA with the applicable TDS, SDS or scoped declaration before approval.

Build a material selector file before the trial becomes urgent.

Share the product family, target market, claim language, replacement goal, and required evidence. A structured file can prevent last-minute substitutions from creating waste, confusion, or customer approval delays.

Request Data Review