Silyl Terminated Construction Sealants

Dear sirs! Can you tell me more about the use of SPUR and their properties and features. Who is supplier of such materials?

This is my second reaction - could not shorten it further. Have doubts on claimed advantages of hybrids over Si and PUs - on those with scores less than 8 for Si and PU in table 2:
Environmental friendliness: PU has scored low because of solvent and/or ‘free isocyanates'. Excellent solvent free PU sealants are available. Free isocyanates issue seems overplayed because -
1. In unopened packaging not a danger.
2. Even when opened or while curing, the thick consistency does not make it an issue - certainly not in external application. Also, no measurable airborne isocyanates are released.
3. In cured sealant, no free MDI exists.
Non bubbling: normally a problem on wet substrates. When applied with care, not a risk. Also, in the numerous PU applications till date, what percentage suffered from bubbling?
Quick cure: In dry climates 2K PU systems solve slow cure problems. I have not come across hybrids with cure speeds better than 3mm/24h, also achieved by many 1K PU sealants. Would a few more days' curing a problem on external vertical - the main areas?
Storage stability: Is 1 year shelf life not adequate?
Weathering resistance: Can’t understand the low score of 6 for PU - are there not sealants over 10y old in exposed?
Adhesion to various substrates: Also don't understand a score of 5 for PU. They have good adhesion on most substrates - Vinyl, Aluminium, wood, concrete, mortar, masonry, etc.
Non dirt pick up: Si and slow skin forming PU have the problem. But, there are many non dirt pick up grades too.
Staining: Am told there are stain free grades of Si, but am not sure. But, in most buildings staining is not seen.
Also, hybrids cannot cover all applications - not a panacea

The MS sealants with which I am most familiar, since they have been formulated for such, have very good chemical resistance, and I know one product very well, that has top-drawer performance in both clean water (water industry approved) and in water treatment plants (chemical and bacterial resistance).

SPUR had too early an introduction, technology wasn't up to the job in construction, and has suffered from that early perception. MS has always been fit-for-purpose for construction (there are variants for glazing, not mentioned by the author). MS has very good market acceptance and has thus been the subject of attack by 2 large chemicals/polymers suppliers recently launching their own versions of MS.

Liked it and found it very informative.
Still could not find the information i was looking for - the use of MS and SPUR selants in immersion under water and the chemical resistance of these sealants.
Good reading.

can you tell me more about the use of MS in Japan: outdoor application, fixing stone-strips, ceramic tile etc to concrete walls.
I learned that use of bricks is prohibited in JPN due to earthquakes: is this true?
Thx
Gerard

Most references quoted are > 10 years old. What is holding back their commercialisation?

How does SPUR peel adhesion on metals, painted metals, concrete, FRP & ceramic compare to MS & PUR equivalents?

MS products perform [don't deform] better than PUR during powder coating of metals for 10 mins at 210 C oven temp. So their heat resistance is different. How would SPUR perform under these conditons; better or worse than PUR or SPUR?