199 改性尼龙质量争议怎么处理
先讲一次争了三周才收场的。
客户的注塑件在装配时开裂，开裂位置集中在卡扣根部，比例大概百分之八。
客户的判断很直接："你们的料脆。"
我们这边的第一反应也很直接："同一批货发给另外三家都没事。"
两边说的都是事实。然后就是典型的僵局：谁也说服不了谁，邮件越写越长，第三周开始有人在电话里抬高嗓门。
后来是怎么收的场？三个人跑了一趟现场，做了四件事：
第一，调了一批还没开封的同批料，当场测含水率——偏高，但没到离谱。
第二，翻注塑车间的干燥记录——那几天正好换了干燥机的加热管，实际烘料时间比标准少了将近一半。
第三，把注塑件开裂的位置切开看——裂纹源在有明显取向的位置。
第四，看模具近期的修模记录——那个卡扣位置的顶针半个月前换过。
最后结论是三样叠加：料含水偏高是诱因，烘干不足是直接原因，模具顶针位置变化推高了局部应力。
处理方式很平静：我们换了那批货，客户改了烘料流程、调了顶针，双方各担一半损失。
签字的时候那位质量经理说了一句：
"这三周早干完就好了。前两周都用在互相指责上了。"
——确实是。这篇讲的，就是把这三周压到三天。
质量争议最忌讳两件事：只喊口号不交数据，或者拿着改性尼龙物性表的干态数据去争湿热现场的问题——争议的解药永远在双方都认可的测试方法里。
一、先明白一件事：争议为什么容易僵住
根本原因不是谁赖账，是信息不对等
出了质量事故，供应商掌握的信息是：这一批料的生产记录、同批次的检测数据、其他客户的反馈。
客户掌握的信息是：注塑参数、模具状态、现场环境、装配过程。
这两摞信息从来不在同一个人的手上。于是双方看到的都是自己这一侧的证据，自然都觉得自己没错。
第二个原因：尼龙这个材料的多因素特性
这行有个说法不太好听但很真实：尼龙件出问题，很少是单一原因。
它太容易受三样东西影响了：含水率、热历程、应力状态。 而这三样里，含水率由仓储和烘料决定，热历程由注塑参数决定，应力由模具和设计决定——只有一部分跟料有关。
所以：
同一个料，在 A 厂打没事，在 B 厂打可能天天出事
同一个件，冬天没问题，梅雨季可能批量开裂
这两句话，做尼龙的人一定都有体会。
于是争议处理的正确姿势是什么
不是先分对错，是先确认"事实共识"：有哪些现象、发生在哪些批次、涉及哪些可变因素。先把事实摆齐，责任判定往往是水到渠成的。
二、八步处理流程，每一步都有动作
下面这套流程，是踩过几次坑之后攒下来的。
| 次序 | 动作 | 关键要点 |
|---|
| 一 | 冻结现场 | 暂缓使用剩余同批料，但不要丢弃或退回 |
| 二 | 保全样品 | 缺陷件、正常件、未开封料、已开封料各留一份 |
| 三 | 锁定批次 | 通过批号定位到生产记录与检测数据 |
| 四 | 现场取证 | 注塑参数记录、干燥记录、模具维修记录 |
| 五 | 双向检测 | 双方各自送检或共同第三方，先看数据差在哪 |
| 六 | 归因分析 | 按材料、工艺、模具、设计四类逐项排除 |
| 七 | 处置谈判 | 让步、挑选、降级、退换、赔付，按档位谈 |
| 八 | 闭环归档 | 改流程、改条款、改标准，写进下一份协议 |
第二步最容易被跳过，也最致命
保全样品这件事，几乎决定了后续所有动作的成败。
需要留的东西就四样：有问题的成品件、同批次的正常件、未开封的同批原料、已开封或已烘过的同批原料。
这四样能让你把"料在出厂时什么样"和"料到了注塑机里变成什么样"分开看。
一旦把剩余原料退回去、把废品全清了，就等于把证据自己销毁了。 后面再怎么争，都是嘴上的事。
第四步：一定要看的三份记录
很多争议在翻完这三份记录之后就明朗了：
干燥记录：烘了几小时、什么温度、换没换过设备
注塑参数记录：炮筒各段温度、模温、背压、周期有没有改过
模具维修记录：近一个月动过哪里
这三份记录里常常就藏着答案。
三、四类归因：一张对照表
一旦进入归因阶段，不要急着把矛头指向任何一边，先做一张排除表。
| 归因方向 | 典型表现 | 快速验证 |
|---|
| 材料 | 多副模具同时出问题、多件同时出问题 | 对比其他客户同批料的反馈 |
| 工艺 | 单一机台出问题、特定时段集中爆发 | 换机台/恢复原参数试打 |
| 模具 | 问题固定在某个位置或某几腔 | 换模或对调型腔观察 |
| 设计 | 壁厚突变、尖角、根部无圆角的位置开裂 | 看开裂位置是否高度一致 |
这张表的用法： 现象越集中在某个型腔，越倾向模具；越集中在某个时段，越倾向工艺；越是全面爆发、多家关门，越倾向材料。
一个很实用的判定顺序
建议按"设计 → 模具 → 工艺 → 材料"这个顺序排除。
理由是：前面三项通常是固定的、可查的，排掉速度快。 而材料项最难判定，放在最后做。
反过来做——先怀疑材料——通常浪费两周。
四、检测怎么做才有说服力
数据是最不产生争议的东西，前提是检测本身经得起推敲。
三个原则
原则一，样品代表性。 别只送一个好的、也别只送一个坏的。好的、坏的、临界的最少各三件，让检测机构看的是分布，不是个例。
原则二，检测项目要对着失效模式选。 开裂优先看冲击、含水率、玻纤取向与分布；变形优先看模量与收缩率；阻燃不过优先看厚度，而不是直接怀疑阻燃剂。
原则三，检测方法统一。 双方各自送检，最大的坑是两家用了不同方法或不同状态（干态与调湿态）。送检前就约定好方法、条件、样条厚度。
关于谁出钱
常规做法是：初检各自承担；若需第三方复检，由提出方先垫付，最终由责任方承担。
这句话建议提前写进合同，因为它是唯一一条能阻止"我方先垫钱"变成长期扯皮的条款。
有一个动作成本极低但很关键
把检测过程拍下来。 尤其是样条的取样位置、断口的形态、样条的制备过程。
这些照片在后续复盘时特别有用——尤其是当争议最终要呈述给第三方或者公司内部的时候。
五、处置的四个档位，先谈档位再谈钱
很多争议之所以谈崩，是因为一上来就进入"赔多少钱"。建议先把处置方式分档谈好。
四档处置
| 档位 | 适用 | 典型做法 |
|---|
| 挑选使用 | 缺陷集中在可通过检验挑出的情形 | 增加全检，费用由双方协商分摊 |
| 让步接收 | 不影响功能，只影响外观或次要指标 | 降级计价，差额写在后续订单里 |
| 换货补货 | 明确属于材料问题 | 换货并承担往返运费 |
| 综合赔付 | 已产生下游损失 | 含直接损失，必要时含加工与返工工时 |
注意第一档和第二档的价值常被低估。很多时候双方争执的金额不如"全检工时"值钱，而后者是可以谈判的。
谈判时的一个分寸
我个人的经验：先谈清楚事实与责任比例，再谈金额。
反过来先谈钱，容易变成一场讨价还价，而事实反倒变得不重要了——这次虽然解决了，下次还会重演。
什么时候该强硬，什么时候该让
该强硬的：对方证据明显不足却要求全赔、或者拒绝对话、拒绝提供平行样品。
该让的：原因确实在已方、或者责任交叉且金额不大。这类争议快速了结，比争赢了更省钱——因为真正的成本是工程师的时间和管理层的注意力。
六、把每一次争议变成条款
最后一步最容易被忘：处理完就算了。
真正有用的做法是：把这次争议的教训写成三条具体改动，分别落在这三个地方：
三个落点
其一，写进技术规格书。 如果争议源于某一项指标没写清（比如含水率上限、冲击的测试条件），这一项必须补进去。
其二，写进作业流程。 如果是干燥、参数、修模记录的问题，就把检查点加到日常记录表上。改一个空格的成本，远低于下一次事故。
其三，写进合同附件。 把这次用到的检测机构、方法、费用由谁承担的约定固化下来。
一个值钱的习惯
建议为每家主要供应商建一个简单的质量台账：每次异常的时间、现象、归因、处置、费用。
一年下来回头翻，你会非常清楚地看出两件事：哪几家供应商是真的在进步，哪几家只是在道歉。
七、三类高频争议，各自的排查顺序
争议的类型其实很集中。下面这三类占了我见过案例的绝大部分，各自有一套相对固定的排查顺序。
第一类：开裂
排查顺序：先看开裂位置是否高度一致 → 是不是都在壁厚突变或尖角处 → 再看含水率 → 最后看玻纤分布与熔接线。
经验：位置高度一致的多数是结构或模具应力；位置分散且多件同发的，先查含水与烘料。
这一类争议最常见的结论是"多个因素叠加"，很少单点归因。
第二类：尺寸超差
排查顺序：先确认是全模普遍还是个别型腔 → 再看保压与冷却时间有没有改 → 再确认收缩率取值是不是从试模一路沿用下来的 → 最后查料批次有没有换。
特别提醒：换季节的时候最容易出这类问题。同一个件在干燥的冬天尺寸偏小、梅雨季偏大，是尼龙的常态，不是料的批次问题。
这一类争议建议处理办法：先复现，再归因。 用同批料在同样的参数下重打五十模测尺寸，比争论绝对值更有用。
第三类：阻燃或电气项不过
排查顺序：先确认试样厚度 → 再看测试机构与方法 → 然后再回到材料。
这一类的顺序和其他两类相反：先查测试方法，因为厚度差零点八毫米就能差一个等级，而这是最常见的原因。
顺便说一句：阻燃测试的不通过，如果同批料在别家通过，先比对试条厚度和存放条件——阻燃剂对湿热同样敏感。
---### 一个不写在流程里、但很管用的动作
最后补一条偏软的建议，但从实际结果看，它的性价比很高。
出事的头二十四小时，尽量别急着发追责邮件。
更有效的开场通常是这样一句话：
"我这边看到的现象是这样的，手上的记录是这些。我们一块把这几项核一遍，你看方便哪天。"
这句话做了三件事：描述了事实、给出了自己的信息、邀请对方共同核查。
它不是软弱，是把对话从"谁负责"推回到"发生了什么"。而一旦对方进入防御状态，后面所有的取证都会变慢——对方会开始自保，而不是一起查原因。
另外两个小经验：
不要在群里贴照片直接下结论。 一张开裂件的照片配一句"这就是料的问题"，会把对方逼到必须反驳的位置
尽量一次把话说完整。 分批抛信息最容易让人觉得你在挤牙膏、在找对方的错误，而不是在找答案
说到底，争议处理的效率取决于双方能不能共享信息，而信息共享取决于第一句话的温度。
争议解决后把过程写成案例：改性尼龙这类工程材料的争议档案，是采购团队最值钱的内部教材。
一句收拢
这一篇的清单，拿去就能用：把工况、失效模式、验证项三样写全，发给改性尼龙供应商，一轮往返就能进试样。
结语
质量争议这件事，我一直用一句很土的话概括：出事之前多花十分钟，出事之后少扯三周。
十分钟能做什么：留四份样、翻三份记录、拍一组照片。
我把这套八步流程、四类归因表、证据清单和四档处置表整理成了一份：
有些生意我们不做。不问清楚就收钱结案的，不做；让客户背全部责任的，不做；出了事才发现连个三叉证据都没有的合作，也不做。
改性尼龙（PA6 / PA66 / PA46 / PA11 / PA12 / PA6T / PA9T 及尼龙合金）、改性 PPO / PPS / 热塑性弹性体，各大化工巨头尼龙树脂、副牌料、大包料现货——宁波市科隆新材料有限公司。
199 How to Handle Quality Disputes of Modified Nylon
Let's first talk about the one that took three weeks of arguing to come to an end.
The customer's injection-molded parts crack during assembly, with the cracks concentrated at the base of the clips, accounting for about eight percent.
The customer's judgment was very straightforward: 'Your materials are brittle.'
Our first reaction here was also very straightforward: 'Sending the same batch of goods to three other companies didn't cause any problems.'
Both sides are stating the facts. Then it turns into a typical deadlock: neither side can persuade the other, the emails get longer and longer, and by the third week, someone starts raising their voice on the phone.
How was the scene wrapped up later? Three people went to the site once and did four things:
First, I adjusted a batch of unopened material from the same lot and measured the moisture content on the spot—it was high, but not absurdly so.
Second, the drying records of the re-injection molding workshop — those days happened to be when the heating tube of the dryer was replaced, and the actual drying time was nearly half of the standard.
Third, cut open the cracked area of the injection molded part—the crack originates at a location with a clear orientation.
Fourth, look at the recent mold repair records — the ejector pin at that buckle position was replaced half a month ago.
The final conclusion is a combination of three factors: high moisture content in the material is the inducement, insufficient drying is the direct cause, and changes in the mold ejector pin position have increased local stress.
The handling was very calm: we replaced that batch of goods, the customer changed the drying process and adjusted the ejector pin, and both sides shared half of the loss.
When signing, the quality manager said:
It would have been better to finish early these past three weeks. The first two weeks were all spent on blaming each other.
——Indeed. This article is about compressing these three weeks into three days.
There are two things most taboo in quality disputes: only shouting slogans without providing data, or using the dry-state data from a modified nylon property table to argue about issues on-site in humid heat — the remedy for disputes is always in the testing methods recognized by both parties.
1. First, understand one thing: why disputes easily become deadlocked
The root cause is not who is defaulting on payments, but the information asymmetry.
When a quality incident occurs, the information that the supplier has includes: the production records of this batch of materials, the test data of the same batch, and feedback from other customers.
The information that the client has is: injection molding parameters, mold status, on-site environment, and assembly process.
These two stacks of information are never in the hands of the same person. So both sides only see the evidence on their own side, and naturally each thinks they are not at fault.
The second reason: the multi-factor characteristics of the material nylon
There is a saying in this industry that is not very pleasant but very true: When nylon parts have problems, it is rarely due to a single cause.
It is too easily affected by three things: moisture content, thermal history, and stress state. Among these three, moisture content is determined by storage and drying, thermal history is determined by injection molding parameters, and stress is determined by the mold and design—only a part is related to the material.
So:
The same material causes no problem at Factory A, but at Factory B it might cause problems every day.
The same piece is fine in winter, but it may crack in batches during the plum rain season.
These two sentences are something that everyone who works with nylon must have experienced.
So what is the correct way to handle disputes?
It’s not about determining right or wrong first, but first confirming a 'consensus of facts': what phenomena occurred, in which batches, and which variable factors were involved. Once the facts are laid out, assigning responsibility often follows naturally.
2. Eight-step processing flow, each step has actions
The following set of processes has been accumulated after running into a few pitfalls.
| Order | Movement | Key points |
|---|
| One | Freeze the scene | Temporarily suspend the use of the remaining material from the same batch, but do not discard or return it |
| Two | Preserve the sample | Keep one copy each of defective parts, normal parts, unopened materials, and opened materials. |
| Three | Lock batch | Locate production records and test data through the batch number |
| Four | On-site evidence collection | Injection molding parameter records, drying records, mold maintenance records |
| Five | Two-way detection | Each party submits for inspection separately or through a joint third party, and first look at where the data differs. |
| Six | Attribution Analysis | Eliminate item by item according to materials, process, molds, and design |
| Seven | Disposition negotiation | Concessions, selection, downgrade, returns and exchanges, compensation, discuss according to tier |
| Eight | Closed-loop archiving | Change the process, change the terms, change the standards, and write them into the next agreement |
The second step is the easiest to skip and also the most deadly
The matter of preserving samples almost determines the success or failure of all subsequent actions.
There are only four things that need to be kept: finished products with issues, normal items from the same batch, unopened raw materials from the same batch, and opened or baked raw materials from the same batch.
These four things allow you to separately look at 'what the material is like when it leaves the factory' and 'what the material becomes when it goes into the injection molding machine'.
Once the remaining raw materials are returned and all the defective products are cleared, it is equivalent to destroying the evidence yourself. Whatever arguments come afterward are just talk.
Step 4: Three records you must see
Many controversies became clear after these three records were translated.
Drying record: how many hours baked, what temperature, whether the equipment was changed
Injection molding parameter record: temperatures of each section of the barrel, mold temperature, back pressure, cycle—have they been changed?
Mold maintenance record: Where has it been worked on in the past month
The answers are often hidden in these three records.
Types Three and Four Attribution: A Comparison Table
Once you enter the attribution phase, don't rush to point the finger at anyone; first, make an elimination list.
| Attribution direction | Typical performance | Quick Verification |
|---|
| Material | Multiple molds malfunctioning at the same time, multiple pieces having problems at the same time | Compare feedback from other customers on the same batch of materials |
| Craft | Problems with a single machine, concentrated outbreaks at specific time periods | Switch machine / test print after restoring original parameters |
| Mold | The problem is fixed in a certain position or in a few cavities | Mold change or cavity swap observation |
| Design | Cracking at locations with sudden wall thickness changes, sharp corners, and no fillets at the base | Check whether the crack positions are at the same height |
Usage of this table: The more a phenomenon is concentrated in a specific mold cavity, the more it tends to be related to the mold; the more it is concentrated in a specific time period, the more it tends to be related to the process; the more it is a widespread outbreak with multiple companies shutting down, the more it tends to be related to the material.
A very practical sequence of judgments
It is recommended to eliminate in the order of 'Design → Mold → Process → Material'.
The reason is: the first three items are usually fixed and verifiable, making it quick to rule them out. The materials item is the hardest to determine, so it is done last.
Do it the other way around—doubt the materials first—usually wastes two weeks.
4. How to make testing convincing
Data is the least controversial thing, provided that the testing itself can withstand scrutiny.
Three principles
Principle One: Sample Representativeness. Don't just send a good one, and don't just send a bad one either. Send at least three of each: good, bad, and borderline, so that the testing organization sees the distribution, not isolated cases.
Principle 2: Testing items should be chosen according to the failure mode. For cracking, priority should be given to impact, moisture content, and the orientation and distribution of glass fibers; for deformation, priority should be given to modulus and shrinkage rate; if flame retardancy fails, priority should be given to thickness, rather than directly suspecting the flame retardant.
Principle Three: Standardized Testing Methods. Each party sends samples for inspection on their own. The biggest pitfall is that the two parties use different methods or different conditions (dry state vs. conditioned state). The methods, conditions, and sample thickness should be agreed upon before sending for inspection.
About who pays
The usual practice is: each party bears its own initial inspection; if a third-party re-inspection is required, the requesting party pays first, and the final cost is borne by the responsible party.
It is recommended to write this sentence into the contract in advance, because it is the only clause that can prevent 'our side from advancing money first' from turning into a long-term dispute.
There is an action that is extremely low-cost but very crucial
Record the testing process on video, especially the sampling positions of the specimens, the morphology of the fracture surfaces, and the preparation process of the specimens.
These photos are particularly useful during subsequent reviews—especially when the controversy ultimately needs to be presented to a third party or internally within the company.
5. The four levels of handling: discuss the levels first, then talk about money
Many disputes fall apart because they start off by going straight to 'how much money to compensate.' It is recommended to first agree on the handling method in stages.
Level Four Disposal
| Gear | Applicable | Typical practice |
|---|
| Select and use | Defects are concentrated in situations that can be identified through inspection | Increase full inspection, costs to be shared through mutual agreement |
| Concession acceptance | Does not affect functionality, only affects appearance or minor indicators | Downgrade pricing, the difference is recorded in subsequent orders |
| Exchange and restock | Clearly a material issue | Exchange goods and bear the round-trip shipping cost |
| Comprehensive Compensation | Downstream losses have occurred | Includes direct losses, and if necessary, includes processing and rework hours |
Pay attention to the fact that the value of the first and second levels is often underestimated. Many times, the amount disputed between the two parties is not as valuable as 'full inspection work hours,' and the latter is negotiable.
A sense of proportion in negotiations
My personal experience: first clarify the facts and the proportion of responsibility, then discuss the amount.
Starting with money first can easily turn into a bargaining session, making the facts seem unimportant—in this case it was resolved, but it will happen again next time.
When to be tough, when to yield
Be firm: when the other party's evidence is clearly insufficient but they demand full compensation, or refuse to dialogue, or refuse to provide parallel samples.
What should be conceded: the reason indeed lies with our side, or the responsibility is shared and the amount is not large. Resolving this type of dispute quickly saves more money than winning — because the real cost is the engineers' time and the management's attention.
6. Turn every dispute into a clause
The last step is the easiest to forget: once it's done, people just consider it over.
A truly useful approach is to write the lessons from this controversy into three specific changes, each applied to these three places:
Three landing points
First, include it in the technical specifications. If the dispute arises from an unclear specification (such as the maximum moisture content or the test conditions for impact), this item must be added.
Secondly, include it in the homework process. If it is a problem with drying, parameters, or mold repair records, add the checkpoint to the daily record sheet. The cost of correcting a space is far lower than that of the next accident.
Third, include it in the contract appendix. Solidify the agreement on the testing institutions, methods, and who will bear the costs used this time.
A valuable habit
It is recommended to create a simple quality ledger for each major supplier: the time of each anomaly, the phenomenon, the cause, the handling, and the cost.
Looking back over the year, you will clearly see two things: which suppliers are truly making progress and which are just apologizing.
7. Three types of high-frequency disputes and their respective inspection sequences
The types of disputes are actually quite concentrated. The following three categories account for the vast majority of cases I have seen, each with its own relatively fixed investigation sequence.
Category 1: Cracking
Investigation sequence: first check whether the cracking locations are at the same height → see if they are all at places with sudden changes in wall thickness or sharp corners → then check the moisture content → finally look at the distribution of glass fibers and weld lines.
Experience: If the positions are highly consistent, it is mostly structural or mold stress; if the positions are scattered and occur in multiple pieces simultaneously, first check for moisture content and drying of the material.
The most common conclusion in this type of dispute is 'multiple factors overlapping,' with single-point attribution being rare.
Category 2: Dimensional Deviations
Inspection sequence: First, confirm whether it is a general problem across all molds or specific cavities → then check whether the holding pressure and cooling time have been changed → next, confirm whether the shrinkage value has been consistently used from the trial mold → finally, check if the batch of material has been changed.
Special reminder: This type of problem is most likely to occur during season changes. The same item tends to be smaller in the dry winter and larger during the rainy season; this is normal for nylon and not a batch issue with the material.
Suggested approach for this type of dispute: first reproduce, then attribute. Using the same batch of material under the same parameters to test fifty molds again is more useful than debating absolute values.
Category 3: Fails in flame retardant or electrical items
Troubleshooting sequence: first confirm the sample thickness → then look at the testing organization and method → then go back to the material.
This type of order is opposite to the other two: first check the testing method, because a thickness difference of 0.8 millimeters can result in a grade difference, and this is the most common reason.
By the way: If the flame retardant test fails, and the same batch of material passes elsewhere, first compare the thickness of the test strips and the storage conditions—the flame retardant is also sensitive to humidity and heat.
---### An action that is not written in the procedure but is very effective
Finally, here's a somewhat soft suggestion, but judging from the actual results, its cost-effectiveness is very high.
During the first 24 hours after an incident, try not to rush into sending blame emails.
A more effective opening is usually a sentence like this:
The situation I am seeing on my side is like this, and these are the records I have on hand. Let's go through these items together and check them; you can see which day is convenient.
This sentence does three things: describes the facts, provides one's own information, and invites the other party to verify it together.
It's not weakness; it's shifting the conversation from 'who is responsible' back to 'what happened.' Once the other party goes on the defensive, all subsequent fact-finding will slow down—they will start protecting themselves instead of investigating the cause together.
Two more small tips:
Don't post photos in the group and draw conclusions directly. A photo of a cracked part with a caption like 'This is a material issue' can force the other party into a position where they must refute it.
Try to say everything in one go. Sharing information in bits makes people feel like you are hiding something or looking for their mistakes, rather than seeking answers.
Ultimately, the efficiency of dispute handling depends on whether both parties can share information, and sharing information depends on the tone of the first sentence.
After a dispute is resolved, document the process as a case: dispute files for engineering materials like modified nylon are the most valuable internal teaching materials for the procurement team.
Summary in one sentence
You can use this checklist as is: write down the working conditions, failure modes, and verification items completely, send them to the modified nylon supplier, and one round of back-and-forth is enough to enter the sampling stage.
Conclusion
I’ve always summarized the issue of quality disputes with a simple saying: spend an extra ten minutes before a problem, avoid wasting three weeks after.
What can you do in ten minutes: reserve four samples, review three records, take a set of photos.
I have compiled this set of eight-step processes, four types of attribution tables, evidence checklist, and four-tier disposal table into one document:
There are some businesses we don't take. We don't take those where payment is collected without clarifying questions; we don't take those that put all the responsibility on the customer; we don't take collaborations where, after a problem occurs, not even three pieces of evidence are available.
Modified nylon (PA6 / PA66 / PA46 / PA11 / PA12 / PA6T / PA9T and nylon alloys), modified PPO / PPS / thermoplastic elastomers, various major chemical companies’ nylon resins, second-brand materials, bulk material stock — Ningbo Cologne New Materials Co., Ltd.
