These are formulation raw materials
TEA, TIPA and DEIPA are not interchangeable finished grinding-aid products. Their response depends on concentration, impurities, other formulation components, clinker chemistry, sulfate balance, additions and dosage.
Identity comparison
| Material | Chemical identity | Procurement focus |
|---|---|---|
| TEA | Triethanolamine · CAS 102-71-6 | Assay, water, impurities, storage and formulation behavior |
| TIPA | Triisopropanolamine · CAS 122-20-3 | 85% grade assay, water, color, storage and strength response |
| DEIPA | Diethanolisopropanolamine · CAS 6712-98-7 | Assay, water, appearance, storage and comparative formulation trials |
How to compare them correctly
- Compare verified active content, not equal solution mass alone.
- Use the same complete formulation basis or document why it differs.
- Hold cement composition, fineness and curing constant.
- Measure setting plus early and later strength.
- Record grinding/dispersion behavior separately from hydration response.
- Do not publish a universal replacement ratio from one cement system.
Decision output
The correct result is a formulation window supported by laboratory and plant data—not a statement that one amine is always “best.” Request current raw-material specifications and define the finished-product target before purchasing.
Standards & method references
- ASTM C465 — Processing additions for hydraulic cement manufacture
- ISO 679:2009 — Cement strength test method
- ISO cement, gypsum, lime and mortar standards catalogue
The applicable standard, edition and local regulatory requirement must be confirmed for each project. A reference does not claim product compliance.