Twelve system categories, twenty entries on why substrate prep matters more than material, and a hard line we chose not to cross.
We were asked, early on, to write content that named specific competing brands and claimed our system was less messy, safer and longer-lasting — and that this was the reason we can offer a nine-year guarantee. We chose a different approach: compare system categories, name none of our competitors, and only claim what we can actually document.
| Section | Coverage | Questions |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bathroom leakage — every way it happens, and how it's solved | 1–65 |
| 2 | Terraces and roofs | 66–125 |
| 3 | Compounds, external areas and below ground | 126–180 |
| 4 | Comparing systems, and what really determines lifespan | 181–250 |
What we compareTwelve categories, judged on fit — not on who's better
Cementitious coatings, polymer-modified systems, acrylic and elastomeric membranes, polyurethane, bituminous membranes, EPDM, crystalline treatments, integral admixtures, injection grouts, silane/siloxane sealers, traditional brickbat coba, and epoxy — each gets an honest account of what it suits, what it doesn't, and how it eventually fails. Alongside that sit twenty entries making a single point as clearly as we can: substrate preparation, correct diagnosis and junction detailing decide how long a waterproofing job lasts far more than which material went on top of it.
"Less messy" is a claim about method, not marketing — nothing gets broken, so there's no hacking dust and no reinstatement work. That one we can stand behind.
What we left out, deliberatelyNo brands, no safety claims, no numbers we can't source
Zero competitor names appear anywhere in the document — we checked. We also don't use words like non-toxic, harmless or eco-friendly, because those require credible third-party test data under India's 2024 greenwashing guidelines, and we don't have that data on file yet. We don't make superiority claims, because comparative advertising law requires both products tested side-by-side under identical conditions before publication — and we haven't run that test. And because our formulation details are confidential, the document never gets into composition or chemistry.
What we found while researching thisThe evidence gap is industry-wide
Two things surprised us enough to note them here. First: there is no Indian standard (BIS) with pass/fail limits for liquid-applied membranes — manufacturers substantiate performance against international ASTM and EN standards instead, and BIS certification in this category is voluntary. Second: India has no statutory scheme for potable-water contact — no equivalent of NSF 61 — which matters because water tank waterproofing is one of our twelve service lines. Until we've tested a cured coating against IS 10500:2012 drinking-water standards ourselves, we don't use the words "food-grade" or "safe for drinking water," and neither should anyone else in this trade without that test on file.
Akolkar R&D can resolve the leakage issue successfully — reach out to us.
Comments
Post a Comment