Glob Top Encapsulant Market by Material Type (Epoxy, Polyimide, Silicone), Packaging Type (Bga, Flip Chip, Qfn), Curing Process, Die Size, Application - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Glob Top Encapsulant Market was valued at USD 383.44 million in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 408.11 million in 2025, with a CAGR of 6.68%, reaching USD 643.61 million by 2032.
A strategic foundation explaining how encapsulant chemistry, application practices, and reliability expectations converge to shape electronics assembly decisions in modern manufacturing
The introduction frames glob top encapsulant as a critical materials and process element that bridges semiconductor assembly and end‑product reliability across diversified electronics sectors. Encapsulants protect die and interconnects from mechanical shock, moisture ingress, and chemical exposure while influencing thermal dissipation and long‑term electrical stability. As packaging densities increase and heterogeneous integration becomes common, the role of encapsulant chemistry and application methodology has shifted from a purely protective layer to an enabler of miniaturization and performance retention.
This section outlines the overarching context for stakeholders considering materials selection, process changes, or supplier realignment. It highlights how advances in epoxy, polyimide, and silicone formulations, together with evolving curing techniques, are shaping design-for-reliability practices. Moreover, it situates encapsulant decisions within broader program constraints such as qualification cycles, regulatory requirements for medical and automotive applications, and the operational throughput expectations of contract manufacturers. By establishing this strategic baseline, readers will be positioned to interpret subsequent sections on competitive dynamics, regulatory shifts, and regional supply considerations.
An exploration of the multifaceted shifts influencing encapsulant selection driven by miniaturization, safety requirements, process innovation, and supplier‑OEM collaboration across industries
The landscape for glob top encapsulant is undergoing transformative shifts driven by multiple converging forces: higher package densities, regulatory pressure, evolving end‑use requirements, and manufacturing automation. Miniaturization has pushed die sizes down while increasing the complexity of interconnects, which in turn demands thinner, more conformal encapsulants with predictable rheology. Simultaneously, the rise of safety‑critical applications in automotive and medical segments is tightening qualification cycles and placing greater emphasis on long‑term aging performance and traceability.
Another pivotal shift relates to process innovation. UV and rapid thermal curing approaches are gaining attention for their potential to shorten cycle times and lower thermal budgets, thereby enabling sensitive substrates and heterogeneous stacks to be processed without degradation. At the same time, formulators are optimizing chemistries to balance adhesion, coefficient of thermal expansion mismatch, and moisture resistance. As a result, collaborations between material suppliers, packaging houses, and OEMs have become more iterative, with early co‑development and integrated reliability testing becoming standard practice. These dynamics are reshaping procurement strategies and elevating the technical bar for supplier qualification.
An analytical review of how 2025 tariff actions reshaped procurement, supplier qualification, and resilience planning across the encapsulant supply chain with operational consequences
The cumulative impact of United States tariffs implemented in 2025 has introduced a new layer of complexity into supply chains for encapsulant materials and associated packaging components. Tariff measures have compelled many buyers and suppliers to reassess total landed costs, upstream sourcing geographies, and inventory policy. In response, some manufacturers expedited qualification of alternative suppliers located in tariff‑neutral jurisdictions, while others recalibrated bill‑of‑materials strategies to reduce exposure on affected commodity lines.
Beyond cost considerations, these trade measures accelerated strategic conversations about regional resilience and nearshoring. Contract manufacturers and OEMs began prioritizing partners that could offer multi‑site capabilities and dual‑sourcing options to mitigate single‑point risks. Moreover, lead‑time management became a focal area; procurement teams increased safety stocks for critical resins and curing agents and reworked production schedules to smooth supply variability. In parallel, engineers revisited design margins and process flexibility to accommodate potential changes in resin viscosity and curing windows associated with newly qualified materials. Collectively, these adjustments underscore how external trade policy can ripple through qualification workflows, supplier ecosystems, and time‑to‑market calculations.
Detailed segmentation insights connecting application demands, material families, packaging formats, curing approaches, and die geometries to inform technical and procurement priorities
Segmentation analysis reveals distinct technical priorities and commercial expectations across application domains, material families, packaging formats, curing regimes, and die geometries. Based on application, the study examines Automotive Electronics where functional safety demands and harsh environment durability drive high‑performance chemistries; Consumer Electronics where thin profile, optical clarity, and high throughput are paramount; Industrial Electronics where long life and chemical resistance are critical; Medical Devices where biocompatibility, rigorous traceability, and sterilization tolerances rule; and Smartphone applications where tight space constraints and thermal management are decisive. These differing application drivers translate into unique acceptance criteria and qualification schedules.
Material type differentiators are equally consequential: epoxy formulations commonly emphasize adhesion and mechanical protection, polyimide systems offer high temperature tolerance and low dielectric constants for advanced packages, while silicone products deliver flexibility and thermal stability for stress relief around delicate assemblies. Packaging type considerations further refine selection drivers, as ballistic protection and fill characteristics vary between BGA, flip‑chip, QFN, and wire bond formats, affecting required rheology and cure behavior. Curing process choices-thermal cure versus UV cure-introduce tradeoffs between cycle time, energy usage, and thermal exposure to substrates and components. Finally, die size-from large to medium to small-shapes encapsulant deposition strategies and the acceptable balance between viscosity, sag resistance, and the need for void control. Taken together, this segmentation framework clarifies where technical development and supplier differentiation will deliver the most commercial value.
A comparative regional analysis highlighting how demand patterns, regulatory regimes, and manufacturing ecosystems shape encapsulant sourcing and qualification strategies across global markets
Regional dynamics materially influence supply reliability, regulatory alignment, and sourcing strategies for encapsulant materials. In the Americas, strong demand from automotive electrification and industrial automation has reinforced requirements for functional safety certification and long‑term supply commitments, prompting partnerships between local formulators and assembly houses to shorten qualification timelines and ensure responsiveness. This region’s emphasis on vertically integrated quality systems and traceability often favors suppliers able to provide extensive documentation and responsive technical support.
Europe, the Middle East and Africa present a heterogeneous picture where regulatory frameworks, environmental standards, and a strong industrial base converge to emphasize environmentally compliant chemistries and demonstrable lifecycle performance. Manufacturers focusing on medical and automotive OEMs in this region prioritize evidence of low long‑term outgassing, recyclability considerations, and adherence to strict product stewardship protocols. In contrast, the Asia‑Pacific region remains the dominant center for high‑volume consumer and smartphone assembly, with ecosystem advantages in contract manufacturing scale, rapid prototyping, and cost‑competitive resin production. However, Asia‑Pacific is also where rapid technological iteration demands accelerated co‑development cycles and highly scalable supply chains. Understanding these regional contrasts supports differentiated supplier strategies and capacity planning.
An evaluation of competitive strategies where formulation innovation, integrated application services, and supply continuity define leadership in the encapsulant ecosystem
Competitive dynamics among suppliers and assemblers are shaping the next phase of innovation and service delivery in encapsulant solutions. Leading materials formulators are investing in low‑stress, low‑viscosity chemistries and partnering with packaging houses to embed reliability testing early in development cycles. Meanwhile, contract manufacturers are differentiating through process control, repeatable dispensing systems, and integrated curing platforms that reduce variability and speed up qualification. This landscape favors companies that can bundle formulation expertise with application engineering, on‑site trial support, and rapid failure analysis capabilities.
Customer expectations have evolved beyond product attributes to encompass supply continuity, technical collaboration, and regulatory documentation. As a result, successful providers are building modular service offerings that include training, process validation support, and dedicated application labs. Mergers and strategic supply agreements are emerging where vertical integration can shorten feedback loops between materials development and assembly challenges. Finally, companies that demonstrate transparent sustainability practices and carbon‑aware supply chains are gaining preferential consideration among OEMs that must meet increasingly stringent corporate responsibility criteria.
Clear, prioritized actions for engineering, procurement, and commercial leaders to accelerate qualification, fortify supply chains, and institutionalize collaborative development practices
Actionable recommendations for industry leaders focus on three interlinked domains: technical qualification, supply chain resilience, and cross‑stakeholder collaboration. First, firms should adopt a phased qualification roadmap that accelerates low‑risk substitutions while maintaining rigorous testing for safety‑critical applications. Early engagement with formulators and contract manufacturers will shorten iteration loops and de‑risk integration challenges. Investing in standardized test protocols and shared data formats will facilitate comparative analysis across candidate chemistries and suppliers.
Second, procurement teams must redesign sourcing strategies to balance cost efficiency with redundancy. Dual‑sourcing, regional buffering, and strategic inventory policies for critical resins and curing agents will mitigate the operational effects of trade disruptions and logistics variability. Third, establish formal co‑development programs that pair application engineers with materials scientists to resolve adhesion, CTE mismatch, and curing window issues before full production release. Finally, incorporate sustainability and regulatory readiness into supplier scorecards to ensure long‑term alignment with evolving compliance frameworks. These steps will enable more predictable qualification cycles and stronger alignment between engineering priorities and commercial realities.
A transparent, triangulated research approach combining expert interviews, technical literature, and validation against laboratory and procurement observations to ensure robust insights
The research methodology underpinning this analysis combines qualitative engagement with domain experts, cross‑functional interviews across packaging and materials teams, and a synthesis of publicly available technical literature and regulatory guidance. Primary inputs included structured conversations with formulators, contract manufacturers, and OEM packaging engineers to capture real‑world challenges related to rheology, curing behavior, and qualification timelines. Secondary inputs involved technical white papers, standards documents, and reliability test protocols to corroborate observed trends and ensure alignment with accepted industry practices.
Analytical rigor was maintained through triangulation: insights derived from interviews were validated against laboratory findings shared by neutral test facilities and contrasted with observed procurement responses to recent trade measures. The approach emphasized transparency, reproducibility of findings, and clear articulation of assumptions. Where appropriate, sensitivity around proprietary supplier data was respected, and anonymized examples were used to illustrate operational tradeoffs. This methodology produced a cohesive view of technical and commercial dynamics while preserving fidelity to real‑world decision constraints faced by manufacturers.
A conclusive synthesis underscoring how integrated material innovation, qualification discipline, and supply resilience determine long‑term reliability and commercial agility
In conclusion, glob top encapsulants occupy a strategic intersection of materials science and manufacturing practice where incremental improvements in formulation and process control yield outsized benefits in reliability, form factor, and time‑to‑market. The interplay between regulatory demands, application‑specific priorities, and regional supply dynamics requires a nuanced approach to supplier selection, qualification sequencing, and risk mitigation. Companies that proactively integrate materials development with application engineering and that build resilient, regionally aware supply strategies will be best positioned to navigate policy shifts and technological change.
Looking ahead, continuous collaboration across the value chain-between materials suppliers, packaging houses, and OEMs-will accelerate the adoption of advanced encapsulant solutions and support faster qualification cycles. By prioritizing traceability, standardized testing, and supply diversity, decision‑makers can convert current uncertainties into strategic advantage, ensuring product reliability and operational continuity in an evolving global environment.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
A strategic foundation explaining how encapsulant chemistry, application practices, and reliability expectations converge to shape electronics assembly decisions in modern manufacturing
The introduction frames glob top encapsulant as a critical materials and process element that bridges semiconductor assembly and end‑product reliability across diversified electronics sectors. Encapsulants protect die and interconnects from mechanical shock, moisture ingress, and chemical exposure while influencing thermal dissipation and long‑term electrical stability. As packaging densities increase and heterogeneous integration becomes common, the role of encapsulant chemistry and application methodology has shifted from a purely protective layer to an enabler of miniaturization and performance retention.
This section outlines the overarching context for stakeholders considering materials selection, process changes, or supplier realignment. It highlights how advances in epoxy, polyimide, and silicone formulations, together with evolving curing techniques, are shaping design-for-reliability practices. Moreover, it situates encapsulant decisions within broader program constraints such as qualification cycles, regulatory requirements for medical and automotive applications, and the operational throughput expectations of contract manufacturers. By establishing this strategic baseline, readers will be positioned to interpret subsequent sections on competitive dynamics, regulatory shifts, and regional supply considerations.
An exploration of the multifaceted shifts influencing encapsulant selection driven by miniaturization, safety requirements, process innovation, and supplier‑OEM collaboration across industries
The landscape for glob top encapsulant is undergoing transformative shifts driven by multiple converging forces: higher package densities, regulatory pressure, evolving end‑use requirements, and manufacturing automation. Miniaturization has pushed die sizes down while increasing the complexity of interconnects, which in turn demands thinner, more conformal encapsulants with predictable rheology. Simultaneously, the rise of safety‑critical applications in automotive and medical segments is tightening qualification cycles and placing greater emphasis on long‑term aging performance and traceability.
Another pivotal shift relates to process innovation. UV and rapid thermal curing approaches are gaining attention for their potential to shorten cycle times and lower thermal budgets, thereby enabling sensitive substrates and heterogeneous stacks to be processed without degradation. At the same time, formulators are optimizing chemistries to balance adhesion, coefficient of thermal expansion mismatch, and moisture resistance. As a result, collaborations between material suppliers, packaging houses, and OEMs have become more iterative, with early co‑development and integrated reliability testing becoming standard practice. These dynamics are reshaping procurement strategies and elevating the technical bar for supplier qualification.
An analytical review of how 2025 tariff actions reshaped procurement, supplier qualification, and resilience planning across the encapsulant supply chain with operational consequences
The cumulative impact of United States tariffs implemented in 2025 has introduced a new layer of complexity into supply chains for encapsulant materials and associated packaging components. Tariff measures have compelled many buyers and suppliers to reassess total landed costs, upstream sourcing geographies, and inventory policy. In response, some manufacturers expedited qualification of alternative suppliers located in tariff‑neutral jurisdictions, while others recalibrated bill‑of‑materials strategies to reduce exposure on affected commodity lines.
Beyond cost considerations, these trade measures accelerated strategic conversations about regional resilience and nearshoring. Contract manufacturers and OEMs began prioritizing partners that could offer multi‑site capabilities and dual‑sourcing options to mitigate single‑point risks. Moreover, lead‑time management became a focal area; procurement teams increased safety stocks for critical resins and curing agents and reworked production schedules to smooth supply variability. In parallel, engineers revisited design margins and process flexibility to accommodate potential changes in resin viscosity and curing windows associated with newly qualified materials. Collectively, these adjustments underscore how external trade policy can ripple through qualification workflows, supplier ecosystems, and time‑to‑market calculations.
Detailed segmentation insights connecting application demands, material families, packaging formats, curing approaches, and die geometries to inform technical and procurement priorities
Segmentation analysis reveals distinct technical priorities and commercial expectations across application domains, material families, packaging formats, curing regimes, and die geometries. Based on application, the study examines Automotive Electronics where functional safety demands and harsh environment durability drive high‑performance chemistries; Consumer Electronics where thin profile, optical clarity, and high throughput are paramount; Industrial Electronics where long life and chemical resistance are critical; Medical Devices where biocompatibility, rigorous traceability, and sterilization tolerances rule; and Smartphone applications where tight space constraints and thermal management are decisive. These differing application drivers translate into unique acceptance criteria and qualification schedules.
Material type differentiators are equally consequential: epoxy formulations commonly emphasize adhesion and mechanical protection, polyimide systems offer high temperature tolerance and low dielectric constants for advanced packages, while silicone products deliver flexibility and thermal stability for stress relief around delicate assemblies. Packaging type considerations further refine selection drivers, as ballistic protection and fill characteristics vary between BGA, flip‑chip, QFN, and wire bond formats, affecting required rheology and cure behavior. Curing process choices-thermal cure versus UV cure-introduce tradeoffs between cycle time, energy usage, and thermal exposure to substrates and components. Finally, die size-from large to medium to small-shapes encapsulant deposition strategies and the acceptable balance between viscosity, sag resistance, and the need for void control. Taken together, this segmentation framework clarifies where technical development and supplier differentiation will deliver the most commercial value.
A comparative regional analysis highlighting how demand patterns, regulatory regimes, and manufacturing ecosystems shape encapsulant sourcing and qualification strategies across global markets
Regional dynamics materially influence supply reliability, regulatory alignment, and sourcing strategies for encapsulant materials. In the Americas, strong demand from automotive electrification and industrial automation has reinforced requirements for functional safety certification and long‑term supply commitments, prompting partnerships between local formulators and assembly houses to shorten qualification timelines and ensure responsiveness. This region’s emphasis on vertically integrated quality systems and traceability often favors suppliers able to provide extensive documentation and responsive technical support.
Europe, the Middle East and Africa present a heterogeneous picture where regulatory frameworks, environmental standards, and a strong industrial base converge to emphasize environmentally compliant chemistries and demonstrable lifecycle performance. Manufacturers focusing on medical and automotive OEMs in this region prioritize evidence of low long‑term outgassing, recyclability considerations, and adherence to strict product stewardship protocols. In contrast, the Asia‑Pacific region remains the dominant center for high‑volume consumer and smartphone assembly, with ecosystem advantages in contract manufacturing scale, rapid prototyping, and cost‑competitive resin production. However, Asia‑Pacific is also where rapid technological iteration demands accelerated co‑development cycles and highly scalable supply chains. Understanding these regional contrasts supports differentiated supplier strategies and capacity planning.
An evaluation of competitive strategies where formulation innovation, integrated application services, and supply continuity define leadership in the encapsulant ecosystem
Competitive dynamics among suppliers and assemblers are shaping the next phase of innovation and service delivery in encapsulant solutions. Leading materials formulators are investing in low‑stress, low‑viscosity chemistries and partnering with packaging houses to embed reliability testing early in development cycles. Meanwhile, contract manufacturers are differentiating through process control, repeatable dispensing systems, and integrated curing platforms that reduce variability and speed up qualification. This landscape favors companies that can bundle formulation expertise with application engineering, on‑site trial support, and rapid failure analysis capabilities.
Customer expectations have evolved beyond product attributes to encompass supply continuity, technical collaboration, and regulatory documentation. As a result, successful providers are building modular service offerings that include training, process validation support, and dedicated application labs. Mergers and strategic supply agreements are emerging where vertical integration can shorten feedback loops between materials development and assembly challenges. Finally, companies that demonstrate transparent sustainability practices and carbon‑aware supply chains are gaining preferential consideration among OEMs that must meet increasingly stringent corporate responsibility criteria.
Clear, prioritized actions for engineering, procurement, and commercial leaders to accelerate qualification, fortify supply chains, and institutionalize collaborative development practices
Actionable recommendations for industry leaders focus on three interlinked domains: technical qualification, supply chain resilience, and cross‑stakeholder collaboration. First, firms should adopt a phased qualification roadmap that accelerates low‑risk substitutions while maintaining rigorous testing for safety‑critical applications. Early engagement with formulators and contract manufacturers will shorten iteration loops and de‑risk integration challenges. Investing in standardized test protocols and shared data formats will facilitate comparative analysis across candidate chemistries and suppliers.
Second, procurement teams must redesign sourcing strategies to balance cost efficiency with redundancy. Dual‑sourcing, regional buffering, and strategic inventory policies for critical resins and curing agents will mitigate the operational effects of trade disruptions and logistics variability. Third, establish formal co‑development programs that pair application engineers with materials scientists to resolve adhesion, CTE mismatch, and curing window issues before full production release. Finally, incorporate sustainability and regulatory readiness into supplier scorecards to ensure long‑term alignment with evolving compliance frameworks. These steps will enable more predictable qualification cycles and stronger alignment between engineering priorities and commercial realities.
A transparent, triangulated research approach combining expert interviews, technical literature, and validation against laboratory and procurement observations to ensure robust insights
The research methodology underpinning this analysis combines qualitative engagement with domain experts, cross‑functional interviews across packaging and materials teams, and a synthesis of publicly available technical literature and regulatory guidance. Primary inputs included structured conversations with formulators, contract manufacturers, and OEM packaging engineers to capture real‑world challenges related to rheology, curing behavior, and qualification timelines. Secondary inputs involved technical white papers, standards documents, and reliability test protocols to corroborate observed trends and ensure alignment with accepted industry practices.
Analytical rigor was maintained through triangulation: insights derived from interviews were validated against laboratory findings shared by neutral test facilities and contrasted with observed procurement responses to recent trade measures. The approach emphasized transparency, reproducibility of findings, and clear articulation of assumptions. Where appropriate, sensitivity around proprietary supplier data was respected, and anonymized examples were used to illustrate operational tradeoffs. This methodology produced a cohesive view of technical and commercial dynamics while preserving fidelity to real‑world decision constraints faced by manufacturers.
A conclusive synthesis underscoring how integrated material innovation, qualification discipline, and supply resilience determine long‑term reliability and commercial agility
In conclusion, glob top encapsulants occupy a strategic intersection of materials science and manufacturing practice where incremental improvements in formulation and process control yield outsized benefits in reliability, form factor, and time‑to‑market. The interplay between regulatory demands, application‑specific priorities, and regional supply dynamics requires a nuanced approach to supplier selection, qualification sequencing, and risk mitigation. Companies that proactively integrate materials development with application engineering and that build resilient, regionally aware supply strategies will be best positioned to navigate policy shifts and technological change.
Looking ahead, continuous collaboration across the value chain-between materials suppliers, packaging houses, and OEMs-will accelerate the adoption of advanced encapsulant solutions and support faster qualification cycles. By prioritizing traceability, standardized testing, and supply diversity, decision‑makers can convert current uncertainties into strategic advantage, ensuring product reliability and operational continuity in an evolving global environment.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
184 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Rising adoption of high thermal conductivity glob top encapsulants for power semiconductor reliability
- 5.2. Increasing demand for low-viscosity and UV-curable glob top resins in high-volume assembly lines
- 5.3. Shift towards lead-free and halogen-free glob top materials to meet stringent environmental regulations
- 5.4. Growth in 5G RF module encapsulation needs driving development of high-frequency loss minimization resins
- 5.5. Surge in automotive electronics applications requiring robust glob top encapsulants for harsh environments
- 5.6. Emergence of flexible and stretchable glob top encapsulants for next-generation wearable IoT devices
- 5.7. Focus on low outgassing and high adhesion glob top formulations for aerospace and military electronics
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Glob Top Encapsulant Market, by Material Type
- 8.1. Epoxy
- 8.2. Polyimide
- 8.3. Silicone
- 9. Glob Top Encapsulant Market, by Packaging Type
- 9.1. Bga
- 9.2. Flip Chip
- 9.3. Qfn
- 9.4. Wire Bond
- 10. Glob Top Encapsulant Market, by Curing Process
- 10.1. Thermal Cure
- 10.2. Uv Cure
- 11. Glob Top Encapsulant Market, by Die Size
- 11.1. Large
- 11.2. Medium
- 11.3. Small
- 12. Glob Top Encapsulant Market, by Application
- 12.1. Automotive Electronics
- 12.2. Consumer Electronics
- 12.3. Industrial Electronics
- 12.4. Medical Devices
- 12.5. Smartphone
- 13. Glob Top Encapsulant Market, by Region
- 13.1. Americas
- 13.1.1. North America
- 13.1.2. Latin America
- 13.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 13.2.1. Europe
- 13.2.2. Middle East
- 13.2.3. Africa
- 13.3. Asia-Pacific
- 14. Glob Top Encapsulant Market, by Group
- 14.1. ASEAN
- 14.2. GCC
- 14.3. European Union
- 14.4. BRICS
- 14.5. G7
- 14.6. NATO
- 15. Glob Top Encapsulant Market, by Country
- 15.1. United States
- 15.2. Canada
- 15.3. Mexico
- 15.4. Brazil
- 15.5. United Kingdom
- 15.6. Germany
- 15.7. France
- 15.8. Russia
- 15.9. Italy
- 15.10. Spain
- 15.11. China
- 15.12. India
- 15.13. Japan
- 15.14. Australia
- 15.15. South Korea
- 16. Competitive Landscape
- 16.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 16.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 16.3. Competitive Analysis
- 16.3.1. Henkel Corporation
- 16.3.2. ROARTIS bvba
- 16.3.3. Panacol-Elosol GmbH
- 16.3.4. Niche-Tech Semiconductor Materials Limited
- 16.3.5. Nagase America LLC
- 16.3.6. Sanyu Rec Co., Ltd.
- 16.3.7. Poly-Tech Corp.
- 16.3.8. DELO adhesives
- 16.3.9. Flory Optoelectronic Materials (Suzhou) Co., Ltd
- 16.3.10. Hangzhou First Applied Material Co., Ltd.
- 16.3.11. NAMICS Technologies
- 16.3.12. Master Bond Inc.
- 16.3.13. Ellsworth Adhesives
- 16.3.14. ShinEtsu Microsi
- 16.3.15. Preeflow by ViscoTec Pumpen- u. Dosiertechnik GmbH
- 16.3.16. Dymax Corporation
- 16.3.17. 3M Company
- 16.3.18. Dycotec Materials
- 16.3.19. Kohesi Bond
- 16.3.20. MacDermid Alpha Electronics Solutions
- 16.3.21. Zymet
- 16.3.22. ACI Materials, Inc.
- 16.3.23. Bonotec Electronic Materials Co.Ltd.
- 16.3.24. Alpha Advanced Materials
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
