SBR Granules for Bridge Deck Waterproofing and Asphalt Materials

Name: SBR Granules for Bridge Deck Waterproofing and Asphalt Materials
Brand: Donghongyue (Shandong) International Trade Co., Ltd
SKU: 2161430322

Shandong, ChinaDonghongyue (Shandong) International Trade Co., Ltd

US$1,774.00

1 Ton

Sample price:US$2.00/kg.Request sample

Product profile

Customization

Available

Raw Material

Synthetic Rubber

Material

Styrene Butadiene Rubber

Model NO.

QL-2

Appearance

Granules

Form

Granular Rubber

Model No.

Ql-2

Particle Size

Standard 3-10mm, Customizable

Density

1.03-1.05 G/Cm2

Mooney Viscosity

Ml1+4 at 100°C,50-80

Moisture

≤0.8%

Ash Content

≤1.2%

Color

Milky White / Light Amber Irregular Particles

Transport Package

Cartons

Specification

37*37*37cm

Trademark

Qiaolong

Origin

Shandong, China

HS Code

4002119000

Production Capacity

11000/Year

Key features

Suitable for Bridge Deck Waterproofing Used in bridge deck waterproofing, asphalt waterproofing and road protection materials.

Improved Bonding and Flexibility Helps improve bonding performance, flexibility and crack resistance.

Good Asphalt Compatibility Compatible with bitumen and asphalt-based waterproofing systems.

Stable Granular Material Easy to feed, mix and process during production.

Wide Waterproofing Applications Suitable for bridge deck waterproofing, road waterproofing and asphalt materials.

Company profile

Importers and Exporters

Donghongyue (Shandong) International Trade Co., Ltd

Shandong, China

CertifiedBusiness Type: Manufacturer/Factory & Trading Company CertifiedR&D Capacity: ODM Service Available & OEM Service Available CertifiedCustomization Options: Customization from Samples, Flexible customization, etc. CertifiedExport Year: Less than 1 year CertifiedNearest Port: Qingdao PortAverage Response Time: ≤1.53h

AI-Powered supplier vetting

SummaryThe supplier operates across waterproofing materials, rubber-related products, mechanical equipment, textiles, chemicals, building materials, and selected medical supplies. It states that it provides OEM services for well-known brands and reports multiple technical patents and ISO9001 certification. Quality assurance and raw-material traceability are identified, but the available evidence also shows no SDK, no inventory, no overseas warehouse or showroom, no valid manufacturing-capacity contract with related subcontractors, and no documented corrective-action or complaint-handling procedures. Lead time is stated as within 15 working days in both peak and off-season, but supplier-service governance documentation is incomplete. Financial records are referenced for 2022–2024, without sufficient detail to assess credibility. R&D resources are limited in the evidence, with one engineer and no available design-control documentation.

CertificationsThe company states that it has passed ISO9001 quality management system certification and holds multiple technical patents. This is explicit evidence of certification and technical recognition, although no certificate number, validity period, or certification scope is provided.

After-Sales capabilityThe supplier states that it has no overseas warehouse or showroom, and it has no written procedures or records for corrective and preventive actions or effective customer-complaint handling. These documented gaps indicate weakly evidenced after-sales service infrastructure.

Production capacityThe supplier reports no valid manufacturing-capacity contract with its related subcontractors and no in-stock capacity. It states an average lead time within 15 working days in both peak and off-season, but service-capability governance lacks written assessment procedures and an approved-supplier list. Overall production capacity is not sufficiently substantiated and includes explicit control gaps.

Customization capabilityThe supplier explicitly states that it provides OEM services for well-known brands and offers products intended to meet varied customer demands. Quality assurance and raw-material traceability are also reported, but the absence of an SDK and formal R&D audit documentation limits evidence for technically complex customization.