SkinTouch vs. Silicone: Material, Manufacturing Process, Surface Feel, Durability and Cost Comparison
Why does a product that feels soft and premium during production sometimes lose its original surface feel after months of use? This common challenge often arises in industries like consumer electronics, wearable products, and lifestyle accessories. Both SkinTouch™ and Silicone are popular materials for creating soft-touch surfaces, but they differ significantly in material behavior, manufacturing processes, surface treatment, durability, and cost structures.
Understanding the differences between SkinTouch™ and Silicone is integral when choosing the best material for soft-touch products. Let’s explore these materials in depth across their key attributes to help procurement teams, designers, and engineers make informed decisions.
When selecting a material, the goal isn’t about replacing one with the other but finding the right fit for the application’s unique requirements. Dive into this side-by-side comparison to understand the advantages and limitations of each.
---
What is the difference in materials?
Material selection for soft-touch products hinges on understanding the structural differences.
Silicone, an elastomer, is widely trusted in industrial applications thanks to its flexibility and resilience.[^1] SkinTouch™, meanwhile, introduces a thermoplastic alternative for soft-touch surfaces.
How does Silicone compare to SkinTouch™ as a material?
Silicone is a cured elastomer with excellent temperature and chemical resistance.[^2] SkinTouch™, in contrast, offers thermoplastic compatibility for injection molding without the need for curing processes.
Breakdown:
Silicone:
Elastomer categorized into high-consistency rubber (HCR) or liquid silicone rubber (LSR).[^3]
Requires curing or vulcanization to form its final elastomeric network.[^4]
Excellent for applications requiring flexibility, temperature resistance, or chemical stability.
SkinTouch™:
A thermoplastic soft-touch material designed for injection molding.[^5]
Offers inherent smoothness and softness without surface coatings.
Suitable for combining rigid plastics like PC or ABS through overmolding.[^6]
Key Engineering Insight:
SkinTouch™ shifts soft-touch surface creation into the material itself, reducing dependency on secondary processes for achieving tactile performance.
---
How do manufacturing processes differ?
The way a material is processed heavily influences production efficiency, cost, and product design. Silicone and SkinTouch™ use distinct routes due to their material structures.
Does Silicone require curing, unlike SkinTouch™?
Yes, nearly all Silicone processing involves curing steps, while SkinTouch™ thrives in no-curing thermoplastic injection molding workflows.
Manufacturing comparison:
| Process Step | SkinTouch™ | Silicone |
|---|---|---|
| Mold setup | Standard thermoplastic mold[^7] | LSR molds requiring curing |
| Processing | Heating/melting → molding → cooling → demolding | Injection, curing, cooling → secondary deflashing[^8] |
| Surface finishing | No mandatory hand-feel coating | Often optional but increases complexity |
Efficiency advantage:
Streamlined molding with SkinTouch™ reduces labor costs and production time, as silicone's curing cycles add secondary steps that may extend manufacturing lead times.
---
Why is surface feel a critical distinction?
For many products, tactile sensations convey quality. Silicone excels in flexibility but typically requires coatings or treatments to achieve smoother finishes. SkinTouch™ integrates silky softness directly into its material design.
Does SkinTouch™ offer better durability for surface touch?
SkinTouch™ eliminates dependency on fragile coatings that silicone may require for premium finishes, improving long-term consistency.
Surface performance overview:
| Criteria | SkinTouch™ | Silicone |
|---|---|---|
| Core feel system | Built into material | Surface treatments sometimes introduced[^9] |
| Wear over time | Inherent material ensures tactile stability | May degrade if sprayed / treated layer |
| External abrasion | Resistant due to material properties | Coatings may exhibit wear under use[^10] |
---
Can SkinTouch™ simplify production workflows?
Yes, SkinTouch™ offers significant production efficiencies when integrating soft-touch surfaces with rigid substrates during overmolding.
How is overmolding different for SkinTouch™?
SkinTouch™ is specifically engineered to combine rigid plastics like PC and ABS during the molding stage, while silicone overmolding requires distinct adhesion techniques and setup.
Benefits of SkinTouch™ for two-shot injection molding projects:
Integration: Thermoplastic compatibility makes it ideal for combining softer outer surfaces with rigid frames in wearable devices, grips, and electronics.
Ease of workflow: Direct injection eliminates silicone's preparation complexities.
---
Which option better controls quality over time?
Silicone's dependence on secondary surface layers can introduce quality variability via adhesion failures or abrasion. SkinTouch™, by contrast, minimizes potential risks by embedding tactile quality into the material itself.
Where can failure mechanisms occur?
Risk factors for silicone:
Adhesion loss during long-term wear.[^11]
Gloss changes or coating failures due to sweat.[^12]
Resilience points in SkinTouch™:
Integrated tactile feel is unaffected by external wear conditions.
---
What about costs?
When assessing total expenses, broader production and finishing costs are more relevant than raw material price alone.
Is SkinTouch™ cheaper than silicone?
While direct pricing varies, SkinTouch™ reduces total processing costs by streamlining workflows.
Comparison of manufacturing cost contributors:
| Expense Factor | SkinTouch™ Workflow | Silicone Workflow |
|---|---|---|
| Material price / kg | Competitive thermoplastic pricing | Higher premium based on formulation |
| Secondary processing | Reduced at basic level | May involve trimming + coating drying |
| Inspection complexity | Simpler due to integrated finish | Intensified if coatings added |
---
Frequently Asked Questions
Is SkinTouch™ a silicone material?
No, SkinTouch™ is a soft-touch thermoplastic designed for injection molding. It is distinct from traditional silicone elastomers.
Can SkinTouch™ be overmolded?
Yes, SkinTouch™ is compatible with rigid thermoplastic substrates like PC or ABS for applications requiring integrated hard-soft designs.
Does SkinTouch™ require hand-feel coatings?
No, SkinTouch™ provides its premium soft-touch surface performance within the material itself, eliminating the need for external coatings.
---
Conclusion
Silicone and SkinTouch™ address soft-touch surface needs differently. Silicone remains ideal for applications demanding high-temperature resilience or chemical stability. SkinTouch™ offers a viable thermoplastic solution for projects requiring smooth tactile experiences without relying on secondary coatings.
Are you exploring alternatives to silicone for your next product design? Let’s talk about SkinTouch™ material selection, prototyping, injection molding, and overmolding strategies.
---
[^1]: "Thermoplastic elastomer", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoplastic_elastomer. Encyclopedia sources define silicone rubbers as cross-linked elastomers noted for elastic recovery and flexibility across applications. Evidence role: definition; source type: encyclopedia. Supports: what defines silicone as an elastomer and its characteristic flexibility and resilience.
[^2]: "investigation of silicone rubber blends and their shape", https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=akron1525982588046477&disposition=inline. Materials research documents describe cured silicone networks as retaining elasticity over a wide temperature range with high chemical inertness relative to organic rubbers. Evidence role: general_support; source type: research. Supports: thermal stability range and chemical resistance of cured silicone elastomers.
[^3]: "Silicone Elastomers Technology and Fabrication Course", https://www.cpp.edu/cpge/professional-development/engineering-manufacturing/silicone.shtml. Technical references distinguish high-consistency and liquid silicone rubbers by viscosity, processing form, and curing systems. Evidence role: definition; source type: encyclopedia. Supports: classification of silicone rubber systems into HCR and LSR forms.
[^4]: "Effect of Vulcanization and CO2 Plasticization on Cell ... - PMC", https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8512402/. Polymer science sources explain that vulcanization or addition-cure crosslinking converts silicone prepolymers into a three-dimensional elastomeric network. Evidence role: mechanism; source type: education. Supports: curing/vulcanization creates the crosslinked elastomeric network in silicone.
[^5]: "Study of Shrinkage of Thermoplastics in Injection Molding", https://www.academia.edu/129355918/Study_of_Shrinkage_of_Thermoplastics_in_Injection_Molding. Educational processing references describe thermoplastics as melt-processable by heating, molding and cooling, unlike thermosets that require curing. Evidence role: mechanism; source type: education. Supports: thermoplastics are shaped by melting and cooling in injection molding without curing. Scope note: Supports the general thermoplastic processing class, not the proprietary SkinTouch formulation.
[^6]: "Adhesion of TPEs on Polycarbonates for Medical Wearables", https://solutions.covestro.com/-/media/covestro/solution-center/whitepapers/adhesion-of-tpes-on-polycarbonates-for-medical-wearables.pdf. Processing studies report that selected thermoplastic elastomers can be overmolded onto polycarbonate and ABS through thermal bonding and two-shot molding. Evidence role: general_support; source type: research. Supports: overmolding of soft thermoplastic elastomers onto PC and ABS substrates. Scope note: Findings depend on specific grades and surface conditions, not direct proof for all proprietary grades.
[^7]: "MC-Injection Molding with Liquid Silicone Rubber (LSR) and ...", https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10574965/. Molding literature notes that LSR tooling incorporates heated curing, precise temperature control and sealing, distinct from conventional thermoplastic cooling molds. Evidence role: general_support; source type: research. Supports: differences in mold systems for standard thermoplastics versus LSR curing.
[^8]: "The Steps of Liquid Silicone Rubber Injection Molding", https://www.simtec-silicone.com/blogs/the-steps-of-liquid-silicone-rubber-injection-molding/. Manufacturing studies describe silicone injection molding as injection, crosslinking cure and demolding, often followed by deflashing to remove thin flash. Evidence role: mechanism; source type: paper. Supports: silicone molding sequence and need for deflashing/trimming.
[^9]: "Review of silicone surface modification techniques and ...", https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33212233/. Surface-engineering papers document coating and plasma or lacquer treatments applied to silicone to adjust friction, smoothness and tactile properties. Evidence role: general_support; source type: paper. Supports: use of coatings and surface treatments to modify silicone surface feel. Scope note: Supports that such treatments are used in practice, not that all silicone requires them.
[^10]: "Abrasion Wear Resistance of Polymer Constructional ... - PMC", https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7240616/. Tribology research shows that thin organic coatings lose thickness and change roughness under repeated abrasion, affecting surface function. Evidence role: mechanism; source type: research. Supports: coated polymer surfaces undergo abrasive wear with repeated use. Scope note: General coating wear mechanism; wear rate varies with coating chemistry and test conditions.
[^11]: "ADHESION TESTING OF EPOXY COATING", https://fsel.engr.utexas.edu/pdfs/1265_6.pdf. Adhesion literature identifies interfacial delamination and adhesion loss as common failure modes when coated polymers experience mechanical stress and aging. Evidence role: mechanism; source type: paper. Supports: adhesion failure and delamination as coating failure modes under mechanical exposure. Scope note: Describes a general failure mechanism, not incidence rates for silicone soft-touch coatings specifically.
[^12]: "Observation of the Effect of Aging on the Structural ... - PMC", https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10780686/. Laboratory studies using artificial perspiration report discoloration, gloss change and reduced coating performance on polymer surfaces after prolonged contact. Evidence role: mechanism; source type: research. Supports: perspiration exposure alters coated polymer appearance and adhesion. Scope note: Results are from accelerated laboratory exposures and vary with coating formulation and test protocol.