2026-08-29 · By JINXUAN Technical Team · Technical Guide
How to Specify a Real Type I Homogeneous PVC Sheet Floor
A homogeneous PVC sheet floor is one through-color compound from the wear surface to the backing — no printed décor film, no separate wear layer, no foam backing. For healthcare, cleanrooms, schools and transit, that seamless, welded construction is why specifiers reach for it. But the label "Type I" on a quotation is not a guarantee. Around the market, many floors are sold as Type I while their abrasion performance lands a grade lower. This guide explains what ISO 10581 actually defines, where the "Type I" claim can be inflated, and gives you a factory-ready checklist you can paste into an RFQ.
What ISO 10581 Defines as Type I
ISO 10581 (current edition ISO 10581:2019, adopted in Europe as EN ISO 10581:2020) specifies homogeneous PVC floor coverings supplied as roll or tile. It sorts them into three identification types by binder content:
| Type | Minimum binder content | Typical abrasion (EN 660-2) | Representative use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type I | > 55 % | Group T (≤ 2.0 mm³) | Hospital ORs/ICUs, cleanrooms, transit, heavy contract |
| Type II | 35–55 % | Group P (2.0–4.0 mm³) | General commercial, schools, offices, corridors |
| Type III | 25–< 35 % | Group M (4.0–7.5 mm³) | Light-duty, budget, temporary spaces |
Here is the catch the standard itself creates: in ISO 10581, "binder content" means the total mass percentage of PVC resin + plasticizer + stabilizer — not PVC resin alone. All three add up to the number on the data sheet. A floor can clear the > 55 % Type I line on paper while its wear chemistry is dominated by plasticizer rather than resin. That is exactly where the "Type I" claim gets loose.
The Binder Trap: Same 56 %, Two Very Different Floors
Take two formulations that both report a 56 % total binder — comfortably above the Type I threshold:
| Component | Formulation A (real Type I) | Formulation B (label-only Type I) |
|---|---|---|
| PVC resin | 40 % | 28 % |
| Plasticizer | 14 % | 26 % |
| Stabilizer | 2 % | 2 % |
| Filler (CaCO₃) | 44 % | 44 % |
| Total binder | 56 % ✅ | 56 % ✅ |
| Binders are… | Resin-dominated | Plasticizer-dominated ⚠️ |
| EN 660-2 result | Group T (≤ 2.0 mm³) | Group P (2.0–4.0 mm³) |
| Residual indentation (ISO 24343-1) | ≤ 0.10 mm | ~0.20–0.40 mm |
| Field behavior (3–5 yr) | Color & dimension stable | Yellow/brown oily patches, rubber-mat staining, soft dents |
| Verdict | Genuinely durable | Label passes, floor underperforms |
Both floors clear the > 55 % line. The abrasion test does not. Formulation A sits in Group T; Formulation B drops to Group P — a full wear class lower — because plasticizer softens the compound without adding abrasion resistance. Plasticizer also migrates: over months it bleeds toward the surface and into contact materials, producing the greasy, discolored patches buyers blame on "cheap PVC" rather than on a mislabeled Type I.
Rule for specifiers: always ask for the EN 660-2 abrasion result in mm³ and the PVC resin / plasticizer split. Binder percent alone is not enough.
Real Type I vs Label-Only Type I: A Five-Point Check
| Check | Real Type I | Label-only Type I |
|---|---|---|
| ① Formula class | PVC resin-dominated | Plasticizer / filler-dominated |
| ② EN 660-2 report | Group T, ≤ 2.0 mm³ | Usually Group P (2.0–4.0 mm³) |
| ③ Residual indentation (ISO 24343-1) | ≤ 0.10 mm | 0.20–0.40 mm |
| ④ Field behavior (3–5 yr) | Stable color & dimension | Yellow/brown oil patches, permanent rubber-mat dents, seam opening |
| ⑤ Documents supplied | EN 660-2 + ISO 10581 type + REACH | Only the word "Type I" |
A floor that passes the binder line but fails points ② or ③ is, in practice, a Type II sold as Type I.
Buyer's RFQ Checklist: 8 Items a Supplier Must Return
Paste this into your RFQ. If a factory will not fill it in, move on — the gaps are where the shortcuts live.
- EN 660-2 abrasion report — the mm³ value and the test lab's stamp, not just "Group T".
- ISO 10581:2019 / EN ISO 10581:2020 type and the binder content total.
- PVC resin share — the number that separates resin-led from plasticizer-led chemistry.
- Plasticizer type — DINP, DOTP, or other; and whether it is phthalate-free. (DOTP migrates less and is preferred for healthcare; DINP is cheaper and historically linked to migration complaints.)
- ISO 24343-1 residual indentation ≤ 0.10 mm report.
- ISO 105-B02 / ASTM F1515 color fastness ≥ grade 6 after 300 h.
- ISO 10874 use class (healthcare ≥ 34, commercial ≥ 33) and seam strength ≥ 240 N/50 mm for the 2020 edition's commercial classes.
- REACH / RoHS / FloorScore / China GB 18586 — any one recognized certificate.
Four Red Flags to Reject a "Type I" Claim
- ⚠️ Red flag #1 — "Type I" with no EN 660-2 report. A bare label with no mm³ figure defaults to not proven. Treat it as Type II until data says otherwise.
- ⚠️ Red flag #2 — supplier refuses to disclose resin / plasticizer ratio. Hiding the split is the classic sign of a plasticizer-led formula padded to clear the binder line.
- ⚠️ Red flag #3 — EN 649 cited as the current abrasion standard. EN 649 was withdrawn in February 2014 and replaced by EN ISO 10581 (homogeneous) and EN ISO 10582 (heterogeneous). Any datasheet still quoting EN 649 as the wear-class method is out of date — ask for EN 660-2 / EN ISO 10581 instead.
- ⚠️ Red flag #4 — "soft / flexible" sold as the Type I benefit. Softness usually means high plasticizer, which means shorter service life and migration risk, not higher durability.
What Changed in the 2020 Edition
EN ISO 10581:2020 (ISO 10581:2019) superseded the 2013 version with two changes that matter to buyers:
- Grade 22+ was removed from the use-class table (residential medium-heavy).
- Seam strength for commercial classes rose to ≥ 240 N/50 mm (from the earlier 180 N/50 mm), and the use descriptions for classes 21 and 22 were clarified.
Practical effect: for hospital, school and retail RFQs, reference the 2020 edition — its weld and seam requirements are tighter, which is what a welded, liquid-tight floor actually needs.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: What is a Type I homogeneous PVC sheet floor?
Under ISO 10581, Type I means binder content above 55 % (resin + plasticizer + stabilizer). In practice a real Type I also wears at Group T under EN 660-2 (≤ 2.0 mm³) and shows residual indentation ≤ 0.10 mm per ISO 24343-1.
Q2: Is 56 % binder content always Type I?
Numerically yes — 56 % clears the > 55 % line. But because binder counts resin and plasticizer and stabilizer, a plasticizer-led 56 % floor can still drop to Group P on the EN 660-2 abrasion test. Always pair the binder figure with the mm³ result and the resin share.
Q3: How do I verify a "Type I" floor is actually durable?
Request the EN 660-2 abrasion report (mm³, lab-stamped), the ISO 24343-1 residual indentation (≤ 0.10 mm), and the PVC resin percentage. Those three numbers separate a real Type I from a labeled one.
Q4: Can a cheap quote still be a real Type I?
A 20–30 % lower price is worth questioning; a discount beyond ~40 % almost certainly cuts corners on binder or plasticizer. Judge it on the mm³ and resin data, not the headline price.
Q5: Which projects require a real Type I?
Any space at ISO 10874 use class 33 or above: hospital operating rooms and ICUs, cleanrooms and GMP areas, school corridors and canteens, airport terminals, and electronics workshops. Where traffic is heavy and the floor must stay seamless and welded, specify real Type I.
Specify With Confidence
JINXUAN supplies homogeneous sheet at 2.0 mm in 2 m × 20 m rolls (HS 391810), abrasion Group T (EN 660-2), B1-Cfl fire (EN 13501-1), R9–R11 slip (DIN 51130), FloorScore low-VOC, with a static-control grade available for ESD areas. Send us your RFQ and we return the full datasheet — EN 660-2 mm³, ISO 10581 type, resin share and plasticizer type — pre-filled against the checklist above.
- Full product guide: Homogeneous PVC Sheet Flooring: Technical Guide
- Hospital comparison: PVC Sheet vs LVT for Hospitals
- Product page and datasheet: JINXUAN Homogeneous Sheet
- All flooring guides: JINXUAN Blog