Document rpLYM1X2gexb8dJkn1M7Yr3gv

/ #40 Outside Milt 301 Bine Ho as Paint Trade Sales Da?. H, H. Hopkins, film. D-7026 Ms?, J. B. Bullitt, Lab. Mr, C, R, E. Merkle, Bab. m < Mr. J. W, Xliff, Bab, ,C :/ Mr. &, C, Lamport, Bab, "INDEXED" 4e25'53 MORATOM REPORT #M~19 Philadelphia Laboratory December 17, 1945 BETOBI IQ MMMI L RlffiBKCE COM "Tl-CAB" AMD MTI-BARW EXTERIOR HOUSE ^EBTto CltClUTO1 We recently reviewed the Pigments Department*8 exposure panels and house tests in the Wilmington vicinity covering rutils wTi~Calw Exterior House Paint formulations. Our present interest would be in a carbonate white laad-free and low oil formulation similar to the 40/45/15 wTi-Cal R-20/35# leaded zinc oxide/asbu 5- tin product included in these exposure tests. The Philadelphia Laboratory has no exposure information on rutile "Ti-Cal" products of this nature. As a result of this review of tests ranging in age from 1 to 3-1/2 years, we have reached the following conclusions: X. No 45 South exposures were available for inspection and since the oldest vertical exposures were only 3-1/2 years, we have no evidence on the ultimate type of failure and, accordingly, do not know whether final failure will be by chalking and erosion or by flaking. However, as far as the tests have gone, they indicate that rutile Ti-Cal** exterior paints may be quits oomparable in ultimate durability to titanium dioxide-asbestine formulations simi lar to our #40 Outside White, both at the high oil and the low oil (OPA-M-332) level. This refers to performance on good lumber and we have no information regarding durability on poorer grades of lumber, such as yellow pine. It is possible that a durability sacri fice may result on the poorer woods, but the degree of such sacrifice is unknown. 2. Dirt collection of the rutile "Ti-Cal* formulation is heavier than with anatase titanium dioxide products, but not as heavy as lead-in-oil. Dirt collection of the wTl~Calrt materials appears to be comparable to products made with nTl-Pure YCR or R-110 and some what heavier than wTiPuxew R-2Q0, Based on our own exposure evidence, we have considered R-200 unsatisfactory for self-cleaning house paints, particularly in areas of heavy dirt collection. This means that a rutile wTi-Calw formulation should probably be marketed under a special label with no reference to self-cleaning properties. 3. As far as we could tell from the house tests in question, the screen staining of the Ti-G.alw house paints from, copper or bronze appears to be.at least as bad as present Ti02 asbestine formulations. *2W Since delayed chalking is ejected with the .rutile "Ti-Cal" type products, this might further aggravate screen staining. ( jdU^.24* "DpA**} 4. compared to 301-904 T. & 0. house paint, are believe the *T1-Cal type would perform much more satisfactorily both as re gards ultimate durability and dirt collection. This is based en tirely on our best judgment without any actual supporting evidence. We believe a "Ti~BarM type house paint on the low oil basis would be satisfactory, although we have no evidence on such a material,. We base this belief on our extensive sale of 301-18924 High Oil "Ti-Bar" House Paint, which was our original titanated #40 Outside White, We understand that all current "Ti-Bar* {exoept YCR) is of the f ree chalking anatase type, Which should be equally as good as our present Outside White insofar as dirt collection and self-cleaning is concerned. Based on past experience with 301-18924, we would expect slightly greater cracking and flaking tendencies than our present and reoent TxOg asbestine formulas. Since we have had experience on an anatase wTi-Barw house paint, we would prefer this type to the rutile "Ti-Cal" formula on whioh we have had no experience. In addition, with the wTl-BarM type, we would maintain our present position on self-cleaning. PHILADELPHIA LABORATORY KCLiMEH K, 0, l a mp : DUP030002959