Document wDggMNBeVZ13V4q9VL1dgDodd

Files IBIO CCs 3. L MotSopley* Wllm. D?Glg Marshall laboratory j. D. Rod#., WIT. D**833 C - *j D MeBnrney, Wilm. D*70i8 October 1|, 1952 R. Bo Davis, Lab. C. Ro Bo Sterlcle, Lab. D. L. Herndon* Lab. K. C, Lamport, Lab. 0. ft, V&Uc, Lab, W ?To McConeghey, Lab. 66INDEXEDm Oe 20 '52 Patent Section, Lab. 0, Ho Bullitt* 2xp. Sba.# Wllm CIPV T FOR CilCiiyiilpi MEMORANDUM REPORT #M-5il 'BESOMS m MESD WD OF LOU ODOR JtDE SA1ES FINISHES tamOPEB ON WVESSlaATBSMS W-233, * 234, 835 242 * CLASS C i IHDBX PAGB SWART AID CQlfCLISIOMSo 1 DB5iA.ET.lS'coot a. 0 0 00006" O 0.000 0 CO. * 090000 *0.0 0*00000. 2 TyjP@.S T T@@tS RSipXO^ad.e.es.oao.a...ac.aaoe 2 Genera 1 COESsente * . * oo* *csa o..*,.. o 3 Table of l o w odor and control products......a. Iproduct Reports.o*.*....*...'.o.a. Primer Sealer......o, o..a .. . 6 ICmderCOater a0eeo....c>.aao.a.o..<>e.<>aoo Flat White and Tint..*. .... .........p.. * C.C 7F H .Meditsus Bio Flat.......a 10 S@aii-G.loss White and Tints..11 8 Dolms^ Si/tper^Wlii te.12 "Dnlux" Maintenance Enamels...............13 co c.&n cn -4 msmmm b b p c b3? #m51i msmsB mmm f iel d t es t o f l o w TRMB SALES FINISHES DEVELOPED Oil , ISVESOTATOp OT-233* *,,aiujBg^^... fhis report covers the performance of low odor Interior finishes described in Supplementary Release Letter #1273A as compared with that f the corresponding conventional materials tmder field conditions* See attached list of experimental and control products* STOMAHf AM) CONCLUSIONS * All general and specific recommendations mad in this report are intended as information to be used in writing a release letter and as sugges- tions for further laboratory work and should not be construed as a basis for other action* Tbs tests covered in this report indicate that the following low odor finishes are marketable as equal bo* or better than the corresponding conventional product* in overall application properties and final appearance* Odes?* of course* is superior in all cases* 1) Primer Sealer Lew Odor 2) Ovalit Enamel undercoater Low Odor T & C Flowing Flat Low Odor CO Fiat #7 Light Green Low Odor I cc Flat #13 Light Gray Low Odor CC "Dulux" Semi-Gloss White Lew Odor s CC MDulUXM Semi-Gloss #7 Lt* Green Low Odor CC *Duluxn Semi-Gloss #8 Med* Green " " cc "DulUX" Semi-Gloss #13 Lt* Gray s * 10} cc "Dulux" Semi-Gloss led* Gray Low Odor P689-U~29SS6 F66~XF-3^254 P-621-G-29S27 p-621^29829 P-621-D-29B28 Ps69-tT-22087 F-69-IF-22088 L69-io9a fte following low odor finishes are not yet suitable for market ing ..because of unsatisfactory performance in one or more properties as shown* 1) CC Flat #11 Msdium Blue Lew Mo t Poor Hiding 2) cc Flat #11 Medium Blue Rippled appearane P-621-H-22082 See page 10 S2lSkl See page 10 3) "Dulux* Super-White Low Odor^ p58-tr2629P 4} "Dulux" Maintenance Whit Low Odor^ P-58-H-26270 5.) "Dolus" High Hiding White Low Odor* p58U22048 6) "Duluxw Marine Enamel Low Odor* p^a-H-26236 * At low temperatures amber 3 through 6 require excessive thinning and have low gloss. See page 12 & 13 All of the low Oder finishes shew a acre rapid increase in viscosity as the temperature decreases than, do the control products* DUP030003429 This may lead to excessive use of thinness end result in inferior film prop erties and appearance^ Therefore, a caution limiting the use of thinner to not more than one pint/gallon should be included in the label direction. The absence of unpleasant odors or irritating fumes may cause the user of these materials to provide so little ventilation that the rate of dry is adversely affected* The need for ventilation to achieve proper dry should be noted in the label directions* DETAILS . The information given in this report is based on four sets of tests* 1) Laboratory Supervised Tests, Twenty-five test rooms were painted by professional painters.,. The writer was present during the painting of each of these rooms to record and evaluate the conditions of the test, the painters* ratings of the products, and to observe and analyse the relative performance of the paints. These tests represent the opinions of IT painters employed by 5 different organisations. Detailed information from these tests will provide the major portion of the data upon which adjustments in the formulas can be based, 2} Laboratory Tests at Temperature and Humidity Extremes, This work was done in the variable temperature/variable humidity room at Marshall Laboratory under conditions slmilatlng seasonal weather extremes (40 to 90F. and 15$ to 90$ Relative Humidity) for which field tests cannot be planned conveniently. Application and film properties were compared with the paints at equal vis cosities, Film properties were also compared with the paints adjusted to approximately equal brushing ease, 3) Individual Home Owner Tests, Control and low odor products were applied side by side in the homes of members of the marshall laboratory. Relative ratings were requested strictly on the basis of performance rather than an odor, 4) gales Department Tests, One hundred fifty-six tests were conducted by the regional Sales offices through both professional and amateur painters. These tests were designed primarily to sample the reaction of a wide variety of commercial, institutional, and individual customers to the low odor aspects of the paints and secondarily to note overall performance, in these tests there were .many instances where controls were not used or where a control of the same quality as the low odor paint was not available. When interpreting the significance of the comments on differences between the two types of paint, the following points should be considered, 1, .Sine only one batch f each experimental product has been tested and usually only on or two different batches of the standard product were used as controls, it is apparent that, small differences in the relative ratings can beoome signifi DUP030003430 -3 cant only in the light of experience with subsequent experimental batches* 20 in three of the above sets of tests, these materials were.applied over a wide variety of substrates, by persons of various degrees of skill, who are accustomed to differ- ing techniques of painting ana whose painting tools are not necessarily of the same style, size, quality or condi tion, Ttoder these circumstances unanimity of opinion is not to be expected* Because of the large number of uncontrolled variables it is felt that a straight statistical report of the test results would not be meaningful. It Is believed, however, that a reasonably representative' cross section of conditions and opinion has been obtained and the comments and recommendations made here4n represent the writer & best Judgment in interpreting and weighting the available data. ) GBKBHAL CQ1MS | 1) Flow. In all of the low odor paints except the nBuluxn Super 1?HHe Enamel there is a noticeable increase in flew. There is a slight decrease in sag resistance accompanying this but it can be tolerated for the sake of a smoother filmi However, future batches should not be allowed to fall lower in sag resistance than these test batches. ;; < 2) Odor, The results of the sales department tests together wTSH"comments on odor from the other tests show almost com plete agreement on the Improvement in odor of the experimental paints over that of the controls* The odor improvement is outstanding in all cases except that of the already low in dor "Xsulux" Super White Enamel where the improvement is necessarily more moderate. There is evidence that for the fiat paints specially and, to a somewhat lesser degree for the' other materials, there is an improvement in residual odor, : Instances f complaints about the odor are so few that it is likely that they represent deviations from normal odor perception or inaccurate recall Where the odor was compared on the basis of "previous experience with such and such paint*n 3) Effect of temperature extremes, .All of these' low odor products aFesuDgea^TFT^OTe^apIcTTnereas in viscosity a, the temperature is lowered than are the conventional materials. In general, the viscosities of both control and experimental products are reasonably close together at about 90F, then, as the tempera ture is lowered, both products increase moderately in viscosity, until, in the range of tO-50F,, the increase becomes quite rapid. In every instance the low odor analogue maintains the higher rate of viscosity increase. Comparison of our low odor paints with those of competitors - shows that in this respect competitive low dor paints move closely resemble our conventional materials than our low odor products. This appears to be an effect inherent in our low odor DUP030003431 resin and/or solvent* There does not seem to he any resin kiekout at low temperatures since the paints withstood several freeze thaw cycles without suffering damage* Except as noted for "Bute** Super White Enamel low odor, our low odor paints can he thinned to satisfactory brushing con sistency at temperatures as low as 40P. and still produce satis factory films When applied and allowed to dry at that, temperature At such low temperatures, up to 48 hours are required for hard dry for the primer sealer, the semi-gloss and the gloss products while about 24 hours suffices for the flats, and enamel under coaters* t Higher than normal temperature tendfto cause-poorer lapping qualities and poorer appearance of laps for both types of paint. 4) Effect of humidity extremes* The influence of humidity on 'nEEe'piH^OT^nce''ICT* appearance of these paints is so slight m to he negligible. Relative humidities Of hQ$ and 90$ at 40p* and 13$ and 90$ at 9>Fo were employed with no apparent ill effect* However, paints applied under conditions which.,', permit condensation to occur on the incompletely dried surface' are .almost certain to he marred* ' 5) Stability* Stability data will be furnished In ia later report" MARSHALL LABORATORY ! a DUP030003432 % rt $ CDrt H HI rt rt i |s l 4 4 4 0e4 i ? 4? [d rmt 0 rt Sina <h ,, .. *i % % O o 0 4? m <Pd S3, 4? iMSS E B sgti-I S3 $ S3 U S3 fS m*! a I 3 I $ 1H P OOriO O O O O 3 rftl rt,r.tfcg0 rt. w^jriOW rt 04 O O os O H rt O iH S3 O rrtt ,-. ,_ K 8 S' {> in >P WWOIW................ iWiS 3 3 VrWt rPItJ r07t!7rOt!BA3 0pI\ 1 pJ\ 03 CM CM 01 f< ~9 SH?&3tiIt)I! IA AOIOVOVDVO V Co 3 0 9 13 8 9 VOi _. . . 04 p4 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 I DO jiK CO rt rt<+ri o<^ 0 b ~`: & 45rt & m sa <a sfn?H 8 8 0GPjWfHeSrfieH HO HC3 n O it} +d fc j>& k 10 rt . . 89 8 S E WW h a a# & e > 00 00 & O& & 01 & S3 O S3 O DO g |s4 a rdt efc 42 d grt E a-4rSSt3 _ * & 4r3t4 4dS ^ffi 0 r-st*gi1>>p 0 0 3 SOI *m Oi DUP030003433 * -- tj -- gam mam Low Odor Paint: Primas* Sealer Control paint s Primer Sealer No# of laboratory supervised testa 9 n o # of borne owner tests ? No* of sales Department tests o She result of these tests show that for practical purposes; the the low odor primer sealer and its control are identical In working properties and final appearance* Comments: 1) She untinted low odor primer sealer is slightly darker than the control - probably the result of the darkness of this hatch of low dor resin# --- 2) she low odor primer sealer has improved flow at the expense of slightly poorer sag resistance# 3} Low odor palmer sealer is set to touch about 1-2 hours sooner than the control but overnight dry and hardness- are identical# 4} Drying rat at low temperatures is drastically reduced for both products requiring 24-48 hours; to become tack free and hard# The low odor primer sealer maintains an advantage in drying rate even under these conditions# 5) According to the professional painters on the laboratory supervised Jobs* our primer sealers are about equal in hiding*to ethers m the market but most of them would prefer a better hiding product; if available# Bsconmendafclons % 1) Market the low odor primer sealer with no change in formula# 2) Set the sag reading of this batch as the maximum permitted in sub sequent plant batches# 3} Consider the feasibility of increasing the hiding .of primer sealers# DUP030003434 m Y -* mmcokmt Low Odor Paint* Ov&llte Enamel Bndercoater Lew Odor ? Control Paint s Brush ''Paco" tjndercoater Bo, of laboratory supervised tests 6 Bo, of home owner tests 10 Bo; of Sales Department Tests 0 The results shea? that the low dor undercoater Is generally better in working properties and final appearance than the control Comments; 1) Advantages of the low odor undercoater. a) improfted flow at the expense of decreased sag resistance b) Better brushing* c) A slightly greater spreading rate d) A more uniform final appearance e) Faster drying hut stays open long enough for easy working , 2) Both materials sand easily 3) Hot weather may cause power lapping in both products Recommendations * 1) Market the low odor undercoater with no change in formula* 2) Set the sag reading of this batch as the maximum permitted in subsequent plant batches* DUP030003435 M <# mismm Lo t Odor Paints: T & 0 Flat White Xw Soa? P623.W29B2T CO Fiat #7 Lt Green low odor p~62XW29829 CG Flat #13 Lto Gray low odor P*6gl.D*g82o control paint: Painter*a Ugh Biding Flat and oil color tints to match the ahoy colors P621E84?8t Wo. of laboratory supervised tests 5 WO. of home owners tests ;7 - Ho. of Sales Department tests 38 The results of these tests show that there is a slight preference for the working properties of the low odor flat- paint. Final appearance also shows sons, improvemsnt. { Comments ] * 1) Flow of the low odor flat is improved at the expense of a slight decrease in sag resistance. J i 2) Drag at lap is less for the low odor flat. 3) Brushing ease of both paints is very good. h) some painters are accustomed to using flat paints with more flow than these and consequently rated these low, claiming faster applications better appearances and better hiding for the flowing type of paint. Moore's Saniflat and Davis Prim Flat are mentioned in this connection. 5) The low odor T & C Flat, its control. Painter's H H Flat, and the standard T & C Flat that is now on the market are all subject to a severe bodying effect when contaminated with as little as l/2# of water by weight. Though the paint becomes so thick .that it won't pour out of the pot, the easy spreading and brushing properties of the paints are scarcely diminished. Flow and level* ing are reduced but the overall appearance of the 40b is not seriously affected, Recommendations: 1) Market the low odor white and tinted flat paints With no change in formula. 2) Set the sag reading of this batch as the maximum permitted in subsequent plant batches. 3) .Check the working properties of the two competitive paints listed in (k) above. k) Determine whether the bodying effect of contamination by water can can be eliminated or controlled. Though the quality of the paint Job is apparently not seriously -affected* customer .reaction to the phenomenon may be adverse. DUP030003436 Plat white end Tints (Goat* d#) The possibility of contamination by this amount of water cannot be dismissed as too Infrequent for concexn# At least one manufacturer of Nylon brushes (Wooster Brush Co.) now recommends storing paint brushes In water overnight# fhls practice, though not general among professional painters, is a fairly common procedure for amateurs and now with the oncouragemant of the brush manufacturer it may spread# Xn three of tha laboratory supervised tests where this method of storing brushes was used, enough water was carried into the paint to cause bodying# DUP030003437 * .SIP: > EHJHMM Low odor paint: Color Conditioning #11 Bln Plat P621 60082 Control paint s Figments Department #11 " * M No. of laboratory supervised teat 2 No. of hoa owner toots 0 No. of Sales Department tests 7 * The results of those few tests indicate that neither the color Iv conditioning #11 Medium Blue Plat nor the Pigments Department #11 Medium Blue Flat is suitable for marketing. ; saasafe- \ I 1) The hiding of the lew odo^ paint is poor and that of the control only fair. .V 2) The low odor paint tends to be streaky add uneven t in final appearance - possibly as a result of poor hiding. ,\ 3) On on test the control displayed a rippled appearance on the wall. Recomendatlons t 1) Do not market either of these paints. 2) Correct the above defects, work has already been started on these paints. ! DUP030003438 m3EKX-aU)SS iB wm& >u Low Odor Paints: Color conditioning Semi-Gloss Whit tm Odor p-69,or22087 Color Conditioning Semi-Gloss #7 Lt. Green low Odor P--69--C--22088 Color Conditioning Semi-Gloss #8 Mud* Green low Odor P-69-G-22090 Color Conditioning Semi-Gloss #15 Lt. Gray Low Odor P-69-C-22089 Color Conditioning Semi-Gloss #14 Med. Gray Low Odor P-69-C-22092 Control Paint t "Duco" One Coat Magic Semi-Gloss and Oil color tints to match the ahoy colors. 60 Ho. of laboratory supervised tests Ho. of home owner tests No. of sales department tests yhe results of these tests show that the experimental and control products are about equal In trashing properties and final appearance. Comments; 1} ie low odor semi-gloss has a definite advantage in drying time. 2) Like primer sealers, the semi-gloss paints are retarded in dry ing at low temperatures, but here again the low odor product maintains its advantage in drying times about 36 hours vs. about 48 for the control. 3) fhis batch of low odor white semi-gloss though within the normal range of package viscosity for semi-gloss enamels had a higher package viscosity than the control and required nearly twice as much reduction to reach the same brushing consistency as the control. Recommendations; 1} Market the low odor semi-gloss white and - tinted paints with no change in formula. DUP030003439 "* JLlg " Low Odor Paint*. "Bulux" Super White Low Odor P Control Paint s "Dulux" Super White No, of laboratory supervised tests t Wo. of hone owner tests 21 Woa of Sales Department tests 35 The results of these teste show that these products ate rated very high and about equally for all properties except gloss where the low odor enamel is substandard* Comments; 1) The low odor enamel is lower in gloss than the standard enamel. 2) At low temperatures the low odor enamel require excessive thinning to teach brushing consistency: about ll/2 pints per gallon. This formula bodies mote rapidly with decreasing tempera turesa the low odor enamel develops dull streaks where the film is slightly thicker than surrounding areas. 4) plow of the low dor enamel is slightly less than that of the control. Recommendations; 1) Do not release the loxf odor "Bulux" Super White Enamel for sal iBSESdiately. 2) Determine whether the poor gloss and streaking, f the low odor enamel is a characteristic of this batch or of the formula: ' in general and make the necessary corteotioaso DUP030003440 "Dulux" Maintenance White tern Odor "Dulux" High Hiding Maintenance White low Odor p58tj26270 p58H-22048 On these two low odor paints we have only limited field test information consisting of t- home owner tests and 10 Hales Department tests on h d u 1h x " Maintenance White and three Sales Department tests m the. High Hiding Maintenance White* 2he@0 tests are not sufficiently detailen d. t1 yield all the data needed to reach a decision on marketability* However, because of the similarity of their vehicle and pigment compositions to that of -"Data" Super White low Odor, they may he subject to the same low gloss and to streaking at low temperatures and we recommend that they be withheld from the market until the cause of the low gloss phenomenon is found and corrected* DUP030003441