Document x5q5v9MEQjYejKaQwYvO2MoBg

Not; Indexed / --vr*GP'1 \ V.- 1 "Ikisw CC; a. Baldwin, Wllm. ?? (3) R. 3. Davis, Wilo. ?,iF Russell Morgan, Lab. J. P. KiCAndretr;3, Lab. P. Robinson, Lab. J. A. Klacsman, Exp. station 0. H. Bullitt, Jr., Lab. . C. Lampert, Lab. Patent Section Library (5) Pile: 1810 rshall Laboratory TO MfflULl UBORMOUT HEWlS ugust 21, 1958 SALES DEVZLOFI-TEflT LABORATORY MEMORANDUM REPORT NO. SM-58-12 FEEPARED BT: J. E. OYLER RATING OF APPLICATION AND APPEARANCE PROPERTIES OF EXTERIOR HOUSE PAINTS BY PROFESSIONAL PAINTERS INTRODUCTION: The MacGregor Lead Co. of Chicago baa been marketing a paint called "Scotch Laddie" Bouse Paint which Is very high in white lead and which has received wide acceptance among professional painters for its application properties and initial appearance. Up to this time It was not known whether this acceptance has bad a psycological basis due to the high gallon weight and high white lead content (70jS on Total Pigment) or whether Scotch Laddie actually has superior initial properties compared to other house paints ouch as #4-0 Outside White. Because of this uncertainty the following tests were conducted In an effort to determine how and why this paint differs from other paint. OBJECTIVE t Tbe objective of this experiment was to have professional painters evaluata nine exterior house palnta for relative application and Initial appearance properties. The following paints were included but were not Identified for the painters during or after the teat3, except by numbers as shown: LMR 0040864 N50657 SM-58-12 Heme 70`p White Lead Experimental 2C$ " " " >40 o.W. 301-918 {506941 - 50/50 (506834 Sherwin-Williams #471 national Lead #110 Scotch Laddie (70# White Lead) #42 0. w. 301-948 #494230-B Frof. House Paint 301-959 #484835 #43 Alicyd H. F. 603-922 #625715 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 Group 1 2 3 (included Faint #3) Tha 7056 white Lead Experimental Paint, 301-D-44153, 13 a very close compositional analog of the scotch Laddie paint based on the latter's label analysis. The 20# White Lead Experi mental, modified 301-966, had been formulated to give high gloss, good flow, and to use the maximum amount of white lead at the raw material coat of 301-919 #41 One Coat O.W. DESIGN OP EXPERIMENT AND PROCECCRS> No more than four painta were tested against each other at ona time in order to make it easier for the painters to determine the relative positions of each paint. For application properties, paints 1, 2 and 3 were tested aa a group, not necessarily in that order, and the painter waa asked to select what he considered the best paint* At the same time he waa asked to rate various pro perties such aa Ease of Application, Ease of Lapping, Ease of Spreading, Speed of Application and Body aa excellent, good, fair or poor so that we could have a guide aa to the magnitude of the differences which may have been noted. In addition the painters were asked whether each paint was acceptable or not in each of these properties. LMR 0040 DUP130000060 3- - SM-58-12 Similarly paints 4, 5 and 6 were tested and rated. The beat paints from each of these two groups were then compared, not from memory but as a new test, to select the preferred paint among numbers 1 thru 6. Numbers 9, 10 and 11 were then compared as a group. Added to this group as a tie-in paint from the first six paints v/as Paint :/3. ThiB paint was selected because, based on results from cha first two groups, it was expected to have application properties more near] like those expected in these last three paints. Five painters were included in this experiment and one du Pont employee w s b assigned to work with each painter to record all comments and data. The painter/assistant teams were spaced sufficiently far apart so that comments from other teams would not be overheard. The panels employed were prepared by mounting four 6' x 10" cedar clapboards on a suitable frame and then priming with one brush coat of 347-907 #39 House Paint primer. The prime coat had dried indoors for nine days before use. The nine paints were applied in single brush coats with a ten minute lap time included. All painting was done out-of-doors and all painters used the same brush and pot of paint for each produ< All brushes were identical, new 3 1/2" pure bristle Harrison brushes leather conditions during application were very favorable-warm with a generally over-cast sky and gentle breeze. Painting began around 10:30 A.M. and continued until 3:30 P.M. on July 24. A heavy rain storm started about 5:00 P.M. but none of the paint teats was seriously damaged. All panels were rated for initial appearance the following morning. The same groupings of paints were used in rating appearanc< Individual properties rated were Gloss Uniformity, Flashing, Flow an Color. Comments were also made on dry. LIMITATIONS OF THE TESTS: The results and the conclusions may not be es completely reliable as possible because of the following limitations: 1. Design of Experiment: Had the sequence of applying the paints been altered, and different groups of 3 paints compared. It la possible that different results may have been obtained. However, considering the unanimity of opinions obtained, we believe the design used represents as good a combination as possible for a single application. LMR 004086 DUP130000061 -4- SM-53-12 2. Single batches of material were applied over only one substrate. 3. Air temperature, thus paint and sub3trate temperature, increased during the period of application about 10 degrees. Therefore the paints applied last, group 3* were applied at a relatively lower effective viscosity than groups 1 and 2 applied before noon. Ratings for the tie-in paint, 301-918, were generally slightly higher in the afternoon than in the morning. 4. There was a limited number of painters; however, the33 five men represented a total of 187 years of painting experience. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Application Properties: Pour of the five painters selected the 7056 i-ihlte Lead Experimental paint as the best paint in Group 1. Marginally in ferior due primarily to slight drag-at-lap was #2, the 20J6 :.'hite Lead paint. The fifth painter selected the 20j< lead paint es the boat paint in this group. All five painters selected #6, Scotch Laddie, the best paint in Group 2. In this group the spread in ratings was considerably greater than among the paints in Group 1. The batch of National Lead paint was particularly poor (possibly the worst batch of Dutch Boy we have bad in years). In selecting the better paint between the best of groups 1 and 2, three painters selected the 70$S Lead Experi mental and two selected Scotch Laddie. No painter expressed a marked preference for one paint over the other. Three painters selected #9 301-948 #42 0. W. best In Group 3, Two painters selected 301-918, the tie-in paint, best. Of the other two paints 301-959, Professional Line was relatively gummy with some drag and piling up at the lap. 603-922 #43 O.W. had a definite drag at lap. ware; The only paints that were given unacceptable ratings National Lead - for ease of brushing by 3 men 603-922 - for drag-at-lap by 2 men swp - for ease of brushing by 1 man 301-959 - for drag-at-lap by 2 men LMR C04Q86 DUP130000062 5- - SM-58-12 The nine paints were ranked Tor ease of application cy tha widter according to the ratings and various comments of all the painters aa they are li3ted in the following table: Then the paint3 were ranked by assigning nunberical values for the various ratings and obtaining over-all average ratings. This ranking Is shovm in the right hand column: Details of these ratings are listed in the appended tables: Writer's Ranking Numerical Ranking 1. Scotch Laddie 2. 70# Lead Paint 3. 20# Lead Paint 4. 301-918 #40 O.tf. 5. 301-948 #42 O.W. 6. Sharwin-Williains 7. 301-959 3. 603-922 9. National Lead 1 2 3 5 4 6 9 The discrepancy with 603-922 can be accounted for by the fact that "unacceptable" ratings were mentally weighted heavily whereas they were not Included in the numerical averages. There appears to be no doubt now that the Scotch Laidie paint does have application properties that are superior to the general run of present day house paints. Its physical properties are unique only in that it has a very high yield value of about 460 dymea/Uc2, its Plastic Viscosity la normal as Is its atorner viscosity of 1C2KU considering the high lead content. Our 70# lead paint analog of scotch Laddie, rated practically even with Scotch Laddie, does not have the extremely high yield value but was higher than any of the other paints. Apparently there is a property, as yet undefined by physicalneaaurements, that Is supplied by use of large amounts of lead as basic carbonate of white lead. The other two competitive paints both contain lead but In other forms - SUP as 18# leaded zlno oxide and N. L. as a blend of BCWL and Baslo Silicate of White Lead. The 20# White Lead paint had Initial application properties nearly equal to the high lead paints but was detectabiy less free of a drag-at-lap which was more nearly like #40 O.W., both of which are acceptable. LMR 00408 DUP130000063 6- - SM-58-12 Appearance properties All of the paints containing laad pigments were rated highest and essentially equal for appearance-the 20# Lead paint being rated highest. The ona physical property which correlates with this result is gloss measurement. The 3ame five p3int3 have the highest gloss and of these the 20# lead paint is highest. All of the lead-free paints, including the #43 Alkyd H.P. were rated low for gloss uniformity or streaking and nashingat-laps. The professional paint 301-959 received the lowest ratings in this group. Within each group, the 70# Lead paint was rated be3t by 3 painters and the 20# lead paint best by 2 painters in 0-roup 1; In group 2, three picked National Lead, one picked Sherwln-Viiliams and two picked Scotch Laddie. In Group 3, three picked '4-3, O.W., two picked #40 O.VJ, and two picked #42 O.VJ., but this group as a whole was inferior to other best paints. General Conclusions Our first grade lead-free paints have acceptable initial application properties but have Ju3t enough drag and piling-up at laps to aid in causing flashing. The gloss level of our lead-free paints is still not high enough to give good gloss uniformity and resistance to flashing. It was demonstrated with the 20# lead paint and Sherwln-Wllliama that some drag at lap can be tolerated and yet give good resistance to flashing If the gloss level is high enough. RECOMMENDATIONSi Proceed with our original plana to sell the 20# lead paint which is competitive in coat, acceptable for application properties and gives an overall Improvement in initial appearance. The 70# lead paint, which would give a further small boost in application properties, has a raw material cost about $1.05 higher than the 20# lead paint and probably could not be sold competitive!; even with Scotch L&ddle. Spend the necessary money, perhaps 20-25 cents per gallon, on #40 and 42 O.W.'s to Increase their solids and gloss to a level where their lapping properties and gloss level give the desired Improvement In Initial appearance. 1 LMR 004086 DUP130000064 7- - sn-58-12 Eecauae the cost of 2^1-959 cannot be increased, Improve it,3 lapping properties and gloss uniformity by recommending thinning uith linseed oil rather than thinner. NOTEBOOK REFERENCE: See Notebook 6664 for details of these tests. JEO:dk 8/21/58 SALES DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY rj. 2. OYLER LMR 004087 DUP130000065 / fi -T LAtMTERZ------BATin HZ AJSUZ--------PE&r/AfEArr PHYSICAL. P ROPER TIES Sc o t c h La d d ie Af p l ie a nat Pr o PE tries A B c, Q Art HaIJK fitto flic Va i* tl.it. ko $ / IZ i,r (Y u (SI 17 Yif (S s m. p+ij o^.l ** nut 7i to* s JX '7J V A PPLA RArtcE A A c n F Awm /*f itX JO t 0 Lee 7 4 70 Ji BOWL up. (l lY tf 4 n (( 18 SYO 87 /( (f l7f 74 fX rtf // 0 0 (if ff 10 % BOWL ej>. (( n Ll 8 7 /nY If Ilf 71 /o if (Yl 89 n (0 M ff So 9 9 30l-<f/f itYO O.W. its u ff fS S f ? ,i (7? 87 8 JX 13 9 47 g.x 7X ff 21L fO 111 lot - YYS * YA 0 W f (Y (Q (0 9 (Ql i 7 SIS 78 i( 17f ill ff s 10 9 7 so fuFRWlD - Wil l ia ms f {> ff 7 ff o Y? / 87 u (V (Y6 70 f (( /o /o 8 LL AOI-QXQ P/OE.l f n h Y ff 7 4 Yti (if 8Y 9 2JL ill JZ t JL JL_ Y ff 1-EOJ- 111 PY3, O-W. (0 // i U 9 T2 u m 71 (0 Ilf 1(1 Y? 8 i J- 8 JL- 2JL A/*TlliHAL. - LFAO . S' JL h 0 7 2. Z. (ft 24. 12. L2- iL 2L It // 1L 2L- JL. 2JL Key'. {.errEUBD c o l u mn s CaRResponv t o pA/wreHS i*ts t e p /h rAtre H Af>f>k.iCArio* ptopicATI E 5 - Si>/i AppgAKktiCE pftpetries ~ Surf * RATINGS f or r a t /h c s of Fiv e FOUR reepari es/ r a t s ? <<>. '' /0,C fHtopt trt Sj fiA-rtP J PA ~ - DLli II H INDIVIDUAL IR0IEHTIK5 Spreading 2.4 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.6 2.4 0.4 Olosa Unllormlty Flashing Flow 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.9 2.6 2.1 2.7 2.5 2.3 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.6 2.0 2.2 2.8 2.2 2.4 1.0 0.6 2.0 1.2 1.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.0 Color' 2.1 c .4 r> f : < - 1.9 2.3 2.2 2 .2 1.6 2.6 S < 0 TABLE III Painters names and address and letters to correspond ;:ith ratings on Table's I and II, and nane3 of Duponters that worked with each paintar. Painters Maae and Letter Duponter Clarence Ke'aa 1934 43th St. Pennsaulcen, N. J. George H. Smith 3308 i'-adison St. Tiloington, Del. John E. Ravllious 34 Cgle Avenue iilnlngton, Del. Louis Giovannini 3ox 673 Devon, Pa. A. C. Krause D C A B W. R. Smith [Marshall Labcratory Vi. J. iicConeghey Marshall Laboratory F. T. Johnson Wilmington F&? C. W. Shay Wilmington F&F J. 2. Oyler Marshall Laboratory LMR 004087 N50657.03 DUP130000068