United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxic;
Washinaton D.C.. 20460
EPA747-R-95-011
Seotember. 1995
EPA
Pilot Testing Program for
Protocols for Lead-Based
Paint Encapsulants
Recycled/Recyclable
Primed on pape.' that contains
at least 50% recycieri fiber
-------
September 1995
EPA 747-R-95-011
FINAL REPORT
PILOT TESTING PROGRAM FOR PROTOCOLS
FOR LEAD-BASED PAINT ENCAPSULANTS
Prepared by
Battelle Memorial Institute
for
Technical Programs Branch
Chemical Management Division
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
The material in this document has been subject to Agency
technical and policy review and approved for publication as an
EPA report. Mention of trade names, products, or services does
not convey, and should not be interpreted as conveying, official
EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation.
-------
AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS
.This study was funded and managed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The study was conducted by Battelle Memorial
Institute under contract to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Each organization's responsibilities are listed below.
Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle)
Battelle was responsible for designing and conducting the
study, selecting and managing the subcontracted testing
laboratories (Center for Applied Engineering and Professional
Service Industries), performing statistical analyses on the study
data, developing the conclusions and recommendations derived from
the analyses, and writing the final report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Environmental Protection Agency was responsible for
managing the study, providing guidance on the objectives for the
study and report, contributing to the development of conclusions
and recommendations, and coordinating the EPA and peer reviews of
the draft report. The EPA Work Assignment Managers were Jill
Hacker and Barbara Leczynski. The EPA Project Officer was Jill
Hacker.
-------
Executive Summary
A significant source of lead in many childhood environments
is old deteriorating leaded paint. Exposure to lead by children
under the age of seven can cause serious health problems,
including irreversible central nervous system damage resulting in
learning and behavioral disabilities. Many older housing
structures in the U.S. have been found to contain substantial
amounts of leaded paint, some of which is in poor condition.
Therefore, several measures, including the use of encapsulants,
are being investigated as methods to help control exposures to
lead-based paint hazards.
Encapsulants are durable coatings systems designed to cover
existing leaded paint, and thereby control the further
deterioration of the paint and the resulting distribution of fine
lead particles to household dust and exterior soil. However,
most encapsulant products are relatively new and there is
currently little information that can be used to predict their
effectiveness. Furthermore, approved performance standards do
not yet exist which can be used to approve these products for use
in residential environments. The American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) Task Group E06.23.30 on Encapsulation of
Leaded Paint is currently developing such standards; however, few
data have been submitted to ASTM which can serve as the technical
basis for setting these standards.
Recognizing this critical need for data, the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) decided to begin evaluating currently
available tests for encapsulation products. The performance
properties and test methods identified to date by ASTM EOS.23.30
have wide use in testing paint products and specialty coatings.
However, only limited testing with these protocols has been
performed on encapsulant products, and the viability of many test
methods for use with encapsulants is not yet known. Therefore,
the overall objective of this study was to evaluate the
-------
appropriateness of standard ASTM test protocols for assessing the
performance characteristics of encapsulants for leaded paint.
Specifically, the study was intended to (1) collect data to help
determine the feasibility of a battery of test protocols drafted
by ASTM E06.23.30 using both liquid coatings and reinforced
liquid coatings; (2) provide information that can support the
assessment of existing draft minimum performance standards; and
(3) assess the variability of these test methods between two
laboratories and within a single laboratory. The results of this
study have been analyzed at two levels, a qualitative evaluation
of the feasibility of conducting the tests on these new
encapsulant products, as well as a quantitative statistical
analysis to assess variability in the test data.
This report presents the results from these testing
activities. Testing was conducted in April-August of 1994 at two
independent laboratories, and included a set of ten standard ASTM
protocols run under ambient laboratory conditions, as well as
after water immersion or weathering. Tests were run on 6 liquid
encapsulants, 4 reinforced encapsulants, and 4 paints. These
products were generally applied to various standard metal or
plastic test panels before testing according to the ASTM
protocols although one set of tests involved evaluating free
films of each coating. This study generated approximately 3800
new data on the performance of encapsulation products.
It is important to note several caveats associated with this
study which limit the extent to which the results and conclusions
can be projected to other laboratories and coating products.
First, it must be emphasized that this project was intended to
evaluate the ASTM test protocols and not to evaluate the selected
coating products. Wh'ile comparisons among various products are
made in this report, these analyses are only used to better
understand the variability which might be expected in the results
from the test protocols. Second, only two laboratories
participated in the testing of this project, and these
laboratories were not, chosen at random from the hundreds of U.S.
ii
-------
facilities that could have performed the tests. The two
participating laboratories were chosen, based on technical and
cost factors, from among approximately ten firms which responded
to a competitive request for proposals. Finally, only a limited
number of coating products were tested in this project, and these
products were not chosen at random, but instead were selected
specifically to represent the range of products available in
1994. Because neither the products nor the laboratories were
chosen at random, it is not possible to extend the results from
this study to the broader population of products and laboratories
available in the U.S.
The overall study conclusions can be summarized according to
each of the three project objectives stated above. First, the
feasibility of testing was evaluated for 13 ASTM protocols or
combinations of protocols, and in almost all cases the selected
protocols were found to be feasible. The two notable exceptions
where serious procedural difficulties were encountered were the
pull adhesion test run after water immersion and the scrub
resistance test run after weathering. Other difficulties were
also experienced for some particular combinations of test
protocols and encapsulant products. Second, assessment of the
1995 draft ASTM minimum performance standards found five tests
where draft standards were available. In all cases the draft
standards were found to be feasible because they fell within the
range of all observed test results. Third, evaluation of testing
variability between two laboratories and within a single
laboratory focused on both product-to-product and panel-to-panel
differences. As might be expected, the variability in test
results was quite different depending on the particular protocol
and products being tested. In some cases no variability was
found (i.e., all test results were the same), while in other
cases the standard deviation of the test data was more than 100%
of the mean value measured.
The qualitative assessment of the test methods examined
practical problems associated with conducting the protocols on
iii
-------
encapsulant products, as well as issues that could affect the
ability of the methods to distinguish among different types of
products based on test performance. Overall, most of the test
protocols were found to be feasible for most of the encapsulants
selected, although there were testing challenges in some cases.
The major issues identified by the qualitative evaluation for
each method are as follows:
• Tape adhesion -- This is a semi-quantitative test with
limited sensitivity (i.e., ability to distinguish among
products) that rates coatings on a scale from 0 to 5.
This test was not performed for reinforced products
because cutting the product, which is a necessary step in
the method, is likely to introduce stresses to the coating
which can adversely affect adhesion.
• Pull adhesion -- Instrumentation is an important factor
for this test and should be selected to meet the
anticipated pull-off strengths of the coatings to be
tested. The dolly adhesive is also quite important
because several cases were observed where the adhesive
failed to adhere well either to the dolly itself, or to
the product being tested. This issue was particularly
important when testing after water immersion since
fastening the dolly soon after immersion was not feasible
because the dolly adhesive would not cure to the wet
surface, and fastening the dolly before immersion did not
allow for complete exposure of the product to the water.
Also, scoring around the dolly is an option under ASTM D
4541 so that this test measures local adhesion rather than
adhesion distributed across the entire panel. However,
scoring is difficult with reinforced products and may
stress the coating causing loss of adhesion. In addition,
the 0.01 inch tin-plated steel panel used in this study
was found to be too thin because it deformed during
execution of the test. This protocol is no longer
included by ASTM E06.23.30 for adhesion testing.
• Scrub resistance -- Because of the wide range of coating
thicknesses tested it was difficult to distinguish among
various products. This test is designed to be run until
failure, although ASTM E06.23.30 currently only requires
testing to 1200 cycles. However, many products were
tested to 5000 cycles without failure which was quite
labor intensive and time consuming. In fact, all
reinforced encapsulants tested were run to 5000 cycles
without failure, indicating that this test may be
inappropriate for such products. In addition, scrub
iv
-------
testing after weathering caused two technical problems.
First, the standard plastic panels were too large to fit
in the weathering chamber. The panels had to be cut to
fit the chamber necessitating modification of the sample
holding frame on the scrub test machine. Second, the
black plastic panels warped and deformed in the weathering
cycle so that the test surface was not flat.
• Flexibility -- This test could not be run on one product
because the test panels were too thick to fit into the
testing apparatus. Also, questionable results were
obtained for products with poor adhesion to the tin-plated
steel panels used for testing.
• Impact resistance --In the case of the cementitious
products, it was difficult to determine whether cracking
or simply compression of the coating occurred after
impact, thereby making the impact resistance measurements
uncertain.
• Dry abrasion resistance -- Because this test records both
cycles to failure and weight loss, it provides two
quantitative measures of product durability. However,
testing of the cementitious products was problematic due
to excessive wear of the abrasion wheels.
• Viscoelastic properties -- Difficulties were encountered
producing free films for some products. In the case of
many reinforced products, it was also difficult to cut the
coatings into strips for testing without stressing the
samples and causing a loss of tensile strength. Tensile
strength was found to be greatly affected by the
reinforcing material although no quantitative assessment
of the effect of the reinforcing mats was made. In
addition, there were several cases where stiffness of the
films could not be measured because the samples ruptured
before 1% elongation was reached, which is the point at
which the first measurement is taken.
• Blistering, chalking, and pencil hardness --No serious
problems were encountered, although these are semi-
quantitative tests with only limited sensitivity to detect
differences among products.
The quantitative assessment of the test methods addressed
four different objectives: (1) compare test results against
draft ASTM EOS.23.30 standards, (2) assess differences between
two testing laboratories, (3) assess within-laboratory
differences among replicate test panels and replicate encapsulant
-------
samples, and (4) assess the ability of different test methods to
distinguish among different types of products. The following
points summarize some of the most important findings from the,
statistical analysis:
• ASTM E06.23.30 draft standards were available for five of
the tests performed in this study -- tape adhesion, scrub
resistance, flexibility, impact resistance, and chalking.
In all cases the draft standards appeared reasonable from
the perspective that many of the products would have
passed, and thus the standards do not appear to be too
restrictive. However, not all products would necessarily
have passed the standards, and thus the standards also do
not appear to be too loose.
• Laboratory differences were found to be large for tape
adhesion for unexposed panels and panels after water
immersion, scrub resistance for unexposed panels, and
impact resistance.
• Measurement variability among replicate test panels was
found to be significant for pull adhesion for unexposed
panels and viscoelastic elongation. Replicate product
variability was found to be significant for tape adhesion
for unexposed panels (products LE3 and LE5) and
viscoelastic elongation. In all cases, greater
variability in the test data leads to a requirement for a
greater number of tests to demonstrate statistical
significance in the results, for example, to demonstrate
differences among various products.
• The data in some cases indicated different readings for
unexposed panels and exposed panels—tape adhesion
performed after water immersion and weathering, pull
adhesion performed after water immersion and weathering,
scrub resistance performance after weathering, and pencil
hardness performed after water immersion (greater
differences for liquid products than for reinforced
products). The data in two cases indicated no differences
between the test results for exposed and unexposed panels-
-flexibility and blistering.
• Results for several tests were found to be different for
liquid products and reinforced products--pull adhesion
after weathering, scrub resistance, dry abrasion,
viscoelastic properties, blistering, and pencil hardness.
Results in five cases were found to be essentially the
same for liquid and reinforced products--tape adhesion,
VI
-------
pull adhesion for unexposed panels, flexibility, impact
resistance, and chalking.
• Testing results in several cases indicated significantly
different readings for the liquid encapsulants and
paints--tape adhesion, pull adhesion, scrub resistance,
impact resistance, dry abrasion, and viscoelastic
properties. Testing results in four cases indicated no
significant difference between readings for liquid
encapsulants and paints--flexibility, blistering,
chalking, and pencil hardness.
VII
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PEER REVIEW 3
2.0 STUDY DESIGN • . . 4
2.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES 4
2.2 SELECTION OF ASTM TEST METHODS 6
2.3 SELECTION OF ENCAPSULANT PRODUCTS 12
2.4 TEST PLAN 17
2.5 TEST PANEL SELECTION AND PREPARATION .' 22
2.5.1 Panel Selection 22
2.5.2 Panel Preparation 23
3.0 DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH 29
3.1 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF TEST METHODS 29
3.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TEST RESULTS 30
4.0 STUDY RESULTS 38
4.1 OVERALL DATA COMPLETENESS 38
4.2 OVERALL SUMMARY STATISTICS . . 41
4.3 DRY FILM THICKNESS 47
4.4 TAPE ADHESION 52
4.5 PULL ADHESION 61
4.6 SCRUB RESISTANCE 74
4.7 FLEXIBILITY 83
4.8 IMPACT RESISTANCE 89
4.9 DRY ABRASION RESISTANCE . . 94
4.10 VISCOELASTIC PROPERTIES 107
4.11 BLISTERING 118
4.12 CHALKING 124
4.13 PENCIL HARDNESS 127
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 136
5.1 METHODS EMPLOYED 136
5.2 AUDIT RESULTS 138
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . • 149
7.0 REFERENCES 153
APPENDIX DETAILED DATA LISTING
viii
-------
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Dry System Thickness Results for All Panels
Figure 2 .
Figure 3 .
Figure 4 .
Figure 5 .
Figure 6 .
Figure 7 .
Figure 8 .
Figure 9 .
Figure 10 .
Figure 11.
Figure 12 .
Figure 13 .
Figure 14 .
Figure 15 .
Figure 16 .
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
and Free Films k
Tape Adhesion Results for Unexposed Panels
Tape Adhesion Results for Immersed Panels . .
Tape Adhesion Results for Weathered Panels
Pull Adhesion Results for Unexposed Panels
Pull Adhesion Results for Immersed
(10 minute dry) Panels
Pull Adhesion Results for Immersed
(120 minute dry) Panels
Pull Adhesion Results for Weathered Panels
Scrub Resistance Results for Unexposed Panels
Scrub Resistance Results for Weathered Panels
Flexibility Results for Unexposed Panels . .
Flexibility Results for Weathered Panels . .
Impact Resistance Pass/Fail Frequencies
for Unexposed Panels
Impact Resistance Results for Unexposed
Panels
Dry Abrasion End Point Results for
Unexposed Panels
Dry Abrasion Weight Loss at 1000 Cycles
Results for Unexposed Panels
Dry Abrasion Weight Loss at End Point
Results for Unexposed Panels
Dry Abrasion Wear Index at End Point
Results for Unexoosed Panels
48
. . 54
. . 57
. . 59
. . 65
69
70
. . 72
. . 77
. . 81
. . 84
. . 88
91
92
96
101
103
106
IX
-------
Figure 19. Viscoelastic Tensile Strength Results
for Unexpqsed Free Films 110
Figure 20. Viscoelastic Elongation Results for
Unexposed Free Films 114
Figure 21. Viscoelastic Stiffness Results for
Unexposed Free Films 116
Figure 22. Blistering Results for Immersed Panels .... 120
Figure 23. Blistering Results for Weathered Panels .... 122
Figure 24. Chalking Results for Weathered Panels 126
Figure 25. Pencil Hardness for Unexposed Panels " 129
Figure 26. Pencil Hardness for Immersed
(10 minute dry) Panels 133
Figure 27. Pencil Hardness Results for Immersed
(120 minute dry) Panels 134
-------
List of Tables
Page
Table 1. Summary of Performance Tests on Encapsulants
for Interior Use 7
Table 2. Summary of Performance Tests on Encapsulants
for Exterior Use 8
Table 3. Referenced Documents 9
Table 4. Summary of Encapsulant Products Identified .... 14
Table 5. Encapsulants and Standard Paints Selected
for Testing . . 16
Table 6. Product ID Codes for Encapsulants and
Paints Selected for Testing 18
Table 7. Summary of the Number of Performance Tests Run . . 19-
Table 8. Panel Type Used with Each ASTM Test 24
Table 9. Application Parameters for Panel Preparation ... 25
Table 10. Product System Target Thickness 26
Table 11. Summary of Data Completeness 39
Table 12. Summary Statistics for ASTM Test Results 42
Table 13. Statistical Modeling Results 45
Table 14. Results of Multiple Pairwise Comparisons for
Dry Film Thickness and Tape Adhesion Testing ... 51
Table 15. Results of Multiple Pairwise Comparisons for
Pull Adhesion Testing 68
Table 16. Results of Multiple Pairwise Comparisons for
Scrub Resistance Testing 79
Table 17. Results of Multiple Pairwise Comparisons for
Flexibility and Impact Resistance Testing .... 86
Table 18. Results of Multiple Pairwise Comparisons for
Dry Abrasion Resistance Testing 98
Table 19. Results of Multiple Pairwise Comparisons for
Viscoelastic Properties Ill
xi
-------
Table 20. Results of Multiple Pairwise Comparisons for
Blistering and Chalking Tests 123
Table 21. Results of Multiple Pairwise Comparisons for
Pencil Hardness Testing 131
Table 22. Summary of Data Audit Panels and Performance
Tests 144
XII
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Childhood lead poisoning has been recognized as one of
this country's most important environmental health problems.
Exposure of children under the age of seven to significant
amounts of lead can cause a variety of health problems, perhaps
the most common and notable of which is irreversible central
nervous system damage resulting in learning and behavioral
disabilities. As a result, Congress has enacted a broad program
of regulatory, policy, educational, and research initiatives
aimed at eliminating childhood lead poisoning.
One significant source of lead in many childhood
environments is old deteriorating leaded paint. Lead was a
common constituent of paint up until 1978 when it was essentially
banned for residential use by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission. Many older housing structures, particularly many
built before 1970, may contain significant amounts of leaded
paint, some of which may be in poor condition. When this paint
deteriorates, it distributes fine particles of lead which
contaminate household dust and exterior soil. This dust and soil
can then be accidentally ingested by young children through their
normal hand-to-mouth and play activities.
As a result of these concerns with leaded paint in housing,
the federal government is investigating the feasibility of using
encapsulation as a means to help protect the environment from
deteriorating leaded paint. However, because many of these
products are so new, there is currently little information that
can be used to reliably predict their effectiveness. The goal of
this study is to collect information to help assess what
laboratory protocols are appropriate for testing product
performance.
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Task
Group E06.23.30 on Encapsulation of.Leaded Paint is developing a
set of performance specifications for encapsulants for leaded
paint. These standards, which are being drafted for both liquid
coatings and reinforced liquid coatings, will list required
performance properties, identify ASTM methods to test the
products under standard laboratory conditions, and set minimum
performance criteria which products must meet to be classified as
approved encapsulants for leaded paint. The performance
properties and test methods identified to date by the ASTM Task
-------
Group have wide use in testing paint products and specialty
coatings. However, only limited testing with these protocols has
been performed on encapsulant products and few data from these
tests have been submitted to ASTM. Therefore, serious questions
have been raised about the appropriateness of these performance
tests. Without supporting test data, it will be impossible to
successfully ballot the ASTM standards and release these
protocols to the general public. Because a critical need for
these standards exists in the lead abatement industry,
performance data must be collected .in a timely fashion.
Recognizing this critical need for data, the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) decided to begin evaluating currently
available tests for encapsulation products. This report presents
results from a study to evaluate the ASTM test protocols by
collecting laboratory data on a selected set of encapsulation
products for some of the performance properties and test methods
selected by the ASTM Task Group. For comparison purposes, the
study also included testing of a set of paint products. A
representative set of encapsulants and paints was tested to
ensure that data on a broad range of coatings were collected.
The actual products selected for the study will not be discussed
in this report since product selection does not imply product
endorsement.
Testing was conducted at two independent laboratories
selected through a competitive procurement process. Testing at
two laboratories provided information on the variability of the
test results. The resulting data will be used to help judge the
feasibility and appropriateness of the proposed ASTM methods and
to help set minimum performance criteria for encapsulation
products.
It is important to recognize two constraints on this study.
First, the study was intended to evaluate potential encapsulant
testing protocols, rather than to evaluate the performance of
currently available encapsulants. Test data currently exist only
for paints and coatings. Therefore, this program provides new
data where the standard test protocols are applied to new
coatings and materials representing encapsulant products.
-------
Second, because this study performed testing on materials which
may never have been tested before, it was possible that some of
the standard ASTM protocols would not work as planned in some
situations. For example, standard testing for viscoelastic
properties requires the laboratory to produce a free film of the
coating being tested. This was extremely difficult with some of
the new encapsulant materials. In cases where the tests could
not be completed as planned, the resulting study data consist of
detailed comments on the test results rather than numerical
measurements or objective qualitative rankings. Because of these
study constraints, this project must be viewed as a pilot testing
program.
1.1 PEER REVIEW
The technical report on this study was reviewed
independently by members of a peer review panel. With the
exception of the one comment discussed below, all of the comments
received were either informational and required no changes, or
were editorial in nature.
One comment was made concerning the reviewer's
interpretation that the data indicates that the samples were not
fully cured prior to being tested, thereby causing a question
regarding the validity of the entire test program. The report
was clarified to point out that, with the exception of three
products which were tested too early by one laboratory for impact
resistance, all tests in the study were performed on all panels
after the manufacturers' recommended cure times. It is also
important to note that the impact resistance results for the
three affected products were among the highest for any products
tested. Based on these facts, the validity of the entire test
program was not jeopardized by premature testing of any samples.
EPA has established a public record for the peer review
under administrative record AR144. The record is available in
the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, which is open from
noon to 4 PM Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. The
TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center is located in Room NE-
B607, Northeast Mall, 401 M Street SW, Washington, B.C.
-------
2.0 STUDY DESIGN
This testing program collected more than 1000 individual
test results from each of two testing laboratories. Tests were
run on 18 coatings, including 12 liquid coatings and 6 reinforced
coatings. The tests included a variety of standard ASTM
protocols run under ambient laboratory conditions,1 as well as on
samples which were subjected to water immersion and weathering
conditions. This section describes the design of the encapsulant
pilot testing program, including the study objectives, ASTM
testing methods, and selection of products for testing. The
design is more fully described in the Quality Assurance Project
Plan that was developed by EPA (1).
2.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of this study was to evaluate the
appropriateness of some of the ASTM E06.23.30 test protocols for
assessing the performance characteristics of encapsulant products
for leaded paint. It should be noted that these tests for
coatings do not directly evaluate the ability of encapsulants to
contain an existing leaded paint hazard. For example, the tests
do not assess the potential leaching of lead from an underlying
paint through an encapsulant. Instead, these tests evaluate
physical characteristics such as adhesion of the coatings which
are properties that an encapsulant must also have if it is to
successfully contain a leaded paint hazard. Therefore, the term
"appropriate," as used in this study, refers to the ability of
existing test methods to reliably measure such physical
properties of encapsulants.
Specifically, this study was intended to satisfy the
following objectives:
• Collect laboratory data to help determine the
feasibility of some test protocols drafted by ASTM Task
Group E06.23.30 on encapsulation of leaded paint using
both liquid coatings and reinforced liquid coatings.
-------
Compare the collected laboratory data with current ASTM
E06.23.30 minimum performance standards to help assess
which standards are appropriate.
Assess the variability of these test methods, both
between two laboratories and within a single laboratory.
Note that these objectives reflect the pilot nature of this
testing program. As noted earlier, there is little, if any,
documented experience with these ASTM methods for many of the
encapsulant products. Therefore, while the need of EPA, HUD, and
ASTM is to select final test protocols and set minimum
performance standards for encapsulant products, this program will
not be able to make firm recommendations on these selections.
Instead, this program has generated a wealth of new data to
perhaps rule out some protocols which are inappropriate for some
encapsulant products and rule in other protocols which do appear
appropriate. In addition, comparison of these study data with
current ASTM E06.23.30 standards will help determine the levels
at which minimum performance standards should be set.
Because this is a pilot study, the data quality objective
(DQO) was stated in terms of data completeness and traceability,
rather than in terms of a formal hypothesis test or statistical
estimation objective. Specifically, the DQO for this study was
as follows:
Obtain 95% data completeness for a battery of
ASTM test protocols run on multiple encapsulant
products at two different testing laboratories.
Actual data completeness includes not only the quantitative
measurements and qualitative rankings expected from each test,
but also detailed comments on why a particular test could not be
completed as planned in those cases where the test was found to
be inappropriate for a particular encapsulant.
-------
2.2 SELECTION OF ASTM TEST METHODS
This study was primarily a data collection program to
generate new information on which test protocols may, or just as
importantly may not, be suitable for encapsulant testing. The
products were selected to represent a broad range of coatings
including paints, liquid encapsulants, and reinforced liquid
encapsulants. The tests evaluated were those for physical
properties, as opposed to chemical properties, and included dry
film thickness, scrub resistance, impact resistance, flexibility,
dry abrasion resistance, adhesion, viscoelasticity, water
immersion, weathering, blistering, pencil hardness, and chalking.
When this study was initiated in October, 1993 the ASTM Task
Group E06.23.30 had drafted an initial set of test protocols for
assessing the performance of encapsulant products. While the
budget for this pilot testing program did not allow evaluation of
all the physical test protocols, the vast majority were included.
Also, in the months since this study was initiated ASTM has
revised some of its performance tests and standards. Therefore,
while most of the tests performed in this study were the same as
those currently stipulated by ASTM, all of the test protocols
used in this study were not identical to the ASTM protocols.
Specifically, the scope of this study included a set of 20 tests,
most of which were specified by ASTM E06.23.30, although some
were run here for longer times or in slightly different
conditions than those selected by the task group. As shown in
Tables 1 and 2, 13 of these tests were run on products intended
for interior residential use, and all 20 tests were run on
products intended for exterior residential use. While Tables 1
and 2 contain short titles and ASTM designations for these tests,
Table 3 lists more detailed ASTM designations.
A brief description for each of the tests is listed below.
• Dry Film Thickness (D 1186) - The thickness of the dried
encapsulant on a ferrous panel was measured using an
instrument that is based on magnetic measuring
principles.
-------
Table 1. Summary of Performance Tests on Encapsulants
for Interior Use
Performance
Property
Dry Film
Thickness
Tape Adhesion
Pull Adhesion
Scrub
Resistance
Flexibility
Impact
Resistance
Dry Abrasion
Resistance
Viscoelastic
Properties
Water
Immersion
Post- Immersion
Tape Adhesion
Post- Immersion
Pull Adhesion
Post -Immersion
Blistering
Post -Immersion
Pencil Hardness
ASTM Test
Method
D 1186
D 1005
D 3359
D 4541
D 2486
D 522
D 2794
D 4060
D 2370
D 1308
D 3359
D 4541
D 714
D 3363
Liquid
Products
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reinforced
Products
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Panels Per
Product
All
1
3
3
3
4
2
10
4 liquid
3 reinforced
1
3
All
3 or 4
All
3 or 4
-------
Table 2. Summary of Performance Tests on Encapsulants
for Exterior Use
Performance
Property
Dry Film
Thickness
Tape Adhesion
Pull Adhesion
Scrub Resistance
Flexibility
Impact
Resistance
Dry Abrasion
Resistance
Viscoelastic
Properties
Water Immersion
Post- Immersion
Tape Adhesion
Post- Immersion
Pull Adhesion
Post- Immersion
Blistering
Post- Immersion
Pencil Hardness
Weathering
Post -Weathering
Tape Adhesion
Post- Weathering
Pull Adhesion
Post -Weathering
Scrub Resistance
Post -Weathering
Flexibility
Post- Weathering
Blistering
Post -Weathering
Chalking
ASTM Test
Method
D 1186
D 1005
D 3359
D 4541
D 2486
D 522
D 2794
D 4060
D 2370
D 1308
D 3359
D 4541
D 714
D 3363
G 53
D 3359
D 4541
D 2486
D 522
D 714
D 4214
Liquid
Products
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reinforced
Products
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Panels Per
Product
All
1
3
3
3
4
2
10
4 liquid
3 reinforced
1
3
All
3 or 4
All
3 or 4
10 liquid
9 reinforced
1
3
3
3
All
9 or 10
All
9 or 10
-------
Table 3. Referenced Documents
(a)
ASTM Designation
D 16-91
D 522-92
D 609-90
D 714-87
D 823-92a
D 1005-84 (Reapproved
1990)
D 1186-87
D 1308-87
D 2370-92
D 2486-89
D 2794-92
D 3359-92a
D 3363-92a
D 4060-90
D 4214-89
D 4541-85 {Reapproved
1989)
D 4708-92a
G 53-91
Title
Standard Terminology Relating to Paint, Varnish,
Lacquer, and Related Products
Standard Test Methods for Mandrel Bend Test of
Attached Organic Coatings
Standard Practice for Preparation of Cold-Rolled
Steel Panels for Testing Paint, Varnish, Conversion
Coatings, and Related Coating Products
Standard Test Method for Evaluating Degree of
Blistering of Paints
Standard Practices for Producing Films of Uniform
Thickness of Paint, Varnish, and Related Products
on Test Panels
Standard Test Method for Measurement of Dry-Film
Thickness of Organic Coatings Using Micrometers
Standard Test Methods for Nondestructive
Measurement of Dry Film Thickness of Nonmagnetic
Coatings Applied to a Ferrous Base
Standard Test Method for Effect of Household
Chemicals on Clear and Pigmented Organic Finishes
Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of
Organic Coatings
Standard Test Method for Scrub Resistance of
Interior Latex Flat Wall Paints
Standard Test Method for Resistance of Organic
Coatings to the Effects of Rapid Deformation
(Impact)
Standard Test Methods for Measuring Adhesion by
Tape Test
Standard Test Method for Film Hardness by Pencil
Test
Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of
Organic Coatings by the Taber Abraser
Standard Test Methods for Evaluating the Degree of
Chalking of Exterior Paint Films
Standard Test Methods for Pull-Off Strength of
Coatings Using Portable Adhesion Testers
Standard Practice for Preparation of Uniform Free
Films of Organic Coatings
Standard Practice for Operating Light- and Water-
Exposure Apparatus (Fluorescent UV- Condensation
Type) for Exposure of Nonmetallic Materials
(a) 1993 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
-------
• Dry Film Thickness (D 1005) - The thickness of the dried
encapsulant on a panel, or as a free film, was measured
using a hand-held or stationary micrometer.
• Tape Adhesion (D 3359) - The adhesion of the encapsulant
to a substrate was evaluated by applying pressure-
sensitive tape over an X-cut in the film of a coated
panel and removing the tape. The amount of film torn
from the panel was qualitatively assessed according to
the test protocol.
• Adhesion-Pull (D 4541) - The adhesion of the encapsulant
to a substrate was evaluated by securing a button (dolly)
to the surface of the coating and measuring the force
required by the testing apparatus to detach the button
from the panel.
• Scrub Resistance (D 2486) - The resistance of the
encapsulant to erosion caused by scrubbing was determined
by securing a coated black plastic panel over a shim in a
washability machine and scrubbing with a nylon bristle
brush and abrasive medium until failure occurred.
• Flexibility (D 522) - The resistance of the encapsulant
to cracking was determined by bending a coated metal
panel over a conical mandrel. The distance from the end
of the longest crack to the small end of the mandrel was
used to compute elongation.
• Impact Resistance (D 2794) - The resistance of the
encapsulant to cracking caused by direct impact was
measured by repeatedly dropping a standard weight onto
the coated surface of a sample panel, increasing the
height the weight dropped, until failure occurred.
• Dry Abrasion Resistance (D 4060) - The abrasion
resistance of the encapsulant was measured by rotating a
coated metal panel under weighted abrasive wheels. The
loss in weight after a specified number of abrasion
cycles or the cycles to failure was reported.
• Viscoelastic Properties (D 2370) - The elongation,
tensile strength, and stiffness of the encapsulant as a
free film were measured by means of a tensile testing
apparatus that elongated the film until it ruptured.
• Water Immersion (D 1308) - Coated panels were immersed in
water for 24 hours and then checked for degradation
effects such as blistering, loss of adhesion, and
softening. ASTM tests for blistering, pencil hardness,
and adhesion were conducted on the panels that were
immersed.
10
-------
Weathering (G 53) - Coated panels were alternately
exposed to ultraviolet light and then to condensation in
a repetitive cycle for a fixed period of time and then
checked for visible degradation effects. ASTM tests for
blistering, chalking, adhesion, flexibility, and scrub
resistance were conducted on the panels that were
weathered.
Blistering (D 714) - The degree of blistering that the
encapsulant developed after weathering or water immersion
was evaluated by qualitatively comparing the subjected
coated panels to photographic reference standards.
Chalking (D 4214) - The degree of chalking that the
encapsulant developed after weathering was measured by
qualitatively comparing a piece of fabric that had been
rubbed with medium pressure against the coated panel to
photographic reference standards.
Pencil Hardness (D 3363) - The film hardness of the
encapsulant was determined by pushing pencil leads with
various degrees of hardness against the coated panel and
determining the hardest pencil lead that would not gouge
the film.
In all cases, the study design included a basic set of eight
performance tests run on unexposed panels (i.e., not immersed in
water and not weathered) to evaluate dry film thickness, scrub
resistance, impact resistance, flexibility, dry abrasion,
adhesion, and viscoelastic properties. Adhesion was evaluated
for all products with a pull-off strength test (ASTM D 4541) ; and
in addition, for liquid products (i.e., those without a fabric,
mat, or mesh reinforcement) adhesion was evaluated with a tape
test (ASTM D 3359). The study design for all products also
included a basic set of five tests to evaluate blistering, pencil
hardness, and adhesion after 24 hours of immersion in distilled
water at 23° ± 2° C (73.4° + 3.6° F). Panels were tested 10-20
minutes and/or 2 hours after withdrawal from the water, depending
on the test. Once again, adhesion after water immersion was
evaluated for all products with the pull-off strength test, and
in addition for liquid products with the tape test.
11
-------
The major difference between the tests for interior products
listed in Table 1 and the tests for exterior products listed in
Table 2 was that a set of seven tests after weathering was
included in Table 2 for exterior products. This additional set
of tests evaluated blistering, chalking, adhesion, flexibility,
and scrub resistance after 1000 hours of alternating fluorescent
ultraviolet radiation in wavelengths between 315 nm and 400 nm
(UV-A) and condensation exposure. In this case the weathering
cycle was used to simulate deterioration caused by sunlight and
water. Sample panels (3 inches by 6 inches) were cycled in a
test chamber (as specified by ASTM G 53) for 1000 "hours. ASTM G
53 describes the test apparatus in detail. The two major U.S.
suppliers of these test chambers are Q-Panel Co., Cleveland, Ohio
and Atlas Electric Services Company, Chicago, Illinois. The
weathering cycle consisted of UV-A exposure at 340 nm peak
emission for four hours at 60°C, alternating with condensation
for four hours at 50°C. Panels were observed for visible changes
at 500 hours.
2.3 SELECTION OF ENCAPSULANT PRODUCTS
i
A representative set of 10 encapsulant products was chosen
for the test protocol evaluation. To determine this set of
products, an assessment was made of the range of encapsulant
product types currently available, and then different products
representing various use categories and various chemical and
physical formulations were selected for testing. In this way a
wide range of product types was presented to the ASTM protocols
to help determine where the test methods can provide reliable
performance data.
The first step in selection of a representative group of
liquid and reinforced encapsulant products for the current study
was to identify products commercially available in the U.S
architectural paint market. The products of interest in this
study were designed for encapsulating old leaded paint on
interior or exterior surfaces in residential units. A list of
12
-------
available encapsulant products for leaded paint was compiled from
materials provided by HUD and EPA, and from product listings and
advertisements in trade journals such as the Journal of
Protective Coatings and Linings, Modern Paints and Coatings, and
the Journal of Coating Technology. Additional products were
identified by direct contact with vendors and representatives of
the Steel Structures Painting Council at the 1993 Federation of
Societies for Coatings Technologies Annual Meeting and Paint
Industries Show. Current commercial status of products from all
these sources was verified by direct contact with the suppliers.
As shown in Table 4, a group was assembled of 36 commercial
encapsulant products which were supplied by 23 companies for use
as architectural coatings. This group includes most of the
products used for encapsulation of residential leaded paint which
were available in the U.S. in December, 1993 and is as complete a
listing as time and cost constraints of the current study
allowed.
The identified products were categorized as liquid or
reinforced coatings. For this study reinforced products were
defined as those that incorporate a fabric, mat (woven or non-
woven) , or mesh reinforcement with a polymeric or cementitious
coating. According to the manufacturer, a number of the
identified products could be applied with or without the
reinforcement. Therefore, when categorizing products in Table 4,
some products were essentially classified twice, once with a
reinforcing material, and once without. The liquid and
reinforced groups were further characterized in Table 4 by
primary use category because the ASTM protocols are different for
interior and exterior products. Some products can be used both
for interior or exterior applications, as noted in the table.
Table 4 also shows the wide range of product types currently
available. A variety of polymers and polymer combinations were
identified, and the reinforcing materials varied in chemical
composition and weave. Acrylic polymers were the most common in
residential encapsulants. However, epoxy, cementitious, hybrid
13
-------
(combinations of polymers), and other (considered proprietary)
types of coatings were also found. The physical properties of
the commercial encapsulant products varied between and within
generic types; for example, there were both flexible and rigid
products represented.
Table 4. Summary of Encapsulant Products Identified
Use Category
Liquid
Coatings
(Reinforced
Coatings
Interior
Exterior
Interior/
Exterior
Total
Generic Product Type
Acrylic
2
1
8
11
Interior
Exterior
Interior/
Exterior
Total
1
__
4
5
Epoxy
1
1
--
2
Hybrid*
--
--
3
3
1
--
--
1
1
--
1
2
Cement it ious
1
1
--
2
1
1
2
4
Other**
1
1
2
Total
4
4
12
20
3
--
1
4
7
1
8
16
* Combination of polymers
**Proprietary polymer
Products were selected for testing in this study to
represent the variety of use categories and product types
currently available. The reinforced products were selected as
much as possible to include a variety of reinforcement types.
However, the small number of reinforced products scheduled for
testing in this program placed limits on the selection process.
As shown in Table 5, 10 encapsulant products were selected,
including six liquid products and four reinforced products. The
reinforcing materials included polyester woven, polyester non-
woven, fiberglass woven, and fiberglass non-woven mats. The
structure and composition of the reinforcing mat could affect
performance. However, it was not possible in this study to draw
14
-------
conclusions about the effects of mat type on performance based on
this limited sample, because each of the reinforced product
systems differed from the others in both mat type and binder
type. Within the liquid and reinforced categories, the selected
encapsulants were evenly split between interior and exterior
products, and all generic types were represented. Products
designated "interior" for testing were randomly selected from a
group of products specified by the manufacturers as "interior use
only" or "interior/exterior use." Products designated "exterior"
for testing were randomly selected from a group of products
specified by the manufacturers as "exterior use only" or
"interior/exterior use." A number of products were represented
in both the interior and exterior selection pools. Interior
products were selected first. If an "interior/exterior use"
product was selected for testing as an "interior" product, it was
eliminated from the pool of products that could be selected as
"exterior." That way, no product could be selected for testing
in this program by both interior and exterior protocols.
As shown in Table 5, paint products and replicate
encapsulant products were also included in the study design to
help assess the accuracy and precision of the ASTM test methods.
Commercial paints were selected to represent high quality and low
quality interior and exterior paints available on the retail
market. One commercial paint manufacturer was drawn at random
from a group of five major paint manufacturers available
nationwide. All paints were purchased through a retail outlet
for this one selected manufacturer. In addition, within each
combination of general coating type (i.e., liquid versus
15
-------
Table 5. Encapsulants and Paints Selected for Testing
Use Category
Liquid
Coatings
Interior Encapsulants
Exterior Encapsulants
Interior Paints
Exterior Paints
Replicate Encapsulants
Total
Number
of Products
3
3
2
2
2
12
Generic Product Type
1 acrylic
1 hybrid*
1 other**
2 acrylics
1 hybrid*
1 acrylic
1 vinyl
1 acrylic
1 vinyl
1 interior type
1 exterior type
Reinforced
Coatings
Interior Encapsulants
Exterior Encapsulants
Replicate Encapsulants
Total
2
2
2
6
1 epoxy (polyester
non-woven mat)
1 acrylic (polyester
woven mat)
1 cementitious
(fiberglass woven
mat)
1 other** (fiberglass
non- woven mat)
1 interior type
1 exterior type
* Combination of polymers
**Proprietary polymer
reinforced) and general use category (i.e., interior versus
exterior), one product was randomly selected for replicate
testing. That is, two separate samples of each such replicate
product were sent to the laboratories as if they were entirely
different products. In this way the reproducibility of results
within each laboratory could be assessed.
All product samples were purchased in regular commercial
containers as supplied by the manufacturers. To prevent a
manufacturer from knowing that a purchase within the time frame
of this study meant that its product was being tested, product
16
-------
samples, technical literature, and Material Data Safety Sheets
(MSDSs) were acquired for more than the 10 products actually
selected for laboratory analysis. In this way the products
actually tested are not distinguishable to outside observers from
products that were purchased but never tested. The four
commercial paints were purchased directly from a local retail
outlet of a single major producer of architectural paints. The
selection of high and low quality paints was made on the
manufacturer's own designation of product line and corresponded
directly to retail price. Acrylic latex paints were selected as
high quality paints because they are the most common type of
high-quality architectural paint used on residential units in the
U.S. at this time. The low-quality interior paints were vinyl
latex, representing the bottom of the manufacturer's line. The
10 selected encapsulant products and four paints were cleared of
commercial identifying marks and labeled with three-character
Product ID Codes before shipment to the testing laboratories
along with the application instructions and product MSDSs. As
shown in Table 6, these codes correspond to each of the 18
specific products selected for testing.
Replicate products were purchased in separate containers and
shipped with separate product ID codes to the testing
laboratories. Product for replicates RN1 and RN2 arrived in a 5-
gallon container. Empty regular 1-gallon containers were
requested from the manufacturer and the 5-gallon container was
mixed and poured into five 1-gallon containers before shipment to
the laboratories.
2.4 TEST PLAN
The test plan for this study is summarized in Table 7, which
lists the number of tests run at each of the two testing
laboratories. The rationale for the design was as follows:
17
-------
Table 6. Product ID Codes for Encapsulants
and Paints Selected for Testing
Category
Liquid Exterior
Liquid Interior
Reinforced Exterior
Reinforced Interior
Product ID Code
LEI
LE2 (or HPE)
LE3
LE4
LE5
LE6 (or LPE)
LN1
LN2 (or HPI)
LN3
LN4 (or LPI)
LN5
LN6
RE1
RE2
RE3
RN1
RN2
RN3
Polymer and Reinforcement Type
Hybrid copolymer latex (acrylic
ester, vinyl, urethane)
Acrylic latex
(high-quality paint)
Acrylic latex
(replicate product)
Acrylic
Acrylic latex
(replicate product)
Vinyl latex
(low-quality paint)
Other
Acrylic latex
(high-quality paint)
Waterborne acrylic with primer
(replicate product)
Vinyl latex
(low-quality paint)
Waterborne acrylic with primer
(replicate product)
Hybrid
Cementitious
(fiberglass woven mat)
Acrylic and polyester composite
(fiberglass non- woven mat--
replicate product)
Acrylic and polyester composite
(fiberglass non-woven mat--
replicate product)
Acrylic (polyester woven mat--
replicate product)
Acrylic (polyester woven mat--
replicate product)
Epoxy (polyester non-woven mat)
18
-------
Table 7. Summary of the Number of Performance Tests Run
Number of Products
Number of Tests Per
Product:
Dry Film Thickness
Adhe s ion - Tape
Adhesion -Pull
Scrub Resistance
Flexibility
Impact Resistance
Dry Abrasion
Viscoelastic Properties
Water Immersion
Post -Immersion Adhesion-
Tape
Post -Immersion Adhesion-
Pull
Post- Immersion
Blistering
Post- Immersion Pencil
Hardness
Liquid Coatings
Interior
6
All 26 panels
3 locations on 1
panel
3 panels
3 panels
3 panels
4 panels
2 panels
10 films
Total 4 panels
3 locations on 1
panel
Other 3 panels
All 4 panels
2 locations on all
4 panels
Exterior
6
All 26 panels
3 locations on 1
panel
3 panels
3 panels
3 panels
4 panels
2 panels
10 films
Total 4 panels
3 locations on 1
panel
Other 3 panels
All 4 panels
2 locations on all
4 panels
Reinforced Coatings
Interior
3
All 25 panels
--
3 panels
3 panels
3 panels
4 panels
2 panels
10 films
Total 3 panels
--
All 3 panels
All 3 panels
2 locations on all
3 panels
Exterior
3
All 25 panels
--
3 panels
3 panels
3 panels
4 panels
2 panels
10 films
Total 3 panels
__
All 3 panels
All 3 panels
2 locations on
all 3 panels
-------
Table 7. Continued
Weathering
Post -Weathering
Adhesion-Tape
Post- Weathering
Adhesion -Pull
Post-Weathering Scrub
Resistance
Post -Weathering
Flexibility
Post-Weathering
Blistering
Post -Weather ing Chalking
Total Number of Panels
per Product
Total Number of Tests
per Product
Total Number of Panels
(615)
Total Number of Tests
(1047)
Liquid Coatings
Interior
--
--
--
--
--
--
30
46
180
276
Exterior
Total 10 panels
3 locations on 1
panel
3 panels
3 panels
3 panels
All 10 panels
All 10 panels
40
78
240
468
Reinforced Coatings
Interior
_ _
--
--
--
--
--
--
28
37
84
111
Exterior
Total 9 panels
--
3 panels
3 panels
3 panels
All 9 panels
All 9 panels
37
64
111
192
10
o
-------
• To provide test results on a broad range of coatings, 14
products, as well as 4 replicate products, in four major
categories were tested; the breakdown of these products
by use category and generic type was presented previously
in Table 5.
• To assess the variability in test results between
laboratories, the entire testing design in Table 7 was
performed by two independent laboratories.
• To assess variability within a single product due to
batch-to-batch differences in laboratory performance and
product formulation, the entire set of tests was
replicated for one encapsulant product picked at random
from each of the four major categories.
• To assess variability within a single laboratory and test
protocol, at least two replicate tests were performed for
each product. Generally, the number of tests per product
listed in Table 7 corresponds to the minimum number of
replicates recommended in the corresponding ASTM
protocol.
• Testing of paint products was performed to provide a
benchmark for comparison with encapsulant test results.
Both high and low quality interior and exterior paints
were tested to provide a range of results for this
comparison.
All testing was performed by the Center for Applied
Engineering (CAE) in St. Petersburg, Florida and Professional
Service Industries (PSI) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In the
past five years CAE conducted over a dozen coatings technology
projects involving the testing of coatings on substrates such as
aluminum coil stock, cement board, hand railings, and building
materials. During that same time PSI conducted nine projects,
ranging in duration from one month to two years, that involved
testing of coated panels using many of the same ASTM protocols
included in this encapsulant testing program. Staff at CAE and
PSI include polymer chemists and testing specialists with
experience ranging from one year to well over ten years in the
testing of various paints and other coatings.
21
-------
2.5 TEST PANEL SELECTION AND PREPARATION
This section discusses the metal and plastic panels used for
testing, as well as application of the coatings to the panels
prior to testing. Of particular interest in this section are
discussions of problems encountered with the panels during
preparation and testing.
2.5.1 Panel Selection
Test panel selection was generally based on specification of
the individual ASTM E06.23.30 tests as of December, 1993 and the
test method performance data desired by EPA. Table' 8 lists the
type of panel selected for each test. Several technical issues
concerning panel selection arose during the testing. These are
discussed in detail test by test. The main issues considered
during the initial panel type selection process were test
specifications, adhesion, rusting, and availability. ASTM
E06.23.30 determined that metal panels generally provided the
most uniform and consistent substrate which was readily
available.
Adhesion of the products to the sample panel was important
to the results of all tests. The encapsulant products are
generally not formulated for maximum adhesion to metal
substrates. These products are primarily used for covering
previously painted surfaces in residential dwellings. Lack of
adhesion of a coating to the metal surface of the sample panel
might, or might not, provide information about adhesion to
previously painted surfaces. Flash rusting during panel
preparation, as well as rusting in the weathering cycle and the
water immersion test, were of concern in panel selection. Many
of the commercial encapsulant products tested in this study were
waterborne coatings so flash rusting during panel preparation was
a possibility where metal panels were required.
Panels readily available on the commercial market are
generally more cost effective and less variable than custom
panels. The tin-plated panel favored for eliminating rust
concerns was commercially available at a reasonable cost per
22
-------
panel in only one thickness, 0.01 inches. However, this
thickness was inadequate to resist deformation during the pull
adhesion test (ASTM D 4541). Also, some pin-point rust was seen
by CAE after at least one batch of tin-plated steel panels had
been coated with product. The panels had passed a visual quality
check by the laboratory before use.
Commercial panels for dry abrasion testing (ASTM D 4060)
were steel, so flash rusting could occur with waterborne
coatings. Zinc phosphate treatment or use of a panel primer
could control flash rusting and potentially improve adhesion on
the steel panels. ASTM E06.23.30 currently allows use of a
specialty primer for the dry abrasion test. A zinc-phosphate
treated steel panel was used for the flexibility test (ASTM D
522). This panel did not flash rust or rust during weathering.
Zinc-phosphate treated steel panels are available commercially in
a variety of thicknesses.
Adhesion to the metal panels selected for testing was not
good in some cases. For example, products RE2 and RES, which
were acrylic and polyester composites, did not adhere well to the
tin-plated steel panels. In some cases, gentle handling of the
prepared panels was sufficient to pop RE2 and RE3 off the test
panel. In addition, several products had such poor adhesion
during pull adhesion testing (ASTM D 4541) that the dollies
pulled the coating off the panels during normal handling. Use of
specialty primers would be one approach to improving the adhesion
of encapsulant products to test panels.
2.5.2 Panel Preparation
In this study, panels were used "as received" from the
vendors. No priming or polishing was done to improve adhesion
unless the primer was always a recommended part of the
encapsulant system. Products LN6 and RN3 are two-coat systems
that identify the first coat as a primer. Each laboratory
prepared its own sample panels according to the specified
application .method, film thickness, and dry/cure time for each
product which were based on manufacturer recommendations. Panels
23
-------
were prepared and dried under the same standard conditions in
both laboratories. Minor variations in preparation technique
from one laboratory to the other is representative of real-world
conditions. Each product was applied at the wet or dry film
thickness recommended by the manufacturer because this product
thickness should represent the best performance properties of the
product. Current commercial encapsulants are recommended for
application at a wide range of dry film thicknesses from as thin
as 3 mils to as thick as 200 mils.
Table 8. Panel Type Used in This Study With Each ASTM Test
Test Method
Scrub Resistance (D 2486)
Impact Resistance (D 2794)
Dry Abrasion Resistance (D 4060)
Viscoelastic Properties (D 2370)
Weathering (G 53)
Flexibility (D 522)
Post- Immersion Blistering
(D 714)
Water Immersion (D 1308)
Post -Immersion Tape Adhesion
(D 3359)
Post -Immersion Pencil Hardness
(D 3363)
Post -Weathering Chalking
(D 4214)
Pull Adhesion (D 4541)
Panel Type
Black plastic
Zinc phosphate treated
cold-rolled steel
S-16 specimen plates
Free films, silicone
release paper
Tin-plated steel
Tin-plated steel
Tin-plated steel
Tin-plated steel
Tin-plated steel
Tin-plated steel
Tin-plated steel
Tin-plated steel
Thickness/
inch
N/A
.032
4 in. sq.
N/A
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
As shown in Table 9, a target dry film thickness was
recommended for each coat separately. Commercial paints were
applied at a dry film thickness of 6±1 mils. Product
instructions for reinforced products were not clear as to what
effect the thickness of the reinforcing materials would have on
24
-------
Table 9. Application Parameters for Panel Preparation
Product
Code
LEI
HPE
LE3
LE4
LE5
LPE
LN1
HPI
LN3
LN4
LN5
LN6
RE1
RE2
RE3
RN1
RN2
RN3
Number of
Coats (a)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Application
Method
Drawdown
Drawdown
Drawdown
Drawdown
Drawdown
Drawdown
Drawdown
Drawdown
Drawdown
Drawdown
Drawdown
Drawdown
Trowel
Drawdown
Drawdown
Drawdown
Drawdown
Drawdown
Pot Life(b)
hrs , ambient
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 hrs
3 hrs
3 hrs
4 hrs
4 hrs
4 hrs
Coat #1
Dry Film
Thickness
Range,
mils
6±1
6±1
6±1
7±1
6±1
6±1
6±1
6±1
6±1
6±1
6±1
6±1
65±25
10±5
10±5
10±2
10±2
3±1(0
Dry/Cure
or Recoat
Time,
hrs
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
4
20-40 min
3 hrs
3 hrs
1
1
24
Coat #2
Dry Film
Thickness
Range ,
mils
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6±1
N/A
6±1
6±1
65±25
10±5
10±5
10±2
10±2
2.5±0.5
Dry /Cure
Time
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
14 days
N/A
14 days
14-30 days
24 hrs
3 hrs
3 hrs
24 hrs
24 hrs
7 days
10
en
(a) If product was applied in two coats, the thickness of the first coat was measured before
application of the second coat.
(b) Useful life of product after opening container.
(c) Applied as two thin layers one hour apart.
-------
the final system thickness. Table 10 shows the target range of
system thickness for each product based on the number of coats,
thickness of the coats, and presence of reinforcement. Multi-
coat products and products including a reinforcing mat had a
larger expected range. In some cases, the thickness of the mat
was directly additive to the thickness of the coatings. In other
cases with porous mats, the presence of a reinforcing material
added some thickness to the product system but not a thickness
equal to the thickness of the reinforcing material. Products
incorporating reinforcing materials were more difficult to
prepare in a uniform thickness across the panel. -Sample panels
for the trowel-applied product (RE1) were much thicker than any
of the other products and less uniform in thickness across the
panel than sample panels of products applied by drawdown.
The dry/cure time for each product was based on the
manufacturer's recommendations (Table 9). However, in three
cases impact tests at PSI were run before the full cure time
recommended: LN3 panels were tested after 7 days rather than the
full 15 day period; LN5 panels were tested after 10 days rather
than the full 15 day period; LN6 panels were tested after 6 days
rather than the full 14-30 day range. It should also be noted
that this discrepancy did not appear to significantly affect the
impact resistance testing results for these three products (see
Figure 14 of Section 4.8).
As shown in the last two columns of Table 10, some problems
were encountered with preparing systems to the specified
thickness. The most significant problems are highlighted below:
• For product LE4 (acrylic liquid exterior encapsulant)
tested at CAE, 13 of 42 system thicknesses were out of
the range and all were too thin;
• For the trowel applied cementitious product RE1 tested at
CAE, 29 of 38 system thicknesses were out of the range
and all were too thick;
26
-------
Table 10. Product System Target Thickness
Product
Code
LEI
HPE
LE3
LE4
LE5
LPE
LN1
HPI
LN3
LPI
LN5
LN6
RE1
RE2
RE3
RN1
RN2
RN3
TOTAL
Number
of Coats
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Application
Method
Draw- Down
Draw- Down
Draw- Down
Draw- Down
Draw- Down
Draw- Down
Draw- Down
Draw- Down
Draw- Down
Draw- Down
Draw -Down
Draw- Down
Trowel
Draw-Down
Draw-Down
Draw- Down
Draw- Down
Draw-Down
Thickness (mils)
Mat
15±1
6+1
6±1
5±1
5±1
6±1
Coat 1
6±1
6±1
6±1
7±1
6±1
6±1
6±1
6±1
6±1
6±1
6±1
6±1
65±25
10±5
10±5
10±2
10±2
3±1
Coat 2
--
6±1
6±1
6+1
65±25
10±5
10±5
10±2
10+2
3+1
Target
Range
(mils)
5-7
5-7
5-7
6-8
5-7
5-7
5-7
5-7
10-14
5-7
10-14
10-14
80-196*
10-37*
10-37*
16-30*
16-30*
5-15*
No. of Results in Range
CAE
42/42
42/42
39/42
29/42
41/42
42/42
32/32
32/32
32/32
32/32
31/32
31/32
9/38
38/38
37/38
29/29
29/29
25/29
592/643
PSI
32/41
41/41
31/41
25/41
36/41
38/41
31/31
29/30
32/32
17/31
28/31
31/31
37/37
38/38
38/38
27/28
29/29
10/29
550/617
to
*The thickness of the reinforcing mat may, or may not, add directly to the final product system thickness so
targets allow for a possible range.
-------
• For product LE4 (acrylic liquid exterior encapsulant)
tested at PSI, 16 of 41 system thicknesses were out of
the range, both on the thin and thick sides;
• For product LPI (vinyl latex, low quality interior paint)
tested at PSI, 14 of 31 system thicknesses were out of
the range and all were too thick;
• For product RN3 (epoxy reinforced interior encapsulant)
tested at PSI, 19 of 29 system thicknesses were out of
the range and all were too thick.
Although system thickness was not a performance property in and
of itself, differences in thickness can affect the results of
several ASTM tests discussed later.
28
-------
3.0 DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH
Because this was a pilot testing program, information was
collected at two different levels. First, a qualitative
assessment was made of the feasibility of using the targeted ASTM
test protocols on this set of new encapsulant products. And
second, quantitative statistical analyses were performed on the
testing results whenever possible, that is, whenever a sufficient
number of results could be collected.
3.1 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF TEST METHODS
Encapsulants for leaded paint represent a very broad range
of coatings. Some encapsulants are much like paint and other
\
architectural coatings; however, other encapsulants, like
reinforced and cementitious products, are quite different from
these coatings. Therefore, while the performance of ASTM test
protocols with standard coatings is relatively well documented,
the ability of these protocols to test other encapsulants is
still very much in question.
As a result, this study first evaluated the practical
viability of the ASTM protocols for testing encapsulants. Each
test protocol was examined on two levels: (1) could the test
method be successfully performed as proposed, and (2) did the
test results provide information that could be used to establish
a reliable level of performance for encapsulants?
A number of technical challenges were encountered in
completing the standard ASTM test methods with the diverse
product group being tested. Product physical and chemical
properties, panel thickness, panel selection, equipment
limitations, and proposed test parameters affected the
laboratory's ability to perform the test protocols. Each test
method had to be considered not only individually but also in
combination with other protocols as proposed by the ASTM
E06.23.30 Task Group. Combinations of tests sometimes resulted
in practical problems. For example, scrub resistance testing
could be run according to ASTM D 2486 on unexposed panels.
29
-------
However, the same test produced several technical challenges in
evaluating panels after the weathering cycle. The commercial
black plastic test panels were too large to fit in the weathering
test chamber sample holders, and also deformed in the heat. The
technical issues encountered with conducting each test method are
discussed in detail test by test in Chapter 4.
A second qualitative assessment concerned whether or not the
test results provided information useful in establishing
performance requirements or grouping encapsulant product systems.
Did the proposed test provide repeatable data that could be used
to distinguish among different encapsulant and paint products?
For example, the tape adhesion test (ASTM D 3359) had a limited
ability to differentiate among products. Most liquid products
had similar ratings on the 0-5 test scale and the test was not
usable on the reinforced products. Performance of the
encapsulant systems on each test is also discussed in detail test
by test in Chapter 4.
3.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS
As the initial step in the data analysis, descriptive
statistics were calculated for all of the test results. The
summary statistics included the total number of tests performed;
.the number of missing data; the minimum, maximum, and mean result
obtained; and the standard deviation of the measurements. The
summary statistics were calculated across all appropriate
groupings of the data. For each test these groupings included
(1) across replicate test panels, (2) across replicate
encapsulant products, and (3) across the two testing
laboratories. In addition, the data were grouped across
different coatings within the liquid and reinforced categories.
Detailed statistical analyses of the test results were also
performed related to each of the following objectives:
30
-------
• Compare the test results with current ASTM E06.23.30
standards to help assess the appropriateness of those
standards.
• Assess differences in test results between the two
testing laboratories.
• Assess differences in the test results within a single
laboratory for replicate test panels and between
replicate encapsulants.
• Assess the ability of each test method to distinguish
among groupings of products.
In many cases the test results were evaluated with formal
statistical testing procedures. However, in some cases, such as
when comparing the test results against the ASTM E06.23.30
standards and when assessing differences between the two
laboratories, the evaluation was based on simple comparisons,
rather than formal testing, of the statistical results.
For each of the quantitative test results (e.g., dry
abrasion, pull adhesion, flexibility), an analysis of variance
model was fitted to the data to estimate differences between the
different types of coatings, as well as to estimate variability
between replicate test panels. The statistical model has the
following form:
for
i = 1,...,12 liquid coatings (or 6 reinforced coatings)
j = 1,...,J replicate tests (from 2-5 replicates, see
Table 7)
where
Ti:: = test result measured for the i-th coating and the j -
th replicate test panel
a; = overall average test result across all coatings and
panels
31
-------
fixed effect for the i-th coating which is defined as
the difference between the average test result for
all coatings and the average test result for the i-th
coating
= random effect for variability among replicate
test panels; assumed to follow a normal
distribution with mean zero and standard
deviation oc
In the analysis a separate model was fitted for the test
results from each of the two laboratories and for the liquid
versus reinforced coatings (i.e., four data groupings). In the
model, a corresponds to the average result from all tests run
within each of the four data groupings. The term C± allows for a
different average test result for each product, and the term e^
accounts for variability among test results repeated for a single
product on more than one test panel.
The statistical models were fitted to the data for each type
of test using the SAS® general linear models procedure (PROC
GLM). Results from the model fit include point estimates for the
fixed model parameter a, as well as for the replicate test panel
variance component ae. In addition, a shotgun F-test was run to
determine if any of the product means was significantly different
from the others, and the following contrasts and comparisons were
computed:
• Contrast jointly comparing the average test results
between the replicate encapsulants
[LE3 - LE5] , [LN3 - LN5]
• Contrast comparing the average encapsulant test result
with the average paint result
- I LEI + LE3+ LE4 + LE5 + LN1 + LN3 + -H^ + LN6 -1 [LE2 + LE6 + LN2 + LN41]
6 2 2 222
32
-------
• Multiple pairwise comparisons of all product means, to
determine if each test appears capable of distinguishing
among groups of products.
For each of these contrasts and comparisons tests of statistical
significance were also performed and reported, and results which
were significant at the 5% and 1% levels were highlighted. Note
that for the first contrast listed, an analogous expression was
used for the replicate reinforced products. Also, note that for
the second contrast listed above, the expression shown applies to
non-weathering tests run on all 12 liquid products. An analogous
expression involving just the 6 liquid exterior products was used
for the weathering test results.
Estimation of the replicate test panel variance component
and the contrast comparing average test results between replicate
encapsulant products was used to help meet the third quantitative
analysis objective of assessing test results within a single
laboratory. Estimation of the contrast comparing the average
encapsulant test result with the average paint result, as well as
the multiple pairwise comparisons analysis and shotgun F-test,
were performed to help meet the fourth quantitative objective of
assessing whether each test method was able to distinguish among
groupings of products.
Assessment of Performance Standards
Ultimately, performance standards will have to be
established for a selected set of tests which measure important
physical properties of encapsulants. The performance standard
for a particular test will be a predetermined value which the
testing results for a given coating product must equal or exceed
so that the product may be classified as an approved encapsulant.
For example, ASTM E06.23.30 has proposed a draft standard of 1200
cycles for the scrub resistance test when used to evaluate liquid
encapsulants. This means that if a product is tested with the
scrubbing protocol and lasts 1200 cycles or more without wearing
33
-------
through to the substrate, then it passes the scrub test, which is
one of several tests that a product must pass to become an
approved encapsulant.
ASTM Task Group E06.23.30 has been working for several
months to reach consensus on a set of minimum performance
standards for liquid encapsulants, and their findings are
currently moving through the ASTM approval process (2.) . ASTM
E06.23.30 has also been working on a set of draft standards for
reinforced encapsulants, but these standards have not yet been
agreed upon by the Task Group (3_) even in draft form. The
results from this current EPA study provide a wealth of
information to help assess the appropriateness of the ASTM
standards.
This report helps assess the ASTM standards by summarizing
for each test the number of encapsulant and paint products which
passed the ASTM standard. In addition, where appropriate,
interesting trends are noted about the kinds of products which
did not pass the standard. This assessment is more qualitative
than statistical. And, it is not intended to assess individual
products, but rather to help assess how the standards have been
set relative to the range of testing results that might be
expected from future testing at other laboratories. Since this
EPA study included only a limited number of encapsulant and paint
products, the test results can not provide an accurate evaluation
of the number and types of products which are likely to pass the
standard in the future.
Assessment of Laboratory Differences
One common source of variability that can affect the testing
results is related to differences introduced by the laboratory
conducting the tests. Numerous factors can affect laboratory
performance including equipment, staff experience and training,
and internal quality assurance procedures. Ideally, this source
of variability would be assessed by conducting identical tests on
the same products at several different laboratories. However,
34
-------
limited resources for this pilot study limited the number of
laboratories to two. Therefore, the assessment of laboratory
differences was addressed by independently analyzing the data for
each laboratory, and then simply qualitatively comparing the
statistical findings. If more laboratories had been included,
then an additional variance component could have been added to
the statistical model and estimated.
Assessment of Variability Within a Single Laboratory
Within a single laboratory, one common source of testing
variability is related to differences introduced through test
panel preparation and then measurement of the physical properties
associated with each panel. In this study this source of
variability is called measurement variability. A second common
source of testing variability is related to differences
introduced by the chemical formulation of the specific product
sample that is tested. In this study this second source of
variability is called replicate product variability.
. Measurement variability was generally estimated in this
study by testing two or more panels or free films that were all
prepared using the same product sample. This variability was
statistically quantified by the replicate test panel variance
component a£. The one exception to this approach was tape
adhesion testing where the three replicate tests were performed
on a single test panel. Replicate product variability was
estimated by testing two different sets of panels that were
prepared with two different samples of the same product. This
second source of variability was statistically quantified by the
first contrast listed above. Interpretation of the estimates of
measurement variability and replicate product variability
involved testing the statistical significance of the estimates to
determine whether these sources of variability were significantly
different from zero or not.
35
-------
Assessment of Whether the Test Methods are Able to
Distinguish Among Groupings of Products
Clearly, the most important function of the encapsulant
testing protocols is to simply determine which products can pass
minimum performance standards. However, from a statistical point
of view, tests which also have the ability to distinguish among
different groupings of products may provide a more sensitive
measure of performance. Therefore, the shotgun P-test, the
second contrast listed above, and the multiple comparisons
analysis were performed to see which tests might be able to
distinguish groupings of products.
The shotgun F-test examined the null hypothesis that the
average test results for all of the pro'ducts tested were equal,
versus the alternative hypothesis that the average test result
for at least one product was different. When the null hypothesis
was accepted, this was an indication that the test could not
distinguish among the results for any of the products, and that
therefore no groupings among products could be found. However,
when the null hypothesis was rejected this indicated that some
groupings were possible, and the multiple comparisons analysis
was performed to find those groupings.
The purpose of estimating the second contrast was to help
see whether the liquid encapsulants, when taken as a group, could
be distinguished through the test results from the paints taken
as a group. However, it should be noted that even if the average
encapsulant test result was different from the average paint
result, it could be that test results for some encapsulants were
still quite similar to test results for some paints. That is, in
some cases two groups can not be unambiguously distinguished,
even if their average test results are different. Interpretation
of the encapsulant versus paint contrast first involved judging
its statistical significance. If the contrast was found to be
significant, this indicated that the average encapsulant test
result was significantly different from the average paint test
result. If this was the case, the magnitude of the estimated
36
-------
contrast could be examined to see how large the differences
between encapsulants and paints typically were.
Analysis of Semi-Quantitative and Qualitative Results
As a first approximation the following semi-quantitative or
qualitative test results were receded to a numerical scale and
analyzed as if they were true quantitative results:
• Tape adhesion ratings OA to 5A were receded to numerical
scale 0-5 where the value 0 represents complete
separation of the coating from the panel, while the value
5 represents no loss of coating.
• Blistering ratings 0 to 10 representing the size of
blisters were assumed to represent numerical scale 0-10;
however, the value 10 represents no blisters, while the
value 0 represents very large blisters. Also, the letter
designations indicating the number of blisters were not
considered in the statistical analysis.
• Chalking ratings 0 to 10 were assumed to represent
numerical scale 0-10; however, the value 10 represents no
chalking, while the value 0 represents the greatest
degree of chalking.
• Pencil hardness ratings 6B to 6H were receded to
numerical scale 0-13 where the values 6B and 0 represent
the softest coatings, while the values 6H and 13
represent the hardest coatings.
These first approximations implicitly assume a linear increase
between successive semi-quantitative or qualitative ratings. For
example, the change in coating hardness from 6B to 5B is assumed
to be the same as the change in hardness between all other
successive ratings, such as 5H to 6H. This assumption was made
for statistical purposes only. These relationships have not been
quantified in the laboratory. In addition, although non-
parametric statistical procedures might also have been used to
analysis these results, the data were judged quantitative enough
to be analyzed with parametric methods.
37
-------
4.0 STUDY RESULTS
This section presents the results of the encapsulant pilot
testing program. In the first subsection data completeness is
addressed in terms of meeting the data quality objective listed
in Section 2.1. Then, qualitative and quantitative assessments
are made of each ASTM test protocol in turn.
4.1 OVERALL DATA COMPLETENESS
The data quality objective for this program was to obtain
95% data completeness across the battery of ASTM tests listed in
Section 2.4. In most cases, actual quantitative measurements
were reported by the laboratories. However, realizing that this
was a pilot testing program subjecting encapsulation products to
ASTM protocols for perhaps the first time, there were several
cases in which quantitative measurements could not be obtained
because the ASTM test could not be conducted as designed. In
those cases the laboratories reported information on the problems
encountered conducting the tests, and those instances were
recorded as cases where the laboratories were "unable to test"
the products. These cases are considered as valid test results
in this study, and are distinguished from cases of "missing
results" where data may have been lost, miscalculated, etc.
Table 11 summarizes overall data completeness for this
study, as well as data completeness for each test separately.
The number of results expected from each laboratory is first
listed, followed by a tabulation of the number of valid results
obtained and the number of results missing. As noted above, the
number of valid results is differentiated into the number of
"measured data" versus the number of cases which the laboratory
was "unable to test." In all cases the data completeness figures
are also broken down by laboratory.
The overall data completeness achieved in this study was
96.4%, and consisted of 3674 measured data (excluding 46 extra
dry film thicknesses which were reported) and 133 cases which the
laboratories were unable to test. This data completeness
38
-------
Table 11. Summary of Data Completeness
Test Type
Dry Film Thickness
Tape Adhesion
Unexposed panels
Immersed panels
Weathered panels
Pull Adhesion
Unexposed panels
10 min. after immersion
120 min. after immersion
Weathered panels
Scrub Resistance
Unexposed panels
Weathered panels
Flexibility
Unexposed panels
Weathered panels
Impact Resistance
Unexposed panels
Dry Abrasion Resistance
Unexposed panels
Endpoint
Loss at 1000 cycles
Loss at endpoint
Wear index
Number of
Results
Expected
per Lab
615
36
36
18
54
36
18
27
54
27
54
27
18
36
36
36
36
Number of Valid Results
Measured Data
CAB
6431
36
36
18
54
33
16
25
53
22
51
21
18
34
36
34
34
PSI
6172
34
36
9
51
--
--
26
54
10
51
23
18
34
34
34
34
Unable to Test
CAB
--
--
--
--
--
3
2
2
1
5
3
6
--
--
--
--
—
PSI
--
2
--
9
3
36
18
1
--
17
3
4
--
--
1
--
--
Number of
Missing Results
CAB
2
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
2
--
2
2
PSI
14
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
2
1
2
2
U)
VD
-------
Table 11. Continued
Test Type
Viscoelastic Properties
Unexposed films
Tensile strength
Elongation
Stiffness
Blistering
Immersed panels
Weathered panels
Chalking
Weathered panels
Pencil Hardness
Unexposed panels
10 min. after immersion
120 min. after immersion
Total
Number of
Results
Expected
per Lab
90
90
90
66
87
87
144
96
60
1974
Number of Valid Results
Measured Data
CAB
90
90
85
65
87
86
142
96
56
19613
PSZ
89
89
84
66
87
87
36
96
60
17593
Unable to Test
CAB
--
--
4
1
--
1
2
--
4
34
PSI
--
--
5
--
--
--
--
--
--
99
Number of
Missing Results
CAE
--
--
1
--
--
--
--
--
--
9
PSI
1
1
1
108
--
--
132
18 extra panels (1 panel per product) were prepared to complete the unexposed pencil hardness test,
and 12 extra panels. (1 panel per liquid product) were prepared to complete the immersed pencil
hardness test, yielding a total of 30 extra dry film thickness results.
16 extra panels (across 15 different products) were prepared and measured, but were not used for other
testing, yielding a total of 16 extra dry film thickness results.
Includes extra dry film thickness results.
-------
exceeded the 95% data quality objective. Both laboratories were
able to supply approximately the same number of test results,
although PSI experienced a higher number of cases where they were
unable to test, as well as a higher number of missing results.
The most significant testing problem experienced by PSI was
related to the pencil hardness test for unexposed panels where
they misunderstood the study design and neglected to test
unexposed panels for hardness. Among the various tests, pull
adhesion resulted in the highest number of cases which were
unable to test, particularly when run in combination with water
immersion. Scrub resistance run after weathering, as well as
flexibility, also resulted in several cases which were unable to
test. Where appropriate, additional discussion of testing
difficulties for different products is provided in the following
sections on individual test results.
4.2 OVERALL SUMMARY STATISTICS
As discussed earlier, the initial step in the data analysis
was to calculate various summary statistics which are presented
in Table 12. Note that these results do not necessarily
differentiate potentially important differences between
laboratories, between individual products, nor between replicate
products. In this table the data are pooled and equally weighted
within only two broad categories, liquid versus reinforced
coatings.
The number of data (N) included in each set of calculations
corresponds to the number of valid measured data presented
earlier in Table 11, although in Table 12 these numbers are
broken down by liquid versus reinforced coatings, while in Table
11 the numbers are broken down by laboratory. The minimum (Min)
and maximum (Max) observed results provide a measure of the range
in the data, while the mean provides a measure of the central
tendency. The standard deviation (Std. Dev.) quantifies the
spread in the data, and is also presented as a percentage of the
mean (in parentheses). Note that for some tests (e.g., adhesion,
41
-------
Table 12. Summary Statistics for ASTM Test Results
Test Type
Dry Film Thickness (mils)
Tape Adhesion (0-5 rating)
Unexposed panels
Immersed panels
Weathered panels
Pull Adhesion (psi)
Unexposed panels
10 min. after immersion
120 min. after immersion
Weathered panels
Scrub Resistance (cycles)
Unexposed panels
Weathered panels
Flexibility
(crack length inches)
Unexposed panels
Weathered panels
Impact Resistance
(inch-lbs.)
Unexposed panels
Dry Abrasion Resistance
Unexposed panels
Endpoint (cycles)
Loss at 1000 cycles (g)
Loss at endpoint (g)
Wear index (g/1000
cycles)
Viscoelastic Properties
Free films
Tensile strength (psi)
Elongation (%)
Stiffness (psi)
Blistering (0-10 rating)
Immersed panels
Weathered panels
Liquid Coatings
N
861
70
72
27
72
23
11
35
72
16
72
36
24
48
47
48
48
119
119
109
96
120
Min
4.0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
154
4031
0
0
24
600
0.07
0.22
0.04
121
1
10
0
2
Max
15.0
5
5
5
700
500
500
600
5000
5000
0.43
1.94
160
5000
0.55
1.33
0.59
2131
1091
908
10
10
Mean
7.3
4
3
5
200
200
300
200
3846
4914
0.24
0.16
116
3238
0.21
0.59
0.22
580
171
233
6
10
Std. Dev.
(% of Mean)
2.5(34%)
1.6(40%)
2.4(80%)
1.3(26%)
158(79%)
146(73%)
169(56%)
166(83%)
1597(42%)
256(5%)
0.08(33%)
0.48(300%)
51(44%)
1346(42%)
0.09(43%)
0.19(32%)
0.11(50%)
408(70%)
194(113%)
212(91%)
3.5(58%)
1.8(18%)
Reinforced Coatings
N
399
--
33
10
5
16
35
16
30
8
12
20
23
20
20
60
60
60
35
54
Min
11.6
'
0
0
200
0
5000
5000
0
3
16
5000
0.01
0.06
0.01
812
1
436
10
10
Max
343.5
--
500
500
400
290
5000
5000
6.0
6.0
160
5000
0.23
0.95
0.19
7378
30
7000
10
10
Mean
51.1
--
200
200
300
0
5000
5000
1.8
4.5
87
5000
0.14
0.52
0.10
3366
10
2101
10
10
Std. Dev.
(% of Mean)
75.1(147%)
--
135(68%)
151(76%)
71(24%)
99(--)
0(0%)
0(0%)
2.4(133%)
0(0%)
70(80%)
0(0%)
0.06(43%)
0.22(42%)
0.04(40%)
1547(46%)
8(80%)
1748(83%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
to
-------
Table 12. Continued
Test Type
Chalking (0-10 rating)
Weathered panels
Pencil Hardness
(0-13 rating)
Unexposed panels
10 min. after immersion
120 min. after immersion
Liquid Coatings
N
119
120
144
94
Min
6
2
0
0
Max
10
7
9
13
Mean
8
6
0
2
Std. Dev.
(X of Mean)
0.9(11%)
1.0(17%)
1.3<-->
2.4(120%)
Reinforced Coatings
N
54
58
48
22
Min
6
4
0
0
Max
10
13
13
13
Mean
8
9
8
7
Std. Oev.
(% of Mean)
1.1(14%)
3.8(42%)
6.0(75%)
6.2(89%)
U)
-------
scrub resistance, dry abrasion end point) better performance is
indicated by larger data values, while for other tests (e.g.,
flexibility, dry abrasion weight loss and wear index) better
performance is indicated by smaller data values.
In order to provide most of the statistical results at one
location for easy reference in this report, Table 13 is also
presented in this section. This table lists most of the results
from fitting statistical models to the data (see Section 3.2 for
additional details on the statistical models). Specifically, the
following estimates are shown in Table 13 for each laboratory
separately:
A
• the estimated mean (a)
A
• the estimated measurement variability (cr€) , also
expressed as a percentage of the mean
• the p-value for the shotgun F-test, which indicates
whether any of the product means was significantly
different from the others
• the estimated contrast (Encap. vs. Paint), which compares
the average encapsulant result with the average paint
result
• the estimated contrast (Ext. Reps), which compares the
average results for the two replicate exterior
encapsulant products
• the estimated contrast (Int. Reps), which compares the
average results for the two replicate interior
encapsulant products.
In this table significant results (5% significance level) are
indicated by one star () and highly significant results (1%
significance level) by two stars (). It should also be noted
that the test of equality for the replicate products is a joint
test which considers together the differences between both the
exterior and interior replicates. Therefore, this test will
prove significant if either both sets of replicates are
different, or if one of the two sets of replicates is highly
different.
44
-------
Table 13. Statistical Modeling Results
Test
Type
Dry Film Thickness (mils)
Tape Adhesion
(0-5 rating)
Unexposed panels
Immersed panels
Weathered Panels
Pull Adhesion (psi)
Unexposed panels
10 min. after immersion
120 min. after immersion
Weathered panels
Scrub Resistance (cycles)
Unexposed panels
Weathered panels
Flexibility
(crack length inches)
Unexposed panels
Weathered panels
Impact Resistance
(inch-lbs.)
Unexposed panels
Lab
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
Liquid Coatings
Mean
7.0
7.7
5
4
4
2
5
4
300
140
200
--
300
--
300
170
3459
4232
4894
5000
0.02
0.03
0.28
0.05
128
104
Measurement
Variability
{% of Mean)1
0.6(8%)
1.0(13%)
0(0%)
0.2(5%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
141(47%)
45(32%)
111(56%)
--
--.
--
137(46%)
52(31%)
259(7%)
414(10%)
109(2%)
0(0%)
0.02(100%)
0.02(67%)
0.10(36%)
0.16(320%)
--
--
F-test
Product
Means
.0001**
.0001**
--
.0001**
--
--
--
--
.0115*
.0001**
.0761
--
--
--
.0162*
.0004**
.0001**
.0001**
.0013**
--
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.2386
--
--
Encap.
vs.
Paint3
2.2**
2.2**
1
2**
3
1
0
2
200**
150**
200**
--
300
--
200**
160**
2971**
2161**
417**
--
-0.06**
-0.08**
-0.83**
-0.15
80
68
Ext.
Reps'
0.7**
0.2**
0
5**
0
0
0
--
100
90
100
--
300
--
100
50
343
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
Int.
Reps5
0.5**
0.8**
0
0**
0
0
--
--
0
0
0
--
100
--
--
--
0
400
--
--
0
0
--
--
0
20
Reinforced Coatings
Mean
64.3
37.9
--
--
--
--
--
--
200
170
200
--
300
--
0
90
5000
5000
5000
5000
1.2
2.4
3.0
6.0
105
68
Measurement
Variability
(% of Mean)1
25.2 (39%)
7.5 (20%)
--
--
--
--
--
--
127(64%)
81(48%)
94(47%)
--
--
--
0(0%)
41(46%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
--
--
F-Test
Product
Means
.0001**
.0001**
--
--
--
--
--
--
.0796
.1645
.1074
--
--
..
--
.0006**
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Ext.
Reps4
0.5
0.6
--
--
--
--
--
--
100
80
100
--
100
--
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
Int.
Reps5
0.4
0.9
--
--
--
--
--
--
0
70
100
--
0
--
--
--
0
0
--
--
0
0
--
--
0
0
-------
Table 13. Continued
Test
Type
Dry Abrasion Resistance
Unexposed panels
Endpoint (cycles)
Loss at 1000 cycles (g)
Loss at Endpoint (g)
Wear Index (g/1000
cycles)
Viscoelastic Properties
Free Films
Tensile Strength (psi)
Elongation (X)
Stiffness (psi)
Blistering (0-10 rating)
Immersed panels
Weathered panels
Chalking (0-10 rating)
Weathered panels
Pencil Hardness
(0-13 rating)
Unexposed panels
10 min. after immersion
120 min. after immersion
Lab
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
CAE
PSI
Liquid Coatings
Mean
3246
3230
0.21
0.20
0.61
0.57
0.21
0.22
685
472
163
179
263
202
7
5
10
9
8
8
6
4
0
1
2
1
Measurement
Variability
(% of Mean)1
380(12%)
469(1 5X)
0.02(10%)
0.03(15%)
0.06(10%)
0.22(39%)
0.02(10%)
0.05(23%)
33(5X)
71(15%)
44(27%)
152(85%)
45(17%)
46(23%)
1.0(14%)
3.3(66%)
0(0%)
1.3(14%)
0.6(8%)
0.1(1%)
0.4(7%)
0.2(5%)
0(0%)
1.3(130%)
1.4(70%)
2.2(220%)
F-test
Product
Means2
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.5112
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.1406
--
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
--
.0001**
.0011**
.0008**
Encap.
vs.
Paint3
838**
1456**
-0.04**
-0.05**
0.01
-0.04
-0.04**
-0.07**
-398**
14
186**
207**
-230**
-154**
1*
-1
0
3**
1**
0**
0
1**
0
0
-1
-1
Ext.
Reps
648
1350*
0
0.07
0.01
0.12
0.03
0.07
53**
30*
59**
244**
2**
--
0
1
0
0
0
0
1**
2**
0
1
3*
0
Int.
Reps5
599
0*
0.02
0.05
0.12
0.43
0.05
0.09
150**
126*
187**
226**
103**
68*
1
2
--
--
--
--
0**
0**
0
0
1*
1
Reinforced Coatings
Mean
5000
5000
0.14
0.14
0.49
0.54
0.10
0.11
3996
2737
9
12
3115
1087
10
10
10
10
8
8
9
10
7
8
6
7
Measurement
Variability
(% of Mean)1
0(0%)
0(0%)
0,03(21%)
0.02(14%)
0.11(22%)
0.10(19%)
0.02(20%)
0.02(18%)
1107(28%)
301(11%)
6(67%)
4(33%)
1388(45%)
247(23%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
0.5(6%)
0.4(5%)
0.3(3%)
0.6(6%)
0.2(3%)
1.6(20%)
0(0%)
0(0%)
F-Test
Product
Means2
. --
--
.4147
.0018**
.9528
.0033**
.9528
.0033**
.0001**
.0001**
.0079**
.0001**
.0004**
.0001**
--
--
--
--
.0001**
.0007**^
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
.0001**
--
Ext.
Reps4
0
0
0.03
0.00
0.05
0.18
0.01
0.04
103
82
1
2**
411
325
0
0
0
0
0
0
0**
0
0
0
--
0
Int.
Repsb
0
0
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.32*
0.01
0.06*
125
446
1
9**
186
131
0
0
"
•-
--
--
1**
0
0
0
0
1
* Significant at the 5% level.
** Significant at the 1X level.
1 The estimated measurement variability (dt), also expressed as a percentage of the mean.
2 The shotgun F-test statistic which tests the equality of all product means.
3 The contrast which compares the average encapsulant result with the average paint result.
4 The contrast which compares the average results for the two exterior encapsulant products.
5 The contrast which compares the average results for the two interior encapsulant products.
-------
The results presented in Tables 11, 12, and 13 are discussed
test by test in the sections that follow. Also, the results from
the multiple comparisons analysis are presented in separate
tables in the following sections.
4.3 DRY FILM THICKNESS
Although dry film thickness is not a physical property that
is used to distinguish encapsulant product performance, the
thickness of each coating or encapsulant system is an important
factor that may potentially affect the results of other
performance tests. Therefore, the dry film, or system, thickness
data are summarized in this section.
Two test methods (ASTM D 1005 and D 1186) were selected for
measuring dry film thickness because samples to be measured
included films on metal panels, films on plastic panels, and free
films. It was also necessary to use more than one type of
micrometer to accommodate the thickness range of 4 mils to 344
mils in the test panels for this study. Micrometers must be
properly calibrated and used to measure film thicknesses
appropriate to instrument capabilities. In this study the type
of micrometer did not affect the thickness determinations because
the micrometers were selected to provide the desired sensitivity
(number of significant figures) and the micrometers were properly
calibrated.
The products in this study were applied to the sample panels
at thicknesses recommended by the product manufacturer. Figure 1
provides an overview of final system thickness for all sample
panels in the form of a box and whisker plot for each product and
each laboratory. The upper and lower edges of each box represent
the 75th and 25th percentiles, respectively, of the frequency
distribution of the dry film thicknesses for that product. The
ends of the line segments extending out of the top and bottom of
each box represent the 95th and 5th percentiles, respectively;
and the line segment through the middle of each box represents
the median. Extreme measurements above the 95th percentile or
47
-------
40
30
20
00
o
f
10
Figure 1
Dry System Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films
E!
jl!
II
in
iiiiiiiii iIii1ii^i\i
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RES* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
# RE1 thicknesses range between 162 - 344 mils for CAE and between 89 - 170 mils for PSI.
-------
below the 5th percentile are plotted as individual points.
Furthermore, for each product there are two box and whisker plots
shown, corresponding to the measurements for each of the two
testing laboratories. The CAE results are shown as the left-hand
member of each pair, while the PSI results are the right-hand
member.
It is also important to understand the product codes which
are utilized in this figure, as well as most other figures in
this report. The product types were described earlier in Table
6. The high-quality and low-quality exterior and interior paints
are denoted as products HPE, LPE, HPI, and LPI respectively.
Liquid exterior encapsulants have codes beginning with LE, liquid
interior encapsulants have codes beginning with LN, reinforced
*
exterior encapsulants have codes beginning with RE, and
reinforced interior encapsulants have codes beginning with RN.
Within each of these four product categories, the two replicate
encapsulants are denoted by a star () at the end of their codes.
As shown earlier in Table 11 data completeness was good for
the dry film thickness information. The following were the only
missing data:
• CAE did not report thickness data for two panels, one for
product LN6 and the other for product RE3. In the latter
case the coating did not adhere to the panel sufficiently
to be tested.
• PSI did not report thickness data for 14 films used for
viscoelastic properties testing. Of these, six LE3 and
five LE5 films were not obtained intact, and one film
each for LE6, LN2, and LN4 broke prior to testing.
As discussed in Section 2.5.2, the 18 products tested in
this program ranged widely from thicknesses of a few mils which
are typical of paints, to thicknesses one or two orders of
magnitude higher which are typical of cement or mortar. Also, in
some encapsulant systems, the final dry film thickness included
49
-------
one or two coats, as well as the reinforcing material, if
present.
Although thickness is not a property that will be used to
judge product performance, the statistical modeling results in
Table 13 do indicate several points related to the system
thicknesses which confirm the target ranges and which should be
considered when interpreting the test results in later sections.
These results can be summarized as follows:
• The target thicknesses varied significantly for the
products tested. For example, on average the liquid
encapsulants were 2.2 mils thicker than the paints, due
to the fact that three encapsulants (LN3, LN5, and LN6)
were two-coat systems. These thickness differences may
affect other test results discussed in later sections.
• The measurement variability among replicate test panels
for the liquid coatings was reasonably small,
representing from 8% to 13% of the mean. Most of this
variability was probably associated with preparation
differences from panel to panel for the same product.
These differences were on the order of 0.7 mils, and were
the same order of magnitude seen between replicate liquid
products (about 0.6 mils). It should be noted, however,
that these differences are averaged across both one-coat
systems (LE3 and LE5) and two-coat systems (LN3 and LN5).
• Measurement variability for the reinforced coatings was
larger than that for the liquid coatings, representing
from 20% to 39% of the mean. Again, this variability of
8 to 25 mils was probably more associated with panel
preparation differences rather than measurement errors.
• Differences between the replicate reinforced products
(i.e., two different samples of the same encapsulant
product) were on the order of 0.6 mils, and were
approximately the same as differences found between
replicate liquid products.
Additional analysis of the system thickness data was
performed with multiple pairwise comparisons of the product means
(Table 14). In this analysis the product means were ordered from
highest to lowest and then successive pairs of means were
examined for significant differences. These results for dry
50
-------
Table 14. Results of Multiple Pairwise Comparisons for Dry Film Thickness and Tape Adhesion Testing
Test Type
Dry Film Thickness-
All Panels-CAE
Product
Mean (mils)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Dry Film Thickness-
All Panels-PSI
Product
Mean (mils)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Group F
Group G
Tape Adheslon-
Unexposed Panels-CAE
Tape Adhesion-
Unexposed Panels-PSI
Product
Mean (0-5 rating)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Tape Adhesion-
Immersed Panels-CAE
Tape Adhesion-
Immersed Panels-PSI
Tape Adhesion-
Weathered Panels-CAE
Tape Adhesion-
Weathered Panels-PSI
Liquid Products
LN5* LN6 LN3* LE3* LE5* LE1 LN1 LE4
11.5 11.5 11.1 6.7 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.7
A A
B
C
D D D D
HPI LPI LPE HPE
5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5
D D D D
LN5* LN6 LN3* LPI LE1 LE4 HPI LN1
12.5 12.1 11.6 7.3 7.1 6.9 6.6 6.5
A A
B B
C C C C
D D D D
E E E
F F
LE3* LE5* HPE LPE
6.1 5.9 3.8 5.3
E
F F F
G G G
No analysis - no variation among replicate tests
LEI LE4 LE3* LN6 LN3* LN5* HPI LN1
55555555
AAAAAAAA
B B
HPE LPE LE5* LPI
4000
B
C C C
No analysis - no variation among replicate tests
No analysis - no variation among replicate tests
No analysis - no variation among replicate tests
No analysis - no variation among replicate tests
Reinforced Products
RE1 RE2* RES* RN2* RN1* RN3
256.1 21.9 21.5 19.0 18.6 14.0
A
B B B B B
RE1 RN1* RE2* RN2* RES* RN3
121.3 20.2 19.4 19.3 18.8 16.4
A
B B B B B
Test not run
Test not run
Test not run
Test not run
Test not run
Test not run
-------
film thickness themselves are not directly relevant to
performance testing, but they do help confirm which products can
be placed together into similar groups based on their target film
thickness:
• The one-coat liquid products (Group D) had mean system
thicknesses in the range from 5.5 to 6.0 mils; while the
two-coat products (LN5, LN6, and LN3) were twice as
thick, being in the range from 11.1 to 11.5 mils.
• The reinforced products (Group B) had mean thicknesses
which fell in a broad but similar range from 14.0 to 21.9
mils, with the notable exception of product RE1 (the
trowel-applied cementitious product) which had a mean
thickness of 256.1 mils.
4.4 TAPE ADHESION
Adhesion is considered a critical property for encapsulants
for leaded paint and was therefore evaluated by two different
ASTM protocols, the first being the tape adhesion test (ASTM D
3359) . Adhesion was determined for twelve exterior and interior
liquid products on unexposed panels, water immersed panels, and
weathered panels. Reinforced products were not tested using this
method. Test Method A (X-cut) was selected over Method B
(lattice-cut) which is not easily adaptable to thick, hard test
substances. The specified X-cut was made through the product
system to the panel surface. Permacel 99 tape was then applied
over the X-cut and removed. Adhesion was assessed qualitatively
based on how much test material was removed with the tape. The
rating scale is 0 (removal of test material beyond the X-cut) to
5 (no peeling or removal).
The tape adhesion test has known limitations, as do many of
the traditional adhesion tests for coatings. This adhesion test
applies peel stress to the coating so results may not be
comparable to adhesion tests that apply tensile or perpendicular
forces. In assessing coatings, both of these forces can be
factors in adhesion failure.
52
-------
According to ASTM, this test is used to verify "adequate
adhesion of a coating to a metal substrate." The limited
sensitivity of this test to small differences in adhesion is
reflected in the 0 to 5 rating scale specified by the test
method. This test is affected by the type and quality of the
tape (varies from one lot to another), the pressure used to apply
the tape, and the surface characteristics of the coating. Also,
operator bias is hard to avoid in test area selection. One
operator may test the panel on areas appearing to be adhered.
Another might select areas of visibly poor adhesion such as
blisters. Ratings from these areas could be quite different even
on the same test panel. The test is not usable on reinforced
products because it is difficult to score very hard or multi-
layer products without producing film damage that can reduce
adhesion. For a more complete discussion of the limitations of
this adhesion test the reader is referred to the 1994 Annual Book
of Standards Volume 6.01 page 435-437.
Unexposed Panels
The tape adhesion results for unexposed panels are shown in
Figure 2 for all twelve liquid products tested at both
laboratories. The individual test results are shown in the
figure along with the mean adhesion by product and laboratory.
Also shown in the figure is the ASTM E06.23.30 draft performance
standard of 5A for liquid coatings, that is, no loss of adhesion.
There were two cases where PSI was unable to complete the
adhesion test (Table 11).- For the low quality interior paint
(LPI) the initial adhesion test removed so much product from the
panel that the second and third replicate tests could not be run.
Compared to most other products tested, the low-quality exterior
paint (LPE) showed poorer adhesion on the tape adhesion tests at
both CAE and PSI.
53
-------
Figure 2
Tape Adhesion Results for Unexposed Panels
ASTM Dratt
Standard
^ 4A
in
i
3A
CD
i
DC
w c 2A4
o
g
5 u
OA
Z^I
^^
-•
/\ /gN /A.
00
I I
i i
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mean O PSI data 4 PSI mean
-------
In most cases the adhesion was rated as either 4A or 5A,
indicating good adhesion. However, two notable exceptions were
found. First, both the exterior and interior low-quality paints
showed significant lack of adhesion in some cases, although for
the interior paint (LPI) this lack of adhesion was observed at
only one laboratory (PSI). And second, one of the acrylic latex
exterior encapsulants (LE5) showed a lack of adhesion, although
again this result was only observed at one laboratory (PSI), and
it was not reproduced for the matching replicate product (LE3).
These two cases illustrate the limitations noted above regarding
the sensitivity and reproducibility of this test." That is, this
test can be affected by tape and adhesive quality, and by
operator technique. Operator techniques include how fast the cut
is made, how firmly and evenly tape is applied, and how fast and
at what angle tape is removed. A detailed discussion can be
found in the previously cited Vol. 6.01, p. 436 of the 1994
Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
Additional findings that are indicated from the statistical
analyses presented in Tables 13 and 14 are as follows:
• Of the 12 products tested at CAE, all replicate tests for
11 products achieved the draft ASTM E06.23.30 standard of
5A, with the only exception being the low-quality
exterior paint (LPE). In testing at PSI, 5A results were
consistently achieved by only 6 of the 12 products, and
the paints accounted for 4 of the 6 products that did not
achieve uniform 5A results.
• There was no measurement variability (i.e., variability
among replicate tests) at one laboratory (CAE), and low
measurement variability (5% of the mean) at the other
laboratory (PSI). This lack of variability is probably
tied to the fact that replicate tests were all performed
on the same panel. Also, the lack of variability of CAE
test results precluded further assessment of statistical
significance in those data.
• Significant differences were found in the adhesion test
results for replicate encapsulants at PSI, with this
finding being driven by the dramatically different
results for exterior products LE3 (all tests rated 5A)
and LE5 (all tests rated OA).
55
-------
• The average adhesion rating at PSI for encapsulants was 2
units higher than the average for paints, and for all
four paints at least one test result showed some lack of
adhesion (i.e., a rating less than 5A), although for
products HPE and HPI these results were simply a 4A
(Figure 2).
• The multiple comparison analysis on PSI indicated that
the tape adhesion test could distinguish the products
into three groups with one distinct set (Group C),
consisting of the low-quality paints and encapsulant LE5,
showing relatively poor adhesion.
• Because of the lack of measurement variability for CAE
results, the multiple pairwise comparisons analysis could
not be performed.
Immersed Panels
The tape adhesion results for panels that had been immersed
for 24 hours in distilled water are presented in Figure 3. All
tests were run approximately 10-20 minutes after removing the
panels from the water, and all data were successfully reported
(Table 11). The plan was to test tape-adhesion, blistering, and
pencil hardness after water immersion all on the same panel.
However, while PSI successfully followed'this plan, CAE used
separate panels to perform the tape-adhesion test than they used
for the blistering and pencil hardness tests. This change may
have introduced additional laboratory variability to the tape-
adhesion results.
In this case testing at CAE showed little loss of adhesion,
except for the low-quality paints (LPE and LPI). Interestingly,
testing at PSI showed very different results, with significant
loss of adhesion for both the low-quality paints and several of
the encapsulant products. At PSI only the two high-quality
paints and the interior waterborne acrylic encapsulant with
primer (replicate products LN3 and LN5) demonstrated adequate
56
-------
Figure 3
Tape Adhesion Results for Immersed Panels
^fc-
_^_
A8TM Draft
Standard
~ 4A
I
I, 3A
o>
:g
OA
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mean O PSI data
PSI mean
-------
adhesion after immersion. This difference in results may in part
be due to the different protocols used at CAE and PSI, and it may
be due to the fact that this test can be highly variable.
Additional statistical results shown in Tables 13 and 14 are as
follows:
• Of the 12 products tested at CAE, 10 products achieved
the draft ASTM E06.23.30 standard of 5A for all replicate
tests, with the exception of both low-quality paints. In
contrast, testing at PSI indicated only 2 products (the
liquid interior waterborne acrylic encapsulants with
primer, LN3 and LN5) which achieved uniform 5A results.
• As shown in Table 13, the average adhesion rating for all
liquid products measured at CAE (4) was higher than that
measured at PSI (2).
• There was no measurement variability observed among
replicate tests at either laboratory, precluding further
assessment of statistical significance.
• No differences were observed between adhesion ratings for
the exterior and interior replicate encapsulants.
• The average adhesion rating for encapsulants was higher
than for paints; at CAE the difference was 3 and at PSI
the difference was 1.
• Comparing these results for immersed panels with the
previous results for unexposed panels, testing at CAE
showed a loss in adhesion for only the interior paints
(HPI and LPI); while testing at PSI showed a loss in
adhesion for several products (LEI, LE3, LE4, LN1, HPI,
and LN6).
Weathered Panels
Tape adhesion results for weathered panels are presented in
Figure 4. Note that the weathering protocol was performed only
on exterior products. All required data were obtained from CAE;
however, PSI experienced three cases (products LE3, LE4, and LE5)
where the coatings were destroyed during removal from the
58
-------
Figure 4
Tape Adhesion Results for Weathered Panels
ASTM Draft
Standard
3A
O
I
cc
c 2A
o
1
I
1A
OA
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5*
Product
LPE
o CAE data • CAE mean 0 PSI data
PSI mean
-------
weathering chamber because they stuck to the panel holders. In
these cases all three replicate tests could not be performed.
Figure 4 shows that adhesion was good in all but one case
where data were available, the low-quality exterior paint (LPE)
tested by PSI. Statistical results shown in Tables 13 and 14
include the following:
• Of the 6 products tested at CAE and the 3 products tested
at PSI, all tests achieved the draft ASTM E06.23.30
standard of 5A with the exception of the low-quality
exterior paint (LPE) tested at PSI.
• There was no measurement variability observed among
replicate tests at either laboratory, precluding further
evaluation of statistical significance.
• No difference was observed between the adhesion ratings
for the exterior replicate encapsulants.
• At PSI the average adhesion rating for encapsulants was 2
units higher than that for paints.
• Comparing these results for weathered panels with the
results for unexposed panels, testing at CAE showed
improved adhesion for the low-quality paint (LPE); and
testing at PSI showed improved adhesion for both exterior
paints (HPE and LPE).
•
Summary of Tape Adhesion Results
For unexposed panels the variability between replicate
products and between the two laboratories was large. For water
immersed and weathered panels the between-laboratory variability
was large. There is some indication that the tape adhesion test
may be able to distinguish between some encapsulants and paints.
In several cases when lower adhesion was observed, it was
observed for some of the paints. Unfortunately, the results were
also often more variable than desired in a reliable test. For
example, the results for immersed panels were dramatically
different between the two laboratories, and for unexposed panels
the results within a single laboratory (PSI) were very different
for two replicate encapsulants (LE3 and LE5).
60
-------
4.5 PULL ADHESION
The second adhesion protocol run in this pilot testing
program was ASTM D 4541 for pull adhesion. In this case adhesion
was determined for all 18 products on unexposed panels, immersed
panels, and weathered panels. This protocol uses a portable test
instrument to measure tensile or perpendicular pull strength
required to pull a plug of the test substrate from a test panel.
A standard metal dolly was first adhered perpendicular to the
test substrate surface with a specified epoxy adhesive, and then
a pull force was applied to the dolly. The end point was
specified as the greatest force that the test coating could
resist without loss of adhesion. Alternatively, the test method
allows for the end point to be specified before testing begins,
in which case the product is tested at the end point and rated
pass/fail. To gather the maximum information in this study, the
greatest force that each test coating could resist without loss
of adhesion was reported. Loss of adhesion could occur along
several planes, and so the laboratories also reported the type of
failure which occurred. Failures within a product were termed
"cohesive failures," while failures between the product and the
test panel were "adhesive" failures. Failures between the dolly
and the epoxy or between the epoxy and the product were failures
of the dolly adhesive itself.
ASTM has not yet provided precision and bias statements for
ASTM D 4541. Independent studies have suggested that results in
this test vary from one instrument type to another even with
adequate calibration of the test instrument. For comparing
products of differing thicknesses at different times in different
laboratories, it might be more useful to specify that products be
tested pass/fail at some specified stress, such as 100 psi, on a
particular type of adhesion pull tester.
Also, test panels should be selected that are rigid enough
to resist deformation at the pull strengths higher than those of
the products being tested. The 0.01 inch tin-plated panel was
61
-------
too thin for satisfactory performance on this test. A thicker
steel panel would be a better choice.
Ins t IT" "lent at ion
There are several types of adhesion pull testers in use and
some evidence suggests that results of the pull test can differ
from one type of instrument to another for the same coating
sample. In this study, PSI used the Elcometer Adhesion Tester
Model 106/1, while CAE used the Model 106/4. The Elcometer uses
a spring arrangement to apply a force to the dolly. The force to
.remove the dolly is indicated on the instrument scale'as stress
(i.e., force per unit area) measured in pounds per square inch
(psi). Other well known types of adhesion pull testers include
the Patti pneumatic adhesion tester and the Hate hydraulic
adhesion tester. In some laboratories pull testing is
accomplished by modification of tensile testers such as an
Instron or Tinius tensile tester.
The selection of the appropriate Elcometer scale should be
based on the expected pull-off stress of the samples to be
tested. The Model 106/1 scale is most appropriate for stresses
between 100-500 psi, while the Model 106/4 scale is most
appropriate for stresses between 500 to 4000 psi. (100 psi is
approximately equal to 0.69 MPa.) In this study the range of
pull-off stresses was concentrated from 100 to 500 psi, so the
Elcometer 106/1 scale was most appropriate. The Elcometer 106/4
scale does allow interpolation for results less than 500 psi, but
these interpolated results may have limited accuracy.
Dolly Adhesion
A two-part epoxy, 3M 1838, was used to secure the dollies to
all products. This adhesive reaches full strength at room
temperature in 24 hours. The required 24-hour cure time
presented a dilemma for adhering dollies for the post-water
immersion testing. Adhesion was to be tested immediately (10
minutes) after immersion and again after a two-hour recovery
62
-------
period. One option was to adhere the dollies to the test panels
prior to water immersion to allow the adhesive to reach full
strength before immersion. However, the product under the dolly
would then be somewhat protected from exposure to the water, and
the pull adhesion results might not be representative of adhesion
in a totally exposed area. The second option was to adhere the
dollies to the product surface after removal from the water
immersion. In this case, the 24-hour cure time needed to reach
full adhesive dolly strength prevented testing 10 minutes and two
hours after immersion since the dollies might not have adequate
adhesive strength.
The-plan was to adhere the dollies after immersion. PSI
began the test and discovered that the adhesive would not cure
rapidly enough to allow testing 10 minutes or 120 minutes after
immersion. Based on. this experience, the other laboratory, CAE,
proceeding with this test a few days later, was instructed to
adhere the dollies before immersion so that pull testing could be
accomplished at 10 and 120 minutes after immersion.
The 0.01 inch tin-plated steel test panels specified for
this test were not rigid enough to resist deformation due to the
stress exerted by the test apparatus. Therefore, a second
uncoated panel had to be adhered to the back of each already
prepared test panel to prevent deformation during pull testing.
The same two-part epqxy that was used to adhere dollies was also
used to secure these extra panels.
In several cases during testing in this study, the dolly
epoxy did not adhere well to the test substrate and failure
occurred between the epoxy and the coating during, or prior to,
mounting in the test instrument. There was no attempt made to
optimize the dolly adhesive for individual products in this
study. That is, although the products represented a variety of
chemical types, all dollies were fastened with the same adhesive,
and it is possible that the selected adhesive was inadequate for
some products. There were also some instances of loss of
adhesion between the test dolly and the selected epoxy. These
63
-------
failures could have been due to factors such as improper
preparation of the dolly surface, inadequate mixing of the
adhesive, or choice of an adhesive that adhered more strongly to
some test coatings than to the test dollies.
Scoring Around the Dolly
This pull test is usually run without scoring around the
dollies. In this study, the test area was scored after dolly
placement so that the pull was not against the reinforcing
material. If the load is spread across the panel, then mat area
and test panel area can become factors in the force required to
remove the dolly from the test panel. If no scoring is used on
reinforced materials, pull is spread across the reinforcing mat.
However, several of the reinforced products were very difficult
to cut through to the test panel and scoring could have produced
stress in the film that reduced adhesion. Scoring is not the
recommended procedure in the test method; however, it is a
permitted option.
Results for Unexposed Panels
The pull adhesion results for unexposed panels are presented
in Figure 5 for all 18 products and both testing laboratories.
As shown earlier in Table 11, there were three cases where PSI
was unable to conduct the pull adhesion test. In all three cases
(one RE2 panel and two RE3 panels), PSI experienced a dolly epoxy
failure during scoring or placement into the adhesion tester, and
before testing could be initiated. There were also eight cases
(two LE4 panels, one LN3 panel, three LN6 panels, and two RN3
panels) where CAE experienced dolly epoxy failures, but they
occurred during testing so that a pull-off strength could be
recorded. In these cases the recorded data represent lower
limits for the pull-off strength of the coating being tested. In
64
-------
CY
Ul
Figure 5
Pull Adhesion Results for Unexposed Panels
700
600
500
400 :
300 :
200 :
100
o:
O
o o
o o o
0 o o
op o
0 «
o 0 A §
0 Qt>
o o
o
0
o o o o^
0 0° 0<> oo
0 oS o
.
°8 °
V
o^ o
O o o§>
0 0
r
.
o
o oO o
o
I I I
I i
I I I
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RE3* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
0 CAE data CAE mean O PSI data * PSI mean
-------
addition, there were eight cases at PSI (three LPE panels, three
LPI panels, one RE1 panel and one RES panel) and nine cases at
CAE (one HPE panel, three LPE panels, two LPI panels, two RE2
panels, and two RE3 panels) where the coatings separated from
the panels at a very low pull-off strength (essentially 0 psi).
It should be noted in Figure 5 that because of the two
different instruments used by the two laboratories for testing,
CAE and PSI reported data with different accuracy for the pull
adhesion test. CAE reported data to the nearest 100 psi, while
PSI reported data to the nearest 10 psi. The results shown in
Figure 5 indicate rather variable pull-off strengths ranging from
a minimum near 0 psi to a maximum of 700 psi. This variability
is further quantified by the statistical results listed in. Tables
12, 13, and 15, which can be summarized as follows:
• No draft ASTM E06.23.30 standard is available for
comparison because ASTM is no longer planning to use the
pull adhesion test in their protocol.
• Pull-off strength was similar for the liquid and
reinforced coatings, averaging 200 psi in both cases
(Table 12). However, the 300 psi average pull-off
strength measured by CAE was higher than the 140 psi
average pull-off strength measured by PSI (Table 13). As
noted in Section 3.2, such laboratory differences were
only qualitatively evaluated,t rather than tested for
statistical significance. It is not clear whether in
this case the difference is due to the difference in
instrumentation used for testing, or to unknown factors
related to panel preparation, although the former reason
is probably most likely the case.
• Measurement variability among replicate test panels was
reasonably high, ranging from 32% to 47% of the mean for
the two laboratories (Table 13).
• Differences between test results for replicate products
were not found to be significant (Table.13).
• The pull-off strength of liquid encapsulants was found by
both laboratories to be significantly greater than the
pull-off strength of paints (Table 13). The difference
was estimated by CAE to be 200 psi, and by PSI to be 150
psi.
66
-------
• For the liquid coatings a number of overlapping groups
were identified by the multiple comparisons analysis with
the- lowest pull-off strengths at both CAE and PSI being
generally found for the paints (e.g., PSI Group E).
However, the pull adhesion test could not distinguish
groups of similar products among the reinforced coatings
(Table 15).
Iimnerssd Panels
Pull adhesion data for the immersed panels are presented in
Figures 6 and 7, corresponding to readings taken approximately
10-20 minutes and 120 minutes after immersion, respectively. Two
replicate panels were planned for the 10-minute dry, while only
one panel was to be evaluated after the 120-minute dry. As shown
in Table 11 and discussed above, there was a great deal of
difficulty conducting the pull test after immersion because of
problems fastening the dollies to the coatings. PSI, which tried
to fasten the dollies after panel immersion, had no success
running the test, and no measured data were reported. CAE on the
other hand, which fastened the dollies before panel immersion,
was able to conduct most of the tests and report 49 of 54 planned
results. However, the CAE results may not accurately represent
24-hour water immersion since the presence of the pre-attached
dolly could protect the product system directly underneath the
dolly. Pull adhesion data for these immersed panels could be
artificially high. Four of the CAE cases which could not be
tested (one panel each for LPE and LPI, and two RE1 panels) were
due to dolly epoxy failures during scoring or loading into the
test apparatus, while the fifth CAE case (one RES panel) was due
to loss of adhesion between product and panel before immersion.
The following points summarize the results of the post-
immersion pull adhesion testing which are listed in Figures 6 and
7, as well as'Tables 12, 13, and 15:
• For the liquid coatings, CAE pull-off strengths 10
minutes after immersion were lower (averaging 200 psi)
than pull-off strengths for unexposed panels (averaging
67
-------
Table 15. Results of Multiple Pairwise Comparisons for Pull Adhesion testing
Test Type
Pull Adhesion-
Unexposed Panels--CAE
Product
Mean (psi)
Group A
Group B
Pull Adhesion-
Unexposed Panels-PSI
Product
Mean (psi)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Dull Adhesion-10 min.
After Immersion-CAE
Product
Mean (psi)
Group A
Pull Adhesion-10 min.
After Immersion-PSI
Pull Adhesion-120 min
After Immersion-CAE
Pull Adhesion-120 min.
After Immersion-PSI
Pull Adhesion-
Weathered Panels-CAE
Product
Mean (psi)
Group A
Group B
Pull Adhesion-
Weathered Panels-PSI
Product
Mean (psi)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Liquid Products
LE3*
500
A
LE4
500
A
LN1
400
A
LE5*
300
A
B
LN3*
300
A
B
LN5*
300
A
B
HPI HPE LN6 LE1 LPI LPE
200 200 200 200 100 0
A A A A A
B B B B B B
LN6
300
A
LE1
240
A
LN1
230
A
B
LE3*
180
A
B
C
HPI
150
B
C
D
LN5*
150
B
C
D
LN3* LE4 LE5* HPE LPE LPI
140 130 90 40 0 0
B B
C C C
D D D D
E E E E E
LN1
500
A
LN6
300
A
LN3*
300
A
LN5*
300
A
LE3*
300
A
LE4
200
A
LE5* LE1 HPI HPE LPE LPI
200 200 200 100 0 0
A A A A A A
No data available
No analysis-only one panel per product
No data available
LE3*
500
A
LE5*
400
A
B
LE1
300
A
B
LE4
300
A
B
HPE
200
A
B
LPE
0
B
LE5*
270
A
LE1
250
A
B
LE3*
220
A
B
LE4
150
A
B
C
HPE
120
B
C
LPE
0
C
Reinforced Products
RN2* RN1*
400 300
A A
RN3
300
A
RE1 RES*
300 100
A A
RE2*
100
A
RN2* RE1
250 190
A A
RN1*
180
A
RN3 RE2*
160 80
A A
RES*
0
A
RN3 RE3*
500 300
A A
RE2*
300
A
No data
RN1* RN2*
200 200
A A
available
RE1
0
A
No analysis-only one panel per product
No data available
No analysis-no variation among panels
RE1 RE2*
240 10
A
B
RE3*
10
B
-------
700
600
500
0> 400
vo
03
300
2 200:
100
Figure 6
Pull Adhesion Results for Immersed (10 minute dry) Panels
O O
o o
o o
o
I I
®
o
o
o
i i i r
o
®
o
®
o
® •
®
O
O
•
-------
Figure 7
Pull Adhesion Results for Immersed (120 minute dry) Panels
700
600
500
400
300-
200
100
CO
®
(D
<§>
(§>
PSI mean
-------
300 psi). However, 120 minutes after immersion the pull-
off strengths recovered to readings (averaging 300 psi)
similar to those for unexposed panels.
• Measurement variability 10 minutes after immersion was
found to be 56% and 47% of the mean for liquid and
reinforced coatings, respectively, which was generally
equivalent to the variability found for unexposed panels.
No estimate of measurement variability 120 minutes after
immersion could be made since only one panel per product
was tested.
• Differences in pull-off strengths after immersion between
replicate products were sometimes large, ranging from 0
psi to 300 psi; however, none of these differences could
be judged to be statistically significant."
• Pull-off strength after immersion was again found to be
greater for liquid encapsulants than for paints (Table
13). Ten minutes post immersion this difference was
statistically significant and found to be 200 psi; while
120 minutes post immersion the difference was found to be
300 psi, although in the latter case the statistical
significance of the difference could not be assessed
since no estimate of measurement variability could be
made.
• The multiple pairwise comparisons analysis could only be
performed for CAE test results run 10 minutes after
immersion; however, even in this case no significant
groupings among the products could be distinguished by
the pull adhesion test (Table 15).
Weathered Panels
Pull adhesion results for the weathered panels are shown in
Figure 8. Three replicate panels were planned for each of the
nine exterior products. As shown in Table 11, all planned data
were collected with three exceptions. Two CAE panels (both RE1
product), as well as one PSI panel (product HPE), could not be
tested due to dolly epoxy failures during scoring or loading into
the test apparatus.
Analysis of the weathered pull adhesion data is summarized
in Tables 12, 13, and 15, and highlighted by the following
points:
71
-------
to
Figure 8
Pull Adhesion Results for Weathered Panels
700
600
f 500
3
£
0) 400
c
e
(0
t 300
2 200^
100
0-
o
• 0 0
0 ®
0
® ° ° o * A
V • 0^0
/\ .
°o °^
• *
$
0
® • ® ^ <§> ^
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE RE1 RE2* RE3*
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mean 0 PSI data
PSI mean
-------
• For liquid coatings pull-off strength after weathering
was the same (averaging 200 psi) as that for unexposed
panels. However, for reinforced coatings this was not
• true; pull-off strength after weathering was lower (0
psi) than that for unexposed panels (200 psi). The
decrease in adhesion after weathering could have a number
of explanations including, but not limited to, coating
degradation, different rates of thermal expansion for
different reinforcing mats, panels etc. Because of the
variables, a more detailed study would be necessary to
determine the cause or causes.
• Test results measured at CAE for weathered panels were
consistently higher than those measured at PSI, probably
due to the different instruments used for testing.
• Measurement variability for the weathered panels was
consistent with that observed for both the unexposed and
immersed pull adhesion tests, ranging from 31% to 46% of
the mean for the two laboratories.
• Differences between replicate encapsulant products were
not found to be statistically significant.
• Post-weathering pull adhesion for liquid products was
generally greater than that for reinforced products.
• Pull-off strength after weathering for the exterior
liquid encapsulants was again found to be significantly
higher than that for standard exterior paints. CAE
estimated the difference to be 200 psi, while PSI
estimated the difference at 160 psi.
• Multiple comparisons results for the exterior liquid
coatings indicated that the pull adhesion test
distinguished either two (CAE) or three (PSI) overlapping
groups, with pull adhesion for the paints and encapsulant
product LE4 (e.g., PSI Group C in Table 15) generally
falling below that of the other exterior encapsulants.
For the exterior reinforced products tested at PSI, the
weathered pull adhesion test distinguished the
cementitious product RE1 from the other two products.
Summary of Pull Adhesion Results
The pull adhesion protocol is a more quantitative test than
the tape adhesion protocol, and results from this study indicate
that it may be able to distinguish among some products.
Instrumentation appears to be an important factor because the
73
-------
results obtained by PSI with the Elcometer Model 106/1 were
consistently higher than those obtained by CAE with the Elcometer
Model 106/4. The scale used by CAE required the data to be
measured to the nearest 100 psi, while the data for PSI were
measured to the nearest 10 psi. Adhesion to the tin-plated steel
panels used in this test was a problem for some coatings; there
were several cases where the measured adhesion was near 0 psi.
It is also interesting to note that pull adhesion was generally
equivalent for the liquid and reinforced products, except after
weathering, where the pull adhesion of liquid products was
greater than that of reinforced products.
Selecting an adhesive for fastening dollies to the coatings
was important, particularly when the pull adhesion protocol was
run in conjunction with water immersion testing. Testing at PSI
found that fastening the dollies soon after immersion was not a
viable option for testing less than 24 hours after immersion.
Also, fastening the dollies before immersion may interfere with
the water/product interaction. However, based on CAE data where
the dollies were fastened before immersion, post-immersion pull
adhesion was generally lower 10 minutes after immersion than that
for unexposed panels, while adhesion was generally restored 120
minutes after immersion to the levels of unexposed panels.
For unexposed panels both laboratory variability and
measurement variability were high. For water immersed panels
both replicate product variability and measurement variability
were high; and the multiple comparisons analysis could
distinguish no clear groupings among the products. For weathered
panels both laboratory variability and measurement variability
were high.
4.6 SCRUB RESISTANCE
Scrub resistance was measured for all 18 products on
unexposed panels and for the nine exterior products after
weathering. This ASTM test is primarily designed for evaluation
of interior paints and its use in conjunction with the 1000 hour
74
-------
weathering cycle presented two technical challenges associated
with the panel size and panel composition. First, the black
plastic panels commercially available for use in this test are
sized 165 by 432 by 0.25 mm (6X by 17 inches by 10 mils) to fit
the washability test instruments. However, the sample panel
holders in the QUV test chambers accommodate samples only 89 by
305 mm (3^ by 12 inches) long. Therefore, procedural
modifications had to be devised to allow scrub testing weathered
samples in this study. The second technical challenge was the
polymer composition of the scrub panels supplied by Leneta
Company. In this study the panels deformed in the weathering
cycle in less than 200 hours, leaving an uneven surface. The
type of polymer used to make the Leneta panels is considered
proprietary, but the supplier did confirm that the polymer was
not selected for resistance to heat. In order to obtain
repeatable scrub test results, the sample panel should be level
so that the brush can uniformly contact the film surface during
testing. Therefore, performing the scrub test on exterior
products after a weathering cycle will require a new test panel
composition and modification of the holding frame on the
commercial washability machines.
Since these products were tested at a variety of
thicknesses, the scrub results should be examined for trends
only. If the products not reaching 5000 cycles were applied at a
greater film thickness, the results could be different. Results
from this test would be easier to interpret comparatively if all
products had been tested at the same thickness. However, many of
these products are specifically formulated for best performance
at higher system thicknesses, and panels in this study were
prepared according to manufacturer recommendations. Careful
consideration should be given to sample panel film thickness when
conducting this test in the future.
Also, the test procedure is time consuming to run to failure
or 5000 cycles as specified in this study. The method calls for
observation of the test substrate and addition of fresh scrub
75
-------
medium every 400 cycles. Therefore, carrying this test to 5000
cycles requires technician intervention at 11 minute intervals
for about three hours. Since two .(or three) test panels must be
scrubbed for each product test, testing to 5000 cycles is-labor
intensive and time consuming, and provides minimal information.
ASTM E06.23.30 requires testing to only 1200 cycles.
Results for Unexposed Panels
Figure 9 presents the results from running the scrub
resistance protocol at both laboratories on unexposed panels
coated with all 18 products. This figure is similar to the
earlier adhesion figures in that it lists individual test results
for each product along with the mean result. Also note that
Figure 9 shows as a horizontal line the ASTM E06.23.30 draft
performance standard for liquid coatings which is currently
proposed at 1200 cycles. Data completeness for this test was
quite good (Table 11). However, due to the surface variability
sometimes introduced by hand-troweled panel preparation, one
panel at CAE could not be tested because the brush would not
track properly over the rough surface of the cementitious product
RE1.
The results in Figure 9 indicate that several encapsulant
systems are durable enough and/or applied at sufficient thickness
to survive the scrubbing protocol for a full 5000 cycles. This
statement is particularly true for the reinforced products where
all six systems lasted the full 5000 cycles without breakthrough.
This fact results in censored data for those coatings that last
5000 cycles; that is, the true end point for these coatings is
greater than 5000 cycles, but that endpoint can not be observed
due to the 5000 cycle constraint placed on the protocol. It
should be noted that this censoring has not been formally dealt
76
-------
Figure 9
Scrub Resistance Results for Unexposed Panels
5000
4000
3000
2000
E
ASTM Draft
Standard
1000
0
o
o
0
v
o
o
o
o
o
0
U
6
0
\ \ I i
I t
i I i
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RE3* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mean O PSI data • PSI mean
-------
with in the statistical analyses which follow. Censoring
generally results in underestimates of data variability, which
can affect subsequent assessments of statistical significance.
Results of the statistical analyses are presented in Tables
12, 13 and 16, and are summarized as follows:
• Of the 12 liquid products tested at CAE and PSI, all but
3 products achieved scrub resistance results greater than
the draft ASTM E06.23.30 standard of 1200 cycles. The
high-quality interior paint (HPI) tested at CAE, and the
low-quality interior paint (LPI) tested at both CAE and
PSI failed to meet the draft ASTM standard. There is
currently no draft ASTM standard for reinforced products.
• As noted above, every panel for the reinforced coatings
tested at both CAE and PSI lasted the full 5000 cycles,
so the test could distinguish no differences between any
of the six reinforced products.
• In contrast, there were 11 out of 24 cases where all
panels with a liquid coating tested either at CAE or PSI
lasted 5000 cycles. The mean end point for all liquid
coatings tested on unexposed panels was 3846 cycles.
However, it is interesting to note that the mean end
point for liquid coatings tested.at CAE was 3459 cycles
while the mean end point measured by PSI was higher at
4232 cycles.
• Measurement variability among replicate test panels was
found to be relatively low for the scrub test, ranging
from 7% to 10% of the mean (Table 13). However, as noted
above, this variability is probably underestimated due to
censoring in the data.
• Variability between the scrub results for replicate
encapsulant products was not found to be significant
(Table 13). Again, this result may have been affected by
data censoring.
• The average end point for liquid encapsulants was found
at both laboratories to be significantly greater than the
average end point for paints (Table 13). At CAE this
difference was estimated to be 2971 cycles, and at PSI
the difference was estimated at 2161 cycles.
• The multiple comparisons analysis could not be performed
for the reinforced coatings. For the liquid coatings
this analysis showed that the scrub test distinguished 4
78
-------
Table 16. Results of Multiple Pairwise Comparisons for Scrub Resistance Testing
-J
VO
Test Type
Scrub Resistance-
Unexposed Panels-CAE
Product
Mean (cycles)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Scrub Resistance-
Unexposed Panels-PSI
Product
Mean (cycles)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Scrub Resistance-
Weathered Panels-CAE
Product
Mean (cycles)
Group A
Group B
Scrub Resistance-
Weathered Panels-PSI
Liquid Products
LE1 LE4 LN5* LN6 LN3*
5000 5000 5000 5000 5000
A A A A A
LE5* LE3* LPE HPE LN1 HPI LPI
4538 4195 2479 2100 2048 989 158
A
B B
C C C
D
E
LN3* LE4 LE3* LN6 LE5*
5000 5000 5000 5000 5000
A A A A A
LN1 LE1 LN5* LPE HPE HPI LPI
5000 4980 4600 4527 3400 2377 904
A A A A
B B B
C C
D
LE5* LPE LE3* LE4 LE1
5000 5000 5000 5000 4797
A A A A A
No analysis
HPE
4031
B
- no variation among panels
Reinforced Products
No analysis-no variation among panels
No analysis-no variation among panels
No analysis-no variation among panels
No analysis-no variation among panels
-------
or 5 groups of similar products at PSI and CAE, with the
paints and one encapsulant (LN1 at CAE and LN5 at PSI)
being grouped together with lower end points (Table 16) .
Weathered Panels
Scrub resistance data for the weathered panels are presented
in Figure 10. In this case three replicate panels were to be
tested for each of the nine exterior products. As discussed
earlier, deformation was frequently observed for scrub resistance
panels that were subjected to the weathering protocol.
Therefore, all of the data in Figure 10 may have been compromised
to some degree. And in fact, because of the problems with panel
warping, relatively few measured results were obtained from this
test protocol at all (Table 11). Five panels at CAE and 17
panels at PSI were too warped to test.
Results from the analysis of these data are shown in Tables
12, 13, and 16, and are summarized in the following points:
• All test panels lasted at least 4000 cycles (Table 12),
and all panels for 7 of the 9 products tested lasted the
full 5000 cycles.
• As was the case for unexposed panels, every panel for the
three exterior reinforced products lasted the full 5000
cycles. In addition, all panels for four of the six
exterior liquid products lasted 5000 cycles. The mean
end point for all weathered liquid products tested was
4914 cycles. In addition, all tests run for weathered
liquid products at PSI lasted 5000 cycles, while tests
run at CAE were essentially the same, averaging a
slightly lower 4894 cycles.
• After weathering, scrub resistance was typically equal to
or higher than that for unexposed panels. The lone
exception to this finding was product LEI tested at CAE
where the average end point after weathering was 4797
cycles as opposed to 5000 cycles for unexposed panels.
As a result, the mean end point for all weathered liquid
products (4914 cycles) was greater than that for all
unexposed liquid products (3846 cycles).
• Measurement variability for the weathered panels at CAE
was estimated at only 2% of the mean. However, as with
80
-------
c
oo Q.
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
o
•
o
Figure 10
Scrub Resistance Results for Weathered Panels
9 I 9
<§>
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE RE1 RE2* RE3*
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mean 0 PSI data * PSI mean
-------
all the scrub resistance results, this is probably an
underestimate due to data censoring.
• No variation was observed for weathered scrub resistance
between replicate encapsulant products.
• Just as for unexposed panels, scrub resistance for
weathered liquid encapsulants tested at CAE was found to
be statistically significantly greater than that for
paints (Table 13); however, the estimated difference was
only 417 cycles, which is only slightly above the 400
cycle interval at which observations are made, and
therefore is of marginal practical significance. This
same comparison could not be performed at PSI since no
weathered paints could be tested.
• The multiple comparisons analysis showed that the
weathered scrub test distinguished only one significant
grouping, which was that the weathered scrub resistance
for the high-quality paint (HPE) tested at CAE was lower
than that for the other liquid products (Table 16).
Summary of Scrub Resistance Results
The results of this study indicate that the scrub resistance
protocol may be able to distinguish among some products. The
mean end point for unexposed encapsulants was about 2000-3000
cycles greater than the mean end point for unexposed paints.
However, it should be remembered that three of the eight
encapsulants were two-coat systems which were applied at
approximately twice the thickness of the one-coat paints.
Furthermore, when comparing the test results against the current
draft ASTM standard of 1200 cycles, several of the unexposed
products in this stu&y lasted 2000 cycles or more and weathered
products lasted even longer (4000 cycles or more). For
reinforced encapsulants it is important to note that every tested
panel lasted the full 5000 cycles, and therefore the test may be
inappropriate for reinforced products since it was unable to
distinguish among them. It was also interesting that the mean
end point for unexposed liquid coatings tested at PSI was
approximately 800 cycles higher than that at CAE; this difference
82
-------
may be an indication of the laboratory variability to be expected
with the scrub resistance test.
When performing the scrub test in conjunction with the
weathering protocol, it is important to realize that consistent
and reliable results are not possible using the standard black
plastic panels. This is because serious panel warping during the
weathering step was found to occur in many cases, leaving the
panels with an uneven surface along which the scrubbing brush
could not uniformly pass. However, these study results suggest
that resistance for weathered panels can be greater than that for
unexposed panels.
4.7 FLEXIBILITY
Flexibility was determined for all 18 products on unexposed
panels and for all nine exterior products after weathering. The
test method used in this study specified a five-second bend
around a conical mandrel. Crack length was then reported as a
measure of resistance to cracking. ASTM considers this test
acceptable for evaluating the resistance to cracking of attached
coatings. The encapsulant products tested in this study were not
formulated specifically for adhesion to unpainted metal surfaces.
For example, products RE2 and RES represent a polyester/acrylic
chemistry that is unlike any of the other encapsulants tested.
These products may have quite good adhesion to intended
substrates but do not adhere adequately to the metal panels
selected for this test so results may not be comparable to other
products tested. Also, the trowel-applied RE1 product could not
be tested for flexibility using this test because the prepared
sample panels were too thick to insert into the conical mandrel
test instrument.
Results for Unexposed Panels
The results from running the flexibility test on unexposed
panels are shown in Figure 11 for 17 of the 18 products tested.
83
-------
Figure 11
Flexibility Results for Unexposed Panels
4
00
ASTM Draft
Standard
I T T I I I
I I 1 \ \
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RE3* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mean O PSI data + PSI mean
-------
As stated above, the cementitious product RE1 was too thick to
fit into the testing apparatus, resulting in three missing tests
for each laboratory. Also shown in Figure 11 is the ASTM
E06.23.30 draft performance standard for liquid coatings of
cracks less than or equal to 0.25 inches. The results in this
figure indicate that very few panels experienced cracking during
the test, that is, most coatings were reasonably flexible. Also,
the results were often identical for all three replicate panels
of each product.
The lack of variability in the flexibility test results
precluded a sophisticated statistical analysis; however, the
findings which could be made are presented in Tables 12, 13, and
17, as well as in the following points:
• Of the 12 liquid products tested at CAE and PSI, all but
one product, the high-quality interior paint (HPI) tested
at both CAE and PSI, achieved flexibility results below
the draft ASTM E06.23.30 standard of a 0.25 inch crack
length. There is currently no draft ASTM standard for
reinforced products.
• Only three products experienced any cracking whatsoever,
the high-quality interior paint (HPI) and the replicate
reinforced exterior encapsulant, which was an acrylic and
polyester composite with fiberglass non-woven mat (RE2
and RES). In the case of the reinforced product, the
coating cracked along its entire length (i.e., 6 inches
for PSI, and 3 inches for CAE who oriented the panels in
the opposite direction).
• Because most replicate test panels returned identical, or
nearly identical, results, the estimated measurement
variability was low, although relative to the mean this
variability ranged from 67% to 100% for the two
laboratories (Table 13).
• No differences in flexibility were observed for replicate
encapsulant products.
• Since the paint HPI was the only liquid product to crack,
there was a statistically significant difference between
the mean crack length for encapsulants and paints (Table
13); however, no difference was observed for the other
paints. Based on CAE data this mean difference was -0.06
inches, while based on PSI data the difference was -0.08
inches.
85
-------
Table 17. Results of Multiple Pain/vise Comparisons for Flexibility and Impact Resistance Testing
Test Type
Flexibility-
Jnexpo'sed Panels-CAE
Product
Mean (crack length in.)
Group A
Group B
Flexibility-
Unexposed Panels-PSI
Product
Mean (crack length in.)
Group A
Group B
Flexibility-
Weathered Panels-CAE
Product
Mean (crack length in.)
Group A
Group B
Flexibility-
Weathered Panels-PSI
Product
Mean (crack length in.)
Group A
Impact Resistance-
Unexposed Panels-CAE
Impact Resistance-
Unexposed Panels-PSI
Liquid Products
HPI
0.23
A
LE1
0.0
B
LE3*
0.0
B
HPE
0.0
B
LE5*
0.0
B
LPE LN1 LE4 LN3* LPI LN5* LN6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
B B B B B B B
HPI
0.34
A
LE1
0.0
B
LE3*
0.0
B
HPE
0.0
B
LE5*
0.0
B
LPE LN1 LE4 LN3* LPI LN5* LN6
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
B B B B B B B
LPE
1.67
A
LEI
0.0
B
LE3*
0.0
B
LE4
0.0
B
LE5*
0.0
B
HPE
0.0
B
LPE
0.29
A
LE1
0.0
A
LE3*
0.0
A
LE4
0.0
A
LE5*
0.0
A
No analysis
HPE
0.0
A
- only one result per product
No analysis - only one result per product
Reinforced Products
No analysis-no variation among panels
No analysis-no variation among panels
No analysis-no variation among panels
No analysis-no variation among panels
No analysis-only one result per product
No analysis-only one result per product
CO
-------
• Because of the lack of variability in the test results,
the multiple comparisons analysis simply differentiated
the paint HPI from the rest of the liquid products (Table
17) .
Weathered Panels
Flexibility data for the weathered panels are presented in
Figure 12. In this case three replicate panels were to be tested
for each of the nine exterior products. As indicated in Table 11
there were a few panels at each laboratory that could not be
tested. As with the unexposed panels, cementitious product RE1
could not be tested because it was too thick to fit in the test
apparatus, accounting for three missing panels at each
laboratory. Also, at CAE one RE2 panel and two RES panels lost
adhesion prior to testing, and the same problem was experienced
at PSI for one RE3 panel.
The weathered flexibility results were quite similar to
those for the unexposed panels, except that in this case the low-
quality exterior paint LPE experienced cracking while for the
unexposed panels the high-quality interior paint cracked.
Results from the statistical analysis of these results are
summarized below:
• Of the 6 liquid products tested at CAE and PSI, all but
one product, the low-quality exterior paint (LPE) tested
at both CAE and PSI, achieved flexibility results below
the draft ASTM E06.23.30 standard of a 0.25 inch crack
length. There is currently no draft ASTM standard for
reinforced products.
• The reinforced exterior products RE2 and RE3 cracked
along their entire length, and the only other product to
crack was the paint LPE.
• As a result of the cracking of paint LPE, there was a
statistically significant difference between the mean
crack length for encapsulants and paints, even though
there was no cracking in the other paints. This
difference was estimated as -0.83 inches at CAE and -0.15
inches at PSI (Table 13).
87
-------
03
00
1? 4:
<=•
t
§ 3
ASTM Draft
Standard
Figure 12
Flexibility Results for Weathered Panels
O
0
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE RE1 RE2* RES*
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mean 0 PSI data 4 PSI mean
-------
• No differences in flexibility were observed for replicate
encapsulant products, and the multiple comparisons
analysis simply distinguished the paint LPE from the rest
of the liquid products at CAE (Table 17).
Summary of Flexibility Results
Very few unexposed or weathered products experienced
cracking during the flexibility test. However, when cracking did
occur it was for two paint products and one relatively inflexible
reinforced encapsulant, the reinforced exterior acrylic and
polyester composite encapsulant (RE2 and RES). Therefore, while
the study results do indicate that the flexibility protocol may
be able to distinguish between some encapsulants (products RE2
and RES) and paints (products HPI and LPE), most paints and
encapsulants showed no differences with this test method.
4.8 IMPACT RESISTANCE
Impact resistance was measured for all 18 products on
unexposed panels via direct impact with a 15.9 mm (0.625 inch)
diameter indenter. Failure is defined as the first sign of
surface cracking detectable by visual inspection aided by a 5x
magnifier. The laboratories determined a failure point for each
product by gradually increasing the distance from which the
weight was dropped and examining the surface for cracking. A
series of impacts was then performed above, at, and below this
failure point to arrive at the' end point in kilogram-meters
(inch-lbs). The failure point was sometimes difficult to
determine for multi-coat and reinforced products, especially
those compressing on impact, because it was difficult to
determine whether or not cracks were present.
According to ASTM, this test is subject to poor
reproducibility from one laboratory to another. Therefore,
results between laboratories are usually compared based on
rankings of the actual results. If test data are to be
determined by more than one laboratory, or products are to be
tested at separate times and the data compared, each product
89
-------
could be tested against a known standard product on a pass/fail
basis at a set level of performance, such as 80 inch-lbs.
Variability of results from one laboratory to the other was
evident in this study. In particular, the results for
cementitious product RE1 were hard to interpret and the
laboratories came to dramatically different conclusions.
Compression damage to this product was evident starting at 4
inch-lbs but did not appear as definite cracks. In addition,
impact at 160 inch-lbs did not produce more severe damage. There
were no flakes, crumbling, or easily identifiable cracks at
either the maximum or minimum impact for RE1. One laboratory
determined that this product did not fail at the maximum impact,
while the other determined the failure point at the first sign of
deformation.
Results for Unexposed Panels
Results for impact testing on all 18 products are shown in
Figures 13 and 14. Figure 13 displays the raw impact data by
listing at each height the number of impacts which resulted in no
visible surface cracking (pass) and the number of impacts which
resulted in cracking (fail). As with previous figures, the CAE
results for each product are shown as the left-hand column of
data, while the PSI results are shown as the right-hand column.
The final end point for each product was then determined as that
height at which the impact results switch from mostly pass to
mostly fail. These end points are presented in Figure 14. Note
that for several products no surface cracking was observed, even
up to the maximum force applied of 160 inch-lbs. Also note that
the ASTM E06.23.30 draft performance standard of 80 inch-lbs has
been added for reference to Figure 14. In addition, it can be
seen in Figure 13 that the final end point for each product is
not always obvious to determine. In some cases, such as the low-
quality exterior paint (LPE) tested at CAE, fewer failures may
actually be found at some greater heights than at some lower
heights. Also, even though the protocol called for five tests to
90
-------
Rgure 13
Impact Resistance Pass/Fail Frequencies for Unexposed Panels
* on * *
1/4
1/6 2/3
3/2 4/1
3/3
1/0 4/51/4 2/3
1/4 1/4 1/4 3/2
2/10/5 4/44/1 3/2
1/D3/2 4/1
2A> 2/0
3/3
3/8
5/2
2/1
0/2
0/10/5
0/5 2/00/5
2/3 3/2
5/0
* * * 213 * 213
1/4 2/3
3/2 5/0
1/4
1/4
1/4 5/0
0/5
5/0
0/4
0/4
4/5
3/2
3/2 0/50/5
2/3 3/52/3
2/3 3/14/1
4/0
#
1/4
0/5 0/B
3/2 1/50/5 0/30/5
6/02/3 1/52/3
5/0 6/05/D
* # # #
2/2
6/1
4/2
1/4
1/1
2/0
2/3
1/4
4/I
40
30
§ 20
0)
10
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RE3* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
# Product did not crack
-------
Figure 14
Impact Resistance Results for Unexposed Panels
vo
to
160
•
140^
•
120
f 100:
c
V- nn-
c ou
5-—ASTM Draft
8td
? 60-
LU
40-
20
0
• • •
• •
'
* * * *
• ,
i
• *
• • • •
*
•
•
• • •
•
* •» ..
• • • •
•
^
I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RES* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
• CAE data • PSI data
-------
be performed at each height close to the final end point (i.e.,
at the end point, as well as one inch below and one inch above
the end point), there were sometimes fewer, or more, than five
tests run. In most cases these differences did not appear to
seriously affect determination of the final end point, although
as noted above, several of the final end points must be
considered uncertain.
Because only one impact resistance result was obtained for
each product, no estimate of measurement variability cquld be
calculated, no tests of statistical significance could be
performed, and no multiple comparisons among products could be
made (Table 17). However, the statistical results which could be
determined are presented in Tables 12 and 13, and summarized
below:
• Of the 12 liquid products tested at CAE and PSI, all but
6 products achieved the draft ASTM E06.23.30 standard of
80 inch-lbs. Those products not achieving the draft ASTM
standard were the liquid exterior hybrid copolymer latex
encapsulant (LEI) tested at PSI, the low-quality exterior
paint (LPE) tested at PSI, and the high-quality (HPI) and
low-quality (LPI) interior paints tested at both CAE and
PSI. No draft ASTM standard currently exists for
reinforced products.
• Impact resistance measured by CAE was higher than, or
equal to, that measured by PSI for every product tested.
On average the difference was 24 inch-lbs for liquid
coatings and 37 inch-lbs for reinforced products (Table
13). However, for three products (LEI, RE1, and RN3) the
differences between results for CAE and PSI were much
greater (Figure 14). As noted earlier, laboratory
variability was at least partly due to difficulties
identifying cracks for some products, such as RE1.
• Differences between replicate encapsulant products were
reasonably small (Table 13), particularly for CAE (0 to 4
inch-lbs), but for PSI they were somewhat larger (0 to 28
inch-lbs).
• Impact resistance for the liquid encapsulants was from 68
to 80 inch-lbs higher than that for the paints (Table
13) .
• Impact resistance for the liquid products averaged 115
inch-lbs which was higher than the average impact
93
-------
resistance for reinforced products at 99 inch-lbs (Table
12). However, it should be remembered that the impact
resistance was quite different among the various products
tested, so those average values should not be taken as
indicators of general trends between the liquid and
reinforced products.
Summary of Impact Resistance Results
The impact resistance test does appear to be able to
distinguish among some products. The average impact resistance
for liquid encapsulants was about 70-80 inch-lbs higher than that
for paints. Also, three of the four paints tested had estimated
impact resistance below the ASTM E06.23.30 draft standard of 80
inch-lbs, while only one liquid encapsulant (LEI) had an impact
resistance less than the standard. The test also appeared to
clearly identify products RE2 and RE3 as having low impact
resistance in comparison with the other reinforced products,
although for two of the other products (RE1 and RN3) differences
between the two testing laboratories were quite large. In
general, differences between the replicate encapsulant products
and between the two laboratories were reasonably small, although
impact resistance measured by GAE was consistently higher than,
or equal to, that measured by PSI.
4.9 DRY ABRASION RESISTANCE
Dry abrasion resistance was determined for all 18 products
on unexposed panels. Each product system was applied to S-16
commercial steel panels at the thickness recommended by the
manufacturer. The sample surface was abraded by rotating the
panel under 1000 gram weighted abrasive wheels (CS-17). Wheels
were resurfaced after each 500 cycles of abrasion, and testing
was continued to failure or 5000 cycles to yield maximum
information about the range of product performances. Failure was
defined as removal of the product to expose the metal substrate.
Results for two coatings are most comparable when those
coatings are applied at the same thickness. However, this study
was designed to provide information about the range of results
94
-------
attainable by a variety of products at their optimum performance.
Therefore, each was applied at the thickness recommended for that
product system. Some products were thin, some were two or more
coats, and some included reinforcing materials. The variation in
thickness alone was 4 mils to more than 300 mils. Since failure
was defined as wear through to the test panel, thick product
systems could lose more mass than thin products without failing.
All products were abraded with CS-17 wheels. However, at
least one of the reinforced products (RE1) was so rough and
abrasion resistant that CS-17 wheel wear was excessive. There
are harder wheels available commercially for the Taber Abraser
test apparatus but using wheels of different hardnesses in a
comparative test makes comparison of dry abrasion resistance
performance difficult.
This test has poor interlaboratory reproducibility according
to ASTM. Interlaboratory agreement may be improved significantly
when rankings of coatings are used in place of numerical values.
Numerical values can more reliably be compared when all testing
is performed in one laboratory on coatings of the same thickness
using the same test conditions.
Cycles to Failure or End Point
The dry abrasion resistance cycles to failure results are
presented in Figure 15 for each of the 18 products tested. As
shown in Table 11, two panels were to be tested for each product,
and most anticipated results were successfully reported by both
laboratories. However, both laboratories had two cases where
complete results were not obtained. For product RN3, CAE
prematurely stopped the testing of both replicate panels after
3500 cycles when the reinforcing mat appeared, even though the
coating had not yet been abraded completely through to the
substrate. PSI did not finish testing one RE1 panel because
excessive wear of the CS-17 wheels was occurring; and then
because of this result, they did not attempt testing on the
95
-------
Figure 15
Dry Abrasion End Point Results for Unexposed Panels
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
o
0
20
0
o
' ° 0
o
0
0
o
o
°
0
o
0
s „.
o
0
\ \ i i r T
i i
r i
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RE3* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mean 0 PSI data * PSI mean
-------
second RE1 panel. Similar to the scrub resistance data presented
earlier, Figure 15 indicates that some encapsulant systems,
particularly the reinforced systems, are durable enough and/or
thick enough to survive dry abrasion for a full 5000 cycles.
This fact results in some censored data which can affect the
statistical results that follow.
Findings from the statistical analyses are shown in Tables
12, 13, and 18, and can be summarized as follows:
• Since this study was initiated, the ASTM E06.23.30 Task
Group has decided to set the standard for this test in
terms of the loss in film thickness, rather than the
cycles to end point or weight loss. Therefore, the
testing results from this study can not be directly
evaluated against the draft ASTM standard.
• Every panel for the reinforced coatings, with the
exception of CAE's testing of product RN3 and PSI's
testing of product RE1, lasted the full 5000 cycles; and
even in these other cases, the testing was stopped
although no failure had occurred.
• For liquid coatings the cycles to end point ranged from
failure at 600 cycles to full testing at 5000 cycles
(Table 12). It is also interesting to note the
reasonably good agreement of the testing results for CAE
and PSI with the possible exception of standard interior
paint HPI (Figure 15).
• Measurement variability among replicate test panels was
relatively low, ranging from 12% to 15% of the mean
(Table 13); however, data censoring may have resulted in
an underestimation of that variability.
• Variability between replicate encapsulant products was
not significant for reinforced coatings or liquid
coatings tested by CAE, but it was significant for liquid
coatings tested by PSI due to the large differences
observed between exterior products LE3 and LE5 (Table
13).
• The average end point for liquid encapsulants was found
at both laboratories to be significantly greater than
that for paints (Table 13). Based on CAE results the
difference was estimated to be 838 cycles, while the PSI
results indicated the difference at 1456 cycles.
97
-------
Table 18. Results of Multiple Pain/vise Comparisons for Dry Abrasion Resistance Testing
Test Type
Dry Abrasion Resistance-
Endpoint-CAE
Product
Mean (cycles)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Dry Abrasion Resistance-
Endpoint-PSI
Product
Mean (cycles)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Dry Abrasion Resistance-
Loss at 1000 Cycles-CAE
Product
Mean (g)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Dry Abrasion Resistance-
Loss at 1000 Cycles-PSI
Product
Mean (g)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Liquid Products
LN5* LN6 LN3*
5000 5000 4401
A A A
B
HPI
4196
A
B
LE5*
3772
A
B
C
LE4
3126
B
C
D
LE3*
3124
B
C
D
LN1
3102
B
C
D
HPE
2286
C
D
E
LPE
2192
D
E
LPI LEI
1637 1120
D
E E
LN3* LN6 LN5*
5000 5000 5000
A A A
LE5*
4425
A
B
LN1
3900
A
B
LE3*
3075
B
C
LE4
3050
B
C
HPE
2675
B
C
HPI
2000
C
D
LPE
1950
C
D
LPI LE1
1885 800
C
D D
LE1 LPE LPI
0.42 0.29 0.26
A
B B
C
HPE
0.20
C
D
LN3*
0.20
C
D
HPI
0.19
D
LN5*
0.18
D
E
LE3"
0.17
D
E
LE5*
0.17
D
E
LE4
0.16
D
E
LN6 LN1
0.14 0.11
D
E E
, ,
LE1 LPI HPI
0.55 0.28 0.28
A
B B
LPE
0.27
B
HPE
0.25
B
C
LN6
0.19
B
C
D
LE4
0.17
B
C
D
LE3*
0.16
B
C
D
LN3*
0.14
C
D
LN1
0.14
C
D
LN5* LE5*
0.10 0.09
D D
Reinforced Products
No analysis-no variation among panels
No analysis-no variation among panels
RE1 RN3 RE2* RN2* RES* RN1*
0.17 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11
A A A A A A
RES* RE2* RN3 RE1 RN1* RN2*
0.20 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.08 0.02
A A A A
B B
C C
-------
Table 18. Continued
Test Type
Dry Abrasion Resistance-
Loss at Endpoint-CAE
Product
Mean (g)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Dry Abrasion Resistance-
Loss at Endpoint-PSI
Product
Mean (g)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Dry Abrasion Resistance-
Wear lndex~CAE
Product
Mean (g/1000 cycles)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Dry Abrasion Resistance-
Wear Index-PSI
Product
Mean (g/1000 cycles)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Liquid Products
LN3* LN6
0.87 0.76
A A
B
LN5*
0.75
A
B
HPI LPE
0.70 0.66
A A
B B
C C
D
LE5*
0.59
B
C
D
LE3* HPE
0.58 0.56
B B
C C
D O
LE4 LE1
0.49 0.48
C C
D D
LN1 LPI
0.44 0.43
D D
LN3* LN6
0.85 0.82
A A
LPE
0.71
A
HPE HPI
0.62 0.56
A A
LN1
0.54
A
LPI LE4
0.51 0.50
A A
LE3* LE1
0.47 0.45
A A
LN5* LE5*
0.42 0.35
A A
LE1 LPE
0.43 0.30
A
B
LPI
0.26
B
C
HPE - LN3*
0.25 0.20
B
C C
D D
E
LE3*
0.19
C
D
E
HPI LE4
0.17 0.16
D
E E
LE5* LN6
0.16 0.15
E E
LN5* LN1
0.15 0.15
E E
LE1 LPE
0.57 0.37
A
B
HPI
0.28
B
C
LPI HPE
0.27 0.24
B B
C C
D D
LN3*
0.17
B
C
D
LE4 LN6
0.17 0.16
B
C C
D D
LE3* LN1
0.16 0.14
C C
D D
LE5* LN5*
0.08 0.08
C
D D
Reinforced
Products
RE2*
0.55
A
RE3*
0.50
A
RN1*
0.49
A
RE1 RN2* RN3
0.48 0.46 0.46
A A A
RES'
0.82
A
RN3
0.78
A
B
RE2*
0.65
A
B
RN1* RN2*
0.38 0.06
B
C C
RN3
0.13
A
RE2"
0.11
A
RE3*
0.10
A
RN1* RE1 RN2*
0.10 0.10 0.09
A A A
RE3*
0.16
A
RN3
0.16
A
B
RE2*
0.13
A
B
RN1* RN2*
0.08 0.01
B
C C
-------
• The multiple comparisons analysis could not be performed
for the reinforced products, but for the liquid coatings
4 or 5 overlapping groups were distinguished where the
groups with lowest end points contained the paints and
encapsulant LEI, and the groups with highest end points
generally contained the other interior encapsulants
(Table 18). '
Weight Loss at 1000 Cycles
Whereas the cycles to failure presented in the previous
section provided a measure of both the durability and thickness
of an encapsulant system, weight loss at 1000 cycles and wear
index (i.e., weight loss per 1000 cycles over entire testing
period) primarily measured the durability of the coatings.
(Note: The term weight loss is used here in accordance with the
ASTM method; however, the units reported, grams, more accurately
reflect the mass loss.) Figure 16 shows the weight loss at 1000
cycles measured for all 18 of the products tested: Completeness
for these data was quite good with only two values missing (Table
11) . The missing value at PSI resulted when the second
cementitious panel (RE1) was not tested because excessive wear of
the CS-17 wheels had resulted from testing the first cementitious
panel. And the "unable to test" result for PSI was due to the
fact that one panel for product LEI only lasted to 600 cycles
before failure, so the loss at 1000 cycles could not be measured.
The statistical modeling results for these data are listed
in Tables 12, 13, and 18, and can be summarized as follows:
• The weight loss during the first 1000 cycles for
reinforced products averaged 0.14 grams, which was
substantially less than that for liquid coatings which
averaged 0.21 grams (Table 12). These results were also
reasonably consistent between CAE and PSI (Figure 16 and
Table 13).
• Measurement variability among replicate test panels was
reasonably low, ranging from 10% to 21% of the mean for
the two laboratories (Table 13).
• Variability in weight loss between replicate encapsulant
products was not judged to be statistically significant
(Table 13).
100
-------
Rgure 16
Dry Abrasion Weight Loss at 1000 Cycles Results for Unexposed Panels
0.6:
0.5
~ 0.4
3
0
-1 0.3
H £
S s ;
? 0.2:
0.1:
0.0 :
8
0
^
e
i i i
LEI HPE LE
O
O
« 8
o 8o
s
1 1 [
3* LE4 LE5* LPE
0 CAE data
$ <&
o
o
80 S *
& X •
8 g o
1 t 1 | | 1
LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6
Product
• CAE mean 0 PSI data
0
Q§> jijv
1 1 f
RE1 RE2* RE3*
* PSI mear
o cr
• o
8S °
iiii
RN1* RN2* RN3
1
-------
• • The mean weight loss at 1000 cycles for the liquid
encapsulants was significantly less at both laboratories
than the corresponding loss for paints. Based on data
from CAE the difference was estimated to be -0.04 grams,
and based on PSI data it was estimated at -0.05 grams
(Table 13).
• The multiple comparisons analysis (Table 18)
differentiated between 4 or 5 overlapping groups of
liquid products, with the paints and encapsulant LEI
falling in groups with the greatest weight loss at 1000
cycles. For the reinforced products, the CAE results
could not be differentiated into separate groupings of
products, but the PSI results were separated into three
groups with the acrylic products RN1 and RN2 experiencing
the lowest losses.
Weight Loss at End Point
For products where testing resulted in failure through to
the substrate, the weight loss at end point provided an indirect
measure of the original thickness of the coating. However, when
trying to compare data across different products, this
interpretation does not apply to coatings that reached the full
5000 cycles without failure. In those latter cases the weight
loss is more comparable to the weight loss at 1000 cycles
discussed in the previous section; that is, it measures mass lost
from the coating during a fixed number of cycles. In this study
all 20 reinforced product panels and 11 of 48 liquid product
panels finished the protocol without failure through to the
substrate, while the other 37 liquid product panels were abraded
through to the substrate (previous Figure 15). As a result the
combined data set for liquid products contains results
corresponding to both situations described above, making the
subsequent interpretation of results difficult.
Figure 17 illustrates the weight loss at end point measured
for all 18 products tested. As shown in Table 11, all but four
anticipated measurements were reported by the laboratories. For
product RN3, CAE prematurely stopped testing both panels at 3500
cycles when abrasion wore through the topcoat to the reinforcing
mat. For the cementitious product RE1, PSI stopped testing the
102
-------
Figure 17
Dry Abrasion Weight Loss at End Point Results for Unexposed Panels
1.4
1.3
1.2
•1.1-3
1.0
§ 0.9
0.8
H a 0.6
R J>
10
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-
•
_
-
A*
* •
4 ** \ » ** '
* *
•
'
_
*
A
S*
,
x
* *
* £
A* * A* +
a • if
+- A*
-f
A
*
g+
B B
.
+
*
D n
a*
+ a
I I
I I I
I I I I i
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RE3* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
D CAE data (5000) * CAE data (fail) • CAE mean
+ PSI data (5000) * PSI data (fall) * PSI mean
-------
first panel before the end point was reached due to excessive
wear of the CS-17 wheels, and then did not test the second panel
because of the experience with the first. Also, note in Figure
17 that different plotting symbols were used within each
laboratory to denote whether or not the measurement corresponds
to weight loss at failure.
Results from the statistical analysis of these data are
listed in Tables 12, 13, and 18 which are summarized in the
following points:
• As shown in Table 12, weight loss at end point for
reinforced products averaged 0.52 grams, which was less
than that lost by liquid products (0.59 grams), even
though the reinforced products were tested for a greater
number of cycles (5000 cycles) than the liquid products
(average 3238 cycles). These results were reasonably
consistent at the two testing laboratories (Table 13).
• Measurement variability among replicate test panels
differed somewhat between types of coatings (e.g., liquid
vs.- reinforced) and laboratories, ranging from 10% to 39%
of the mean.
• Variability between replicate encapsulant products was
not found to be significant except for reinforced
products tested at PSI (Table 13). As shown in Table 18,
this result appears to be mostly related to the
relatively small weight loss seen for product RN2 (0.06
grams) as compared with product RN1 (0.38 grams).
• The mean weight lost at end point for liquid encapsulants
was not found to be significantly different from that
lost by the paints (Table 13). This result is explained
by the fact that the encapsulants were tested for a
significantly greater number of cycles than were the
paints (average 838 more cycles at CAE, and average 1456
more cycles at PSI).
• No clear trends were found in the results•from the
multiple comparisons analysis (Table 18). No groups were
distinguished for reinforced products tested at CAE or
liquid products tested at PSI, and the groups
differentiated for liquid products at CAE and reinforced
products at PSI showed no clear separation by different
types of products.
104
-------
Wear Index
Wear index for a particular panel was measured as the weight
lost per 1000 cycles of wear calculated across the entire
duration of the test procedure to either failure or 5000 cycles.
As such, it provides information similar to the weight loss at
1000 cycles which was discussed earlier, except that wear index
considers loss across the entire test rather than just across the
first 1000 cycles. Both types of measurements focus on the
durability, rather than the thickness, of the product being
tested.
Figure 18 illustrates the wear index results for all 18
coatings products. Data completeness in this case was exactly
the same as for weight loss at end point which was discussed
earlier (Table 11). All but four planned measurements were
reported. CAE stopped testing both RN3 panels at 3500 cycles
when the abrasion wore through to the reinforcing mat. For the
cementitious product RE1, PSI stopped testing the first panel
before the end point due to excessive wear on the wheels, and
then did not test the second panel to avoid additional excessive
wear.
Results from the statistical analysis of wear index data are
presented in Tables 12, 13, and 18, and are highlighted below:
• As shown in Table 12, the average wear index for
reinforced products (0.10 grams/1000 cycles) was
approximately half of that for liquid products (0.22
grams/1000 cycles). This difference was supported by the
results from both testing laboratories (Table 13).
• Measurement variability was reasonably low for the wear
index data, ranging from 10% to 23% of the mean at the
two laboratories (Table 13) .
• Variability between replicate encapsulant products was
not found to be significant except for reinforced
products tested at PSI (Table 13). This result appears
directly related to the relatively low wear index for
product RN2 (0.01 grams/1000 cycles) in comparison with
product RN1 (0.08 grams/1000 cycles).
105
-------
Figure 18
Dry Abrasion Wear Index at End Point Results for Unexposed Panels
0.6:
0.5
f
J) :
fr 0.4:
S 0.3
si
1
0.1
0.0
*
*
*
*
A*
A
A* A *
A* A*
* A A
* * .0,
*
*
1 * a*
A t ^* n el
•i
i *
m =+ e
D D
°* D
*
I I 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 f 1 1 1
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RES* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
a CAE data (5000) * CAE data (fall) • CAE mean
+ PSI data (5000) * PSI data (fall) * PSI mean
-------
• The mean wear index for liquid encapsulants was
significantly less at both laboratories than the
corresponding mean wear index for paints (Table 13). The
difference was estimated to be -0.04 grams/1000 cycles
based on data from CAE, and -0.07 grams/1000 cycles based
on data from PSI.
• The multiple comparisons analysis (Table 18)
distinguished 4 or 5 overlapping groups of liquid
products, with the paints and encapsulant LEI falling
into groups with the highest wear indexes. For the
reinforced products the CAE results could not be grouped,
but the PSI results were differentiated into three groups
with products RN1 and RN2 having the lowest wear indexes.
Summary of Dry Abrasion Resistance Results
Results from this study indicate that the dry abrasion
resistance test may be able to differentiate among different
types of liquid products. In addition, even though all
reinforced products completed the full 5000 cycles of abrasion
without failure through to the substrate, this protocol
calculates additional information, such as the wear index, that
can be used to distinguish among reinforced products. Weight
loss, both at 1000 cycles and in terms of the wear index, was
greater for liquid coatings than for reinforced coatings. The
loss per 1000 cycles for reinforced coatings (0.10 grams/1000
cycles) was approximately half of that for the liquid coatings.
Also, the weight loss at 1000 cycles and the wear index were both
greater for paints than for liquid encapsulants by about 0.04 to
0.07 grams/1000 cycles. Not surprisingly then, the average end
point for liquid encapsulants was approximately 1000 cycles
greater than the average end point for paints. Also, the
replicate product variability was sometimes large for the liquid
products, particularly for the cycles to end point, weight loss
at end point, and wear index.
4.10 VISCOELASTIC PROPERTIES
Viscoelastic properties including tensile strength,
elongation, and stiffness were determined for all 18 products.
These properties may vary with film thickness, method of
107
-------
preparation, gauge length, type of grips and rate of load
application. For this study, test parameters were set to film
width of one inch, gauge1 length of 1.5 inches, and crosshead2
speed of 4 mm/minute. Free films for testing were produced on
silicone release paper by drawdown except for RE1, the
cementitious product, which was trowel applied. The free films
were not all the same thickness, but varied from product to
product. Free films of reinforced systems included the
reinforcing mat. Some products, especially reinforced products
RE1, RE2, RE3, and RN3, were difficult to cut into one-inch
strips after the coating cured without introducing stress in the
films. Nicks and jagged edges can reduce the tensile strength of
the free films by acting as sites for tearing.
Ten free film strips were generally tested for each product;
however, only the five film strips demonstrating the highest
tensile strength were used for calculation of mean tensile
strength, elongation, and stiffness. The five determinations
displaying the lowest tensile strengths were eliminated from the
calculation because film defects and handling damage can result
in lower tensile strength results. Films can be easily damaged
during handling or mounting, or by jaw slippage or tearing during
testing.
Tensile strength is one of the most reported mechanical
properties for materials characterization. Tensile strength in
pounds per square inch (psi) is the load per unit area at which a
test substance fails in a tension (pull) test. In this study,
failure was the point at which the free film ruptured. For
reinforced products, the reinforcing materials contribute a major
component of the tensile strength. That is, the tensile strength
of a reinforced product would likely increase or decrease if the
reinforcement type were changed. For example, if a mat with
^•According to ASTM D 2370 gauge length is the initial length of
the test specimen between the jaws of the tensile tester.
2Crosshead speed is the speed at which the jaws travel during
testing.
108
-------
increased tensile strength were incorporated into a product
system, the tensile strength for the product system would be
expected to reflect this increased tensile strength. Although
four mat types were included in this study, no conclusions could
be drawn from the data concerning relative tensile strengths of
these four mats.
Elongation-at-break, reported as a percentage, describes the
increase in specimen length from the point of initial load
application to the point of film rupture in the tensile test.
Stiffness is the ratio of the stress applied to the elongation
observed. Stiffness (modulus of elasticity) was calculated as
directed in the ASTM method for organic coatings.
Tensile Strength
The tensile strengths for all 18 products tested are shown
in Figure 19. As shown in Table 11, results for.five free films
were used in the statistical analysis for each of the 18
products. However, one result for product LE3 at PSI was missing
because only four free films could be retained intact. Figure 19
indicates that tensile strengths for the reinforced products were
generally greater than those for the liquid products, but the
variability in these results was also generally greater for
reinforced products than for liquid products.
Statistical results for the tensile strength tests are
presented in Tables 12, 13, and 19 which can be summarized by the
points that follow:
• No draft ASTM E06.23.30 standard currently exists for any
of the viscoelastic properties measured in this study
(i.e., tensile strength, elongation, stiffness).
• As shown in Table 12, the mean tensile strength for
reinforced products (3366 psi) was much greater than that
for liquid products (580 psi). This result was found for
tests performed both at CAE and PSI, but it is also
interesting to note that tensile strengths reported by
CAE were almost always greater than or equivalent to
those reported by PSI, with the exception of the
cementitious product RE1 (Table 13 and Figure 19).
109
-------
Figure 19
Viscoelastic Tensile Strength Results for Unexposed Free Films
8000
•
7000
6000^
iS-
~ 5000 :
i
\f*
§ 4000 -
CO
^ 3000 -
c
0)
F
2000
1000
0
A
1 1 1
LEI HPE 1
4 g
^ ^ f
1(11
-E3* LE4 LE5* LPE
0 CAE data •
!
§
^ A
"^ ®^
I 1 1 1 1 1
LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6
Product
CAE mean 0 PSI data
§ 8
S X
o
°&
^
\r
y\
X
e
i i i
RE1 RE2* RE3*
4 PSI mear
0
0
o
n s
o
§•
$
^/
>/
Rj.
i i i i
RN1* RN2* RN3
1
-------
Table 19. Results of Multiple Pairwise Comparisons for Viscoelastic Properties
Test Type
Viscoelastic Properties-
Tensile Strength~CAE
Product
Mean (psi)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Group F
Viscoelastic Properties-
Tensile Strength-PSI
Product
Mean (psi)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Group F
Group G
Liquid Products
HPI HPE LE4 LN6 LPE LEI LN1 LE5* LN3* LE3* LPI LN5*
2085 994 810 805 664 661 642 406 358 353 236 208
A
B
C C
ODD
E E E
F F
HPI LE4 LE1 HPE LN6 LN1 LE3* LN3* LE5* LPE LN5* LPI
1030 834 662 553 552 437 332 328 303 273 202 133
A
B
C C C
ODD
E E E E
F F F F F
G G G
Reinforced Products
RN1* RN2* RE2* RE3* RN3 RE1
5456 5331 4364 4261 3706 855
A A A A A
B
RN1* RE3* RE2* RN2* RE1 RN3
3378 3327 3245 2932 2072 1468
A A A A
B
C
H
H
-------
Table 19. Continued
Test Type
Viscoelastic Properties-
Elongation-CAE
Product
Mean (%)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Viscoelastic Properties-
Elongation-PSI
Product
Mean (%)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Viscoelastic Properties-
Stiffness-CAE
Product
Mean (psi)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Viscoelastic Properties-
Stiffness-PSI
Product
Mean (psi)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Liquid
Products
LE3* LE5* LN5*
479 419 258
A A
B
LE4
253
B
LN6
219
B
C
LN1
153
C
D
LN3*
71
D
E
LPE
63
D
E
HPE LE1 LPI HPI
17 10 8 1
E E E E
LE5* LE3* LN1
576 332 328
A A A
B B
LN5*
274
A
B
LE4
265
A
B
LN6
216
B
LPE
72
B
LN3*
48
B
HPE LPI LE1 HPI
38 17 15 1
B B B B
HPE HPI LE1
617 615 535
A A A
LPE
397
B
LN1
391
B
LPI
214
C
LN3*
213
C
LE4
149
C
D
LN5* LE5* LE3* LN6
110 73 71 28
C
ODD
E E E E
HPI LE1 LE4
. 820 307 274
A
B B
C
HPE
176
C
D
LPE
115
D
E
LN6
114
D
E
LN1
111
D
E
LN3*
108
D
E
LPI LN5* LE3*
106 40 18
D
E E E
Reinforced
Products
,>
RN3 RE1
19 8
A A
B
RN1*
8
A
B
RN2*
6
B
RE2* RE3*
6 5
B B
RN3 RN1*
27 17
A
B
RE1
11
B
C
RN2*
8
C
D
RE2* RE3*
6 4
C
D 0
RN1* RN2*
5024 4839
A A
RN3
3036
A
B
RE2*
2785
A
B
RES* RE1
2374 632
A
B B
RES* RN2*
1579 1286
A A
RE2*
1254
A
RN1*
1155
A
RN3 RE1
659 591
B B
-------
• Measurement variability in tensile strength among
replicate free films was reasonably low at both
laboratories, ranging from 5% to 28% of the mean {Table
13) .
• Variability between replicate encapsulant products was
not significant for reinforced products, but it was
significant for liquid coatings with differences between
the tensile strengths for replicate products ranging from
30 psi to 150 psi at the two laboratories (Table 13).
The lack of significance for the reinforced products was
, probably due to the higher measurement variability found
in comparison with the liquid products.
• The average tensile strength for liquid encapsulants
based on PSI data was not found to be significantly
different from that of paints; but CAE test results
indicated that the average tensile strength for liquid
encapsulants was significantly lower (-398 psi) than that
for paints. CAE results showed that the two liquid
products with the greatest tensile strengths were the
high-quality interior (HPI) and exterior (HPE) paints
(Table 19). The lack of significance in the PSI results
is most likely due to the higher measurement variability
found for that laboratory.
• The multiple comparisons analysis (Table 19) separated
the coatings products into several groups based on
tensile strength, but the groupings did not clearly
distinguish between paints and encapsulants. For
example, for the liquid products, the high-quality paints
(HPI and HPE) and exterior acrylic encapsulant (LE4) were
found to have relatively high tensile strengths.
Elongation
The elongation test results for all 18 products are
presented in Figure 20. Just as for the tensile strength data
discussed above, all but one of the planned elongation results
were reported (Table 11). PSI could not measure one result for
product LE3 because only four of five free films could be
maintained intact. Figure 20 shows that elongation for the
reinforced products was generally low in comparison with the
liquid products, and that there was wide variability in
elongation among the liquid products.
113
-------
H
H
Figure 20
Viscoelastic Elongation Results for Unexposed Free Films
1100:
1000 :
900:
800:
.
g 700-
§ 600:
33 ;
G» 500:
ffi 400:
300:
200:
100 :
0:
0
0
0
o
@o 0
g
o^
0 gA
W
0 0
*$ ®^ <> e^
•
0
0
o
8 So 0
5&
° & °
•t 8^
«• @$> i$
«^ «f 8^
I i
1 I I
Till
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RE3* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mean O PSI data
PSI mean
-------
Tables 12, 13, and 19 list results from the statistical
analysis of the elongation data which can be summarized as
follows:
• Table 12 shows that the mean elongation for liquid
products (171%) was much greater than the mean elongation
for reinforced encapsulants (10%) . Also, the results
were fairly consistent for testing at CAE and PSI (Table
13), except that elongations measured by PSI for liquid
products LE5 and LN1 were much more variable among
replicate panels than corresponding elongations measured
by CAE (Figure 20).
• Measurement variability among replicate free films was
relatively high for the elongation tests, ranging from
27% to 85% of the mean (Table 13). This statement is
particularly true of the PSI elongation measurements for
liquid products LE5 and LN1.
• Variability between the elongation results for replicate
encapsulant products was generally found to be
statistically significant (Table 13), ranging between 59%
and 244% for the liquid products, and between 1% and 9%
for the reinforced products.
• The mean elongation for liquid encapsulants was
significantly greater than that for paints; Table 13
indicates that the difference in elongation varied
between 186% and 207% for tests performed at CAE and PSI.
• Results from the multiple comparisons analysis (Table 19)
indicated that this test may be able to distinguish
various product groupings. For example, at both CAE and
PSI three paints (HPI, LPI, and HPE) and one hybrid latex
encapsulant (LEI) exhibited the lowest elongations, while
the liquid exterior acrylic latex encapsulant
(LE3 and LE5) had the highest elongations.
Stiffness
Figure 21 presents the stiffness results for all 18 products
tested. As shown in Table 11, there were 11 test results that
were missing from the stiffness data set. CAE had four free
films (all LN2) that broke before 1% elongation was achieved, and
one film that was incorrectly measured due to an operator error.
The tensile tester generated continuous data from zero to break
but stiffness is calculated by definition at the point of 1%
115
-------
cr>
CO
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Figure 21
Viscoelastic Stiffness Results for Unexposed Free Films
o
o
o
o o
o
S
o
o
o
o
o
o
i r
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RE3* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mean 0 PSI data + PSI mean
-------
elongation. PSI had five free films (all LE5) for which
stiffness measurements could not be made, and one case where only
four of five free films could be produced intact. Similar to the
tensile strength measurements discussed previously, Figure 21
shows that the stiffness of the reinforced products was generally
greater than that of the liquid coatings, and the variability of
the stiffness data for the reinforced products was also greater
than the variability of the liquid coating results.
Statistical modeling results for the stiffness data are
listed in Tables 12, 13, and 19, and are summarized as follows:
• Table 12 shows that the mean stiffness for reinforced
products (2101 psi) was nearly ten times greater than the
mean stiffness for liquid products (233 psi). This same
result was generally found for test results run at both
CAE and PSI (Table 13). However, while reasonably good
agreement between test results at CAE and PSI was
observed for the liquid products (Figure 21), the
agreement was not nearly as close for the reinforced
products, where both the mean stiffness and variability
among test results were much greater for the CAE data
(except for the cementitious product RE1, where there was
good interlaboratory agreement).
• Measurement variability in stiffness among replicate free
films ranged from 17% to 45% of the mean, although the
variability for reinforced products tested at CAE was
much higher than for the PSI data and the CAE data for
liquid products (Table 13) .
• Variability between the stiffness measurements for
replicate encapsulant products was not significant for
reinforced products, but it was significant for liquid
products (Table 13). Differences between the mean
stiffness for replicate liquid encapsulants ranged from 2
psi to 103 psi. The lack of significance for reinforced
products was probably due to higher measurement
variability in comparison with the liquid products.
• The average stiffness for liquid encapsulants was
significantly lower than that for paints; Table 13
indicates that the difference was -230 psi at CAE and
-154 psi at PSI.
• Results from the multiple comparisons analysis indicate
several possible groupings but no clear distinction among
different types of products. However, for the liquid
products, the high-quality interior paint (HPI) and
117
-------
hybrid latex exterior encapsulant (LEI) were generally
found to have the greatest stiffness at both CAE and PSI.
Summary of Results for Viscoelastic Properties
The results of this study indicate clear differences between
the viscoelastic properties of the liquid and reinforced coatings
tested. In addition, the results sometimes indicated possible
groupings among different types of products. Tensile strength
and stiffness were generally much greater for reinforced products
than for liquid products, due in part to the presence of the
reinforcing mats. Conversely, elongation was generally much
lower for reinforced products than for liquid products.
Similarly, tensile strength and stiffness were higher, while
elongation was lower, for the paints when compared with liquid
encapsulants. These results were primarily due to the tensile
strength and stiffness of the high-quality paints tested, rather
than the low-quality paints. In addition, higher measurement
variability was observed for the elongation data as compared with
the tensile strength and stiffness measurements. For the tensile
strength and stiffness data, greater variability was seen for the
reinforced coatings than for the liquid products. Also, the
variability between replicate encapsulant products was found to
be significant for tensile strength and stiffness measured on the
liquid products, as well as elongation measured on.both the
liquid and reinforced products. The lack of significance between
replicate reinforced products for the tensile strength and
stiffness tests was probably due to the higher variability found
in these data.
4.11 BLISTERING
Blistering was evaluated for all 18 products following 24-
hour water immersion, and for the nine exterior products
following weathering. In this test, sample panels were compared
with ASTM photographic reference standards to rate the size and
frequency of blisters. The numerical scale for blister size runs
from 10 to 0. A rating of 10 represents no blistering and a
118
-------
rating of 8 represents the smallest size blister that can be seen
without magnification. The frequency of blistering at each
numerical size was determined from the photographic reference and
designated by adding D (dense), MD (medium dense), M (medium), or
F (few) to the size rating (e.g., 8D). Blistering can be used as
a rough visual gauge of adhesion loss through film defects or
degradation.
Immersed Panels
The blistering test was run after a ten-minute dry for all
panels that were subjected to the water immersion "protocol. As
shown in Table 11, this test was planned for 66 panels at each
laboratory, and all but one of these results were reported. In
the lone exception, CAE was unable to run the test because one
RE3 panel lost adhesion before the water immersion protocol was
initiated. Results from the blistering test, which are depicted
in Figure 22, indicate that the reinforced products experienced
no problems with blistering after water immersion, while the
liquid products had a number of panels that blistered. One point
to notice in Figure 22 is that the data for each product and
laboratory are summarized by the sample mode (i.e., the most
frequently occurring blister rating) rather than by the sample
mean as in previous figures. This change was made in order to
include the letter designations for the frequency of blisters.
Statistical analyses were performed using only the numerical
part of the blister rating which measures the size of the
blisters. It should be noted that this approach ignores the
blister density and implicitly assumes that coatings forming many
small blisters perform better than coatings forming a few larger
blisters. Although these data are only semi-quantitative in
nature, some useful results were obtained from the statistical
analyses which are presented in Tables 12, 13, and 20, and
summarized below:
119
-------
Figure 22
Blistering Results for Immersed Panels
10
8D
8MD
8M
8F
6" 6D
I 6MD-
Q. 6M
g 6F
°- 4MD
j§ 4M
~ 4F-
CQ ^r
2MD-
2M-
2F-
o-
®$> ®f> ® ®0 ®
0
0
"
.
o
$>
O
®|> 0
0
® o
o O ®
o
0 ®
0
0
0 0
®
^ 4>
®0 0
Oo O
®^ ®^ ®^>
'
®f> ®$> ®!|>
I 1
I I I I I
I I I
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RE3* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mode 0 PSI data
PSI mode
-------
• No draft ASTM E06.23.30 standard currently exists for the
blistering test.
• All panels for the reinforced products received a blister
rating of 10 indicating that no blisters were present.
Because there was no variability in results observed for
the reinforced products, this test was not able to
distinguish among the various coatings, and no further
statistical analysis could be performed.
• The mean blister rating for liquid products was 6 (Table
12), and roughly equivalent results were recorded by both
CAE and PSI (Table 13).
• Variability between replicate encapsulant products was
not found to be significant at either laboratory (Table
13) .
• The average blister rating for liquid encapsulants tested
at PSI was not found to be significantly different from
that for paints (Table 13). In addition, the CAE data
indicated a difference of 1, which was statistically
significant but probably not practically significant.
• The multiple comparisons analysis of CAE data found the
two low-quality paints and the interior encapsulant LN1
forming a group with the lowest ratings (i.e., the
largest blisters).
Weathered Panels
Figure 23 presents the blister ratings for all nine exterior
products that were subjected to the weathering protocol. Data
completeness in this case was excellent with all planned
measurements being reported by both laboratories (Table 11). As
can be seen in Figure 23, very few blisters were observed after
weathering.
Results from the statistical analysis of these blistering
data, which are listed in Tables 12, 13, and 20, can be
summarized as follows:
• All panels for the reinforced products received a blister
rating of 10 indicating that no blisters were present.
In addition, for the liquid products blisters were
observed only for the low-quality exterior paint (LPE)
and acrylic exterior encapsulant (LE4).
121
-------
H
to
N)
Figure 23
Blistering Results for Weathered Panels
10
8D
8MD
8M
8F
6" 6D
I 6MD
Q, 6M
c» 6F
1 4°
DC 4MD
| 4M-
M
2D-
2MD-
2M-
2F
0
®<$> ®^ ®4> ®<^> ®<§> ®O
0
8
<^
® <$> ® <|> ® <|>
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE RE1 RE2* RE3*
Product
° CAE data • CAE mode 0 PSI data
mode
-------
Table 20. Results of Multiple Pain/vise Comparisons for Blistering and Chalking Tests
Test Type
Blistering-Immersed
Panels-CAE
Product
Mean (0-10 rating)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Blistering-Immersed
Panels-PSI
Product
Mean (0-1 Orating)
Group A
Blistering-Weathered
Panels-CAE
Blistering-Weathered
Panels-PSI
Product
Mean (0-1 Orating)
Group A
Group B
Chalking-Weathered
Panels-CAE
Product
Mean (0-1 Orating)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Chalking-Weathered
Panels-PSI
Product
Mean (0-10 rating)
Group A
Group B
Liquid Products
LE1
10
A
HPE
10
A
LE3*
10
A
HPI
10
A
LE5*
10
A
LE4 LN3* LN5* LN6 LPE LN1 LPI
9664322
A
B B B
C C C
ODD
HPI
8
A
LE1
8
A
LN5'
8
A
HPE
8
A
LE4
7
A
LN3* LE5* LPI LE3* LPE LN6 LN1
6554332
A A A A A A A
No analysis-no variation among panels
LE1
10
A
HPE
10
A
LE3*
10
A
LE5*
10
A
LE4
10
A
LPE
4
B
LE4
10
A
LE5"
9
A
LE3*
9
A
LPE
8
B
LE1
7
C
HPE
7
C
LE5*
8
A
LE3*
8
A
LE4
8
A
HPE
8
B
LE1
7
B
LPE
7
B
Reinforced Products
No analysis-no variation among panels
No analysis-no variation among panels
No analysis-no variation among panels
No analysis-no variation among panels
RE1 RE3* RE2*
10 7 7
A
B B
RE1 RE2" RES*
877
A
B B
-------
• No variability between replicate encapsulant products was
observed at either testing laboratory (Table 13).
• For tests conducted at PSI, the average blister rating
for liquid encapsulants was found to be 3 higher (i.e.,
smaller blisters were observed) than that for paints
(Table 13). This difference was statistically
significant, but probably not practically significant.
• The only differentiation among blister ratings for the
liquid products that was determined by the multiple
comparisons analysis was that the low-quality exterior
paint had significantly lower ratings (i.e., larger
blisters).
Summary of Results for Blister Ratings
The results of this study indicate that the blistering test
may be able to distinguish between some different types of
products. However, in this study this separation could only be
made between encapsulants and low-quality paints; encapsulants
and high-quality paints could not be distinguished. Furthermore,
no blisters were observed for reinforced encapsulants, so no
differentiation among these products could be made. In addition,
far fewer blisters were seen after weathering than after water
immersion, so the blistering test appears more likely to be able
to differentiate among products when run in conjunction with the
water immersion protocol.
4.12 CHALKING
Chalking was evaluated for the nine exterior products after
being subjected to the weathering protocol. A black wool felt
fabric was wrapped around the index finger and rubbed against the
surface of the weathered panel through 180 degrees. The fabric
surface was then compared visually with ASTM photographic
reference standards. The rating scale for Method A was 0 to 10
with a rating of 10 indicating no visual evidence of chalking.
Data were collected from more than one area on each panel and
reported as a mean.
Chalking is the formation on a pigmented coating of a powder
evolved from the film itself at, or just beneath, the surface.
124
-------
Therefore, the presence of chalk can indicate degradation of an
exterior coating film.
Weathered Panels
Figure 24 shows the chalking ratings for all nine exterior
products that were subjected to the weathering protocol. Also
shown in the figure is the ASTM E06.23.30 draft performance
standard for liquid coatings of 8. Data completeness for this
test was excellent with all but one planned measurement being
reported (Table 11). The single exception was one panel for
acrylic exterior encapsulant LE4 which was so badly warped during
weathering that further testing could not be completed. As can
be seen in Figure 24, most panels exhibited some degree of
chalking after weathering.
Tables 12, 13, and 20 present results from the statistical
analysis of the chalking data. A summary of these results is
provided in the following points:
• Of the 6 liquid .products tested at CAE and PSI, only 3
products at CAE met the draft ASTM E06.23.30 standard of
8 for all panels evaluated; those products were the
acrylic latex encapsulants (LE3 and LE5) and the acrylic
encapsulant (LE4). However, for one other product tested
at CAE (LPE) and 3 other products tested at PSI (LE3,
LE4, LE5), the average chalking result met the draft ASTM
tandard. There is currently no draft ASTM standard for
reinforced products.
• The average chalking rating was similar for reinforced
(8) and liquid (8) products (Table 12), and for tests
conducted by CAE and PSI (Table 13).
• No significant variability between the results for
replicate encapsulant products was found at either
testing laboratory (Table 13).
• For tests performed at both laboratories, the average
chalking rating for liquid encapsulants was statistically
significantly higher (i.e., less chalking was observed),
but not practically higher, than the average rating for
standard exterior paints (Table 13).
• For the liquid exterior products, results from the
multiple comparisons analysis suggest no clear
125
-------
H
to
Figure 24
Chalking Results for Weathered Panels
10-
9
ASTM Draft
QBU
*~ 7
I
9, 6
D>
C
"•3 5 J
(8
EC
O) 4
.C
•J3 3-
x: °
O
2-
1-
0-
o ® o
00 0
® <$> ® 0 o <^>
0 O 0
.
o
o 0 o 0
® <$> ® <$>
O
o
•
LE1
HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE RE1 RE2* RES*
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mean 0 PSI data
mean
-------
distinction among different types of products. However,
the standard exterior paints (LPE and HPE) and the hybrid
latex encapsulant (LEI) experienced somewhat more
chalking than the other three liquid products (Table 20).
Summary of Results for Chalking Ratings
The reinforced encapsulants, liquid encapsulants, and paints
all exhibited similar average ratings; and no clear grouping was
observed in the test results between various types of products.
Also, results from this study indicate that while some
differences observed for the chalking test were statistically
significant, they may not be practically significant. For
example, most of the significant differences found were on the
order of 1 or 2 rating points.
4.13 PENCIL HARDNESS
Film hardness was determined by the pencil test for all 18
products both before and after water immersion. Special .
calibrated pencils were moved across each sample surface at an
angle specified by the ASTM test method and then progressively
softer pencils were used until a pencil was found that did not
cut (gouge) the sample surface. The number of this pencil was
then recorded as the end point. Two locations were tested on
each panel and reported.
Determination of film hardness by the pencil test is not
currently proposed as a test to evaluate performance for
encapsulants. It was included in this study to provide
additional information about the effect of the 24-hour water
immersion on the surface hardness of the products.
Identification of the end point is subjective and can vary from
one technician to another. Therefore, hardness by the pencil
test may have poor interlaboratory repeatability and
reproducibility.
127
-------
Results for Unexposed Panels
The pencil hardness results for unexposed panels are
presented in Figure 25 for all 18 products and both testing
laboratories. As with the blistering data presented earlier,
this figure shows both individual panel ratings and the mode
(i.e., most frequently cited rating) for each product and
laboratory. As shown in Table 11, data completeness was good for
CAE and poor for PSI. CAE had one panel (two measurements) for
the acrylic and polyester product RE3 that delaminated prior to
testing. PSI on the other hand misunderstood the study design,
thinking they were only to test panels after water immersion and
not before. Therefore, they were only able to complete 36 tests
on a small number of unexposed and unused panels they still had
near the end of the study.
Prior to statistical analysis the pencil hardness ratings
shown in Figure 25 were receded to an increasing numerical scale
of 0-13 where the values 0 and 6B represent the softest coatings,
and the values 13 and 6H represent the hardest coatings. Tables
12, 13, and 21 present results from the statistical analysis of
the pencil hardness data which can be summarized as follows:
• Table 12 indicates that on average the reinforced
coatings (9 rating) were harder than the liquid coatings
(6 rating), although this difference was mostly
attributable to the hardness of the reinforced exterior
products (all panels had the maximum rating of 13).
Also, the hardness ratings were reasonably consistent
between the two laboratories (Table 13).
• Differences between the hardness ratings of replicate
encapsulant products were generally found to be
statistically significant, but not practically
significant, with average differences only up to 3 being
observed (Table 13).
• No practically significant difference was found between
the average pencil hardness of liquid encapsulants and
paints.
128
-------
Figure 25
Pencil Hardness Results for Unexposed Panels
6H
5H-
4H-
~ 3H
(O 2H -
i
i
m H
S,
CO
i HB
H rr _
to R -
u) 0)
| 2B-
0 3B
4B
5B
6B
0 0
<$>
•
t> o o o
/^£\
I ®t ®f> 9®
Q§> O 0 O
-
y^v
V^/
•
0 0
®
®
t I I I i I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I i 1
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RES* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mode 0 PSI data * PSI mode
-------
• The only noteworthy trend seen in the multiple
comparisons results for both laboratories was that the
reinforced exterior products were significantly harder
than the reinforced interior products (Table 21).
Immersed Panels
Pencil hardness data for the immersed panels are presented
in Figures 26 and 27 corresponding to readings taken
approximately 10-20 minutes versus 120 minutes after removal from
the water, respectively. Data completeness was quite good for
this data set. PSI reported all 156 measurements that were
planned, while CAE had problems with only two panels (Table 11).
One panel (two readings) for product LN4 was damaged while
performing the 10-minute pencil hardness test, and could not be
used for the subsequent 120-minute test. Also, one panel (two
readings) for the acrylic and polyester reinforced product RE3
delaminated prior to water immersion making further testing
impossible.
The following points highlight the results of the pencil
hardness testing which are also summarized in Tables 12, 13, and
21:
Both the liquid and reinforced coatings experienced a
loss of hardness at both 10 minutes and 120 minutes after
water immersion in comparison with unexposed panels
(Table 12). It should be noted, however, that the loss
in hardness was less for the reinforced products in
general, and that the reinforced exterior products
experienced no loss in hardness (Figures 25, 26, and 27).
Differences in hardness after immersion between replicate
encapsulant products were generally not found to be
significant.
Pencil hardness after immersion for liquid encapsulants
was not found to be significantly different from that for
paints (Table 13).
The multiple comparisons analysis found that the hardest
liquid products after immersion were generally the high-
quality exterior paint (HPE) and the acrylic exterior
encapsulant (LE4); while the hardest reinforced products
after immersion were the exterior products.
130
-------
Table 21. Results of Multiple Pairwise Comparisons for Pencil Hardness Testing
Test Type
Pencil Hardness-
Unexposed Panels-CAE
Product
Mean (0-1 3 rating)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group 0
Pencil Hardness—
Unexposed Panels-PSI
Product
Mean (0-1 3 rating)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Group E
Group F
Pencil Hardness-10 min.
After Immerslon-CAE
Product
Mean (0-1 3 rating)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Pencil Hardness-10 min.
After Immersion-PSI
Product
Mean (0-1 3 rating)
Group A
Group B
Group C
Liquid Products
LEI LPI LE3* LN6 LN3* HPI LN5* HPE LE4 LE5* LN1 LPE
666666666666
AAAAAAAAA
B B B B B B
HPI LN1 LN6 LN3* LE3* LN5* HPE LE4 LE5* LPE LE1 LPI
766555444322
A
B B
C C C
ODD
E E
F F
No analysis-no variation among panels
LE4 HPE LE5* HPI LN3* LPI LE3* LN1 LE1 LPE LN5* LN6
421100000000
A A
BBBBBBBBBBB
Reinforced Products
RE1
13
A
RE2* RE3*
13 13
A A
RN3 RN1* RN2*
754
B
C
D
RE1
13
A
RE2* RES*
13 13
A A
RN1* RN2* RN3
887
B B B
RE1
13
A
RE2* RES*
13 13
A A
RN3 RN2* RN1*
500
B
C C
RE1
13
A
RE2* RES*
13 13
A A
RN3 RN2* RN1
900
B
C C
-------
Figure 26
Pencil Hardness Results for Immersed (10 minute dry) Panels
6H
5H
4H
? 3H
® ®
I I I
<$>
0
0
0
$> ® ®^ 9$
,®f> «$ ®f>
•
0
0 0
®l> ®t> ®^ ®^> ®^> ®^
<$>
-
®0
o
«4> ®t>
\ i 1 1 I 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RES* RN1* RN2* RN3
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mode O PSI data 4 PSI mode
-------
Table 21. Continued
Test Type
Pencil Hardness-120 min.
After Immersion-CAE
Product
Mean (0-1 Orating)
Group A
Group B
Pencil Hardness-120 min.
After Immersion-PSI
Product
Mean (0-13 rating)
Group A
Group B
Liquid Products
HPE LE5*
5 4
A A
B
LE1
3
A
B
HPI
3
A
B
LN1
2
A
B
LPE
2
A
B
LE4
2
A
B
LN6
2
A
B
LE3* LN3*
1 1
B B
LN5*
0
B
LPI
0
B
LE4 HPE
7 5
A A
B
LN1
2
B
HPI
2
B
LPE
1
B
LPI
1
B
LN5*
1
B
LE1
0
B
LE5* LN3*
0 0
B B
LE3*
0
B
LN6
0
B
Reinforced Products
No analysis-no variation among panels
No analysis-no variation among panels
UJ
-------
H
OJ
ffl
o>
Figure 27
Pencil Hardness Results for Immersed (120 minute dry) Panels
6H
5H
4H
3H
2H
F-
HB-
B-
2B
3B
4B
5B
6B-
^
0
4> o^ ^> oO
CD (D
^> «f
O « <|>
<^
oO 0 o^> ®0 ®0 o^>
<§>$> «t ^
-
•
'
^> 4> .
®|> ®
i i
i i
\ i
LEI HPE LE3* LE4 LE5* LPE LN1 HPI LN3* LPI LN5* LN6 RE1 RE2* RE3* RIM1* RN2* RN3
Product
0 CAE data • CAE mode 0 PSI data
PSI mode
-------
Summary of Pencil Hardness Results
Results from this study indicate that the pencil hardness
test can probably distinguish the exterior reinforced encapsulant
products from other coatings, but not differences among other
types of products. After water immersion, all products except
the reinforced exterior encapsulants experienced a substantial
loss of hardness.
135
-------
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
This section summarizes the quality assurance steps that
were taken throughout the study to ensure the quality of the test
results. Important elements of the study design related to
quality assurance are described first, followed by a summary of
the approach and results from the three different quality
assurance audits that were conducted at each laboratory.
5.1 METHODS EMPLOYED
Initial planning for this study involved the writing of a
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP). The QAPjP (I) described
in detail the study design, sample collection procedures,
analysis and measurement methods, data processing and statistical
analysis procedures, and planned quality assurance audits.
Copies of internal quality assurance plans from each of the
testing laboratories were also obtained and included as part of
the QAPjP. Before any actual testing occurred, the QAPjP was
submitted for EPA approval, and then copies were distributed to
the designated Quality Assurance Officers at each of the
laboratories. In addition to the study design previously
discussed in Chapter 2, the QAPjP outlined specific procedures to
ensure the quality of the study data. These procedures are
briefly described discussed in the following paragraphs.
Sample products used for testing were purchased in regular
commercial containers as supplied by the manufacturers. The
containers were cleared of commercial identifying marks and
labeled with three-character Product ID codes corresponding to
each of the 18 products selected for testing. The products were
then shipped to each of the laboratories along with a Product
Identification Form to trace the exact quantities transferred.
Application instructions for each product were also written based
upon recommendations from the manufacturers and were shipped with
the products. All products were protected from environmental
extremes during shipment and storage as directed by the
manufacturers.
136
-------
Sample panels were prepared by the laboratories based on the
application method, film thickness, and dry/cure time specified
in the instructions for each product. All panels were
permanently labeled with an identification code comprised of the
Product ID and a unique sample number. The entire sample
preparation process, including equipment used and procedures
followed, was documented in such a way that the panel preparation
process could be duplicated in the future.
Equipment used to measure data was calibrated with
traceability to national reference standards. Calibration
procedures were performed before and after each equipment use,
and between measurements as needed for each particular
instrument. The actual calibration schedule followed during
testing was documented by each laboratory.
In order to protect against potential biases introduced
during testing by various instruments, testing days, and
technicians, all tests were performed in a randomized order.
Randomized testing schemes were prepared for each of the test
types and were given to the laboratories. These schemes ensured
that the panels prepared with each individual product were tested
in a different randomized order for each test type and each
replicate panel, with each laboratory following the same order.
All study data were examined for accuracy through a series
of checks. Electronic data files were generated by each
laboratory before transfer for statistical analysis. Prior to
transfer, each laboratory performed a 100% check of its data
files to confirm that the data were consistent with the test
results recorded in the laboratory books used during testing.
Extensive visual inspections of the data were also conducted
prior to performing any statistical analysis. Obvious outliers,
incomplete test results, and other discrepancies found in the
data were reported to the laboratories for correction or
explanation. Finally, a data audit was designed to compare 5-10%
of the data in the laboratory notebooks with the final SAS*
datasets used in the statistical analysis.
137
-------
5.2 AUDIT RESULTS
To ensure data quality within the project, each testing
laboratory was subjected to three separate quality assurance
audits --a system, performance, and data audit. These audits,
conducted by the Quality Assurance Unit of the statistical
analysis contractor, were in addition to the routine quality
control checks and procedures performed at each laboratory.
System Audit
The system audit was conducted via an on-site inspection at
each laboratory prior to testing to ensure that the sample
handling, testing, data collection, and quality control
procedures were adequate to meet the data quality objectives of
the program. Areas examined in the audit included company
organization and personnel, laboratory facilities, operations,
and equipment. The system audit at PSI was performed on February
1, 1994, and the audit of CAE occurred on February 2, 1994.
The system audit at PSI determined that their quality
assurance and quality control procedures, personnel
qualifications, equipment suitability and availability, and
facility parameters were all adequate for performance of the
study, with the exception of four specific recommendations. PSI
was formally asked to resolve these issues on February 7, 1994,
and a response from PSI agreeing to implement changes was
received on February 23, 1994. The issues of concern followed by
the steps that PSI took to resolve them are listed below.
• A management review of Personnel Training Forms for Test
Procedures and Standards needed to be completed to insure
that technical staff assigned to the study were familiar
with current standards, and that company training
requirements shown in the Quality Assurance Manual were
in compliance. PSI indicated that they were currently
performing a review to update their Personnel Training
Forms. They also were reviewing the applicable ASTM
Methods and signing-off on the forms.
• Moderate to severe housekeeping and cleanliness problems
were noted throughout the facility. PSI stated that
cleaning would be performed on a daily basis, and that
138
-------
they would take steps to assure a clean environment,
including air and working surfaces.
• Facility plans to address necessary spatial requirements
for adequate test panel preparation and drying needed to
be documented. PSI stated that the inner laboratory area
would be used for the sample preparation. They also
obtained a system of shelves that could be placed in the
lab for drying the panels.
• Equipment was lacking or insufficient with regards to the
weathering chamber, actual ASTM photographic reference
standards for ASTM D 714, enough dollies to use for pull
adhesion with the water immersion test, and available
hood space. The requirement to perform and document
daily balance calibration checks with a 2x standard
weight bracket was also mentioned. PSI arranged to
purchase a second weathering chamber and a set of ASTM D
714 photographic standards; planned to clean and reuse
their current supply of dollies (additional dollies were
available from a local supplier if needed); planned to
efficiently utilize their hood space; and planned to
check the analytical balances with standard calibration
weights on testing days.
The quality assurance and quality control procedures,
personnel qualifications, equipment suitability and availability,
and facility parameters for CAE were examined during their system
audit, and were all found to be adequate for performance of the
study, with the exception of four specific recommendations. CAE
was formally asked to resolve these issues on February 8, 1994,
and a letter from CAE responding to these issues was received on
February 15, 1994. The issues of concern followed by the steps
that CAE took to resolve them are listed below.
• Additional QA staff were needed to monitor the QA/QC
activities for the study, as well as meet the facility QA
objectives. CAE hired an additional staff member for
their Quality Assurance Section to assist with the QA
tasks for this study and to update their Quality
Assurance Manual.
• Files containing staff capability, experience, and
training were found to be incomplete in some cases. CAE
assigned their Personnel Director to assemble information
concerning staff capability, experience, on-the-job
139
-------
training, and vendor training into a single Personnel
Qualifications File.
• Only those ASTM Method versions referenced in the study
QAPjP were applicable to this program even though CAE
possessed more recent versions of some of the methods.
CAE advised their staff members working on the study to
use only the QAPjP-referenced ASTM Method versions.
• It was requested that the daily balance calibration check
with a 2x standard weight bracket on days of use be
documented in' the study files. CAE included in their
test protocol that a daily balance calibration check with
a 2x standard weight bracket be conducted and documented
in program notebooks.
Performance Audit
The performance audit was conducted via an on-site
inspection to ensure that testing, data collection, and quality
control procedures were being properly implemented in accordance
with the study QAPjP. Performance audits were scheduled to be
conducted after approximately 25% of the required tests had been
completed so that a significant amount of data had already been
collected, but yet the majority of tests were still to be run.
In this way any performance concerns which were discovered could
be addressed and corrected before the majority of the data were
collected.
Areas examined during the audit included training and
capabilities of laboratory staff; availability and condition of
laboratory facilities; availability, maintenance, and
calibration of the testing equipment; and adherence to standard
sample handling, testing, data collection, and quality control
procedures. Implementation of recommendations made during the
system audit were also discussed with each laboratory as part of
the performance audit. The performance audit at CAE was
conducted on April 6, 1994, while the performance audit at PSI
was delayed until May 13, 1994, because of schedule difficulties
they encountered while preparing the sample panels. •
During the performance audit at CAE the scrub resistance
test and panel exposure in,the weathering chamber were observed.
140
-------
With the exception of minor items, CAE appeared to be performing
the tests within, or exceeding, compliance aspects stipulated in
the QAPjP. CAE was notified of the following exceptions in a
letter dated April 13, 1994.
• Lab records needed to be expanded to include descriptions
of all mixing and sub-sampling steps performed prior to
panel application; gage designations, calibration
procedures, and adherence to test method citation needed
to be included in the Dry Film Thickness record book; and
the source and type of silica used for the Abrasive Scrub
Media needed to be noted in the Scrub Resistance record
book.
• Immediate resolution to blocking and sticking of prepared
sample panels needed to be addressed, with any damage
noted on these panels included in the study records. A
thorough quality control check of panel identification
also needed to be performed and documented.
• Work should continue towards the improvement of personnel
training and experience records and Standard Operating
Procedures and maintenance records. It was noted that
the new Quality Assurance staff member was currently
being trained to assist in these efforts.
The performance audit at PSI took place while laboratory
staff were conducting the scrub resistance test. Audit personnel
observed that PSI was performing the tests as required and in
accordance with the QAPjP. Specific items that were recommended
to PSI based on the performance audit, as well as incomplete
implementation of the system audit recommendations, are listed
below. These issues were discussed with laboratory officials
during the performance audit and were documented in a letter to
PSI dated June 8, 1994.
• Replacement of the facility QA Supervisor was needed to
insure a totally independent QA/QC function within the
facility. The current design of district managers
providing their own QA/QC oversight leads to a possible
conflict of interest.
• Continued improvement in the cleanliness and organization
of the laboratory work area was encouraged.
141
-------
• Location of the third set of MSDS sheets shipped with the
products needed to be determined so that they could be
returned at study completion.
• Improved documentation in laboratory records was needed
regarding test panel accountability, test panel
preparation and preconditioning, daily calibration checks
of balances, and any other experimental details required
to reconstruct the study activities conducted at PSI.
• Verification of the Weatherometer time and temperature
readings needed to be added to the study records.
• Laboratory staff needed to be reminded to use ink when
recording test data and to make study records as complete
and legible as possible.
Data Audit
The data audit was conducted via a comparison of original
laboratory data records against data listings created from the
project database to ensure that test data were accurately
transferred and that no systematic errors were introduced to the
data throughout the testing, data collection, and reporting steps
of the study. Since both laboratories were required to perform a
100% check of their data before transmitting it, the data audit
was designed to verify only 10% of the data generated by each
laboratory. However, plans were made to subject the remaining
portion of the data to audit if serious discrepancies were
uncovered in the verification process. The data audit took place
during April and May of 1995.
A total of 39 panels from each laboratory were chosen by a
random method for the data audit. The selection of these panels
was designed to ensure that panels for all test types and all
encapsulant products were included in the audit. Data for these
panels were tracked from test substance preparation and
application through electronically transmitted test results.
Selection of the data audit panels was designed to ensure
that panels for all test types and all products were included in
the data audit. For this reason, the number of audit panels from
each test type was determined proportionately to the planned
total number of panels for that test type. Table 22 shows the
142
-------
breakdown by test type of planned total number of panels (also
expressed as a percentage of total panels), and the corresponding
number of panels to audit. The number of panels to audit was
calculated by multiplying the planned percentage of panels by 39
(the total number of panels to be audited) and rounding up to a
minimum of 1 panel when necessary.
After determining the number of panels to be audited for
each test type, two randomized lists were generated to determine
the actual panels to be audited. The first list contained a
randomized ordering of the 18 encapsulant products. This
sequence was repeated three times so that all encapsulant
products would be selected at least twice for the data audit.
The second list contained a set of randomly chosen replicate
panel numbers for every test type. Each of these numbers was
independently chosen based on the number of replicate panels
tested for the test type, and the size of each set corresponded
to the number of panels to be audited for each test type.
Actual panel selection was identical for both testing
laboratories. Beginning with the first test type and continuing
through each of the 13 test types defined in Table 22, the
appropriate numbers of products were sequentially selected from
the randomized product list. The specific replicate panels for
these products were then taken from the second list. When
necessary, a product was temporarily skipped on the product list
if it was not one of the products tested for the current test
type (e.g., LN1 was not tested after weathering, reinforced
products were not tested for tape adhesion). The skipped product
was then included for the next possible test type.
The selection of panels for two of the test types had to be
modified slightly from the approach described above:
• Test Type 2 (Impact Resistance) - There were no
individual panel results for this test. The final test
result is based on at least 15 hits performed on all
replicate panels. For this reason all replicate panels
were included in the data audit.
143
-------
TABLE 22. SUMMARY OF DATA AUDIT PANELS AND PERFORMANCE TESTS
Test
Type
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Tests Performed
Dry Film, Thickness, Scrub
Resistance
Dry Film Thickness, Impact
Resistance
Dry Film Thickness,
Flexibility
Dry Film Thickness, Dry
Abrasion
Dry Film Thickness,
Adhesion-Tape
Dry Film Thickness,
Adhesion-Pull
Dry Film Thickness,
Viscoelastic Properties
Dry Film Thickness, Water
Immersion, Blistering,
Pencil Hardness, Adhesion-
Tape
Dry Film Thickness, Water
Immersion, Blistering,
Pencil Hardness, Adhesion-
Pull
Planned Total
No. of Panels
(% of All Panels)
54 (10.3%)
72 (13.7%)
54 (10.3%)
36 (6.9%)
12 (2.3%)
54 (10.3%)
90 (17.1%)
12 (2.3%)
54 (10.3%)
No. of Panels
to Audit
4
5*
4
3
1**
4
6
1**
4
Panels Selected for Audit
CAE
AJA 235 LE4
AIB 210 LE3
AAA 001 LN1
BEA 589 RN1
LE6
RN3
LN4
LN6
RN2
ABH 034 LN2
AKI 269 LE5
BHH 665 RE1
ACJ 062 LN3
BJL 715 RE3
AEK 115 LN5
AGK 167 LEI
AHM 195 LE2
BIO 695 RE2
AJO 249 LE4
AIO 223 LE3
AAO 015 LN1
AYC 519 RN1
AXA 505 LE6
BAG 547 RN3
APE 413 LN4
ARI 441 LN6
AZI 537 RN2
ABT 046 LN2*
ABV 048 LN2++
AKU 281 LE5
BHM 670 RE1
ACS 071 LN3
BJM 716 RE3
PSI
LE4-1
LE3-2
LN1-1
RN1-3
LE6
RN3
LN4
LN6
RN2
LN2-4
LE5-8
RE1-7
LN3-6
RE3-23
LN5-15
LE1-25
LE2-13
RE2-11
LE4-11
LE3-11
LN1-8
RN1-2
LE6-10
RN3-7
LN4-4
LN6-4
RN2-8
LN2-13
LE5-16
RE1-13
LN3-13
RE3-13
-------
TABLE 22. (Continued)
Test
Type
10
11
12
13
Tests Performed
Dry Film Thickness,
Weathering, Blistering,
Chalking, Adhesion-Tape
Dry Film Thickness,
Weathering, Blistering,
Chalking, Adhesion- Pull
Dry Film Thickness,
Weathering, Blistering,
Chalking, Flexibility
Dry Film Thickness,
Weathering, Blistering,
Chalking, Scrub Resistance
Total
Planned Total
No. of Panels
(% of All Panels)
6 (1.1%)
27 (5.1%)
27 (5.1%)
27 (5.1%)
525 (100%)
No. of Panels
to Audit
1**
2
2
2
39
Panels Selected for Audit
CAE
AGA 313 LEI
AHD 326 LE2
BLC 740 RE2
AJE 347 LE4
AIG 339 LE3
ALI 371 LE6
BKH 735 RE1
PS I
LE1-24
LE2-23
RE2-21
LE4-18
LE3-20
LE6-5
RE1-4
ui * All panels audited for each of the 5 products selected.
**Three results to be audited for each panel.
+ Panel used for blistering and pencil hardness tests.
++Panel used for adhesion-tape test.
-------
• Test Type 8 (Immersed Tape-Adhesion, etc.) - Instead of
performing the Tape-Adhesion, Blistering, and Pencil
Hardness tests on the same test panel, CAE used separate
panels to perform the Tape-Adhesion test than they used
for the Blistering and Pencil Hardness tests. In order
to include all types of test data, the appropriate
replicate panel was selected for the Tape-Adhesion test
and the same replicate panel number was used to select
the Blistering and Pencil Hardness panel.
Significant audit findings for CAE are listed below. A
letter was sent to CAE on June 19, 1995, asking for clarification
or explanation for each of the items listed. Other minor
discrepancies are detailed in the Data Audit Report (submitted to
EPA in July 1995).
• Physical Verification of Audit Panels and Films - Two
test panels and all six viscoelastic films could not be
located for the audit.
• Unexposed Scrub Resistance - Dry-film thicknesses for all
four panels were not in agreement with lab record books.
• Impact Resistance - Data results reported for some
individual panels appeared to be combinations of hits
from multiple panels.
• Unexposed Pull Adhesion - Data reported for failure type
(adhesive vs. cohesive) were opposite of those listed in
lab record books for all four panels.
• Pull Adhesion After Water Immersion - Data reported for
failure type (adhesive vs. cohesive) were opposite of
those listed in lab record books for all three panels.
• Tape adhesion After Weathering - Dry film thicknesses for
both panels were not in agreement with lab record books.
• Pull Adhesion After Weathering - Dry film thicknesses for
both panels were not in agreement with lab record books.
Data reported for failure type (adhesive vs. cohesive)
were opposite of those listed in lab record books for
both panels.
• Flexibility After Weathering - Dry film thicknesses for
both panels were not in agreement with lab record books.
146
-------
Scrub Resistance After Weathering - Dry film thicknesses
for both panels were not in agreement with lab record
books.
In response to the data audit questions, CAE rechecked their
data and procedures, and on July 20, 1995 submitted a letter with
explanations for each question. After considering these
responses, it was determined that all data in question were
correct as reported earlier, and that no changes were required to
the project data base.
Serious audit findings for PSI included a lack of
documentation as to when the water immersion and weathering steps
were performed. In addition, listed below are audit findings for
specific tests. A letter dated June 19, 1995, was sent to PSI
asking for clarification or explanation for each of the items
listed, as well as the lack of water immersion and weathering
documentation. Other minor discrepancies are detailed in the
Data Audit Report (submitted to EPA in July 1995).
• Impact Resistance - The reported heights for one of the
panels did not agree with the lab record books.
• Tape Adhesion After Water Immersion - Only one pencil
reading was recorded for the one audited panel.
• Pull Adhesion After Water Immersion - Only one pencil
reading was recorded for each of the four panels.
• Tape adhesion After Weathering - The chalking result
reported for the one audited panel did not agree with the
lab record books.
• Flexibility After Weathering - A dry film thickness
reading for one panel was not in agreement with lab
record books.
In response to the data audit questions, PSI rechecked their
data and procedures, and on July 24, 1995 submitted a letter with
explanations and further information for each question. The PSI
response led to minor changes to one coating thickness
measurement listed in the Appendix and to one point shown on
147
-------
Figure 13 for the impact resistance test results. However, in
both cases these changes were so minor that they did not require
any changes to be made to the project data base.
148
-------
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of this comparative study of 12 encapsulant
products and four commercial paints can be useful for assessing
the merits of the individual tests in distinguishing among the
products tested. The results can provide guidance for
establishing realistic levels of performance for products of this
type by providing actual data on the performance of a number of
commercial products as measured in more than one laboratory by
more than one operator. However, there are several testing
issues that should be considered in the process of improving the
test methods and selecting numerical values for minimum
performance standards.
1. All of the tests performed in this study, with the
exception of the scrub resistance test and viscoelastic tests,
were conducted using standard metal panels. However, the
adhesion of some encapsulants to metal panels is questionable.
These products are not formatted specifically for metal adhesion.
Non-metallic substrates are more common in the residential
settings for which these encapsulants were designed. Performance
testing on non-metallic substrates may provide a more realistic
indication of product performance that can be expected in
service. The feasibility of performing these ASTM tests, or
other tests, on non-metallic substrates should be investigated.
However, alternate substrates may present their own set of
challenges. Selection of alternate substrates or substrate
treatments such as abrasion or primers should be based on solid
physical data.
2. Adhesion is probably one of the most important physical
properties that an encapsulant must possess if it is to perform
well in the field. Results from this study indicated several
difficulties with the tape and pull adhesion tests used to assess
this property. Reproducibility of this test is affected by tape
and adhesive variations, as well as by operator techniques. The
tape test showed a lack of sensitivity to detect differences
149
-------
among products, and it could not be performed on the reinforced
encapsulants. The pull adhesion test indicated concerns with
adhesion to the tin-plated steel panel, the instrumentation used,
the adhesive used to fasten the dollies to the panels, scoring
around the dollies for the reinforced products, and use of the
relatively thin 0.01 inch test panel. Investigation into
solutions to these concerns with the current tape and pull
adhesion tests is recommended, as well as consideration of
alternative tests that may be available.
3. Variation in system thickness among panels for the same
product can in some cases introduce significant variations to the
subsequent performance testing results. In this pilot study,
target system thickness ranges were based on product literature
.recommendations for field application. These recommendations
were usually based on spray, roll, or brush application on
vertical surfaces. The product manufacturers have experience
applying these products both in the field and in the laboratory.
Therefore, they should be able to provide tighter target ranges
for each multi-coat and reinforced product for test panel
preparation by drawdown. With some additional input from the
manufacturers, testing laboratories should be able to decrease
the intralaboratory and interlaboratory variability of test
panels for each multi-coat and reinforced product.
4. ASTM E06.23.30 is considering a combination of tensile
strength and elongation to define three liquid product groups.
Changes in these properties after exposure to temperature, time,
and weathering protocols in the laboratory might be quite useful
for understanding and predicting field service of the coatings.
However, determination of these properties is not as rapid and
easy to perform as some of the older, more widely used,
"practical" tests such as abrasion resistance, impact resistance,
flexibility, and hardness. Also, additional time and laboratory
expertise is needed to make good free films. Comparative testing
after exposure to weathering and other exposure conditions may be
150
-------
difficult or expensive to implement for performance testing.
However, the potential use of additional viscoelastic elasticity
testing after exposure should be investigated.
5. Testing in this pilot study indicated significant
variability in some cases between replicate encapsulant products,
that is, between results for two batches of panels prepared with
two different samples of the same product. Therefore, when
batch-to-batch variability is large, performance testing
decisions should not be based on test results from a single
product sample, but instead should be determined from testing a
number of different batches of the product.
6. Many of the tests performed in this study may give their
most useful information as comparative tests, particularly when
test samples are prepared at the same time to control variables
such as application method, sample panel type, film thickness,
cure/dry time, test conditions (temperature and relative
humidity), and multiple operators or instruments. Tests such as
scrub resistance, dry abrasion resistance, impact resistance,
tape adhesion, and pull adhesion can provide valuable information
about the relative performance of two or more coatings evaluated
at the same time in the same laboratory. Therefore, it may be
useful to set some performance standards based on ranked results
among products rather than actual numerical standards. In this
approach, a known standard coating(s) would be required to serve
as a benchmark for the test results.
7. Although evaluation of ten potential test protocols was
conducted in this study, there are a number of other performance
properties, suggested by ASTM E06.23.30 and others, that might
also be investigated. For example, chemical resistance, bridging
of substrate cracking, and lead accessibility are other
properties for which testing results are not yet available to
ASTM, although they are perhaps being generated currently by
other groups.
151
-------
8. Performance testing in the laboratory is relatively
controlled and reproducible in comparison with performance that
might be experienced by the same products in natural residential
environments. And it is this performance in service in the field
that is critical to the effective use of encapsulants. There is
currently little, if any, information which directly correlates
laboratory performance testing results with field performance.
This information should be collected and quantitatively analyzed.
Of course, such an evaluation will require establishing
performance tests that can be conducted in a residential setting
and which adequately measure the true performance"of encapsulants
in the field.
152
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
1. Battelle, 1994, "Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
Lead-Based Paint Encapsulant Pilot Testing Program," to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, prepared under Contract No. 68-D2-
0139.
2. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1994, "Standard
Specification for Liquid Coating Encapsulation Products for
Leaded Paint in Buildings", draft standard, ASTM,
Philadelphia, PA.
3. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1994, "Standard
Specification for Reinforced Liquid Coating Encapsulation
Products for Leaded Paint in Buildings", working draft
standard, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
153
-------
APPENDIX
DETAILED DATA LISTING FOR
PILOT TESTING PROGRAM FOR PROTOCOLS
FOR LEAD-BASED PAINT ENCAPSULANTS
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
6.5
6.0
6.2
5.8
6.3
5.5
6.1
5.2
5.8
5.3
6.3
5.3
6.6
5.7
5.7
6.1
5.9
6.3
6.1
5.8
6.4-
5.6
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.9
6.0
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.1
6.0
6.2
5.6
6.1
6.9
6.5
5.9
6.4
5.1
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.6
5.3
5.7
5.2
5.7
5.2
5.6
5.0
6.3
5.0
5.1
5.8
5.5
5.8
5.5
6.8
5.7
5.5
5.2
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.1
5.4
S.4
5.7
5.3
5.7
5.5
5.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
AGA 157 LEI
AGA 313 LEI
AGB 158 LEI
AGB 314 LEI
AGC 159 LEI
AGC 315 LEI
AGD 160 LEI
AGD 316 LEI
AGE 161 LEI
AGE 317 LEI
AGF 16i LEI
.AGF 318 LEI
AGG 163 LEI
AGG 319 LEI
AGH 164 LEI
AGH 320 LEI
AGI 165 LEI
AGI 321 LEI
AGJ 166 LEI
AGK 167 LEI
AGK 322 LEI
AGL 168 LEI
AGM 169 LEI
AGN 170 LEI
AGO 171 LEI
AGP 172 LEI
AGQ 173 LEI
AGR 174 LEI
AGS 175 LEI
ACT 176 LEI
AGU 177 LEI
AGX 180 LEI
ASA 445 LEI
ASB 446 LEI
ASC 447 LEI
ASD 448 LEI
ASE 449 LEI
ASH 452 LEI
ASI 453 LEI
ASJ 454 LEI
ASK 455 LEI
ASL 456 LEI
AHA 183 LE2
AHA 323 LE2
AHB 184 LE2
AHB 324 LE2
AHC 185 LE2
AHC 325 LE2
AHD 186 LE2
AHD 326 LE2
AHE 187 LE2
AHE 327 LE2
AHF 188 LE2
AHF 328 LE2
AHG 189 LE2
AHG 329 LE2
AHH 190 LE2
AHH 330 LE2
AHI 191 LE2
AHI 331 LE2
AHJ 192 LE2
AHK 193 LE2
AHK 332 LE2
AHL 194 LE2
AHM 195 LE2
AHN 196 LE2
AHO 197 LE2
AHP 198 LE2
AHQ 199 LE2
AHR 200 LE2
AHS 201 LE2
AHT 202 LE2
AHU 203 LE2
AHX 206 LE2
ATA 457 LE2
ATE 458 LE2
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
5.5
5.8
5.5
5.5
5.3
5.5
5.4
5.5
6.5
7.5
6.5
7.2
6.4
6.7
6.7
6.5
6.8
6.3
7.0
6.5
7.1-
6.8
6.7
7.8
6.9
7.5
7.1
6.9
7.6
6.5
6.8
7.2
6.8
7.0
6.9
7.0
6.9
6.7
6.9
5.8
6.4
7.0
6.3
5,9
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.1
6.0
5.5
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.7
5.3
5.7
5.8
5.7
5.5
5.3
5.3
5.0
5.5
5.1
5.7
5.4
5.6
5.6
5.9
6.4
6.4
6.7
5.3
77
78
79
SO
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
'CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE •
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3 '
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
L.E4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
ATC 459 LE2
ATD 460 LE2
ATE 461 LE2
ATF 462 LE2
ATG 463 LE2
ATH 464 LE2
ATI 465 LE2
ATJ 466 LE2
AIA 209 LE3
AIA 333 LE3
AIB 210 LE3
AIB 334 LE3
AIC 211 LE3
AIC 335 LE3
AID 212 LE3
AID 336 LE3
AIE 213 LE3
AJE 337 LE3
AIF 214 LE3
AIF 338 LE3
AIG 215 LE3
AIG 339 LE3
AIH 216 LE3
AIH 340 LE3
All 217 LE3
All 341 LE3
AIJ 218 LE3
AIK 219 LE3
AIK 342 LE3
AIL 220 LE3
AIM 221 LE3
AIN 222 LE3
AID 223 LE3
AIP 224 LE3
AIQ 225 LE3
AIR 226 LE3
AIS 227 LE3
AIT 228 LE3
AID 229 LE3
AIX 232 LE3
ATJA 469 LE3
ADB 470 LE3
AUC 471 LE3
AUD 472 LE3
AUE 473 LE3
AOF 474 LE3
AUG 475 LE3
AUH 476 LE3
AUI 477 LE3
AUJ 478 LE3
AJA 235 LE4
AJA 343 LE4
AJB 236 LE4
AJB 344 LE4
AJC 237 LE4
AJC 345 LE4
AJD 238 LE4
AJD 346 LE4
AJE 239 LE4
AJE 347 LE4
AJF 240 LE4
AJF 348 LE4
AJG 241 LE4
AJG 349 LE4
AJH 242 LE4
AJH 350 LE4
AJI 243 LE4
AJI 351 LE4
AJJ 244 LE4
AJK 245 LE4
AJK 352 LE4
AJL 246 LE4
AJM 247 LE4
AJN 248 LE4
AJO 249 LE4
AJP 250 LE4
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
5.0
6.3
5.2
6.6
5-0
6.4
5.6
5.6
5.4
5.6
S.5
5.6
5.3
5.8
6.2
6.0
6.2
6.0
6.5
6.3
6.2-
5.7
6.4
6.0
5.5
6.0
5.9
5.5
5.6
5.8
5.4
6.4
5.5
6.3
5.5
5.6
6.6
6.6
5.1
7.1
5.7
7.6
5.8
5.4
5.7
5.8
5.6
6.0
6.1
5.4
6.0
6.0
5.9
6.0
5.9
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.7
5.5
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.0
S.I
5.2
5.3
5.6
5.5
6.5
5.4
6.6
5.2
4.9
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE5
LES
LE5
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LE6
LE6
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
AJQ 251 LE4
AJR 252 LE4
AJS 253 LE4
AJT 254 LE4
AJU 255 LE4
AJX 258 LE4
AVA 481 LE4
AVB 482 LE4
AVC 483 LE4
AVD 484 LE4
AVE 485 LE4
AVF 486 LE4
AVG 487 LE4
AVH 488 LE4
AVI 489 LE4
AVJ 490 LE4
AKA 261 LES
AKA 353 LES
AKB 262 LES
AKB 354 LES
AKC 263 LES
ARC 355 LES
AKD 264 LES
AKD 356 LES
AKE 265 LES
AKE 357 LES
AKF 266 LES
AKF 358 LES
AKG 267 LES
AKG 359 LES
AKH 268 LES
AKH 360 LES
AKI 269 LES
AKI 361 LES
AKJ 270 LES
AKK 271 LES
AKK 362 LES
AKL 272 LES
ARM 273 LES
AKN 274 LES
AKO 275 LES
AKP 276 LES
AKQ 277 LES
AKR 278 LES
AKS 279 LES
AKT 280 LES
AKU 281 LES
AKX 284 LES
AWA 493 LES
AWB 494 LES
AHC 495 LES
AND 496 LES
AWE 497 LES
AWF 498 LES
AWG 499 LES
AWH 500 LES
AHI 501 LES
AWJ 502 LES
ALA 287 LES
ALA 363 LES
ALB 288 LES
ALB 364 LE6
ALC 289 LE6
ALC 365 LE6
ALD 290 LES
ALD 366 LES
ALE 291 LES
ALF 292 LES
ALF 368 LES
ALG 293 LES
ALG 369 LES
ALH 294 LES
ALH 370 LE6
ALI 295 LES
ALI 371 LE6
ALJ 296 LES
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
6.4
5.4
7.3
6.6
6.4
5.2
5.S
6.4
6.9
5.1
5.3
5.1
5.0
5.6
5.2
5.2
5.1
5.3
5.4
5.2
5.3 .
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.1
5.1
4.8
S.S
5.0
6.9
6.3
6.5
6.2
5.8
5.1
6.1
6.1
6.4
5.1
6.4
5.9
6.1
6.4
6.1
5.1
5.1
6.2
6.5
6-5
6.6
6.1
5.5
5.6
5.9
5.9
S.S
5.7
5.5
5.6
5.6
6.5
5.9
6.1
5.4
5.7
5.7
6.6
6.2 '
5.5
5.4
6.0
5.9
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.7
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
2S8
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAB
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6'
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LH2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
ALK 297 LE6
ALK 372 LE6
ALL 298 LE6
ALM 299 LE6
ALN 300 LE6
ALO 301 LE6
ALP 302 LE6
ALQ 303 LE6
ALR 304 LE6
ALS 305 LE6
ALT 306 LE6
ALU 307 LE6
ALV 308 LE6
ALX 310 LE6
AXA 505 LE6
AXC 507 LE6
AXD 508 LE6
AXE 509 LE6
AXF 510 LE6
AXG 511 LE6
AXH 512 LE6
AXI 513 LE6
AXJ 514 LE6
AXL 516 LE6
AAA 001 LN1
AAB 002 LN1
AAD 004 LN1
AAE 005 LN1
AAF 006 LN1
AAG 007 LN1
AAH 008 LH1
AAI 009 LN1
AAJ 010 LN1
AAK Oil LN1
AAL 012 LN1
AAM 013 LK1
AAK 014 LK1
AAO 015 LN1
AAP 016 LN1
AAQ 017 LN1
AAR 018 LN1
AAS 019 LN1
AAT 020 LN1
AAO 021 LN1
AAV 022 LN1
ACC 003 LN1
AMA 373 LN1
AMB 374 LN1
AMC 375 LN1
AMD 376 LN1
AME 377 LN1
AMF 378 LH1
AMG 379 LN1
AMH 380 LN1
AMI 381 LN1
AMJ 382 LN1
ABA 027 LN2
ABB 028 LN2
ABC 029 LN2
ABD 030 LN2
ABE 031 LN2
ABF 032 LN2
ABG 033 LH2
ABH 034 LN2
ABI 035 LN2
ABJ 036 LN2
ABK 037 LN2
ABL 038 LN2
ABM 039 LN2
ABH 040 LN2
ABO 041 LN2
ABP 042 LN2
ABQ 043 LK2
ABR 044 LN2
ABS 045 LN2
ABT 046 LN2
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.3
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.0
S.O
5.0
5.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
9.9
10.2
11.3
10.4
10.6
11.4 -
11.3
14.2
9.7
11.0
10.9
11.3
12.0
10.9
10.6
11.0
10.8
11.4
11.4
11.6
11.3
10.9
11.7
11.8
11.3
10.8
10.8
11.7
11.0
5.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
5.3
5.1
5.9
5.8
5.8
6.4
5.6
4.9
5.8
6.1
5.6
5.4
5.9
5.7
6.0
5.8
5.8
5.5
S.O
S.5
5.8
5.4
5.8
5.6
5.5
6.4
5.4
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
CAE
CAE
CAE .
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
ABU 047 LN2
ABV 048 LN2
ANA 385 LN2
ANC 387 LN2
AND 388 LN2
ANE 389 LN2
ANF 390 LN2
ANG 391 LN2
ANH 392 LN2
ANI 393 LN2
ANJ 394 LN2
ANL 396 LN2
ACA 053 LN3
ACS 054 LN3
ACC 055 LN3
ACD 056 LN3
ACE 057 LN3
ACF 058 LN3
ACG 059 LN3
ACH 060 LN3
ACI 061 LN3
ACJ 062 LN3
ACK 063 LN3
ACL 064 LN3
ACM 065 LN3
ACN 066 LN3
ACO 067 LN3
ACP 068 LN3
ACQ 069 LN3
ACR 070 LN3
ACS 071 LN3
ACT 072 LN3
ACU 073 LN3
ACT 074 LN3
AOA 397 LN3
AOB 398 LN3
AOC 399 LN3
ADD 400 LN3
AOE 401 LN3
AOF 402 LN3
AOG 403 LN3
AOH 404 LN3
AOI 405 LN3
AOJ 406 LN3
ACF 084 LN4
ADA 079 LN4
ADB 080 LN4
ADC 081 LN4
ADD 082 LN4
ADE 083 LN4
ADG 085 LN4
ADH 086 LN4
ADI 087 LN4
ADJ 088 LN4
ADL 090 LN4
ADM 091 LN4
ADN 092 LK4
ADO 093 LN4
ADP 094 LN4
ADQ 095 LN4
ADR 096 LN4
ADS 097 LN4
ADT 098 LN4
ADU 099 LN4
ADV 100 LN4
ADX 089 LN4
APA 409 LN4
APB 410 LN4
APC 411 LN4
APD 412 LN4
APE 413 LN4
APF 414 LN4
APG 415 LN4
APH 416 LN4
API 417 LN4
APJ 418 LN4
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
CAE
CAB
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN5
LNS
LHS
LNS
LN5
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LN6
LN6
LNS
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
KE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
AEA 105 LNS
AEB 106 LNS
AEC 107 LNS
AED 108 LNS
AEE 109 LNS
AEF 110 LNS
AEG 111 LNS
AEH 112 LNS
AE1 113 LNS
AEJ 114 LNS
AEK 115 LNS
AEL 116 LNS
AEM 117 LNS
AEN 118 LNS
AEO 119 LNS
AEP 120 LNS
AEQ 121 LNS
AER 122 LNS
AES 123 LNS
AET 124 LNS
AEU 125 LNS
AEV 126 LNS
AQB 421 LNS
AQB 422 LNS
AQC 423 LNS
AQD 424 LNS
AQE 425 LNS
AQF 426 LNS
AQG 427 LNS
AQH 428 LNS
AQI 429 LNS
AQJ 430 LNS
AFA 131 LN6
AFB 132 LNS
AFC 133 LN6
AFD 134 LNS
AFE 135 LNS
AFF 136 LN6
AFG 137 LN6
AFH 138 LNS
AFI 139 LN6
AFJ 140 LNS
AFK 141 LNS
AFL 142 LNS
AFM 143 LNS
AFN 144 LNS
AFO 145 LNS
AFP 146 LNS
AFQ 147 LN6
APR 148 LNS
AFS 149 LN6
AFT 150 LN6
AFV 152 LN6
AFX 154 LNS
ARA 433 LNS
ARB 434 LNS
ARC 435 LNS
ARD 436 LNS
ARE 437 LNS
ARF 438 LNS
ARG 439 LNS
ARK 440 LNS
ARI 441 LNS
ARJ 442 LNS
BBA 553 RE1
BBB 554 RE1
BBC 555 RE1
BBD 556 RE1
BBE 557 RE1
BBF 558 RE1
BBG 559 RE1
BBH 560 RE1
BBI 561 RE1
BBJ 562 RE1
BHA 658 RE1
BHB 659 RE1
11.1
10.8
10.9
10.3
10.8
12.3
11.6
11.6
10.6
12.0
14.7
13.6
11.7
11.5
12.1
13.1
11.5
11.8
11. S
10.2
9.9
11.9
12.2
12.1
10.9
10.9
11.0
11.3
11.4
11.1
11.4
11.6
11.5
11.7
12.2
11.3
10.4
10.4
10.6
11.1
10.5
11.9
10.2
10.3
10.6
10.5
11.3
12.6
10.1
10.2
10.7
13.2
11.3
12.2
13.5
12.0
11.7
11.9
12.6
13.0
13.6
11.6
12.8
331.8
250.9
337.6
333." 8
286.0
303.4
300.6
314.2
343.5
340.6
321.9
261.6
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
264.3
217.6
206.2
168.8
200.3
301.6
285.2
268.1
164.9
195.9
317.1
270.3
298.7
251.4
238.3
267.3
256.2
167.9
162.1
177.9
176.1
187.4
164.3
260.8
251. S
244.3
20.4
18.7
18.6
20.8
21.8
18.8
21.2
16.1
19.5
20.9
23.0
19.6
21.3
28.5
24.3
24.6
21.6
26.8
21.1
24.9
29.3
23.2
24.0
20.7
29.3
19.4
21.1
20.9
22.5
23.8
22.4
22.4
22.5
18.2
18.8
21.2
19.4
21.9
20.4
22.7
20.0
19.6
19.3
23.6
19.1
23.5
23.0
23.4
23.3
22.4
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
496
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
EE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
BHC 660 RE1
BHD 661 RE1
SHE 662 RE1
BHF 663 RE1
BHG 664 RE1
BHH 665 RE1
BHI 666 RE1
BHJ 667 RE1
BHK 668 RE1
BHL 669 RE1
BHM 670 RE1
BHN 671 RE1
BHO 672 RE1
BHP 673 RE1
BHQ 674 RE1
BHR 675 RE1
BHS 676 RE1
BKA 728 RE1
BKB 729 RE1
BKC 730 RE1
BKD 731 RE1
BKE 732 RE1
BKF 733 RE1
BKH 735 RE1
BKI 736 RE1
BKJ 737 RE1
BCA 565 RE2
BCB 566 RE2
BCC 567 RE2
BCD 568 RE2
BCE 569 RE2
BCF 570 RE2
BCG 571 RE2
BCH 572 RE2
BCI 573 RE2
BCJ 574 RE2
BIA 681 RE2
BIB 682 RE2
BIC 683 RE2
BID 684 RE2
BIE 685 RE2
BIF 686 RE2
BIG 667 RE2
BIH 688 RE2
BII 689 RE2
BIJ 690 RE2
BIK 691 RE2
BIL 692 RE2
BIM 693 RE2
BIN 694 RE2
BIO 695 RE2
BIP 696 RE2
BIQ 697 RE2
BIR 698 RE2
BIS 699 RE2
BLA 738 RE2
BLB 739 RE2
BLC 740 RE2
BLD 741 RE2
BIiE 742 RE2
BLF 743 RE2
BLH 745 RE2
BLI 746 RE2
BLJ 747 RE2
BDA 577 RE3
BDB 578 RE3
BDC 579 RE3
BDD 580 RE3
BDE 561 RE3
BDF 582 RE3
BDG 583 RE3
BDH 584 RE3
BDI 585 RE3
BDJ 586 RE3
BJA 704 RE3
BJB 705 RE3
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
22.7
21.7
21.8
22.3
17.9
25.2
19.0
21.7
30.2
24.6
22.0
20.6
25.7
18.0
20.3
18.3
21.7
21.5
22.6
18.4 •
15.4
18.5
23.3
19.3
20.9
16.4
16.S
18.2
19.3
19.8
16.7
18.4
18.3
19.8
19.8
20.4
20.1
20.6
20.6
20.1
18.0
20.7
18.8
18.8
18.4
19.8
18.7
17.4
17.1
18.9
16.9
17.4
16.0
16.9
18.2
18.2
16.8
21.0
17.0
17.6
18.4
16.5
15.8
16.8
21.1
20.6
21.0
23.7
19.9
20.5
17.2
17.9
19.2
20.2
25.0
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAB
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAB
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
RE3
RE3
RE3
RES
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
ran.
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RK1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN2
RH2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
BJC 706 RE3
BJD 707 RE3
BJE 708 RE3
BJF 709 RE3
BJG 710 RE3
BJH 711 RE3
BJI 712 RE3
BJJ 713 RE3
BJK 714 RE3
BJL 715 RE3
BJM 716 RE3
BJN 717 RE3
BJO 718 RES
BJQ 720 RE3
BJR 721 RE3
BJS 722 RES
BJT 723 RE3
BMA 748 RE3
BMB 749 RE3
BMC 750 RES
BMD 751 RES
BME 752 RES
BMP 753 RES
BMH 75S RES
BMI 756 RES
BHJ 757 RES
AYA 517 RN1
AYB 518 RN1
AYC 519 RN1
AYD 520 RN1
AYE 521 RN1
AYF 522 RN1
AYG 523 RN1
AYH 524 RN1
AYI 525 RN1
AYJ 526 RN1
BEA 589 RN1
BEB 590 RN1
BEC 591 RN1
BED 592 RN1
BEE 593 RN1
BEF 594 RN1
BEG 595 RN1
BEH 596 RN1
BEI 597 RN1
BEJ 598 RN1
BEK 599 RN1
BEL 600 RN1
BEM 601 RN1
BEN 602 RN1
BEO 603 RN1
BEP 604 RN1
BEQ 605 RN1
BER 606 RN1
BES 607 RN1
AZA 529 RN2
AZB 530 RN2
AZC 531 RN2
AZD 532 RN2
AZE 533 RN2
AZF 534 RN2
AZG 535 RN2
AZH 536 RN2
AZI 537 RN2
AZJ 538 RN2
BFA 612 RN2
BFB 613 RN2
BFC 614 RN2
BFD 615 RN2
BFE 616 RN2
BFF 617 RN2
BFG 618 RN2
BFH 619 RN2
BFI 620 RN2
BFJ 621 RN2
BFK 622 RN2
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
24. S
16.7
17.7
18.1
16.7
19.8
18.2
16.5
12.1
18.4
18.0
13.1
12.3
16.2
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.0
14.9
15.2
15.5-
12.5
11.6
13.5
12.1
14.3
15.4
15.5
13.0
15.2
13.2
12.3
13.6
11.9
13.6
15.1
13.6
7.4
9.1
7.4
10.1
7.4
7.0
7.0
10.0
9.4
9.1
4.4
7.8
7.0
6.8
7.4
7.2
7.0
6.8
7.3
6.7
6.4
7.9
7.1
6.7
6.9
6.5
7.1
6.2
4.7
6.8
6.7
7.2
4.9
7.4
7.4
4.9
7.1
4.4
6.9
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
BFL 623 RN2
BFM 624 RN2
BFN 625 RN2
BFO 626 RN2
BFP 627 RN2
BFQ 628 RN2
BFR 629 RN2
BFS 630 RN2
BAA 541 RN3
BAB 542 RN3
BAC 543 RN3
BAD 544 RN3
BAE 545 RN3
BAF 546 RN3
BAG 547 RN3
BAH S48 RN3
BAI 549 RN3
BAJ 550 RN3
BGA 635 RN3
BGB 636 RN3
BGC 637 RN3
BGD 638 RN3
BGE 639 RN3
BGF 640 RN3
BGG 641 RN3
BGH 642 RH3
BGI 643 RN3
BGJ 644 RN3
BGK 645 RN3
BGL 646 RN3
BGM 647 RN3
BGN 648 RN3
BGO 649 RN3
BGP 650 RN3
BGQ 651 RN3
BGR 652 RN3
BGS 653 RN3
FF-LE1-1
FF-LE1-10
FF-LE1-2
FF-LE1-3
FF-LE1-4
FF-LE1-5
FF-LE1-6
FF-LE1-7
FF-LE1-8
FF-LE1-9
LE1-1
LE1-10
LEI -11
LE1-12
LE1-13
LEI -14
LE1-15
LE1-16
LE1-17
LE1-18
LE1-19
LE1-2
LE1-20
LE1-21
LE1-22
LE1-23
LE1-24
LE1-25
LE1-26
LE1-27
LE1-28
LE1-29
LE1-3
LE1-30
LE1-31
LE1-4
LE1-5
LEI -6
LEI -7
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films 10
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
7.2
7.2
6.0
6.0
6.1
6.2
5.9
6.1
6.3
6.0
5.9
6.0
5.2
6.1
5.5
6.1
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.7-
5.3
5.7
4.9
5.7
6.2
6.2
5.8
5.9
5.7
5.3
6.4
6.7
6.9
5.6
5.8
5.8
5.6
5.1
5.4
5.7
5.6
5.8
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE1-8
LEI- 9
FF-LE2-1
FF-LE2-10
FF-LE2-2
FF-LE2-3
FF-LE2-4
FF-LE2-5
FF-LE2-6
FF-LE2-7
FF-LE2-8
FF-LE2-9
LE2-1
LE2-10
LE2-11
LE2-12
LE2-13
LE2-14
LE2-15
LE2-16
LE2-17
LE2-18
LE2-19
LE2-2
LE2-20
LE2-21
LE2-22
LE2-23
LE2-24
LE2-25
LE2-26
LE2-27
LE2-28
LE2-29
LE2-3
LE2-30
LE2-31
LE2-4
LE2-5
LE2-6
LE2-7
LE2-8
LE2-9
FF-LE3-1
FF-LE3-10
FF-LE3-2
FF-LE3-3
FF-LE3-4
FF-LE3-5
FF-LE3-6
FF-LE3-7
FF-LE3-8
FF-LE3-9
LE3-1
LE3-10
LE3-11
LE3-12
LE3-13
LE3-14
LE3-15
LE3-16
LE3-17
LE3-18
LE3-19
LE3-2
LE3-20
LE3-21
LE3-22
LE3-23
LE3-24
LE3-25
LE3-26
LE3-27
LE3-28
LE3-29
LE3-3
6.9
6.5
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.2
5.3
5.8
S.O
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.9
6.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
5.2
4.8
6.8
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films 11
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
4.8
4.8
6.3
€.5
6.1
6.6
6.7
7.1
8.8
8.6
8.8
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
5.1
5.5
6.1"
5.9
6.1
6.1
6.4
5.9
6.2
7.4
7.2
4.9
7.3
7-1
7.2
7.1
7.3
S.O
5.0
6.3
6.6
7.0
5.0
6.9
6.7
6.9
7.3
6.8
5.9
5.7
6.0
5.6
5.6
5.0
5.3
5-3
6.2
6.9
7.2
6.5
5.5
5.4
4.9
5.2
5.7
6.7
6.6
6.0
6.5
6.4
6.7
6.4
6.8
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773 .
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4 .
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LES
LES
LE5
LE5
LES
LE5
LE5
LES
LES
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE5
LES
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE5
LES
LE3-30
LE3-31
LE3-4
LE3-5
LE3-6
LE3-7
LE3-8
LE3-9
• FF-LE4-1
FF-LE4-10
FF-LE4-2
FF-LE4-3
FF-LE4-4
FF-LE4-5
FF-LE4-6
FF-LE4-7
FF-LE4-8
FF-LE4-9
LE4-1
LE4-10
LE4-11
LE4-12
LE4-13
LE4-14
LE4-15
LE4-16
LE4-17
LE4-18
LE4-19
LE4-2
LE4-20
LE4-21
LE4-22
LE4-23
LE4-24
LE4-25
LE4-26
LE4-27
LE4-28
LE4-29
LE4-3
LE4-30
LE4-31
LE4-4
LE4-S
LE4-6
LE4-7
LE4-8
LE4-9
FF-LE5-1
FF-LE5-10
FF-LE5-2
FF-LE5-3
FF-LE5-4
FF-LE5-5
FF-LE5-6
FF-LE5-7
FF-LE5-8
FF-LE5-9
LE5-1
LE5-10
LE5-11
LES -12
LES-13
LES -14
LES -IS
LES -16
LE5-17
LE5-18
LE5-19
LES-2
LE5-20
LE5-21
LE5-22
LE5-23
LE5-24
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films 12
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
5.2
4.8
5.3
5.2
5.0
6.2
4.9
5.1
6.6
6.4
6.S
7.0
7.1
6.9
4.7
4.5
4.6
5.0
5.0
5.6-
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.3
4.B
4.6
4.8
6.6
5.0
4.7
4.7
6.9
6.4
6.6
5.1
6.4
5.9
6.7
6.2
6.5
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.5
5.3
5.1
5.0
4.8
5.3
5.0
5.2
4.5
4.7
6.7
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.0
7.0
5.0
6.8
6.6
6.9
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.9
6.0
6.0
5.7
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
699
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LE5
LES
LE5
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
LES
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
LES
LES
LES
LES
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LES-25
LE5-26
LE5-27
LE5-28
LE5-29
LES-3
LE5-30
LE5-31
LES-4
LE5-5
LE5-S
LE5-7
LE5-8
LES -9
FF-LE6-1
FF-LE6-10
FF-LE6-2
FF-LE6-3
FF-LE6-4
FF-LE6-5
FF-LE6-6
FF-LE6-7
FF-LE6-8
FF-LE6-9
LE6-1
LES -10
LE6-11
LE6-12
LE6-13
LES -14
LES -IS
LES -16
LE6-17
LES-18
LES -19
LE6-2
LE6-20
LE6-21
LE6-22
LE6-23
LE6-24
LE6-25
LE6-26
LE6-27
LE6-28
LE6-29
LES -3
LE6-30
LE6-31
LES -4
LES -5
LES -5
LE6-7
LES -8
LE6-9
FF-LN1-1
FF-LN1-10
FF-LN1-2
FF-LN1-3
FF-LN1-4
FF-LN1-5
FF-LN1-6
FF-LN1-7
FF-LN1-8
FF-LN1-9
LN1-1
LN1-10
LN1-11
LN1-12
LN1-13
LN1-14
LN1-15
LN1-16
LN1-17
LN1-18
LN1-19
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films 13
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
6.4
6.1
5.9
6.2
6.0
6.0
6.6
6.6
6.4
5.6
6.5
6.7
6.6
7.0
7.0
6.6
7.0
7.0
6.6
5.9 -
6.9
6.6
6.3
6.6
6.4
5.6
5.3
6.9
7.2
7.1
6.0
7.2
6.2
6.8
6.4
6.1
6.6
7.0
7.0
14.0
13.4
14.1
13.3
12.4
12.3
12.3
12.3
12.1
11.3
11.6
11.0
11.6
11.8
11.3
11.3
10.6
11.8
10.5
10.4
10.6
11.3
10.4
9.7
10.6
11.5
11.5
11.7
11.2
11.4
11.7
11.5
9.0
9.6
6.6
913
914
915
916
917
916
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
946
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
PSI
PS1
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN1-2
LN1-20
LN1-21
LN1-3
LN1-4
LN1-5
LN1-6
LN1-7
LN1-8
LN1-9
FF-LN2-1
FF-LN2-10
FF-LN2-2
FF-LN2-3
FF-LN2-4
FF-LN2-5
FF-LN2-6
FF-LN2-7
FF-LN2-8
FF-LN2-9
LN2-1
LN2-10
LN2-11
LN2-12
LN2-13
LN2-14
LN2-15
LN2-16
LN2-17
LN2-18
LN2-19
LN2-2
LN2-20
LN2-3
LN2-4
LN2-S
LN2-6
LN2-7
LN2-8
LN2-9
FF-LN3-1
FF-LN3-10
FF-LN3-2
FF-LN3-3
FF-LN3-4
FF-LN3-5
FF-LN3-6
FF-LN3-7
FF-LN3-8
FF-LN3-9
LN3-1
LN3-10
LN3-11
LN3-12
LN3-13
LN3-14
LN3-15
LN3-16
LN3-17
LN3-18
LN3-19
LN3-2
LN3-20
LN3-21
LN3-22
LN3-3
LN3-4
LN3-5
LN3-6
LN3-7
LN3-8
LN3-9
FF-LN4-1
FF-LN4-10
FF-LN4-2
FF-LN4-3'
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films 14
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
8.7
8.0
8.5
9.2
9.3
9.3
6.1
5.9
5.6
6.0
6.0
6.1
7.2
4.8
7.8
7.9
7.5
6.4
7.8
7.9
6.3 -
6.6
6.4
6.7
6.9
6.7
7.0
14.0
15.0
14.1
14.0
14.3
14.0
14.1
15.0
14.2
15.0
10.9
11.7
11.9
12.0
12.1
10.7
11.5
11.0
11.5
11.1
11.5
11.1
11.6
11.4
11.9
11.4
12.2
12.0
11.8
12.1
11.8
14.1
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.0
14.0
14.0
11.9
11.1
12.0
11.4
12.1
12.0
11.4
11.2
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI >
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
t
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSl
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI'
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LNS
LN5
LN5
LNS
LN5
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LNS
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LNS
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
FF-LN4-4
FF-LN4-5
FF-LN4-6
FF-LN4-7
FF-LN4-8
FF-LN4-9
LN4-1
LN4-10
LN4-11
LN4-12
LN4-13
LN4-14
LN4-1S
LN4-16
LN4-17
LN4-18
LN4-19
LN4-2
LN4-20
LN4-21
LN4-3
LN4-4
LN4-S
LN4-6
LN4-7
LN4-8
LN4-9
FF-LN5-1
FF-LN5-10
FF-LNS-2
FF-LN5-3
FF-LN5-4
FF-LN5-5
FF-LN5-6
FF-LN5-7
FF-LN5-8
FF-LNS-9
LN5-1
LN5-10
LN5-11
LNS -12
LN5-13
LNS -14
LN5-1S
LN5-16
LN5-17
LN5-18
LN5-19
LNS -2
LN5-20
LN5-21
LN5-3
LNS -4
LNS -5
LN5-6
LN5-7
LNS -8
LN5-9
FF-LN6-1
FF-LN6-10
FF-LN6-2
FF-LN6-3
FF-LN6-4
FF-LN6-5
FF-LN6-6
FF-LN6-7
FF-LN6-8
FF-LN6-9
LN6-1
LN6-10
LNS -11
LN6-12
LN6-13
LNS -14
LN6-15
LN6-16
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films 15
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
10.6
10.8
10.2
12.0
10.6
10.9
11.6
10.8
11.2
10.7
11.7
10.8
10.8
112.0
105.6
110.0
107.0
107.3
101.2
112.4
111.1 -
123.3
105.8
115.1
136.5
127.9
137.6
143.5
170.1
120.9
142.5
135.3
128.5
89.3
125.0
105.5
91.3
116.4
148.3
119.6
106.6
136.5
119.1
123.1
125.1
134.1
128.1
117.4
135.3
114.6
20.0
20.0
19.2
20.6
19.0
16.0
20.0
16.0
20.5
17.0
21.4
18.7
21.8
20.6
20.7
19.1
15.6
20.4
23.4
20.5
16.8
17.8
18.9
20.1
22.7
23.2
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
R£2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
LN6-17
LN6-18
LN6-19
LN6-2
LN6-20
LN6-21
LN6-3
LN6-4
LN6-5
LN6-6
LN6-7
LN6-8
LN6-9
FF-RE1-1
FF-RE1-10
FF-RE1-2
FF-RE1-3
FF-RE1-4
FF-RE1-5
FF-RE1-6
FF-RE1-7
FF-RE1-8
FF-RE1-9
RE1-1
RE1-10
RE1-11
RE1-12
RE1-13
RE1-14
RE1-15
RE1-16
RE1-17
RE1-18
RE1-19
RE1-2
RE1-20
RE1-21
RE1-22
RE1-23
RE1-24
RE1-25
RE1-26
RE1-27
RE1-3
RE1-4
RE1-5
RE1-6
RE1-7
RE1-8
RE1-9
FF-RE2-1
FF-RE2-10
FF-RE2-2
FF-RE2-3
FF-RE2-4
FF-RE2-5
FF-RE2-6
FF-RE2-7
FF-RE2-8
FF-RE2-9
RE2-1
RE2-10
RE2-11
RE2-12
RE2-13
RE2-14
RE2-15
RE2-16
RE2-17
RE2-18
RE2-19
RE2-2
RE2-20
RE2-21
RE2-22
RE2-23
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films 16
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
16.3
16.5
17.2
13.7
17.6
22.2
21.7
17.9
18.4
21.5
20.S
22.7
17.0
14.3
17.0
17.0
17.0
15.2
15.2
17.3
17.4-
14.1
18.8
25.2
20.9
19.8
26.6
19.3
18.8
21.0
17.1
19.2
20.7
20.6
20.6
22.8
20.0
16.3
15.0
14.7
14.9
14.8
14.1
20.4
26.5
17.0
20.3
23.5
20.4
24.4
22.2
22.2
22.3
22.2
22.3
22.3
22.3
22.1
22.0
22.1
20.0
20.5
21.3
20.1
18.7
19.0
16.1
15.6
15.2
16.0
20.2
20.9
20.3
20.1
20.0
19.7
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
120S
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
PSI
PS I
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI-
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RES
RE3
RE3
RE3
RES
RES
RES
RES
RE3
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RE3
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RE3
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RES
RE3
RES
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RH1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RE2-24
RE2-25
RE2-26
RE2-27
RE2-28
RE2-3
RE2-4
RE2-5
RE2-6
RE2-7
RE2-8
RE2-9
FF-RE3-1
FF-RE3-10
FF-RE3-2
FF-RE3-3
FF-RE3-4
FF-RE3-5
FF-RB3-6
FF-RE3-7
FF-RE3-8
FF-RE3-9
RE3-1
RE3-10
RES -11
RES -12
RE3-13
RES -14
RE3-15
RE3-16
RE3-17
RE3-18
RE3-19
RE3-2
RE3-20
RES -21
RE3-22
RES -23
RES -24
RE3-25
RE3-26
RE3-27
RES -28
RE3-3
RES -4
RE3-5
RE3-6
RE3-7
RE3-8
RES -9
FF-RN1-1
FF-RN1-10
FF-RN1-2
FF-RN1-3
FF-RN1-4
FF-RN1-5
FF-RN1-6
FF-RN1-7
FF-RN1-8
FF-RN1-9
RN1-1
RN1-10
RN1-11
RN1-12
RN1-13
RN1-14
RN1-15
RN1-1S
RN1-17
RN1-18
RN1-2
RN1-3
RN1-4
RN1-5
RN1-6
RN1-7
-------
Dry Film Thickness Results for All Panels and Free Films 17
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Mean Thickness (mils)
19.8
20.7
21.2
22.0
21.0
21.3
22.2
22.7
22.0
22.2
22.1
22.0
20.8
17.1
17.0
16.2
20.0
19.4
18.1
18.1
18.0-
18.3
18.3
19.4
20.4
16.2
16.8
16.5
16.5
16.9
16.9
17.0
18.0
17.7
18.0
18.1
18.0
14.3
18.0
18.2
17.8
15.2
19.6
16.2
15.7
18.7
12.8
13.6
17.4
16.9
14.6
16.1
14.8
13.3
13.9
17.0
16.9
17.9
15.2
15.3
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
PS I
PS I
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RK3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN1-8
RN1-9
FF-RN2-1
FF-RN2-10
FF-RN2-2
FF-RN2-3
FF-RN2-4
FF-RN2-5
FF-RN2-6
FF-RN2-7
FF-RN2-8
FF-RN2-9
RN2-1
RN2-10
RN2-11
RN2-12
RN2-13
RK2-14
RN2-15
RN2-16
RN2-17
RN2-18
RN2-19
RN2-2
RN2-3
RN2-4
RN2-5
RN2-6
RN2-7
RN2-8
RN2-9
FF-RN3-1
FF-RK3-10
FF-RN3-2
FF-RN3-3
FF-RN3-4
FF-RN3-5
FF-RN3-6
FF-RN3-7
FF-RN3-8
FF-RN3-9
RN3-1
RN3-10
RN3-11
RN3-12
RN3-13
RN3-14
RN3-15
RN3-16
RN3-17
RN3-18
RN3-19
RN3-2
RN3-3
RN3-4
RN3-5
RN3-6
RN3-7
RN3-8
RN3-9
-------
Tape Adhesion Results for Unexposed Panels
18
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number' Testing Date Adhesion Rating (OA-5A)
5A
5A
5A
5A
5A
5A
5A
5A
SA
5A
SA
5A
5A
5A
5A
1A
1A
1A
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
5A
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
5A
SA
SA
5A
SA
SA
5A
SA
4A
4A
4A
SA
SA
5A
SA
SA
5A
OA
OA
OA
OA
OA
OA
4A
SA
SA
4A
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
OA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
CAE '
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAB
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
FSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
LSI
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LNS
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN5
LN5
LNS
LN6
LN6
LN6
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
LH1
LSI
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LNS
LNS
LN4
LN4
LN4
LNS
LNS
LNS
LN6
LN6
LN6
AGM 169 LEI
AGM 169 LEI
AGM 169 LEI
AHM 195 LE2
AHM 195 LE2
AHM 195 LE2
AIM 221 LE3
AIM 221 LE3
AIM 221 LE3
AJM 247 LE4
AJM 247 LE4
AJM 247 LE4
AKM 273 LE5
AKM 273 LE5
AKM 273 LE5
ALM 299 LE6
ALM 299 LE6
ALM 299 LE6
AAM 013 LN1
AAM 013 LN1
AAM 013 LN1
ABM 039 LN2
ABM 039 LN2
ABM 039 LN2
ACM 065 LN3
ACM 065 LNS
ACM 065 LNS
ADM 091 LN4
ADM 091 LN4
ADM 091 LN4
AEM 117 LNS
AEM 117 LNS
AEM 117 LNS
AFM 143 LN6
AFM 143 LN6
AFM 143 LN6
LE1-13
LE1-13
LE1-13
LE2-13
LE2-13
LE2-13
LE3-1S
LE3-15
LE3-15
LE4-16
LE4-16
LE4-16
LE5-13
LE5-13
LE5-13
LE6-15
LE6-15
LE6-15
LN1-10
LN1-10
LN1-10
LN2-10
LN2-10
LN2-10
LN3-10
LN3-10
LN3-10
LN4-10
LN4-10
LN4-10
LN5-10
LN5-10
LNS-10
LN6-10
LN6-10
LN6-10
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
07/13/94
-------
Tape Adhesion Results for Immersed Panels
19
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Adhesion Rating (OA-5A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
<3ffi
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN5
LNS
LN5
LN6
LN6
LN6
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LES
LE5
LES
LE6
LES
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LNS
LNS
LN4
LN4
LN4
LNS
LNS
LNS
LN6
LN6
LNS
AGX 180 LEI
AGX 180 LEI
AGX 180 LEI
AHX 206 LE2
AHX 206 LE2
AHX 206 LE2
AIX 232 LES
AIX 232 LE3
AIX 232 LE3
AJX 258 LE4
AJX 258 LE4
AJX 258 LE4
AKX 284 LES
AKX 284 LES
AKX 284 LES
ALX 310 LES
ALX 310 LES
ALX 310 LE6
AAV 022 LN1
AAV 022 LN1
AAV 022 LN1
ABV 048 LN2
ABV 048 LN2
ABV 048 LN2
ACV 074 LN3
ACV 074 LN3
ACV 074 LNS
ADV 100 LN4
ADV 100 LN4
ADV 100 LN4
AEV 126 LNS
AEV 126 LNS
AEV 126 LNS
AFV 152 LNS
AFV 152 LNS
AFV 152 LN6
LEI -14
LEI -14
LE1-14
LE2-17
LE2-17
LE2-17
LE3-17
LE3-17
LES -17
LE4-15
LE4-15
LE4-1S
LE5-17
LE5-17
LE5-17
LE6-17
LE6-17
LE6-17
LN1-11
LN1-11
LN1-11
LN2-13
LN2-13
LN2-13
LN3-11
LN3-11
LN3-11
LN4-14
LN4-14
LN4-14
LN5-11
LN5-11
LN5-11
LN6-11
LN6-11
LN6-11
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
OS/20/94
OS/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
OS/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
OS/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
OS/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/20/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
5A
5A
5A '
5A
5A
SA
5A
SA
SA
SA
5A
SA
SA
SA .
5A
1A
1A
1A
5A
SA
5A
4A
4A
4A
5A
5A '
SA
OA
OA
OA
5A
SA
5A
SA
SA
SA
OA.
OA
OA
4A
4A
4A
OA
OA
OA
OA
OA
OA
OA •
OA
OA
OA
OA
OA
OA
OA
OA
4A
4A
4A
SA'
SA
SA
OA
OA
OA
5A
5A
5A
OA
OA
OA •
-------
Tape Adhesion Results for Weathered Panels
20
OBS
Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Adhesion Rating (OA-SA)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
. LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LES
LE5
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
AGA 313 LEI
AGA 313 LEI
AGA 313 LEI
AHA 323 LE2
AHA 323 LE2
AHA 323 LE2
AIA 333 LE3
AIA 333 LE3
AIA 333 LE3
AJA 343 LE4
AJA 343 LE4
AJA 343 LE4
AKA 353 LES
AKA 3S3 LES
AKA 353 LES
ALA 363 LE6
ALA 363 LE6
ALA 363 LE6
LE1-24
LE1-24
LE1-24
LE2-24
LE2-24
LE2-24
LE3-24
LE3-24
LE3-24
LE4-24
LE4-24
LE4-24
LE5-24
LE5-24
LE5-24
LE6-24
LE6-24
LE6-24
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
06/08/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
07/29/94
5A
5A
5A
5A
5A
SA
5A
5A
SA
5A
5A
SA.
SA
SA
SA
SA
5A
SA
SA
5A
SA
SA
SA
SA '
1A
1A .
1A
-------
Pull Adhesion Results for Unexposed Panels
21
OBS
Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Pull-Off Strength (psi)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE .
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN5
LNS
LNS
LN6
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
RN3
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LES
LE5
LE6
LES
LES
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
AGN 170 LEI
AGO 171 LEI
AGP 172 LEI
AHN 196 LE2
AHO 197 LE2
AHP 198 LE2
AIN 222 LE3
AIO 223 LE3
AIP 224 LE3
AJN 248 LE4
AJO 249 LE4
AJP 250 LE4
AKN 274 LES
AKO 275 LES
AKP 276 LES
ALN 300 LE6
ALO 301 LE6
ALP 302 LE6
AAN 014 LN1
AAO 015 LN1
AAP 016 LN1
ABN 040 LN2
ABO 041 LN2
ABP 042 LN2
ACN 066 LN3
ACO 067 LN3
ACP 068 LN3
ADN 092 LN4
ADO 093 LN4
ADP 094 LN4
AEN 118 LNS
AEO 119 LNS
AEP 120 LNS
AFN 144 LN6
AFO 145 LN6
AFP 146 LNS
BHM 670 RE1
BHN 671 RE1
BHO 672 RE1
BIM 693 RE2
BIN 694 RE2
BIO 695 RE2
BJM 716 RES
BJN 717 RE3
BJO 718 RE3
BEM 601 RN1
BEN 602 RN1
BEO 603 RN1
BFM 624 RN2
BFN 625 RN2
BFO 626 RN2
BGM 647 RN3
BGN 648 RN3
EGO 649 RN3
LE1-10
LE1-11
LEI -12
LE2-10
LE2-11
LE2-12
LE3-10
LE3-11
LES -12
LE4-10
LE4-11
LE4-12
LE5-10
LE5-11
LES -12
LE6-10
LE6-11
LE6-12
LN1-7
LN1-8
LN1-9
LN2-7
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
200
100
200
200
400
0
500
500
400
400
300
700
300
500
200
0
0
0
300
500
500
200
200
300
500
200
100
0
0
400
300
300
200
300
100
200
300
300
200
0
0
200
0
100
300
400
300
300
500
300
300
500
100
300
240
240
250
40
50
30
100
140
300
90
80
220
10Q
90
90
0
0
0
210
240
250
220
-------
Pull Adhesion Results for Unexposed Panels
22
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Pull-Off Strength (psi)
160
80
140
180
110
0
0
0
ISO
160
130
330
290
290
0
290
270
70
90
0
170
200
180
220
300
240
130
150
200
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
10S
106
107
108
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN6
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RES
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN3
RH3
RN3
LN2-8
LN2-9
LN3-12
LN3-7
LN3-8
LN4-7
LN4-8
LN4-9
LN5-7
LN5-8
LN5-9
LN6-7
LN6-8
LN6-9
RE1-10
RE1-11
RE1-12
RE2-10
RE2-11
RE2-9
RE3-10
RE3-11
RE3-12
RN1-7
RN1-8
RN1-9
RN2-7
RN2-8
RN2-9
RN3-7
RN3-8
RN3-9
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
06/26/94
06/27/94
06/28/94
-------
Pull Adhesion Results for Immersed (10 minute dry) Panels
23
OBS
Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Pull-Off Strength (psi)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN5
LNS
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RES
RE3
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
AGS 175 LEI
AGU 177 LEI
AHS 201 LE2
AHU 203 LE2
AIS 227 LE3
AIU 229 LE3
AJS 253 LE4
AJU 255 LE4
AKS 279 LE5
AKD 281 LE5
ALS 305 LE6
ALU 307 LE6
AAS 019 LN1
AAU 021 LN1
ABS 045 LN2
ABU 047 LN2 ,
ACS 071 LN3
ACU 073 LN3
ADS 097 LN4
ADD 099 LN4
AES 123 LNS
AED 125 LNS
AFS 149 LN6
AFX 154 LN6
BHR 675 RE1
BHS 676 RE1
SIR 698 RE2
BIS 699 RE2
BJR 721 RE3
BJS 722 RE3
BER 606 RN1
BES 607 RN1
BFR 629 RN2
BFS 630 RN2
BGR 652 RN3
BGS 653 RN3
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
200
200
200
0
300
200
100
300
300
100
0
0
500
400
300
0
300
300
0
300
300
400
200
0
300
200
300
100
300
100
200
500
400
-------
Pull Adhesion Results for Immersed (120 minute dry) Panels
24
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Pull-Off Strength (psi)
300
200
100
500
400
300
0
300
0
400
400
300
200
300
300
400
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
LEI
LE2
LE3
LE4
LE5
LE6
LN1
LN2
LN3
LN4
LN5
LN6
RE1
RE2
RE3
RN1
RN2
RN3
AGN 170 LEI
AHN 196 LE2
AIN 222 LE3
AJN 248 LE4
AKN 274 LE5
ALN 300 LE6
AAN 014 LN1
ABN 040 LN2
ACN 066 LN3
ADN 092 LN4
AEN 118 LN5
AFN 144 LN6
BHM 670 RE1
HIM 693 RE2
BOM 716 RE3
BEM 601 RN1
BFM 624 RN2
BGM 647 RN3
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
-------
Pull Adhesion Results for Weathered Panels
25
OSS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Pull-Off Strength (psi)
300
300
400
100
300
300
300
600
600
500
200
100
500
200
400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
210
220
330
140
90
290
230
150
130
220
100'
240
280
300
0
0
0
270
160
290
10
20
0
10
0
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
. PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3 '
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RES
RES
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RES
RES
RES
AGB 314 LEI
AGC 315 LEI
AGO 316 LEI
AHB 324 LE2
AHC 325 LE2
AHD 326 LE2
AIB 334 LE3
AIC 335 LE3
AID 336 LE3
AJB 344 LE4
AJC 345 LE4
AJD 346 LE4
AKB 354 LE5
ARC 355 LE5
AKD 356 LE5
ALB 364* LE6
ALC 365 LE6
ALD 366 LE6
BKA 728 RE1
BKB 729 RE1
BKC 730 RE1
BLA 738 RE2
BLB 739 RE2
BLC 740 RE2
BMA 748 RES
BMB 749 RES
BMC 750 RE3
LE1-21
LE1-22
LEI -23
LE2-21
LE2-22
LE2-23
LE3-21
LE3-22
LE3-23
LE4-21
LE4-22
LE4-23
LE5-21
LES-22
'LE5-23
LE6-21
LE6-22
LE6-23
RE1-19
RE1-20
RE1-21
RE2-19
RE2-20
RE2-21
RE3-19
RE3-20
RE3-21
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/21/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
-------
Scrub Resistance Results for Unexposed Panels
26
OBS
Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date End Point (cycles)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ie
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41 '
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE '
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LH3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN6
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
RN3
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
AGA 157 LEI
AGB 158 LEI
AGC 159 LEI
AHA 183 LE2
AHB 184 LE2
AHC 185 LE2
AIA 209 LE3
AIB 210 LE3
AIC 211 LE3
AJA 235 LE4
AJB 236 LE4
AJC 237 LE4
AKA 261 LE5
AKB 262 LE5
AKC 263 LES
ALA 287 LE6
ALB 288 LE6
ALC 289 LE6
AAA 001 LN1
AAB 002 LN1
ACC 003 LN1
ABA 027 LN2
ABB 028 LN2
ABC 029 LK2
ACA 053 LN3
ACS 054 LN3
ACC 055 LN3
ADA 079 LN4
ADB 080 LN4
ADC 081 LN4
AEA 105 LN5
AEB 106 LN5
AEC 107 LN5
AFA 131 LN6
AFB 132 LN6
AFC 133 LN6
BHA 658 RE1
BHB 659 RE1
BHC 660 RE1
BIA 681 RE2
BIB 682 RE2
BIC 683 RE2
BJA 704 RE3
BOB 705 RE3
BJC 706 RE3
BEA 589 RN1
BEB 590 RN1
BEC 591 RN1
BFA 612 RN2
BFB 613 RN2
BFC 614 RN2
EGA 635 RN3
BGB 636 RN3
BGC 637 RN3
LE1-1
LE1-2
LE1-3
LE2-1
LE2-2
LE2-3
LE3-1
LE3-2
LE3-3
LE4-1
LE4-2
LE4-3
LE5-1
LE5-2
LE5-3
LE6-1
LE6-2
LE6-3
LN1-1
LN1-2
LN1-3
LN2-1
04/12/94
04/21/94
05/05/94
04/08/94
04/20/94
05/13/94
04/21/94
04/19/94
05/09/94
04/07/94
04/08/94
05/12/94
04/07/94
04/15/94
05/11/94
04/14/94
04/14/94
04/26/94
04/07/94
04/14/94
04/22/94
04/12/94
04/25/94
05/13/94
04/19/94
04/06/94
05/11/94
04/07/94
04/07/94
04/27/94
04/15/94
04/07/94
04/27/94
04/20/94
04/14/94
05/12/94
04/13/94
04/12/94
04/26/94
04/20/94
04/12/94
05/03/94
04/06/94
04/21/94
05/09/94
04/14/94
04/22/94
05/17/94
04/18/94
04/20/94
05/06/94
04/11/94
04/07/94
04/25/94
06/08/94
06/21/94
05/19/94
06/27/94
06/07/94
05/19/94
05/20/94
06/06/94
06/22/94
05/18/94
06/01/94
06/24/94
05/17/94
06/03/94
06/23/94
05/20/94
06/02/94
06/13/94
05/17/94
06/03/94
06/10/94
06/29/94
5000
5000
5000
2192
2169
1940
3895
.3689
5000
5000
5000
5000
4214
4399
5000
2624
2587
2226
1791
2144
- 2210
887
1144
936
5000
5000
5000
164
154
156
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
SOOO
4940
4600
3200
2400
5000
SOOO
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
4400
4182
5000
5000
5000
5000
2671
-------
Scrub Resistance Results for Unexposed Panels
27
DBS
Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date End Point (cycles)
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN6
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
RN3
LN2-2
LN2-3
LN3-1
LN3-2
LN3-3
LN4-1
LN4-2
LN4-3
LN5-1
LN5-2
LN5-3
LNS-1
LN6-2
LN6-3
RE1-1
RE1-2
RE1-3
RE2-1
RE2-2
RE2-3
RE3-1
RE3-2
RE3-3
RN1-1
RN1-2
RN1-3
RN2-1
RN2-2
RN2-3
RN3-1
RN3-2
RK3-3
06/10/94
05/19/94
05/24/94
05/27/94
06/22/94
OS/18/94
05/31/94
06/14/94
05/31/94
06/23/94
06/14/94
05/25/94
06/02/94
06/27/94
05/20/94
06/01/94
06/14/94
05/24/94
06/01/94
06/15/94
05/13/94
06/07/94
06/22/94
06/09/94
06/29/94
06/23/94
06/23/94
06/07/94
06/21/94
05/19/94
05/31/94
06/13/94
2508
1953
5000.
5000
5000
1021
800
892
5000
3800
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
-------
Scrub Resistance Results for Weathered Panels
28
DBS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
laboratory
CAE
CAB
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
Product ID
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LB4
LE5
LE5
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LES
LES
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
Panel Number
AGH 320 LEI
AGI 321 LEI
AGK 322 LEI
AHH 330 LE2
AHI 331 LE2
AHK 332 LE2
AIH 340 LE3
All 341 LE3
AIK 342 LE3
AJH 350 LE4
AJI 351 LE4
AJK 352 LE4
AXH 360 LES
AKI 361 LES
AKK 362 LES
ALH 370 LE6
ALI 371 LE6
ALK 372 LE6
BKH 735 RE1
BKI 736 RE1
BKJ 737 RE1
BLH 745 RE2
BLI 746 RE2
BLJ 747 RE2
BMH 755 RE3
BMI 756 RE3
BMJ 757 RE3
LE1-4
LE1-5
LE1-6
LE2-4
LE2-5
LE2-6
LE3-4
LE3-5
LE3-6
LE4-4
LE4-S
LE4-6
LE5-4
LE5-S
LES -6
LES -4
LE6-5
LE6-6
RE1-4
RE1-S
RE1-6
RE2-4
RE2-5
RE2-6
RE3-4
RE3-5
RE3-6
Testing Date
05/17/94
05/20/94
.
05/23/94
05/23/94
06/03/94
05/18/94
05/18/94
06/02/94
06/07/94
06/08/94
05/20/94
06/06/94
05/24/94
05/18/94
06/06/94
05/18/94
05/19/94
06/03/94
05/19/94
OS/20/94
06/02/94
05/20/94
.
.
07/01/94
.
06/30/94
07/06/94
.
06/28/94
07/05/94
06/30/94
07/05/94
07/06/94
07/01/94
07/05/94
.
End Point (cycles)
5000
4594
4031
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
SOOO
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000'
SOOO
5000
5000
5000
5000
SOOO
5000
5000
5000
SOOO
5000
5000
-------
Flexibility Results for Unexposed Panels 29
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Crack Length (inches)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.31
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.QO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.qo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.27
1
2
3
4
5
e
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN6
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
RN3
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
AGK 164 LEI
AGI 165 LEI
AGJ 166 LEI
AHH 190 LE2
AHI 191 LE2
AHJ 192 LE2
AIH 216 LE3
All 217 LE3
AIJ 218 LE3
AJH 242 LE4
AJI 243 LE4
AJJ 244 LE4
AKH 268 LE5
AKI 269 LE5
AKJ 270 LE5
ALH 294 LE6
ALI 295 LE6
ALJ 296 LE6
AAH 008 LN1
AAI 009 LN1
AAJ 010 LN1
ABH 034 LN2
ABI 035 LN2
ABJ 036 LN2
ACH 060 LN3
ACI 061 LN3
ACJ 062 LN3
ADH 086 LN4
ADI 087 LN4
ADJ 088 LN4
AEH 112 LN5
AEI 113 LN5
AEJ 114 LN5
' AFH 138 LN6
API 139 LN6
AFJ 140 LN6
BHH 665 RE1
BHI 666 RE1
BHJ 667 RE1
BIH 688 RE2
BII 689 RE2
BIJ 690 RE2
BJH 711 RE3
BJI 712 RES
BJJ 713 RE3
BEH 596 RN1
BEI 597 RN1
BEJ 598 RN1
BFH 619 RN2
BFI 620 RN2
BFJ 621 RN2
BGH 642 RN3
BGI 643 RN3
BGJ 644 RN3
LE1-7
LEI -8
LE1-9
LE2-7
LE2-8
LE2-9
LE3-7
LE3-8
LE3-9
LE4-7
LE4-8
LE4-9
LE5-7
LE5-8
LE5-9
LE6-7
LE6-8
LE6-9
LN1-4
LN1-5
LN1-6
LN2-4
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
04/26/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
-------
Flexibility Results for Unexposed Panels 30
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Crack Length (inches)
0.31
0.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
PS I
PSI
PS I
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN5
LK5
LN5
LN6
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RES
RN1
RN1
RN1
KN2
RN2
KN2
RN3
RN3
RN3
LN2-5
LN2-6
LN3-4
LN3-5
LN3-6
LN4-4
LN4-5
LN4-6
LN5-4
LN5-5
LN5-6
LN6-4
LN6-5
LN6-6
RE1-7
RE1-8
RE1-9
RE2-7
RE2-8
RE2-9
RE3-3
RE3-7
RE3-9
RN1-4
RK1-5
RN1-S
RN2-4
RN2-5
RN2-6
RN3-4
RN3-5
RN3-6
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
OS/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
OS/24/94
05/24/94
-------
Flexibility Results for Weathered Panels
31
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Crack Length (inches)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.do
0.00
1.50
1.94
1.56
3.00
3.00
3.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
S3
54
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RES
RE3
RE3
AGE 317 LEI
AGF 318 LEI
AGG 319 LEI
AHE 327 LE2
AHF 328 LE2
AHG 329 LE2
AIE 337 LE3
AIF 338 LE3
AIG 339 LE3
AJE 347 LE4
AJF 348 LE4
AJG 349 LE4
AKE 357 LE5
AKF 358 LE5
AKG 359 LE5
ALF 368 LE6
ALG 369 LE6
ALV 308 LE6
BKD 731 RE1
BKE 732 RE1
BKF 733 RE1
BLD 741 RE2
BLE 742 RE2
BLF 743 RE2
BMD 751 RE3
BME 752 RE3
BMF 753 RE3
LE1-18
LE1-19
LE1-20
LE2-18
LE2-19
LE2-20
LE3-18
LE3-19
LE3-20
LE4-18
LE4-19
LE4-20
LE5-18
LE5-19
LE5-20
LE6-18
LE6-19
LE6-20
RE1-16
RE1-17
RE1-18
RE2-16
RE2-17
RE2-18
RE3-16
RE3-17
RE3-18
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
OS/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
OS/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
OS/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
OS/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
OS/23/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
OS/23/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
0.00
a. oo
0.13
0.00
0.75
00
00
00
00
6.00
-------
Impact Resistance Results for Unexposed Panels 32
OBS Laboratory Product ID End Point (ft-lbs)
160
152
160
124
160
80
160
40
160
24
160
160
160
20
16
160
160
116
52
120
152
124
124
56
128
24
136
24
156
156
24
16
16
160
160
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI '
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LEI
LE2
LE3
LE4
LE5
LE6
LN1
LN2
LN3
LN4
LN5
LN6
RE1
RE2
RE3
RN1
RN2
RN3
LEI
LE2
LE3
LE4
LE5
LE6
LN1
LN2
LN3
LN4
LN5
LN6
RE1
RE2
RE3
RN1
RN2
RN3
-------
Dry Abrasion Results for Unexposed Panels
33
OBS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Laboratory
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
Product ID
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN5
LN5
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RES
RE3
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN5
LN5
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN3
RH3
Panel Number
AGK 167 LEI
AGL 168 LEI
AHK 193 LE2
AHL 194 LE2
AIK 219 LE3
AIL 220 LE3
AJK 245 LE4
AJL 246 LE4
AKK 271 LE5
AKL 272 LE5
ALK 297 LE6
ALL 298 LE6
AAK Oil LN1
AAL 012 LN1
ABK 037 LN2
ABL 038 LK2
ACK 063 LN3
ACL 064 LN3
ADL 090 LN4
ADX 089 LN4
AEK 115 LN5
AEL 116 LN5
AFK 141 LN6
AFL 142 LN6
BHK 668 RE1
BHL 669 RE1
BIK 691 RE2
BIL 692 RE2
BJK 714 RE3
BJL 715 RE3
BEK 599 RN1
BEL 600 RN1
BFK 622 RN2
BFL 623 RN2
BGK 645 RN3
BGL 646 RN3
LE1-25
LE1-26
LE2-25
LE2-26
LE3-25
LE3-26
LE4-25
LE4-26
LE5-25
LE5-26
LE6-25
LE6-26
LN1-15
LN1-16
LN2-15
LN2-16
LN3-15
LN3-16
LN4-15
LN4-16
LN5-15
LN5-16
LN6-15
LN6-16
RE1-22
RE1-23
RE2-22
RE2-23
RE3-22
RE3-23
RN1-13
RN1-14
RN2-13
RN2-14
RN3-13
RN3-14
Testing Date
05/21/94
06/02/94
05/19/94
05/28/94
05/20/94
05/28/94
05/14/94
05/23/94
05/15/94
06/04/94
05/17/94
06/01/94
05/21/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
05/30/94
05/17/94
05/29/94
05/31/94
05/17/94
05/20/94
05/31/94
05/14/94
05/24/94
05/19/94
06/02/94
OS/21/94
06/01/94
05/19/94
06/03/94
05/15/94
05/29/94
05/20/94
06/02/94
05/14/94
06/01/94
06/06/94
07/27/94
05/24/94
06/26/94
06/05/94
06/26/94
05/18/94
06/25/94
05/20/94
07/27/94
05/24/94
07/25/94
06/06/94
06/25/94
06/06/94
06/28/94
05/24/94
06/28/94
05/24/94
07/21/94
05/25/94
07/21/94
OS/18/94
06/25/94
05/25/94
07/25/94
06/06/94
07/25/94
05/25/94
07/27/94
06/05/94
06/26/94
05/20/94
07/25/94
05/20/94
07/25/94
Endpoint
(cycles)
1144
1096
2500
2072
2591
3657
3000
3251
3921
3622
1867
2517
3500
2704
4431
3961
4802
4000
1773
1500
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
.
1000
600
3250
2100
3350
2800
3500
2600
5000
3850
1900
2000
3700
4100
2100
1900
5000
5000
2420
1350
5000
5000
5000
5000
.
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
Weight Lost After
1000 Cycles (g)
0.42
0.43
0.20
0.20
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.32
0.26
0.10
0.12
0.18
0.19
0.22
0.18
0.27
0.25
0.19
0.16
0.11
0.16
0.15
0.19
0.14
0.16
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.17
0.09
0.13
0.17
0.55
0.22
0.28
0.15
0.18
0.14
0.20
0.07
0.11
0.25
0.29
0.13
0.15
0.28
0.27
0.12
0.16
0.29
0.28
0.11
0.08
0.16
0.23
0.15
0.23
0.16
0.20
0.20
0.06
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.19
0.20
Weight Lost At
End Point (g)
0.48
0.48
0.55
0.58
0.54
0.62
0.46
0.53
0.61
0.56
0.61
0.71
0.43
0.45
0.67
0.72
0.97
0.77
0.48
0.37
0.75
0.76
0.73
0.80
0.48
0.48
0.55
0.54
0.51
0.48
0.59
0.39
0.60
0.32
.
0.55
0.35
0.66
0.57
0.45
0.50
0..48
0.52
0.22
0.47
0.71
0.71
0.49
0.60
0.61
0.52
0.37
1.33
0/65
0.37
0.50
0.34
0.73
0.90
.
0.74
0.55
0.70
0..95
0.34
0.43
0.06
0.07
0.81
0.74
Wear Index
(g/1000 cycles)
0.42
0.44
0.22
0.28
0.21
0.17
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.33
0.28
0.12
0.17
0.15
0.18
0.20
0.19
0.27
0.25
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.08
0.12
0.06
.
0.55
0.59
0.20
0.27
0.13
0.18
0.14
0.20
0.04
0.12
0.37
0.36
0.13
0.15
0.29
0.27
0.07
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.10
0.07
0.1S
0.18
0.15
0.11
0.14
0.19
0.07
0.09
0.01
0.01
0.16
0.15
-------
Viscoelasticity Results for Unexposed Panels
34
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Tensile Strength (psi) Elongation (t) Stiffness (psi)
655
658
660
656
654
1039
982
996
967
984
412
325
312
379
337
822
841
783
794
810
379
403
410
403
436
813
647
622
602
638
627
635
652
632
666
2131
2061
2050
2095
2088
347
367
364
353
358
243
259
245
219
216
206
201
206
209
218
819
795
824
767
819
,885
812
878
845
857
4165
4575
4139
4693
4249
3657
4463
4630
4446
4111
6037
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LES
LE5
LES
LES
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LK4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN6
LK6
LN6
LN6
LN6
RE1
RBI
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2 •
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RN1
ASD 448 LEI
ASH 452 LEI
ASJ 454 LEI
ASK 455 LEI
ASL 456 LEI
ATB 458 LE2
ATC 459 LE2
ATE 461 LE2
ATH 464 LE2
ATJ 466 LE2
AUB 470 LE3
AUC 471 LE3
ADD 472 LE3
ADG 475 LE3
AUJ 476 LE3
AVD 484 LE4
AVE 485 LE4
AVF 486 LE4
AVG 487 LE4
AVH 488 LE4
AWB 494 LES
AHC 495 LES
AND 496 LES
AWE 497 LES
AWJ 502 LES
AXA 505 LE6
AXD 508 LE6
AXF 510 LE6
AXJ 514 LE6
AXL 516 LE6
AMC 375 LN1
AME 377 LN1
AMP 378 LN1
AMI 381 LN1
AMJ 362 LN1
ANC 387 LN2
AND 388 LN2
ANE 389 LN2
ANF 390 LN2
ANG 391 LN2
AOA 397 LN3
AOB 398 LN3
AOD 400 LN3
AOH 404 LN3
AOJ 406 LN3
APC 411 LN4
APD 412 LN4
APE 413 LN4
AFK 416 LN4
APJ 418 LN4
AQC 423 LN5
AQE 425 LN5
AQG 427 LN5
AQH 428 LN5
AQJ 430 LN5
ARC 435 LN6
ARD 436 LN6
ARE 437 LN6
ARI 441 LN6
ARJ 442 LN6
BBA 553 RE1
BBS 554 RE1
BBE 557 RE1
BBF 558 RE1
BBG 559 RE1
BCA 565 RE2
BCC 567 RE2
BCD 568 RE2
BCE 569 RE2
BCG 571 RE2
BDA 577 RE3
BDB 578 RE3
BDC 579 RE3
BDE 581 RE3
BDI 585 RE3
AYB 518 RN1
06/18/94
06/23/94
06/25/94
06/20/94
06/22/94
06/15/94
06/17/94
06/20/94
06/22/94
06/25/94
06/17/94
06/17/94
06/18/94
06/22/94
06/25/94
06/18/94
06/18/94
06/20/94
06/22/94
06/23/94
06/15/94
06/17/94
06/18/94
06/20/94
06/25/94
06/15/94
06/18/94
06/20/94
06/25/94
06/17/94
06/17/94
06/18/94
06/20/94
06/23/94'
06/25/94
06/17/94
06/18/94
06/20/94
06/20/94
06/22/94
06/15/94
06/15/94
06/18/94
06/22/94
06/25/94
06/17/94
06/18/94
06/20/94
06/23/94
06/25/94
06/17/94
06/20/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/25/94
06/17/94
06/18/94
06/18/94
06/23/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
9
10
14
6
11
19
19
16
18
IS
362
502
SOS
486
538
254
264
241
258
249
402
407
374
463
450
253
17
17
17
12
170
182
131
126
157
1
1
1
2
1
48
72
68
101
66
8
6
7
4
15
347
279
260
156
246
226
225
220
197
225
8
7
11
7
8
3
3
16
3
3
2
11
5
3
3
7
527
520
527
590
512
644
627
611
593
611
75
99
56
51
73
161
150
136
151
73
78
67
78
69
154
477
449
433
470
390
391
403
361
409
615
206
224
216
204
213
212
240
219
201
196
101
95
119
123
114
40
20
31
10
37
746
698
537
735
443
548
4179
3807
3276
2115
1187
4458
1015
3232
1980
5012
-------
Viscoelasticity Results for Unexposed Panels
35
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Tensile Strength (psi) Elongation (*) Stiffness (psi)
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
US
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
ISO
151
152
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN2
RK2
RN2
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RK3
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LES
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
AYC 519 RN1
AYE 521 RN1
AYF 522 RN1
AYH 524 RN1
AZB 530 RN2
AZE 533 RN2
AZH 536 RN2
AZI 537 RN2
AZJ 538 RN2
BAA 541 RN3
BAB 542 RN3
BAD 544 RN3
BAG 547 RN3
BAH 548 RN3
LE1-1
LE1-10
LEI -6
LEI -8
LE1-9
LE2-1
LE2-10
LE2-2
LE2-4
LE2-9
LE3-1
LE3-2
LE3-3
LE3-4
LE3-9
LE4-10
LE4-5
LE4-6
LE4-7
LE4-9
LES-1
LES -2
LES -3
LE5-4
LE5-5
LE6-10
LE6-3
LES -5
LE6-8
LES -9
LN1-1
LN1-3
LN1-S
LN1-6
LN1-8
LN2-10
LN2-2
LN2-S
LN2-7
LN2-8
LN3-1
LN3-3
LN3-4
LN3-5
LN3-6
LN4-3
LN4-4
LN4-5
LN4-6
LN4-7
LN5-10
LNS-3
LN5-5
LNS-8
LNS-9
LN6-1
LN6-2
LN6-3
LN6-4
LN6-5
RE1-10
RE1-2
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
06/25/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/17/94
08/17/94
08/17/94
08/17/94
08/17/94
08/16/94
08/16/94
08/16/94
08/16/94
08/16/94
08/15/94
08/15/94
08/15/94
08/15/94
08/15/94
08/16/94
08/16/94
08/16/94
08/16/94
08/16/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/10/94
08/10/94
08/10/94
08/10/94
08/10/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/12/94
08/10/94
08/10/94
08/10/94
08/10/94
08/10/94
08/09/94
08/09/94
08/09/94
08/09/94
08/09/94
08/15/94
08/15/94
5451
4763
5598
5431
4989
5177
5775
5733
4979
7378
5555
1934
1766
1898
823
659
613
604
612
586
560
528
527
565
233
343
342
411
921
809
770
877
796
140
284
330
398
362
331
259
267
259
251
405
504
465
410
402
1241
1181
954
892
881
322
327
331
335
328
148
142
131
122
121
221
192
191
202
203
542
567
593
539
521
1844
1975
9
6
10
6
8
6
6
7
6
9
4
26
28
27
18
14
14
16
11
33
36
45
40
39
275
480
292
281
274
272
256
276
245
38
119
1091
743
890
22
123
121
54
40
95
610
256
281
399
2
1
1
1
1
60
36
45
49
53
IS
15
19
25
13
247
314
253
303
253
172
261
273
187
190
10
5
5094
4597
5268
5152
4468
4941
4459
5479
4847
7000
4555
1180
1133
1313
392
286
314
245
297
250
142
172
149
167
17
24
16
16
377
153
293
212
335
138
102
120
113
104
194
49
171
71
71
908
821
814
786
771
71
120
89
138
122
128
114
105
92
90
40
36
36
35
53
165
107
107
92
99
659
436
-------
DBS Laboratory Product ID
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RES
RE3
RE3
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RH2
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RN3
RE1-4
RE1-5
RE1-6
RE2-1
RE2-6
RE2-7
RE2-8
RE2-9
RE3-2
RE3-3
RE3-4
RE3-7
RE3-8
RN1-10
RK1-2
RN1-6
RN1-7
RN1-8
RN2-10
RN2-3
RN2-5
RN2-8
RN2-9
RN3-1
RN3-3
RN3-6
RN3-7
RN3-9
08/15/94
08/15/94
08/15/94
08/15/94
08/15/94
08/15/94
08/15/94
08/15/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
08/08/94
Viscoelasticicy Results for Unexposed Panels
Panel Number Testing Date Tensile Strength (psi)
2459
1895
2187
3070
2885
4356
3000
2912
3199
3345
3434
3417
3239
3412
3310
3173
3646
3349
2725
2976
3125
2729
3102
1440
1442
1627
1412
1418
36
Elongation (V) Stiffness (psi)
17
12
12
4
4
7
6
7
2
2
1
4
9
17
17
17
12
21
2
16
10
9
3
27
30
23
25
29
555
662
641
1335
1240
1450
976
1271
1418
1341
882
2220
2034
1207
1220
1211
1136
1000
1273
1216
1498
1267
1177
629
617
776
650
624
-------
Blistering Results for Immersed Panels
37
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Blistering Rating (0-10)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
4F
10
10
10
10
- 3D
3D
2D
2M
2F
2P
2F
2F
10 '
10
10
10
6M
6F
6F
6M
2MD
2MD
2ND
OD .
6F
6F
6M
4MD
4MD
4MD
4D
4D
10
10
10
10 '
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2D
10
8M
10
10
10
10
0
4D •
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LES
LE5
LE6
LE6
LES
LES
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LNS
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
RK1
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
RN3
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LES
AGO 173 LEI
AGR 174 LEI
ACS 175 LEI
ACT 176 LEI
AHQ 199 LE2
AHR 200 LE2
AHS 201 LE2
AHT 202 LE2
AID 225 LE3
AIR 226 LE3
AIS 227 LE3
AIT 228 LE3
AJQ 251 LE4
AJR 252 LE4
AJS 253 LE4
AJT 254 LE4
AKQ 277 LES
AKR 278 LES
AKS 279 LES
ART 280 LES
ALQ 303 LE6
ALR 304 LE6
ALS 305 LES
ALT 306 LES
AAQ 017 LN1
AAR 018 LN1
AAS 019 LN1
AAT 020 LN1
ABQ 043 LN2
ABR 044 LN2
ABS 045 LN2
ABT 046 LN2
ACQ 069 LN3
ACR 070 LN3
ACS 071 LN3
ACT 072 LN3
ADQ 095 LN4
ADR 096 LN4
ADS 097 LN4
ADT 098 LN4
AEQ 121 LN5
AER 122 LNS
AES 123 LNS
AET 124 LNS
AFQ 147 LN6
AFR 148 LN6
AFS 149 LN6
AFT 150 LN6
BHP 673 RE1
BHQ 674 RE1
BHR 67S RE1
BIP 696 RE2
BIQ 697 RE2
BIR 698 RE2
BJQ 720 RES
BJR 721 RES
BJT 723 RE3
BEP 604 RN1
BEQ 605 RN1
BER 606 RN1
BFP 627 RN2
BFQ 628 RN2
BFR 629 RN2
BGP 650 RN3
BGQ 651 RNS
BGR 6S2 RNS
LEI- 14
LE1-15
LE1-16
LE1-17
LE2-14
LE2-1S
LE2-16
LE2-17
LE3-13
LES -14
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/22/94
05/24/94
06/07/94
06/03/94
06/09/94
06/14/94
06/07/94
06/07/94
05/24/94
06/09/94
06/08/94
-------
Blistering Results for Immersed Panels 38
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Blistering Rating (0-10)
4D
4D
10
10
4M
4M
6D
4D
6D
4D
4D
4D
2D
2D
2M
2M
2M
2F
10
8F
4F
10
0
10
2F
10
10
6F
2D
2F '
0
10
10
10
2D
4M
4M
2M
10
10
10
10 '
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 •
10
10
10
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116 •
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LES
LES
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN5
LN6
LN6
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
RN3
LE3-16
LE3-17
LE4-13
LE4-14
LE4-15
LE4-17
LES -14
LE5-15
LE5-16
LE5-17
LE6-14
VS6-1S
LE6-16
LE6-17
LN1-11
LN1-12
LN1-13
LN1-14
LN2-11
LN2-12
LN2-13
LN2-14
LN3-11
LN3-12
LN3-13
LN3-14
LN4-11
LN4-12
LN4-14
LN4-14
LN5-11
LN5-12
LN5-13
LN5-14
LN6-11
LN6-12
LN6-13
LN6-14
RE1-13
RE1-14
RE1-15
RE2-13
RE2-13
RE2-14
RE3-13
RE3-14
RES -IS
RN1-10
RN1-11
RN1-12
RN2-10
RN2-11
RN2-12
RN3-10
RN3-11
RN3-12
05/25/94
OS/24/94
06/09/94
06/10/94
05/24/94
05/25/94
06/14/94
06/09/94
OS/25/94
05/24/94
05/25/94
06/10/94
06/07/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
06/07/94
06/14/94
05/25/94
06/10/94
06/08/94
05/24/94
06/03/94
05/24/94
06/08/94
06/03/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
06/14/94
05/24/94
06/03/94
05/24/94
05/25/94
06/10/94
06/08/94
05/24/94
06/07/94
06/08/94
06/14/94
05/25/94
06/10/94
06/08/94
06/09/94
06/09/94
05/25/94
06/14/94
06/08/94
05/25/94
06/10/94
06/03/94
06/07/94
06/07/94
06/10/94
06/03/94
06/10/94
06/08/94
06/03/94
-------
Blistering Results for Weathered Panels
39
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Blistering Rating (0-10)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LES
LES
LE5
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
AGA 313 LEI
AGB 314 LEI
AGC 315 LEI
AGD 316 LEI
AGE 317 LEI
AGF 318 LEI
AGG 319 LEI
AGH 320 LEI
AGI 321 LEI
AGK 322 LEI
AHA 323 LE2
AHB 324 LE2
AHC 325 LE2
AHD 326 LE2
AHE 327 LE2
AHF 328 LE2
AHG 329 LE2
AHH 330 LE2
AHI 331 LE2
AHK 332 LE2
AIA 333 LE3
AIB 334 LE3
AIC 553 LE3
AID 336 LE3
AIE 337 LE3
AIF 338 LE3
AIG 339 LE3
AIH 340 LE3
All 341 LE3
AIK 342 LE3
AJA 343 LE4
AJB 344 LE4
AJC 345 LE4
AJD 346 LE4
AJE 347 LE4
AJF 348 LE4
AJG 349 LE4
AJH 350 LE4
AJI 351 LE4
AJK 352 LE4
AKA 353 LES
AKB 354 LES
AKC 355 LES
AKD 356 LES
ARE 357 LES
AKF 358 LES
AKG 359 LES
AKH 360 LES
AKI 361 LES
AKK 362 LES
ALA 363 LE6
ALB 364 LE6
ALC 365 LE6
ALD 366 LES
ALF 368 LE6
ALG 369 LE6
ALH 370 LES
ALI 371 LE6
ALK 372 LES
ALV 308 LES
BKA 728 RE1
BKB 729 RE1
BKC 730 RE1
BKD 731 RE1
BKE 732 RE1
BKF 733 RE1
BKH 735 RE1
BKI 736 RE1
BKJ 737 RE1
BLA 738 RE2
BLB 739 RE2
BLC 740 RE2
BID 741 RE2
BLE 742 RE2
BLF 743 RE2
BLH 745 RE2
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
OS/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
OS/17/94
OS/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 •
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 '
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 .
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 '
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 .
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 •
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-------
Blistering Results for Weathered Panels
40
OBS , Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Blistering Rating (0-10)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 '
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 .
8F
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 •
10
10
10
10
10
2F
2F
2F
10
10
2F .
4F
3F
4F
4F
10
10
10
10
10
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
106
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139 '
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LES
LE5
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
BLI 746 RE2
BLJ 747 RE2
BMA 748 RE3
BMB 749 RE3
BMC 750 RE3
BMD 751 RE3
BME 752 RE3
BMP 753 RE3
BMH 755 RE3
BMI 756 RE3
BMJ 757 RE3
LE1-18
LE1-19
LE1-20
LE1-21
LE1-22
LE1-23
LE1-24
LE1-4
LE1-5
LE1-6
LE2-18
LE2-19
LE2-20
LE2-21
LE2-22
LE2-23
LE2-24
LE2-4
LE2-5
LE2-6
LES -18
LE3-19
LE3-20
LE3-21
LE3-22
LE3-23
LE3-24
LE3-4
LE3-5
LE3-6
LE4-18
LE4-19
LE4-20
LE4-21
LE4-22
LE4-23
LE4-24
LE4-4
. LE4-5
LE4-6
LE5-18
LE5-19
LE5-20
LES -21
LES -22
LES -23
LES -24
LE5-4
LES -5
LES-6
LE6-18
LE6-19
LE6-20
LE6-21
LE6-22
LE6-23
LE6-24
LE6-4
LE6-5
LE6-6
RE1-16
RE1-17
RE1-18
RE1-19
RE1-20
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
07/29/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
07/29/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
07/29/94
06/28/94
07/01/94
06/28/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
07/29/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
07/29/94
06/30/94
06/28/94
07/06/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
07/29/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
-------
Blistering Results for Weathered Panels 41
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Blistering Rating (0-10)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE1-21
RE1-4
RE1-5
RE1-6
RE2-16
RE2-17
RE2-18
RE2-19
RE2-20
RE2-21
RE2-4
RE2-S
RE2-6
RE3-16
RE3-17
RE3-18
RE3-19
RE3-20
RE3-21
RE3-4
RE3-5
RE3-6
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
07/05/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/30/94
07/05/94
07/06/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
07/01/94
07/05/94
06/28/94
-------
Chalking Results for Weathered Panels 42-
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Chalking Rating (0-10)
7.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
7.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
10.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
10.0
9.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
10.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
10.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
B.O
6.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0'
8.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
9.0
7.Q
7.0
6.0
7.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
CAE
CAB
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LES
LE5
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LES
LES
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
ASA 313 LEI
AGB 314 LEI
AGC 315 LEI
AGD 316 LEI
AGE 317 LEI
AGF 318 LEI
AGG 319 LEI
AGH 320 LEI
AGI 321 LEI
AGK 322 LEI
AHA 323 LE2
AHB 324 LE2
AHC 325 LE2
AHD 326 LE2
AHE 327 LE2
AHF 328 LE2
AHG 329 LE2
AHH 330 LE2
AHI 331 LE2
AHK 332 LE2
AIA 333 LE3
AIB 334 LE3
AIC 553 LE3
AID 336 LE3
AIE 337 LE3
AIF 338 LE3
AIG 339 LE3
AIH 340 LE3
All 341 LE3
AIK 342 LE3
AJA 343 LE4
' AJB 344 LE4
AJC 345 LE4
AJD 346 LE4
AJE 347 LE4
AJF 348 LE4
AJG 349 LE4
AJH 350 LE4
AJI 351 LE4
AJK 3S2 LE4
AKA 353 LES
AKB 354 LES
AKC 355 LES
AKD 356 LES
AKE 357 LES
AKF 358 LES
AKG 359 LES
AKH 360 LES
AKI 361 LES
AKK 362 LES
ALA 363 LES
ALB 364 LES
ALC 365 LES
ALD 366 LES
ALF 368 LES
ALG 369 LES
ALH 370 LES
ALI 371 LES
ALK 372 LE6
ALV 308 LE6
BKA 728 RE1
BKB 729 RE1
BKC 730 RE1
BKD 731 RE1
BKE 732 RE1
BKF 733 RE1
BKH 735 RE1
BKI 736 RE1
BKJ 737 RE1
BLA 738 RE2
BLB 739 RE2
BLC 740 RE2
BLD 741 RE2
BLE 742 RE2
BLF 743 RE2
BLH 745 RE2
06/08/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
06/08/94
OS/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
OS/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
06/08/94
05/16/94
OS/16/94
05/16/94
OS/17/94
OS/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
06/08/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
OS/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
06/08/94
05/16/94
OS/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
06/08/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
OS/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
-------
Chalking Results for Weathered 'Panels
43
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Chalking Rating (0-10)
8.0
7.Q
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.0
- 7.S
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
CAB
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
' _ LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE5
LES
LE5
LES
LES
LES
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
LES
LE6
LE6
LES
LES
LES
LES
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
' BLI 746 RE2
BLJ 747 RE2
BMA 748 RE3
BMB 749 RE3
BMC 750 RE3
BMD 751 RE3
BME 752 RE3
BMP 753 RE3
BMH 755 RE3
BMI 756 RE3
BMJ 757 RE3
LE1-18
LE1-19
LE1-20
LE1-21
LE1-22
LE1-23
LE1-24
LEI -4
LE1-5
LE1-6
LE2-18
LE2-19
LE2-20
LE2-21
LE2-22
LE2-23
LE2-24
LE2-4
LE2-5
LE2-6
LE3-18
LE3-19
LE3-20
LE3-21
LE3-22
LE3-23
LE3-24
LE3-4
LE3-5
LE3-6
LE4-18
LE4-19
LE4-20
LE4-21
LE4-22
LE4-23
LE4-24
LE4-4
LE4-5
LE4-6
LE5-18
LE5-19
LE5-20
LE5-21
LES -22
LE5-23
LES -24
LES-4
LE5-5
LES -6
LE6-18
LE6-19
LES-20
LE6-21
LES -22
LE6-23
LES -24
LES -4
LE6-5
LES -6
RE1-16
RE1-17
RE1-18
RE1-19
RE1-20
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/16/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/17/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/29/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/29/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/29/94
06/28/94
07/01/94
06/28/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/29/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/29/94
06/30/94
06/28/94
07/06/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/29/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
05/23/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.0
7.5
7.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
6.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.6
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.5
7.0
7.5
7.5
8.0'
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
-------
Chalking Results for Weathered Panels 44
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Chalking Rating (0-10)
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.5
7.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
7.0.
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
7.0
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
PS I
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE1-21
RE1-4
RE1-5
RE1-6
RE2-16
RE2-17
RE2-18
RE2-19
RE2-20
RE2-21
RE2-4
RE2-5
RE2-6
RE3-16
RE3-17
RE3-18
RE3-19
RE3-20
RE3-21
RE3-4
RE3-5
RE3-6
07/26/94
06/28/94
06/28/94
07/05/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
06/30/94
07/05/94
07/06/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
05/23/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/26/94
07/01/94
07/05/94
06/28/94
-------
Pencil Hardness Results for Unexposed Panels
45
OBS
Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Gouge Rating (6B-6H) Receded Rating (0-13)
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
S3
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PS1
PSI
PS I
PSI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
. LE4
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE5
LE6
LE6
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN5
LN5
LNS
LNS
LN6
LN6
LN6
LNS
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RE3
RE3
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
RN3
RK3
LEI
LE2
LE3
LE4
AGO 173 LEI
AGR 174 LEI
AGS 175 LEI
AGU 177 LEI
AHQ 199 LE2
AHR 200 LE2
AHS 201 LE2
AHU 203 LE2
AIQ 225 LE3
AIR 226 LE3
AIS 227 LE3
AID 229 LE3
AJQ 251 LE4
AJR 252 LE4
AJS 253 LE4
AJU 255 LE4
AKQ 277 LES
AKR 278 LES
AKS 279 LES
AKU 281 LES
ALQ 303 LES
ALR 304 LE6
ALS 305 LE6
ALU 307 LE6
AAQ 017 UNI
AAR 018 LN1
AAS 019 LN1
AAU 021 LN1
ABQ 043 LN2
ABR 044 LN2
ABS 045 LN2
ABO 047 LN2
ACQ 069 LNS
ACR 070 LNS
ACS 071 LN3
ACU 073 LN3
ADQ 095 LN4
ADR 096 LN4
ADS 097 LN4
ADO 099 LN4
AEC 121 LNS
AER 122 LNS
AES 123 LNS
AEU 125 LNS
AFQ 147 LN6
APR 148 LN6
AFS 149 LN6
AFX 154 LNS
BHP 673 RE1
BHQ 674 RE1
BHR 675 RE1
BBS 676 RE1
BIP 696 RE2
BIQ 697 RE2
BIR 698 RE2
BIS 699 RE2
BJQ 720 RES
BJR 721 RE3
BJS 722 RE3
BJT 723 RE3
BEP 604 RN1
BEQ 605 RN1
BER 606 RN1
BES 607 RN1
BFP 627 RN2
BFQ 628 RN2
BFR 629 RN2
BFS 630 RN2
BGP 650 RN3
BGQ 651 RN3
BGR 652 RN3
BGS 653 RN3
LE1-10
LE2-11
LE3-12
LE4-11
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
04/27/94
04/29/94
04/29/94
05/02/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
F
KB
HE
HB
KB
HB
HB
HB
F
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
B
HB
HB
B
B
HB
HB
B
B
HB
HB
B
B
F
HB
HB
HB
F
HB
HB
HB
F
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
HB
KB
F
HB
HB
HB
>6H
>6H
>6H
>6H
>6H
>6H
>SH
>6H
>SH
>6H
>6H
HB
B
B
B
2B
2B
2B
2B
F
HB
HB
F
4B
2B
B
2B
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
7
6
6
6
7
6
6
6
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
6
6
6
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
7
6
6
7
2
4
5
4
-------
Pencil Hardness Results for Unexposed Panels 46
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Gouge Rating (6B-SH) Receded Rating (0-13)
3B 3
3B 3
KB 6
F 7
B 5
4B 2
B ' 5
KB 6
>6H 13
>6H 13
>6H 13
H e
H 8
KB 6
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
PSI
PS I
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LE5
LE6
LN1
LN2
LN3 '
LN4
LNS
LN6
RE1
RE2
RE3
RN1
RN2
RN3
LES-10
LE6-11
LN1-8
LN2-8
LN3-7
LN4-9
LN5-9
LN6-7
RE1-11
RE2-11
RE3-11
RN1-8
RN2-8
RN3-7
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
08/24/94
-------
Pencil Hardness Results for Immersed (10 minute dry) Panels
47
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Gouge Rating (6B-6H) Receded Rating (0-13)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69'
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI .
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LES
LE5
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LH2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN4
LN5
LN5
LNS
LN6
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE3
RE3
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
LEI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE4
LES
LES
LES
LE6
LE6
LE6
. LN1
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN3
LN4
AGQ 173 LEI
AGR 174 LEI
ACT 176 LEI
AHQ 199 LE2
AHR 200 LE2
AHT 202 LE2
AIQ 225 LES
AIR 226 LE3
AIT 228 LE3
AJQ 251 LE4
AJR 252 LE4
AJT 254 LE4
AKQ 277 LES
AKR 278 LES
ART 280 LES
ALQ 303 LE6
ALR 304 LE6
ALT 306 LE6
AAQ 017 LN1
AAR 018 LN1
AAT 020 LN1
ABQ 043 LN2
ABR 044 LN2
AST 046 LN2
ACQ 069 LN3
ACR 070 LN3
ACT 072 LN3
ADQ 095 LN4
ADR 096 LN4
ADT 098 LN4
AEQ 121 LNS
AER 122 LNS
AET 124 LNS
AFQ 147 LN6
APR 148 LN6
AFT 150 LN6
BHP 673 RE1
BHQ 674 RE1
BIP 696 RE2
BIQ 697 RE2
BJQ 720 RE3
BJT 723 RE3
BEP 604 RN1
BEQ 605 RN1
BFP 627 RN2
BFQ 628 RN2
BGP 650 RN3
BGQ 651 RN3
LE1-14
LE1-15
LEI -16
LE2-15
LE2-16
LE2-17
LE3-14
LE3-16
LE3-17
LE4-14
LE4-15
LE4-17
LE5-15
LE5-16
LE5-17
LE6-14
LE6-16
LE6-17
LN1-11
LN1-12
LN1-14
LN2-12
LN2-13
LN2-14
LN3-11
LNS -12
LNS -13
LN4-11
06/14/94
06/14/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
04/28/94
06/14/94 '
06/14/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
04/28/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
06/14/94
05/24/94
06/07/94
06/03/94
06/07/94
06/07/94
05/24/94
06/08/94
05/25/94
05/24/94
06/09/94
05/24/94
05/25/94
06/09/94
05/25/94
05/24/94
05/25/94
06/07/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
06/07/94
05/25/94
06/08/94
05/24/94
06/03/94
05/24/94
06/08/94
06/03/94
06/09/94
<6B
<6B
6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
6B
6B
6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
6B
>6H
>6H
>6H
>6H
>6H
>6H
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
2B
B
<€B
<6B
<6B
4B
3B
4B
<6B
<6B
<6B
4B
SB
2H
<6B
3B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
3B
<6B
<6B
5B
<6B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
13
13
13
13
13
0
0
0
0
4
5
0
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
0
2
1
9
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
-------
Pencil Hardness Results for Immersed (10 minute dry) Panels 48
OBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Gouge Rating (6B-6H) Receded Rating (0-13)
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
13
13
13
13
13
0
0
0
0
5
12
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LN4
LN4
INS
LN5
LN5
LN6
we
LN6
RE1
RE1
RE2
RE2
RE3
' RE3
RN1
RN1
RN2
RN2
RN3
RN3
LN4-14
LN4-14
LN5-11
LN5-12
LNS-14
LN6-11
LN6-12
LN6-13
RE1-13
RE1-1S
RE2-14
RE2-15
RE3-14
RE3-15
RN1-11
RN1-12
RN2-10
RN2-12
RN3-11
RN3-12
05/24/94
06/03/94
05/24/94
05/25/94
06/08/94
05/24/94
06/07/94
06/08/94
05/25/94
06/08/94
05/25/94
06/09/94
06/08/94
05/25/94
06/03/94
06/07/94
06/07/94
06/03/94
06/08/94
06/03/94
SB
6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
6B
6B
>6H
>6H
>6H
>6H
>6H
>6H
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
B
5H
-------
Pencil Hardness Results for Immersed (120 minute dry) Panels
49
DBS Laboratory Product ID Panel Number Testing Date Gouge Rating (6B-6H) Receded Rating (0-13)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
'CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
CAE
PSI
PSI
PSI
• PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
PSI
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LE3
LE3
LE4
LE4
LE5
LES
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN5
LN5
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE2
RE3
RN1
RN2
RN3
LEI
LEI
LE2
LE2
LES
LE3
LE4
LE4
LES
LES
LE6
LE6
LN1
LN1
LN2
LN2
LN3
LN3
LN4
LN4
LN5
LNS
LN6
LN6
RE1
RE2
RE3
RN1
RN2
RN3
ACS 175 LEI
AGT 176 LEI
AHS 201 LE2
AHT 202 LE2
AIS 227 LE3
AIT 228 LE3
AJS 253 LE4
AJT 254 LE4
AKS 279 LES
AKT 280 LES
ALS 30S LE6
ALT 306 LE6
AAS 019 LN1
AAT 020 LN1
ABS 04 5 LN2
ABT 046 LN2
ACS 071 LN3
ACT 072 LN3
ADS 097 LN4
ADT 098 LN4
AES 123 LNS
AET 124 LNS
AFS 149 LN6
AFT 150 LN6
BHR 675 RE1
BIR 698 RE2
BJR 721 RE3
BER 606 RN1
BFR 629 RN2
BGR 652 RN3
LEI -14
LE1-17
LE2-14
LE2-17
LE3-13
LE3-17
LE4-14
LE4-15
LES -14
LES -17
LE6-15
LE6-17
LN1-11
LN1-13
LN2-11
LN2-13
LN3-11
LN3-14
LN4-12
LN4-14
LN5-11
LNS -13
LN6-11
LN6-14
RE1-14
RE2-13
RE3-13
RN1-10
RN2-11
RN3-10
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/22/94
04/28/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
06/22/94
05/24/94
06/09/94
06/14/94
05/24/94
06/09/94
05/24/94
06/10/94
05/24/94
06/14/94
05/24/94
06/10/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
06/14/94
06/10/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
06/09/94
06/14/94
05/24/94
05/24/94
06/10/94
05/24/94
06/14/94
06/10/94
06/09/94
06/14/94
06/10/94
06/10/94
06/10/94
3B
4B
HB
2B
6B
4B
4B
4B
3B
2B
<6B
2B
<6B
2B
3B
4B
<6B
4B
<6B
<6B
<6B
<6B
2B
>6H
>6H
<6B
<6B
HB
<6B
<6B
B
2B
<6B
<6B
>6H
SB
<6B
<6B
<6B
4B
3B
6B
3B
<6B
<6B
6B
<6B
4B
<6B
SB
<6B
<6B
>6H
>6H
>6H
<6B
SB
SB
3
2
6
4
0
2
2
2
3
4
0
4
0
4
3
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
4
13
13
0
0
6
0
0
5
4
0
0
13
1
0
0
0
2
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
13
13
13
0
1
1
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA747-R-95-011
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Tide and Subtitle
Pilot Testing Program for Protocols for Lead-Based Paint Encapsulants
5. Report Date
September 1995
6.
7. Author(s) Bruce E. Buxton, Alice B. Parsons, Alan D. Pate, Sandra M. Anderson
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Battelle Memorial Institute
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201-2693
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
G001017-09
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C) 68-D2-0139
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-13. Type of Report & Period Covered
Final Report
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit 200 words)
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Task Group E06.23.30 on Encapsulation of Leaded Paint is currently
developing performance standards which can be used to approve encapsulants for use in residential environments; however, few data
have been submitted upon which to base any standards. Recognizing this critical need for data, the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have begun evaluating currently available tests. Since the viability
of many test methods for use with encapsulants is not yet known, the overall objective of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness
of standard ASTM test protocols for assessing the performance characteristics of encapsulants.
The study was intended to collect data to help determine the feasibility of a battery of test protocols using both liquid coatings and
reinforced liquid coatings; provide information to support the assessment of existing draft minimum performance standards; and assess
the variability of these test methods between two laboratories and within a single laboratory. The study results have been analyzed at
two levels: a qualitative evaluation of the feasibility of conducting these test on these new encapsulants, and a quantitative statistical
analysis to assess variability in the test data.
17. Document Analysis
a. Descriptors
Lead, Lead-Based Paint, Lead-Based Paint Encapsulants, Performance Testing, Statistical Analysis
t
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Tape Adhesion, Pull Adhesion, Scrub Resistance, Flexibility, Impact Resistance, Dry Abrasion Resistance, Viscoelastic Properties,
Blistering, Chalking, Pencil Harness, Weathering, Water Immersion
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
Release Unlimited
19. Security Class (This Report)
Unclassified
20. Security Class (This Page)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
220
22. Price
(SeeANSI-239.18)
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
------- |