United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
&EPA
Reducing Emissions
From the Wood
Furniture Industry
With Waterborne
Coatings
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-80-160
July 1980
REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM
THE WOOD FURNITURE INDUSTRY WITH
WATERBORNE COATINGS
by
H. Van Noordwyk
Acurex Corporation
Energy and Environmental Division
Mountain View, California 94042
Contract 68-03-2584
Tasks 3 and 4
Project Officers
Michael Strutz and Donald Wilson
Food & Wood Products Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
n
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on our
health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution
control methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory-Cincinnati (lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new
and improved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and
economically.
This document reports on a recently completed project whose purpose was
to identify, test, and evaluate lower hydrocarbon finishes for wood
furniture. The findings in this report can be used by the Office of Air
Quality, Planning and Standards, furniture manufacturers, and finish
suppliers to determine whether reasonably available control technology
exists on which regulations for wood furniture finishing can be based. The
information in this report can also serve as a basis for future work. For
further information, contact the Food and Wood Products Branch, lERL-Ci,
Ohio.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Through a review of various surface coating technologies including wood
furniture, it became apparent that little, if any, progress had been made
toward the use of lower hydrocarbon finishes by either finish producers or
furniture manufacturers. Some tests had been made with varying results.
However, no field applications using lower hydrocarbon finishes on
continuous process lines had been successful.
This program was initiated to develop meaningful, defensible, and
reliable data on emission reduction benefits from the use of reduced
hydrocarbon finishes. Add-on emission control options were assessed, and
installation aspects, such as costs, were considered.
This program, based on currently available technology, represents the
best efforts of finish suppliers and furniture manufacturers to produce
furniture coated with lower hydrocarbon finishes. All major finish suppliers
participated using waterborne or low-solvent finishes rather than other
finish technologies (e.g., powders). The participating furniture companies
represented the industry in product line, styles, quality, degree of
technical and merchandising sophistication, and processing capabilities.
Use of lower hydrocarbon finishes could significantly reduce volatile
organic carbon emissions; during this program, reductions of 26 to 94 percent
were achieved. However, none of the reduced hydrocarbon finish systems
products evaluated were commercially acceptable to the furniture manufacturers
because of grain raising, haziness, lack of depth or sheen, and inadequate
smoothness and resistance to household chemicals or fingerprinting.
In all cases, major system changes will be required to process reduced
hydrocarbon finishes. Major increases in the number of finishing, rubbing,
and repair personnel will also be needed unless significant improvements in
coating chemistry can be achieved. Add-on emission controls are prohibitively
expensive and will be detrimental -to the development of new finish technology.
Any decision to change from solvent-borne to reduced hydrocarbon finishes
will have to consider a multitude of Federal, state, and local rules and
regulations, most of which have not addressed the impact of reduced
hydrocarbon finishes.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Tasks 3 and 4 of Contract
68-03-2584 by Acurex Corporation under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the period March 25, 1978
to June 15, 1979 and-work was completed as of July 20, 1979.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword '111
Abstract iv
Tables yi
Unit Conversions vii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 2
3. Furniture Industry 4
4. Development of the Trial Program 11
5. Implementation of the Trial Program . . 16
6. Processing of the Newer Finishes 21
7. Performance Evaluation of the Newer Finishes .......... 28
8. Emission Reduction Potential for the Newer Finishes 35
9. Costs of the Newer Finishes 44
10. Other Issues Bearing on the Implementation of
Waterborne Finishes ; 46
11. Add-on Volatile Organic Carbon Emission Controls 49
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Wood Furniture Industry Structure 5
2 Typical Wood Furniture Finishing Schedule 6
3 Commonly Used Wood Furniture Finishes 8
4 Theoretical Emission Reduction Potential 10
5 Furniture Finishing Trials 13
6 Participants in Wood Furniture Finishing Program 17
7 Off-Line Finishing Trials at Bassett 23
8 On-Line Furniture Finishing Trials 24
9 Coverage Values for Conventional Solvent-Based Wood
Furniture Finishes 36
10 Coverage Values for Waterborne Wood Furniture Finishes 37
11 Coverage Values Based on Actual Measurements 38
12 Average Coverage Values 39
13 Estimated Hydrocarbon Emissions Reduction Potential 41
14 Emissions from Individual Finish Components .... 43
15 Cost of Finishes 45
16 Spray Booth and Drying Oven Typical Exhaust
Parameter Values 51
17 Bases for Annual Operating Expense 52
18 Incinerator Cost Estimates 53
19 Average Furniture Plant Costs 55
vi
-------
UNIT CONVERSIONS
To Convert From
cubic meters per minute (m
dollars per liter ($/l)
kilograms per 100 square meters
(kg/100 m2)
kiloPascal (kPa)
liter (1)
megagrams (Mg)
meters (m)
normal cubic meters per minute
(Nm3/min)
square meters per liter
to
cubic feet per minute (cfm)
dollars per gallon ($/gal)
pounds per 1,000 square feet
(lb/1,000 ft2)
pounds per square inche (psi)
gallon (gal)
tons (T)
feet (ft)
standard cubic feet per
minute (scfm)
square feet per gallon
(ft2/gal)
Multiply by
35.31
3.78
2.045
0.145
0.265
1.102
3.28
35.31
40.67
Other Unit Conversion
degrees Fahrenheit (OF) = 1.8 x degrees Celcius (°C) + 32
vii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
A program to identify, test, and evaluate new finishes for wood
furniture was initiated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
help the Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards (OAQPS) define a
reasonably available control technology on which to base regulations. OAQPS
is responsible for developing hydrocarbon control technique guidelines
(CTG). For certain industries, specific control strategies have already
been recommended to the states for inclusion in their implementation plans.
Major stationary source emitters of hydrocarbons to the air for which
CTG's have already been developed include bulk petroleum storage terminals,
first-stage gasoline marketing, and several surface coating operations.
Other industries now under study, and for which CTG's will be developed,
include miscellaneous metal products, graphic arts, and flatwood finishing.
The wood furniture manufacturing industry is one of the industries under
review before issuance of draft guidelines documents.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
Through a review of coating technology in 11 surface coating operations
including wood furniture finishing, it became apparent that little, if any,
progress had been made in the use of lower hydrocarbon finishes by either
furniture finish producers or furniture manufacturers. Some trials had been
run with varying results, but no field applications of such materials on
continuous process lines had been successful.
Therefore, a proposal was made to develop meaningful, defensible, and
reliable data on what could be done with reduced hydrocarbon finishes.
Acurex .Corporation was selected to manage the proposed program and to assess
add-on emission control options, as well as to cpnsider aspects of
installing the new coating technology such as costs. Booz, Allen and
Hamilton, Inc., was subcontracted by Acurex to develop and implement the
actual furniture finishing study test runs using the new, lower hydrocarbon
finishes.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This program represents the best efforts of finish suppliers and
furniture manufacturers based on currently available technology.
Participants realized that full cooperation was to the industry's advantage
in obtaining realistic data for use in the possible development of
regulations. All the major finish suppliers participated using the best
materials available to them, and all chose waterborne or low-solvent finishes
rather than other reduced solvent finish technologies (e.g., high solids,
powders, etc.). The participating furniture companies were representative
of the industry in product line, styles, quality, degree of technical and
merchandising sophistication, and processing capabilities. Participants were
honest, forthright, and constructive in helping the program staff conduct
the study and present meaningful results.
Within this framework, it is apparent that significant progress has been
made in previous years and, more important, during this program to attempt to
develop waterborne or low-solvent finishes with acceptable application and
performance characteristics. Use of these finishes could significantly
reduce volatile organic carbon (VOC) emissions; the individual finishing
trials demonstrated a possible reduction of 26 to 94 percent. However, none
of the waterborne or low-solvent finish systems evaluated were commercially
acceptable (to the furniture manufacturers) because of grain raising,
haziness, lack of depth or sheen, and inadequate smoothness. Furthermore,
none of the waterborne systems were as resistant as conventional finishes to
household chemicals or printing (loss or transfer of finish materials by
direct contact with another object such as a packing carton).
In all cases, major system changes will be required to process
waterborne finishes, including replacement or modification of existing
storage tanks and internal plumbing, and significant increases in oven
capacities (or addition of ovens where none currently exist). Major
increases in the number of finishing, rubbing, and repair personnel will be
needed unless significant improvements in coating chemistry can be achieved.
Add-on emission controls are prohibitively expensive and their use will
be detrimental to the development of new finish technology (waterborne or
high solids coatings). Since waterborne and low-solvent finishes appear to
be the only currently viable method to reduce VOC emissions, further efforts
should be expended by the industry and its suppliers to upgrade these
finishes to commercial acceptability.
-------
Any decision on transition from solvent-borne to waterborne finish
systems will have to consider the following rules and regulations:
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
• Effluent guidelines limitations
• The health and safety workplace requirements of the Federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administraton (OSHA) or similar
state agencies
• Consumer Product Safety Commission requirements
• State or local rules or regulations
The impact of TSCA on the introduction of new chemical substances into plant
use and the commercial marketplace has not been addressed by OAQPS in the
draft guideline currently under consideration for the furniture industry;
neither has the introduction of priority or non-conventional pollutants into
wastewater treatment systems been addressed. Considering these rules and
regulations is outside the scope of this study and will have to be dealt
with at some later time. Any regulation being developed should also
consider the complexity and style-oriented character of this industry and
pace itself accordingly.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this study, it is recommended that efforts continue to develop
suitable waterborne or low-solvent finishes for wood furniture to reduce VOC
emissions from this industry. In this regard, a large number of waterborne
or low-solvent finished pieces should be produced and used to establish
long-term performance characteristics. Stripping and repair techniques
should also be developed and evaluated to minimize difficulties in the
plant, showroom, and home.
When waterborne and low-solvent finishes and repair materials have been
developed to the point of commercial acceptability, only then can
regulations be recommended for their use equally and without discrimination
across the entire industry.
-------
SECTION 3
FURNITURE INDUSTRY
INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
The wood furniture Industry is broadly based with many unique
characteristics. In 1975, 5,477 firms employing 258,673 persons were
engaged in the manufacture of all types of wood furniture. Table 1
organizes the wood furniture industry by SIC code and size. The industry
tends to be concentrated in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and
Tennessee.
Wood furniture is classified as cabinetry, household furniture, or
institutional furniture. In 1977, shipments of wood household furniture,
which includes upholstered furniture and television and radio cabinets, were
estimated to have been $6.96 billion; shipments in 1978 for these products
were estimated at approximately $7.5 billion. Cabinetry shipments were
estimated in 1977 to be approximately $2.16 billion.
FURNITURE AND FINISHING STANDARDS
Wood furniture is generally categorized as high, medium, or low end.
Companies often specialize in the production of one of these quality levels.
High, medium, and low end furniture account for 10, 30, and 60 percent,
respectively, of industry sales. On a unit basis, the percentages are
approximately 8, 28, and 64, respectively.
The quality of furniture is closely correlated with the number of
finishing operations performed on the piece. A low end piece might undergo
from 6 to 12 finishing operations, while a high end piece could require up
to 30 finishing operations. A greater percentage of low end furniture will
be painted, as opposed to being finished to provide a natural wood grain
appearance; plastics, laminated vinyl overlays, and lower quality veneer
will customarily be applied to low end furniture using high-speed production
techniques. High end furniture, on the other hand, will typically be
finished with more topcoats and intermediate handcraft steps than either
medium or low end furniture. Table 2 presents a sample wood finishing
schedule.
The six SIC code groups also have unique finishing requirements.
Finishing practices for exposed wood surfaces are similar for all household
wood furniture, including television and other cabinets, regardless of
whether or not it is upholstered. Wood office or institutional furniture
requires finishes having somewhat more durability than those used for
-------
TABLE 1. WOOD FURNITURE INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
SIC
Code
2434
2511
2512
2517
2521
2531
Industry
Mood kitchen
cabinets
Mood household
furniture,
except
upholstered
Mood household
furniture,
upholstered
Wood television,
radio, phono-
graph, and
sewing machine
cabinets
Mood office
furniture
Public building
and related
furniture
Number of Establishments9
Typical Products Small Medium Large Total
Cabinets, to be built-in 1,547 129 10 1,686
Cabinets, factory made
Vanities, bathroom, and
other
Beds, bookcases, buffets, 1,444 307 116 1,867
cha 1 rs , chests . co f fee
tables, cradles, cribs,
dressers, rockers,
secretaries, stools, and
tables
Chairs, couches, daven- 865 310 59 1.234
ports, living room
furniture, rockers, and
sofas
Phonograph cabinets and 47 17 3 72
cases, radio cabinets and
cases, sewing machine
cabinets and cases, stereo
cabinets, and television
cabinets
Benches, bookcases, cab- 186 46 9 241
1nets, chairs, desks,
filing boxes, furniture
stools, and tables
Benches, blackboards, 280 85 12 377
bleachers, chairs, church
furniture, and seats
TOTAL 4,369 894 214 5,477
Number of Employees3
Small Medium Large Total
13,125 13,366 3,690 30,181
17,214 34,649 64,522 116,385
14,216 33,441 26,356 74.013
589 1,642 5,018 7,249
2,605 5,187 3,834 11,626
4,221 9.539 5,459 19,219
51,970 97,824 108,879 258,673
aBy employment size: small = 1 to 49 employees; medium = 50 to 249 employees; large =
Source: County Business Patterns, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
250 or more employees.
1975.
-------
TABLE 2. TYPICAL WOOD FURNITURE FINISHING SCHEDULE
Operation
Load
Spray uniform stain
Dry
Spray NGR stain
Dry
Spray washcoat
Dry
Sand lightly
Spray filler
Flashoff filler
Wipe filler
Dry
Spray sealer
Dry
Sand
Spray sealer
Dry
Sand
Spray glaze
Wipe and brush
Dry
Distress
Spray lacquer
Dry
Spray lacquer
Dry
Unload
Return to load
Total
Time Allowed
(minutes)
5
1.5
15
1.5
20
1.5
20
1.5
1.5
2
4
45
1.5
30
3
1.5
30
3
1.5
5
60
2
1.5
45
1.5
75
5
15
399
Number of Persons
Per Operation
1
2
2
2
4
2
8
2
7
2
7
2
13
4
2
2
1
63
Source: Technical Paper, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, MS75-251
-------
household furniture. Finally, wood kitchen cabinets, the largest subgroup
in wood furniture, have whole finishing systems specifically developed for
them.
Approximately 60 to 65 percent of the cabinetry products are finished
similarly to wood household furniture, using thermosetting materials with
higher solids for greater resistance to greases, oils, and kitchen cleaners.
Typically these finishing systems consist of a toner or stain, a sealer, a
wiping stain, and a topcoat. Approximately 25 to 30 percent of the cabinets
are finished either by painting or applying a decorative high-pressure
laminate, Five to 10 percent have vinyl-coated exterior surfaces. Most
kitchen cabinetry uses regularly shaped parts cut from flat sheet stock,
which is currently finished in flatwood finishing lines. Despite
similarities, kitchen cabinetry has exposure requirements significantly
different than other household wood furniture, and so its production is
treated as a separate industry. The kitchen cabinet industry alone consumes
70 to 75 million dollars worth of finishes per year (approximately 76 to 95
million liters).
CURRENT FURNITURE FINISHES
Suppliers
The following firms are major suppliers of finishes to the wood
furniture industry:
• Guardsman Chemicals
• Lilly Company
t Reliance Universal
• Gilbert Spruance
• Inmont Corporation
• Mobil Chemical
• Sherwin Williams
The first three firms supply 60 to 70 percent of the finishes used on wood
furniture. All of these firms are developing waterborne and other lower
solvent finishing systems.
Solvent Content
The solvent content of wood furniture finishes currently in use ranges
from 50 to 97 percent by weight. This content varies according to the
required film build and drying characteristics. Finishes are also thinned
with solvent to allow proper application. Typical solvents used in wood
furniture finishes are alcohols, aliphatics, aromatics, esters, glycol
ethers, and ketones.
-------
A variety of finishes are used to provide color, depth, and a smoothly
finished appearance. Table 3 outlines typical wood furniture finishes and
gives their purpose and solids content. (In this industry, solids content
is given on a weight basis.) Finishing materials generally represent from
3 to 7 percent of the furniture selling price.
TABLE 3. COMMONLY USED WOOD FURNITURE FINISHES*
Finish
Purpose
Percent Solids
By Weight
Stains (sap, body,
shading, padding,
spatter)
Washcoat
Wiping stain
Filler
Sealer
Glaze
Topcoats
Gives color uniformity;
develops wood grains and
character
Seals wood surface; prevents
subsequent unwanted staining
from penetrating filler coat
Gives color uniformity and
texture
Fills large pores in wood
Seals the wood for application
of subsequent coats
Penetrates and adheres to
sealer
Provides deep, clear, durable
final finish
3 to 5
40
60
15 to 18
30 to 40
21 to 27
"Surface Coating in the Wood Furniture Industry," October 20, 1978,
Foster D. Snell Division, Booz, Allen and Hamilton Inc., Florham Park,
New Jersey.
Emissions Levels
An estimated 630 to 680 Mg of organic solvents are emitted per day
through all types of wood furniture finishing operations. Roughly 540 Mg
per day are emitted through the finishing of conventional wood furniture.
Another 90 to 140 Mg of volatile organics are emitted through the finishing
of kitchen cabinets and other SIC 2434 products.
Roughly 65 to 75 percent of the organic solvents are emitted in spray
booths. An additional 15 to 20 percent of the emissions leave the piece
8
-------
in the flashoff area. The remaining 10 to 15 percent of these emissions are
solvents driven off in the curing oven. (If there is no oven, then
emissions are 70 to 80 percent from the booth and 20 to 30 percent from
flashoff.) The finished "dried" furniture can still have small quantities.
of solvent that are slowly released as the furniture is handled or
processed. This may represent up to 1 percent of the total solvent
originally applied. No furniture manufacturer who participated in this
study was controlling emissions through either collection (adsorption) or
incineration.
The relative contribution of individual finish coats to overall
hydrocarbon emissions was estimated to be:
• Base stains — 5 percent
0 Washcoat ~ 15 percent
t Wiping stain — 5 percent
• Filler — 10 percent
• Sealer — 15 percent
0 Glaze — 15 percent
0 Topcoat — 35 percent
Furniture finishes fall into two classes: color coats and clear coats. The
color coats include sap stains, body stains, overall stains, filler stains,
and glazes. The clear coats are washcoats, sealer coats, and lacquer
topcoats. As shown in Table 4, major emission reductions will come from the
conversion of clear coats rather than color coats if each finish coating
component is replaced with either a waterborne coating having water/solvent
blend of 80 parts water to 20 parts solvent or a 100 percent solids finish.
IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATE FINISHING TECHNOLOGY
Conversion of conventional finishes to newer lower hydrocarbon finishes
requires a major commitment from raw material suppliers. In the last
50 years, furniture finishes have been Abased on solvent technology. While
some mills have used catalyzed vamishers, the predominant finish polymer
has been nitrocellulose. Basic raw material suppliers must work through the
finish suppliers to have new materials evaluated by the furniture
manufacturers. This can create difficulties.
A second major difficulty is the size of the industry. Although some
230 million 1 of finishes are used per year, approximately half of these are
stains, glazes, fillers, and other color coats which are either low solids
or linseed-oil based. The volume of polymerics, namely, the washes, seals
and topcoats, has not been great enough to stimulate much creative research
on the part of polymer suppliers.
-------
TABLE 4. THEORETICAL EMISSION REDUCTION POTENTIAL
Finish Coat
Base Stain
Washcoat
Wiping Stain
Filler
Sealer
Glaze
Topcoat
Total
Current Approximate
Emissions in Mg
Per Day3
30
80
30
50
80
80
190
540
Reduction in Emissions
in Mg Per Day
By Conversion to
Waterborne Finish
Color Coat Clear Coat
20
20
40
70
150
65
65
150
280
Reduction in Emissions
in Mg Per Day
By Conversion to
100% Solids Finish
Color Coat Clear Coat
30
30
50
80
190
80
80
190
350
Based on 540 Mg per day total and approximate percent of overall emissions for each process
step as presented in Section 4.
Source: Booz, Allen and Hamilton Inc.
-------
SECTION 4
DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRIAL PROGRAM
In developing the trial program, a wide range of information sources
was used to ensure maximum contribution. These sources included literature,
raw material suppliers, furniture manufacturers, and industry associations.
INFORMATION GATHERING PHASE
Existing literature sources, as well as current journals including
Modern Paint and Coatings, Woodworking and Furniture Digest, and Furniture
Design and Manufacturing, were reviewed. Documents available from OAQPS on
flatwood finishing and the accumulated data bases for the wood furniture
source category report were also screened, as well as other data available
from the Federal government.
Several of the prime suppliers in the wood furniture finishing
industry, including raw material and total systems suppliers, were
interviewed. Among these were:
• Raw materials
— Hercules
-- DuPont
— Polyvinyl Chemicals
— Sherwin Williams
t Total systems
— Reliance
— Guardsman
- Lilly
The following members of the Southern Furniture Manufacturers
Association (SFMA) Technical Committee were also interviewed:
• Bassett
t Bernhardt
t Broyhill
• Drexel Heritage
11
-------
• Stanley
• Thomasville
Input from SFMA provided an overall industry posture. The National
Association of Furniture Manufacturers was not contacted since they are
predominately marketing oriented, nor was the Furniture Manufacturers
Association of Grand Rapids contacted since their scope is also limited.
Typical pieces of furniture selected for the trial program were a
bedroom dresser, a dining room table, a china closet, and a chair.
SUPPLIER SELECTION
More companies showed interest when they realized that an opportunity
existed for industry to provide input for developing regulations. Efforts
were made to team furniture manufacturers and finish suppliers so that the
skills of each could be optimized.
The six previously mentioned furniture manufacturers were approached
first and allowed to choose their supplier. Two additions were made to
include a high end furniture manufacturer (Henredon) and one of the top
finish suppliers (Lilly Company). Lilly then elicited participation from
American Furniture. The final selection and matching of the eight furniture
manufacturers and the six finish suppliers is presented 1n Table 5.
Originally, the prime raw materials suppliers, such as DuPont, Rohm and
Haas, Hercules, Polyvinyl Chemicals, and Sherwin Williams were to have been
included in the program. However, none of the above suppliers was able to
suggest a furniture manufacturer outside those already participating with
established finish suppliers.
Consideration was given to providing these prime raw material suppliers
with partially finished furniture similar to that being processed and having
them complete the finishing process in their laboratories. This, however,
was outside the scope of the present program and unrepresentative of actual
process line application. In addition, a broad enough representation of raw
materials was being included to satisfy the program's needs, since most of
the prime suppliers were involved through the finish formulators.
PRECONCEIVED PROBLEMS
Problems associated with new finishes are perceived to revolve around
aesthetics and performance of the finish for the consumer, as well as
application and use in the mill. There is an overwhelming belief within the
industry that furniture is sold predominately on its initial visual
impression. Not only would loss in this impression be unacceptable to the
consumer, but furniture must retain its aesthetic character and performance
over 10 to 20 or more years, withstanding conventional household waxes,
polishes, foodstuffs, and alcoholic beverages. Within the furniture
industry, furniture must be capable of being handled and processed without
visible damage; it must also be shippable without "printing."
12
-------
TABLE 5. FURNITURE FINISHING TRIALS
Furniture Company
Thorn asville
Drexel Heritage
Bernhardt
Bassett
Broyhill
Henredon
Stanley
American
Sample Pieces Coated Finish Supplier
Off -tine On-Line Guardsman Reliance Mobil Inmont Spruance Lilly
X X
X X
XXX
X XXX
X X
X X
X X
XX X X
-------
It is generally felt in the industry that changeover to waterborne
furniture finishes should initially proceed with low end furniture, where
the least number of finishing steps are performed. This would restrict the
initial adoption of such systems to lower priced furniture. It is estimated
that total conversion of all low end furniture finishes would result in a
50 percent reduction in emissions from the entire wood furniture industry.
More specific problems with new finishes in the mill include repairing
furniture, a frequent occurrence both at the factory and at the showroom. A
new set of repair procedures will have to be devised, as well as retraining
of repair personnel, since waterborne applied finishes are apparently more
difficult to remove than conventional solvent finishes. Little or no work,
however, has been done in this area.
Because wood absorbs water, the resultant increased grain raising, as
compared to solvent-borne systems, will require additional sanding.
Application problems of waterborne finishes, such as sagging and running,
may require operator retraining.
Current waterborne finishes cannot be sprayed with airless spraying
techniques because of basic polymer latex instability under pressure.
Conversion back to air spray could partially offset emission reductions and
reduce line speeds. Furthermore, producing a few pieces with waterborne
finishes is not equivalent to entire finishing rooms filled with waterborne
finished furniture, which raises the probable necessity of humidity control
to enhance drying rates.
It is generally agreed that flashoff areas may have to be extended to
allow proper flashoff of the water. Similarly, curing ovens may have to be
modified to drive the water out of the finish, potentially increasing energy
costs.
Corrosion of the bulk storage system will occur with waterborne finishes
but can be avoided by replacing lines, pump materials, and spray gun fittings
with stainless steel units and by lining the inside of storage vessels. This
will require substantial capital expenditures. Freezing of the waterborne
finishes is also a major concern, since most furniture manufacturers store
their conventional solvent-borne finishes outdoors because of fire hazards.
Inside storage of waterborne finishes may be required. (Fire hazards are
reduced with waterborne finishes.)
Also, the availability of resin systems usable for both existing and
future colors is a major concern of both finish suppliers and furniture
manufacturers. Waterborne resin systems, once accepted, will have to be
produced on a large scale. Suppliers feel that it will take at least a year
for compounders to develop full production of the needed resins.
Rapid changes in materials used in manufacturing furniture, such as
different woods and plastics, require finishes that are "forgiving" (easily
modified). New finishes would have to be as forgiving.
14
-------
ADVANTAGES
Advantages of waterborne finishes are related to their reduced
hydrocarbon content. Fire Insurance costs should be lower. Air movement
volumes required will also be lower leading to reduced power and heating
costs during winter months. Worker exposure to toxic solvents in the mill
will be reduced, and potential long range shortages of solvents will be
avoided.
The potential for using waterborne and other lower solvent coatings in
the wood furniture industry exists, but further testing of such finishes is
needed. The adaptation of waterborne topcoats, washcoats, and sealers could
effect a reduction of greater than 50 percent of the volatile organics
emitted through the finishing of wood furniture. The present program
identifies some of the additional testing necessary to clarify the potential
for introducing waterborne and other lower solvent finishing systems to the
wood furniture industry.
15
-------
SECTION 5
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIAL PROGRAM
Once the finish suppliers and furniture manufacturers had agreed to
participate, the trial program was initiated. Although the program was to
have been completed by the end of October 1978, furniture shows that
involved firms participating in the program caused delays. Receipt of
completed data packages from finish suppliers and furniture manufacturers
was also delayed.
TRIAL PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
Eight furniture manufacturers and six finish suppliers agreed to
participate in the trial program, which was run with the program.management
personnel always attending.
Prior to the trials, confirmation letters were sent to each furniture
manufacturer, delineating what pieces were to be finished and who the finish
supplier would be. A five-page data package was included with this letter
to provide information on the finishes and their applications. These data
packages were to. be completed before, during, or shortly after the trial.
The finishes were applied by representatives of the supplier companies
who were assisted by plant finishing personnel. They followed, as closely
as possible, typical on-line or off-line finishing schedules. Downstream
operations, such as rubbing, stacking, and packaging, also followed actual
plant practices. The complete trial program listing furniture manufacturer,
finish supplier, furniture finished, and trial date is presented in Table 6.
Examples of program approaches follow.
In Bassett's trial situation, the three suppliers involved adopted the
following three approaches:
• Spruance -- waterborne sealer and washcoat with other finishes
conventional for a target emission reduction of approximately
25 percent
• Mobil Chemical — waterborne color coats with conventional clear
coats for a target emission reduction of 30 to 50 percent
• Guardsman Chemical — total waterborne system for a-target emission
reduction of 70 to 80 percent
16
-------
TABLE 6. PARTICIPANTS IN WOOD FURNITURE FINISHING PROGRAM
Furniture Manufacturer/Contact
Finish Supplier/Contact
Furniture Finished
Trial Date/Comment
Thomasville Furniture Industries
P.O. Box 339
Thomasville. North Carolina 27360
(915) 475-1361
Ralph HcNeill
Guardsman Chemicals, Inc.
High Point, North Carolina
(919) 883-7126
Andy Reidell
Table and dresser finished with
27261 waterborne and conventional
solvent-borne finishes off-line
September 25, 1978
Drexel Heritage Furnishings
Fleming Drive, P.O. Drawer 1299
Horganton, North Carolina 28655
(701) 433-3000
Bill Parks
Inmont Corporation
Horganton, North Carolina 28655
(704) 584-1771
Fred Black
Credenza, dining room table, and
chairs finished with waterborne
finish off-line; credenza finished
with conventional finish off-line
October 30, 1978
Bernhardt Furniture Industries
P.O. Box 740
Lenoir, North Carolina 38645
(704) 758-9811
Colon Prestwood
Guardsman Chemicals, Inc.
High Point, North Carolina 27261
(919) 883-7126
Andy Reidell
Reliance Universal
High Point, North Carolina
(919) 883-7181
Gary Currier
27261
Table, chairs, and china closet
finished with waterborne finish
on-line; china closet finished
with conventional finish on-line
Table, china closet, and chair
finished with waterborne finish
on-line; china closet finished
with conventional finish on-line
October 31, 1978 at
Troutman Plant
November 1, 1978 at
Lenoir Plant
Bassett Furniture Industries
P.O. Box 626
Bassett, Virginia 24055
(703) 629-7511
Jim Hlnter
Gilbert Spruance Company
Bassett, Virginia 24055
(703) 629-7967
Ben Brody
Guardsman Chemicals, Inc.
Bassett, Virginia 24055
(703) 629-7967
John Yeaman
Mobil Chemical
Bassett, Virginia
(703) 629-5533
Don Ueisman
24055
Chest and chair finished with
conventional and hybrid3
finishes off-line
Two different dining room tables
finished with conventional and
waterborne finishes off-line
Chest and chair finished with
conventional and hybrid"
finishes off-line
November 2, 1978
November 6, 1978
November 7, 1978
Trial goal was to replace only the wash coat and sealer with waterborne substitutes and keep the balance of the
finish conventional.
goal was to replace only the color coats with waterborne substitutes and keep the clear coats conventional.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 6. (Continued).
Furniture Manufacturer/Contact
Finish Supplier/Contact
Furniture Finished
Trial Date/Comment
Broyhill Furniture Industries
P.O. Box 700
Lenoir, North Carolina 28645
(704) 758-3622
Z. 0. Riggs
Mobil Chemical
High Point, North Carolina 27261
(919) 88Z-6825
Hugh Cates
Dresser, table, china closet, and
chair finished with waterborne
finish on-Hne; china closet
finished with conventional finish
on-line
November 8, 1978
Henredon Furniture Industries
Henredon Road
Morganton, North Carolina 28655
(704) 765-9641
Don Warren
Reliance Universal
High Point, North Carolina
(919) 883-7181
Gary Currier
Chest, dining room table, china
27261 closet, and chair finished with
waterborne finish on-line; chest
finished with conventional finish
on-line
November 15 & 16, 1978
oo
Stanley Furniture Company
Stanleytown, Virginia 24168
(703) 629-7561
Jim Thornton
American Furniture Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 951
Hartinsvllle, Virginia 24112
(703) 632-2061
Ronald H. England
Reliance Universal
High Point, North Carolina 27261
(919) 883-7181
Gary Falk
The Lilly Company
High Point, North Carolina 27261
(919) 885-2157
Frank Tothill
Inmont Corporation
Morganton, North Carolina 28655
(704) 584-1771
Fred Black
Guardsman Chemicals, Inc.
High Point, North Carolina 27261
(919) 883-7126
Andy Reidell
Chest, table top, night stand, and
chair finished with waterborne
finish on-line; chest, night stand,
and chair finished with conventional
finish on-line
Dining room table, chair, and case
finished with waterborne finish
on-line
Case finished with waterborne
finish on-line
Case finished with waterborne
finish on-line.
November 27 & 28, 1978
October 30, 1978
October 30, 1978
October 30, 1978
Source: Program correspondence and data sheets from participating furniture manufacturers
and finish suppliers.
-------
In American's trial situation, the three suppliers involved were
assigned the following furniture pieces:
• Guardsman -- one case
• Inmont — one case
• Lilly -- full suite
Conventionally finished pieces for comparison were either prepared at
the same time, pulled off the line from regular production, or selected from
warehouse stock.
The trials were often handled entirely by the supplier. Extraordinary
attempts were made, particularly with hand finishing, to insure maximum
performance from the finishes. Thus, these trials present the best possible
results; actual results on-line with less skilled finish appliers will
probably not be as good.
DATA COLLECTION
Individual trial reports and other documentation dealing with the trial
were provided as a result of the following trials:
• Thomasville Furniture with Guardsman Chemical
• Drexel Heritage with Inmont
• Bernhardt Furniture with Reliance and Guardsman Chemical
• Bassett with Guardsman Chemical, Mobil, and Spruance
• Broyhill with Mobil
t Henredon with Reliance
t Stanley with Reliance
• American with Lilly, Inmont, and Guardsman Chemical
Primary sources of trial information Included notes taken by program
management personnel at the trials, data acquisition forms filled out by the
supplier, and formal requests for additional post-trial impressions from
both the supplier and the furniture manufacturer. During the trials,
specific Information was solicited on costs and potential changeovers
required in adopting the new finishes. In selected instances, finish
consumption was measured to calculate coverage estimates (in m2/!). In
all cases, notes taken by program management personnel were made available
to the finish suppliers and furniture manufacturers.
19
-------
DATA ANALYSIS
Although the trials were completed in November, many finish suppliers
and furniture manufacturers did not complete the data acquisition forms nor
respond to the letters sent to them until mid-January. When information
became available, both process and finish performance were examined.
Process data were analyzed with particular emphasis on:
• Operational timing, air flows, temperatures, heat requirements,
and other application characteristics
* Major process or capital changes required for the new finishes,
such as additional manpower or hardware
• Emission reduction potentials for the newer systems
• Costs of the waterborne finishes
Finish performance was assessed for:
• Visual qualities such as appearance, smoothness, color match, and
grain raising
• Measured qualities such as resistance to chemical attack,
adhesion, and gloss
• Handling qualities such as print resistance, adhesion, and cold
crack
After the furniture was finished, it was debated whether to distribute
it to interested parties for in-home testing, show it at a furniture
convention, or perform additional tests on the finishes and risk future
use of the furniture. Pending a final decision, the furniture was moved
to a Mayflower warehouse in High Point, North Carolina. On April 24, 1979,
the majority of the furniture was displayed in the SFMA theater in High
Point, North Carolina during the industry's annual spring marketing show.
One manufacturer displayed its furniture in a private showroom; another
did not show its furniture because of a delivery mix-up. The furniture of
all manufacturers except Bassett has since been sent to EPA in Cincinnati.
There it will be placed in EPA facilities so that it can be easily
accessed for future evaluation.
20
-------
SECTION 6
PROCESSING OF THE NEWER FINISHES
When possible, specific time intervals for application and drying of
the finish were obtained. When the trials were off-line, allotted times
paralleled those for on-line applications, but it was impossible to
duplicate line drying conditions. On-line, waterborne finished pieces were
often removed from the plant conveyor to complete a specific finish step,
such as wiping stain or glaze removal, or to be given a second pass through
the oven.
Available information on temperature, humidity, air flows, and other
process-related factors was noted in the individual furniture trial reports.
PROCESS FLOW
Process flows are similar for all furniture manufacturers; differences
exist in the numbers of steps, timing, and other characteristics. In
general, furniture factories are conveyorized to operate at 2 to 14 m/min,
allowing pieces to be on-line from 2-1/2 to 12 hours. Heating or drying
capacities vary from low-temperature, warm rooms to high-efficiency,
high-temperature ovens.
Furniture factories generally operate 8 to 10 hours per day and 5 or
6 days per week. Three breaks occur daily; during these the conveyor line
stops. There is a morning break of 10 to 15 minutes, a lunch break of
30 minutes, and an afternoon break of 10 to 15 minutes. Pieces partially
finished at the end of the day are left until the following day or after the
weekend.
There were two basic differences between normal practice and the
finishing trials conducted in this program. In general, the suppliers
applied the finishes (on-line or off-line), did the working of the finishes,
sanded the pieces, and made all judgments relating to finish appearance and
whether or not the finish was dry enough for further processing. The
suppliers also provided their own pressure pots and spray guns (air spray)
even though some finish components would ordinarily have been applied with
airless spray.
OFF-LINE TRIALS
Bassett, Thomasville, and Drexel Heritage conducted off-line trials.
Neither Bassett nor Thomasville used any drying between finish application
steps, however, a warm room was used at Drexel Heritage.
21
-------
Total application times for the trials at Bassett varied from 179 to
380 minutes, as presented in Table 7. The Spruance trial, which replaced
wash coat and sealer only, took 252 minutes. The Mobil trial which replaced
color coats but used conventional clear coats took 179 minutes. The
Guardsman trial involving a total waterborne replacement system took 306 to
380 minutes (200 to 225 net, removing non-pertinent time gaps due to
sequencing of trial pieces). These times can be compared with a typical
on-line time of 176 minutes for similar furniture styles.
Total application time at Thomasville was 290 minutes, not including
overnight air drying of the topcoat. This was approximately 50 percent
greater than on-line times in regular production. However, this was the
first trial in the program, and all participants were somewhat unfamiliar
with how to process the finishes and what specific information would be
important for the program.
Total application time at Drexel Heritage cannot be accurately
estimated since the finish ingredients were not all applied on the same
day. In addition, on-the-spot reformulation was done as finishes were
applied to either increase or decrease working life.
Although off-line finishing did allow supplier representatives maximum
time to apply and process their finishes, such trials produced somewhat
unrepresentative products. There was, for example, no drying or at best
inadequate drying between steps. The finish was often excessively worked to
maximize its performance. Damage resulted from floating debris in the air,
and mixing of solvent-borne and waterborne finishes due to improper cleaning
of spray guns and pressure pots led to some bare spots and other defects.
ON-LINE TRIALS
On-line trials at Henredon, Bernhardt, Broyhill, Stanley, and American
occurred on the normal process conveyor, however the waterborne finished
pieces were frequently pulled off to provide extra working, sanding, or
drying times. Where possible, oven temperatures were increased to the
maximum possible. Finishing application times varied from a low of
approximately 3-1/2 hours to over 8 hours. In all cases, these times were
longer than those for conventional finishes. The on-line trials are
presented in Table 8.
All trials were conducted under low ambient humidity conditions, except
for the Bernhardt-Troutman plant which is air-conditioned (210C, 50 to
55 percent RH). Increasing oven temperatures maximized drying rates for
curing the finishes. Line speeds were also reduced to maximize exposure to
oven drying. Stanley estimated that a reduction in line speed from 5.5 to
3.7 m/min would result in a 14 percent increase in product cost and a
33 percent reduction in factory capacities.
Finishing room spray booths varied widely, from open-ended to enclosed
water wash. These booths exhausted from 280 to 1,000 m3/min,-and all were
quoted to meet OSHA standards of 30.5 m/min air velocity across the face.
22
-------
TABLE 7. OFF-LINE FINISHING TRIALS AT BASSETT
Spruance3
Mobilb
Guardsman0
Conventional On-Line
Sequence^
Nor stain
Color coat
Wash coat
Wiping stain
Sealer
Speck
Cowtail
Glaze
Shade stain
Build coat
Top coat
Sap stain
Overall stain
Scuff sand
Toner
Wash coat
Sand
Wiping stain
Sealer
Sand
Spatter
Fog glaze
Highlight
Top coat
Shade stain
Top coat
Sap stain
Body stain
Wash coat
Wiping stain
Sealer
Fog glaze
Top coat
Spatter
Cowtail
Shade stain
Top coat
Stain
Enamel
Toner
Sealer size
Wash coat
Sand
Filler
Oven at 49°C — 2-1/8 min
Cowtail
Speck
Glaze
Shade stain
Build coat
Top coat lacquer
Oven at 44°C — 19 min
Oven at 74°C — 8-1/2 min
252 min
179 min
Total Finish Time
306 to 380 min
176 min
Normal line speed
(14 m/min)
Conventional finishes except for waterborne wash coat and sealer
^Conventional clear coats with waterborne color coats
cTotal waterborne system
dTotal solvent-borne finish
Source: Participating furniture manufacturers and finish suppliers
23
-------
TABLE 8. ON-LINE FURNITURE FINISHING TRIALS
ro
Henredon*
Reliance
Sap stain
Overall stain
Oven at 55°C, 11 m1n
Hash coat
Oven at 55°C,
Sand
Wiping stain
Break. 10 mln
Oven at 60°C,
Sand
Sealer
Oven at 60 to
14 min
Spray pad
Top coat
Oven at 66 °C,
Lunch break.
13 rain
15 min
66°C,
12 min
30 min
Highlight/hand pad
Oven at 66°C,
Spatter/shade
Break. 10 min
Top coat
Oven at 66°C,
Top coat
Oven at 66°C,
11 min
stain
10 min
12 min
Bernhardt
Guardsman Reliance0
Equalizer stain
Overall stain
Oven at 36°C. 10 min
Sealer
Oven at 30°C. 11 min
Glaze
Edge filler
Oven at 49 °C, 52 min
Sealer
Oven at 33°C. 10 min
Sand
Shade stain
Edge glaze
Oven at 60°C. 30 m1n
Cowtail
Shade stain
Top coat
Hand pad
Spatter
Top coat
Shade stain
Top coat
Oven at 55°C average,
44 min
First Day
Sap stain
Oven at 19°C, 21 min
Wash coat
Oven at 25 °C, 34 min
Glaze
Oven at 55°C, 132 min*
Sealer
Oven at 33°C, 25 min
Spray pad
Oven at 49 °C, 67 min
Top coat
Second Day
Hand pad
Spatter
Top coat
Oven at 44°C, 40 min
Broyhill
Mobil
Wiping stain
Oven at 108 °C, 1 min
Sealer
Oven at 108°C, 1 min
Sand
Glaze
Oven at 80°C, 1-1/2 min
Flyspeck and shade
Lacquer
Oven at 77»C, 1-1/2 min
Sand and shade stain
Lacquer
Oven at 86°C, 1-1/2 min
Lacquer
Oven at 95°C, 3 min
Touchup
Air dry
Stanley0
Reliance
Equalizer stain
Sap stain
Oven at 94°C. 1 min
Overall stain
Oven at 116°C, 2 min
Sealer
Oven at 113°C. 2 min
Fill glaze
3 zone oven
830C
83°C 6 min
105°C
Spatter
Sealer
Oven at 83°C, 3 min
Sand
Spray/hand pad
Oven at 80°C, 4 rein
First lacquer
Oven at 113°C. 4 min
Smudge pad
Second lacquer
2 zone oven
99°C 9 n1n
1130C 3 1n
Third lacquer
2 zone oven
«°C 4 rain
66°C
Sand
American Furniture*1
Lilly*
Mineral streak
Sap stain
Prestain
Overall stain
Wash coat
Sand
Edge filler /edge enamel
Wiping stain
Oven at 60°C, 30 min
Sealer
Sand
Glaze
Top coat
Oven at 24°C, 30 min
Smudge pad
Spatter
Cowtail
Top coat
Top coat
Rub the next day Rub the next day
Overall time to finish
Overall time to finish Overall time to finish (excluding overnight
8 hours 11 min 5 hours 58 min '
Rub right off line
Overall time to finish
shutdown) 8 hours 15 min 3 hours 23 min
Normal line speed
3.7 to 5.5 m/nrin
Normal line spped
6.1 m/min
Normal finishing time Normal finishing time
5 to 6 hours 4 to 5 hours
Normal line speed
2.4 to 2.7 m/min
Normal finishing time
9 to 11 hours
Normal line speed
9.1 m/min
Normal finishing time
2 to 3 hours
Rub right off line
Overall time to finish
5 hours 29 min
Normal line speed
5.5 to 7.3 m/min
Normal finishing time
4 to 5 hours
Rub off line
Overall time to finish
estimated at 4 to
5 hours'?
Normal line speed
4.9 to 5.5 m/min
Normal finishing time
4 to 5 hours
JPlant has humidity control in winter but not suimer. Trial at 21° to 24°C in plant with nominal 30 percent RH.
bTrial at 19° to 24°C in plant with nominal 30 percent RH.
cTrial at 2l°C in plant with nominal 29 to 35 percent RH.
dTrial at 21°C in plant with nominal 30 percent RH.
JThree suppliers working on line at the same.time. Not possible to track and time all the pieces.
'Thirty minutes of this time was lunch break.
Source: Participating furniture manufacturers and finish suppliers.
-------
Total air volume moved by the finishing rooms varied depending primarily on
the types and efficiencies of the spray booths. Where available, air
volumes were quoted as follows:
• Thomasville — 14,200 m3/min
• Stanley — 7,900; 9,300; 25,500 m3/min (three different plants)
• Henredon ~ 16,300 m3/min
• Bernhardt-Troutman -- 9,100 m3/min
Estimates of hydrocarbon content of spray booth exhaust have not been made
accurately, although Broyhill has calculated a fuel cost of $1,100 per day
to incinerate their emissions.
PROCESS CHANGES FOR WATERBORNE SYSTEMS
Major process and operational changes will be required to handle the
waterborne finishing systems.
Humidity Control
Quantities of water vapor being generated would probably require
humidity control in the finishing room. In one finishing room, it was
estimated that 94.6 1/hr of water vapor would be evolved. Although some
would be discharged through stacks, the balance would require removal by
other means to insure adequate drying of the finish, avoid mildew or other
fungal growth, and compensate for wide swings in ambient humidity, as well
as for worker safety and comfort.
Furthermore, the quality of the finish could be affected by the high
humidity in the finishing room. Excessive moisture could cause blushing or
milkiness of the top coat, and rubbing would be modified because of higher
humidity and the softness of the finish. Print resistance also may be a
problem, resulting in either longer packaging lines or modification of
packaging procedures.
No information was available on the costs of a humidity-controlled
facility. Very few such facilities exist; the Bernhardt-Troutman plant is
one.
Conversion of Piping and Spray Systems
Repiping of finishing rooms to provide stainless steel pipes, valves,
and fittings would be required. Current waterborne finishes are generally
corrosive to mild steel pipes, valves, fittings, and pumps. Estimates to
convert to stainless steel range from $100,000 to $500,000 per facility
depending on the degree of change. This conversion includes replacing or
recoating storage tanks, guns, and pumps, as well as the current
distribution system.
25
-------
It was also found that current waterborne finishes must be applied with
air sprays rather than airless spray systems. Many finishing rooms have
been repiped with high-pressure plastic tubing and airless spray equipment
to minimize overspray and emissions; this is particularly true with clear
coats. However, the new waterborne polymer systems could not be applied by
airless spray because of the instability of the polymer system to high shear
and the higher solids content that make uniform application difficult.
Efforts on the part of finish suppliers and base polymer producers may
overcome this limitation.
Storage Modification
Bulk and drum storage facilities would have to be replaced or modified.
Current bulk storage of furniture finishes is provided by aboveground,
outside, exposed carbon-steel tanks and underground carbon-steel tanks.
Drum storage is primarily outside in drum farms with provision for smaller
quantities inside. The bulk storage facilities are in most cases either
quite old or designed to meet insurance requirements for storage of flammable
liquids. Waterborne finishes would require modification of bulk and drum
storage to minimize the corrosive action of the waterborne finishes and the
risk to finish quality due to refreezing and rethawing of the waterborne
materials.
Corrosive action can be minimized by replacing or relining the tanks.
Stainless steel or the less expensive fiberglass reinforced polyester (FRP)
tanks could be used, or tank linings such as epoxy and phenolic could be
applied. Protection from freeze/thaw damage would require heated storage
tanks or placing storage tankage in an enclosed heated environment. Whether
the waterborne finishes being manufactured today would meet insurance
standards for nonflanmability (and thus be capable of storage in nonsecure
areas) should be carefully reviewed before making major changes in storage
facilities. Finishes in drum quantities can also be stored inside in fiber,
phenolic-lined, or plastic drums.
Drying Capacity Increase
Drying capacity must be increased in the finishing room. In all trial
situations, additional drying time (or temperature) was required to remove
the water and dry the finish. Stanley estimated a 25 percent increase in
fuel would be needed to increase oven temperatures by 4.4° to 10°C.
Broyhill claims that they have the best oven system in the industry. They
were still unable to dry the waterborne finish adequately. Many suppliers
feel that elevated temperatures rather than additional time are required to
fuse the clear coats and provide a print resistant finish.
For some lower line speed mills having ovens or hot boxes in place,
increasing heat input may be adequate, depending on line speed, but for
those mills limited in oven number, size, or heat capacity, new ovens would
be required. Some mills have very limited drying and heating capacity and
would require entirely new oven systems, as well as major modifications of
26
-------
their conveyor systems. Bassett, for example, is in the process of reworking
a finishing room with new conveyor systems and ovens at an estimated cost of
$2,000,000.
Storage/Work Area Increase
An increase in plant storage and work areas would be required.
Waterborne finishes take longer to develop adequate print resistance compared
to solvent-borne finishes. This lengthens the time between application of
the final topcoat and placing the finished piece in a crate for shipping.
Additional storage space, therefore, would be required to allow the finish
to develop adequate resistance through natural aging. Broyhill estimated
that an overnight aging would necessitate space for storing 1,500 to 2,500
extra pieces of furniture. Early trial work further suggested that rubbing
waterborne finishes that were not completely set resulted in removal of the
finish; additional natural aging (and space) would be required at this step.
Repair of waterborne finishes also might require additional floor space and
facilities, especially during the initial stages of new finish implementation
as plant personnel become used to the new systems.
Modification of plant procedures could partially offset some of the
needs for additional plant storage space by increasing oven temperatures,
reducing line speed for longer exposure to existing oven cure cycles, and
adapting rubbing procedures to handle the waterborne finishes. Modification
of finish composition may also minimize needs for additional storage space
with improved formulations to increase drying rate and set time, rubbing
compounds specific to waterborne finishes, and repair compounds for rapid
and complete finish removal.
27
-------
SECTION 7
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE NEWER FINISHES
The performance of furniture finishes is a critical factor in assessing
potential changes in their chemistry or process. With conventional finishes,
the supplier coats test panels and adjusts shading, depth, and gloss, as
well as modifies formulations for desired chemical or environmental
resistances. Because the supplier is responsible for satisfactory finishes,
technical specialists are on call to make on-the-spot formulation changes.
During the trial program, finish suppliers provided data on the
expected performance of their finishes. Limited testing was also done on
completed pieces. However, full-scale tests were not run since damage to
the furniture could affect their esthetics and bias comparative evaluation,
for example, at a trade show.
VISUAL QUALITIES
Total waterborne finishing systems do not produce a commercially
satisfactory looking piece of furniture in the judgement of all of the
furniture manufacturers who participated in the trials and of those
manufacturers and retail firms who viewed the furniture during the
subsequent industry market show in High Point, North Carolina in
April 1979. Furniture appearance is the most critical factor in assessing
newer systems. Although great strides have been made in the development of
waterborne finishes in the past years and during the trial program, all
furniture manufacturers and finish suppliers felt that none of the pieces
produced would be commercially acceptable when compared with conventional
finishes. However, they were optimistic about the future.
Several casual observers at the furniture show commented that some of
the waterborne finished furniture had an "antique" look that they favored
over similar conventionally finished pieces. Although these people were not
experienced finish evaluators, their opinion does indicate that waterborne
finished furniture might appeal to certain buyers.
Grain Raising
Water in contact with wood disturbs the surface by causing grain
raising (popping). This occurred in all on-line and off-line trial
situations. Drexel Heritage reported a minimal grain raising on their very
light-colored styles, while Spruance observed serious grain raising on
dark-colored oak, even when they applied waterborne wash coats or sealers
28
-------
over conventional base stains. After rubbing, bare wood showed through the
distress marks of chain-distressed bleached hardwood at Henredon.
Grain raising, due to its swelling characteristic, prevents subsequent
finish components from providing the desired depth of shade or coloration.
Color depth and shade were not equivalent to conventional finishes at
American, whereas color depth and shade could not be achieved at a.11 at
Broyhill. At Bassett, finished pieces looked darker and duller.
In addition, grain raising produces a very rough surface that gives an
undesirable tactile sensation even after sanding. In fact, normal sanding
procedures were inadequate to remove high spots developed by the raised
grain. Extra sanding on flat surfaces did minimize the surface roughness,
but drawer edges, table legs, and other exposed grain areas remained rough
even after additional effort.
Applying a sealer to the wood to minimize grain raising was suggested
but not evaluated. This idea was viewed with skepticism since a sealed wood
could not be easily stained, colored, and highlighted.
Gloss and Depth of Character
The waterborne topcoats did not meet currently accepted gloss
standards. For example, one furniture manufacturer who seeks a 60 gloss
obtained only 35 to 40.
Without exception, the waterborne finishes were hazy and visually
unacceptable in comparison to conventional finishes. It was difficult to
see through to the wood, and furniture manufacturers complained of poor
clarity, lack of luster or color depth, and milky appearance. The furniture
had a sandy, flat look that was cloudy and cold with a greyish cast. The
lack of a warm and deep finish resulted in unattractive furniture.
One furniture manufacturer felt that while the lower end manufacturer
may not suffer appreciable appearance loss, high end manufacturers will.
All manufacturers were concerned about-the commercial disadvantage of
merchandising waterborne finished pieces versus conventional pieces.
Graininess of Finish
In addition to grain raising, graininess was caused by the adherence of
more dust, lint, and fuzz to the pieces since they dried much more slowly
than conventional finishes. Coagulated waterborne finish particles that
were not filtered out or that accumulated during spraying also contributed
to graininess.
Improvements in gloss, sheen, and surface depths would require
reformulation and polymer development to improve performance during spraying.
29
-------
Surface Sheen
"Orange peel" occurs when individual polymer particles do not knit
together to form a continuous adherent film. This can result in bumpy and
ncnuniform smoothness, o" actual breaks in the film integrity evidenced by
craze marks. Control cr orange peel with waterborne finishes requires
humidity- controlled finishing rooms.
Other Factors
Slip or slickness of the surface was not as pleasing as that of
conventional finishes. The incompatibility of waterborne finishes with
prefinished parts or thin veneers gave rise to more cracks, crazing, and
actual removal of the prefinish. Failure to wet flatwood prefinished
components with the waterborne finishes at Broyhill resulted in a puddled
look after drying. The printed finish on prefinished table tops at
Bernhardt was dissolved by the waterborne stains that produced a crazed,
cracked, and mottled appearance. Waterborne stains also created microcracks
in veneers at Thomasville. Modification of prefinished stock to provide
pieces more amenable to finishing with waterborne systems may be possible
with further efforts.
MEASURABLE RESULTS
Mills vary in their ability to test the measured quality of the finish,
from total reliance on the supplier to a complete evaluation of their own.
These performance tests can only roughly indicate how durable the finish
will be in actual service, since no one knows how the finish will stand up
to normal wear and tear over 10 to 30 years.
Chemical Resistance
Resistance to household chemicals is important to long-term aesthetics,
a function primarily of the top coat rather than the color coats. Chemical
resistance tests include ASTM D-2571-76 for resistance of factory-applied
coatings to oils, greases, cosmetics, and other household chemicals;
ASTM D-3023-72 for resistance to stains and reagents; ASTM D-1308-57 for the
effect of household chemicals on clear and pigmented organic finishes; and
garbage tests, such as the one used by Drexel Heritage and shown as follows:
Materials applied to surface for 24 hours except alcohol (2 hours),
cologne (2 hours), and nail polish remover (until solvent evaporates):
Alchohol Lysol(|L Lemon juice
Cologne Clorox® Vinegar
Naphtha Mustard Coffee
Nail polish remover Catsup Water
Bluing Vegetable oil Grape juice
Iodine Margarine
Where highly critical resistance is required, conventional finishes may be
inadequate, and catalyzed varnishes will be required.
30'
-------
Chemical resistance of waterborne finishes is generally acceptable
except for resistance to alcohol and cleaning or waxing compounds containing
naphtha-type solvents. Suppliers report that such finishes absorb alcohol-,
water-, naphtha-, and oil-based staining compounds, but demonstrate
acceptable general garbage resistance that improves^with age. The_mills
observed poor resistance to alcohol, bluing, Lysol®, and CloroxCB).
UV Resistance
Change in color or shade upon exposure to artificial sunlight is an
undesirable factor for both color coats and clear coats. While standard
tests were mentioned for this property, suppliers expect adequate to
somewhat improved UV resistance in the waterborne finishes, particularly
with the acrylic-based finishes.
Adhesion
Adhesion of the finish to the wood and cohesion between various finish
components is necessary to accommodate changes in styles, woods, and the use
of plastics. Adhesion tests include ASTM D-2197-68; the Gardner balanced
scrape adhesion tester; the U.S. government organic coatings adhesion
tester; the Bell adhesion tester; and Crosshatch, tape pull, or nickel
scratch tests.
Based on the data developed during the trial program, adhesion of the
waterborne finishes is acceptable. One supplier expected poor adhesion
prior to the trial, but on-line adhesion testing was satisfactory.
Other Factors
Humidity resistance testing through ASTM D-2247 and 3459 that expose
finishes to varying levels of humidity and water condensation showed poor
performance from the waterborne finishes. Scrub and mild abrasion
resistance testing through ASTM D-2486 that expose finishes to various
materials that might rub across the surface, such as wet cleaning rags,
books, and plastics, indicated marginal performance of the waterborne
finishes prior to thorough drying and aging.
PRINT RESISTANCE
Furniture is packaged, crated, and shipped countrywide from the
furniture factory. When furniture is uncrated, packing materials must be
able to be removed cleanly and leave no mark or "print" on the finished
surface. This is termed print resistance.
Several test procedures measure print resistance from ambient
temperature and humidity to elevated temperature (hot print) and elevated
humidity. These include ASTM D-2091-67; in-plant stacking of finished table
tops with canvas cloth separators; in-plant packaging of pieces for storage
in a warehouse; and oven aging in a finish supplier laboratory after which
finished panels are stacked.
31
-------
Rapid development of print resistance is important in space-limited
furniture factories. Conventional finishes develop print resistance so
rapidly, pieces can be crated and shipped almost immediately after
production. Newer finishes would need similar attributes to avoid large
holding areas for natural aging.
Furniture finishes must withstand a static load of up to 28 kPa without
printing to meet the industry's minimum standards. Most mills aim for
28 kPa, although Broyhill stacks furniture six high and needs at least a
70 kPa print resistance.
In general, waterborne finishes have unacceptable print resistance,
although resistance is said to improve with natural aging. Hot print
resistance and print resistance under humid conditions is also poorer than
with conventional finishes. One supplier estimated that print resistance
would be unacceptable 3 to 4 hours after finish application, become
submarginal after overnight aging (7 to 14 kPa), and be marginally
acceptable (14 to 21 kPa) in 3 to 4 days. Stanley stacked waterborne
finished table tops with spacers right off the finishing line; when pieces
were SP1octed for rubbing the next day, print marks were apparent. Most of
the w> jorne finished pieces were not cartoned directly off the line, but
were sycu 24 to 48 hours. Therefore, the circumstances were not
representative of the typical furniture plant.
Print resistance is expected to be acceptable on some lines, but
unacceptable on high-speed conveyorized lines or lines with minimum heat
capacity, and definitely unacceptable under hot print conditions. Supplier
projections of fair initial print resistance proved unacceptable, leading
mills to expect printing if furniture is packaged right off the line.
Two mills, however, reported satisfactory print resistance. Drexel
Heritage reported no printing with their print test on the off-line trial
run of a total waterborne finish system. They also reported no printing on
a piece that had waterborne coats up to the three topcoats of conventional
lacquer. Bernhardt reported satisfactory print resistance by phone, but did
not confirm this in writing.
RUBBING CHARACTERISTICS
Mills differ in their rubbing procedures. Some mills do not rub at all
or rub only certain styles. Others rub their pieces on-line after finishing
or store pieces overnight for rubbing the next day. In general, high end
pieces receive more rubbing than middle quality pieces; while low end pieces
receive almost no rubbing at all. Approximately one-fourth to one-third of
furniture undergoes some type of rubbing.
Current rubbing practice involves waxes, rubbing compounds, steel wool,
and buffing. A typical hand-rubbing with machine assistance uses:
• Grade 1 emery paper and rubbing oil
• Grade 2 emery paper and rubbing oil
32
-------
t Grade 1 rubbing cloth and rubbing compound
• Grade 2 rubbing cloth and rubbing compound
• Steel wool
• Wool buffing wheels
Rubbing can occur immediately on-line after finishing or at some later
point. Most pieces at Stanley are rubbed on-line after application of the
finishes, although table tops are stacked and rubbed the next day. Rubbing
at Henredon and Bernhardt generally takes place the next day. Rubbing at
Broyhill is on-line after application of finish, while Bassett does not rub
its major styles.
Rubbing of the waterborne finishes led to significantly different
results than that with conventional finishes. Broyhill reported that flat
surfaces would not rub out properly for the desired appearance even when
passed through the rubbing station three times. Stanley passed pieces
through rubbing two times without success, while Henredon actually rubbed
through the finish to bare wood in spots attempting to achieve the sheen and
gloss standards. Bassett, on the other hand, indicated that they may have
to rub some styles that are not now rubbed. Finally, Drexel Heritage
reported that their conventional rubbing procedures were not able to bring
up the surface character to an acceptable level and further estimated that
50 percent more time and effort may be required to rub the waterborne
finishes.
Modifications in procedures or rubbing materials will be needed to
develop the necessary surface appearance from current waterborne finishes.
This presupposes that the waterborne finish materials are chemically capable
of producing the desired gloss, luster, and smoothness.
REPAIR
Repair of furniture on-line, in the inspection room, and at the dealer
or showroom is an accepted fact of life. Up to 25 percent of all furniture
receives some type of repair prior to purchase by the consumer. Repair
procedures must correct the defect without being noticeable within that
piece as well as among other unrepaired pieces.
Stripping
Total stripping of waterborne finished pieces presents a serious
problem. When pieces inadvertently processed with some waterborne and some
conventional finishes were totally stripped for repair, the conventional
finishes were removed easily, while the waterborne finishes were not removed
readily even when using hard bristle brushes. Test panels with waterborne
finishes were also difficult to clean off. In fact, although some suppliers
indicate that major repair should be possible, it has yet to be demonstrated.
33
-------
Development of new furniture stripping chemistry for waterborne finishes
will be required to remove the defective or old finish completely and
economically. However, many of these pieces are made of different materials
such as plastics, metals, and certain woods that could be adversely affected
by the strippers. Veneers, print-coated hard board, and bonding adhesives
may also be adversely affected. Disposal, recovery, or reuse of the
strippers must be considered, and a technology that commercial refinishers
could use to remove waterborne finishes for their customers must also be
developed.
Color Repair
Intermediate color changes, highlighting, or shade matching is difficult
with waterborne finishing materials. In many instances, due to line
stoppages, uniqueness of a piece of furniture, or the need to match a color
or shade, individual pieces may have to be processed by themselves and then
returned to the line.
Conventional finish components wet one another, flowing together to
achieve the desired effect, and if not correct can be reworked quickly to
the proper level of color or shade. When dry, on the other hand, waterborne
wash coats and sealers do not rewet and allow penetration of stains and
color coats for shading or color match. Furthermore, the colors, if
adherent at all, can be readily removed in final rubbing, leaving light and
dark areas.
Spot Repair
Small spot repair of waterborne finishes can be accomplished by current
burn-in techniques. Small areas can be refluxed and reflowed by
conventional, pointed hot-iron procedures. The appearance of these touch-up
areas seems acceptable based on the limited experience to date.
Showroom Repair
Showroom or merchandiser repair is an unknown quantity outside the
scope of this program. Typical repairing techniques used by merchandisers
of furniture would have to be established and applied to typical waterborne
finished pieces. If these techniques prove unsatisfactory, new techniques
or chemical systems would have to be developed.
34
-------
SECTION 8
EMISSION REDUCTION POTENTIAL FOR THE NEWER FINISHES
Each supplier company provided information on the individual finishes
used during the trials. The suppliers completed the forms as requested,
with excellent attention to detail. Certain reports, however, did require
several followups. The following analysis was then based on the available
information.
COVERAGE VALUES
Stated coverage values will have a significant impact on emission
reduction potential. For example, emissions from a finish estimated at
9.8 m2/l will be approximately half that of a finish estimated at
4.9 m2/!, assuming the same solids content and dry film thicknesses.
Coverage differences are due to differences in how the finish is applied' and
the skill of the operator.
Suppliers differ considerably on estimated coverage per liter for known
finishes (conventional solvent-borne). Their estimates are given in
Table 9. Since experience with waterborne finishes is.limited^ estimates
tend to be broader; however, higher coverage rates are .suggested, as shown
in Table 10. Actual measured values from three trials.bracket the estimated
coverage in some cases, but are much higher in others, as presented in
Table 11. Finally, a sumnary of the estimated and actual coverage values
for key finish components is provided in Table 12.
Based on the accumulated data and subject to .further confirmation, the
following coverage values have been used in developing overall estimates of
emission reduction potentials for the industry (individualplant-by-plant
coverages vary by as much as 50 percent):
Average Estimated
m?/]
Solvent-borne Waterborne
Stains 9.83 9.83
Wash coat 6.14 7.37
Wiping/stains/glazes 9.83 7.37
Sealers 6.14 7.37
Pads, spatters, cowtails 36.86 49.15
Top coats 5.53 6.14
35
-------
TABLE 9. COVERAGE VALUES FOR CONVENTIONAL SOLVENT-BASED WOOD FURNITURE FINISHES
co
Prestain
Sap stain
Overall stain
Equalizer stain
Wash coat
Toner
Wiping stain
Glaze
Sealer
Top coat
Paid stain
Spatter
Cow tail
Brushmark
Shade
Smudge pad
Top coat
a
6.02
6.02
5.53
9.83
9.83
5.28
4.55
4.55
b
6.76
6.76
6.14
6.76
6.14
6.14
9.83
9.83
9.83
9.83
6.14
c
2.4
2.4
2.0
13.8
13.8
5.46
5.55
Very High
Very High
Very High
5.55
m2/l
b
6.76
6.14
6.14
6.14
9.83
6.14
d
9.83
9.83
5.48-6.14
73.73
73.73
73.73
5.48
b
6.76
6.76
6.14
6.14
6.14
9.83
9.83
9.83
9.83
6.14
e
6.14
6.14
3.93
6.14
6.14
3.93
14.7
4.92
c
2.4
2.4
2.0
13.8
13.8
5.46
5.55
2.4
5.55
aThe Lilly Company
bReliance Universal
C6uardsman
^Inmont
eSpruance
Source: Participating finish suppliers
-------
TABLE 10. COVERAGE VALUES FOR WATERBORNE WOOD FURNITURE FINISHES
Prestaln
Sap stain
Overall stain
Equalizer stain
Wash coat
Toner
Wiping stain
Glaze
Sealer
Top coat
Pad stain
Spatter
Cowtall
Brushmark
Shade
Smudge pad
Top coat
a
12.?
12.2
12.2
7.99
8.65
8.65
6.76
5.53
5.53
b
6.76 6
6.76 6
6
5.28
5.28 6
12.6 6
10.7
9
9
9
9
9
10.7 6
c
.76
.76
.14
.14
.14
.83
.83
.83
.83
.83
.14
b
6.76
6.76
6.76
5.28
5.28
12.6
10.7
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
10.7
c
6.76
6.14
6.14
6.14
6.14
9.83
9.83
9.83
6.14
fll2/l
d
6.14
3.34
6.14
6.14
7.13
8.43
6.14
6.14
6.14
6.14
8.43
b
6.76
5.28
4.03
5.28
5.28
12.6
5.28
5.28
5.28
5.28
10.7
d
19.7
11.1
19.7
19.7
11.1
73.73
73.73
73.73
9.83
c
6.76
6.76
6.14
6.14
6.14
6.14
6.14
e
6
6
3.98 12
5
5
3.93 12
10
6
10
b
.76
.76
.6
.28
.28
.6
.7
.76
.7
aThe Lilly Company
^Guardsman
cRellance Universal
dlnmont
eSpruance
Source: Participating finish suppliers
37
-------
TABLE 11. COVERAGE VALUES BASED ON ACTUAL MEASURES
Sap stain
Overall stain
Equalizer stain
Wash coat
Toner
Wiping stain
Glaze
Sealer
rTop coat
- Spatter
. Shade
. Top coat
Conventional
a b
19.0
8.60
73.73
4.30
7.62 9.88
11.1
8.23 3.69
3.81
33.23
3.81 5.14-
5.80
m2/l
Finishes Waterborne
c d b
50.38
18.9
61.44
12.5 35.4
19.1
10.6 5.04
50.38(Fog)
11.7 8.11 37.4
5.41
294.90
151.1 156.1
9.46 5.41
Finishes
c
43.01
21.6
12.5
37.85
13.8
50.38(Fog)
11.7
151.1
9.46
Based on triple dresser, dining room table, chair, and china closet
totaling 9.2 m2 (Mobil).
Based on a chest, chair, and panels of 7.86 m2 (Spruance).
cBased on a dresser and chair of 4.5 m? (Mobil).
dBased on a china closet of 3.2 m2 (Mobil).
Source: Participating finish suppliers.
38
-------
TABLE 12. AVERAGE COVERAGE VALUES
Stains
Wash coat
Wiping stain-glaze
Sealers
Top coats
Pads, spatters, etc.
Top coats
Solvent-borne
Estimated
6.14
- 6.14
9.83
5.53
5.53
Very high
5.53
A
Solvent-borne
Actual
8.60-73.73
4.30-12.5
7.62-10.6
3.69-11.7
3.81-9.46
33.18-151.1
3.81-9.46
MM^HMB^^KIIBIl^^^MIIIIM^^^^^^^V
1
Waterborne
Estimated
7.37
7.37
6.14
7.37
6.14
Very high
6.14
Waterborne
Actual
21.6-61.44
3.93-12.5
5.04-13.8
4.15-11.7
5.41-9.46
151.1-294.90
5.41-9.46
Source: Participating finish suppliers
39
-------
EMISSION REDUCTION POTENTIAL
Suppliers' coverage estimates for both waterborne and conventional
finishes laid the groundwork for estimating emissions per unit area
(100 m2). In some cases, coverage figures were either not presented or
were unreasonably low. In these situations, averaged values were used.
Table 13 shows the results of the emission data analysis from all the trials.
Emission reductions obtained in the program ranged from 26 to
94 percent. Replacing wash coat and sealer waterborne substitutes resulted
in a 26 percent emission reduction, while a 30 percent reduction was
obtained by converting color coats to waterborne and retaining conventional
clear coats. Totally converted finishes yielded up to 94 percent emission
reduction.
Emission reduction potential differed significantly among suppliers
during the trials. This suggests different approaches to the reduction of
emissions, as well as different assumed average values. The following table
exemplifies this wide percentage range:
Percent Emission Reduction
Guardsman 55; 61
Lilly Company 79
Mobil 83
Reliance Universal 87; 92; 93
Inmont 94
Variations also exist in ultimate emissions per unit area, from 5.9 to
58.7 kg/100 m2 for reported waterborne finishes.
These differences are the result of individual suppliers establishing
higher or lower levels of hydrocarbon in their waterborne finish.
Differences in estimated coverage values also contribute to this wide
range. Another contributing factor is some suppliers' uncertainty about
coverage values for the newer finishes. This led to conservative first
approximations.
Significant differences (almost two to one) also exist in the estimated
levels of emissions from conventional systems; no distinction is made between
high end, medium end, or low end furniture. This is probably due to the use
of estimated coverages, which significantly alters emissions per unit area.
Typical emission levels are as follows:
Emissions
kg/100 m?
Stanley-Reliance 160
Henredon-Reliance 120
Bernhardt-Reliance 98.8
Drexel Heritage-Inmont 99.8
Bassett-Spruance 120
Bassett-Guardsman 87.1
40
-------
TABLE 13. ESTIMATED HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTION POTENTIAL
Furniture Manufacturers-Finish Supplier
Drexel Heritage- Inmont
Bassett-Spruance
Bassett-Guardsman
Bassett-Mobil
Broyhill-Mobil
Bernhardt-Rel iance
Bernhardt-Guardsman
Stanley-Reliance
American-Lilly
American-Inmont
Amer 1 can-Guardsman
Henredon-Rel iance
Thomasvil le-Guardsman
Conventional
99.8
120
87.1
43
71.4
98.8
-
160
136
-
-
120
81.2
Estimated kg of Hydrocarbon Emitted
per 100 m2 of Surface Covered3
Waterborne
5.9
89. Ob
34
3QC
12d
7.3
58. 7e
12
29
11
24
16
36
Potential
Percent
Reduction
94
26
61
30
83
92
-
93
79
-
-
87
55
aAverage values taking into account supplier-estimated overspray values and different furniture pieces.
bTrial goal was to replace wash coat and sealer only with water borne substitutes and keep the balance conventional.
CTrial goal was to replace color coats only with water borne substitutes but keep conventional clear coats.
^Calculated values based on actual finish usages.
eValues appear high, based on other trial data.
Source: Participating finish suppliers.
-------
Emissions from each finish component as a percentage of total emissions
can also vary widely. The majority of emissions from wood furniture
finishing comes from the clear coats rather than color coats, as was shown
in Table 4. The breakdown is roughly as follows:
t 65 percent of emissions from clear coats
— 15 percent from wash coat
— 15 percent from sealer
— 35 percent from top coat
• 35 percent of emissions from color coats
— 5 percent from base stains
— 30 percent from wiping stains/fillers/glazes
Although there are wide variations in the percent of total emissions from
each process component, as shown in Table 14, the averages for overall clear
and color coats are close to the original estimates of 65 and 35 percent,
respectively. Wash coat, sealer, and top coat emissions are quite close to
their estimates, as are total color coat emissions, but base stain and
wiping stain/filler/glaze emissions are reversed in their relative
importance.
42
-------
TABLE 14. EMISSIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL FINISH COMPONENTS
CO
Percent of Total Emissions from Each Process Component
Drexelb Staileyb Broyhi11c
Base stain* 28 49 10
Wash coat
Wiping stain/ 8 13
filler/glaze
Sealer 26 14 12
Top coat 39 24 78
Total 101 100 100
American
37
10
9
10
34
100
Bernhardt6
29
13
11
24
23
100
Henredon
37
10
14
19
19
99
Thomasvilleb Bassettf
28
16
9
16
31
100
26
16
20
15
24
101
Range Average^
10-49 31
10-16 13
8-20 12
10-26 17
19-78 34
alncludes cowtail, spatter, fly speck and other highlighting stains.
bBased on sole supplier's estimates.
cBased on actual measurements.
dBased on supplier's estimates (Lilly).
CBased on supplier's estimates (Reliance).
fBased on supplier's estimates (Spruance).
9Does not add up to 100 percent as some components were not used in all trials.
Source: Participating finish suppliers.
-------
SECTION 9
COSTS OF THE NEWER FINISHES
During the trial program, as much information as possible was developed
on the cost of conventional and newer finishes. Finish suppliers were
reluctant to give this information as any cost data could be used by their
competitors, and they did not want to commit themselves to anything that
might fix their pricing strategy in the future. For these reasons, caution
is suggested in the use of any cost data in this chapter.
All suppliers selected waterborne materials for their new finish
systems, after assessing the available polymers and additives for their
potential to produce finishes at reduced solvent cost. No high solids, per
se, or other lower hydrocarbon finishes were evaluated in this program.
OVERALL COST
Overall cost data indicate higher unit costs for most, but not all,
waterborne finishes. See Table 15.
Waterborne top coats were quoted as 50 to 300 percent more costly than
their solvent-borne counterparts. Waterborne sealer coats cost 50 to
100 percent more, and waterborne washcoats are 25 to 50 percent more
expensive. Waterborne heavy color coats (such as wiping stains and glazes)
costs are 50 to 100 percent higher, while waterborne prime color coats (such
as prestains, sap stains, and overall stains) are equivalent or somewhat
more costly. Finally, waterborne accenting color coats (such as spatter,
pad, and cowtail stains) are equivalent to conventional finish costs.
APPLIED COSTS
Since coverage for waterborne finishes appears somewhat higher than for
solvent-borne finishes, the applied costs of the two finishing systems may
be closer. More data are needed to confirm this. The wide variation in
estimated coverages for solvent-borne finishes and the limited experience
with processing waterborne finishes and optimizing application techniques
are contributing factors to a reassessment of these applied costs. However,
deficiencies in the performance of waterborne systems may have to be
corrected by increased usage, thereby reducing coverage per gallon.
Furniture manufacturers' estimates of costs per liter were generally
based on the development pricing of their suppliers. Therefore, lower
44
-------
long-term costs could be expected as waterborne finishes go Into general
production. As sales volume Increases, additional research may result in
either less expensive polymers or polymers having improved properties.
Not all finish suppliers provided cost data. One supplier would quote
only an "increase over conventional finishes," and another supplier who is
polymerizing proprietary materials did not want his cost estimates included.
TABLE 15. COST OF FINISHES
Finishing Material
Prestain
Sap stain
Overall N6R stain
Wash coat
Wiping stain
Sealer
Glaze
Top coat
Spatter stain
Pad stain
Cowtail stain
Solvent-borne
0.926-1.19
0.794-1.06
0.595-1.32
0.728-0.9923
0.926-1.26
0.767-1.193
1.06-1.59
0.860-1.19
1.72-1.98
1.72-1.98
1.32-1.59
1 •' ''•
Waterborne
0.926-1.19
0.794-1.06
0.926-1.32
0,794-1.393
1.59-2.12
1.32-2.253
1.59-2.12
1.59-3.04
1.72-1.98
1.72-1.98
1.32-1.59
aOne supplier states that waterborne wash coat and sealer will cost
25 to 28 percent more than those that are solvent-borne.
Source: Participating finish suppliers.
45
-------
SECTION 10
OTHER ISSUES BEARING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF WATERBORNE FINISHES
During the program, major issues were raised by suppliers, users, and
members of the study team.
MANPOWER
In all trial situations, more personnel than normal worked during
finish applications. The suppliers' and furniture manufacturers'
unfamiliarity with the new finishes and the suppliers' anxiety that the
finishes be applied and handled properly so that the pieces look well for
demonstration purposes contributed to this excess manpower. The variable
working life of waterborne finishes, particularly glazes, and the slower
drying rates for waterborne finishes in many cases caused trial pieces to be
pulled off-line for further workup so as not to slow the whole plant down;
they were also often sent through a drying oven for a second pass.
Initial full-scale plant implementation of waterborne finishes will
require additional personnel in the following areas, although improvements
in technology could minimize this need in the long term:
• Sanding — three to ten additional people
• Fill glaze and wiping stain — four to six additional people
• Highlighting and accenting — two to five additional people
This additional need for personnel represents an approximate 15 to
25 percent increase in the finishing work force.
Extensive retraining of finish application personnel would be required
for handling the different performance of waterborne finishes. For example,
waterborne clear coats go on milky and turn clear on drying, a sequence
visually different from conventional finishes. Working characteristics of
fillers and glazes are likewise different, while adjusting color and
staining on-the-run presents new problems since clear sealers and wash coats
are not readily rewet or reworked.
Additional personnel would also be required in rubbing., which applies
to all high end, most medium end, but only a small proportion of low end
furniture. With a normal complement of 8 to 10 people on a rub line, 2 to
5 additional personnel may be required for waterborne finishes.
46
-------
While minor spots up to the size of a quarter can be repaired with
existing repair techniques, major repairs require stripping of the entire
finish. Although finish removal technology will undoubtedly change, current
procedures do not remove waterborne finishes easily. Therefore, the major
repair staff at each plant would probably have to be increased from one to
two people to six to eight people to allow enough time to strip the
waterborne finished furniture.
WATER POLLUTION
Increased use of waterborne finishes will increase water pollution from
the spray areas. Overspray of conventional systems now results in
collection of particulate matter on filters or entrapment in water-washed
spray booth hardware. The water is then periodically dumped to municipal or
plant sewage systems. Solvent vapors either exhaust to the atmosphere from
the spray booth or volatilize from the collected water.
Particulate matter from waterborne systems would collect in similar
amounts but differ in type from solvent-borne particulates. It could also
be removed by filters and water-washing hardware. Emulsifiers, stabilizers,
and other soluble waterborne finishing components, however, would remain in
the wash water exiting the spray booth and present a water pollution
potential. These ingredients collected in the spray booth wash water could
affect primary or secondary sewage sludge treatment at the plant or
municipal facility.
Cleanup, washup, and other indirect applications would also increase
water pollution. Cleanup and washup of waterborne materials usually use
detergents and cleaners that add to the water pollution load. In addition,
changeovers between suppliers may necessitate dumping and refilling wash
water booth recirculation tanks if polymer systems are incompatible to
prevent sludge or coagulated latex from forming and plugging lines, filters,
and pumps.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Furniture producers rely heavily on their suppliers for in-plant
technical services. The supplier,-,on call 24 hours per day, does all the
color matching and prequalifies all finishes by testing in his own
laboratories. The supplier represents the only significant source of
information on new finishes, which means supplier personnel are expected to
make any changes and correct any mistakes.
Furniture producers would be incapable of converting to waterborne
finishes without the full-time support of the supplier. Suppliers, however,
do not have the staff to customize finish systems and support all their
customers' conversion programs. Instead, they would have to selectively
choose key customers with which to work, putting other customers at a
technical disadvantage.
47
-------
FINISH INCOMPATIBILITY
Each finish supplier develops a finish that is unique to the customer
he serves. In general, solvent-borne finishes are miscible with one
another; it is often adequate to flush the lines with one to insure the
removal of the other. Solvent cleaning completes the process. In fact,
differences between suppliers in the conventional nitrocellulose-based clear
coats are so minimal that these coats can often be intermixed in bulk
storage facilities and used interchangeably.
Waterborne finishes are based on the characteristics of a given base
polymer, and each supplier's base polymers have emulsifiers and stabilizers
unique to it. Further formulation of these polymers usually involves a balance
between properties and stability that is different for each finish; therefore,
combining them in storage could result in massive formulation instability or
coagulation. This incompatibility could require a furniture producer to
install separate storage facilities or be limited to only one supplier.
RAW MATERIAL AVAILABILITY
Only a certain number of available dyestuffs and pigments can be
dispersed in waterborne systems. This could limit new furniture colors and
styles. While one major finish supplier is developing his own proprietary
finish polymers, time is required for piloting, semiworks scaleup, and
full-scale production experimentation and construction. Another major raw
material supplier is considering building a multimillion-pound-per-year
plant, but again time would be required for engineering and construction.
While material constraints are not insurmountable, all are heavily
influenced by rapid technological change.
OPERATIONAL MODIFICATION
Many of the considerations affecting users of waterborne finishes will
affect producers of the finishes as well. These include:
• Modification of outside carbon steel bulk and drum storage to
handle waterborne finishes
• Protection to minimize freeze/thaw damage
t Modification of piping, valves, and pumps to handle waterborne
materials
Unique process and facilities problems will also affect formulators of
waterborne finishes. For example, conventional off-specification finish
batches can be blended into new batches, but coagulated waterborne polymers
cannot be reverted and reused; this raises the additional problem of
disposal of off-specification materials. Water pollution could result from
tank washing and tailings. Since most suppliers have more than one line of
product for many industry areas, dual raw material storage facilities for
major system changeover would be required. Dual warehousing of finished
products would also increase space requirements.
48
-------
SECTION 11
ADD-ON VOLATILE ORGANIC CARBON EMISSION CONTROLS
INTRODUCTION
Emissions from conventional solvent-borne furniture coatings can be
reduced by means of add-on control devices, such as activated carbon
adsorption beds, gas/liquid extraction columns, and incinerators.
Preliminary screening of such control devices by the authors limited the
options to thermal or catalytic incineration, either with or without primary
heat recovery. Carbon adsorption, gas/liquid extraction, and other advanced
technologies were eliminated, primarily because of their high initial
installed capital costs and secondarily because such technologies have fared
rather poorly in the past under the same adverse operating conditions of low
VOC concentration and high air flowrates in other industries. Ninety percent
of VOC emissions from a spray booth or drying oven can be directed to an
incinerator where these emissions can then be burned with a combustion
efficiency of at least 90 percent, thus yielding an overall control of
81 percent of the original emissions.
The following disadvantages and problems present themselves if
incinerators are used to reduce VOC emissions from the wood furniture
finishing industry:
t Incinerators are not currently used in any wood furniture finishing
room in the United States; this means borrowing the technology from
other coating industries
• The nitrocellulose lacquers in conventional finishes would probably
require that each spray booth or curing oven have its own
incinerator to prevent nitrocellulose buildup in the ductwork of a
manifolded system since such buildup creates a fire hazard; this
buildup problem may not allow the use of one large incinerator with
a manifolded system. Therefore, the industry would not have the
economy of scale many other industries have.
• Future availability of fuel required by incinerators is questionable
• High air flowrates (4,000 to 24,000 Nm3/min) and low
concentrations of organic vapors from furniture finishing rooms
make incineration a relatively inefficient and cost- ineffective
option
49
-------
§ Nitrogen oxides (NOX) generation could be excessive with many
individual incineration systems; little benefit may be gained by
trading VOC emissions for NOX emissions
INCINERATOR COST ESTIMATES BASES
Incinerators for wood furniture finishing room spray booths and curing
ovens are expensive. In order to compute their cost, typical exhaust
parameter values were developed for small, medium, and large spray booths
and curing ovens. These values are given in Table 16.
Next, bases had to be established for estimating the installed capital
cost, annual operating expense, and the annualized capital charges to
determine the total annualized cost for each size spray booth or curing
oven. The bases for capital cost estimate are as follows:
• All costs are given in mid-1978 dollars
t Thermal incinerators have 90 percent VOC emission reduction
capability with 0.5 second retention time at 649°C
• Catalytic incinerators have 90 percent VOC emission reduction
capability at 371°C
• Capital investment includes:
— Basic control equipment
-- All materials and labor for complete installation and startup,
including foundations, structures, wiring, piping, ducts, etc.
— Contractor's overhead and profit
— Taxes, interest on construction funds, and other indirect costs
— Contingencies of 20 percent
Annual operating expense bases are shown in Table 17. Annualized capital
charges are based on a capital recovery factor of 18.67 percent of capital
cost, a 10 percent rate, and 12-year equipment life.
INCINERATOR COST ESTIMATES
Costs for incinerators are developed in Table 18 for the various sizes
of spray booths and ovens. These costs are based on delivering 90 percent
of the emissions to the incinerator and on the bases given previously and in
Table 17.
Table 18 includes both thermal and catalytic incinerators with
35 percent primary heat recovery. The addition of heat recovery equipment
increases initial capital costs; however, it reduces annual operating
expenses through reduced fuel consumption. As can be seen in the table,
total annualized cost is increased for catalytic incinerators with primary
heat recovery because of the high initial capital costs. Secondary heat
recovery (i.e., the use of incinerator heat for other plant processes) is
50
-------
TABLE 16. SPRAY BOOTH AND DRYING OVEN TYPICAL EXHAUST PARAMETER VALUES
Booth or Oven Size
Parameter
Flowrate, Nm3/min
Temperature, °C
LEL, percent
Uncontrolled VOC.a
Mg/yr
Flowrate, Nm3/min
Temperature, °C
LEL, percent
Uncontrolled VOC,a
Mg/yr
Small
425
21
1.3
14.8
85
79
3.0
6.83
Medium
850
21
1.3
29.6
170
79
3.0
13.7
Large
1,274
21
1.3
44.4
255
79
3.0
20.5
aBased on finishing operations of 8 hr/day for 260 days/yr, or
2,080 hr/yr.
51
-------
TABLE 17. BASES FOR ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSE
Item
Item Cost
Cost Bases and Other Comments
Utilities
Fuel
Electricity
Operating Labor
Maintenance
Labor
Material
Special
Taxes and
insurance
Administration
and permits
$104.63/m3
$ 0.0242/kWh
$ 7.20/hr
$ 7.20/hr
$ 7.20/hr
$ 35.31/(Nm3/min)
2 percent of
capital cost
2 percent of
capital cost
$101.06/m3 and $3.57/m3 for
transport and delivery of
27.25 m3 lots (f.o.b. midwest
oil terminal)
Fuel properties: No. 2 oil,
0.88 g/cm3 and 39.3 MJ/m3
EPA-230/3-77-015b report cost for
iron and steel industry
20 percent for fringe benefits
included. One-half hr for each .
startup or shutdown, one-quarter
hr twice each shift for
monitoring.
2 x 16 hr for tuneup of
combustion equipment and 1 x 8 hr
for cleaning of heat exchangers
by industrial heating service
yearly
Assumed equal to labor
Annual allowance to replace
catalyst every third year
52
-------
TABLE 18. INCINERATOR COST ESTIMATES3
(x 103 dollars, mid-1978)
Installed
Incinerator Options Capital
Cost
Small Spray Booth Options:
Thermal, no heat recovery
Thermal, 35X heat recovery
Catalytic, no heat recovery
Catalytic, 35X heat recovery
Medium Spray Booth Options:
Thermal, no heat recovery
Thermal, 35X heat recovery
Catalytic, no heat recovery
Catalytic, 35X heat recovery
Large Spray Booth Options:
Thermal, no heat recovery
Thermal, 35X heat recovery
Catalytic, no heat recovery
Catalytic, 35X heat recovery
Small Curing Oven Options:
Thermal, no heat recovery
Thermal, 35X heat recovery
Catalytic, no heat recovery
Catalytic, 35X heat recovery
Medium Curing Oven Options:
Thermal, no heat recovery
Thermal, 35X heat recovery
Catalytic, no heat recovery
Catalytic, 35X heat recovery
Large Curing Oven Options:
Thermal, no heat recovery
Thermal, 35* heat recovery
Catalytic, no heat recovery
Catalytic, 35X heat recovery
182
294
125
258
305
490
209
428
364
588
250
517
91
142
59
122
150
241
98
205
182
284
117
245
Annual
Operating
Expense
86
60
62
47
143
100
103
78
172
120
123
93
43
28
29
22
72
47
49
37
86
57
58
44
Annual Ized
Capital
Charges
34
55
23
48
57
91
39
80
68
110
47
97
17
27
11
23
28
45
18
38
34
53
22
46
Total
Annuallzed
Cost
120
115
85
95
200
191
142
158
240
230
170
190
60
55
40
45
100
92
67
75
120
110
80
90
Cost-
Effectiveness
($/Mg)
8.11
7.77
5.7
6.4
6.76
6.45
4.80
5.34
5.40
5.18
3.83
4.28
8.8
8.1
5.9
6.6
7.30
6.7
4.9
5.5
5.85
5.37
3.9
4.4
«A11 Incinerators operate 8 hr/day, 260 days/yr.
53
-------
probably not practical since most plants already use the wood waste and dust
from sawing and sanding operations as an inexpensive fuel supply.
For thermal incinerators, heat recovery systems initially cost
62 percent more. However, they reduce the annual operating expense by
33 percent. Therefore, thermal incinerators with primary heat recovery
result in a 6.4 percent savings in total annualized costs.
Heat recovery systems for catalytic incinerators add 105 percent to
initial capital. Annual operating expenses are reduced 25 percent through
the use of these systems. The net result is an 11 percent increase in total
annualized cost. However, if catalytic incinerators with 35 percent primary
heat recovery systems can be operated for 1,214 more hours per year, total
annualized cost savings would begin to occur when compared to a catalytic
incinerator without heat recovery operating the same number of hours. For
single-shift operation, catalytic incineration without heat recovery has the
lowest total annualized cost of the four systems considered.
AVERAGE FURNITURE PLANT COSTS
In terms of annualized cost to the average furniture plant, the cost of
incinerators for each spray booth and each curing oven would amount to a
total plant cost of between $1,000,000 and $6,000,000 depending on the type
of incinerator used for each booth or oven and the number of booths and
ovens. Table 19 gives average furniture plant costs for small, medium, and
large furniture plants using various types of incinerators for small,
medium, and large spray booths and curing ovens, respectively. The least
costly case is the use of catalytic incinerators with no heat recovery for a
small plant, while the most expensive case is for thermal incinerators with
no heat recovery for a large plant. All other cases lie between these two.
This includes use of mixed incinerator options and sizes in the same plant.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Cost-effectiveness of the various incineration options in terms of $/Mg
of VOC emissions controlled is given in the last column of Table 19 for each
size plant. Cost-effectiveness varies depending on the size of the
incinerators used in the various size plants. There is some economy of
scale in going from a small spray booth or curing oven to a medium or large
spray booth or drying oven incinerator. However, no economy of scale is
expected from a manifolded system to a large incinerator due to the
previously discussed fire hazard problem with nitrocellulose.
Catalytic incinerators are generally more cost-effective than thermal
incinerators. This is indicated in the last column of Table 18. In this
table, thermal incineration with heat recovery is shown to be more
cost-effective than thermal incineration without heat recovery, while the
opposite is true for catalytic incineration. However, this is true only up
to a certain number of hours of operation for catalytic incineration. It
was shown earlier that at 3,294 hours of operation catalytic incineration
with heat recovery becomes more cost-effective than catalytic incineration
without heat recovery.
54
-------
TABLE 19. AVERAGE FURNITURE PLANT COSTS
(x 103 dollars, mid-1978)
Incinerator Options
Installed Annual Annual1zed Total Cost-
Capital Operating Capital Annuallzed Effectiveness
Cost Expense Charges Cost ($/Mg)
Small Plant Options:
(8 booths, 8 ovens)
Thermal, no heat recovery
Thermal, 35X heat recovery
Catalytic, no heat recovery
Catalytic, 35X heat recovery
Medium Plant Options:
(12 booths, 12 ovens)
Thermal, no heat recovery
Thermal, 35X heat recovery
Catalytic, no heat recovery
Catalytic, 35X heat recovery
Large Plant Options:
(16 booths, 16 ovens)
Thermal, no heat recovery
Thermal, 35X heat recovery
Catalytic, no heat recovery
Catalytic, 35* heat recovery
2,184
3,448
1.47?
3,040
5,460
8,772
3,684
7,596
8,736
13,952
5,872
12,192
1,032
704
728
552
2,580
1,764
1.824
1,380
4,128
2,832
2,896
2,192
408
656
272
568
1,020
1.632
684
1,416
1.632
2.608
1,104
2,288
1,440
1,360
1,000
1,120
3,600
3,396
2,508
2,796
5,760
5,440
4,000
4,480
8.32
7.86
5.78
6.47
6.94
6.54
4.83
5.39
5.55
5.24
3.85,
4.32
55
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-160
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM THE WOOD FURNITURE
INDUSTRY WITH WATERBORNE COATINGS
5. REPORT DATE
July 1980 Issuing Date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
'. AUTHOR(S)
H. Van Noordwyk
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Final Report 79-10/EE
Projects 7403 and 7404
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Acurex Corporation
Energy and Environmental Division
486 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, California 94042
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB610
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2584 (WD 3 and 4)
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final: 5/25/78-6/15/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This program was initiated to develop meaningful, defensible, and reliable
data on emission reduction benefits from the use of reduced hydrocarbon
finishes. The program also included assessing add-on emission control options
and considering installation aspects such as costs.
This program, based on currently available technology, represents the best
efforts of finish suppliers and furniture manufacturers to produce furniture
coated with lower hydrocarbon finishes. All major finish suppliers
participated using waterborne or low-solvent finishes rather than other finish
technologies (e.g., powders). The participating furniture companies represented
the industry in product line, styles, quality, degree of technical and
merchandising sophistication, and processing capabilities.
Use of lower hydrocarbon finishes could significantly reduce volatile
organic carbon emissions; during this program, reductions of 26 to 94 percent
were achieved. However, none of the reduced hydrocarbon finish systems
products evaluated were commercially acceptable to the furniture manufacturers
because of grain raising, haziness, lack of depth or sheen, and inadequate
smoothness and resistance to household chemicals or fingerprinting.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
Air Pollution
Coatings
Coating Types
Furniture
VOC
11C
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
64
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
56
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980--657-165/0028
------- |