THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM
SEPA
Concurrent
CfC * ••• Technologies
Corporation
ETV JOINT VERIFICATION STATEMENT
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
HIGH TRANSFER EFFICIENCY (TE) LIQUID
COATING SPRAY APPLICATION EQUIPMENT
LIQUID ORGANIC COATINGS APPLICATION IN
WOOD FINISHING
Kremlin Airmix®
COMPANY: EXEL Industrial, Inc.
POC: Mr. John Patry - President
ADDRESS: 1310 Washington St.
West Chicago, II 60185
EMAIL: john.patry@kremlin.com
PHONE:
FAX:
(630)-231-1900
(630)-231-2791
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV
Program is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of
improved, cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-
reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, financing, permitting,
purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations, stakeholder groups consisting
of buyers, vendor organizations, and states, and with the full participation of individual technology
developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that
are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting
and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with
rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that
the results are defensible.
The ETV Coatings and Coating Equipment Program (CCEP), one of six verification centers under the ETV
Program, is operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) under the National Defense Center for
Environmental Excellence (NDCEE), in cooperation with EPA's National Risk Management Research
Laboratory. The ETV CCEP has recently evaluated the performance of innovative liquid coating spray
application equipment intended for wood finishing applications. This verification statement provides a
summary of the test results for the Kremlin Airmix® high transfer efficiency (TE) spray gun, manufactured
by EXEL Industrial, Inc.
v
-------
VERIFICATION TEST DESCRIPTION
The ETV CCEP evaluated the pollution prevention capabilities of high TE liquid spray equipment. The test
was conducted under representative factory conditions at CTC. It was designed to verify the environmental
benefit of the high-TE spray gun with specific quality requirements for the resulting finish. The finish quality
applied by the Airmix® was verified to be comparable to the finish quality obtained by three baseline high-
volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray guns. The environmental benefit of HVLP spray guns compared to
conventional air spray equipment has previously been verified und the ETV Program. The results of the
HVLP verification tests can be found on the EPA's ETV website (www.epa.gov/etv). If a high-TE spray gun
cannot provide an acceptable finish while operating at efficiencies representative of HVLP spray guns, the
end users may have a tendency to raise the input air pressure to meet their finishing requirements. However,
these adjustments may reduce the environmental benefits of the high-TE spray gun. In earlier verification
tests, HVLP guns were shown to improve TE by 18.9% to 63.9% when compared to conventional paint spray
guns, depending on the coating sprayed. This improved TE resulted in a reduction of 16% to 40% of coating
material use, emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and of
solid waste generated. This verification test compared the TE of a high TE liquid spray gun against a baseline
of HVLP guns, which could be subsequently used to qualify the environmental benefits provided by the
Airmix® when compared to conventional air spray equipment.
In this test, the Airmix® high-TE spray gun was tested under conditions recommended by EXEL Industrial,
Inc., the gun's manufacturer. Two targets were used. The first target consisted of 24 in. x 24 in. wood panel
backboards that were covered with heavy duty aluminum foil and suspended in the spray booth by hooks.
The second target consisted of 12 in. x 24 in. wood panels that were sealed and sanded and suspended in the
spray booth by hooks. Three foil-covered backboards were coated in each of five runs for each gun to be used
for TE analysis. One wood panel was coated in each of five runs for each gun to be used for finish quality
analysis. The application pattern was consistent among each target type. The spray guns were triggered so
that 6 in. (3 in. lead and 3 in. lag) of overspray were obtained for each pass. The application pattern for all
guns also allowed 50% of the first and last pass to be either above or below the panel, respectively. The spray
guns were mounted on a robotic translator to increase accuracy and repeatability of the test. The translator
moved the spray gun horizontally and/or vertically. The TE improvement of the Airmix® spray gun over a
HVLP gun baseline was verified using American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) method D 5286.
The Airmix® and HVLP baseline guns were all pressure-feed guns. The finish quality of the Airmix® was
determined to be comparable to the finish quality of the HVLP baseline and was able to meet the
finish quality requirements of the test coating; thus, the TE values obtained for the Airmix® test are
representative of the actual operation of the equipment and the TE comparison was deemed to be
valid.
The details of the test, including a summary of the data and a discussion of results, may be found in Chapters
4 and 5 of "Environmental Technology Verification Report - EXEL Industrial, Inc. Kremlin Airmix® Spray
Gun," which was published by CTC. Copies of this Verification Statement and the associated Verification
Report are available at http://www.epa.gov/etv/verifications/vcenter6-16.html. Contact Robert J. Fisher of
CTC at (814) 269-2702 to obtain copies of the Data Notebook
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The Airmix® spray gun was tested as received from EXEL Industrial, Inc. The gun was equipped with a
VX14 air cap and a 14-174+ fluid tip. The Airmix® is an improved version of an air assisted-airless spray
gun design. The paint is delivered to the gun under moderate pressure, a specially designed fluid tip atomizes
the pressurized paint, and a small amount of compressed air is used to shape the fan pattern. The vendor
claims that the fan pattern achieved by this design exhibits a uniform density along the long axis of the
pattern, allowing for a more consistent and controllable film build. Because the Airmix® spray gun is
marketed to wood finishing applications, EXEL Industrial, Inc. selected a wood furniture finishing clear
topcoat manufactured by Valspar called 35 Sheen Ecoplast El.
VI
-------
More information on the spray gun, including recommended air caps and fluid tips for various paint
formulations, is available from EXEL Industrial, Inc. At the time of this verification test, the list price of the
Airmix® spray gun and pressure pump was approximately $2,000.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
The performance characteristics of the Airmix® spray gun include the following:
Environmental Factors
• Transfer Efficiency (TE): The TE was determined per ASTM D 5286. The following TEs and associated
standard deviations were obtained for the conditions tested:
Spray Gun
Average TE (%)
Std. Dev.
Airmix®
54.4
0.5
HVLP#1
51.6
0.6
HVLP#2
53.1
0.3
HVLP#3
52.2
0.5
The Airmix® provided a higher TE than the three HVLP guns for all comparisons at 95% confidence
interval.
Marketability Factors
• Air Flow: The air consumption data was obtained using a calibrated air flow meter. The following air
flows and associated standard deviations were obtained during this test:
Spray Gun
Average Air Flow
(SCFM)
Std. Dev.
Airmix®
Gun -3
Pump - 2
0.0
HVLP#1
14a
0.0
HVLP #2
9a
0.0
HVLP #3
12a
0.0
The air consumption of the pressure pump used for the three HVLP spray guns was not significant
compared to the air consumption of the guns themselves.
Dry Film Thickness (DFT): The DFT data was obtained per ASTM D 6132. Based on recommendations
in Valspar's product data sheets for the 35 Sheen Ecoplast El topcoat, the target DFT was established at
approximately 1.0 mil in one coat. DFTs for all tests were determined from multiple points measured on
each finish quality panel. The following DFTs and associated standard deviations were obtained during
this test:
Spray Gun
Average DFT
Std. Dev.
Airmix®
1.1
0.1
HVLP#1
1.2
0.1
HVLP #2
1.2
0.1
HVLP #3
1.2
0.1
Gloss: The gloss was measured per ASTM D 523 at multiple points on each finish quality panel. The test
method has a range of 0-100 gloss units. Since each coating has its own gloss target, it is important to
achieve similar gloss measurements using each piece of application equipment. The following gloss
measurements and associated standard deviations were obtained during this test:
Spray Gun
Average Gloss
Std. Dev.
Airmix®
30
2
HVLP#1
34
3
HVLP #2
32
2
HVLP #3
33
2
Vll
-------
Visual Appearance: CTC personnel assessed the visual appearance of all finish quality panels. The intent
of this analysis was to identify any obvious coating abnormalities that could be attributed to the
application equipment. The visual appearance of the coating was found to be acceptable with no obvious
visual abnormalities that would render the coating unacceptable for its intended application.
SUMMARY
The test results show that the Airmix® spray gun provides paint transfer efficiency higher than that of HVLP
spray equipment while maintaining comparable finish quality. HVLP spray equipment has been shown
during earlier verification testing to have significantly higher transfer efficiency than conventional paint spray
guns, thereby reducing VOC/HAP emissions, paint usage rates, and solid waste generation. Hence, the
Airmix® spray gun provides a significant environmental benefit when compared to conventional spray guns.
As with any technology selection, the end user must select appropriate paint spray equipment for a process
that can meet the associated environmental restrictions, productivity, and coating quality requirements.
Original signed on Original signed on
9/26/06 10/2/06
Sally Gutierrez Robert J. Fisher
Director Manager
National Risk Management Research Laboratory ETV CCEP
Office of Research and Development Concurrent Technologies Corporation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE: EPA verifications are based on evaluations of technology performance under specific, predetermined
criteria and appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and CTC make no expressed or implied warranties as
to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will always operate as verified. The
end user is solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements.
Mention of commercial product names does not imply endorsement.
Vlll
------- |