United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Kisk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/SR-96/015
March 1996
& EPA Project Summary
Nonprocess Solvent Use in the
Furniture Refinishing and Repair
Industry: Evaluation of
Alternative Chemical Strippers
S. L. Turner
Solvent-based chemical strippers are
currently used in the furniture repair
and refinishing industry to remove both
traditional and emerging low-VOC (vola-
tile organic compound) wood furniture
coatings. The purpose of this research
was to evaluate the feasibility of using
alternatives to high VOC/HAP (hazard-
ous air pollutant) solvent-based chemi-
cal strippers that are currently used in
the furniture repair and refinishing in-
dustry to remove both traditional high-
VOC lacquer and emerging, low-VOC,
wood furniture coatings. Five alterna-
tive chemical strippers, consisting of
one industrial and four retail chemical
strippers, were screened. The specific
objectives of this research were to:
1. Conduct a laboratory evaluation of
the performance of five alternative
chemical stripper formulations and
compare their performance to that
of a traditional solvent-based
chemical stripper formulation on
three coatings types found on
wood furniture substrates.
2. Assess, in a furniture refinishing
facility, the use of the best per-
forming alternative chemical strip-
per on traditional furniture coat-
ings and new emerging low-VOC
furniture coatings.
Alternative chemical strippers were
evaluated based on their stripping ef-
fectiveness compared to a methylene-
chloride-based stripper. A panel expe-
rienced in chemical stripping evaluated
the samples and selected the most ef-
fective chemical stripper for further
evaluation. An on-site assessment of
the best performing alternative chemi-
cal stripper from the screening evalua-
tion took place at a Durham, NC, furni-
ture refinishing facility.
This Project Summary was developed
by the National Risk Management
Reserch Laboratory's Air Pollution Pre-
vention and Control Division, Research
Triangle Park, NC, to announce key
findings of the research project that is
fully documented in a separate report
of the same title (see Project Report
ordering information at back).
Project Background
Ozone nonattainment and air toxic prob-
lems are among the most difficult environ-
mental issues facing the U.S. Although
most large stationary sources of volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions are
covered by present or imminent regula-
tions, small perennial area sources of VOC
emissions may contribute significantly to
the ozone nonattainment problem. Ac-
cording to a U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) source, "collectively
small area sources may contribute as
much as 50% of VOC emissions."
Significant contributors to these envi-
ronmental issues are VOC emissions that
result from the use of a wide range of
commercial/consumer products. Because
VOC emissions from most consumer/com-
mercial products cannot be controlled by
traditional add-on control devices, they
must be mitigated by pollution prevention
techniques, such as product substitution,
product reformulation, use procedure al-
terations, and other methods that reduce
or eliminate VOC and air toxic emissions.
As defined by the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments (CAAA) of 1990:
The term consumer or commercial prod-
uct means any substance, product (in-
cluding paints, coatings, and solvents),
-------
or article (including any container or
packaging) held by any person, the use,
consumption, storage, disposal, destruc-
tion, or decomposition of which may
result in the release of VOCs. The term
does not include fuels or fuel additives
regulated under Section 211, or motor
vehicles, nonroad vehicles, and nonroad
engines as defined under Section 216.
A preliminary approach for evaluating
environmental problems associated with
nonprocess solvent uses is to conduct a
study to quantify and qualify VOC emis-
sions from consumer/commercial products.
Using this approach, researchers can as-
sess the product's1 potential contribution
to increased urban ozone levels and es-
tablish criteria for reducing environmental
impacts.
Researchers have initiated several stud-
ies of the emissions from various catego-
ries of traditional consumer products. Tra-
ditional consumer products for the pur-
poses of this report include:
• personal care products (e.g., hair
sprays, deodorants, mouthwash),
• household products (e.g., cleaners,
laundry products, air fresheners),
• automotive care products (e.g., brake
cleaners, polishes, antifreeze),
• adhesives and sealants (e.g., house-
hold glues, wallpaper pastes, caulks),
• lawn and garden care products (e.g.,
insecticide sprays and foggers, herbi-
cides), and
• coatings and coating removers (e.g.,
spray paints, chemical strippers, lac-
quers)
The definition of consumer or commer-
cial products contained in the CAAA is
broad. It defines traditional consumer prod-
ucts and nontraditional consumer prod-
ucts, such as paints, coatings, and sol-
vents, used in commercial and industrial
facilities. Within this definition is some un-
certainty concerning the types of materi-
als, products, and/or processes that should
be included. Examples of these uncertain-
ties include solvent-containing roofing ma-
terials and paving asphalt. As research
efforts continue in this area, the scope of
consumer or commercial products will be
better defined.
'Nonprocess solvents are defined as solvents used by
industry, commercial operations, and/or individual con-
sumers and are not a part of a manufacturing produc-
tion line or incorporated into a product or chemically
modified as part of the manufacturing process.
Nonprocess solvents usually evaporate either during
or shortly after their use. Cleaning and lubricating
solvents are generally considered nonprocess sol-
vents. An exception tothis is in-process parts cleaning,
such as vapor degreasing
The research presented in this report
has developed from two previously com-
pleted studies. The primary purpose of
the first study was to gather and evaluate
existing data on nonprocess solvents used
in 15 different business categories. Based
on that study, several business categories
were selected for further, more detailed
evaluation. The furniture refinishing and
repair industry was one business category
selected for further research. The focus of
the second study addressed the use of
nonprocess solvents for furniture refinish-
ing and repair, emissions from these sol-
vents, and opportunities for pollution pre-
vention. The second study final report has
been submitted to EPA for publication.
Although the second study focused on
emissions of nonprocess solvents that are
defined as VOCs, the scope was broad-
ened to include nonprocess solvent use
of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and
methylene chloride (CH2C12). By defini-
tion, VOCs are organic compounds that
participate in atmospheric photochemical
reactions, contributing to the formation of
tropospheric ozone. Because these chemi-
cals have negligible photochemical reak-
tivity, 1,1,1-TCA and CH2C12 are not clas-
sified as VOCs. However, both compounds
are classified by the EPA as Hazardous
Air Pollutants (HAPs). In addition, 1,1,1-
TCA is classified as a Class 1, Group V
controlled substance because of its strato-
spheric ozone depletion potential. Both
1,1,1-TCA and CH2CI2 are used in a vari-
ety of nonprocess applications; therefore,
information was gathered on the use of
these chemicals as well. The complete
project objectives for the second study
were to assess the uses and emissions
from nonprocess solvents used for furni-
ture refinishing and repair, and to recom-
mend pollution prevention and control mea-
sures that could be used to reduce these
emissions.
Evaluation of solvent-based chemical
strippers represents current research. Ini-
tially, five chemical strippers were screened
and the most effective alternative chemi-
cal stripper was selected for further evalu-
ation. Alternative chemical strippers were
evaluated based on their stripping effec-
tiveness compared to a standard CH2CI2-
based stripper. An onsite assessment took
place at a local furniture refinishing facility
in Durham, NC. The EPA, RTI, four North
Carolina coating suppliers, one local lum-
ber supply company, and two local furni-
ture refinishing facilities participated in this
project. This report presents the results of
this segment of research.
The information contained in this report
is likely to benefit the furniture refinishing
industry. Therefore, this report is intended
to be a source for technology transfer.
Results will be made available to users of
solvent-based chemical strippers who are
seeking environmentally acceptable alter-
natives to these products and local agen-
cies that help these individuals.
Conclusion and
Recommendations
The first objective of this project was to
conduct a laboratory evaluation of the per-
formance of alternative chemical strippers
and compare their performance to that of
a traditional solvent-based chemical strip-
per on wood furniture coatings. From the
laboratory evaluation, Chemical Stripper 4
(d-Limonene) was selected as the best
alternative chemical stripper. Its average
quality of coating removal was ranked as
7.9 on a scale from 0 to 10. The refmishers
on the panel of evaluators admired the
condition of the wood coupons treated
with Chemical Stripper 4.
The second objective was to assess
Chemical Stripper 4 in a furniture repair
and refinishing facility. The refinisher per-
formed the onsite assessment using a
chair seat, a square table top and a circu-
lar table top, and was pleased with the
removal quality following treatment of
Chemical Stripper 4 on the three surfaces.
He was equally pleased to know that the
formation did not include constituents iden-
tified as toxic chemicals. However, he ex-
pressed some concern regarding the cost
of the alternative chemical stripper. The
refinisher was given the remainder of the
1-gal (3.8-L) sample, a copy of the prod-
uct information, and the name of the sup-
plier with whom to establish personal con-
tact. The use of the alternative chemical
stripper as a viable substitute was left to
the discretion of the refinisher at the host
facility.
In addition to a viable substitute for sol-
vent-based chemical strippers based on
the effectiveness of the alternative chemi-
cal strippers, the potential effect of the
alternative chemical stripper on air emis-
sions and the related cost were deter-
mined. Although VOC emission estimates
are higher for Chemical Stripper 4 (d-
Limonene), it does not contain constitu-
ents identified as HAPs. In addition, emis-
sion estimates were based on the amount
of chemical stripper used per area. The
total surface area covered using each
chemical stripper in this study was roughly
the same; however, the film thickness and
the amount of each individual chemcial
stripper applied to the wooden coupons
were different. (The manufacturer's direc-
tions and suggestions were followed to
achieve the best performance of each
chemical stripper.)
-------
S. Turner is with Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
Robert C. McCrillis is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Nonprocess Solvent Use in the Furniture Refinishing
and Repair Industry: Evaluation of Alternative Chemical Strippers," (Order No.
PB96-96-153416; Cost: $35.00, subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park NC 27709
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (G-72)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/600/SR-96/015
------- |