September 2006
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
EXEL Industrial, Inc.
Kremlin Airmix® Spray Gun
Prepared by
National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence
Operated by
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Under Contract No. W74V8H-04-D-0005
with the U.S. Army Contracting Center of Excellence
via EPA Interagency Agreement No. DW2192190801
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
™88
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information
operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction
Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)
2. REPORT DATE
29 September 06
3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
Revised Interim Final (Verification Report / Sep. 2005 - Jun.
2007)
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Technology Verification Report - EXEL Industrial, Inc. Kremlin Airmix Spray Gun
6. AUTHOR(S)
Principal Author/PMt: Robert J. Fisher, CTC
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Contract: W74V8H-04-D-0005
Task: NDCEE Task No. 0428
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence
Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation
100 CTC Drive
Johnstown, PA 15904
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
NDCEE Program Office (Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment)
1235 Clark Street, Suite 307
Arlington, VA 22202-3263
Program Manager: Dr. Chuck Lecher, NDCEE Program Manager, 703-602-5538
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
NDCEE-CR-2006-051
10 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Distribution authorized to the DoD and DoD contractors only.
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program has been established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to verify the
performance characteristics of innovative environmental technologies across all media and report this objective information to the states, buyers, and users of
environmental technology; thus, accelerating the entrance of these new technologies into the marketplace. Verification organizations oversee and report verification
activities based on testing and quality assurance protocols developed with input from major stakeholders and customer groups associated with the technology area. ETV
consists of six technology centers. Information about each of these centers can be found on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/etv/.
EPA's ETV Program, through the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD) has
partnered with Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), through the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence (NDCEE), to verify innovative
coatings and coating equipment technologies for reducing air emissions from coating operations. Pollutant releases to other media are considered in less detail.
The following report describes the verification of the performance of EXEL Industrial, Inc. 's Kremlin Aimix® high transfer efficiency (TE) spray gun for wood
finishing applications.
14. SUBJECT TERMS
1 5 . NUMBER OF PAGES
38
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
Unclassified
18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF THIS PAGE
Unclassified
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
None
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
Standard Form 298 Rev. 12/00
Prescribed by ANSI ST. 239-18
880922
-------
Notice
This document was prepared by Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) under Contract No.
W74V8H-04-D-0005 with the U.S. Army Contracting Center of Excellence, Task No. 0428,
Subtask 3. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army are working
together under EPA Interagency Agreement No. DW2192190801. This document has been
subjected to EPA's technical peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for
publication. Mention of corporation names, trade names, or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products.
-------
September 2006
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
EXEL Industrial, Inc.
Kremlin Airmix® Spray Gun
Prepared by
Robert Fisher
Lynn Summerson
Of the
National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence
Operated by
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Johnstown, PA 15904
Under Contract No. W74V8H-04-D-0005 (Task No. 0428, Subtask 3)
with the U.S. Army Contracting Center of Excellence
via EPA Interagency Agreement No. DW2192190801
EPA Project Officer:
Michael Kosusko
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
Foreword
The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program has been established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to verify the performance characteristics of innovative
environmental technologies across all media and report this objective information to the states,
buyers, and users of environmental technology; thus, accelerating the entrance of these new
technologies into the marketplace. Verification organizations oversee and report verification
activities based on testing and quality assurance protocols developed with input from major
stakeholders and customer groups associated with the technology area. ETV consists of six
technology centers. Information about each of these centers can be found on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/etv/.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory's (NRMRL) Air Pollution Prevention and
Control Division (APPCD) has partnered with Concurrent Technologies Corporation (C7U),
through the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence (NDCEE), to verify
innovative coatings and coating equipment technologies for reducing air emissions from coating
operations. Pollutant releases to other media are considered in less detail.
The following report describes the verification of the performance of EXEL Industrial, Inc.'s
Kremlin Airmix® high transfer efficiency (TE) spray gun for wood finishing applications.
11
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Foreword ii
Verification Statement v
Acknowledgments ix
SI to English Conversions x
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms xi
Section 1 Introduction 1
1.1 ETV Overview 1
1.2 Potential Environmental Impacts 1
1.3 Technology Description 2
1.4 Technology Testing Process 2
1.5 Test Objectives and Approach 3
1.6 Performance and Cost Summary 3
Section 2 Description of the Technology 5
2.1 Technology Performance, Evaluation, and Verification 5
2.2 The Airmix® Test 5
2.3 Airmix® Spray Application Equipment 6
2.3.1 Applications of the Technology 6
2.3.2 Advantages of the Technology 6
2.3.3 Limitations of the Technology 6
2.3.4 Technology Deployment and Costs 7
Section 3 Description and Rationale for the Test Design 8
3.1 Description of Test Site 8
3.2 Evaluation of Airmix® Performance 9
3.2.1 Test Operations at CTC 9
3.2.2 Test Sampling Operations at CTC's ETF facility 10
3.2.3 Sample Handling and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures 11
3.3 Data Reporting, Reduction, and Verification Steps 11
3.3.1 Data Reporting 11
3.3.2 Data Reduction and Verification 12
Section 4 Reference Data 13
4.1 HVLP Parameter Development 13
4.2 HVLP Results 14
Section 5 Results and Discussion 15
5.1 Potential Environmental Benefits and Vendor Claims 15
5.2 Selection of Test Methods and Parameters Monitored 15
5.2.1 Process Conditions Monitored 15
5.2.2 Operational Parameters 15
5.2.3 Parameters/Conditions Monitored 16
5.3 Overall Performance Evaluation of the Airmix® Spray Gun 16
5.3.1 Re sponse Factors 17
5.3.2 Assessment of Laboratory Data Quality 18
5.4 Technology Data Quality Assessment 18
5.4.1 Accuracy, Precision, and Completeness 18
5.4.2 Audits 19
in
-------
Section 6 Vendor Forum 20
Section 7 References 2 1
List of Tables
Page
Table 1 . Verification Results for the Airmix® and HVLP Baseline 4
Table 2. HVLP Baseline Guns Configuration and Setup 13
Table 3. HVLP Baseline Guns Response Factor Results 14
Table 4. Airmix® Configuration and Setup 16
Table 5. Airmix® Response Factor Results 17
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1 . Organic Finishing Line at CTC 8
Figure 2. Application Pattern Diagrams 9
List of Associated Documents
Kremlin Airmix® Data Notebook (Available from CTC upon request)
IV
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM
Concurrent
Technologies
Corporation
ETV JOINT VERIFICATION STATEMENT
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: HIGH TRANSFER EFFICIENCY (TE) LIQUID
COATING SPRAY APPLICATION EQUIPMENT
APPLICATION: LIQUID ORGANIC COATINGS APPLICATION IN
WOOD FINISHING
TECHNOLOGY NAME: Kremlin Airmix®
COMPANY: EXEL Industrial, Inc.
POC: Mr. John Patry - President
ADDRESS: 1310 Washington St. PHONE: (630)-231-1900
West Chicago, II60185 FAX: (630)-231-2791
EMAIL: john.patry@kremlin.com
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
-------
Acknowledgments
CTC acknowledges the support of all those who helped plan and implement the verification
activities and prepare this report. In particular, a special thanks to Michael Kosusko, EPA ETV
CCEP Project Manager, and Shirley Wasson, EPA ETV CCEP Quality Assurance Manager, both
of EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
CTC also expresses sincere gratitude to EXEL Industrial, Inc., the manufacturer of the Kremlin
Airmix® spray gun, for their participation in, and support of this program and their ongoing
commitment to improve organic finishing operations. In particular, CTC would like to thank Mr.
John Patry, President of EXEL Industrial, Inc. and Mr. Michael Michalski, Regional Sales
Manager with EXEL Industrial, Inc. EXEL Industrial, Inc.'s U.S. office is based in West
Chicago, Illinois.
IX
-------
SI to English Conversions
Multiply SI
by factor to
SI Unit English Unit obtain English
o
C °F 1.80, then add 32
L gal. (U.S.) 0.2642
m ft 3.281
kg Ibm 2.205
kPa psi 0.14504
cm in. 0.3937
mm mil (1 mil = 1/1000 in.) 39.37
m/s ft/min 196.9
kg/L Ibm/gal. (U.S.) 8.345
-------
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CCEP Coatings and Coating Equipment Program
CTC Concurrent Technologies Corporation
DEP Department of Environmental Protection
DFT dry film thickness
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HVLP high-volume, low-pressure
ID identification
NDCEE National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence
NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology
P2 pollution prevention
PEA performance evaluation audit
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCFM standard cubic feet per minute
TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TE transfer efficiency
TNRCC Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
TQAPP Testing and Quality Assurance Project Plan
TSA technical system audit
VOC volatile organic compound
XI
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 ETV Overview
Through the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Pollution Prevention (P2)
Innovative Coatings & Coating Equipment Program (CCEP) pilot, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is assisting manufacturers in selecting more
environmentally acceptable coatings and equipment to apply coating materials. The ETV
program, established by the EPA as a result of the President's environmental technology
strategy, Bridge to a Sustainable Future., was developed to accelerate environmental technology
development and commercialization through third-party verification and reporting of
performance. Specifically, this pilot targets coating technologies that are capable of improving
organic finishing operations, while reducing the quantity of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) generated by coating applications. The overall objective of
the ETV CCEP is to verify pollution prevention and performance characteristics of coatings and
coating equipment technologies and to make the results of the verification tests available to
prospective technology end users. The ETV CCEP is managed by Concurrent Technologies
Corporation (C7U), located in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. CTC, under the National Defense
Center for Environmental Excellence (NDCEE) program, was directed to establish a
demonstration factory with prototype manufacturing processes that are capable of reducing or
eliminating materials that are harmful to the environment. The demonstration factory finishing
equipment was made available for this project.
The ETV CCEP is a program of partnerships among the EPA, CTC, the vendors of the
technologies being verified, and a stakeholders group. The stakeholders group comprises
representatives of end users, vendors, industry associations, consultants, and regulatory
permitters.
The purpose of this report is to present the results of verification testing of the EXEL
Industrial, Inc. Kremlin Airmix® pressure-feed spray gun, hereafter referred to as Airmix®,
which is designed for use in wood finishing. This test compared the Airmix® against three high-
volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray guns using a clear topcoat from Valspar intended for wood
furniture finishing applications. Analyses performed during these tests followed American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) methods or other standard test methods.
1.2 Potential Environmental Impacts
VOCs are emitted to the atmosphere from many industrial processes as well as through
natural biological reactions. VOCs are mobile in the vapor phase, enabling them to travel
rapidly to the troposphere where they combine with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to
form photochemical oxidants. These photochemical oxidants are precursors to ground-level
ozone or photochemical smog.1 Many VOCs, HAPs, or the subsequent reaction products are
mutagenic, carcinogenic, or teratogenic, (i.e., cause gene mutation, cancer, or abnormal fetal
development).2 Because of these detrimental effects, Titles I and III of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 were established to control ozone precursors and HAP emissions.2'3
-------
Painting operations contribute approximately 20% of stationary source VOC emissions.
These operations also contribute to HAP emissions, liquid wastes, and solid wastes. End users
and permitters often overlook these multimedia environmental effects of coating operations.
New technologies are needed and are being developed to reduce the total generation of pollutants
from coating operations. However, the emerging technologies must not compromise coating
performance and finish quality.
testing equipment is located in a demonstration factory that was established under
the NDCEE program. This equipment includes full-scale, state-of-the-art organic finishing
equipment, as well as the laboratory equipment required to test and evaluate organic coatings.
The equipment and facilities have been made available for this program for the purpose of
testing and verifying the abilities of finishing technologies.
1.3 Technology Description
The Airmix® was developed to reduce air pollution that typically results from organic
finishing operations by improving paint transfer efficiency (TE). Many current regulations
require the use of HVLP spray guns or spray equipment that is at least as efficient as HVLP
EXEL Industrial, Inc. proposes that the Airmix® can provide a high TE, comparable to
HVLP spray guns. That high TE leads to a reduction in paint usage, VOC and HAP emissions,
solid waste disposal, and spray booth maintenance costs. Reduced overspray and bounce-back
provide a cleaner work environment with improved operator visibility.
1.4 Technology Testing Process
Technology focus areas were selected based on input from the ETV CCEP stakeholders
group and market research. Upon initiating agreements with interested vendors, a draft Generic
Verification Protocol for high TE spray equipment was developed by CTC. CTC, with
significant input from the vendors, then developed a technology-specific Testing and Quality
Assurance Project Plan (TQAPP) for each piece of equipment being verified. After the vendor
concurred with, and the EPA and CTC approved, the TQAPP, CTC personnel performed the
verification test. The Verification Statement that is produced as a result of this test may be used
by the technology vendor for marketing purposes, or by end users selecting high TE spray
equipment. The Verification Statement for this product is included on pages v-viii of this report.
Organic finishing technologies that demonstrated the ability to provide environmental
advantages were reviewed and prioritized by the ETV CCEP stakeholders group. The
stakeholders group is composed of coating industry end user and vendor association
representatives, end users, vendors, industry consultants, and state and regional technical
representatives. The stakeholders group reviewed the pollution prevention potential of each
candidate technology and considered the interests of industry. High TE spray equipment was
found to have a large pollution prevention potential, could be widely used by industry in organic
finishing activities, and could potentially satisfy the HVLP equivalent alternatives allowance
provided by many regulating agencies and government specifications. As a result, High TE spray
equipment received a high ranking by the Stakeholders.
-------
1.5 Test Objectives and Approach
The testing was performed according to the EXEL Industrial Kremlin Airmix® TQAPP.
This project was designed to verify that the Airmix® is capable of providing the end user with a
pollution prevention benefit and an acceptable quality finish that is comparable or better than
HVLP spray equipment. This project supplies the end users with the best available, unbiased
technical data to assist them in determining whether the Airmix® meets their needs. The
quantitative pollution prevention benefit, in terms of improved TE, depends on innumerable
factors that are often unique to each coating production line. Attempting to verify every possible
combination of these factors is unrealistic. For this verification test, a specific combination of
these factors was selected by CTC, EPA, EXEL Industrial, Inc., and the ETV CCEP
stakeholders. The data presented in this report are representative only of the specific conditions
tested; however, the test design represents an independent, repeatable evaluation of the pollution
prevention benefits and performance of the technology. To determine the environmental benefit,
the Airmix®'s TE is quantitatively and qualitatively compared to a three-gun, HVLP baseline
(see Section 4). The HVLP guns used for this verification test were also pressure-feed.
All processing and laboratory analyses were performed at CTC facilities. TE was
calculated to determine the relative pollution prevention benefit of the technology. Dry film
thickness (DFT), gloss, and visual appearance were evaluated to verify finish quality. The finish
quality of the HVLP baseline panels was also evaluated to validate the comparability of the TE
data.
1.6 Performance and Cost Summary
This verification has quantitatively shown that the Airmix® is capable of providing an
environmental benefit equivalent or better than HVLP guns (see Table 1). This environmental
benefit was quantified through the ability of the Airmix® to apply a coating at the same or higher
TE. This verification test has also shown that the Airmix® is capable of providing the end user
with an acceptable quality finish. The increased TE reduces paint usage and solid waste
generation. The reduction in paint usage translates into a reduction in VOC and HAP emissions.
The extent that emissions and wastes are reduced depends on each individual application, which
must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
TE is defined as the percentage of the paint solids sprayed that actually adhere to the
substrate. This test was designed to determine whether the Airmix® was capable of meeting or
exceeding the efficiency of three HVLP spray guns. The test utilized wood panels for finishing
quality and wood panels wrapped with aluminum foil for TE measurement. A wood furniture
clear topcoat was used for both the Airmix® and HVLP baseline tests. Each spray gun
completed five runs, with each run consisting of three TE foils and one wood panel. Table 1
summarizes the results for TE, air flow, DFT, gloss, and visual appearance.
-------
Table 1. Verification Results for the Airmix® and HVLP Baseline
Factor
Transfer Efficiency3 (%)
Air Flow (SCFM)
Dry Film Thickness (mil)
Gloss, gloss units
Visual Appearance
Target
Equivalent or better than
the HVLP baseline
Minimal
Approximately 1 mil
Comparable to the HVLP
baseline
No significant defects
Results
Airmix®
54.4
3-5
1.1
30
No defects
HVLP
(ave. of 3 guns)
52.3
12
1.2
33
No defects
Note that the TE for the Airmix® is better than the average and all individual HVLP data. In addition, the DFT and gloss are
comparable.
The capital costs of high TE spray guns are typically lower than HVLP spray guns. At the
time of this verification test, the list price of the Airmix® system (i.e., spray gun and high-
pressure fluid pump) was approximately $2,000, and the HVLP guns used for the baseline testing
ranged in list price from $450 - $550 (gun only). Pressure-feed spray guns can be used with
multiple fluid delivery systems (e.g., pressurized paint pots, low-pressure fluid pumps, etc.),
which increases the cost of an HVLP system by another $500 - $2,000. The operating costs of
the Airmix® and HVLP guns are similar, except that the Airmix® consumes less compressed air
at lower pressures than the HVLP guns.
-------
Section 2
Description of the Technology
2.1 Technology Performance, Evaluation, and Verification
The overall objectives of this verification study are to verify pollution prevention
characteristics and performance of coating equipment technologies and to make the results of the
verification tests available to the technology vendor for marketing to prospective technology end
users. The Airmix® is designed for use in wood finishing applications. The combination of the
fluid tip and air cap determines the quality of the finish and the productivity potential. For this
verification study, the Airmix® used a pressure-feed system, which utilized a fluid pump to
deliver the coating to the gun at 380 psig. The HVLP spray guns used a similar pressure-feed
system, but the coating was delivered to the spray guns at between 30-40 psig. A wood furniture
finishing clear topcoat, 35 Sheen Ecoplast El manufactured by Valspar, was used for both the
Airmix® and HVLP baseline tests.
CTC, the independent, third-party evaluator, worked with the vendor of the technology
and the EPA throughout verification testing. CTC prepared this verification report and was
responsible for performing the testing associated with this verification.
2.2 The Airmix® Test
This verification test is based on the ETV CCEP EXEL Industrial Kremlin Airmix® and
the Valspar 35 Sheen Ecoplast El HVLP Baseline TQAPPs, which were reviewed by the EPA
and the vendor. EXEL Industrial, Inc., the manufacturer of the Airmix®, worked with CTC to
identify the optimum performance settings for the gun. EXEL Industrial, Inc. had determined the
parameters through tests that their personnel conducted at their facility and at CTC's facility in
Johnstown, Pennsylvania. CTC personnel used this data to optimize the setup of the Airmix®
prior to the actual verification test. Certain parameters used in the setup of the Airmix® spray
gun were utilized to establish a basis for optimization f or the HVLP spray guns. CTC
personnel used these parameters and the manufacturers' documentation to optimize the setup of
the HVLP spray guns. Preliminary TQAPPs were generated using the vendor supplied
information and were submitted to EPA for review of content. Following review by EPA and
incorporation of their comments, the vendor was given the opportunity to comment on the
specifics of the TQAPPs. Any information pertinent to maintaining the quality of the study was
incorporated into the TQAPPs. A final draft of the TQAPPs were reviewed by the vendor and
technical peer reviewers then approved by the EPA and CTC prior to testing.
Testing was conducted under the direction of CTC personnel, with a representative from
EXEL Industrial, Inc. present during a portion of the testing. The EXEL Industrial, Inc.
representative aided CTC in the initial Airmix spray gun setup, including making suggestions as
to which fluid tip, air and fluid pressures to use. However, during the actual verification test, the
EXEL Industrial, Inc. representative served only as an observer.
-------
All information gathered during verification testing was analyzed, reduced, and
documented in this report. TE and finish quality measurements of the Airmix® and the relative
TE comparison to an HVLP baseline were the primary objectives of this report. The data
comparison highlights the pollution prevention benefit of the Airmix® spray gun, as well as its
ability to provide the required finish quality. A portion of the test data has been quality audited
by EPA and the CTC Quality Assurance Officer to ensure the validity of the data.
2.3 Airmix® Spray Application Equipment
Pressure-feed systems consist of a fluid pump and a fluid hose capable of handling the
required pressures. The fluid pumps are designed to maintain a relatively constant paint flow rate
to the spray guns during operation. The Airmix®, a modified air-assisted airless spray gun,
operates at fluid pressures somewhat higher than typical HVLP spray guns. However, the fluid
pressure is significantly less than a typical airless spray gun.
2.3.1 Applications of the Technology
The Airmix® is relatively universal in its applications, with some applications
obtaining better results. The Airmix® can be used for many applications; however, a
wood finishing application was the subject of this verification test. Wood finishing
operations use the Airmix® because it is a nearly a drop-in substitute for conventional
and HVLP spray guns, requires less air flow, is capable of high production rates, and has
comparable maintainability and is interchangeable with other spray guns.
2.3.2 Advantages of the Technology
The Airmix® is designed to reduce VOC emissions that typically result from
spray painting operations by increasing paint TE. HVLP equipment use has been
legislated as a requirement in many states, such as, California South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) Rules 1151 and 1145, the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Texas Administrative Code 30 TAC 115.422, and the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) Title 25, Section 129.52.
Similar requirements have been adopted in legislation throughout the United States.
High efficiency spray guns, like the Airmix®, have the potential for being recognized as
equivalent to HVLP for regulatory purposes and, therefore, eligible for use in
traditionally HVLP-only areas.
2.3.3 Limitations of the Technology
If the Airmix® is accepted by the appropriate local regulatory agencies as
compliant with the applicable regulatory requirements, there are no apparent limitations
on the Airmix® for wood finishing or any other organic finishing operations. However,
some agencies may require approval prior to using the Airmix® in their jurisdiction. The
use of the Airmix® may be limited in areas were approval is not granted.
-------
2.3.4 Technology Deployment and Costs
The Airmix® has many potential applications, with few limitations on its
distribution throughout the various finishing industries. The use of a portable fluid pump
and reduced air consumption enhances its usability. The Airmix® is cost effective
because it is similar in capital and operating costs to HVLP; however, economic benefits
are realized through reduced paint usage as a result of improved TE and finish quality.
-------
Section 3
Description and Rationale for the Test Design
3.1 Description of Test Site
The testing of the Airmix® was conducted at the Organic Finishing Line, in CTC's
Environmental Technology Facility Demonstration Factory. The layout of the Organic Finishing
Line is shown in Figure 1.
CLEANING PRETREATMENT
Figure 1. Organic Finishing Line at CTC
The finishing quality test panels were provided to CTC by EXEL Industrial, Inc. The
panels were sealed and mechanically sanded prior to shipment to CTC. The TE foils were
wrapped on wood panels similar in shape and size to the finish quality panels. The aluminum
foil sheets were cut, weighed and stored until needed for testing.
The spray booths are capable of producing air velocities of over 0.6 m/s (120 ft/min). The
three stages of dry filters are equipped with a gauge that monitors the pressure drop across the
filter bank. Air supply lines for operating the guns and gauge readouts are located at the spray
booths and were used for this test. A linear robotic translator was used to move the spray guns
vertically and horizontally when applying the coatings. The computer-controlled translator
system was used to remove any operator bias.
CTC's Environmental Laboratory maintains extensive state-of-the-art facilities that are
dedicated to coating technology evaluations and can also measure and characterize products,
processes, and waste specimens resulting from factory activities.
-------
3.2 Evaluation of Airmix® Performance
The overall objectives of the verification study were to establish the pollution prevention
benefit of the Airmix®, relative to the TE of HVLP spray guns, and to determine the
effectiveness of the Airmix® in providing an acceptable coating finish. Section 4 discusses the
details of the HVLP baseline. Finish quality cannot be compromised in most applications,
despite the environmental benefit that may be achieved; therefore, this study has evaluated both
of these crucial factors. Results from the Airmix® verification testing will benefit prospective
end users by enabling them to better determine whether the Airmix® will provide a pollution
prevention benefit while meeting the finish quality requirements for their application.
3.2.1 Test Operations at CTC
The TQAPPs for the Airmix® and HVLP baseline identified that testing would
consist of foils used for TE and wood panels used for finish quality. The statistical
analyses for all response factors were performed using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
The spreadsheet was programmed to calculate values like standard deviation, confidence
interval, and relative percent difference.
The TE foils measured approximately 91.4 cm by 91.4 cm (36 in. x 36 in.). All
foils were wrapped onto wood panels measuring 61.0 cm by 61.0 cm (24 in. x 24 in.),
which were suspended in the spray booth using two hooks. The foil covered panels were
carried by hand to and from the booth. Once coated, the foils were carefully moved to a
location outside the spray booth and allowed to air dry for at least four days.
The finish quality panels used for verification testing were flat, wood panels,
sealed and sanded. The wood panel dimensions were 30.5 cm by 61.0 cm (12 in. x 24
in.). The wood panels were also suspended in the spray booth using two hooks. Once the
panels were coated, they were moved to a location outside the spray booth by hand and
allowed to air dry for at least four days. Figure 2 illustrates the application pattern used
both the TE foils and the finish quality wood panels.
A
12"x24" panel
W—.
I
7
I 100% coverage area ! \ j
Figure 2. Application Pattern Diagrams
-------
The Valspar clear topcoat used for this test was mixed 10:1 with the Valspar
reducer. The mixed clear topcoat had an estimated pot life of 4 hours. A single batch of
coating was mixed for each gun. Samples were taken just prior to each of the five runs to
measure the temperature, viscosity, percent solids, and density.
The Airmix® and HVLP spray guns were mounted on a nylon arm extending
from the carrier plate of the robotic translator, which was computer-controlled. The
computer also controlled the pneumatic cylinder that triggered the gun. The product data
sheets for the Airmix® and baseline HVLP spray guns can be found in Appendix A of
the Kremlin Airmix® Data Notebook. The air traveled from a quick disconnect at the
shop line to the air inlet to the spray gun using 9.5-mm (3/8-in.) inside diameter air hose.
The operating parameters for the spray guns were based on manufacturer's
recommendations (see Sections 4 and 5).
The booth air velocity was measured in close proximity to the panels. The air
velocity through the booth was measured between 0.6 and 0.7 m/s (-120 and 140 ft/min).
The velocity measured near the panels may vary greatly because of the disruption of the
air currents by the rack and panels. The pressure drop across the filters was also checked
prior to each run and at the end of the test. To ensure that the filter bank system was
functioning properly, a pressure drop across the filter bank greater than 1.0 cm of water
indicated that the system required service.
Once the foils/panels were in position, all pertinent measurements taken, and
equipment adjustments made, the computer system was used to activate the motors that
drove the linear motion translators and the pneumatic cylinder that triggered the gun. The
panels were automatically sprayed using vertical overlap of the fan pattern. The foils and
panels were air dried in the factory for at least four days prior to being transferred to the
laboratory for analysis.
Fifteen foils and five wood panels were coated by each of the four spray guns.
TE was determined using the average weight gain of the foils, per the ASTM standard.
Coated wood panels were analyzed for DFT, gloss, and visual appearance.
3.2.2 Test Sampling Operations at CJCs ETF facility
Foils and panels were used in this project. The foils were marked with a
permanent marker prior to checking their initial weight. Wood panels were also marked
with a unique alphanumeric identifier. The experimental design used 3 foils and 1 wood
panel in each of five runs per gun.
The laboratory analyst recorded the date and time of each run and the time at
which each measurement was taken. After curing, the foils and panels were transferred to
the laboratory for analysis.
10
-------
3.2.3 Sample Handling and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures
Each batch of test coating was mixed in the laboratory by a laboratory analyst.
The components were all taken from the same production batches. All coating batches
were mixed to the same ratio recommended by the coating manufacturer. The
temperature, viscosity, density, VOC content, and percent solids analyses were
performed. Data were logged on bench data sheets, precision and accuracy data were
evaluated, and results were recorded on the ETV CCEP Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC) Data forms. Another laboratory staff member reviewed the data sheets
for QA.
After curing, the laboratory analyst logged the coated samples panels into the
laboratory system, giving each a unique laboratory identification (ID) number. The
analyst who delivered the test panels to the laboratory completed a custody log that
indicated the sampling point IDs, sample material IDs, quantity of samples, time and date
of testing, and the analyst's initials. The product evaluation tests were also noted on the
custody log, and the laboratory's sample custodian verified this information. The analyst
and the sample custodian both signed the custody log, indicating the transfer of the
samples from the processing area to the laboratory analysis area. The laboratory sample
custodian logged the test panels into a bound record book, stored the test panels under the
appropriate conditions, and created a work order to initiate testing.
Each apparatus used to assess the quality of a coating on a test panel is set up and
maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions and/or the appropriate reference
methods. Actual sample analysis was performed only after setup was verified per the
appropriate instructions. As available, samples of known materials, with established
product quality, were used to verify that a system was working properly.
3.3 Data Reporting, Reduction, and Verification Steps
3.3.1 Data Reporting
Raw data were generated and collected manually and electronically by the
analysts at the bench and/or process level. Process data were recorded on process log
sheets during factory operations. The recorded data included original observations,
printouts, and readouts from equipment for sample, standard, and reference QC analyses.
Data was checked twice by the analyst or operator before being recorded. The analyst
processed raw data and was responsible for reviewing the data according to specified
precision, accuracy, and completeness policies. Raw data bench sheets, calculations, and
data summary sheets for each sample batch were kept together. The data transcribed into
electronic format was reviewed by a second staff member.
11
-------
3.3.2 Data Reduction and Verification
A preliminary data package was assembled by the primary analyst(s). The data
package was reviewed by a different analyst to ensure that tracking, sample treatment,
and calculations were correct. A preliminary data report was prepared and submitted to
the Laboratory Manager, who then reviewed all final results for adequacy to project QA
objectives. After the EPA reviewed the results and conclusions from the Technical
Project Manager, the Verification Statement/Verification Report was written, sent to the
vendor for comment, passed through technical peer review, and submitted to EPA for
approval. The Verification Statement was disseminated by permission of the vendor.
12
-------
Section 4
Reference Data
4.1 HVLP Parameter Development
Each of the HVLP guns was set up in the same apparatus as the Airmix®. The HVLP
guns were set at 17.8 cm (7 in.) from the surface of the targets, and their air adjustments were set
to achieve a 30.5 cm (12 in.) fan pattern at the target. The Airmix® was set at 20.3 cm (8 in.)
from the targets with its air adjustment wide open in order to maintain the same 30.5 cm (12 in.)
fan pattern as the HVLP spray gun. The HVLP spray gun parameters were optimized by CTC
personnel according to the manufacturers' documented procedures.
The fan pattern, application pattern, and horizontal gun speed were fixed to establish the
basis for comparison. Using information from the gun manufacturers' product data sheets, a
trial-and-error method was used to obtain a wet film thickness of approximately 3 mils, which
corresponds to a dry film thickness of 1.0 mil. A wet film thickness gauge was used during this
process. The fluid pressure delivered to the guns was the primary method of adjustment. If the
wet thickness obtained on a practice specimen was less than 3 mils, then the fluid pressure was
increased, and vice-versa. Table 2 lists the configuration and setup conditions the three HVLP
guns.
Table 2. HVLP Baseline Guns Configuration and Setup
HVLP Gun
Air Cap
Fluid Tip (mm)
Fluid Pressure (psig)
Fluid Flow Rate (g/min)
Fluid Adjustment
Fan Adjustment
Fan Pattern (cm)
Number Passes
Number Coats
Distance to Target (cm)
Horizontal Travel Distance per
Pass (cm)
[Foil / Wood Panels]
Spray Distance per Pass (cm)
[Foil / Wood Panels]
Vertical Drop Between Passes
(cm)
Horizontal Gun Speed (cm/s)
Paint Temperature (°C)
Viscosity (s)
Density (g/L)
Weight % solids (%)
#1
192-321
1.4 mm
40
658
Wide Open
1 full turn in
30.5
5
1
17.8
106.7/76.2
76.2/45.7
15.2
61.0
21.0
29.4
961
33.9
#2
VLP5
1.4 mm
30
567
Wide Open
!/2 turn in
30.5
5
1
17.8
106.7/76.2
76.2/45.7
15.2
61.0
21.5
29.7
958
34.1
#2
95AP
1.4 mm
32
601
Wide Open
1 % turn in
30.5
5
1
17.8
106.7/76.2
76.2/45.7
15.2
61.0
20.6
29.3
960
34.0
13
-------
4.2 HVLP Results
The data in Table 3 shows the operational characteristics obtained for each of the three
HVLP guns. The data indicate that finish quality was not sacrificed to maximize TE. Therefore,
the comparison of the TE data from the HVLP baseline and the Airmix® is valid.
Table 3. HVLP Baseline Guns Response Factor Results
HVLP Gun
Dynamic Input Air Pressure (psig)
Dynamic Output Air Pressure (psig)
Air Flow (scfm)
Average DFT (mils)
Average Gloss (units)
Visual Appearance
Average TE (%)
#1
40
Horn -5
Center -10
14
1.2
34
NDa
51.6
#2
40
Horn -7
Center -10
9
1.2
32
ND
53.1
#3
50
Horn -8
Center -10
12
1.2
33
ND
52.2
1 ND - No Defects
14
-------
Section 5
Results and Discussion
This section presents an overview of the verification test results, including an analysis of
environmental benefits of the Airmix® spray gun and a summary of data quality. Data generated
during this test are being compared to an HVLP baseline in order to establish the relative
environmental benefit of the product. An explanation of the manner in which the data were
compared is provided. Subsequently, the actual tabulation, assessment, and evaluation of the data
are presented. The accuracy, precision, and completeness data, the process and laboratory bench
sheets, raw data tables, and calculated data tables are included in Section 5 of the Kremlin
Airmix® Data Notebook.
5.1 Potential Environmental Benefits and Vendor Claims
The primary purpose of this test is to verify that the Airmix® spray gun provides a TE
and finish quality comparable or better than and HVLP baseline. EXEL Industrial, Inc. makes no
claims on the absolute TE obtainable by the Airmix®.
5.2 Selection of Test Methods and Parameters Monitored
CTC, the ETV CCEP partner organization, performed the laboratory testing required for
this verification test. CTC possesses the skills, experience, and most of the laboratory equipment
required by this verification study. The ETV CCEP selected test procedures, process conditions,
and parameters to be monitored based on their correlation to, or impact on, TE or finish quality.
5.2.1 Process Conditions Monitored
The conditions listed below were documented to ensure that there were no
significant fluctuations in conditions during the Airmix® verification test and the HVLP
baseline tests. No significant differences were recorded. A more detailed discussion of
the data is presented in Section 3 of the Kremlin Airmix® Data Notebook.
• Coating area relative humidity ranged from 22.3% to 28.4%
• Curing area relative humidity ranged from 21.8% to 28.6%
• Coating area temperature ranged from 22.0 to 23.3 °C
• Curing area temperature ranged from 21.0 to 24.8 °C
• Spray booth air velocity ranged from 0.6 to 0.7 m/s
• Panel temperature ranged from 22.2 to 22.8 °C
5.2.2 Operational Parameters
A number of operational parameters were also monitored because they often vary
from gun to gun. These parameters were documented to explain TE and finish quality
improvements over HVLP guns, and to identify parameters that are likely to change when
replacing HVLP guns with the Airmix®. The dynamic input air pressures varied from
gun to gun. The Airmix® was operated at 10 psig, and the three HVLP baseline guns
15
-------
were run at 40, 40, and 50 psig, respectively. The distance to target was maintained at
17.8 cm for all HVLP spray guns, and 20.3 cm for the Airmix®, in order to maintain the
same fan pattern size for all four spray guns. The fan pattern obtained from each gun was
maintained at 30.5 cm. The horizontal gun speed was maintained at 61.0 cm/s for all
spray guns. A more detailed discussion of the data is presented in Section 3 of the
Kremlin Airmix® Data Notebook.
5.2.3 Parameters/Conditions Monitored
Other parameters and conditions were monitored to ensure that they remained
relatively constant throughout Airmix® verification testing and HVLP baseline testing.
Constancy was desired in order to reduce the number of factors that could significantly
influence TE calculations and evaluation of finish quality. Most of these parameters were
relatively constant within each test and from gun to gun. Table 4 lists the configuration
and setup conditions of the Airmix® gun.
Table 4. Airmix® Configuration and Setup
Air Cap
Fluid Tip (mm)
Fluid Pressure (psig)
Fluid Flow Rate (g/min)
Fluid Adjustment
Fan Adjustment
Fan Pattern (cm)
Number Passes
Number Coats
Distance to Target (cm)
Horizontal Travel Distance per Pass (cm)
[Foil / Wood Panels]
Spray Distance per Pass (cm)
[Foil / Wood Panels]
Vertical Drop Between Passes (cm)
Horizontal Gun Speed (cm/s)
Paint Temperature (°C)
Viscosity (s)
Density (g/L)
Weight % solids (%)
VX14
14-174+
380
468
N/A
Wide Open
30.5
5
1
20.3
106.7/76.2
76.2/45.7
15.2
61.0
21.4
29.9
960
34.0
5.3 Overall Performance Evaluation of the Airmix® Spray Gun
The DFT and gloss obtained using the Airmix® are both within 10% of the HVLP
baseline averages. Therefore, the finish quality of the Airmix® is 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. The DFT and gloss of the HVLP baseline panels are considered to
be representative of the actual operation of the equipment, and the TE values obtained from the
HVLP baseline are determined to be representative of the HVLP guns tested. The DFT and gloss
16
-------
values obtained for the HVLP baseline are similar to those for the panels from the Airmix® test;
therefore, the comparison of the TE data from the Airmix® and the HVLP baseline is valid.
This test determined that the Airmix® provided a direct environmental benefit, in terms
of higher TE than the baseline HVLP spray guns. Tables 3 and 5 show that the Airmix®
achieved a higher transfer efficiency than each of the individual HVLP guns, while maintaining a
finish quality similar to the baseline. The increased TE leads to reduced air emissions, paint
usage, and solid waste generation. In addition, reduced Dynamic Input Air Pressure and Air
Flow provide an indirect environmental benefit since they represent lower energy usage. A 95%
confidence interval is being utilized to statistically evaluate the data. Section 5 of the Kremlin
Airmix® Data Notebook shows that the Airmix® is statistically better than the individual HVLP
guns and the HVLP average for all combinations.
The test results indicate that the Airmix® was able to provide an environmental benefit
equivalent to or better than an HVLP baseline and maintain the required finish quality of the
applied coating.
5.3.1 Response Factors
Responses to the process conditions and parameters were considered to be
important due to their effect on, or ability to evaluate, TE and finish quality; therefore,
these responses were documented, and the appropriate tests required to identify these
characteristics were performed. Any response that was characterized using laboratory
equipment followed accepted industrial and ASTM standards. Table 5 presents the
average results for the response factors for the Airmix® spray gun. A more detailed
discussion of the data is presented in Section 3 of the Kremlin Airmix® Data Notebook.
Table 5. Airmix® Response Factor Results
Dynamic Input Air Pressure (psig)
Air Flow (scfm)
Average DFT (mils)
Average Gloss (units)
Visual Appearance
Average TE (%)
10
3-5
1.1
30
NDa
54.4
aND-No Defects
The DFT and gloss data indicate that the coating finish applied by the Airmix® is
comparable to the HVLP baseline based on the intended application of the test coating.
The TE for each gun is a representation of the exact verification test conditions,
which includes the paint that was sprayed while the guns were outside the boundaries of
the panels. The calculation of the TE uses the total amount of paint sprayed and the
weight gain of the coated panels, both determined through gravimetric weight
measurements.
17
-------
5.3.2 Assessment of Laboratory Data Quality
The Airmix® TE results were compared to the HVLP baseline data. The Airmix®
results for DFT and gloss were compared to the HVLP baseline data. The information
gathered was considered to be statistically valid and significant such that the advantages
and limitations of Airmix®, per these test conditions, could be identified with a high
degree of confidence. It can be stated with greater than 95% confidence that the Airmix®
provided a higher TE than the HVLP baseline.
5.4 Technology Data Quality Assessment
Accuracy, precision, and completeness goals were established for each process parameter
and condition of interest, as well as each test method used. The goals are outlined in the TQAPP.
All laboratory analyses and monitored process conditions/parameters met the accuracy,
precision, and completeness requirements specified in the TQAPP, except for the deviations
listed in Section 2 of the Kremlin Airmix® Data Notebook. These deviations did not
significantly affect the results and conclusions of this test. The definition of accuracy, precision,
and completeness, as well as the methodology used to maintain the limits placed on each in the
TQAPP, are presented below. The actual accuracy, precision, and completeness values, where
applicable, are presented in Section 5 of the Kremlin Airmix® Data Notebook.
5.4.1 Accuracy, Precision, and Completeness
Accuracy is defined as exactness of a measurement; i.e., the degree to which a
measured value corresponds with that of the actual value. To ensure that measurements
were accurate, standard reference materials, traceable to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), were used for instrument calibration and periodic
calibration verification. Accuracy was determined to be within the expected values listed
in the TQAPP. Accuracy results are located in Section 5 of the Kremlin Airmix® Data
Notebook.
Precision is defined as the agreement of two or more measurements that have
been performed in exactly the same manner. Ensuring that measurements are performed
with precision is an important aspect of verification testing. The exact number of test
parts coated is identified in the TQAPP, and the analysis of replicate test parts for each
coating property at each of the experimental conditions occurred by design. Precision
was determined to be within the expected values listed in the TQAPP. All precision data
are listed in Section 5 of the Kremlin Airmix® Data Notebook.
Completeness is defined as the number of valid determinations and expressed as a
percentage of the total number of analyses conducted, by analysis type. CTU's laboratory
was striving for at least 90% completeness. Completeness is ensured by evaluating
precision and accuracy data during analysis. All laboratory results for finish quality were
100% complete. All results were reviewed and considered usable for statistical analysis.
Completeness results are shown in Section 5 of the Kremlin Airmix® Data Notebook.
18
-------
5.4.2 Audits
The ETV CCEP QA Officer conducted an internal technical systems audit (TSA)
and a performance evaluation audit (PEA) of the Airmix® verification test. Also, prior to
the certification of the data, the ETV CCEP QA Officer audited a portion of the data
generated during the Airmix® test.
The TSAs verified that CTCs personnel were adequately trained and prepared to
perform their assigned duties, and that routine procedures were adequately documented.
The ETV CCEP QA Officer examined copies of test data sheets that recorded
information such as process conditions, spray booth conditions, equipment setup, and
coating preparation and reviewed laboratory bench sheets showing data for coating
pretreatment weights, densities, and percent nonvolatile matter.
The ETV CCEP QA Officer audit found that the Airmix® test was conducted in a
manner that provides valid data to support this Verification Statement/Report. Several
deviations from the original TQAPP were identified by the TSA and PEA and are
discussed in Section 2 of the Kremlin Airmix® Data Notebook.
19
-------
Section 6
Vendor Forum
[EXEL Industrial, Inc. has been offered the opportunity to comment on the findings
of this report. Their comments are presented in this section of the report and reflect
their opinions. CTC and EPA do not necessarily agree or disagree with the vendor's
comments and opinions.]
20
-------
Section 7
References
1. Curran, T., et al., National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1990, EPA-
450/4-91-023, NTIS PB92-141555, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
November 1991.
2. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Title III - Hazardous Air Pollutants, November
15, 1990
3. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Title I - Attainment/Maintenance of National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), November 15, 1990.
21
------- |