September 2003
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Allied Photochemical
KrohnZone7014
UV-Curable Coating
Prepared by
National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence
Operated by
cji^zConcurrent Technologies Corporation
for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Under Contract No. DAAE30-98-C-1050
with the U.S. Defense Contract Command -Washington (DCC-W)
via EPA Interagency Agreement No. DW2193939801
-------
Notice
This document was prepared by Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) under Contract No.
DAAE30-98-C-1050 with the U.S. Defense Contract Command - Washington (DCC-W), Task
N.306, SOW Task 4. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army are
working together under EPA Interagency Agreement No. DW2193939801. 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 2003
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Allied Photochemical
KrohnZone 7014 UV-Curable Coating
Prepared by
Brian D. Schweitzer
Jacob E. Molchany
Robert J. Fisher
Lynn A. Summerson
of the
National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence
Operated by
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Johnstown, PA 15904
Under Contract No. DAAE30-98-C-1050 (Task N.306, SOW Task 4)
with the U.S. Defense Contract Command - Washington (DCC-W)
via EPA Interagency Agreement No. DW2193939801
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/.
EPA's ETV Program, through the National Risk Management Research Laboratory's Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division has partnered with Concurrent Technologies
Corporation, through the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence, to verify
innovative coatings and coating equipment technologies for reducing air emissions from coating
operations. Pollutant releases to other media are considered, but in less detail.
The following report describes the verification of the performance of the Allied Photochemical
KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating for automotive manufacturing 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 UV-Curable Coating Technology Description 2
1.4 Technology Testing Process 2
1.4.1 Technology Selection 2
1.5 Test Objectives and Approach 3
1.6 Performance Summary 3
Section 2 Description of the Technology 5
2.1 Technology Performance, Evaluation, and Verification 5
2.2 The KrohnZone 7014 Test 5
2.3 UV-Curable Coating Technology 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 9
3.1 Description of Test Site 9
3.2 Evaluation of KrohnZone 7014's Performance 9
3.2.1 Test Operations at Allied Photochemical and CrC 9
3.2.2 Test Sampling Operations at CTC's ETF 10
3.2.3 Sample Handling and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures 10
3.3 Data Reporting, Reduction, and Verification Steps 11
3.3.1 Data Reporting 11
3.3.2 Data Reduction and Verification 11
Section 4 Results and Discussion 13
4.1 Potential Environmental Benefits and Vendor Claims 13
4.2 Selection of Test Methods and Parameters Monitored 13
4.2.1 Process Conditions Monitored 13
4.2.2 Operational Parameters 13
4.2.3 Parameters/Conditions Monitored 14
4.3 Overall Performance Evaluation of KrohnZone 7014 14
4.3.1 Assessment of Laboratory Data Quality 14
4.4 Technology Data Quality Assessment 14
4.4.1 Accuracy, Precision, and Completeness 14
4.4.2 Audits 15
Section 5 Vendor Forum 17
Section 6 References 19
in
-------
List of Tables
Page
Table 1. Verification Factors for KrohnZone 7014 4
List of Associated Documents
KrohnZone 7014 Data Notebook (Available from CTCupon request)
IV
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM
&EPA
Gmi-urirm
TffiifHrftr^iex
Qtrponuton
ETV JOINT VERIFICATION STATEMENT
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
ULTRAVIOLET (UV) CURABLE LIQUID COATING
LIQUID ORGANIC COATING FOR AUTOMOTIVE
MANUFACTURING
TECHNOLOGY NAME: KrohnZone 7014
Allied PhotoChemical
Roy Krohn, Founder & CSO
P.O. Box 328
Marysville, MI 48040-0328
roy@alliedphotochemical.com
COMPANY
POC:
ADDRESS:
EMAIL:
WEBSITE:
www.alliedphotochemical.com
PHONE:
FAX:
(810) 364-6910
(810) 364-6933
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 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; with 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 seven technology areas 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 an innovative liquid coating intended
for automotive manufacturing applications. This verification statement provides a summary of the test results
for the KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating manufactured by Allied PhotoChemical.
v
-------
VERIFICATION TEST DESCRIPTION
The ETV CCEP evaluated the pollution prevention capabilities of the KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating.
The coating application phase and a portion of the laboratory analyses were conducted at Allied
PhotoChemical's facility in Marysville, MI. The remaining testing was completed at CTC's facility in
Johnstown, PA. The test was designed to verify the environmental benefit of the UV-curable coating by
determining the total volatile content per ASTM D 5403. The test also verified the coating's finish quality
characteristics.
In this test, the KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating was tested under conditions recommended by Allied
PhotoChemical, the coating's vendor. The test panels were 15.2 cm long and 10.2 cm wide. Allied
PhotoChemical recommended the ITW Automotive Refinishing GTi high-volume, low-pressure spray gun
equipped with a 1.4 mm fluid tip and a #2000 air cap. The test consisted of five runs. During each run, one
set often panels was sprayed manually.
The total volatile content of the KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating was determined using ASTM D 5403.
This method determines the processing volatiles generated during the UV-cure phase and the potential
volatiles generated by heat curing the UV-cured coating. Total volatiles are determined by adding the
processing and potential results.
The details of the test, including a summary of the data and a discussion of results, may be found in Section 4
of the "Environmental Technology Verification Report: Allied PhotoChemical - KrohnZone 7014 UV-
Curable Coating," which is available at http://www.epa.gov/etv/verifications/verification-index.html. A more
detailed discussion of the test conditions, test results, and data analyses can be found in "Environmental
Technology Verification Data Notebook: Allied PhotoChemical - KrohnZone 7014 UV-Curable Coating,"
which is available from CTC.
QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
The EPA ETV CCEP QA manager conducted a technical systems audit to assure that testing conducted at
Allied PhotoChemical's facility was performed in compliance with the approved test plan, and the ETV
CCEP QA officer conducted a performance evaluation audit of the laboratory analyses conducted in
Johnstown, PA, to assure that the measurement systems employed were adequate to produce reliable data.
Also, prior to the certification of the data, the ETV CCEP QA officer and the EPA ETV QA manager both
audited at least 10% of the data generated during the KrohnZone 7014 test to assure that the reported data
represented the data generated during testing. In addition, the EPA ETV CCEP QA manager has conducted a
quality systems audit of the ETV CCEP Quality Management Plan and onsite visits during previous tests.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating was tested as received from Allied PhotoChemical to assess its
capabilities. The coating was manually applied using the ITW Automotive Refinishing GTi HVLP spray gun
equipped with a 1.4 mm fluid tip and #2000 air cap and was set to obtain a fan pattern of 10.2 cm (4 in.) 15.2
cm (6 in.) from the gun. The KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating is marketed to automotive manufacturers
as a single layer clearcoat.
VI
-------
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
The performance characteristics of the KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating include the following:
Environmental Factors
Total volatile content: The KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating exhibited 1.6% processing volatiles
and 1.0% potential volatiles, for a total volatile content of 2.6%. The standard deviation for the total
volatile content was 0.9%.
Energy Usage: The coating was UV-cured under a medium mercury vapor lamp followed by an iron-
doped lamp. Both lamps were tubes 76.2 cm in length and rated for 157.5 watts/cm. The panels were
passed under the lamps on a conveyor belt moving at 16.7 cm/s. Assuming that each panel passes
through a 15.2 cm cure zone for each lamp, it can be calculated that 8.1x10^ kWh is required to cure
one panel. This value does not include the energy required to warm up the lamps or the energy
expended by the length of the lamps that are idle.
Performance Factors
Dry Film Thickness (DFT): The DFTs for all runs were determined from six points measured on each
panel. The DFT averaged 3.1 mils with a standard deviation of 0.2 mil.
Visual Appearance: CTC personnel assessed the visual appearance of all 50 coated panels. The intent
of this analysis was to identify any obvious coating abnormalities that could be attributed to the
application equipment. No defects were found, and the coating was uniform from panel to panel and
run to run.
Gloss: The gloss was measured per ASTM D 523 Test Method at three points on one panel per run at
both 20° and 60°. The test method has a range of 0 to 100 gloss units. The 20° analyses yielded an
average of 80.8 gloss units with a standard deviation of 4.4 gloss units. The 60° analyses yielded an
average of 92.3 gloss units with a standard deviation of 2.1 gloss units.
Salt Spray Resistance: The salt spray resistance was determined per ASTM B 117 from one coated
panel per run exposed to 2000 hours of salt spray. Corrosion appeared on the scribed areas between
120 and 240 hours and on the unscribed areas between 120 and 1508 hours. The creepage at the
scribe ranged from 0 to 1.6 cm. After the full 2000 hours, the scribed panels obtained an average
rating of 6 (10 being no corrosion and 0 being total corrosion), and the unscribed panels obtained an
average rating of 4.
Humidity Resistance: The humidity resistance measurements were determined per ASTM D 1735
from one coated panel per run. The panels were placed in the humidity chamber unscribed and
were subjected to 2000 hours in the chamber. Three of the five panels developed between 7 and 30
small blisters of 0.1 cm or less in size. The panels obtained an average rating of 9 (10 being no
corrosion) after the full 2000 hours.
Tape Adhesion: Two tape adhesion tests were conducted according to ASTM D 3359, one per
Method A and one per Method B. Method A uses a scribe in the shape of an 'X'. Method B uses a
scribe in a Crosshatch shape. The rating scale for both methods ranges from 1 to 5, with 5 meaning
no visible loss of adhesion or removal of coating. The coated panels were rated 5A and 5B, which
means that no visible loss of adhesion or coating removal was present using Methods A and B,
respectively.
vn
-------
Direct Impact: The direct impact measurements were determined per ASTM D 2794 from one
coated panel per run. The measurements for all panels averaged 3.1 J (27 in.-lbs) with a standard
deviation of 0.1 J (1.0 in.-lbs).
Mandrel Bend: The mandrel bend measurements for flexibility were determined per ASTM D 522
on a conical mandrel from one coated panel per run. The coating on all panels cracked and/or
separated from the panels the entire 15.2 cm length of the sample panels.
MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) Rub: The MEK rub measurements were determined per ASTM D
5402 from one coated panel per run. The measurements for all panels rated a 4 out of 5, indicating
minor effects on the coating.
Abrasion Resistance: The abrasion resistance measurements were determined per ASTM D 4060
from one coated panel per run. All panels were subjected to 1000 cycles using a CS-10 wheel and
1000 g weight. The weight loss measurements for all panels were 92.6 mg with a standard
deviation of 8.8 mg.
Original signed on Original signed on
September 30, 2003 September 30, 2003
Lee A. Mulkey Brian D. Schweitzer
Acting 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 Allied Photochemical, the manufacturer of the
KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating, 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 Roy Krohn, Founder and Chief Science Officer (CSO) and Scott Howe, Vice
President, Operations. Allied Photochemical is based in Marysville, MI.
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, liq(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, liq(U.S.) 8.345
-------
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
APC Allied Photochemical
APPCD Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CCEP Coatings and Coating Equipment Program
CSO Chief Science Officer
CTC Concurrent Technologies Corporation
DFT dry film thickness
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETF Environmental Technology Facility
ETV Environmental Technology Verification
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HVLP high-volume, low-pressure
ID identification
MEK methyl ethyl ketone
NDCEE National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence
NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology
NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory
OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration
P2 pollution prevention
PEA performance evaluation audit
PEL permissible exposure limit
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RFU ready-for-use
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
TQAPP Testing and Quality Assurance Project Plan
TSA technical systems audit
UV ultraviolet
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 U.S. 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 former President Clinton'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
P2 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 consists of
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 Allied
Photochemical (APC) KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating, hereafter referred to as the
KrohnZone 7014, which is designed for use in automotive manufacturing. The test spray gun
chosen by APC was the ITW Automotive Refmishing GTi high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP)
spray gun. Where possible, 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 their 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.
CTC is serving as the verification organization for the ETV CCEP, and their 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 UV-Curable Coating Technology Description
KrohnZone 7014 is manufactured by APC. It is an UV-curable coating utilizing free-
radical chemistry. This product was developed as a high performance coating for automotive
manufacturing applications. KrohnZone 7014 is reported to be low in VOCs and HAPs. The
coating is a one-component clearcoat.
1.4 Technology Testing Process
The ETV CCEP developed a technology-specific Testing and Quality Assurance Project
Plan (TQAPP) for KrohnZone 7014, with significant input from the vendor4. After the vendor
concurred with, and the EPA and CTC approved, the TQAPP, the ETV CCEP performed the
verification test. The Verification Statement, which is produced as a result of this test, may be
used by APC for marketing purposes or by end users of the KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable
coating. The Verification Statement for KrohnZone 7014 is included on pages v-viii of this
report. A Data Notebook has been compiled by the ETV CCEP, which includes a more detailed
discussion of the test conditions, the test results, and the data analyses. The Data Notebook is
available from the ETV CCEP upon request.
1.4.1 Technology Selection
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 P2 potential of each candidate technology
and considered the interests of industry. UV-curable coatings were found to have a large P2
potential and were being considered by industry in organic finishing replacement activities.
-------
1.5 Test Objectives and Approach
The testing was performed according to the Allied Photochemical KrohnZone 7014
TQAPP. This project was designed to verify the performance of KrohnZone 7014 and its
capability to provide the end user with a P2 benefit while maintaining or improving the expected
finish quality of the applied coating. This project supplies the end users with the best available,
unbiased technical data to assist them in determining whether KrohnZone 7014 meets their
needs.
The quantitative P2 benefit will result from an analysis of the coating's total volatile
content per ASTM D 5403. For this verification test, a specific combination of test factors were
selected by the ETV CCEP, EPA, APC, 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 P2 benefits and performance of the
technology.
Representatives of APC, under supervision of the ETV CCEP, completed the coating
application and curing. The EPA ETV CCEP QA Manager was on site to observe verification
testing. ETV CCEP staff performed all processing and laboratory analyses. The total volatile
content was determined to quantify the P2 benefit of the technology. The following analyses
were performed on the coated test panels to verify the coating's finish quality: dry film thickness
(DFT), visual appearance, gloss, salt spray, humidity resistance, tape adhesion, direct impact,
mandrel bend, MEK (methyl ethyl ketone) rub, and abrasion resistance.
1.6 Performance Summary
This verification has quantitatively shown that the KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating
is capable of providing an environmental benefit and an acceptable coating finish (see Table 1).
The environmental benefit was quantified through the total volatile content of the UV-curable
coating. The end user should review these data carefully to ascertain the applicability of APC
Krohnzone 7014 for its process.
-------
Table 1. Verification Factors for KrohnZone 7014
Total Volatiles (%)
[Processing + Potential]
Cure Oven Line Speed (cm/s)
Calculated Energy Usage per
Panel (kWh)
Average DFT (mils)
Visual Appearance
Average Gloss
(gloss units, 20° angle)
Average Gloss
(gloss units, 60° angle)
Salt Spray (2000 h)
Scribed (out of 10)
Unscribed (out of 10)
Humidity Resistance
Tape Adhesion
(X-Cut)
Tape Adhesion
(Cross Hatch)
Direct Impact
(J [in.-lb])
Conical Mandrel Bend
MEKRub
(Average DFT = 3.0 mils)
Abrasion Resistance (mg)
Average
2.6
16.7
S.lxKT4
3.1
Standard Deviation
0.9
0.0
N/A
0.2
No major defects. Coating was uniform from
rack to rack and from run to run.
80.8
92.3
6
4
9
5A
5B
3.1 [27]
Adhesion loss or
cracking across
sample width
4 out of 5
92.6
4.4
2.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.1 [1.0]
N/A
N/A
8.8
N/A - Not applicable
The KrohnZone 7014 requires UV-curing equipment, but the coating can be cured via direct
sunlight, but the process takes several minutes to several hours, depending on the UV light
intensity, the wet film thickness and the pigmentation of the coating. The calculated energy
usage in Table 1 represents only the energy required to cure one 10.2 cm by 15.2 cm panel. This
value does not include the energy required to warm up the lamps or the energy expended by the
length of the lamps that are idle (i.e., not directly over a panel being cured). The operating costs
of KrohnZone 7014 include the UV oven, maintenance, and cleanup. The economic advantage
of KrohnZone 7014 is realized after consideration of the reduced volatile emissions and
reduction in coating wastes due to the ability to recycle the uncured material.
-------
Section 2
Description of the Technology
2.1 Technology Performance, Evaluation, and Verification
The overall objectives of this verification study are to verify P2 characteristics and
performance of UV-curable coating technologies and to make the results of the verification tests
available to the technology vendor and to prospective technology end users. KrohnZone 7014 is
designed for use in automotive manufacturing applications. For this verification study, the spray
gun used to apply KrohnZone 7014 was a gravity-feed GTi HVLP spray gun, manufactured by
ITW Automotive Refmishing. The spray gun was equipped with a 1.4 mm fluid tip and a #2000
air cap.
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 KrohnZone 7014 Test
This verification test is based on the ETV CCEP UV-Curable Coatings - Generic
Verification Protocol, which was reviewed by the ETV CCEP stakeholders.5 Allied
Photochemical (APC), the manufacturer of KrohnZone 7014, worked with CTC to identify the
optimum performance settings for the coating/gun combination. APC had determined the
parameters through tests that their personnel conducted at their facility in Marysville, MI. A
preliminary TQAPP was generated using the vendor supplied information and was submitted to
EPA for review of content. Following the initial EPA review and incorporation of their
comments, the vendor was given the opportunity to comment on the specifics of the TQAPP.
Any information pertinent to maintaining the quality of the study was incorporated into the
TQAPP. A final draft of the TQAPP was reviewed by the vendor and technical peer reviewers
then approved by the EPA and CTC prior to the start of verification testing.
Testing was conducted under the direction of ETV CCEP personnel, with representatives
from APC assisting with the coating application and curing phase. All information gathered
during verification testing was analyzed, reduced, and documented in this report. Total volatile
content and finish quality measurements of KrohnZone 7014 were the primary objectives of this
test. The data highlight the P2 benefit of the KrohnZone 7014 coating as well as its ability to
provide the required finish quality. A randomly selected portion of at least 10% of the test data
has been quality audited by EPA and the ETV CCEP QA officer to ensure the validity of the
data.
2.3 UV-Curable Coating Technology
This section contains information on KrohnZone 7014, its current applications in
industry, the advantages and benefits of the technology, and information on technology
deployment.
-------
KrohnZone 7014 is a UV-curable coating that was developed for automotive applications
and other metal coating applications that require only one-coat applications, (such as
lawnmowers and metal coil). KrohnZone 7014 is a one-component, ready-to-spray, or ready-
for-use (RFU), coating with a manufacturer recommended shelf life of 1 year. The coating can
be tailored to a specific viscosity range as designated by the customer. The standard KrohnZone
materials are RFU in the 300 to 1000 cps range, which can be applied by a HVLP spray gun.
The KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating is reported to meet the following
specifications:
. 100% UV-curable
. contains 100% solids with no VOCs or HAPs
one-component, RFU coating
. shelf life of 1 year with no prolonged exposure to light
. theoretical coverage of 1020 ft2/gal (at 65% transfer efficiency and 1 mil thickness)
curable up to 6 mils with a cure energy greater than 0.35 J/cm2
2.3.1 Applications of the Technology
KrohnZone 7014 can be used in many applications, such as automotive, plastics, and
wood finishing; however, an automotive manufacturing application was the subject of this
verification test. Automotive manufacturers may use the KrohnZone 7014 because it is low
volatile content material capable of being recycled and produces a durable, corrosion resistant
finish.
2.3.2 Advantages of the Technology
The KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating has a very small percentage of VOCs,
significantly reducing the VOC emissions that typically result from spray painting operations. It
does not depend on solvents to transport the coating solids to the target surface, only to require
volatilization in later steps. The coating can be applied by traditional means (conventional,
HVLP, brush, roller, etc). The cure process requires significantly less space than traditional
thermal curing methods, allowing for multiple coatings to be applied wet on dry in a shorter
period of time.
2.3.3 Limitations of the Technology
For some applications, KrohnZone 7014 may exhibit incomplete curing due to the
complexity of the shape to be coated. The UV radiation is line-of-sight and may not be able to
contact all of the coated areas. The UV lamps require special protection eyewear for operators.
Also, the UV lamps generate ozone, especially during the lamp warm-up period. Workers must
be protected from ozone concentrations exceeding Occupational Health and Safety
Administration (OSHA) standards. The permissible exposure limit (PEL) for an 8-hour, time-
weighted average value of 0.1 ppm.
-------
Also, the coating fractured and/or lost adhesion during the conical mandrel bend testing.
The end user should note that the direct impact test result was 3.1 J (27 in.-lb) and that the
abrasion resistance test result was 92.6 mg. Also, please note that the DFT of 3 mils was thicker
than planned, which may have impacted the results of some of these analyses.
2.3.4 Technology Deployment and Costs
KrohnZone 7014 has many applications, with few limitations on its distribution
throughout the various finishing industries. One area of concern is the efficient curing of
complex shapes. The coating is cost effective because of its capability to be recycled, the ease of
removing the uncured coating from painted surfaces, and the high solids content of the material.
KrohnZone 7014 is similar in operating costs to standard solvent coatings; however, initial
capital cost of switching from thermal to UV-cure ovens may be significant.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
-------
Section 3
Description and Rationale for the Test Design
3.1 Description of Test Site
The testing of KrohnZone 7014 was conducted at Allied Photochemical's (APC's)
facility in Marysville, MI and at CTC's Environmental Technology Facility (ETF) in Johnstown,
PA. APC applied the coating to the test panels under the ETV CCEP's supervision. The spray
booth is a tabletop model approximately 5 ft wide by 2.5 ft deep by 5 ft tall, with a 2.5 ft by 2.5
ft opening. The back wall of the booth contained booth filters, and the exhaust was ducted into
the factory because of the small amount of VOCs emitted. Coating application involved
manually positioning the test panels lying flat in the spray booth. After being coated, the panels
were placed on a conveyor that passes the panels under two UV light sources, a medium mercury
vapor lamp and an iron-doped lamp. The panels were then packaged and shipped to CTU's
facility for further testing.
3.2 Evaluation of KrohnZone 7014's Performance
The overall objectives of the verification study were to establish the P2 benefit of
KrohnZone 7014, and to determine the effectiveness of KrohnZone 7014 in providing an
acceptable coating finish. Finish quality cannot be compromised in most applications, despite
the environmental benefit that may be achieved; therefore, this study has evaluated both of these
factors. Results from the KrohnZone 7014 verification testing will benefit prospective end users
by enabling them to better determine whether KrohnZone 7014 will provide a P2 benefit while
meeting the finish quality requirements for their application.
3.2.1 Test Operations at Allied PhotoChemical and CTC
The standard test panels used for verification testing were flat, cold-rolled 22-gauge steel
with a 0.6-cm (1/4-in.) hole in one end that meets Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 1008
specifications. The panel dimensions were 15.2 cm by 10.2 cm (6 in. x 4 in.). The panels were
received treated with a zinc phosphate pretreatment by ACT Laboratories, Inc. Five random test
panels were removed prior to the test for pretreatment analysis. All panels were manually coated
while lying flat on a cardboard sheet. The whole sheet was positioned on the UV-curing oven
conveyer to cure the coated test panels.
The test spray gun chosen by APC was the ITW Automotive Refinishing GTi HVLP gun.
The spray gun product data sheet is shown in Appendix B of the KrohnZone 7014 Data
Notebook. Prior to each run, temperature measurements were taken of the coating, panel, and
spray booth. The relative humidity of the spray booth was also measured. Samples were taken
at the beginning of each run for weight percent solids, density, and volatile content
measurements (all data are provided in the KrohnZone 7014 Data Notebook). One batch of
coating was used to complete this test. A small container of material was used to fill the gravity
cup on the spray gun. As the panels were coated, the level of coating in the gravity cup dropped.
The small container was then used to refill the gravity cup before each run. The cup was refilled
to maintain a consistent fluid flow rate from the gravity cup.
-------
Ten panels were coated during each run. Five additional panels from the same batch as
the coated panels were used for zinc phosphate coating weight determination. Total volatile
content was determined using circular pans and 15.2 cm x 10.2 cm aluminum foil dishes. Coated
standard test panels were also analyzed for DFT, gloss, and visual appearance in addition to
other performance characteristics analyses.
3.2.2 Test Sampling Operations at CTC's ETF
Standard test panels were used in this project, and each panel was labeled with a unique
alphanumeric identifier. The experimental design used 50 samples for the test (5 runs with 1 set
per run and 10 panels per set).
The panels were processed under the supervision of CTC personnel. The CTC laboratory
analyst recorded the date and time of each run and the time at which each measurement was
taken. Once coated and cured, the panels were stacked, each being separated by a layer of
packing material, and transported to the CTC laboratory by ETV CCEP personnel.
3.2.3 Sample Handling and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures
Prior to performing the required analyses, the laboratory analyst logged panels, 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 (ambient room temperature and humidity), and created a
work order to initiate testing.
The temperature of the coating, as applied, was measured during the test by ETV CCEP
personnel. APC provided the ETV CCEP with a sample of the coating batch, which was
transported to Johnstown, PA, for analysis. The viscosity, density, VOC content, and percent
solids analyses were completed by ETV CCEP personnel in the ETF laboratory. 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.
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.
10
-------
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. 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.
3.3.2 Data Reduction and Verification
The primary analyst(s) assembled a preliminary data package. 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 ETV CCEP laboratory
leader, who then reviewed all final results for adequacy to project QA objectives. After the EPA
reviewed the results and conclusions from the ETV CCEP 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 will be
disseminated only after agreement by the vendor.
11
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
12
-------
Section 4
Results and Discussion
This section presents an overview of the verification test results, including an analysis of
environmental benefits of KrohnZone 7014, a summary of panel finish quality, and a summary
of data quality. Data generated during this test are being evaluated in order to establish the
environmental benefit and the finish quality characteristics of the product. An explanation of the
manner in which the data were gathered is provided. Subsequently, the 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 KrohnZone 7014 Data Notebook.
4.1 Potential Environmental Benefits and Vendor Claims
The primary purpose of this test is to verify that KrohnZone 7014 is a low volatile
content coating that offers a finish quality suitable for automotive manufacturing applications.
4.2 Selection of Test Methods and Parameters Monitored
CTC, the ETV CCEP partner organization, performed the laboratory testing required for
this verification test. The ETV CCEP selected test procedures, process conditions, and
parameters to be monitored based on their correlation to, or impact on, volatile content or finish
quality.
4.2.1 Process Conditions Monitored
The conditions listed below were documented to ensure that there were no significant
fluctuations in conditions during the verification test. A more detailed discussion of the data is
presented in Section 3 of the KrohnZone 7014 Data Notebook.
Spray booth relative humidity ranged from 16.7% to 18.1%.
Cure area relative humidity ranged from 16.5% to 19.0%.
Spray booth temperature ranged from 19.3 to 21.1 °C.
Cure area temperature ranged from 20.4 to 21.2 °C.
Panel temperature ranged from 20.1 to 20.8 °C.
4.2.2 Operational Parameters
The conditions listed below were documented to ensure that there were no significant
fluctuations in conditions during the verification test. A more detailed discussion of the data is
presented in Section 3 of the KrohnZone 7014 Data Notebook.
13
-------
Zinc phosphate weight ranged from 2.3 to 3.0 g/m2.
Coating density was 1031 g/L.
Weight percent solids ranged from 25.01% to 25.16%.
Coating temperature ranged from 20.0 to 21.0 °C.
Coating viscosity ranged from 23.9 to 24.1 seconds using a #4 Ford cup.
4.2.3 Parameters/Conditions Monitored
Other parameters and conditions were monitored to ensure that they remained relatively
constant throughout the verification test. Constancy was desired in order to reduce the number
of factors that could significantly influence total volatile content calculations and the evaluation
of finish quality. A more detailed discussion of these data is presented in Section 3 of the
KrohnZone 7014 Data Notebook.
4.3 Overall Performance Evaluation of KrohnZone 7014
The verification factors for KrohnZone 7014 are listed in Table 1 of this report. The test
results indicate that the KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating provided an environmental benefit
and maintained the required finish quality of the applied coating.
4.3.1 Assessment of Laboratory Data Quality
The KrohnZone 7014 data results were subjected to an internal data quality audit by the
ETV CCEP QA officer. The information gathered was considered to be statistically valid and
significant such that the advantages and limitations of KrohnZone 7014, per these test
conditions, could be identified to 95% confidence.
4.4 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 KrohnZone 7014 Data Notebook. 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 KrohnZone 7014 Data Notebook.
4.4.1 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
14
-------
determined to be within the expected values listed in the TQAPP. Accuracy results are located
in Table 26 of the KrohnZone 7014 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 Tables 28 to 32 of the
KrohnZone 7014 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. Evaluating precision and accuracy data during analysis
ensures completeness. All laboratory results for finish quality were 100% complete. All results
were reviewed and considered usable for statistical analysis. Completeness results are shown in
Table 27 of the KrohnZone 7014 Data Notebook.
4.4.2 Audits
The EPA ETV CCEP QA manager conducted a technical systems audit (TSA) and a
performance evaluation audit (PEA) of the KrohnZone 7014 verification test. Also, prior to the
certification of the data, the ETV CCEP QA manager audited a portion of the data generated
during the KrohnZone 7014 test.
The TSAs verified that CTU's personnel were adequately trained and prepared to perform
their assigned duties and that routine procedures were adequately documented. The EPA ETV
CCEP QA manager examined copies of process conditions data sheets during the coating
application process.
The EPA ETV CCEP QA manager audit found that the KrohnZone 7014 test was
conducted in a manner that provides valid data to support this Verification Statement/Report.
Several deviations from the original TQAPP were made and are discussed in Section 2 of the
KrohnZone 7014 Data Notebook.
15
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
16
-------
Section 5
Vendor Forum
[Allied PhotoChemical has been offered the opportunity to comment on the findings of this
report. Its 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.]
The Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price of the KrohnZone 7014 UV-curable coating
at the time of this verification test was $100/gal. Significant volume discounts were available.
The KZ 7014 UV-curable coating has been tested in an industrial application. A paint
line for real manufacturing is being developed for future production. Allied Photochemical
cannot disclose the name of the company at this time.
Utilizing Allied's 100% UV-curable paint system has allowed an automotive parts
manufacturer to paint parts with Allied's UV paint at a much faster speed and lower costs than
the current standard water-based paint.
Allied's paint system has reduced the size of the paint line and capital investment by
65%. This includes, but is not limited to, less square footage for the actual paint line because of
some of the processing steps that could be omitted and still produce quality parts. For example
with the water-based coating currently in use, the parts must be sand blasted to take of the slag to
get a good, final finish. Allied's paint covered the roughness of the slag. The phosphating
process has been deleted. Some of the washing steps are deleted. The energy costs of the water-
based paint line are $2,000,000 per month for gas and electricity. The estimated combined costs
are to be less than $100,000 per month with the UV process, a huge energy savings. This
particular company had to run a 9-inch gas line for 2 miles to have enough energy to run their
current single water based line. The water-based line had an initial capital investment of
approximately $10,000,000. The UV line using Allied's paint is estimated to have an initial cost
of less than $1,000,000.
17
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
18
-------
Section 6
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.
4. Environmental Technology Verification Coatings and Coating Equipment Program (ETV
CCEP): Allied Photochemical KrohnZone 7014 - Testing and Quality Assurance Project
Plan (TQAPP), Revision #0, March 3, 2003, http://www.epa.gov/
etv/pdfs/testplan/06_tp_allied.pdf.
5. Environmental Technology Verification Coatings and Coating Equipment Program (ETV
CCEP): UV Curable Coatings - Generic Testing and Quality Assurance Protocol (Draft),
March 24, 1998, http://www.epa.gov/etv/pdfs/vp/06_vp_curable.pdf (Finalized 09/03)
19
------- |