EPA-600/ R-99-035
April 1999
CHARACTERIZATION OF LOW-VOC LATEX PAINTS:
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONTENT, VOC AND
ALDEHYDE EMISSIONS, AND PAINT PERFORMANCE
FINAL REPORT
By:
Roy Fortmann, Huei-Chen Lao, Angelita Ng, and Nancy Roache
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
EPA Contract No. 68-C-99-201
Work Assignment 0-005
John C. S. Chang, Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratoiy
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460

-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Oongress with pro-
tecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions lead-
ing to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental pro-
blems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our eco-
logical resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and pre-
vent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks
from threats to human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and
control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze
development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to
support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and infor-
mation transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-
term research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers
with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory

-------
NOTICE'
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.

-------
ABSTRACT
Commercially available latex paints, advertised as "low-odor," "low-VOC," or "no-VOC", were
evaluated as alternatives to conventional latex paints. The VOC content of the paints, determined by
EPA Method 24, was found to be less than 0.2% by weight, substantially lower than the 2 to 10% VOC
content in conventional latex paints. Analyses by GC/MS identified low levels of ethylene glycol,
propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)ethanol, and Texanol in some of the paints.
VOC emissions were low, consistent with the low concentrations of VOCs in the bulk paints, but
elevated levels of formaldehyde were measured in the emissions from two of the paints. A peak
concentration of 2.2 mg/mJ of formaldehyde was measured in small chamber tests with one of the paints
applied to gypsum wallboard. The total estimated emissions from the two paints applied to gypsum
wallboard were 0.47 mg of formaldehyde per gram of paint and 0.15 mg/g during 14-day tests. The
performance of the paints, based on results of ASTM tests, varied substantially. One of the low-VOC
paints had good scrubbability, washability, and hiding power, rating higher than the other low-VOC
paints and a conventional latex flat paint from the same manufacturer. The results suggest that
performance of low-VOC products should be evaluated and that screening of low-VOC products might
be important to identify products that have the possibility of containing formaldehyde or other volatile
compounds of concern indoors.
i ii

-------
CONTENTS
Section	Page
ABSTRACT 	iii
LIST OF FIGURES	vl
LIST OF TABLES 	vi i
1.0 INTRODUCTION	1
1.1	BACKGROUND	1
1.2	PROJECT OBJECTIVES	2
1.3	PROJECT OVERVIEW 	2
1.4	SUMMARY OF THE TESTS PERFORMED	3
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS	5
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 	7
4.0 TEST METHODS	8
4.1	PROCUREMENT OF TEST PRODUCTS	8
4.2	METHOD 24 ANALYSES	8
4.3	DETERMINATION OF VOC CONTENT IN THE BULK PRODUCT BY GC/MS 	8
4.4	SMALL CHAMBER EMISSION TEST METHODS	10
4.4.1	Small Chambers	10
4.4.2	Test Substrate and Coating Preparation Methods	11
4.4.3	Small Chamber Emissions Test Protocol 	13
4.5	SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 	13
4.5.1	Tenax Sorberit Sample Collection and Analysis 	14
4.5.2	Sampling and Analysis of Carbonyl Compounds 	14
4.6	METHODS FOR EVALUATION OF PAINT PERFORMANCE	15
5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION	17
5.1	DESCRIPTION OF THE PRODUCTS TESTED	17
5.2	METHOD 24 MEASUREMENT RESULTS	19
5.3	VOC CONTENTS IN THE PAINTS DETERMINED BY THE GC METHOD	20
5.4	ALDEHYDE EMISSIONS FROM THE PAINTS IN SMALL CHAMBER TESTS 	22
5.5	VOC EMISSIONS FROM PAINTS IN SMALL CHAMBER TESTS	38
5.5.1	VOC Emissions from Paint LVC (Manufacturer Number 1)	40
5.5.2	VOC Emissions from Paint LVD (Manufacturer Number 2)	40
5.5.3	VOC Emissions from Paint LVE (Manufacturer Number 3) 	40
5.5.4	VOC Emissions from Paint LVG (Manufacturer Number 4)	40
5.5.5	Estimated Mass of VOCs Emitted From the Paints 	49
5.5.6	Comparison to Measurements of Emissions from a "Conventional" Latex
Paint 	51
5.5.7	Identification of Non-Target VOCs in Emissions	52
iv

-------
Section	Page
5.6 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TEST RESULTS 	53
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 	57
6.1	DATA QUALITY INDICATORS GOALS 	57
6.2	SUMMARY OF DATA COMPLETENESS	58
6.3	DEFINITIONS	59
6.4	ENVIRONMENTAL AND TEST PARAMETERS	60
6.5	QUALITY CONTROL DATA FOR ALDEHYDE MEASUREMENTS	61
6.5.1	Critical Limits	61
6.5.2	Chamber Background Measurements 	62
6.5.3	Field Blanks	62
6.5.4	Results of Replicate Samples 	62
6.5.5	Results for Spiked Field Controls	62
6.5.6	Daily Calibration Check Samples 	66
6.6	QUALITY CONTROL DATA FOR VOC MEASUREMENTS 	66
6.6.1	Critical Limits	66
6.6.2	Chamber Background Measurements 	66
6.6.3	Field Blanks	69
6.6.4	Results of Replicate Samples 	69
6.6.5	Results for Spiked Field Controls 	69
6.6.6	Daily Calibration Check Samples 	71
6.7	QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES FOR ANALYSES OF VOCS IN PAINT 	71
6.7.1	Solvent Blanks	71
6.7.2	Results of Analyses of Duplicate Paint Extracts	72
6.7.3	Controls	72
7.0 REFERENCES 	74
APPENDIX A: RESULTS FOR TEST LVT11 WITH PAINT LVG	76
VOC Concentrations (mg/m3) in Emissions During the Small Chamber Test
LVT11 with Paint LVG on Glass	77
VOC emissions from paint LVG during test LVT11	78
V

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure	Page
4-1.	Diagram of the small emissions chamber test system	12
5-1	Comparison of formaldehyde emissions from three paints supplied by
manufacturer no. 1	33
5-2. Comparison of formaldehyde emissions from paints LVA and LVD in small chamber
tests	35
5-3. Comparison of the mass of formaldehyde emitted per gram of paint for the
first 50 hours of each small chamber test 	36
5-4. Mass of formaldehyde emitted from the paints over the duration of the small
chamber tests (LVA-1 = 50 hr; LVA-2, LVB and LVC = 14 days; LVD-1 = 7 days;
LVD-2 = 16 days) 	36
5-5. Concentrations of VOCs measured in emissions from paint LVC applied to glass
(Test LVT14)	42
5-6. Concentrations of VOCs measured in emissions from paint LVD applied to glass
(Test LVT12)	44
5-7. Concentrations of VOCs measured in emissions from paint LVE applied to glass
(Test LVT13)	46
5-8. Concentrations of VOCs measured in emissions from paint LVG applied to glass
(Test LVT15)	48
5-9. Concentrations of VOCs in emissions collected from a "conventional" paint
applied to stainless steel (data from a previous study)	52
vi

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1-1.	Summary of the Tests Performed in the Study for Each Paint	4
4-1.	Operating Parameters for the Varian GC/MS System Used for Product Analysis .... 9
4-2.	Operating Parameters for the HP 5890 GC/FID for Analyses of Tenax Tubes	10
4-3.	Standard Operating Conditions for Small Chamber Emissions Tests 	12
4-4.	Summary of ASTM Methods	16
5-1.	Description of the Latex Paints Tested (Based on information from MSDS, label,
or product data sheets)	18
5-2.	Volatile Content, Water Content and VOC Content of the Test Paints 	-.20
5-3.	Concentrations of VOCs in the Low-Odor/Low-VOC Paints (mg/g)	21
5-4.	Description of the Small Chamber Emission Tests for Measurements of Aldehydes 23
5-5. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3)
to Glass
5-6. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3)
to Glass 	
5-7. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3)
to Glass	
5-8. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3)
to Gypsum Wallboard	
5-9. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3)
to Glass 	
5-10. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3)
to Gypsum Wallboard	
5-11. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3)
to Glass	
5-12. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3)
to Gypsum Wallboard	
5-13. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3)
n Small Chamber Test LVT2 with Paint LVG Applied
n Small Chamber Test LVT3 with Paint LVE Applied
n Small Chamber Test LVT4 with Paint LVA Applied
n Small Chamber Test LVT5 with Paint LVA Applied
n Small Chamber Test LVT6 with Paint LVD Applied
n Small Chamber Test LVT7 with Paint LVD Applied
n Small Chamber Test LVT8 with Paint LVF Applied
24
24
25
26
27
28
29
n Small Chamber Test LVT9 with Paint LVC Applied
30
n Small Chamber Test LVT10 with Paint LVB Applied
to Gypsum Wallboard	31
5-14. Summary of the Formaldehyde Mass Emitted in the Small Chamber Emissions
Tests	37
5-15. Description of Small Chamber Tests to Measure VOC Emissions	39
5-16. VOC Concentrations (mg/m3) in Emissions During the Small Chamber Test
LVT14 with Paint LVC on Glass	41
vii

-------
Table	Page
5-17. VOC Concentrations (mg/m3) in Emissions During the Small Chamber Test
LVT12 with Paint LVD on Glass	43
5-18. VOC Concentrations (mg/m3) in Emissions During the Small Chamber Test
LVT13 with Paint LVE on Glass 	45
5-19. VOC Concentrations (mg/m3) in Emissions During the Small Chamber Test
LVT15 with Paint LVG on Glass	47
5-20. Percent of Applied VOC Mass Collected in the Emissions During 48-hour Small
Chamber Tests	50
5-21.	Tentatively Identified VOCs in Tenax Samples Collected During Emissions Tests... 53
5-22.	Results of Measurements with ASTM Performance Tests 	55
6-1.	Data Quality Indicator Goals for Key Measurement Parameters 	57
6-2.	Number of Samples Collected During the Study	59
6-3.	Aldehyde Concentrations (mg/m3) in Chamber Background Air Samples	63
6-4. Results for DNPH-Silica Gel Field Blank Measurements (ng per Sampling
Cartridge)	64
6-5.	Percent Relative Standard Deviation of Analyses of Duplicate DNPH Samples .... 65
6-6.	Percent Recovery for Spiked Field Controls	67
6-7.	VOC Concentrations (mg/m3) in Chamber Background Air Samples	68
6-8.	Results of Field Blank Measurements (ng per tube) 	69
6-9.	Percent Relative Standard Deviation Of Analyses of Duplicate Tenax Samples .... 70
6-10.	Percent Recovery for Spiked Tenax Field Controls	71
6-11.	Results for Analyses of Solvent Blanks (ng/pL)	72
6-12. The Percent Relative Standard Deviation for Analyses of Duplicate Paint Extracts . 73
Viii

-------
1.0	INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting research and testing to
characterize the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from building materials and consumer
products. Methods have been developed in the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD),
Indoor Environment Management Branch (IEMB), to measure VOC content in liquid coatings and
emissions of VOCs following application to realistic substrates. Research projects performed by the
IEMB have included testing to characterize emissions from wet products such as latex paint, alkyd paint,
stains and varnishes. This document reports results of a research project to characterize VOC content
and emissions of VOCs and aldehydes from latex paints advertised as "low-odor" or "no-VOC" products.
1.1	BACKGROUND
Building materials are recognized as important sources of air contaminants indoors (Levin, 1989;
Wolkoff and Nielsen, 1996; Johnston et al., 1996; and others). Although some building materials are
relatively minor sources, paint may represent a significant indoor air contaminant source because of the
volume of paint used and the frequency of re-application during the life of a building. Painting is
frequently performed while buildings are occupied, resulting in short-term exposures to elevated levels of
the most volatile compounds immediately after application, as well as long term exposure to the slower
emitting, less volatile VOCs.
The U.S. EPA has performed a number of research projects to characterize emissions from alkyd
and latex paints (Chang et al., 1997; Guo et al., 1996; Fortmann et al., 1998; Sparks et al., 1998). Testing
has demonstrated that alkyd paints, which are typically greater than 30% by weight of organic solvents,
emit high concentrations of VOCs (e.g., decane, undecane, xylenes) during a short period after
application. Although VOCs from the alkyd paint can still be detected at low concentrations two weeks
after application, greater than 90% of the VOCs in the paint are emitted within the first 24 hours
(Fortmann, et al., 1998). Tests with latex paint have shown a dramatically different VOC emissions
profile. Latex paints typically contain low concentrations (less than 5% by weight) of VOCs. The VOCs
(e.g., ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, Texanol) are emitted at a slow rate over a
longer time period. In tests at APPCD, ethylene glycol could still be detected in emissions from latex
paint 190 days after application to gypsum wallboard (Chang et al., 1997).
In recent years, paint manufacturers have introduced new latex paints described as "Low-Odor,"
"Low-VOC" and "No-VOC." Many of these paints are being marketed for use in buildings that must be
occupied during painting (e.g., hospitals and other health care facilities). Use of low odor paints should
1

-------
result in fewer occupant complaints during re-painting operations. Some manufacturers market their
products as "no-VOC" and promote the product as a pollution prevention or "clean air" alternative.
Although the low-odor and no-VOC water-based products may have a lower content of VOCs
than conventional paints, they may still contain aldehydes, glycols and other VOCs. Paints may contain
VOCs due to additives or as a result of by-products of the manufacturing process. There is little data on
the types or concentrations of compounds emitted from low-odor and low-VOC paints. The purpose of
this research project was to gain a better understanding of the VOC composition of these paints and the
emissions following application.
1.2	PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the project were the following:
•	Determine the VOC content of a subset of currently available latex wall paints that are marketed as
low-odor, low-VOC, or no-VOC
•	Conduct small chamber emissions tests to identify and quantify VOCs and aldehydes emitted from
the test paints
•	Evaluate the performance of low-VOC paints relative to "conventional" paints
1.3	PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project described in this report was a laboratory testing project to characterize VOC content,
VOC emissions during curing and performance of selected low-VOC latex paints. A limited number of
tests were performed with paints from four different manufacturers. Many of the tests were considered
to be "range-finding" tests intended to collect an initial data set on the paints that would provide a better
understanding of the volatile compounds emitted from the paint. Although quantitative measurements
were made, it was beyond the scope of the project to perform extensive identification and quantification
of minor constituents in the emissions from the paints.
The scope of work for the project consisted of the following tasks:
•	Determine availability of low-VOC paints and identify retail sources
•	Procure paints from local retail outlets or formulators; obtain material safety data sheets (MSDS')
and product description sheets
•	Extract each paint with an appropriate solvent and analyze by GC/MS to identify and quantify the
most abundant VOCs in the bulk product
•	Perform Method 24 analyses to determine volatile content, water content and VOC content
•	Perform selected ASTM tests to evaluate product performance (e.g., hiding power, scrubbability)
2

-------
•	Perform small chamber emissions tests with application of the paint to glass or gypsum
wallboard
•	Perform sample and data analyzes
•	Perform data processing, review and compilation
•	Prepare final report on the testing project
1.4 SUMMARY OF THE TESTS PERFORMED
Tests were performed with a total of nine paints obtained from four manufacturers. Three of the
paints were from the same manufacturer, who re-formulated the original paint during the period of the
study. Most of the paints were latex flat wall paints, although a semi-gloss paint was obtained from one
manufacturer. The performance characteristics of two conventional wall paints were measured for
comparison to the low-VOC paints, but the VOC content and emissions from the conventional paints
were not measured during this study. Small chamber tests were performed for four of the nine test paints
to measure VOC emissions and for seven paints to measure aldehyde emissions. The tests performed for
each paint are summarized in Table 1-1. Each paint was assigned an identification code.
3

-------
Table 1-1. Summary of the Tests Performed in the Study for Each Paint
Paint ID
Manufacturer
Paint Type3
Method 24
Bulk Analysis
Chamber Emission Tests
Performance Tests





Aldehydes
VOCs

LVA
1
Low-VOC
X
X
X
--
X
LVB
1
Low-VOC
X
X
X
--
-
LVC
1
Low-VOC
X
X
X
X
-
LVD
2
Low-VOC
X
X
X
X
X
LVE
3
Low-VOC
X
X
X
X
X
LVF
3
Low-VOC
X
X
X
-
-
LVG
4
Low-VOC
X
X
X
X
X
LVH
4
Conventional
X
-
-
-
X
LVI
2
Conventional
-
-
-
-
X
a All paints were latex flat wall paints except paint LVF which was semi-gloss

-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A laboratory test project was performed to (1) characterize the content of VOCs in "low-VOC" and
"low-odor" paints, (2) measure emissions of VOCs and aldehdydes from the paints and (3) evaluate the
performance of the paints. The project was undertaken in order to gain a better understanding of these
products.
One low-VOC latex semi-gloss paint and four latex flat paints, from four manufacturers, were
evaluated. The bulk paints were extracted and analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
(GC/MS) in an attempt to identify and quantify the major constituents. Analyses were also performed by
EPA Method 24 to determine total volatile content, water content and VOC content. Small chamber
emissions tests were performed to measure emissions from the paints applied to either glass or gypsum
wallboard substrates. Samples of the emissions were collected on Tenax for GC/MS analysis of VOCs or
on DNPH-silica gel for analysis of aldehydes. The performance of the paints (e.g., scrubbability, hiding
power) was evaluated using ASTM test methods. The following is a summary of the results and
conclusions:
¦ The VOC content of the five low-VOC paints tested was less than 0.2 %, the minimum detection
limit of the EPA Method 24 measurement. These levels are an order of magnitude less than the VOC
content in a conventional latex flat paint tested in a previous project.
•	Analysis of the bulk paint products by GC/MS identified ethylene glycol, propylene glycol,
dipropylene glycol, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)ethanol (BEE) and Texanol in some of the paints. Not all
paints contained these compounds. One of the four latex flat wall paints contained higher VOC
levels than the other three. Paint LVG contained 1.51 mg/g of BEE, 0.81 mg/g of dipropylene glycol,
0.59 mg/g of ethylene glycol and detectable levels of propylene glycol and Texanol. However, the
levels were substantially lower than in a conventional latex paint tested in a previous project which
contained 24 mg/g of ethylene glycol. There were relatively few other compounds detected in the
bulk paints by the solvent extraction/GC/MS method and they could not be identified from the data
generated with the ion trap MS.
•	Formaldehyde was detected in emissions from all five of the low-VOC latex paints tested. The
concentrations of formaldehyde were low for three of the paints (LVE, LVF and LVG). Paint LVA,
supplied by manufacturer number 1 and paint LVD from manufacturer number 2, had elevated levels
of formaldehyde in the emissions collected during dynamic small chamber tests. Paint LVA had a
peak concentration of formaldehyde of 5.5 mg/mJ in emissions collected during the small chamber
test at 0.5 air exchanges per hour. The estimated mass of formaldehyde emitted during a 50-hour test
with paint LVA applied to glass was 0.51 mg/g of paint. When the paint was applied to gypsum
board the mass of formaldehyde emitted was 0.18 mg/g of paint during the first 50 hours and 0.47
mg/g for the 14 day test period. The manufacturer of the paint, upon being advised of the elevated
formaldehyde concentrations, re-formulated the paint with a different biocide. Emissions from the
re-formulated paint also contained formaldehyde, but at lower concentrations. The estimated mass of
formaldehyde emitted from the re-formulatecl paint was 0.15 mg/g during the first 50 hours and 0.27
mg/g during the 14 day test period with the paint applied to gypsum board. The estimated mass of
5

-------
formaldehyde emitted from paint LVD, from manufacturer number 2, when applied to glass was 0.26
mg/g for a 50 hour test period. When the paint was applied to gypsum hoard, the estimated mass
emitted was 0.06 mg/g during the first 50 hours and 0.15 mg/g for the 14 day test period.
•	Acetaldehyde was detected in the emissions from all five low-VOC paints. The peak concentrations
in the emissions were low (less than 0.05 mg/m3) for three of the five paints. The two paints with the
highest levels of formaldehyde in the emissions (LVA and LVD) also had the highest concentrations
of acetaldehyde in the emissions. A peak concentration of 0.52 mg/m3 of acetaldehyde was measured
in the emissions from paint LVA applied to gypsum wallboard. The peak concentration was 0.34
mg/m3 in the test with paint LVD applied to gypsum wallboard. Acetaldehyde concentrations
decreased rapidly during the test. Within 8 hours after the peak concentration, acetaldehyde
concentrations in the emissions decreased by an order of magnitude.
•	VOC concentrations measured in the emissions were consistent with the low concentrations of VOCs
measured in the bulk paints. Peak concentrations of the characteristic latex paint compounds (e.g.,
glycols) were typically 0.5 mg/m3 or less in the small chamber tests. Concentrations decreased
rapidly following application to glass or gypsum wallboard. Emissions from one of the four latex flat
paints were substantially higher than from the other paints. Paint LVG, which had the highest
concentrations of VOCs in the bulk paint, had peak concentrations of 4.63 mg/m3 of BEE and 4.29
mg/m3 of ethylene glycol in the emissions six hours after application of the paint to a glass substrate.
Few VOCs, other than the target compounds, were detected in the emissions from the paints.
•	The performance of the paints, based on results of ASTM tests, varied substantially. One of the low-
VOC paints had high ratings for scrubbability, washability and hiding power. It rated higher than the
other low-VOC paints and the conventional latex flat paint from the same manufacturer.
•	Results of the study have provided a better understanding of the characteristics of the low-VOC/low-
odor paints currently on the market. The paints contained low concentrations of VOCs, which
resulted in lower VOC emissions during use. However, paints from two manufacturers emitted
formaldehyde at elevated levels. Therefore, the paints had potential for adverse impacts when used
indoors. The tests also showed that performance was variable among the products and did not appear
to be related to the VOC content of the product or its emissions.
6

-------
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The results of this study were useful for gaining a better understanding of the characteristics of the
low-VOC/low-odor latex paints. Additional research on the subject may be warranted. Potential
research should be considered in the following areas:
•	Two low-VOC paints were identified in this project that contained elevated concentrations of
formaldehyde in the emissions following application to glass and gypsum board substrates.
Additional screening analyses should be performed to determine if there are other low-VOC paints
that emit formaldehyde. Potential sources of formaldehyde in paints should be identified and
evaluated.
•	The elevated formaldehyde emissions were identified by performing small chamber emissions tests.
A more cost-effective method should be identified to screen paints for potential aldehyde emissions.
A method to measure aldehydes in the bulk product may be the most cost effective.
•	The extraction and GC/MS method for identifying and quantifying VOCs in the bulk product was not
effective for identifying minor constituents in the paint. The method should be refined in order to
lower the method detection limit and improve recovery of minor constituents. The method has not
been adequately developed or evaluated for identifying compounds other than the major constituents.
Alternative methods should also be evaluated.
•	Difficulties were encountered in the analyses of the polar compounds emitted from the latex paints.
Additional method development is required to ensure accurate and precise measurements of these
compounds in the bulk product and in the emissions.
7

-------
4.0	TEST METHODS
This section describes the test methods used for the project. Included are descriptions of the
methods for measuring VOC content in the bulk paints, methods for total volatile content measurements,
small chamber emissions test methods and ASTM tests used to evaluate paint performance. Sampling
and analysis methods used during the test program are also described.
4.1	PROCUREMENT OF TEST PRODUCTS
Paints were procured for testing from four U.S. paint manufacturers. Paints from three of the
manufacturers were purchased at local retail outlets in the Raleigh/Durham, NC area. The fourth
manufacturer was a smaller U.S. formulator who provided the products for testing.
4.2	METHOD 24 ANALYSES
Analyses were performed following the EPA Method 24 (U.S. EPA, 1994) for determination of
total volatile matter content, water content and VOC content. The method utilizes ASTM Standard
Methods and is the same as that used by manufacturers to determine VOC content.
Total volatile matter content was determined according to ASTM Standard Method D2369, a
gravimetric method. Analyses were performed in duplicate, as prescribed in the method. References for
this and other ASTM methods cited in this report, are included in Section 7.0.
The water content of the paint was determined according to ASTM Method D4017. Analyses
were performed with a Mettler DL18 Karl Fischer Titrator. Because initial small chamber tests had
demonstrated that some of the paints contained aldehydes, methanol-based reagents could not be used
due to their reaction with aldehydes to form acetal and water. Therefore, analyses were performed using
Hydranal Composite 5K (titrant) and Hydranal Working Medium Keto.
4.3	DETERMINATION OF VOC CONTENT IN THE BULK PRODUCT BY GC/MS
The predominant VOCs in the liquid paint were determined by a GC/MS analysis method used
previously for alkyd and latex paints adapted from EPA Method 311 (U.S. EPA, 1996). The paints were
diluted with either acetone, or acetonitrile at a ratio of 1 gram of the paint with 10 mL of solvent. Acetone
formed an emulsion with some paints, requiring the use of acetonitrile. The diluted paints were shaken for
approximately 10 minutes, then centrifuged to remove the solids. The supernatant was analyzed by GC/MS
or GC with a flame ionization detector (FID). Octanol was added as an internal standard for a subset of the
8

-------
samples to assess the VOC recovery of the method. Bromofluorobenzene (BFB) was added to the samples
as an internal quantitation standard for the GC/MS analyses.
During the initial phase of testing, extracts of the paints were analyzed by direct injection (1 (iL)
onto the GC column. Analyses were performed with a Varian Star 3400CX Gas Chromatograph with a
Varian Saturn 3 Mass Spectrometer in Electron Impact mode equipped with a capillary GC column.
Operating parameters for the GC/MS system are listed in Table 4-1. Target analytes for quantitation
included ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, 2-(2-butoxyethoxy)ethanol (BEE) and
Texanol, compounds previously identified in latex paint. The instrument calibration and quantitation of
VOCs was performed using the relative response factor (RRF) method. Calibration standards were
prepared at five levels ranging from approximately 5 to 1000 ng/ L for each target VOC. The lowest
calibration standard was approximately 5 ng/pL, for a practical quantitation limit (PQL) of 0.05 mg/g of
paint. The method detection limit (MDL) for the latex paint analytes has not been determined, but was
estimated to be approximately 0.01 mg/g. Identification of the compounds targeted for quantitation and
tentative identification of unknowns, was performed by use of the computerized mass spectra matching
Varian software with the NIST Mass Spectra library.
Table 4-1. Operating Parameters for the Varian GC/MS System Used for Product Analysis
Parameter
Setting
GC Injector Temperature
270 °C
GC Column Type
DB-624; 0.32 mm I.D.; 1.8 |jm film thickness; 30 m
nominal length
GC Temperature Program
35 °C for 5 min.; 5 °C/min. to 170 °C; 26.6 cC/min. to
250 °C; Run Time = 35 min.
Injector Type
Split (Direct injection) 40:1
Head Pressure
4 psi
Scan Rate
2 scans/sec.
Scan Range
30 - 350 m/z
Filament Delay
4.5 min.
Multiplier
2900 V
9

-------
Prior to the four small chamber emissions tests to measure VOCs from the paints, additional
analyses of the bulk paints were performed using a Hewlett Packard HP5890 GC/FLL) with an HP5970
MS. Extracts of die paints were prepared following the same procedure as described above. One jjL
aliquots of the extracts were loaded on Tenax sorbent tubes by a flash vaporization method. The samples
were then analyzed by thermal desorption/GC/hLD using an Entech 5100 thermal desorber and the
HP5890 GC/FID. Operating parameters were as described in Table 4-2. The PQL for analysis of the
bulk paints by this method was approximately 0.18 mg/g.
4.4 SMALL CHAMBER EMISSION TEST METHODS
Testing was performed in the. EPA APPCD Source Characterization Laboratory located in the
EPA Environmental Research Center in Research Triangle Park, NC. Test methods were similar to those
used previously in tests with latex and alkyd paint (Chang et al., 1997; Fortmann et al., 1998).
4.4.1 Small Chambers
The small chamber emission test methods used in this project were developed by APPCD and are
consistent with the methods described in the ASTM Standard Guide for Small Scale Environmental
Chamber Measurements of Organic Emissions from Indoor Materials/Products, Designation D5116.
Table 4-2. Operating Parameters for the HP 5890 GC/FID for Analyses of Tenax Tubes
Parameter
Setting
Tube Desorption Temperature
250 °C
Tube Desorption Duration
7.5 min.
Transfer Line Temperature
150
Valve Block Temperature
150 °C
GC Column Type
30 m DB-WAX; 0.53 mm !.D.; 1 pm film thickness
GC Temperature Program
40 cC for 5 min.; 5 °C/min. to 130 °C; 2 °C/min. to 170
°C; 10 °C/min. to 240 °C; 5 min. hold; Run Time = 51
min.
Detector
FID
10

-------
The emissions tests were performed using 53-L stainless steel chambers housed in a temperature-
controlled incubator. Nominal dimensions of the chambers are 51 cm (width) by 25 cm (height) by 41
cm (depth). A stainless steel plate, fitted with a Teflon-coated O-ring, is used to seal the one open side.
The chambers are fitted with inlet and outlet manifolds for the air supply. The chambers are also fitted
with temperature and relative humidity sensors. A small fan is operated in the chamber to ensure mixing
and to obtain a nominal air speed of 10 crn/s at one cm above the substrate surface. Clean, VOC and
particle-free, air was supplied to the chamber through a dedicated system consisting of an air compressor,
dryer, catalytic oxidizers and particle filters. Air flow was controlled and measured with mass flow
meters. The relative humidity (RH) of the air supplied to the chamber was controlled by blending dry air
with humidified air from a water vapor generator. A glass sampling manifold was connected to the
chamber outlet for collection of air samples. All air transfer and sampling lines were constructed of
glass, stainless steel, or Teflon . A data acquisition system (DAS) continuously recorded air flow rates,
temperature and RH in the chamber and RH in the inlet air. A diagram of the system is depicted in
Figure 4-1. Standard operating conditions during the emissions tests are presented in Table 4-3.
4.4.2 Test Substrate and Coating Preparation Methods
The substrate used in these tests was cither glass plates (2.45 mm thick) or gypsum wallboard
(Gold Bond Gypsum Wallboard, National Gypsum Company, 0.5 inch thick) purchased from a local
retail outlet. The same lot of gypsum wallboard was used for all tests in the project. The test substrate
was prepared for use by cutting to a size of 16 cm X 16 cm for a total area of 0.0256 m\ which gave a
loading factor of approximately 0.5 m2/m3 in the 53 L chamber. A larger glass substrate was used in
some of the initial tests of the project. But problems were encountered with use of larger test substrates
and higher loading factors because of condensation of water in the sampling manifold. The glass plates
were cleaned with laboratory detergent and dried prior to use. The edges of the gypsum wallboard test
substrate were coated with liquid sodium silicate to seal the edges. The bottom of the substrate was not
sealed. The test substrates were placed on the floor of the chamber during the test. The cut and sealed
substrates were conditioned in the small chamber at 23 °C and 50% RH (nominal) for at least 24 hours
prior to application of the paint and start of the test.
11

-------
jt COMPRESSOR '
DRYER
SORBENT
TRAP
[O O
SAMPLING
MANIFOLD
t° ° °
SAMPLING
MANIFOLD
Mixing Fan
TEST CHAMBER
source
Mixing Fan
TEST CHAMBER
source
INCUBATOR
II If-
dry wet dr 1 vet
ass Flow Conlrollsrs
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHAMBER COMPUTER
(for control arid monitoring
of relative humidity,
tamparatura, and How)
WATER FILLED
IMPINGERS
CONTROLLED
TEMPERATURE
WATER BATH
Figure 4-1. Diagram of the small emissions chamber test system
Table 4-3. Standard Operating Conditions for Small Chamber Emissions Tests
Parameter
Value
Chamber volume
53 L
Air exchanqe rate
0.5 h"'
Air velocity (1 cm above substrate)
10 cm/s
Relative humidity (inlet air)
50%
Temperature (in chamber)
23 °C
Loadinq factor
0.5 m2/rn3
Substrate
Gypsum board
Application method
Paint roller
12

-------
The stainless steel test chambers were cleaned with soap and water prior to use and operated for
24 hours after cleaning. Prior to opening the chamber for the start of a test, background air samples were
collected, as described below.
Paint was applied to the substrate with a roller (Sherwin-Williams Company, Premium 3" Trim
Roller) purchased at a local retail outlet. Paint application was performed on a laboratory bench near the
chambers to facilitate weighing of the substrate and paint. The rates of application used in the tests, and
resulting wet film thicknesses, were based on product label or manufacturer product data sheet
specifications for coverage. Wet film thickness was not measured with a gage during the tests because
(1) the gage affects the surface film characteristics and (2) it was important to get the test specimen into
the chamber as quickly as possible to minimize losses of the most volatile compounds. The mass of paint
applied was determined gravimetrically by weighing the substrate before and after application of the
coating.
4.4.3 Small Chamber Emissions Test Protocol
The protocol for each small chamber emissions test was as follows:
•	Prepare chamber for testing
•	Prepare substrate for testing and place in conditioning chamber at least 24 hours prior to the test
•	Prior to opening the test chamber, collect Tenax and DNPH-silica gel samples to measure background
concentrations of VOCs and aldehydes in the chamber with the substrate
•	Remove the substrate from the small chamber
•	Apply paint to the test substrate
•	Determine mass applied (gravimetrically)
•	Place the coated substrate into the chamber, seal the chamber and record the test start time
•	Collect air samples according to test schedule
•	Terminate test after 7 to 14 days, depending on schedule
The sampling schedule varied for the tests. Data from the bulk analyses by GC/'MS were used to
predict emissions of the target VOCs from the paints in order to develop the appropriate sampling frequency
and volumes of samples to be collected.
4.5 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS
Samples were collected on Tenax sorbent tubes for analysis of VOCs and on dintrophenylhydrazine
(DNPH) treated silica gel cartridges for determination of aldehydes.
13

-------
4.5.1	Tenax Sorbent Sample Collection and Analysis
Air samples were collected on Tenax sorbent tubes throughout each test. The method is described
in the EPA Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Air Pollutants in Indoor Air (Winberry et al.,
1988). Detailed procedures used in the APPCD laboratories are described in the laboratory's Facility
Manual. The commercially available Tenax sorbent tubes (T.R. Associates, Inc.) were 6 mm OD X 203
mm long, packed with 250 mg of Tenax TA (60:80 mesh). Samples were drawn through the tube using
either a calibrated SampleAir pump for collection of samples of less than 0.5 L volume or with a vacuum
pump and mass flow controller for sample volumes of 0.5 to 8.0 L. Sample flow rates ranged from 50 to
125 cm3/min. The sampling flow rate was set with the mass flow controller, then measured with a bubble
film flow meter. The flow rate was monitored during sample collection with the mass flow meter.
The Tenax samples were analyzed by thermal desorption/GC/FID/MS using an Entech Model 5100
Thermal Desorber interfaced to the HP5890 GC described in Section 4.3. The operating parameters for
analysis of VOCs collected on Tenax were the same as described previously in Table 4-2. Tenax tubes
were desorbed at 250 °C and the concentrator was operated according to the recommended Entech method.
Calibration for VOCs in paint emissions was accomplished by using an average response factor
method. Target analytes were identified based on retention time. Compound identification was verified in
selected samples by MS. Calibration standards were prepared over a nominal range of 30 to 3000 ng/^L,
with a 1 nL volume of standard loaded on the Tenax tubes used for the calibration. Standards were
prepared by loading the calibration mixture containing all of the analytes onto Tenax sorbent tubes by a
flash vaporization method.
4.5.2	Sampling and Analysis of Carbonyl Compounds
Air samples were collected on silica gel cartridges coated with acidified 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine
(DNPH). The method is described in the EPA Compendium of Methods (Winberry et al., 1988). The
commercially available cartridges (Waters Sep-Pak DNPH Silica Gel Cartridge, Waters Associates,
Milford, PA) contain 2.9 grams of a 55 to 105 ^m chromatographic-grade silica gel. Samples of 2 to 60 L
volume were collected with a vacuum pump and mass flow controller at sampling rates of 0.2 to 0.4 Umin.
The sampling flow rate was set with the mass flow controller, then measured with a bubble film flow meter.
The flow rate was monitored during sample collection with the mass flow meter.
Samples collected on DNPH-coated silica gel were extracted with 5 mL of acetonitrile (UV grade).
An aliquot of the extract was then analyzed with a HP 590 HPLC. equipped with a diode array detector and a
ultraviolet/visible (UV/V1S) detector. Chromatography was performed with a C-18 reverse phase column
14

-------
(4.6 x 250 mm) using a gradient program [0 - 30 min at 45 percent acetonitrile (ACN), 30 - 35 min at 75
percent, 35-41 min at 100 percent ACN and 41 - 55 min at 45 percent ACN],
The HPLC was calibrated for six carbonyl compounds: formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, propanal,
benzaldehyde, pentanal and hexanal. The target compounds were identified by comparison of their
chromatographic retention times with those of the derivatized standards. Quantification was performed
using an external standard method with a five-point calibration based on peak area of derivatized standards.
Standards were prepared at five concentration levels (between 1 and 375 ng/^L) and a calibration curve was
generated by linear regression treatment of the concentration and chromatographic response data. The
practical quantitation limit, which was based on the lowest calibration standard was 7 ng/m3 for a nominal
30 L sample volume. The MDL would be 0. 7 pg/m3 for a nominal 30 L sample volume. Performance of
the instrument was verified on each day of analysis by analysis of a calibration check sample.
4.6 METHODS FOR EVALUATION OF PAINT PERFORMANCE
ASTM methods, which are listed in Section 7.0 of this report, were used to evaluate the physical
performance of the low-VOC paints. The methods were selected based on information in the ASTM
Standard Guide for Testing Latex Flat Wall Paints (D2931) and discussions with paint testing laboratories.
Tests were selected that would evaluate the paint for practical parameters such as scrubbability and
washability. The methods used are described in Table 4-4. The paints were sent to an external laboratory
[Paint Research Associates (Ypsilanti, MI)] for analyses. Results of tests performed with the four low-VOC
paints (LVA, LVD, LVE and LVG) were compared to results for two conventional paints (LVH and LVI).
The paints LVD and LVI were produced by manufacturer number 2. Paints LVG and LVH were produced
by manufacturer 4, facilitating comparison of low-VOC and conventional paints produced by the same
manufacturer.
15

-------
Table 4-4. Summary of ASTM Methods
| Method
Method Description
D523
Specular Gloss - This test method measures the specular gloss (sheen). The reading, made with a gloss
meter at an 85° angle, is useful in characterizing the low angle appearance of flat paints. Most flat
paints have an 85° sheen of 1 to 10. Higher values indicate more light reflecting off the surface. Flat
paints with good uniformity of appearance often have lower sheen. Paints with good deanability are
often paints with higher sheen.
D2805
Hiding Power - This is an instrumental method to measure the coverage hiding power of the paint. The
paint is applied to a standard chart with a wet film thickness of 1.5 mils which represents one coat of
paint and a wet film thickness of 3 mils which represents two coats of paint. The paint is allowed to air
dry and measurements are made. The contrast ratio was reported. Generally, a contrast ratio in the
range from 0.95 -1.0 indicates good hiding power and the range from 0.90 - 0.95 indicates poor hiding
power. Readings below 0.90 indicate very poor hiding power.
D2486
Scrubbability - This test method determines the resistance of latex flat wall paints to erosion caused by
scrubbing. The paint is applied to a standard chart and allowed to dry for 7 days. The chart is then
placed in a machine that scrubs the surface with a brush and an abrasive cleanser. The reported
number indicates how many cycles were required before wearing through the dried paint film. The
analytical laboratory that performed the tests indicated that the average number of cycles for most
paints is between 250 and 500.
D3450
Stain Removal (Cleanability) -This test method measures the relative ease of removing soilant
discolorations from the dried film of an interior coating by washing with either an abrasive or non-
abrasive cleaner. The paint is applied to a standard chart and allowed to dry for 7 days. The
reflectance of the film is measured and then a soilant consisting of carbon black dispersed in mineral oil
is applied on the film. The stained panel is dried for 16 to 24 hours, then washed with a sponge and
cleaner for 100 cycles. After drying the panel, the reflectance is measured again. The ratio of the
reflectance is reported. Higher ratios indicate that more stain was removed. Performance of the paint
is evaluated relative to other paints.
D4400
Sag Resistance - This method uses a multi-notched applicator to determine the sag resistance of
aqueous and non-aqueous liquid coatings at any level of sag resistance. The method used for the flat
latex paint has the value of 12 as the perfect Anti-Sag Index. Numbers between 9-12 are considered
good Anti-Sag Indexes. Any Index number lower than 7 is considered poor.
D1640
Dry to Touch - This method measures the time it takes for the coating to dry to touch.
E313
Yellowness Index - The method compares the differences in the whiteness of the initial dry film before it
is exposed to sunlight to the whiteness after it has been exposed to sunlight. The lower the initial
number the whiter the paint. The difference between the initial number and the "after exposure"
number indicates the effect of sunlight on the film. A negative number indicates that the film has
bleached in the sun and a positive number indicates yellowing. Differences less than ± 0.2 are not
visually observable.
16

-------
5.0	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section describes the results of analyses performed to characterize the paints. It includes a
description of the paints, Method 24 measurement results, results of VOC measurements in the bulk
products, results of small chamber emissions tests and characterization of painl performance by ASTM
tests.
5.1	DESCRIPTION OF THE PRODUCTS TESTED
The initial task of the project was to collect information on the availability of paints that were
advertised as "low-VOC" or "no-VOC." Major paint formulators in the U.S. were contacted and
information was requested on the availability of such paints. Based on discussions with the
manufacturers, it was determined that each formulator marketed at least one type of latex paint that they
labeled as either low-odor, low-VOC, or no-VOC. The terms low-VOC or no-VOC were included on
some product labels and some paints were promoted as "clean air" products. But the marketing emphasis
generally appeared to be on the "low-odor" characteristics of the paints. The low-odor paints were
promoted as alternatives for use in occupied buildings such as hospitals and health care facilities. One
paint supplier, who was not a major formulator of paints in the U.S., marketed its paints as containing
"no solvents and no VOCs." The marketing literature indicated that there would be virtually no harmful
emissions into the air.
Subsequent to contacting the paint manufacturers, visits were made to local retail outlets to
purchase the paints for testing. None of the low-odor, low-VOC latex paints were available in the large
"do-it-yourself' home improvement supply centers in the local area. When asked about the availability
of low-VOC paints, clerks at the large home improvement centers responded that (1) they didn't know
what low-VOC meant, (2) they didn't know that low-VOC or low-odor paints were available, or (3)
there was not sufficient demand for low-odor paints to warrant the shelf space and, therefore, the low-
odors paints were not stocked. In order to procure products for testing, they were purchased at the
manufacturer's local retail outlets. Products from the formulator who was not a major U.S. supplier were
provided by the supplier and were not purchased locally.
The product descriptions are summarized in Table 5-1. All of the paints tested were water-based
(latex) paints. The paints, coded as "A" through "I", were manufactured by four different companies,
17

-------
Table 5-1. Description of the Latex Paints Tested (Based on information from MSDS, label, or product data sheets)
Latex Paint
LVA
LVB
LVC
LVD
LVE
LVF
LVG
LVH
LVI
Manufacturer
1
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
2
Color
white
white
white
antique
white
white
white
antique
white
clover white
white
Finish
flat
flat
flat
flat
flat
semi-gloss
flat
flat
satin flat
Density, kg/L
1.21 ±0.02
1.21 ±0.02
1.21 ±0.02
1.35
1.25-1.31
1.21-1.31
1.33
1.22-1.43
1.37
VOC, g/L
0
0
0
0
NAS
NA
1
60-175
250
Dry to touch (min) @
2 °C and 50%RH
NA
NA
NA
30-60
NA
NA
60
60
NA
Dry to re-coat (min)
120
120
120
120
120
240
240
240
240
Solids, Volume %
NA
NA
NA
33.4+1
26-32
31-39
38±2
NA
24-33
Solids, Weight %
NA
NA
NA
51.0±1
NA
NA
NA
56
NA
Recommended Film
Thickness: Wet (mils)
NA
NA
NA
4.0
NA
NA
4
4
NA
Dry (mils)
NA
NA
NA
1.3
NA
NA
1.5
1.4
NA
Coverage, sq. ft./ gal
500-800
500-800
500-800
400-450
400-450
400-450
400
400
400
Features
up to 2000
scrubs
up to 2000
scrubs
up to 2000
scrubs
no odor,
quick dry,
scrubbable
low odor,
solvent-free,
washable
low odor,
solvent- free
low odor,
low-VOC,
washable
one coat,
10 years
washable
high-hiding,
washable
aNA - Information not available from manufacturer-supplied information

-------
identified as "1" through "4." The three paints supplied by manufacturer number 1 were basically the
same but different as follows:
•	LVB - same as paint LVA, but without a biocide
•	LVC - paint LVA reformulated with a different biocide
The LVB and LVC paints were requested for additional testing after the elevated levels of
formaldehyde were measured in emissions from paint LVA.
LVD, LVE, LVF and LVG were the four other low-odor latex paints that were tested. All of the
paints tested were latex flat paints, except paint LVF which was a semi-gloss latex paint. Paints LVH
and LVI were "conventional" latex paints with VOC levels of greater than 60 g/L, as indicated in the
table. Emissions were not measured from LVH and LVI in this study; they were included to compare the
performance of the low-VOC latex paints with conventional latex paints.
5.2 METHOD 24 MEASUREMENT RESULTS
As described in Section 4.0, the EPA Method 24 procedures were used to determine the total
volatile content of the paints (gravimetric method), the water content (Karl Fischer determination) and
VOC content (by subtraction). The results are summarized in Table 5-2. As shown in the table, the total
volatile content of the paints ranged from approximately 40 to 50%. Water content was in the same
range, indicating that the paints had low-VOC content. All of the low-VOC paints, except paint LVG,
had VOC content of less than 0.2% as measured by Method 24. The one "conventional" paint (LVH)
that was tested had a VOC content of 2.3%. The measurement of VOC content in paint LVH during this
project compared well with the measurements for the same brand and type of paint performed during a
previous project in 1995. As shown in the table, the precision of the gravimetric measurements of total
volatile content was very good, with the relative standard deviation (RSD) for the duplicates being less
than 0.4% for all nine paints. The precision of the measurement of water in the paints by the Karl
Fischer method was also good, with the RSD ranging from 0.1 to 3.0%. The precision was poorest for
the paints from manufacturer 3, in which case it appeared that some component in the paint interfered
with the Karl Fischer reagent, making the analysis more difficult. Because VOC content is calculated by
subtraction of the water content from the total volatile content by Method 24, the combined error of the
two analysis methods resulted in negative values for VOC content. The results of the analyses suggest
that Method 24 is not a suitable method for quantifying VOC content in low-VOC latex paints.
19

-------
Table 5-2. Volatile Content, Water Content and VOC Content of the Test Paints (Weight %)
Paint
% Volatile Content (% RSD)3
% Water Content (% RSD)a
% V0Cb
LVA
40.7 (0.4)
40.7 (1.2)
0.0
LVB
46.5 (0.2)
46.8 (0.8)
-0.3
LVC
50.0 (0.2)
51.7 (0.1)
-1.7
LVD
48.3 (0.1)
49.4 (0.4)
-1.1
LVE
54.3 (0.1)
55.4 (3.0)
-1.1
LVF
50.8 (0.1)
52.4 (1.8)
-1.6
LVG
46.2 (0.1)
45.4 (0.6)
0.8
LVH
43.1 (0.1)
40.8 (0.3)
2.3
LVH-19951
42.8 (0.1)
40.1 (0.6)
2.7
'Values reported are average of analyses of duplicate aliquots of the paint; the % relative standard deviation is
presented in parentheses
bThe minimum detection limit was estimated to be 0.2% based on method specification for weighing to the nearest
mg for gravimetric analyses
cData from analyses of the same brand and type of paint performed during tests in 1995
5.3 VOC CONTENTS IN THE PAINTS DETERMINED BY THE GC METHOD
The bulk paints were diluted with solvent, as described in Section 4.0 and analyzed by GC/MS to
identify the VOCs in the products. The GC/MS was calibrated for VOCs identified in previous studies
of latex paint, including ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, 2-(2-butoxyetho-
xyethanol) and Texanol (2,2,4-trimethyl-l,3-pentanediol monoisobutyrate). Quantitative results of the
analyses for these compounds are presented in Table 5-3. As noted in the table, analyses of paints LVC,
LVD and LVG were performed immediately prior to the chamber emission tests. Ethylene glycol was
measurable at a level above the practical quantitation limit (PQL) only in paint LVG, which also
contained measurable levels of dipropylene glycol and BEE. Ethylene glycol was also detected at low
levels in paints LVC and LVD. Propylene glycol was detected in four of the seven low-VOC paints
analyzed by the GC method. Dipropylene glycol was measurable at levels above the PQL in both paints
from manufacturer number 3 (LVE and LVF) and paint LVG. It was also detected in two other paints.
BEE was the most abundant of the five target VOCs in paint LVG and was detected in four of the other
six low-VOC paints. None of the. target VOCs were detected in paint LVB from manufacturer number 1.
20

-------
Table 5-3. Concentrations of VOCs in the Low-Odor/Low-VOC Paints (mg/g)
Paint
Ethylene Glycol
Propylene
Glycol
Dipropylene
Glycol
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
ethanol
Texanol
LVA
BDLa
0.16
BDL
A A 1 C
UTvTT
BDL
LVB
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVCb
A AT C
U.V9
BDL
A Al C
U.Uj
i-i nc c
U.UJ
BDL
LVDb
A f\A C
a r\-i c
U.Jj
6t++c

A Al C
u.Uj
LVE
BDL
BDL
0.14
BDL
BDL
LVF
BDL
0.12
0.35
n rp c
KJ.UL
0.14
LVGb
0.59
a nn c
u.JJ
0.81
1.51
a nc c
U.v J
Conventional11
24.0
2.32
0.59
4.98
13.5
a BDL: Below the method detection limit estimated to be 0.01 mg/g of paint
b Bulk analyses performed on HP5890 immediately prior to chamber emission tests; all other analyses performed on
Varian at start of test program
c Values with strike through are above the method detection limit, but below the practical quantitation limit
6 Results of bulk analyses of a conventional latex paint from manufacturer 4 performed in a previous research
project (Chang el al., 1997)
Texanol was detected in only three of the seven low-VOC paints. Paint LVG had the highest total
concentration of VOCs at 3.05 mg/g (0.3% VOC w/w). This level of VOCs was substantially lower than
the 45 mg/g total VOCs measured in a conventional latex paint in a previous research project (Chang et
al., 1997), results of which are also shown in Table 5-3.
Examination of the GC chromatograms indicated few other compounds that could be detected in
the analyses of the bulk products using the solvent extraction method. Although there were some
compounds detected at very low concentrations, they could not be easily identified using the Varian
software and computerized mass spectra matching routine of the Varian. There was a low level of
confidence ascribed to the computerized spectra matches. Additional manual spectra matching would
need to be performed for identifying unknowns in the samples. In order to improve the method detection
limit and improve identification of minor constituents in low-VOC paints, an alternative to the solvent
extraction method would need to be used.
21

-------
5.4 ALDEHYDE EMISSIONS FROM THE PAINTS IN SMALL CHAMBER TESTS
Ten small chamber emissions tests were performed to measure emissions of aldehydes from the
low-VOC paints. The initial tests with the paints were range-finding tests. Therefore, some of the tests
were of short duration. For the paint from manufacturer number 1, a number of tests of longer duration
were performed to more fully characterize the emissions of formaldehyde from the paint. Table 5-4
summarizes the test parameters for the small chamber emissions tests that were performed to measure
aldehyde emissions from the low-VOC paints. As shown in the table, the duration of the tests varied
from 2 days to 16 days. Generally, the tests were either 7 or 14 days. Test LVT4 was only a two-day test
because the objective was to verify the results of test LVT1, during which elevated levels of
formaldehyde were measured in the emissions from paint LVA.
Both glass and gypsum wallboard were used as substrates. The initial test with each paint was
performed by applying the paint to glass. Glass was used as a substrate in one test with each paint to
facilitate better comparison of the emissions from the different paints. Use of an inert substrate
minimized background VOCs and aldehydes during the tests and potential interactions between substrate
and the coating that might impact emissions. Additional tests were performed with paints LVA and LVD
applied to gypsum wallboard because the two paints had elevated levels of formaldehyde in emissions
during tests with the application on glass. The tests with application of LVA and LVD on gypsum were
intended to demonstrate that the emissions would also occur on a realistic substrate. Tests with paints
LVB and LVC, both supplied by manufacturer number 1, were performed with application on gypsum
wallboard. Paint LVB was reported to be the same as paint LVA, but without biocide. Paint LVC was
reported by the manufacturer to be a re-formulation of paint LVA with a different biocide.
The table includes the average and standard deviation of the temperature and relative humidity
during the duration of the test. Fans used in the chamber were adjusted to obtain a nominal air velocity
of 10 cnVs at 1 cm above the surface of the substrate.
The concentrations of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, propanal, benzaldehyde, pentanal and
hexanal were measured during each of the ten small chamber tests. Additionally, the chromatograms
were reviewed to determine if any other non-target compounds were in the samples. Results for tests
LVT2 through LVT10 are presented in Tables 5-5 through 5-13. Data are not reported for the first test,
LVT1, performed with paint LVA, because the large volume samples collected during the test resulted in
formaldehyde concentrations-that were in excess of the method's upper limits. The test was repeated as
test LVT4 on glass and a subsequent test (LVT5) was performed with paint LVA on gypsum wallboard.
Both tests LVT4 and LVT5 confirmed the elevated emissions of formaldehyde from the paint.
22

-------
Table 5-4. Description of the Small Chamber Emission Tests For Measurements of Aldehydes
Test Identification
LVT1
LVT2
LVT3
LVT4
LVT5
Paint Tested
LVA
LVG
LVE
LVA
LVA
Test Start Date
11/05/97
11/18/97
12/03/97
12/08/97
01/21/98
Test Duration (day)
11
7
7
2
14
Substrate Type
glass
glass
glass
glass
gypsum
Substrate Size (cm)
45.7 x 30.5
16x16
23 x 30.5
16x16
16 x 16
Coated Area (cm2)
1394
256
701
256
256
Paint Applied (g)
16.44
1.76
4.45
1.97
3.26
Application Method
roller
roller
roller
roller
roller
Air Exchange Rate (h1)
0.51
0.49
0.52
0.50
0.50
Air Velocity (cm/s)
10
10
10
10
10
Temperature (°C)
22.5±0.15
24.4±0.04
24.1 ±0.09
23.1+0.03
24.3±0.06
RH (%)
48.1 ± 13
51.5±3.9
50.8+3.4
52.8± 1.8
56.1 ±4.3
Test Identification
LVT6
LVT7
LVT8
LVT9
LVT10
Paint Tested
LVD
LVD
LVF
LVC
LVB
Test Start Date
01/27/98
02/10/98
02/11/98
05/13/98
05/19/98
Test Duration (day)
7
16
8
14
14
Substrate Type
glass
gypsum
glass
gypsum
gypsum
Substrate Size (cm)
16x16
16 x 16
16x16
16 x 16
16 x 16
Coated Area (cm2)
256
256
256
256
256
Paint Applied (g)
1.88
2.88
1.87
3.43
3.54
Application Method
roller
roller
roller
roller
roller
Air Exchange Rate (h'1)
0.50
0.48
0.51
0.49
0.50
Air Velocity (cm/s)
10
10
10
10
10
Temperature (°C)
25.4±0.38
23.8±0.05
24.0±0.03
23.9±0.03
24.4±0.04
RH (%)
47.9±4.6
51.1 ±4.7
51.3±4.8
51.5±2.8
48.4±3.3
23

-------
Table 5-5. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3) in Small Chamber Test LVT2 with Paint LVG Applied to Glass
Elapsed
Time (h)
Sample
Vol. (L)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propanal
Benzaldehyde
Pentanal
Hexanal
-0.89a
12.7

6.25E 03
BDL'
BDL
BDL
BDL
2.40
41.2
7.51 E-02
9.82E-03
1.38C 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
7.57
61.2
1.35E-02
2.65E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
27.58
51.8
2.40E 03
1.35E-03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
52.40
63.6
1.64C 03
1.00E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1 Chamber air background sample prior to application of the paint to the substrate
" Values with strike through are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL), but above the method detection limit
(MDL)
c BDL = Below the method detection limit
Table 5-6. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m5) in Small Chamber Test LVT3 with Paint LVE Applied to Glass
Elapsed
Time (h)
Sample
Vol. (L)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propanal
Benzaldehyde
Pentanal
Hexanal
-1.323
22.4
3.01 E 03b
3.66E 03
BDLC
BDL
BDL
BDL
1.68 j
1.7
2.79E-02
D.07E 03
BDL
1.39E-02
BDL
BDL
6.79
6.8
1.45E-02
3.73E 03
1.90E 03
6.76E-03
BDL
BDL
16.69
16.7
7.20E-03
7.63E 04
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
24.75
24.8
6.65E-03
1.07C 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
48.33
48.3
5.33E-03
7.QDL 04
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
170.16
170.2
2.5QE-03
7.35E 04
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
' Chamber air background sample prior to application of the paint to the substrate
b Values with strike through are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL), but above the method detection limit
(MDL)
c BDL = Below the method detection limit
24

-------
Table 5-7. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3) in Small Chamber Test LVT4 with Paint LVA Applied to Glass
Elapsed
Time (h)
Sample
Vol. (L)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propanal
Benzaldehyde
Pentanal
Hexanal
-1.133
38.8
2.37E 03 b-
9.69E 04
BDLC
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.25
1.9
2.56E+00
3.01E-01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.54
3.8
4.36E+00
2.79E-01
5;16E"02
2.39E 02
BDL
BDL
1.05
2.9
5.53E+00
2.40E-01
3.73E 02
3.17E 02
BDL
BDL
1.50
3.0
4.93E+00
1.96E-01
2.00E 02
BDL
BDL
BDL
2.15
3.2
3.79E+00
1.49E-01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
3.05
3.8
3.02E+00
9.83E-02
1.26E 02
BDL
BDL
BDL
5.27
5.0
1.58E+00
4.50E-02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
7.69
6.1
9.89E-01
3.32E-02
8.05E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
11.22
7.4
6.76E-01
2.27E 02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
28.85
24.9
3.24E-01
1.11E-02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
50.36
54.5
2.23E-01
6.65E-03
1.11E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
1 Chamber air background sample prior to application of the paint to the substrate
b Values with strike through are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL), but above the method detection limit
(MDL)
c BDL = Below the method detection limit
25

-------
Table 5-8. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3) in Small Chamber Test LVT5 with Paint LVA Applied to Gypsum
Wallboard
Elapsed
Time (h)
Sample
Vol. (L)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propanal
Benzaldehyde
Pentanal
Hexanal
-1.28s
23.8
7.10C 03b-
2.36E 03
BDLC
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.51
3.8
2.18E+00
5.18E-01
2.00C 02
2.87E 02
BDL
BDL
0.98
1.0
1.97E+00
5.06E-01
BDL
2.Q0E 02
BDL
BDL
1.57
1.6
1.67E+00
4.46E-01
1.45E 02
BDL
BDL
BDL
2.07
3.4
1.42E+00
3.81E-01
1.55E 02
BDL
BDL
BDL
3.27
5.8
1.05E+00
2.63E-01
1.33E02
BDL
BDL
BDL
4.84
5.8
7.93E-01
1.73E-01
1.10S 02
BDL
BDL
BDL
7.67
5.7
3.14E-01
5.51 E-02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
9.77
5.7
5.08E-01
7.33E-02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
25.01
7.6
3.29E-01
2.65E-02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
29.29
11.8
3.02E-01
2.18E-02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
52.52
18.3
2.19E-01
1.03C 02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
123.98
24.3
1.58E-01
3-25E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
168.38
15.7
1.40E-01
2.86E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
215.57
23.5
1.14E-01
2.64E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
291.56
23.0
8.31 E-02
3.Q3C 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
339.32
46.4
1.3QC 03
7.4SC 0A
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1 Chamber air background sample prior to application of the paint to the substrate
b Values with strike through are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL), but above the method detection limit
(MDL)
c BDL = Below the method detection limit
26

-------
Table 5-9. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3) in Small Chamber Test LVT6 with Paint LVD Applied to Glass
Elapsed
Time (hr)
Sample
Vol. (L)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propanal
BDLC
Benzaldehyde
BDL
Pentanal
Hexanal
-0.923
13.7
5.05E 03b
1.9DE 03
BDL
BDL
1.14
20.0
3.15E+00
1.13E-01
2.00E 03
3.13E-02
BDL
BDL
3.79
27.1
9.57E-01
3.01 E-02
BDL
1.46E-02
BDL
BDL
26.30
64.2
1.66E-02
9.32E 04
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
49.93
75.9
1.06E-02
5.10E 04
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
193.93
144.6
2.03E-03
3.15E 04-
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1 Chamber air background sample prior to application of the paint to the substrate
b Values with strike through are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL), but above the method detection limit
(MDL)
c BDL = Below the method detection limit
27

-------
Table 5-10. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m5) in Small Chamber Test LVT7 with Paint LVD Applied to Gypsum
Wallboard
Elapsed
Time (h)
-1.41'
Sample
Vol. (L)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propanal
Benzaldehyde
Pentanal
Hexanal
39.7
6.10E-03
2.70C 03b-
BDLC
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.40
3.8
1.01E+00
3.40E-01
BDL
3.64C 02
BDL
BDL
1.01
3.6
8.16E-01
3.32E-01
BDL
3.09E 02
BDL
BDL
1.65
3.8
5.97E-01
2.60E-01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2.74
2.9
3.93E-01
1.63E-01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
3.91
2.8
2.97E-01
1.15E-01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
4.92
5.2
2.41E-01
6.42E-02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
6.12
5.8
2.01E-01
3.88E-02
BDL
BDL
BDL
. BDL
11.78
12.0
1.35E-01
8.76C-03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
21.38
11.6
1.00E-01
6.9QC-03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
28.26
20.9
9.17E-02
2.60C 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
51.52
22.1
6.62E-02
2.81E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
69.43
22.4
5.21E-02
8.57E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
170.07
45.7
3.00E-02
2.32E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
217.72
23.4
2.47E-02
3.48E-03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
315.80
22.8
1.74E-02
2.D6E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
385.83
51.5
1.28E-02
2.00E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1 Chamber air background sample prior to application of the paint to the substrate
" Values with strike through are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL), but above the method detection limit
(MDL)
c BDL = Below the method detection limit
28

-------
Table 5-11. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3) in Small Chamber Test LVT8 with Paint LVF Applied to Glass
Elapsed
Time (h)
Sample
Vol. (L)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propana!
Benzaldehyde
Pentanal
Hexanal
-1.41
24.1
2.95E 03 b-
2.D7E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1.12
19.1
1.26E-02
1.53E-02
BDL
3.58E-02
BDL
BDL
3.90
32.8
6.03E 03
7.97E-03
1.61 E 03
2.13E-02
BDL
BDL
8.83
60.0
2.46C 03
1.16C 03
BDL
7.71E-03
BDL
BDL
24.24
48.3
2.33E 03
8.13E 04
BDL
2.14E 03
BDL
BDL
48.70
46.2
2.21 C 03
2.ISC 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
146.15
45.6
2.08E 03
3.27E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
193.80
23.6
2.81E-03
1.58E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1 Chamber air background sample prior to application of the paint to the substrate
b Values with strike through arc below Ihe practical quantitation limit (PQL), but above the method detection limit
(MDL)
BDL = Below the method detection limit
29

-------
Table 5-12. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3) in Small Chamber Test LVT9 with Paint LVC Applied to Gypsum
Wallboard
Elapsed
Time (h)
Sample
Vol. (L)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propanal
Benzaldehyde
Pentana!
Hexanal
-19.483
27.9
3.62E 03"
3.72E 03
BDLC
BDL
BDL
BDL
-1.49
26.3
6:81 E 03
4.60E03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.41
3.5
2.95E+00
4:04E 02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.93
4.3
2.16E+00
3.33E	02	
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2.74
7.7
1.15E+00
1.40E 02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
4.29
9.9
8.89E-01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
5.10
6.4
7.86E-01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
7.42
10.4
6.02E-01
1.17E 02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
11.69
15.4
4.53E-01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
22.66
30.4
2.66E-01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
28.99
19.5
2.41 E-01
2.Q4C 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
47.77
24.1
1.72E-01
2.88E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
120.42
25.7
5.96E-02
4.84E 03
2.8IE 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
172.45
23.7
3.92E-02
4.54E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
342.69
23.1
1.51E-02
4.93C 03
BDL
BDL
4.34C 03
BDL
1 Chamber air background sample prior to application of the paint to the substrate
b Values with strike through are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL), but above the method detection limit
(MDL)
c BDL = Below the method detection limit
30

-------
Table 5-13. Aldehyde Emissions (mg/m3) in Small Chamber Test LVT10 with Paint LVB Applied to Gypsum
Wallboard
Elapsed
Time (h)
Sample
Vol. (L)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propanal
Benzaldehyde
Pentanal
Hexanal
-0.883
13.8
6.Q5E 03b-
BDLC
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.46
4.4
3.11E+00
2.33E 02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1.03
4.4
2.11E+00
2.75E 02
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
2.65
13,7
1.19E+00
9.84E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
6.10
13.3
7.10E-01
1.30C 02
7.30C 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
11.66
12.4
4.50E-01
8.54C 03
6.27C 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
24.74
21.0
2.65E-01
6.15E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
29.89
11.2
2.49E-01
7.53E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
47.55
27.1
1.59E-01
5.23E 03
BDL
BDL
2.80C 03
BDL
72.09
23.8
1.18E-01
6.36E 03
3.04E 03
BDL
3.26E 03
BDL
169.77
22.8
3.90E-02
3.68E 03
5.87E 03
BDL
4.84E 03
BDL
265.26
23.0
2.18E-02
2.Q5E 03
BDL
BDL
3.1 IE 03
BDL
313.51
31.2
1.67E-02
2.67E 03
BDL
BDL
3.17E 03
BDL
362.16
33.2
1.39E-02
1.85E 03
BDL
BDL
3.07E 03
BDL
' Chamber air background sample prior lo application of the paint to the substrate
b Values with strike through are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL), but above the method detection limit
(MDL)
c BDL = Below the method detection limit
Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were detected in the emissions from all paints tested in the
project. However, the levels were quite low, except for paints LVA, LVB, LVC and LVD. It should be
noted that the values in the tables presented with a "strike through" are concentrations that are below the
practical quantitation limit (PQL) of the method, but above the minimum detection limit (MDL). The
practical quantitation limit is defined based on the lowest level calibration standard and the volume of
sample collected on the sorbent media. For a sample volume of 30 liters, the practical quantitation limit
would be 0.007 mg/m3. The PQL varies based on the volume of the sample; the smaller the sample
volume, the higher the PQL. BDL in the table indicates that the compound was below the minimum
detection limit (MDL), which was determined by analysis of seven low level standards, and is three times
the standard deviation of the analyses of the replicates. The MDL was approximately 0.0007 mg/m3 for a
30 L sample.
31

-------
Propanal and benzaldehyde were measured in some of the samples of emissions from the paints,
but were rarely above the PQL. Pentanal was detected only in paint LVB, but all concentrations were
below the PQL. Hexanal was not detected in the emissions from any of the paints. The aldehydes that
were detected can be summarized for each paint as follows:
•	Paint LVA, LVB, LVC (paints from manufacturer number 1) - elevated formaldehyde levels and
detectable acetaldehyde concentrations in the emissions; propanal and pentanal detected in some
samples, but always below the PQL
•	Paint LVD from manufacturer 2 - elevated formaldehyde concentrations in the emissions;
acetaldehyde concentrations above the PQL immediately following application; propanal and
benzaldehyde detected in some samples at low levels
•	Paint LVE from manufacturer 3 - low levels of formaldehyde detected; acetaldehyde detected but not
above PQL
•	Paint LVF from manufacturer 3 - low levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde detected but near or
below the PQL
•	Paint LVG from manufacturer 4 - low levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde detected immediately
after application, but otherwise the concentrations were below the PQL
The emissions of formaldehyde from the paints supplied by manufacturer number 1, presented
above in Tables 5-7, 5-8, 5-12 and 5-13, are depicted in Figure 5-1. The figure compares the emissions
for the three types of paints during the first 50 hours following application. The highest concentrations
of formaldehyde emissions were measured following application of the paint LVA to glass for which the
data were presented in Table 5-7. Emissions from the paint applied to glass were higher than in the
subsequent test with application to gypsum board (for which the data were presented in Table 5-8)
throughout the first 50 hours of the two tests despite the fact that nearly 50% more paint was applied to
the gypsum wallboard (Table 5-4). As will be described below, the total mass of formaldehyde emitted
during the first hours after application of glass was substantially higher than that for the same paint
applied to gypsum wallboard. The peak concentration of 2.18 mg/m3 was measured in the sample
collected 0.5 hour after application and was substantially lower than the peak concentration of 5.53
mg/m3 measured at 1 hour when the paint was applied to glass. As shown in Figure 5-1, the emissions of
formaldehyde peaked soon after application and exhibited a decay profile typical of volatile organic
compounds in wet products.
32

-------
6
LVB - gypsum
LVC - gypsum
LVA - glass
LVA - gypsum
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Elapsed Time (h)
Figure 5-1. Comparison of Formaldehyde Emissions from Three Paints Supplied by Manufacturer No. 1
After determining that paint LVA emitted elevated concentrations of formaldehyde, the
manufacturer was contacted to discuss the results of the tests and the possible source of the formaldehyde
in the paint. The manufacturer discussed the results with the formulators of the paint and determined that
the biocide used in the paint contained approximately 5% formaldehyde. Based on the amount of biocide
used, the manufacturer estimated that the resulting formaldehyde concentration in the paint would be
approximately 5 ppm. The manufacturer expressed concern that the paint contained formaldehyde and
that the product, as formulated, was not meeting their objectives as a "non-polluting" product. The
manufacturer indicated that they would identify a biocide that did not contain formaldehyde and that the
product would be rc-formulated. Following re-formulation, the manufacturer provided a new sample of
the "no-VOC" paint for testing. At our request, they also provided a sample of paint LVA that was
reported to not contain any biocide. The paints were respectively identified as LVC (re-formulated with
new biocide) and LVB (LVA with no biocide). Upon receipt of the paints, small chamber tests were
performed with application of the paints to gypsum wallboard. The results of the small chamber tests,
presented in Tables 5-12 and 5-13, are also depicted in Figure 5-1. As the data show, there was not a
substantial difference in the emissions from LVA, LVB, or LVC when applied to gypsum wallboard.
33

-------
The peak concentrations of formaldehyde in the emissions were 2.18, 2.95 and 3.11 mg/m3 in the three
tests, with the highest concentrations measured in the test with the paint re-formulated with the new
biocide. As shown in Figure 5-1, the emissions profiles were nearly identical for the three tests. It
should be noted that background air samples were collected from the small chamber containing the
gypsum wallboard substrate prior to each test. The concentrations of formaldehyde were detectable, but
always below the PQL and were two to three orders of magnitude lower than the formaldehyde
concentrations following application of the paint to the substrate. Therefore, the source of the
formaldehyde does not appear to be the substrate, but rather the paint. The source of the formaldehyde in
the paint has not been identified. Additional analyses of the formulation and of the bulk product would
be required to determine the source.
Acetaldehyde was detected in the emissions from paint LVA. The concentrations measured in
the small chamber tests peaked at 0.5 mg/m3 and dropped below the PQL 52 hours after application of
the paint. Acetaldehyde was also detected in tests with LVB and LVC, but the concentrations were
substantially lower, being below the PQL in all samples. The reason for the differences in acetaldehyde
concentrations in the three paints is not known. Acetaldehyde was not listed on the material safety data
sheet (MSDS) for the biocides used in paint LVA or LVC. Although the manufacturer advised us that
the only change in the formulation for LVC was to replace the biocide, the re-formulation may have
affected the acetaldehyde levels in the paint.
The other paint that had elevated levels of formaldehyde in the emissions was LVD. The results
of the small chamber tests are presented in Tables 5-9 and 5-10. Figure 5-2 depicts the results,
comparing small chamber emission concentrations for LVD on glass and gypsum with the concentrations
for LVA applied to gypsum wallboard. When applied to glass, the peak concentration of formaldehyde
in the small chamber test with paint LVD was 3.15 mg/m3. Because this was the initial scouting test,
only four samples were collected during the first 50 hours of the test. As shown in Figure 5-2, the
concentration dropped rapidly between the 1.1 and 3.8 hour samples. As a follow-up to the test on glass,
a small chamber test was performed with paint LVD applied to gypsum wallboard (Table 5-10). The
peak concentration was 1.01 mg/m3 and occurred at 0.4 hours after application. The concentrations
dropped below 0.1 mg/m3 within the first 24 hours following the application (Figure 5-2).
Concentrations of formaldehyde in the emissions during the first 50 hours of the test with LVD were
substantially lower than during the test with LVA on gypsum wallboard, as shown in the figure.
34

-------
3.5
- *7-
LVA - gypsum
LVD - glass
—H—
LVD - gypsum
V
0.5
77
10
20
30
40
50
0
Eiapsed Time (h)
Figure 5-2. Comparison of Formaldehyde Emissions from Paints LVA and LVD in Small Chamber Tests
Acctaldehyde was also measured in the emissions from paint LVD applied to either glass or
gypsum wailboard. The peak concentration was 0.34 mg/m3 at 0.4 hours following application of LVD
to gypsum wailboard, but the concentration dropped quickly to below the PQL. The acetaldehyde
concentrations for LVD (Table 5-10) were slightly lower than those for LVA (Table 5-8) in the small
chamber emissions tests, but dropped more quickly than in the tests with LVA. It should also be noted
that the amount of paint applied in test LVT5 with paint LVA was 3.26 grams compared to 2.88 grams of
LVD in test LVT7.
The source of the aldehydes in paint LVD was not investigated. The manufacturer of the paint
was not contacted.
In order to compare the emissions of formaldehyde from the different paints, the mass of
formaldehyde emitted was estimated for the first 50 hours and also for the duration of the test by
calculating the amount emitted based on the area under the time/concentration curve and the chamber air
exchange rate. Results of these estimates are presented in Figures 5-3 and 5-4 and summarized in Table
5-14. The 50 hour period for integrating the mass emissions was selected because test LVT4 was only 50
35

-------
Glass
o 0.3
Glass
Gypsum	¦
Gypsum Gypsum
I II I
Gypsum
BQL BQL BQL
-i-H	1	j-
LVA	LVA LVB LVC LVD LVD LVE	LVF LVG
Paint Code
Figure 5-3. Comparison of the Mass of Formaldehyde Emitted per Gram of Paint for the First 50 Hours of Each
Small Chamber Test
Figure 5-4. Mass of Formaldehyde Emitted from the Paints over the Duration of the Small Chamber Tests
(LVA-1 = 50 hr; LVA-2, LVB and LVC = 14 days; LVD-1 = 7 Days; LVD-2 = 16 Days)
36

-------
Table 5-14. Summary of the Formaldehyde Mass Emitted in the Small Chamber Emissions Tests

LVT1
LVT2
LVT3
LVT4
LVT5
Paint tested
LVA
LVG
LVE
LVA
LVA
Substrate
Glass
Glass
Glass
Glass
Gypsum
Paint applied (g)
NCa
1.76
4.45
1.97
3.26
HCHO emitted per gram of
paint (mg/g) first fifty hours
NC
BQLb
BQL
0.5102
0.1830
HCHO emitted per gram of
paint (mg/g) for entire test
NC
BQL
BQL
0.5102
0.4720

LVT6
LVT7
LVT8
LVT9
LVT10
Paint tested
LVD
LVD
LVF
LVC
LVB
Substrate
Glass
Gypsum
Glass
Gypsum
Gypsum
Paint applied (g)
1.88
2.88
1.87
3.43
3.54
HCHO emitted per gram of
paint (mg/g) first fifty hours
0.2611
0.0642
BQL
0.1549
0.1570
HCHO emitted per gram of
paint (mg/g) for entire test
0.2739
0.1492
BQL
0.2731
0.2739
1 Not calculated because concentrations exceeded method upper limits
b Concentrations in emissions samples were below the quantitation limit in many of samples
hours in duration. In the tests with paint applied to glass, the mass of formaldehyde emitted was 0.510
mg/g of paint forLVA and 0.261 mg/g for LVD. When the paints were applied to gypsum wallboard,
LVA emitted 0.183 mg/g during the first 50 hours. During the first 50 hours following application of
LVD to gypsum, the emissions of formaldehyde were 0.064 mg/g, approximately one-third that of LVA
The data show that emissions were substantially lower from the paint LVD. Although manufacturer
number 1 advised us that paint LVC was a paint re-formulated with a biocide that did not contain
formaldehyde, the emissions of formaldehyde from LVC (0.155 mg HCHO per gram of paint) were not
substantially different from LVA (0.183 mg HCHO per gram of paint) for the first 50 hours of the test.
LVB, which was reported to be paint LVA without any biocide emitted 0.157 mg HCHO per gram of
paint, nearly identical to LVC.
When the mass of formaldehyde emitted for the total duration of the test was compared, the
differences were larger between the three paints from manufacturer number 1, as shown in Figure 5-4.
37

-------
The 0.472 mg of HCIIO per gram of paint emitted from paint LVA over the 14-day test was nearly twice
as high as that for the re-formulated paint LVC and paint LVB, which reportedly contained no biocide.
The mass of HCHO emitted per gram of paint LVA was three times higher than that for LVD over the
16-day test. The masses of HCHO emitted from the paints from manufacturers 3 and 4 were not
calculated because most of the chamber concentrations were below the PQL.
5.5 VOC EMISSIONS FROM PAINTS IN SMALL CHAMBER TESTS
Small chamber tests were performed to measure emissions of VOCs from the low-odor/low-VOC
paints from the four different paint manufacturers. Tests were performed with paints LVC, LVD, LVE
and LVG, all of which were latex flat paints. The emissions were not measured from paint LVF, the only
semi-gloss paint used in the study. The tests involved application of the paint on a glass substrate. Tests
were 48 hours in duration. Air samples were collected on Tenax during each small chamber test and
analyzed with the HP5890 GC/FID/MS to quantify the target VOCs [ethylene glycol, propylene glycol,
dipropylene glycol, BEE and Texanol], Chromatograms were also reviewed to identify non-target VOCs
in the emission. Computerized mass spectra matching software was used for tentative identification of
compounds not targeted for quantitation.
The test conditions and paint application data for the Five tests performed to measure VOC
emissions from the paints are summarized in Table 5-15.
The First test performed to measure VOC emissions was identiFied as test LVT11. It was a test to
measure emissions of VOCs from paint LVG. After the test was started, it was determined that the
concentrations of VOCs in the emissions greatly exceeded the expected emissions and that the air
volumes collected on Tenax were too large. As a result, the mass of VOCs in the samples exceeded the
highest calibration standard for the instrument. Although analyses were performed with a FID detector
which has a wide linear range, the accuracy of the measurements can not be determined. Therefore, the
test was repeated. The results of test LVT11 are not included in the data base of the study, but have been
included in Appendix A to the report because the results are in good agreement with those from the
second test with paint LVG.
38

-------
Table 5-15. Description of Small Chamber Tests to Measure VOC Emissions

LVT11
LVT12
LVT13
LVT14
LVT15
Paint Tested
LVG
LVD
LVE
LVC
LVG
Test Start Date
11/17/98
11/17/98
11/18/98
11/23/98
11/23/98
Test Duration (day)
2
2
2
2
2
Substrate Type
glass
glass
glass
glass
glass
Substrate Size (cm)
16 x 16
16 x 16
16x16
16 x 16
16 x 16
Coated Area (cm2)
256
256
256
256
256
Paint Applied (g)
2.96
2.35
2.87
3.14
3.35
Application Method
roller
roller
roller
roller
roller
Air Exchange Rate (h"')a
0.52
0.51
0.52
0.50
0.49
Air Velocity (cm/s)b
10
10
10
10
10
Temperature (°C)C
24.3±0.07
24.2±0.08
24.2±0.15
24.4±0.08
24.4±0.03
RH (%)c
51 ± 1.9
48±3.0
43±8.1
51 ±0.9
51 ±0.9
1 Average of starting and ending air exchange rates
b Nominal air velocity 1 cm above substrate surface
c Average ± standard deviations during the test period
39

-------
5.5.1	VOC Emissions from Paint LVC (Manufacturer Number 1)
Paint LVC was the re-formulated paint supplied by the smaller, independent, paint manufacturer
who supplied paint LVA for the initial tests. Emissions measurements are listed in Table 5-16 and
depicted in Figure 5-5. Ethylene glycol was the most abundant VOC in the emissions, with a peak
concentration of 0.6 mg/m3 at four hours after application to the glass substrate. Concentrations of the
other VOCs targeted for quantitation were substantially lower and also peaked four hours after
application. All five VOCs were measured at levels above the PQL throughout the 48 hour test.
5.5.2	VOC Emissions from Paint LVD (Manufacturer Number 2)
Concentrations of VOCs measured in the emissions following application of paint LVD on glass
arc presented in Table 5-17 and depicted in Figure 5-6. The predominant VOC in the emissions from this
paint was BEE, which peaked at 0.215 mg/m3 six hours after the application. The second most abundant
VOC in the emissions was Texanol. Concentrations of the VOCs in the emissions were slightly lower
than in the emissions from paint LVC. Propylene glycol concentrations were below the PQL in most
samples.
5.5.3	VOC Emissions from Paint LVE (Manufacturer Number 3)
Concentrations of VOCs measured in the emissions following application of paint LVE are
presented in Table 5-18 and depicted in Figure 5-7. The predominant VOC in the emissions from this
paint was ethylene glycol, which peaked at 0.974 mg/m3 four hours after the application. The second
most abundant VOC in the emissions was propylene glycol, which peaked at 0.536 mg/m3 at four hours.
BEE, dipropylene glycol, and Texanol were detected at low levels.
5.5.4	VOC Emissions from Paint LVG (Manufacturer Number 4)
Concentrations of VOCs measured in the emissions following application of paint LVG are
presented in Table 5-19 and depicted in Figure 5-8. The predominant VOC in the emissions from this
paint was BEE, consistent with the fact that this was the most abundant compound measured in the bulk
paint. Ethylene glycol and dipropylene glycol, compounds also measurable in the paint, were the second
and third most abundant VOCs in the emissions. BEE and ethylene glycol peaked six hours after paint
application at 4.63 and 4.29 mg/m3, respectively. Texanol concentrations were below the PQL
throughout the test, consistent with the low concentration measured in the bulk paint.
40

-------
Table 5-16. VOC Concentrations (mg/m3) in Emissions During the Small Chamber Test LVT14 with Paint LVC on
Glass
Elapsed
Time (hr)
Sampling
Vol. (L)
Propylene
Glycol
Ethylene
Glycol
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
ethanol
Dipropylene
Glycol
Texanol
-1.12®
8.50
3.26E 03b-
1.32C 03
7.67E 03
4.73E 03
1.93E 03
-1.12C
8.18
2.76E 03
1.53C 03
8.32E 03
3.21E 03
1.53E 03
0.62
8.34
2.36E-02
2.79E-02
7.18E-02
3.05E-02
3.49E-02
2.18
8.09
3.35E-02
5.66E-02
4.18E-02
4.88E-02
4.42E-02
2.18
7.78
3.18E-02
4.47E-02
4.94E-02
6.69E-02
6.32E-02
4.10
8.06
5.44E-02
5.02E-01
1.80E-01
1.34E-01
5.63E-02
4.10
7.76
5.48E-02
6.93E-01
1.81E-01
1.51E-01
5.75E-02
6.10
7.74
4.30E-02
4.99E-01
1.27E-01
8.77E-02
2.47E-02
8.10
8.03
3.00E-02
3.91E-01
1.13E-01
1.27E-02
5.20E-02
10.14
8.17
4.38E-02
3.48E-01
1.08E-01
6.41 E-02
4.28E-02
12.04
8.14
2.15E-02
2.99E-01
1.08E-01
7.59E-02
4.84E-02
12.04
7.84
2.30E-02
3.03E-01
1.10E-01
6.45E-02
4.21 E-02
17.41
7.02
2.25E-02
2.09E-01
9.61E-02
9.17E-02
3.77E-02
24.08
8.10
2.53E-02
1.10E-01
7.53E-02
6.20E-02
2.83E-02
24.08
7.78
1.80E-02
1.25E-01
7.47E-02
4.87E-02
2.66E-02
32.13
8.23
2.68E-02
6.18E-02
6.17E-02
6.54E-02
2.12E-02
48.03
8.60
1.72E-02
2.70E-02
4.27E-02
4.94E-02
1.35E-02
48.00
7.82
1.64E-02
3.47E-02
4.85E-02
4.70E-02
1.39E-02
1 Chamber background sample collected prior to scan of test
b Values with strike through are below the practical quantification limit of the method
c Samples collected at the same time period arc duplicates
41

-------
Elapsed Time (h)
Figure 5-5. Concentrations of VOCs Measured in Emissions from Paint LVC Applied to Glass (Test LVT14)
42

-------
Table 5-17. VOC Concentrations (mg/m3) in Emissions During the Small Chamber Test LVT12 with Paint LVD on
Glass
Elapsed
Time, (hr)
Sampling
Vol. (L)
Propylene
Glycol
Ethylene
Glycol
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
ethanol
Dipropylene
Glycol
Texanol
-2.85ab
7.84
2.11E 04c
1.-60E-03"
2.60C 03
2.80C 04
8.Q3E 04
-2.85
7.70
2.04C 04
1.00E 03
4.71C 03
1.71 [ 03
3.11C 03
0.69
8.09
2.QQE03
1.18E 02
5.43E-02
1.15E-02
6.98E-02
2.17
7.83
2.90E-03
1.63E-02
1.81E-01
1.78E-02
8.63E-02
2.17
7.68
3.10C-03
2.41E-02
1.81E-01
1.83E-02
9.35E-02
4.07
7.77
2.34E-02
7.72E-02
2.12E-01
2.06E-02
9.13E-02
4.07
7.83
1.50E-02
6.06E-02
2.11E-01
1.70E-02
7.62E-02
6.04
7.77
1.79E-02
7.26E-02
2.15E-01
2.06E-02
7.54E-02
7.95
7.78
1.29E-02
6.13E-02
1.59E-01
1.72E-02
5.47E-02
10.05
8.04
Q.27E 03
4.54E-02
2.14E-01
7.77E-02
1.41E-01
12.12
7.83
Q.72C 03
5.08E-02
1.35E+O0*
9.36E-0?*
5.68E-02
12.12
7.95
8.S8E 03
4.57E-02
1.40E-01
1.99E-02
5.85E-02
16.90
4.61
Q.84E 03
5.62E-02
1.56E-01
7.82E-01
3.91E-02
23.97
8.15
4.72E 03
1.81E-02
8.03E-02
1.16E-02
2.77E-02
23.97
8.21
4.64[ 03
1.75E-02
8.32E-02
1.29E-02
2.83E-02
32.29
7.73
4.1QC 03
1.31E-02
6.31E-02
1.49E-02
2.24E-02
48.05
7.75
4.8SE 03
4.50E 03
3.28E-02
Q.7SE 03
1.45E-02
48.05
7.61
2.80E 03
3.80E 03
3.32E-02
2.61 E 03
1.21E-02
1 Chamber background sample collected prior Co start of test
b Samples collected at the same time period are duplicates
c Values with strike through are below the practical quantification limit of the method
" Values in italics arc flagged because the concentration was above highest calibration level
e Measurement results for BEE and dipropylene glycol in this sample are inconsistent with other data, but source of
error could not be determined.
43

-------
tofl
£
e
_o
i
C
(J
a
a
o
U
0.25
0.2 --
0.15
0.1 --
0.05
0
0
10 20 30
Elapsed Time (h)
40
PG
EG
BEE
DPG
Tex
50
Figure 5-6. Concentrations of VOCs Measured in Emissions from Paint LVD Applied to Glass (Test LVT12)
44

-------
Table 5-1B. VOC Concentrations (mg/m3) in Emissions During the Small Chamber Test LVT13 with Paint LVE on
Glass
Elapsed
Time (hr)
Sampling
Vol. (L)
Propylene
Glycol
Ethylene
Glycol
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
ethanol
Dipropylene
Glycol
Texanol
-urb
7.73
3.07E 03r
4:63 E 63-
2.1 IE 03

1.44E-03
-1.11
7.85
1.22E 03
2.00E 03
1.38E 03
1.76E 03
8.79E 04
0.46
5.76
3.77E-02
3.81E-01
3.66E 03
1.Q1E 02
1.18E 02
2.76
7.65
1.87E-01
4.40E-01"
2.72C 03
1.12E 02
2.09E-02
2.76
7.65
1.72E-01
4.22E-01
2.0IE 03
2.30E-02
1.74E-02
3.99
7.91
4,86E-01
8.64E-01
6.53E 03
1.37E-02
2.56E-02
3.99
7.91
5.36E-01
1.08E+00
6.S6E03
6.67E 03
2.35E-02
6.11
7.89
2.10E-01
5.94E-01
1.62E-02
2.18E-02
3.24E-02
8.06'
7.63
3.67C 03
1.24C 02
5.73E-02
1.12C02
1.97E-02
10.06
7.59
1.45E-01
4.35E-01
1.29E-02
7.20E-02
2.01 E-02
12.02
7.72
1.17E-01
3.72E-01
6.80E 03
7.55E-02
1.72E-02
12.02!
NSe
NSe
NSe
NSe
NSe
NSe
17.90
6,46
8.05E-02
3.02E-01
4.66E 031
8.72E-02
1.56E-02
24.06
7.62
4.52E-02
2.04E-01
3.63E-03-
7.99E-02
1.14E02
24.06
7.62
4.31E-02
2.04E-01
5.1 DC 03
8.45E-02
1.29E-02
30.59
7.77
1.64E-02
9.30E-02
1.85E 03
4.58E-02
5.84E03
48.06
8.28
8.07E 03
6.12E-02
2.68E 03
6.60E-02
8^?E-03-
48.06
7.98
7.5IE 03
5.36E-02
2.56E 03
5.77E-02
1.221 03
" Chamber background sample collected prior to start of test
"Samples collected at the same time period are duplicates
c Values with strike through are below the practical quantification limit of the method
d Values in italics are flagged because the concentration was above highest calibration level
c No sample; sample lost during collection due to air flow problem
45

-------
0	10	20	30	40	50
Elapsed Time (h)
Figure 5-7. Concentrations of VOCs Measured in Emissions from Paint LVE Applied to Glass (Test LVT13)
46

-------
Table 5-19. VOC Concentrations (mg/m3) in Emissions During the Small Chamber Test LVT15 with Paint LVG on
Glass
Elapsed
Time (hr)
Sampling
Vol. (L)
Propylene
Glycol
Ethylene
Glycol
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
ethanol
Dipropylene
Glycol
Texanol
-1.55ab
8.18
2.75E03'
8.43E 04
4:37E 03-
7.87E03
2.6QC-031
-1.55
8.25
2.58E 03-
1.04C 03
8.73E 04
213 5 IE 03
1.58SI 03
0.53
2.85
n 7cc rp
6.07E-02
2.12E-01

1 pr
L. 1 JZ. \JL
Z. TOL UZ
2.01
1.02
2.08E 02
2.78E 02
8.23E-01
4.71E 02
4.84E 02
2.01
1.01
2.03E 02
2.78E 02
9.88E-01
2.77C 02
3.81E 02
4.00
0.71
1.59E-01
4.31E-01
3.09E+00
2.66E-01
7.08E 02
4.00
0.70
1.50E-01
3.46E-01
3.13E+00
1.44E-01
3.07C 02
6.09
0.50
6.72E-01
4.29E-i-00
4.63E+00
1.01 E+00
4.32E 02
8.21
0.50
5.37E-01
3.84E+00
4.54E+00
1.08E+00
3.10E 02
9.92
0.50
4.16E-01
3.26E+00
4.21E+00
1.10E+00
3.55C 02
12.07
0.50
4.15E-01
2.88E+00
4.17E+00
1.30E+00
8.04C 02
12.13
0.50
3.30E-01
2.81 E+00
4.37E+00
1.19E+00
3.05E 02
21.98
1.10
1.03E-01
1.13E+00
2.20E+00
7.59E-01
1.6QC 02
21.98
1.09
1.30E-01
1.40E+00
2.72E+00
9.46E-01
2.57E 02
24.08
0.50
1.70E 01
1.16E+00
2.64E+00
1.97E+OOd
9.52E-01
24.13
0.50
1.5SE 01
1.34E+00
2.42E+00
9.67E-01
1.56C 01
32.28
0.50
5.93E 02
5.58E-01
1.97E+00
8.69E-01
4.05C 02
48.22
0.50
4.38E 02
2.13E-01
1.22E+00
6.68E-01
2.83C 02
48.22
0.50
5.78E-02
2.21E-01
1.17E+00
6.73E-01
5.3411 02
' Chamber background sample collected prior to start of test
b Samples collected at the same time period are duplicates
c Values with strike through are below the practical quantification limit of the method
d Measurement result for dipropylene glycol in this sample is inconsistent with other data, but source of error could
not be determined.
47

-------
5 T
to
B
c
o
•
w
rt
i-i
4—>
a
(U
o
e
o
U
PG
EG
BEE
DPG
Tex
20	30
Elapsed Time (h)
Figure 5-8. Concentrations of VOCs Measured in Emissions from Paint LVG Applied to Glass (Test LVT15)
48

-------
As discussed in the introduction to Section 5.5, the first test to measure VOC concentrations was
LVT11 with paint LVG. However, the mass of VOCs in the emissions exceeded the predicted amount.
As a result, the mass of the VOCs on the Tenax tubes exceeded the highest calibration point for the GC.
Therefore, the test was repeated as LVT15, which is reported here. The data for test LVT11 agree
remarkably well with the results for LVT11 and are included in Appendix A.
5.5.5 Estimated Mass of VOCs Emitted From the Paints
The measurements of VOC concentrations in Tenax samples collected during each small chamber
test, in conjunction with the air flow rate through the chamber, can be used to estimate the mass of each
VOC emitted during the test. The total mass (nig) of each VOC emitted during the 48 hours of the test
was calculated as:
Amount emitted (mg) = Ac * Q
where A; = the area under the time/concentration curve (mg/m"3h) and Q = the chamber air flow rate
(nVh'1). The amount of mass of each VOC that was applied to the glass plate used as the test substrate
was calculated based on the total mass of paint (g) applied to the plate, determined gravimetrically at the
start of the test and the concentration (mg/g) of the VOC in the bulk paint, determined by GC analysis.
The mass applied, estimated mass emitted and the calculated recovery of the applied mass are presented in
Table 5-20. The % recovery could not be calculated for propylene glycol or Texanol in paint LVC
because the concentrations of the VOCs in the bulk paint were below the method detection limit. The
concentrations of ethylene glycol, BEE and dipropylene glycol were above the MDL, but below the PQL
in paint LVC. The recoveries for these compounds ranged from 65 to 118% of the applied VOC mass.
For paint LVD, the % of the applied mass recovered in the emissions ranged from 8 to 79%. It is
not clear why there was such a large variation in the calculated recoveries. However, the concentrations
of the five target VOCs in the bulk paint LVD were below the method PQL. Twelve of the 16 emissions
samples had propylene glycol concentrations below the PQL. The low concentrations of the compounds
in the paint may affect the accuracy of the calculations because the analytical error is expected to be larger
at the low concentrations.
For paint LVE, the recovery could be calculated only for dipropylene glycol because the
concentrations of the other compounds were below the detection limit for the method used to measure the
VOCs in the bulk paint. However, as indicated by the data in the table, although the VOCs could not be
measured in the paint, they could be measured in the emissions.
49

-------
Table 5-20. Percent of Applied VOC Mass Collected in the Emissions During 48-hour Small Chamber Tests
Paint

Propylene Glycol
Ethylene
Glycol
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
ethanol
Dipropylene
Glycol
Texanol
LVC
Applied (mg)
NAS
0.1794b
0.1571b
0.0828b
NA

Emitted (mg)
0.0332
0.2111
0.1016
0.0827
0.0381

% Emitted
NA
118
65
100
NA
LVD
Applied (mg)
0.0620"
0.1001b
0.2538°
0.2698"
0.0670b

Emitted (mg)
0.0090'
0.0367
0.1354
0.0219
0.0530

% Emitted
14
37
53
8
79
LVE
Applied (mg)
NAa
NA
NA
0.4018
NA

Emitted (mg)
0.1042
0.3362
0.0065
0.0764
0.0173

% Emitted
N/A
N/A
N/A
19
N/A
LVG
Applied (mg)
0.2961b
1.9835
5.0421
2.7152
0.1722b

Emitted (mg)
0.2262
1.6756
3.2228
1.1354
0.0675

% Emitted
76
84
64
42
39
1 NA: mass in the paint was below detection limit
* Concentration in the paint was below PQL but above the MDL
c The concentration was below the PQL in 12 of 16 emissions samples during the test
50

-------
Paint LVG had the highest levels of VOCs in the bulk paint. The concentrations of ethylene
glycol, BEE and dipropylene glycol in the paint were measurable above the method PQL. During the
chamber test with LVG, the concentrations in the Tenax samples were almost all above the PQL for these
three compounds. The recoveries of the applied VOCs in the samples of emissions collected during the 2-
day test ranged from 39 to 84%.
In previous tests with a conventional latex paint, Chang et al. (1997) reported greater than 89%
recovery of the VOCs in paint applied to a stainless steel substrate during a 336-hour test period. In this
study, the test duration was only 48 hours and the concentrations of the VOCs in the paints and the
emissions were low compared those in the previous study with the conventional latex paint. Therefore,
the estimates of VOC mass recovered in the emissions do not appear to be useful for evaluating the data.
5.5.6 Comparison to Measurements of Emissions from a "Conventional" Latex Paint
In a previous study of the emissions of VOCs from latex paints (Guo et al., 1996), the target
VOCs were measured in emissions from a conventional paint from manufacturer number 4. The ethylene
glycol content in the conventional paint was 24 mg/g compared to 0.59 mg/g in the low-VOC from the
same manufacturer that was tested in this study. The BEE concentration in the conventional paint was
4.98 mg/g compared to 1.51 mg/g in the low-VOC paint. The concentrations of the target VOCs in the
emissions from the conventional latex paint are depicted in Figure 5-9. The data can be compared to
Figure 5-8, which depicts the emissions for the low-VOC paint from the same manufacturer. In the test
with the conventional latex paint, 4.1 g of paint was applied to a 16 cm X 16 cm stainless steel substrate,
compared to the application of 3.35 g of the Low-VOC paint in the test described in this study. As can be
seen in the figures, the ethylene glycol concentration in emissions from the low-VOC paint peaked at 3.8
mg/mJ compared to the peak concentration of nearly 80 mg/m3 for the conventional paint, which
contained 40 times more ethylene glycol in the bulk paint. The concentrations of the other VOCs in the
emissions from the low-VOC are similarly low when compared to the conventional paint and were
consistent with the low-VOC content in the paint.
51

-------
¦Z3 40
10
20	30
Elapsed Time (h)
40
50
PG
EG
BEE
Tex
Figure 5-9. Concentrations of VOCs in Emissions Collected from a "Conventional" Paint Applied to Stainless
Steel (Data from a Previous Study)
5.5.7 Identification of Non-Target VOCs in Emissions
As described above, Five VOCs were targeted for quantification in samples of emissions collected
on Tenax. These compounds were identified in the bulk paints. Chromatograms from Tenax samples
collected during the small chamber emissions tests were reviewed to determine if there were other VOCs
present in the samples. Few non-target VOCs were identified in the samples. The volume of sample
collected on Tenax was generally less than 8 L to ensure that there was not breakthrough of the target
VOCs. Some samples were less than 8 L so that the mass collected was within the calibration range of the
instrument. If the objective were to identify more of the minor constituents in the emissions, a different
protocol, involving collection of additional, larger volume samples, would be required.
All chromatograms were reviewed to determine if there were any unknown compounds present at
high concentrations. Chromatograms for samples collected at 10 hours after paint application were
reviewed in detail and the most abundant compounds were tentatively identified. There were few
52

-------
compounds in the samples other than the target VOCs. The Hewlett Packard computerized mass spectra
matching software was used with the N1ST mass spectra library. Tentatively identified compounds are
listed in Table 5-21. Only compounds with a fairly high level of confidence are reported. Quantitation
was not performed for these compounds because the instrument was not calibrated for them. In general,
based on area counts, the concentrations of the unknowns were similar, or lower, than the latex paint
target compounds that were quantified. No additional analyses have been performed to verify the
identification.
Table 5-21. Tentatively Identified VOCs in Tenax Samples Collected During Emissions Tests
Test - Paint
Compound ID
MS % Quality
LVT14-LVC
Acetic acid
90

2-[(2-ethylhexyl)oxy]-ethanol
91
LVT12-LVD
Acetic acid
90
LVT13-LVE
Limonene
91

1 -methyl-4-(1 -methylethyl)-3-CycIohexen-1 -ol
93

Linalyl propanoate
91
LVT11 - LVG
Tridecane
94

Acetic acid
90

2, 2-oxybis-ethanol
83
5.6 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TEST RESULTS
As discussed in the previous sections, the low-VOC paints tested in this project had lower VOC
content than conventional paints. With the exception of the paints that emitted formaldehyde, the VOC
emissions were substantially lower from these paints than from conventional paints. If the low-VOC
paints are to be considered a viable alternative to conventional paints their performance should be
comparable to the conventional paints. If the paints performed poorly, reductions in VOC emissions
would be offset if walls needed to be painted more frequently.
To evaluate the performance of the paints, ASTM test methods were identified that would provide
an indication of the paints' performance. The methods that were selected were described previously in
Table 4-4.
53

-------
Results of the ASTM tests to evaluate performance are presented in Table 5-22 and summarized
as follows. Tests were performed with paints LVH and LVI, conventional latex paints, for comparison to
the four low-VOC paints. It should be noted that the formulation of paint LVA, for which performance
tests were conducted, was reported by the manufacturer to be the same as paint LVC, for which VOC
measurements were performed.
ASTM Method D523 - Specular Gloss
Method D523 measures the specular gloss of the paint. The higher the value the more light that is
reflecting off the surface. Flat paints with good uniformity of appearance often have lower sheen. Paints
with good cleanability arc often paints with higher sheen. The two paints (conventional and low-VOC)
from manufacturer number 4 had the lowest specular gloss. The paint LVA had the highest specular
gloss. Paint LVA also had good scrubbability, but its cleanability was lower than the paints from
manufacturer number 4. There was no clear trend related to the differences between low-VOC and
conventional paints. The low-VOC (LVG) and conventional (LVH) paints from manufacturer number 4
had nearly the same specular gloss measurement. But, the low-VOC paint from manufacturer number 2
had a lower specular gloss value than for the conventional paint.
ASTM Method D2805 - Hiding Power
Method D2805 measures hiding power or paint coverage. This instrumental method is used to
give a contrast ratio for film thicknesses of either 1.5 or 3.0 mils. A contrast ratio of 0.95 to 1.0 indicates
good hiding power. A ratio below 0.95 indicates poor hiding power. Based on the measurements, the
hiding power was good for all of the paints except LVA at 1.5 mils wet film thickness. Paint LVG had the
highest contrast ratio at both 1.5 and 3.0 mils and was better than the conventional paint made by the same
manufacturer.
ASTM Method D2486 - Scrubbability
This method measures the scrubbability of the paint. It is a common test used to evaluate paint
performance. The manufacturer of paint LVA advertises its product as a 2000+ scrub paint. The paint did
meet the manufacturer's claim, indicating a strong resistance to erosion of the surface by scrubbing. Paint
LVG also reached the highest level of 2000+ cycles. The scrubbability of paint LVE was poor, with only
49 cycles. LVD, the low-VOC paint from manufacturer number 2 had a higher scrubbability rating than
the conventional paint from the same manufacturer.
54

-------
Table 5-22. Results of Measurements with ASTM Performance Tests
Paint (Manufacturer)
Test
Method
LVA (1)
LVD (2)
LVI (2)
LVE (3)
LVG (4)
LVH (4)
Type of Paint (All latex flat)

No-VOC
Low-Odor
Conventional
Low-Odor
Low-Odor
Conventional
Specular Gloss (85° sheen)
523
9.4
2
5.2
4.7
1.5
1.6
Hiding Power-Contrast Ratio:
1.5 mils wet
2805
0.928
0.968
0.965
0.966
0.982
0.973
3.0 mils wet

0.961
0.987
0.979
0.982
0.998
0.987
Scrub Resistance (cycles)
2486
2000+
254
139
49
2000+
508
Cleanability (reflectance ratio)
3450
0.36
0.41
0.36
0.50
0.47
0.50
Leneta Anti-Sag (index)
4400
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
Set-to-touch (minutes)
1640
11
14
14
15.5
14
12
Yellowing Index
E313






Initial

12.67
15.78
11.89
10.8
27.4
18.18
After Exposure

11.88
15.71
11.49
10.83
27.54
18.17
Difference

-0.79
-0.07
-0.40
0.03
0.14
-0.01

-------
ASTM Method D3450 - Stain Removal (Cleanability)
Cleanability represents the ease with which soilants can be removed from the paint surface. The
reflectance from the surface was measured prior to soiling the paint and again after cleaning with a non-
abrasive cleaner. The higher the rating, the more stain that is removed. Paints LVH and LVE had the
highest rating. The low-VOC paint (LVG) from manufacturer number 4 ranked only slightly lower than
the conventional paint. Paint LVA had a low cleanability rating even though it had high specular gloss, as
discussed above.
ASTM Method D4400 - Sag Resistance
Sag resistance was measured with a multi-notched applicator. A perfect score is 12, which was
achieved with all six paints.
ASTM Method D1640 - Dry to Touch
This method measures drying time. The drying time ranged from 11 to 15.5 minutes, with the
fastest drying time exhibited by paint LVA which had the lowest water content of the paints (Table 5-2).
Paint LVH, a conventional paint had a drying time of 12 minutes, consistent with the fact its water content
was also low (40.8%). The paint with the longest drying time, LVE, had the highest water content (Table
5-2).
ASTM Method E313 - Yellowness Index
The yellowness index was determined by exposing the paints to sunlight. Following an initial
reading, the paint panels were inspected visually on a routine basis until a change was observed. A Final
reading was made and the difference calculated. A negative difference indicates a whitening or bleaching
of the paint. A positive change, as occurred for paint LVG indicates yellowing. However, the differences
for all the paints were relatively small and would not be considered significant based on the published
precision of the method which is ± 0.5 units.
Based on the ASTM tests, paint LVG appeared to perform better than the other low-VOC paints.
It also performed better than the conventional paint by the same manufacturer. Among the low-VOC
paints, this was also the paint with the highest VOC content and the highest emissions of the target VOCs.
5fi

-------
6.0	QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures implemented in this project are
described in the following subsections.
6.1	DATA QUALITY INDICATOR GOALS
Data quality indicator goals for the laboratory arc summarized in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Data Quality Indicator Goals for Key Measurement Parameters
Parameter
Method
Accuracy
Precision
Completeness (%)"
Temperature
RTD
± 1.0 °C
±0.2°C
95
Relative Humidity
Thin Film Capacitance RH
±5%
± 5% RH
95
Air Flow Rate
Soap Film Bubble Meter
±5%
± 5%
95
Air Velocity
Anemometer
± 5%b
± 5%c
95
Paint Mass on Substrate
Gravimetric
±0.01 g
± 5%td
95
VOC Concentrations
GC/FID/MS
75 - 125 %
± 25 %'
95
Aldehyde Concentrations
HPLC
80- 120 %
± 20 %'
95
' Number of samples collected/number of samples planned
" Manufacturer's specification
c Percent Relative Standard Deviation (RSD)
" Repeatability of application to duplicate test substrates
e Calculated as percent recovery for spiked sorbent tubes
' Percent RSD for duplicates
57

-------
6.2 SUMMARY OF DATA COMPLETENESS
Measurements of key parameters to document data quality during the study arc summarized in the
following sub-sections. The primary measurement parameters were concentrations of VOCs and aldehydes
in the emissions collected during small chamber tests. A total of ten small chamber tests (LVT1 through
LVT10) were performed to measure aldehyde emissions from the low-VOC paints. Five tests (LVT11
through LVT15) were performed to measure VOC emissions during tests with four low-VOC paints. Results
from test LVT11 were not reported in this document because the VOC concentrations exceeded the
calibration range of the instrument. The test was repeated and results were reported as test LVT15 for paint
LVG.
Temperature, relative humidity and air flow rates into the chamber were recorded throughout each
small chamber test. There were no data collection problems for the three parameters during any of the 15
tests. The data sets for temperature, relative humidity and air flow rates were 10(J% complete during the
study.
Air velocity was not measured continuously during the tests. The air speed at 1 cm above the
surface of a glass or gypsum board substrate was measured for each fan prior to placing it in service. There
were no observed problems with any fans during the course of the study based on visual inspection at the
start and end of each test.
Table 6-2 summarizes the number of air samples collected during the study on DNPH-silica gel or
Tenax sorbents and the number of replicates, chamber background samples, field blanks and field controls.
Tests LVT1, LVT2, LVT3, LVT6 and LVT8 were scouting tests with the paint applied to glass. A
minimum of four emissions samples were planned for each test. One field blank and one chamber
background sample were planned for each test. There were no replicates or field controls planned for these
tests. A total of six samples were planned for each test.
Test LVT4 was performed to confirm the presence of formaldehyde in the emissions from paint
LVA. There were no field controls planned for the test.
Tests LVT5, LVT7, LVT9 and LVT10 were tests with paint applied to gypsum wallboard. The two-
week long tests involved a minimum of 12 emissions samples, three replicates, a background sample, field
blank and three spiked field controls for a total of 20 samples for each test.
For tests LVT11 through LVT15, a total of 21 samples were planned that included 11 test samples,
five replicates, two chamber background samples, one field blank and two field controls per test.
58

-------
Table 6-2. Number of Samples Collected During the Study
Test No.
Test
Samples
Replicates
Chamber
Background
Field Blanks
Field
Controls
Total No. of Samples
Collected/Planned
LVT1
5
0
2
1
0
8/6
LVT2
4
0
1
0
0
5/6
LVT3
6
0
1
1
0
8/6
LVT4
11
1
1
1
0
14/14
LVT5
16
4
1
1
3
25/20
LVT6
5
0
1
1
0
7/6
LVT7
12
4

1
3
21/20
LVT8
7
0
1
1
0
9/6
LVT9
13
3
2
1
3
22/20
LVT1C
13
4
1
1
3
22/20
LVT11
11
5
2
1
2
NAa
LVT12
11
5
2
1
2
21/21
LVT13
11
4
2
1
2
20/21
LVT14
11
5
2
2
2
22/21
LVT15
11
6
2
2
2
23/21
1 Sample volumes were too large resulting in concentrations above the highest calibration point of the GC; data were not
included in the data set for the study
6.3 DEFINITIONS
Data quality is evaluated based on instrument and method performance which is measured by
analysis of quality control samples. The following are definitions of terms used in the evaluation of data
quality and method performance:
•	IDL - Instrument Detection Limit - for analyses by GC or HPLC methods, the DDL is the lowest
amount of analyte mass (nanograms) that can be detected when a standard is analyzed.
•	MDL - Minimum Detection Limit - the lowest concentration (mg/m3, Mg/m3) that can be detected
with the method. For sorbent sampling methods, the MDL is a function of the DDL and the volume of
sample collected on the sorbent tube.
•	PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit - the PQL is concentration measured based on the amount of mass
(ng) in the lowest calibration standard. For a calibration ranging from 10 ng to 1000 ng, the PQL is
based on 10 ng per sample. For a 1-liter sample and 10 ng, the PQL would be 10 ng/L (10 ng/m3).
•	BDL - Below Detection Limit - the concentration in the sample is below the minimum detection
limit.
59

-------
•	BQL - Below Quantitation Limit - the concentration in the sample is below the practical quantitation
limit.
•	ND - Not Detected
•	DCC - Daily Calibration Check sample - sample, normally a mid-level calibration standard, that is
analyzed each day prior to analyses of samples to verify that the instrument is performing properly.
The percent recovery is calculated for the DCC and compared to criteria established for each
compound in the calibration mixture.
•	Field blanks - quality control samples used to determine background contamination on sampling
media due to media preparation, handling, or storage.
•	Replicates - quality control samples collected concurrently in duplicate or triplicate using the same
method and for the same duration. Data are used to estimate the precision of the method.
•	Field controls - quality control samples analyzed to estimate the accuracy of the method. Field
controls are prepared by spiking the sample media with known concentrations of the target analytes.
The percent recovery of the analytes is calculated.
•	Chamber background samples - for small chamber emissions tests, air samples are collected from the
chamber outlet to measure the background concentration of the target analytes. The measurement
can be performed with the substrate in the chamber.
6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL AND TEST PARAMETERS
The resistance temperature devices (RTDs) used to measure air temperatures in the small
emissions chamber test facility are calibrated annually. Prior to each small chamber test, the RTD to be
used in the test was collocated with a National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) traceable
mercury-in-glass thermometer. The RTD was accepted for use in the test if the reading at ambient air
temperature (nominally 23 °C) was within ± 1.0 °C of the reading of the reference thermometer. The
precision of the temperature control during the small chamber tests is indicated in Tables 5-4 and 5-15
which present the average ± standard deviation of the temperature reading during the test. The standard
deviation ranged from 0.03 to 0.38 °C. The criterion for precision of the temperature control to ± 0.2 °C
was exceeded only in test LVT6.
The thin film capacitance RH probes were calibrated annually by use of saturated salt solutions.
Calibrations were performed at 10 and 15% RH. Prior to each test, the probes were collocated with a
reference probe that had been most recently calibrated. The precision of the RH control during the tests is
indicated in Tables 5-4 and 5-15, which list the standard deviation of the RH readings for the tests. The
standard deviation was less than ± 5% RH in 13 of the 15 tests. It exceeded the precision criterion for RH
control of ± 5% RII in tests LVT1 and LVT13.
60

-------
The air exchange rates were calculated based on the air flows measured with a soap film bubble
meter at the start and end of each test. The measurement device is a primary reference method calibrated
in the APPCD metrology laboratory.
The air velocity at 1 cm above the surface of the substrate was measured with a Bruel and Kjaer
anemometer. Measurements were made prior to placing the mixing fans into service.
The data quality indicator goal for application of the paint to the substrate was accuracy of ± 0.01
g and precision of ± 5% for replicate applications. The accuracy of the mass application was verified by
weighing the painted substrate on a calibrated balance with a resolution of 0.01 g. Tests have
demonstrated that a precision of ± 5% can be achieved by an experienced applicator. During tests LVT1
through LVT10, the paint was applied at a rate that provided uniform coverage on the substrate based on
visual observation. The rate of application varied due to the variation in the solids content of the paints.
In tests LVT11 through LVT15, the goal was to apply 3.5 g of paint to the 256 cm2 surface of the test
substrate. The application rates, listed in Table 5-15, actually applied ranged from 67 to 96% of the target
amount.
6.5 QUALITY CONTROL DATA FOR ALDEHYDE MEASUREMENTS
Quality control samples consisted of chamber background samples collected prior to each test,
field blanks, spiked field controls and duplicates. Daily calibration check samples were run on each day
of analysis.
6.5.1 Critical Limits
The HPLC was calibrated over a nominal range of 1.0 ng to 375 ng for each target aldehyde. The
practical quantitation limit (PQL) of the instrument was defined as the lowest calibration level and was
nominally 1.0 ng. For the sample dilution factor of 200 used in the DNPH-silica gel method for aldehyde
measurements, the minimum amount of each aldehyde that needs to be collected on the DNPH coated
silica cartridge is 200 ng. Therefore, for a 30 L volume sample, the nominal PQL would be 0.0067 mg/m3.
To determine the PQL for each sample, the lowest calibration level and the sample volume are required.
Sample volumes are included in the tables of this report and can be used with the lowest calibration level,
nominally 1.0 ng, to calculate the PQL.
The minimum detection limit (MDL) was determined by analyzing seven DNPH cartridges spiked
with a standard solution which would yield 1.5 ng of each target aldehyde on column. At three times the
standard deviation, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and propanal had an IDL of 0.1 ng and an MDL of
61

-------
0.00007 mg/m3 for a 30 L sample. For benzaldehyde, pentanal and hexanal, the IDL was 0.2 ng and the
MDL was 0.00014 mg/m3 for a 30 L sample.
6.5.2	Chamber Background Measurements
Prior to each test, air samples of 12 to 53 L volume were collected on DNPH cartridges from the
outlet of the small chamber to be used in the test. The substrate was in the chamber at the time.
Therefore, background samples measured the VOC background due to contamination of the clean air
supply, the chamber and air transfer lines and the substrate. Results of the measurements are presented in
Table 6-3. Chamber background concentrations were low for all tests. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde
were detected in all chamber background samples, but were below the PQL for all but one sample that had
formaldehyde at a level above the PQL. The other four target aldehydes were not measured above the
MDL in any of the tests.
6.5.3	Field Blanks
Field blanks consisted of DNPH coated silica gel cartridges that were not used for sample
collection. The cartridges were handled and stored in the same manner as samples. Results are presented
in Table 6-4.
6.5.4	Results of Replicate Samples
During tests 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10, samples were collected in duplicate during each test to estimate the
precision of the sampling and analysis methods. Duplicate samples were not collected in the range-
finding tests (LVT1, 2, 3, 6 and 8). Results of the replicate samples collected on DNPH cartridges are
presented in Table 6-5. The precision of the sampling and analysis method for formaldehyde was good
with the % relative standard deviation (%RSD) being 5 or less for all but four of the 15 samples with
concentrations above the PQL. Precision was also good for acetaldehyde.
6.5.5	Results for Spiked Field Controls
Field controls consisted of DNPH coated silica gel cartridges spiked with standard stock solution.
Controls were prepared in triplicate. One field control was analyzed within 48 hours of preparation. The
other field controls were analyzed with the samples.
62

-------
Table 6-3. Aldehyde Concentrations (mg/m3) in Chamber Background Air Samples
Description
Sample
Vol. (L)
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propanal
Benzaldehyde
Pentanal
Hexanal
LVT1
52.8
J
__a
__a
a
__a

LVT2
12.7
3.76E 03 b
6.2SC 03
BDLC
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT3
22.4
3.01 E 03
3.66C 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT4
38.8
2.37E 03
Q.6QC 04
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT5
23.8
7.1 BE 03
2.36E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT6
13.7
5.05E 03
1.QQC 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT7
39.7
6.10E-03
2.70E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT8
24.1
2.Q5C 03
2.Q7H 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT9A
27.9
3.52E 03
3.72E 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT9B
26.3
6.81C 03
4.6QC 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT10
13.8
6.05C 03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
N

10
9
0
0
0
0
Minimum

2.00E-03
1.00E-03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Maximum

7.00E-03
6.00E-03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Mean

4.68E-03
3.25E-03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Std. Dev."

1.75E-03
1.55E-03
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1 Results from test 1 were nut reported in this document because the samples were overloaded and the concentrations
generally exceeded the highest calibration level of the instrument
b Values with strike through are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL), but above the method detection limit
(MDL)
c BDL = Below the minimum detection limit
d Standard deviation
63

-------
Table 6-4. Results for DNPH-Silica Gel Field Blank Measurements (ng per Sampling Cartridge)
Description
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propanal
Benzaldehyde
Pentana!
Hexanal |
LVT1

a
__a
a
a

LVT2
_J
a

a
a
__a
LVT3
2.30E 01
1.89E 01b-
BDLC
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT4
2.66C Ot
2.2QE 01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT5
2.47E01
1.82E 01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT6
1.81C Ot
1t55E-01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT7
2.56E-04-
2.6SE01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT8
1.S4C 01
3.64E 01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT9
2.10E01
4.60E 01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
LVT10
3.05E 01
BDL
BDL
BDL
0^9-
BDL
N
8
7
0
0
1
0
Minimum
1.80E 01
1.50E 01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Maximum
3.00E 01
4.60E 01
BDL
BDL
0r39-
BDL
Mean
2.35E 01
2.S4E 01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Std. Dev.d
4.24E 02
1.1 IE 01
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
1 Blanks were not collected for these initial range-finding tests
b Values with strike through are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL), but above the method
detection limit (MDL)
c BDL = Below the method detection limit
d Standard deviation
64

-------
Table 6-5. Percent Relative Standard Deviation of Analyses of Duplicate DNPH Samples
Test
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propanal
Benzaldehyde
Pentanal
Hexanal
LVT4
13.5
7.7
-a-
-a-
-b-
-b-
LVT5
2.0
1.4
-a-
-b-
-b-
-b-
LVT5
8.2
2.5
-b-
-b-
-b-
-b-
LVT5
2.7
-a-
-b-
-b-
-b-
-b-
LVT5
-a-
-a-
-b-
-b-
-b-
-b-
LVT7
0.9
1.8
-b-
-a-
-b-
-b-
LVT7
3.0
5.8
-b-
-b-
-b-
-b-
LVT7
12.4
-a-
-b-
-b-
-b-
-b-
LVT7
1.1
-a-
-b-
-b- .
-b-
-b-
LVT9
7.8
-a-
-b-
-b-
-b-
-b-
LVT9
2.3
-a-
-b-
-b-
-b-
-b-
LVT9
0.6
-a-
-b-
-b-
-a-
-b-
LVT10
3.4
-a-
-b-
-b-
-b-
-b-
LVT10
1.8
-a-
-b-
-b-
-b-
-b-
LVT10
1.6
-a-
-a-
-b-
-a-
-b-
LVT10
4.9
-a-
-b-
-b-
-a-
-b-
N
15
5
-
--
--
-
Minimum
0.6
1.4
-
--
--
--
Maximum
13.5
7.7
-
-
--
--
Mean
4.4
3.8
-•
--
--
--
Median
2.7
2.5
--
--
--
--
Std. Dev.'
4.2
2.8
-
--
--
--
* One or both replicates below the PQL
b Both replicates below MDL
c Standard deviation
65

-------
No field controls were prepared for range-finding tests. Controls were prepared only for tests
LVT5, 7, 9 and 10, which were tests of two week duration. The controls were spiked with 200 pL
standard stock solution (approximately 3000 ng of each analyte per cartridge). The percent recoveries for
the controls are presented in Table 6-6. The mean recovery ranged from 99 to 108% for the six analytes
and the criteria for recovery of 85 to 115% were met for all field controls.
6.5.6 Daily Calibration Check Samples
On each day of analysis, a daily calibration check (DCC) sample was analyzed to document the
performance of the instrument. The recovery ranged from 90 to 110%, meeting the laboratory criteria of
85 to 115% recovery for acceptable instrument performance.
6.6 QUALITY CONTROL DATA FOR VOC MEASUREMENTS
6.6.1	Critical Limits
The GC was calibrated over a nominal range of approximately 100 ng to 3000 ng for each target
VOC. The practical quantitation limit (PQL) of the instrument was defined as the lowest calibration level
and was nominally 100 ng. For a 0.5 L volume Tenax sample, the nominal PQL of the method would be
0.2 mg/mJ. For a 8.0 L volume Tenax sample, the nominal PQL would be 0.013 mg/mJ. To determine the
PQL for each sample, the lowest calibration level and the sample volume are required. Sample volumes
are included in the tables of this report and the lowest calibration level is nominally 100 ng. The MDL
was not determined for VOC analyses. All values below the PQL arc reported, but arc flagged by use of a
strike through in the tables.
6.6.2	Chamber Background Measurements
Prior to each test, air samples of approximately 8 L volume were collected on Tenax from the
outlet of the small chamber to be used in the test. The glass substrate was in the chamber at the time.
Therefore, background samples measured the VOC background due to contamination of the clean air
supply, the chamber and air transfer lines and the glass substrate. Results of the measurements are
presented in Table 6-7. Chamber background VOC concentrations were low for all tests.
66

-------
Table 6-6. Percent Recovery for Spiked Field Controls
Test/Control ID
Formaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
Propanal
Benzaldehyde
Pentana!
Hexanal
LVT5






ID6315
103
101
112
99
102
100
ID6316
102
105
110
102
103
101
ID6317
100
101
109
99
102
99
LVT7






ID6431
98
98
100
95
97
95
ID6432
98
101
110
99
104
100
ID6443
103
102
112
100
103
100
LVT9






ID6775
103
102
106
99
100
100
ID6776
103
105
110
100
99
100
ID6777
101
102
107
97
97
97
LVT10






ID7231
101
99
106
98
99
98
ID7232
102
100
108
98
99
98
ID7233
103
104
110
100
101
100
N
12
12
12
12
12
12
Minimum
98
98
106
95
97
95
Maximum
103
105
112
102
104
101
Mean
101
102
108
99
100
99
Std. Dev.a
1.8
2.2
3.2
1.6
2.3
1.8
1 Standard deviation
67

-------
Table 6-7. VOC Concentrations (mg/m3) in Chamber Background Air Samples
Description
Volume
(L)
Propylene
Glycol
Ethylene
Glvcol
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
ethanol
Dipropylene
Glvcol
Texanol
LVT12 A
7.84
4.17C03
4.55C 03
2.55E 03
6.34E 03
2.87E 03
LVT12 B
7.70
2.34E 03
2.57E 03
5.9011 03
0.80E 03
2.53E 03
LVT13 A
7.73
3.07E-03
1.63E 03
2.11E 03
3:83E	03	
1.44E 03
LVT13 B
7.85
1.22E 03
2.00C 03
1.38C 03
1.76C 03
8.70E 04
LVT14 A
8.50
3.26E	03
V.32E 03
7.67E 03
4r73E-03 ¦
1.03 E 03
LVT14 B
8.18
2.76E 03
1.53E 03
8.32E 03
3.21E 03
1.53E 03
LVT15 A
8.18
2.75E 03
8.43E 04
1.37E 03
7.87E 03
2.69E 03
LVT15B
8.25
2.58E 03
1.04H 03
8.73C 04
2.3SC 03
1.58E 03
N

8
8
8
8
8
Minimum

1.22C 03
8.43C 04
8.73C 04
1.76C 03
8.7QE 04
Maximum

4.17E03
4.55E 03
8.3 2 E 03
0.80E03
2.87E-03
Mean

3.461! 04
2.42E 04
4.73E 04
6.23C 04
2.41C 04
Std. Dev.b

8.37E-Q4
1.1 BE 03
3.Q5E 03
2.81 C 03
7.03C 04
'Values with strike through are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL)
b Standard deviation
68

-------
6.6.3	Field Blanks
Field blanks consisted of Tenax tubes that were not used for sample collection. The tubes were handled
and stored in the same manner as samples. Results are presented in Table 6-8. The concentration of the
VOCs was below the PQL in all Field blanks.
6.6.4	Results of Replicate Samples
Results of the analyses of duplicate samples collected on Tenax are presented in Table 6-9. The
precision of the sampling and analysis method was good for all Five target VOCs. The median percent
relative standard deviation (%RSD) was less than 10% for all Five VOCs. The data quality indicator goal
(DQI) of ± 25% RSD was exceeded in only one sample for propylene glycol, ethylene glycol and Texanol.
In two samples, the DQI goal was not met for dipropylene glycol.
6.6.5	Results for Spiked Field Controls
Field controls consisted of Tenax tubes spiked with a mid-level standard which contained
approximately 1400 to 1700 ng per analyte. Controls were prepared in duplicate. One Field control was
analyzed within 48 hours of preparation. The other Field control was analyzed with the rest of the
samples. The percent recoveries for the controls are presented in Table 6-10. The criterion for recovery
of 75 to 125% was met for all samples.
Table 6-8. Results of Field Blank Measurements (ng per tube)
Description
Propylene
Glycol
Ethylene
Glycol
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
Ethanol
1,04E-»01
Dipropylene
Glycol
Texanol
LVT12
4.70C i 00'
W0WH-
3:27E+Q1

LVT13
1.1S£i01
1.25Ei01
i.32E-tQ1
6.45Et-01
K23S+01
LVT14 F3A

1 1 ni








LVT14FB3
~ tr nc , a i
. .viCTv r

9.20E t00-
4-
1:06Et64
LVT15
K36Et01
1.66E+01-
• Aft | A1
TTfwTTVT
4.10E i-OI
5
1-.33E+&1-
5
N
5
5
5
Minimum
4.70C+00
1.23C+01-
Q.20C 100
uono;
&.50E * 00
Maximum
2.12E 101-
I.66E1OI
1.46E 101
6.45E 101
4.33E 101
Mean
1.3&[-r0h
¦Mtf-t-OI-
i.33C't 01
4.22[»01
1.07E >01
Std. Dev."
6.O6E1OO
¦V.-84E 100
3.8QE1OO-
1.83E 101
2.60E 100
'Values with strike through are below the practical quantitation limit (PQL)
b Standard deviation
69

-------
Table 6-9. Percent Relative Standard Deviation Of Analyses of Duplicate Tenax Samples
Test
Propylene
Ethylene
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
Dipropylene
Texanol

Glycol
Glycol
ethanol
Glycol

LVT12
-a-
27.4
0.0
1.9
5.6
LVT12
30.8
17.0
0.2
13.4
12.7
LVT12
-a-
7.5
-b-
-b-
2.0
LVT12
-a-
2.5
2.5
7.9
1.4
LVT12
-a-
-a-
0.9
-a-
-a-
LVT13
6.3
3.1
-a-
-a-
12.8
LVT13
-b-
-b-
-a-
-3-
5.9
LVT13
3.3
0.1
-a-
4.0
-a-
LVT13
-a-
9.4
-a-
9.5
-a-
LVT14
3.7
16.5
11.8
22.0
25.1
LVT14
0.6
22.7
0.4
8.4
1.5
LVT14
5.0
0.9
1.5
11.5
9.9
LVT14
23.6
8.5
0.5
17.0
4.4
LVT14
3.4
17.6
8.9
3.5
2.0
LVT15
-a-
-a-
12.9
-a-
-a-
LVT15
4.0
15.3
0.8
42.0
-a-
LVT15
16.1
1.6
3.3
6.7
-a-
LVT15
16.2
15.1
14.7
15.5
-a-
LVT15
-a-
10.6
6.0
48.4
-a-
LVT15
-a-
2.7
2.8
0.5
-a-
N
11
17
15
15
11
Minimum
0.6
0.1
0
0.5
1.4
Maximum
30.8
29.4
14.7
48.4
25.1
Mean
10.3
10.5
4.5
14.1
7.6
Median
5.0
9.4
2.5
9.5
5.6
Std. Dev.c
9.9
8.2
5.1
14.0
7.2
"One or both replicate below the PQL
"One or both replicate above the highest calibration level
c Standard deviation
70

-------
Table 6-10, Percent Recovery for Spiked Tenax Field Controls
Test/Tube ID
Propylene
Glycol
Ethylene
Glycol
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
ethanol
Dipropylene
Glycol
Texanol
LVT12





FC8875
100
115
104
122
94
FC8876
104
114
103
104
103
LVT13





FC8945
90
98
92
96
92
FC8946
88
100
88
91
OO
LVT14





FC8975
99
106
98
99
98
FC8976
103
114
104
111
103
LVT15





FC8984
99
110
99
114
99
FC8982
97
107
102
102
97
6.6.6 Daily Calibration Check Samples
On each day of analysis, a daily calibration check (DCC) sample was analyzed to document the
performance of the instrument. All DCC samples met the criterion of 75 to 125% recovery.
6.7 QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES FOR ANALYSES OF VOCS IN PAINT
The bulk paint products were extracted with solvent and the extracts were analyzed by GC. Three
paints, LVC, LVD and LVG were analyzed on the HP5890 system immediately prior to the small chamber
tests. The other paints were analyzed on the Varian GC/MS at the start of the test program.
6.7.1 Solvent Blanks
For the analyses of LVC, LVD and LVG, two solvent (acetone) blanks were analyzed. The
results are depicted in Tabic 6-11. The concentrations of the target compounds were below the PQL in
both blanks. Solvent blanks were not reported for the earlier analyses.
71

-------
Table 6-11. Results for Analyses of Solvent Blanks (ng/pL)
Compound
Sample 1
Sample 2
Propylene glycol

&AQ-
Ethylene glycol
4r5i-
4S3-
BEE
3t95-
£40-
Dipropylene glycol
£32-
4Sir
Texanol
2r45-
4t03-
a Values with strike through are below the PQL of the method
6.7.2	Results of Analyses of Duplicate Paint Extracts
Duplicate aliquots of bulk paint were extracted and analyzed. The percent relative standard
deviations for analyses of duplicate aliquots are presented in Table 6-12. The precision could not be
calculated for most compounds because the concentrations were below the PQL of the method. For the
samples for which the % RSD could be calculated, the precision was acceptable for all compounds,
meeting the criterion for precision of ± 25%.
6.7.3	Controls
Controls were not routinely analyzed for the paint extract samples. During the initial evaluation
of the extraction and analysis method for the bulk paints, octanol was added as an internal standard to
estimate extraction efficiency and recovery. Octanol was added to paints LVD, LVF and LVG prior to the
extraction. Analysis was performed with the Varian GC/MS. The recoveries were 104, 103 and 103%,
respectively.
72

-------
Table 6-12. The Percent Relative Standard Deviation for Analyses of Duplicate Paint Extracts
Paint
Ethylene Glycol
Propylene
Glycol
Dipropylene
Glycol
2-(2-Butoxy-
ethoxy)ethanol
Texanol
LVA
NAa
0.5
NA
NA
NA
LVB
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LVC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LVD
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LVE
NA
NA
6.0
NA
NA
LVF
NA
1.4
4.9
NA
12.6
LVG
2.9
NA
1.8
1.7
NA
* NA: Could not be calculated because one or both of the duplicates was below the PQL
73

-------
7.0 REFERENCES
Chang, J.C.S., B.A. Tichenor, Z. Guo and K.A. Krebs, 1997. Substrate Effects on VOC Emissions from a
Latex Paint, Indoor Air. 7:241-247.
Fortmann, R., N. Roache, J.C.S. Chang and Z. Guo, 1998, Characterization of Emissions of Volatile
Organic Compounds from Interior Alky d Paint, Journal of the Air and Waste Management
Association 48:931-940.
Guo, Z., R. Fortmann, S. Marfiak, et al., 1996, Modeling the VOC Emissions from Interior Latex Paint
Applied to Gypsum Board, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality
and Climate. Indoor Air '96, Nagoya, Japan, Vol. 1, 987-992.
Johnston, P.K., C.A. Cinalli, J.R. Girman and P.W. Kennedy, 1996. Priority Ranking and
Characterization of Indoor Air Sources, Characterizing Sources of Indoor Air Pollution and
Related Sink Effects. ASTM STP 1287, West Conshohocken, PA.
Levin, H., "Building Materials and Indoor Air," Problem Buildings: Building -Associated Illness and the
Sick Building Syndrome, State of the Art Reviews - Occupational Medicine, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1989,
Hanley & Belfus, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Sparks, L.E., Z. Guo, J.C. Chang and B.A. Tichenor, 1998, Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From
Latex Paint - Part 1. Chamber Experiments and Source Model Development, Indoor Air, in press.
U.S. EPA, 1994, 40 CFR Chapter I, Part 60, Appendix A, "Method 24 - Determination of Volatile Matter
Content, Water Content, Density, Volume Solids and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings," July 1,
1994.
U.S. EPA, 1996, 40 CFR Part 63, Appendix A. "Method 311 - Analysis of Hazardous Air Pollutant
Compoutuls in Paints and Coatings by Injection into a Gas Chromatography 1996.
Winberry, W.T., N.T. Murphy and R.M. Riggan, 1988 Compendium of Methods for the Determination
of Toxic Organic Compounds in Ambient Air. EPA/600-4-89/017 (NTIS PB90-127374),
Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Wolkoff, P. and P.A. Nielsen, 1996. Indoor Climate Labeling of Building Materials: The Experimental
Approach for a Prototype, Characterizing Sources of Indoor Air Pollution and Related Sink
Effects. ASTM STP 1287, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM Methods Cited:
ASTM D523: Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss. Vol. 6.01. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.
ASTM D1640: Standard Test Method for Drying, Curing, or Film Formation of Organic Coatings at
Room Temperature. Vol. 6.01. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.
ASTM D2369: Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings. Vol. 6.01. ASTM, Philadelphia,
PA, 1997.
ASTM D2486: Standard Test Method for Scrub Resistance of Interior Latex Flat Wall Paints. Vol. 6.01.
ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.
74

-------
ASTM D2805: Standard Test Method for Hiding Power of Paints by Reflectometry. Vol. 6.01. ASTM,
Philadelphia, PA, 1997.
ASTM D2931: Standard Guide for Testing Latex Flat Wall Paints. Vol. 6.01. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA,
1997.
ASTM, D3450: Standard Test Method for Washability Properties of Interior Architectural Coatings. Vol.
6.01. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.
ASTM D4017: Standard Test Method for Water in Paints and Paint Materials by Karl Fischer Method.
Vol. 6.01. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.
ASTM D4400: Standard Test Method for Sag Resistance of Paints Using a Multinotch Applicator. Vol.
6.01. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.
ASTM D5116: Standard Guide for Small-Scale Environmental Chamber Determination of Organic
Emissions From Indoor Materials/Products. Vol. 11.03. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.
ASTM E313: Standard Practice for Calculating Yellowness and Whiteness Indices from Instrumentally
Measured Color Coordinates. Vol. 6.02. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1997.
75

-------
APPENDIX A
RESULTS FOR TEST LVT11 WITH PAINT LVG
(Data arc not included in the data base because the mass in the samples exceeded the highest
calibration point in most cases.)
76

-------
VOC Concentrations (mg/m3) in Emissions During the Small Chamber Test
LVT11 with Paint LVG on Glass
Elapsed
Time (hr)
Sampling
Vol. (L)
Propylene
Glycol
Ethylene
Glycol
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)
ethanol
Dipropylene
Glycol
Texanol
-2.15J,b
7.99
2.41EQ3c
1.2IE 03
8.01C 04
1.2DC 03
1.83C 03
-2.15
7.63
2.37E 03
4.78C 03
1.04E 02
1.02E 02
2.IDC 03
0.68
7.99
4.22E-02
1.19E-01
1.03E+00d
1.89E-02
2.27E-02
1.78
7.99
7.88E-02
2.84E-01
2.38E+00
4.81 E-02
4.22E-02
1.78
7.63
7.72E-02
2.77E-01
2.22E+00
4.48E-02
2.72E-02
B.98
7.77
4.98E-01
1.15E+00
4.11 E+00
3.96E-01
2.80E-02
3.98
7.64
5.01 £-01
1.09E+00
4.24E+00
4.13E-01
2.73E-02
5.95
7.76
5.74E-01
3.74E+00
4.26E+00
8.38E-01
2.52E-02
7.95
7.63
5.12E-01
3.80E+00
4.41 E+00
4.27E-01
2.22E-02
9.98
7.62
4.24E-01
3.57E+00
4.35E+00
5.65E-01
2.40E-02
11.99
7.78
2.96E-01
2.90E+00
2.22E+00
3.55E-02
1.Q2C 02
11.99
7.84
3.00E-01
2.84E+00
3.79E+00
1.08E+00
2.28E-02
16.83
6.83
1.60E-01
1.97E+00
2.89E+00
1.03E+00
1.87E-02
24.21
5.93
6.83E-02
1.02 E+00
2.26E+00
8.18E-01
1.76E-02
24.21
5.84
6.67E-02
1.01 E+00
2.24E+00
8.17E-01
1.37C 02
31.99
7.46
2.33E-02
3.88E-01
1.44E+00
6.38E-01
1.1 GE 02
48.02
7.62
1.23E-02
1.36E-01
1.02E+00
5.47E-01
1.0SE02
48.02
7.62
1.31 E-02
1.31 E-01
1.04E+00
5.56E-01
USE 02
* Chamber background sample collected prior to start of test
"Samples collected at the same Lime period are duplicates
c Values with strike through are below the practical quantification limit of the method
11 Values in italics are flagged because the concentration was above highest calibration level
77

-------
0
10	20	30
Elapsed Time (hour)
PG
EG
BEE
DPG
i	i i I Tex
40	50
VOC emissions From Paint LVG During Test LVT11
78

-------
urn™ utb 1-w: TECHNICAL REPORT OATA I
nKrLKXi Jvlr 1 JO (Please read Instructions on the reverse before cornp (
1. REPORT NO. 2.
E PA-600 / R-9 9-03 5

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Characterization of Low-VOC Latex Paints: Volatile
Organic Compound Content, VOC and Aldehyde Emis-
sions, and Paint Performance
5. HEPw«» • wp ¦ «_
April 1§9S
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S) _ _ T, . ,,
Roy Fortmann, Huei-Chen Lao, Angelita Ng,
and Nancy Roache
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
ARCADIS Geraghty and Miller, Inc.
P.C. Box 13109
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68- C9-9201. WA 0-0005
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 1/97 - 1/99
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
i6.supplementary notes ^ppc£> project officer is John C. S. Chang, Mail Drop 54, 919/
541-3747.
16. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of laboratory tests to evaluate commercially available
latex paints advertised as "low-odor," "low-VOC (volatile organic compound). "
or "no- VOC. " Measurements were performed to quantify the total content of VOCs
in the paints and to identify the predominant VOCs and aldehydes in the emissions
following application to test substrates. The performance of the paints was evalua-
ted and compared to that of commonly used conventional latex paints by American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard methods that measured para-
meters such as scrubbability, cleanability, and hiding power. The report describes
.the paints that were tested, the test methods, and the experimental data. Results
are presented that can be used to evaluate the low-odor/low-VOC paints as alterna-
tives to conventional latex wall paints that contain and emit higher concentrations
of VOCs.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENOEO TERMS
c. cosati Field/Group
Pollution Emission
Paints
Latex
Organic Compounds
Volatility
Aldehydes
Pollution Prevention
Stationary Sources
13 R 14 G
11C, 13 C
11J
07 C
20 M
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
86
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------