Environmental Technology Verification Report Sharpe Manufacturing Titanium T1-CG Spray Gun


September 2004

Environmental Technology
Verification Report

Sharpe Manufacturing
Titanium T1-CG Spray Gun

Prepared by

National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence

Operated by

CTC Concurrent Technologies Corporation

for the

&EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Under Contract No. DAAE30-98-C-1050

with the U.S. Defense Contract Command - Washington (DCC-W)
via EPA Interagency Agreement No. DW2193939801

-------
Notice

This document was prepared by Concurrent Technologies Corporation under Contract No.
DAAE30-98-C-1050 with the U.S. Defense Contract Command - Washington, Task N.306,
SOW Task 4. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army are
working together under EPA Interagency Agreement No. DW2193939801. This document has
been subjected to EPA's technical peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for
publication. Mention of corporation names, trade names, or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products.

-------
September 2004

Environmental Technology
Verification Report

Sharpe Manufacturing
Titanium Tl-CG Spray Gun

Prepared by

Robert Fisher
Lynn Summerson

Of the

National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence

Operated by
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Johnstown, PA 15904

Under Contract No. DAAE30-98-C-1050 (Task N306, SOW Task 4)
with the U.S. Defense Contract Command - Washington (DCC-W)
via EPA Interagency Agreement No. DW2193939801

EPA Project Officer:

Michael Kosusko
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division

National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

-------
Foreword

The Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program has been established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to verify the performance characteristics of innovative
environmental technologies across all media and report this objective information to the states,
buyers, and users of environmental technology; thus, accelerating the entrance of these new
technologies into the marketplace. Verification organizations oversee and report verification
activities based on testing and quality assurance protocols developed with input from major
stakeholders and customer groups associated with the technology area. ETV consists of seven
technology areas. Information about each of these centers can be found on the Internet at
http ://www. epa.gov/etv/.

EPA's ETV Program, through the National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Division has partnered with Concurrent Technologies
Corporation, through the National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence, to verify
innovative coatings and coating equipment technologies for reducing air emissions from coating
operations. Other pollutant releases are considered in less detail.

The following report describes the verification of the performance of Sharpe Manufacturing's
Titanium Tl-CG high transfer efficiency spray gun for automotive refinishing applications.

11

-------
Table of Contents

Page

Foreword	ii

Verification Statement	v

Acknowledgments	ix

SI to English Conversions	x

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms	xi

Section 1 Introduction	1

1.1	ETV Overview	1

1.2	Potential Environmental Impacts	1

1.3	Technology Description	2

1.4	Technology Testing Process	2

1.5	Test Objectives and Approach	2

1.6	Performance and Cost Summary	3
Section 2 Description of the Technology 5

2.1	Technology Performance, Evaluation, and Verification	5

2.2	The Tl-CG Test	5

2.3	Tl-CG Spray Application Equipment	6

2.3.1	Applications of the Technology	6

2.3.2	Advantages of the Technology	6

2.3.3	Limitations of the Technology	6

2.3.4	Technology Deployment and Costs	6
Section 3 Description and Rationale for the Test Design 7

3.1	Description of Test Site	7

3.2	Evaluation of Tl-CG Performance	8

3.2.1	Test Operations at C'l'C	8

3.2.2	Test Sampling Operations at CTCs ETF facility	10

3.2.3	Sample Handling and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures	11

3.3	Data Reporting, Reduction, and Verification Steps	11

3.3.1	Data Reporting	11

3.3.2	Data Reduction and Verification	11
Section 4 Reference Data	12

4.1	HVLP Parameter Development	12

4.2	HVLP Results	13
Section 5 Results and Discussion	15

5.1	Potential Environmental Benefits and Vendor Claims	15

5.2	Selection of Test Methods and Parameters Monitored	15

5.2.1	Process Conditions Monitored	15

5.2.2	Operational Parameters	15

5.2.3	Parameters/Conditions Monitored	16

5.3	Overall Performance Evaluation of the Tl-CG Spray Gun	16

5.3.1	Response Factors	17

5.3.2	Assessment of Laboratory Data Quality	18

5.4	Technology Data Quality Assessment	18

5.4.1	Accuracy, Precision, and Completeness	18

5.4.2	Audits	19
Section 6 Vendor Forum	20
Section 7 References	21

ill

-------
List of Tables

Page

Table 1. Verification Results for the Tl-CG and HVLP Baseline	3

Table 2. HVLP Baseline Gun #1 Configuration and Setup	12

Table 3. HVLP Baseline Gun #2 Configuration and Setup	13

Table 4. HVLP Baseline Gun #1 Response Factor Results	13

Table 5. HVLP Baseline Gun #2 Response Factor Results	14

Table 6. Tl-CG Configuration and Setup	16

Table 7. Tl-CG Response Factor Results	17

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. Organic Finishing Line at CTC	7

Figure 2. Large Target Application Diagram	9

Figure 3. Small Target Application Diagram	9

List of Associated Documents

Tl-CG Data Notebook (Available from CTC upon request)

iv

-------
I lll ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM

SEPA

Concurrent
CTC	Technologies

Corporation

ETV JOINT VERIFICATION STATEMENT

TECHNOLOGY TYPE:	HIGH TRANSFER EFFICIENCY (TE) LIQUID

COATING SPRAY APPLICATION EQUIPMENT

APPLICATION:	LIQUID ORGANIC COATINGS APPLICATION IN

AUTOMOTIVE REFINISHING

TECHNOLOGY NAME: Tl-CG

COMPANY: Sharpe Manufacturing

POC:	Mr. John Mazzotta - General Manager

ADDRESS:	344 W. 157th Street	PHONE: (310)354-1260

Gardena, CA 90248	FAX: (310) 523-9315

EMAIL:	john@sharpel.com

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification Program (ETV) to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV
Program is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of
improved, cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-
reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, financing, permitting,
purchase, and use of environmental technologies.

ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations, stakeholder groups consisting
of buyers, vendor organizations, and states, and with the full participation of individual technology
developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that
are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting
and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with
rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that
the results are defensible.

The ETV Coatings and Coating Equipment Program (CCEP), one of seven technology areas under the ETV
Program, is operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) under the National Defense Center for
Environmental Excellence (NDCEE), in cooperation with EPA's National Risk Management Research
Laboratory. The ETV CCEP has recently evaluated the performance of high transfer efficiency spray guns
for automotive refinishing applications. This verification statement provides a summary of the test results for
the Tl-CG high TE spray gun, manufactured by Sharpe Manufacturing.

v

-------
VERIFICATION TEST DESCRIPTION

The ETV CCEP evaluated the pollution prevention capabilities of a high transfer efficiency (TE) liquid spray
gun. The test was conducted under representative factory conditions at CTC. It was designed to verify the
environmental benefit of the high-TE spray gun with specific quality requirements for the resulting finish.
The finish quality applied by the Sharpe Tl-CG gun was tested for comparability to the finish quality
obtained by two baseline high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray guns. If a high-TE spray gun cannot
provide an acceptable finish while operating at efficiencies representative of HVLP spray guns, the end users
may have a tendency to raise the input air pressure to meet their finishing requirements. However, these
adjustments may reduce the environmental benefits of the high-TE spray gun. These environmental benefits
include a reduction in paint usage and a subsequent reduction of VOC/HAP emissions and solid waste
disposal costs when compared to traditional low-efficiency air spray guns.

In this test, the Tl-CG high-TE spray gun was tested under conditions recommended by Sharpe
Manufacturing, the gun's manufacturer. Two groups of targets were used. The first (large target) group
consisted of 36 in. x 36 in. steel backboard panels, which were covered with heavy duty aluminum foil and
suspended on a stand using magnets, and 12 in. x 18 in. steel finish quality panels. Three foils were coated
for each gun and coating combination to determine the gun's TE. Then, the backboards were recovered with
foil and three finish quality panels were coated, which were held in place on the surface of the backboards by
the same magnets that held the backboards to the stand. The application pattern for all guns did not produce
any direct overspray (i.e., there was no lead, lag, or overlap beyond the edges of the backboard. The second
(small target) group consisted of 5 in. x 12 in. steel TE/finish quality panels. These panels were also attached
to a stand using magnets. Three small panels were coated separately for each gun/coating combination and
were used to determine both TE and finish quality. The application pattern for all guns allowed 50% of the
first and last passes to be above and below the panel, respectively. The spray guns were mounted on a robotic
translator to increase accuracy and repeatability of the test. The translator can move the spray gun horizontally
or vertically. The TE improvement of the Tl-CG spray gun over a HVLP gun baseline was verified using
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) method D 5286. The Tl-CG and HVLP baseline guns
were all gravity-feed guns. The finish quality data was incorporated to validate the comparison of the Tl-CG
and HVLP baseline TE data.

The details of the test, including a summary of the data and a discussion of results, may be found in Chapters
4 and 5 of "Environmental Technology Verification Report - Sharpe Manufacturing Titanium Tl-CG Spray
Gun," published by CTC. Contact Robert J. Fisher of CTC at (814) 269-2702 to obtain copies of this
statement, the Verification Report, or the Data Notebook. The Verification Statement and Report may also be
accessed via the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/etv/verifications/verification-index.html.

TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION

The Tl-CG spray gun was tested, as received from Sharpe Manufacturing, to assess its capabilities. The Tl-
CG is not an HVLP gun, but is claimed to provide a TE equivalent or better than HVLP spray guns. The gun
was equipped with a Tl-02 #CG air cap and a 1.4 mm (0.055 in.) fluid tip. Because the Tl-CG spray gun is
marketed to automotive refinishers, Sharpe Manufacturing selected a three part coating system manufactured
by PPG, which included the NCP -280 primer, the DBC-16640 basecoat, and the DCU-2010 clearcoat.

More information on the spray gun, including recommended air caps and fluid tips for various paint
formulations, is available from Sharpe Manufacturing. At the time of this verification test, the list price of the
Tl-CG spray gun was $290.

VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE

The performance characteristics of the Tl-CG spray gun included the following:

-------
Environmental Factors

• Transfer Efficiency (TE): The TE was determined per ASTM D 5286. The following TEs and associated
standard deviations were obtained using large foil covered steel backboards:

Primer

Basecoat

Clearcoat

TE (%)

Std. Dev.

TE (%)

Std. Dev.

TE (%)

Std. Dev.

Tl-CG

83.3

0.5

56.2

0.5

78.3

0.2

HVLP #1

84.5

0.7

57.0

1.2

77.2

1.6

HVLP #2

83.0

0.7

56.5

1.2

73.5

0.4

The next set of TEs and standard deviations were obtained using small steel panels.

Primer

Basecoat

Clearcoat

TE (%)

Std. Dev.

TE (%)

Std. Dev.

TE (%)

Std. Dev.

Tl-CG

27.8

0.2

15.9

0.2

29.3

0.5

HVLP #1

31.4

0.2

15.7

0.1

26.6

0.3

HVLP #2

27.9

0.7

13.7

0.3

27.1

0.4

The Tl-CG is statistically equivalent or better than both HVLP spray guns at the 95% confidence interval,
with one exception (small primer against HVLP #1). It should be noted that there was a large range in the
percent solids data obtained during the primer tests (e.g., 64.1% -76.1%), which was due to the short pot
life of the coating and the difference in time between mixing and solids analysis. If the TE data for the
primer are normalized (i.e., all calculations use the same percent solids value), then the Tl-CG is
statistically better than HVLP #1 at the 95% confidence interval.

Marketability Factors

• Dry Film Thickness (DFT): The DFT data was obtained per ASTM B 499. Based on PPG's product data
sheets, the following target DFTs were established for the three coatings: Primer, 1.0 - 1.5 mils in one
coat; Basecoat, 0.2 - 0.3 mils in one coat; and Clearcoat, 2.0 - 2.5 mils in two coats. DFTs for all tests
were determined from multiple points measured on each finish quality panel. The following DFTs and
associated standard deviations were obtained during this test:

Primer

Basecoat

Clearcoat

Large

Small

Large

Small

Large

Small

DFT/Std .Dev.

DFT/Std. Dev.

(mils)

Tl-CG

0.4/0.1

0.8/0.1

0.1/0.0

0.2/0.1

2.5/0.1

1.8/0.1

HVLP # 1

0.6/0.1

0.7/0.1

0.3/0.0

2.1/0.1

2.2/0.1

HVLP #2

0.6/0.1

0.8/0.1

0.3/0.0

1.8/0.1

1.6/0.1

• Gloss: The gloss was measured per ASTM D 523 at multiple points on each finish quality panel. The
values range from 0-100 gloss units. The following gloss values and standard deviations were obtained:

Primer

Basecoat

Clearcoat

Large

Small

Large

Small

Large

Small

Gloss/Std. Dev.

Tl-CG

10/1

37/3

22/2

21/0

96/0

95/0

HVLP #1

14/4

19/4

23/0

24/0

84/1

88/1

HVLP #2

12/3

22/3

22/1

28/0

77/1

86/0

vii

-------
• Distinctness-Of-Image (DOI): The DOI was measured per ASTM D 5767 Test Method B at one point on
each finish quality panel. DOI provides another measure of a coating's finish quality. The DOI analyses
were performed by ACT Laboratories, Inc., of Hillsdale, MI. The sliding comb shutter was replaced with
an eight-bladed rotating disc. The test method has a range of 0-100 DOI units. The following DOI values
and associated standard deviations were obtained during this test:



Primer

Basecoat

Clearcoat



Large

Small

Large

Small

Large

Small



DOI/Std. Dev.

DOI/Std. Dev.

DOI/Std. Dev.

DOI/Std. Dev.

DOI/Std. Dev.

DOI/Std. Dev.

Tl-CG

23/1

24/0

27/0

27/0

76/5

70/1

HVLP #1

23/1

23/0

27/0

27/0

62/3

72/3

HVLP #2

24/1

23/0

26/1

28/0

36/1

67/1

• Visual Appearance: CTC personnel assessed the visual appearance of all finish quality panels. The intent
of this analysis was to identify any obvious coating abnormalities that could be attributed to the
application equipment. The visual appearance of the coating was found to be acceptable with no obvious
visual abnormalities that would render the coating unacceptable for its intended application.

SUMMARY

The operating conditions used for the three spray guns varied slightly, however, the goal was to obtain a
comparable finish quality under representative conditions for each specific gun. The finish quality data
indicate that the applied coating characteristics were comparable among the three guns. The test results also
show that the Tl-CG spray gun provides an environmental benefit comparable to HVLP spray equipment by
providing the end user with the same or improved transfer efficiency as HVLP. As with any technology
selection, the end user must select appropriate paint spray equipment for a process that can meet the
associated environmental restrictions, productivity, and coating quality requirements.

Original signed on
9/28/2004

Lawrence W. Reiter PhD
Acting Director

National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Original signed on
9/30/2004

Brian D. Schweitzer

Manager

ETV CCEP

Concurrent Technologies Corporation

NOTICE: EPA verifications are based on evaluations of technology performance under specific, predetermined
criteria and appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and CTC make no expressed or implied warranties as
to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will always operate as verified. The
end user is solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements.
Mention of commercial product names does not imply endorsement.	

viii

-------
Acknowledgments

CTC acknowledges the support of all those who helped plan and implement the verification
activities and prepare this report. In particular, a special thanks to Michael Kosusko, EPA ETV
CCEP Project Manager, and Shirley Wasson, EPA ETV CCEP Quality Assurance Manager, both
of EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.

CTC also expresses sincere gratitude to Sharpe Manufacturing, the manufacturer of the Tl-CG
spray gun, for their participation in, and support of this program and their ongoing commitment
to improve organic finishing operations. In particular, CTC would like to thank Mr. John
Mazzotta, General Manager, and Mr. Hub "Dr. Gun" Forsgren, both of Sharpe Manufacturing.
Sharpe Manufacturing, a division of Graco, Inc., is based in Gardena, CA.

IX

-------
SI to English Conversions

Multiply SI
by factor to

SI Unit	English Unit	obtain English

°C	°F	1.8, then add 32

L	gal. (U.S.)	2.642 xlO"1

m	ft	3.281

kg	lbm	2.205

kPa	psi	1.450 xlO"1

cm	in.	3.937 xlO"1

mm	mil (1 mil = 1/1000 in.)	3.937 xlO1

m/s	ft/min	1.969 xlO2

kg/L	lbm/gal. (U.S.)	8.345

x

-------
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

ASTM

American Society for Testing and Materials

CCEP

Coatings and Coating Equipment Program

CTC

Concurrent Technologies Corporation

DEP

Department of Environmental Protection

DFT

dry film thickness

DOI

di stinctness- of- image

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ETV

Environmental Technology Verification

HAP

hazardous air pollutant

HVLP

high-volume, low-pressure

ID

identification

NDCEE

National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence

NIST

National Institute for Standards and Technology

PEA

performance evaluation audit

PLC

programmable logic controller

QA/QC

quality assurance/quality control

RTI

Research Triangle Institute

SAE

Society of Automotive Engineers

SCAQMD

South Coast Air Quality Management District

TE

transfer efficiency

TNRCC

Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission

TQAPP

Testing and Quality Assurance Project Plan

TSA

technical system audit

VOC

volatile organic compound

XI

-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank

-------
Section 1
Introduction

1.1	ETV Overview

Through the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Pollution Prevention
Innovative Coatings & Coating Equipment Program (CCEP) pilot, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is assisting manufacturers in selecting more
environmentally acceptable coatings and equipment to apply coating materials. The ETV
program, established by the EPA as a result of former President Clinton's environmental
technology strategy, Bridge to a Sustainable Future, was developed to accelerate environmental
technology development and commercialization through third-party verification and reporting of
performance. Specifically, this pilot targets coating technologies that are capable of improving
organic finishing operations, while reducing the quantity of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) generated by coating applications. The overall objective of
the ETV CCEP is to verify pollution prevention and performance characteristics of coatings and
coating equipment technologies and to make the results of the verification tests available to
prospective technology end users. The ETV CCEP is managed by Concurrent Technologies
Corporation (JTC), located in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. CTC, under the National Defense
Center for Environmental Excellence (NDCEE) program, and was directed to establish a
demonstration factory with prototype manufacturing processes that are capable of reducing or
eliminating materials that are harmful to the environment. The demonstration factory finishing
equipment was made available for this project.

The ETV CCEP is a program of partnerships among the EPA, CTC, the vendors of the
technologies being verified, and a stakeholders group. The stakeholders group comprises
representatives of end users, vendors, industry associations, consultants, and regulatory
permitters.

The purpose of this report is to present the results of verification testing of the Sharpe
Manufacturing Titanium Tl-CG gravity-feed spray gun, hereafter referred to as the Tl-CG,
which is designed for use in automotive refinishing. This test compared the Tl-CG against two
HVLP spray guns using a primer, basecoat, and clearcoat from PPG Industries. Analyses
performed during these tests followed American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
methods, or other standard test methods.

1.2	Potential Environmental Impacts

VOCs are emitted to the atmosphere from many industrial processes, as well as through
natural biological reactions. VOCs are mobile in the vapor phase, enabling them to travel
rapidly to the troposphere where they combine with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to
form photochemical oxidants. These photochemical oxidants are precursors to ground-level
ozone or photochemical smog.1 Many VOCs, HAPs, or the subsequent reaction products, are
mutagenic, carcinogenic, or teratogenic, (i.e., cause gene mutation, cancer, or abnormal fetal
development)2 Because of these detrimental effects, Titles I and III of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 were established to control ozone precursors and HAP emissions.2'3

1

-------
Painting operations contribute approximately 20% of stationary source VOC emissions.
These operations also contribute to HAP emissions, liquid wastes, and solid wastes. End users
and permitters often overlook these multimedia environmental effects of coating operations.
New technologies are needed and are being developed to reduce the total generation of pollutants
from coating operations. However, the emerging technologies must not compromise coating
performance and finish quality.

1.3	Technology Description

The Tl-CG was developed to reduce air pollution that typically results from organic
finishing operations by improving paint transfer efficiency (TE). Many current regulations
require the use of HVLP spray guns or spray equipment that is at least as efficient as HVLP.

The Tl-CG is not classified as HVLP because the output air pressure exceeds 10 psig. However,
Sharpe Manufacturing proposes that the Tl-CG can provide a TE equivalent to or better than
HVLP spray guns. That high TE leads to a reduction in paint usage, VOC and HAP emissions,
solid waste disposal, and spray booth maintenance costs. Reduced overspray and bounce-back
provide a cleaner work environment with improved operator visibility.

1.4	Technology Testing Process

The ETV CCEP stakeholders group is composed of coating industry end user and vendor
association representatives, end users, vendors, industry consultants, and state and regional
technical representatives. The stakeholders group reviewed the pollution prevention potential of
each candidate technology and considered the interests of industry. High TE spray equipment
was found to have a large pollution prevention potential, could be widely used by industry in
organic finishing activities, and could potentially satisfy the HVLP equivalent alternatives
allowance provided by many regulating agencies and government specifications.

Upon initiating agreements with interested vendors, a draft Generic Verification Protocol
for high TE spray equipment was developed by the ETV CCEP. The ETV CCEP then developed
a technology-specific Testing and Quality Assurance Project Plan (TQAPP) for each piece of
equipment being verified, with significant input from the vendors. After the vendor concurred
with, and the EPA and CTC approved, the TQAPP, CTC personnel performed the verification
test. The Verification Statement, which is produced as a result of this test, may be used by the
technology vendor for marketing purposes, or by end users selecting high TE spray equipment.
The Verification Statement for this product is included on pages ^viii of this report.

1.5	Test Objectives and Approach

The testing was performed according to the Sharpe Manufacturing Titanium Tl-CG
TQAPP. This project was designed to verify that the Tl-CG is capable of providing the end user
with a pollution prevention benefit and an acceptable quality finish that is comparable or better
than HVLP spray equipment. The goal of this project is to supply the end users with the best
available, unbiased technical data to assist them in determining whether the Tl-CG meets their
needs. The quantitative pollution prevention benefit, in terms of improved TE, depends on
innumerable factors that are often unique to each coating production line. Attempting to verify

2

-------
every possible combination of these factors is unrealistic. For this verification test, a specific
combination of these factors was selected by CTC, EPA, Sharpe Manufacturing, and the ETV
CCEP stakeholders. The data presented in this report are representative only of the specific
conditions tested; however, the test design represents an independent, repeatable evaluation of
the pollution prevention benefits and performance of the technology. To determine the
environmental benefit, the Tl-CG's TE is quantitatively and qualitatively compared to a HVLP
baseline (see Section 4). The HVLP guns used for this verification test, like the Tl-CG, were all
gravity-feed.

All processing and laboratory analyses were performed at CTC facilities. TE was
calculated to determine the relative pollution prevention benefit of the technology. Dry film
thickness (DFT), gloss, distinctness-of-image (DOI), and visual appearance were evaluated to
verify finish quality. The finish quality of the HVLP baseline panels was also evaluated to
validate the comparability of the TE data.

1.6 Performance and Cost Summary

This verification has quantitatively shown that the Tl-CG is capable of providing an
environmental benefit equivalent or better than the HVLP guns it was compared with (see Table
1). This environmental benefit was demonstrated by the ability of the Tl-CG to apply a coating
at the same or higher TE. This verification test has also shown that the Tl-CG is capable of
providing the end user with an acceptable quality finish. The increased TE reduces paint usage
and solid waste generation. The reduction in paint usage translates into a reduction in VOC and
HAP emissions. The extent that emissions and wastes are reduced depends on each individual
application, which must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

TE is defined as the percentage of the paint solids sprayed that actually adhere to the
substrate. This test was designed to determine whether the Tl-CG was capable of meeting or
exceeding the efficiency of two popular HVLP spray guns. The test utilized two targets cf
differing sizes (large and small) and three different coatings (primer, basecoat, and clearcoat) for
each target size. For the large target, each gun coated three TE foils and three finish quality
panels for each coating. For the small target, each gun coated three panels for each coating,
which were used to determine both TE and finish quality. Table 1 summarizes the results for
TE, DFT, gloss, and DOI for each of the gun-coating-target combinations.

Table 1. Verification Results for the Tl-CG and HVLP Baseline

Transfer Efficiency (%)

Primer

Basecoat

Clearcoat

Large

Small

Large

Small

Large

Small

TE/Std. Dev.

Tl-CG

83.3/0.5

27.8/0.2

56.2/0.5

15.9/0.2

78.3/0.2

29.3/0.5

HVLP #1

84.5/0.7

31.4/0.2

57.0/1.2

15.7/0.1

77.6/1.6

26.6/0.3

HVLP #2

83.0/0.7

27.9/0.7

56.5/1.2

13.7/0.3

73.5/0.4

27.1/0.4

-------
Table 2. Verification Results for the Tl-CG and HVLP Baseline (Cont'd)

Dry Film Thickness (mils)

Primer

Basecoat

Clearcoat

Large

Small

Large

Small

Large

Small

DFT/Std. Dev.

Tl-CG

0.4/0.1

0.8/0.1

0.1/0.0

0.2/0.1

2.5/0.1

1.8/0.1

HVLP #1

0.6/0.1

0.7/0.1

0.3/0.0

2.1 / 0.1

2.2/0.1

HVLP #2

0.6/0.1

0.8/0.1

0.3/0.0

1.8/0.1

1.6/0.1

Gloss (units)

Primer

Basecoat

Clearcoat

Large

Small

Large

Small

Large

Small

Gloss/Std. Dev.

Tl-CG

10/1

37/3

22/2

21/0

96/0

95/0

HVLP #1

14/4

19/4

23/0

24/0

84/1

88/1

HVLP #2

12/3

22/3

22/1

28/0

77/1

86/0

Distinctness-Of-Image(a) (units)

Primer

Basecoat

Clearcoat

Large

Small

Large

Small

Large

Small

DOI/Std. Dev.

Tl-CG

23/1

24/0

27/0

76/5

70/1

HVLP #1

23/1

23/0

27/0

62/3

72 /3

HVLP #2

24/1

23/0

26/1

28/0

36/1

67/1

a The DOI analyses was completed by ACT Laboratories, Inc., of Hillsdale, MI. The sliding comb shutter was replaced by an eight-bladed
rotating disc.

The Tl-CG is statistically equivalent or better than both HVLP spray guns at the 95%
confidence interval, with one exception (small primer against HVLP #1). It should be noted that
there was a large range in the percent solids data obtained during the primer tests (e.g., 64.1% -
76.P/o), which was due to the short pot life of the coating and the difference in time between
mixing and solids analysis. If the TE data for the primer are normalized (i.e., all calculations use
the same percent solids value), then the T1 -CG is statistically better than HVLP #1 at the 95%
confidence interval. In addition, the DFT, gloss, and DOI data are comparable or better for all
comparisons.

The capital costs of high TE spray guns are typically lower than HVLP spray guns. At the
time of this verification test, the list price of the Tl-CG was $290, and the HVLP guns used for
the baseline testing ranged in list price from $450 - $550.

-------
Section 2
Description of the Technology

2.1 Technology Performance, Evaluation, and Verification

The overall objectives of this verification study are to verify pollution prevention
characteristics and performance of coating equipment technologies and to make the results of the
verification tests available to the technology vendor for marketing to prospective technology end
users. The Tl-CG is designed for use in automotive refinishing applications. The combination of
the fluid tip and air cap determines the quality of the finish and the productivity potential. For
this verification study, the gun used a gravity-feed fluid delivery system consisting of a 0.6-L
gravity cup. The fluid adjustment determines the distance that the needle retracts from the fluid
tip, which in turn determines the amount of paint that can pass through the orifice. The farther
the needle retracts, the greater the paint flow. Three PPG automotive refinishing coatings were
used for this test: NCP-280 primer, DBC-16640 basecoat, and DCU-2010 clearcoat.

CTC, the independent, third-party evaluator, worked with the vendor of the technology
and the EPA throughout verification testing. CTC prepared this verification report and was
responsible for performing the testing associated with this verification.

2.2 The Tl-CG Test

This verification test is based on the ETV CCEP Sharpe Manufacturing Titanium Tl-CG
TQAPP, which was reviewed by the EPA and the vendor. Sharpe Manufacturing, the
manufacturer of the Tl-CG, worked with CTC to identify the optimum performance settings for
the gun. Sharpe Manufacturing had determined the parameters through tests that their personnel
conducted at their facility and at CTC's facility in Johnstown, PA. A preliminary TQAPP was
generated using the vendor supplied information and was submitted to EPA for review of
content. Following the initial EPA review and incorporation of their comments, the vendor was
given the opportunity to comment on the specifics of the TQAPP. Any information pertinent to
maintaining the quality of the study was incorporated into the TQAPP. A final draft of the
TQAPP was reviewed by the vendor and technical peer reviewers then approved by the EPA and
CTC prior to testing.

Testing was conducted under the direction of CTC personnel, with representatives for
Sharpe Manufacturing present during a portion of the testing. The Sharpe Manufacturing
representative aided CTC in the initial gun setup. The Sharpe Manufacturing representative
served only as an observer during the actual verification test.

All information gathered during verification testing was analyzed, reduced, and
documented in this report. TE and finish quality measurements of the Tl-CG and the relative TE
comparison to an HVLP baseline were the primary objectives of this report. The data comparison
highlights the pollution prevention benefit of the Tl-CG spray gun, as well as its ability to
provide the required finish quality. A portion of the test data has been quality audited by EPA
and the CTC Quality Assurance Officer to ensure the validity of the data.

-------
2.3 Tl-CG Spray Application Equipment

Gravity-feed systems consist of a cup mounted on top of the spray gun. Hydrostatic
pressure, as a result of gravitational forces, is the driving force behind the paint flow rate to the
spray gun. As the volume of paint in the gravity cup decreases, the paint flow rate decreases. The
Tl-CG uses a gravity-feed paint delivery system, as does each of the two HVLP guns used in
this verification test. The product data sheets can be obtained from the manufacturer.

2.3.1 Applications of the Technology

The Tl-CG can be used for many applications; however, an automotive
refinishing application was the subject of this verification test. Automotive refinishers use
the Tl-CG because it is a drop-in substitute for conventional and HVLP spray guns, it is
capable of high production rates, and its maintainability is comparable to other spray
guns.

2.3.2 Advantages of the Technology

The Tl-CG is designed to reduce VOC emissions that typically result from spray
painting operations by increasing paint TE. HVLP equipment use has been legislated as a
requirement in many states, such as, California SCAQMD's Rules 1151 and 1145, the
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission's (TNRCC) Title 30, Section
115.422, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) Title
25, Section 129.52. Similar requirements have been adopted in legislation throughout the
U.S. High efficiency spray guns, like the Tl-CG, have the potential for being recognized
as equivalent to HVLP for regulatory purposes, and therefore, eligible for use in
traditionally HVLP-only areas.

2.3.3 Limitations of the Technology

If the Tl-CG is accepted by the appropriate local regulatory agencies as compliant
with the automotive refinishing requirements, there are no apparent limitations on the Tl-
CG for automotive refinishing. However, some agencies may require approval prior to
using the Tl-CG in their jurisdiction. The use of the Tl-CG would be limited in areas
where approval is not granted.

2.3.4 Technology Deployment and Costs

The Tl-CG has many potential applications, with few limitations on its
distribution throughout the various finishing industries. The use of a gravity cup limits
the amount of continuous spraying that can be accomplished using this type of spray gun.
However, refilling the cup is a relatively simple and quick procedure. The Tl-CG is cost
effective because it is lower in capital and operating costs compared to HVLP; however,
economic benefits are realized through reduced paint usage as a result of improved TE
and finish quality. As TE increases, less paint is required to obtain the same film
thickness, thereby increasing the number of parts that can be coated with a given volume
of paint.

-------
Section 3

Description and Rationale for the Test Design

3.1 Description of Test Site

The testing of the Tl-CG was conducted at the organic finishing line, in CTCs
Environmental Technology Facility Demonstration Factory. The layout of the organic finishing
line is shown in Figure 1.

The finish quality test panels were pretreated in the seven-stage zinc-phosphate
pretreatment process of the organic finishing line, weighed, and stored until needed for testing.
The spray booths are capable of producing air velocities of over 0.6 m/s (120 ft/min). The three
stages of dry filters are equipped with a gauge that monitors the pressure drop across the filter
bank. Air supply lines for operating the guns and gauge readouts are located at the spray booths
and were used for this test. A linear translator was used to move the spray guns vertically and
horizontally when applying the coatings. The translator, operated through a programmable logic
controller (PLC), was used to remove any operator bias. The foil and panels were manually
transported to and from the spray booth and to the laboratory for curing.

CTC's environmental laboratory maintains extensive state-of-the-art facilities that are
dedicated to coating technology evaluations, and can also measure and characterize products,
processes, and waste specimens resulting from factory activities.

7

-------
3.2 Evaluation of Tl-CG Performance

The overall objectives of the verification study were to evaluate the pollution prevention
benefit of the Tl-CG, relative to the TE of HVLP spray guns, and to determine the effectiveness
of the Tl-CG in providing an acceptable coating finish. Section 4 discusses the details of the
HVLP baseline. The operating conditions used for the three spray guns varied slightly, however,
the goal was to obtain a comparable finish quality under representative conditions for each
specific gun. Finish quality cannot be compromised in most applications, despite the
environmental benefit that may be achieved; therefore, this study has evaluated both of these
crucial factors. Results from the Tl-CG verification testing will benefit prospective end users by
enabling them to better determine whether the Tl-CG will provide a pollution prevention benefit
while meeting the finish quality requirements for their application.

3.2.1 Test Operations at CTC

The Tl-CG and HVLP baseline testing consisted of large TE foils, large finish
quality panels, and small TE/finish quality panels using a PPG primer, basecoat, and
clearcoat. Foils were used on the large targets to minimize the difference between the
weight of the substrate and the weight of the applied coating to aid in the determination
of TE. The small targets used steel panels instead of small foils for TE analysis since the
differential between the mass of the small panels and the mass of foil that would have
been used was not as significant as the large targets. Steel panels were used in both the
large (used only for finish quality) and small targets (same panels for TE and finish
quality) to determine finish quality.

The large TE foils measured approximately 121.9 cm by 101.6 cm (48 in. x 40
in.). All foils were wrapped onto steel panels measuring 91.4 cm by 91.4 cm (36 in. x 36
in.), which were attached to a backboard by magnets. The foil-covered panels were
carried by hand to and from the booth. Once coated, the foils were carefully removed
from the steel panels and sent to the laboratory oven for curing.

The large finish quality panels used for verification testing were flat, cold-rolled
22-gauge steel that meets Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 1008 specifications.
The panel dimensions were 45.7 cm by 30.5 cm (18 in. x 12 in.). All panels were
suspended on a foil covered 91.4 cm by 91.4 cm (36 in. x 36 in.) steel backboard. The
panels were held onto the backboard by magnets. Once the panels were coated, they
were removed from the booth by hand and sent to the laboratory for curing. Figure 2
illustrates the application pattern used for the large targets (clearcoat was applied using
five passes and two coats).

-------
36"x36" foil
covered backboard

A

->

12"x18" steel
finish quality
panel

Complete
coverage
area

Figure 2. Large Target Application Diagram

The small TE and finish quality panels used for verification testing were flat,
cold-rolled 22-gauge steel that meets Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) 1008
specifications. The panel dimensions were 30.5 cm by 12.7 cm (12 in. x 5 in.). All panels
were suspended on a stand using magnets. Once the panels were coated, they were
removed from the booth by hand and sent to the laboratory for curing. Figure 3 illustrates
the application pattern used for the small targets (clearcoat was applied using three passes
and two coats).

The coatings used for this test were the PPG NCP-280 primer, the PPG DBC-
16640 basecoat, and the PPG DCU-2010 clearcoat. The NCP-280 primer was mixed 2:1
with PPGNCX-285 catalyst, and then reduced 10% by volume with acetone. The mixed
primer had an estimated pot life of 60 minutes. The DBC-16640 basecoat was mixed 1:1
with PPG DT-885 reducer. The mixed basecoat is reported to have an indefinite pot life
by PPG, as the mixed coating may be refreshed with reducer as needed. The DCU-2010

Figure 3. Small Target Application Diagram

9

-------
clearcoat was mixed 4:1 with PPG DCX-2012 hardener. The mixed clearcoat had an
estimated pot life of 90 minutes. Samples were taken just prior to coating the test panels
to measure the temperature, viscosity, percent solids, volatile content, and density. A
new batch was prepared for each gun-coating-target combination.

The Tl-CG was mounted on a nylon arm extending from the carrier plate of the
robotic translator, which was controlled by a remote PLC. The PLC also controlled the
pneumatic cylinder that triggered the gun. The air traveled from a quick disconnect at the
shop line to a quick disconnect at the air inlet to the spray gun using 9.5-mm (3/8-in.)
inside diameter air hose. The operating parameters for the spray guns were based on
manufacturer's recommendations (see Sections 4 and 5).

The booth air velocity was measured in close proximity to the panels. The air
velocity through the booth was between 0.4 and 0.7 m/s (80 and 140 ft/min). The velocity
measured near the panels may vary greatly because of the disruption of the air currents by
the rack and panels. The pressure drop across the filters was also checked prior to each
run and at the end of the test. To ensure that the filter bank system was functioning
properly, a pressure drop across the filter bank greater than 1.0 cm of water indicated that
the system required service.

Once the foils or panels were in position, all pertinent measurements taken, and
equipment adjustments made, the PLC activated the motors that drove the linear motion
translators and the pneumatic cylinder that triggered the gun. The foils and panels were
automatically sprayed using vertical overlap of the fan pattern. The foils and panels were
manually transported to and from the booth and to the laboratory for curing. The
laboratory oven was maintained at 110 °C (230 °F) and the samples were cured for 1
hour.

There were nine large combinations, where each of the three guns sprayed three
separate coatings. Each large combination coated three large foils and three large panels,
for a total of twenty-seven large foils and twenty-seven large panels. There were nine
small combinations, where each of the three guns sprayed three separate coatings. Each
small combination coated three small panels, for a total of twenty-seven small panels. TE
was determined using the average weight gain of the foils or panels, per ASTM D 5286.
Coated standard test panels were also analyzed for DFT, gloss, DOI, and visual
appearance.

3.2.2 Test Sampling Operations at CTO s ETF facility

Foils and panels were used in this project. The foils were marked with a
permanent marker, and each panel was stamped with a unique alphanumeric identifier.
The experimental design used 3 foils and 3 panels for the large target tests, and 3 panels
for the small target tests.

The laboratory analyst recorded the date/time of each run and the time at which
each measurement was taken. When the coated panels were removed from the booth,
they were transported to the laboratory for curing in a calibrated oven.

-------
3.2.3 Sample Handling and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures

The test coating components were mixed in the laboratory. The temperature,
viscosity, density, VOC content, and percent solids analyses were performed. Data were
logged on bench data sheets, precision and accuracy data were evaluated, and results
were recorded on the ETV CCEP Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Data
forms. Another laboratory staff member reviewed the data sheets for QA.

After curing, the laboratory analyst logged panels, giving each a unique
laboratory identification (ID) number. The analyst who delivered the test panels to the
laboratory completed a custody log that indicated the sampling point IDs, sample
material IDs, quantity of samples, time and date of testing, and the analyst's initials. The
product evaluation tests were also noted on the custody log, and the laboratory's sample
custodian verified this information. The analyst and the sample custodian both signed the
custody log, indicating the transfer of the samples from the processing area to the
laboratory analysis area. The laboratory sample custodian logged the test panels into a
bound record book, stored the test panels under the appropriate conditions (ambient room
temperature and humidity), and created a work order to initiate testing.

Each apparatus used to assess the quality of a coating on a test panel was set up
and maintained according to the manufacturer's instructions, or the appropriate reference
methods. Actual sample analysis was performed only after setup was verified per the
appropriate instructions. As available, samples of known materials, with established
product quality, were used to verify that a system was working properly.

Data Reporting, Reduction, and Verification Steps

3.3.1 Data Reporting

Raw data were generated and collected manually and electronically by the
analysts at the bench or process level. Process data were recorded on process log sheets
during factory operations. The recorded data included original observations, printouts,
and readouts from equipment for sample, standard, and reference QC analyses. The
analyst processed raw data and was responsible for reviewing the data according to
specified precision, accuracy, and completeness policies. Raw data bench sheets,
calculations, and data summary sheets for each sample batch were kept together.

3.3.2 Data Reduction and Verification

A preliminary data package was assembled by the primary analyst(s). The data
package was reviewed by a different analyst to ensure that tracking, sample treatment,
and calculations were correct. A preliminary data report was prepared and submitted to
the laboratory manager, who then reviewed all final results for adequacy to project QA
objectives. After the EPA reviewed the results and conclusions from the technical project
manager, the Verification Statement and Verification Report were written, sent to the
vendor for comment, passed through technical peer review, and submitted to EPA for
approval. The Verification Statement was disseminated by permission of the vendor.

-------
Section 4
Reference Data

4.1 HVLP Parameter Development

Each of the HVLP guns was set up in the same apparatus as the Tl-CG. The guns were
set at same distance from the surface of the large targets as the Tl-CG, for each particular
coating. The HVLP guns were setup so that the fan pattern, for each particular coating, was the
same as that for the Tl-CG for the small targets. The fluid and fan adjustments, along with the
input air pressure, were set to produce fan patterns that were consistent for each particular
coating.

The HVLP fan patterns were similar in visual appearance to the Tl-CG fan pattern in
terms of size, particle distribution, and atomization effects. Several three-panel sets were coated
using similar conditions as the Tl-CG. Each three-panel set was coated using different
horizontal gun speeds. The trial-and-error method was used to achieve a wet film thickness
comparable to the Tl-CG setup. A wet film thickness gage was used to determine the amount of
paint applied. If the wet film thickness for the panel sets were within the target range, the range
of application speeds was adjusted and additional sets cf panels were coated. The operating
parameters for each of the two HVLP guns were determined in the same manner. Tables 2 and 3
lists the configuration and setup conditions the two HVLP guns.

Table 3. HVLP Baseline Gun #1 Configuration and Setup

Target Size

Large

Small

Coating

Primer

Basecoat

Clear

Primer

Basecoat

Clear

Air Cap

1.4 mm

Fluid Tip (mm)

1.4 mm

Fluid Adjustment3

W.O.

Fan Adjustment"

W.O.

Fan Pattern (cm)b

21.6

22.9

15.2

25.4

12.7

Number Passes

Number Coats

Distance to Target (cm)

15.2

19.7

15.6

12.7

Horizontal Travel

91.4

77.5

80.0

76.8

Distance (cm)

Horizontal Gun Speed

29.0

19.0

23.0

20.0

16.0

32.0

(cm/s)

a W.O. means the adjustment knob was set to "wide open".

bThe fan pattern for the clear coat was adjusted to 12.7 cm based on the inability of the spray guns
to obtain a 25.4 cm pattern at a representative distance to the target. An additional pass was added
to completely cover the target panels.

-------
Table 4. HVLP Baseline Gun #2 Configuration and Setup

Target Size

Large

Small

Coating

Primer

Basecoat

Clear

Primer

Basecoat

Clear

Air Cap

1.4 mm

1.4 mm

1.4 mm

1.4 mm

1.4 mm

1.4 mm

Fluid Tip (mm)

1.4 mm

1.4 mm

1.4 mm

1.4 mm

1.4 mm

1.4 mm

Fluid Adjustment"

W.O.

W.O.

W.O.

W.O.

W.O.

W.O.

Fan Adjustment3

W.O.

W.O.

W.O.

W.O.

W.O.

W.O.

Fan Pattern (cm)b

19.7

22.9

15.2

25.4

25.4

12.7

Number Passes

4

4

5

2

2

3

Number Coats

1

1

2

1

1

2

Distance to Target (cm)

15.2

15.2

15.2

20.3

16.5

12.7

Horizontal Travel

91.4

91.4

91.4

77.5

80.0

76.2

Distance (cm)













Horizontal Gun Speed

31.0

15.0

28.0

18.0

11.0

40.0

(cm/s)













a W.O. means the adjustment knob was set to "wide open".

bThe fan pattern for the clear coat was adjusted to 12.7 cm based on the inability of the spray guns
to obtain a 25.4 cm pattern at a representative distance to the target. An additional pass was added
to completely cover the target panels.

4.2 HVLP Results

The data in Tables 4 and 5 show the operational characteristics obtained for each of the
two HVLP guns. The data indicate that finish quality was not sacrificed to maximize TE.
Therefore, the comparison of the TE data from the HVLP baseline and the Tl-CG is valid. Table
4 lists the test results for the first HVLP baseline gun, and Table 5 for the second.

Table 5. HVLP Baseline Gun #1 Response Factor Results

Target Size

Large

Small

Coating

Primer

Basecoat

Clear

Primer

Basecoat

Clear

Dynamic Input Air

30

30

30

30

30

30

Pressure (psig)

Dynamic Output Air

Horn - 9.5

Horn - 9.5

Horn - 9.5

Horn - 9.5

Horn-9.5

Horn-9.5

Pressure (psig)

Center - 10.7

Center - 10.7

Center - 10.7

Center - 10.7

Center - 10.7

Center - 10.7

Air Flow (scfm)

13

13

13

13

13

13

Average DFT (mils)

0.6

0.3

2.1

0.7

0.3

2.2

Average Gloss (units)

14

23

84

19

24

88

DOI (units)

23

27

62

23

27

72

Average TE (%)

84.5

57.0

77.2

31.4

15.7

26.6

Note: The outlet pressure at the center position on the air cap exceeded 10 psig, but was obtained using the manufacturer's
recommended dynamic inlet air pressure.

13

-------
Table 6. HVLP Baseline Gun #2 Response Factor Results

Target Size

Large

Small

Coating

Primer

Basecoat

Clear

Primer

Basecoat

Clear

Dynamic Input Air

29

29

29

29

29

29

Pressure (psig)

Dynamic Output Air

Horn - 9.5

Horn - 9.5

Horn - 9.5

Horn - 9.5

Horn-9.5

Horn-9.5

Pressure (psig)

Center - 8

Center - 8

Center - 8

Center - 8

Center - 8

Center - 8

Air Flow (scfm)

13

13

13

13

13

13

Average DFT (mils)

0.6

0.3

1.8

0.8

0.3

1.6

Average Gloss (units)

12

22

77

22

28

86

DOI (units)

24

26

36

23

28

67

Average TE (%)

83.0

56.5

73.5

27.9

13.7

27.1

14

-------
Section 5
Results and Discussion

This section presents an overview of the verification test results, including an analysis of
environmental benefits of the Tl-CG spray gun and a summary of data quality. Data generated
during this test are being compared to an HVLP baseline in order to establish the relative
environmental benefit of the product. An explanation of the manner in which the data were
compared is provided. Subsequently, the actual tabulation, assessment, and evaluation of the data
are presented. The accuracy, precision, and completeness data, the process and laboratory bench
sheets, raw data tables, and calculated data tables are included in Section 5 of the Tl-CG Data
Notebook.

5.1 Potential Environmental Benefits and Vendor Claims

The primary purpose of this test is to verify that the Tl-CG spray gun provides a TE and
finish quality comparable or better than and HVLP baseline. Sharpe Manufacturing makes no
claims on the absolute TE obtainable by the Tl-CG.

5.2 Selection of Test Methods and Parameters Monitored

CTC, the ETV CCEP partner organization, performed the laboratory testing required for
this verification test. CTC possesses the skills, experience, and most of the laboratory equipment
required by this verification study. The ETV CCEP selected test procedures, process conditions,
and parameters to be monitored based on their correlation to, or impact on, TE or finish quality.

5.2.1 Process Conditions Monitored

The conditions listed below were documented to ensure that there were no
significant fluctuations in conditions during the TL-CG verification test and the HVLP
baseline tests. No significant differences were recorded. A more detailed discussion of
the data is presented in Section 3 of the T1 -CG Data Notebook.

• Factory relative humidity ranged from 9.8 to 12.7%

• Spray booth relative humidity ranged from 10.1 to 12.7%

• Factory temperature ranged from 21.0 to 23.7 °C

• Spray booth temperature ranged from 21.0 to 23.2 °C

• Spray booth air velocity ranged from 0.4 to 0.7 m/s

• Panel temperature ranged from 21.1 to 23.9 °C

5.2.2 Operational Parameters

A number of operational parameters were also monitored because they often vary
from gun to gun. These parameters were documented to explain TE and finish quality
improvements over HVLP guns, and to identify parameters that are likely to change when
replacing HVLP guns with the Tl-CG. The dynamic input air pressures varied from gun
to gun. The Tl-CG was operated at 30 psig, and the two HVLP baseline guns were run at

-------
30 and 29 psig, respectively, based on the manufacturer's recommendation. The distance
to target was maintained at 15.2 cm for all large target tests. The fan pattern obtained
from each gun was maintained at 25.4 cm for the primer and basecoat and 12.7 cm for the
clearcoat for the small target tests. A more detailed discussion of the data is presented in
Section 3 of the Tl-CG Data Notebook.

5.2.3 Parameters/Conditions Monitored

Other parameters and conditions were monitored to ensure that they remained
relatively constant throughout Tl-CG verification testing and HVLP baseline testing.
Constancy was desired in order to reduce the number of factors that could significantly
influence TE calculations and evaluation of finish quality. Most of these parameters were
relatively constant within each test and from gun to gun. However, the traverse speeds
varied for each gun in order to obtain the desired DFTs. A more detailed discussion of the
HVLP setup data is presented in Table 2 and 3 of this report and in Section 3 of the Tl-
CG Data Notebook. Table 6 presents the Tl-CG configuration and setup information.

Table 7. Tl-CG Configuration and Setup

Target Size

Large

Small

Coating

Primer

Basecoat

Clear

Primer

Basecoat

Clear

Air Cap

1.4 mm

Fluid Tip (mm)

1.4 mm

Fluid Adjustment

W.O.

Fan Adjustment

w.o.

1 turn out

W.O.

1 turn out

W.O.

Fan Pattern (cm)

20.3

25.4

15.2

25.4

12.7

Number Passes

Number Coats

Distance to Target (cm)

15.2

19.1

15.2

10.2

Horizontal Travel

91.4

76.2

80.0

76.2

Distance (cm)

Horizontal Gun Speed

30.0

19.0

22.0

23.0

18.0

31.0

(cm/s)

5.3 Overall Performance Evaluation of the Tl-CG Spray Gun

The DFT and gloss obtained using the Tl-CG are comparable to the finish quality of the
HVLP baseline. Therefore, it was determined that the Tl-CG was able to meet the finish quality
requirements of the test coating, and that the TE values obtained for the Tl-CG test are
representative of the actual operation of the equipment. The DFT, gloss, and DOI values of the
HVLP baseline panels are considered to be representative of the actual operation of the
equipment, and the TE values obtained from the HVLP baseline are determined to be
representative of the HVLP guns tested. The DFT, gloss, and DOI values obtained for the HVLP
baseline are similar to those for the panels from the T1 -CG test; therefore, the comparison of the
TE data from the Tl-CG and the HVLP baseline is valid.

This test attempted to determine if the Tl-CG was better than, or equivalent to HVLP
spray guns. Based on information presented in Table 1, 4, 5, and 7, the Tl-CG is better than the

-------
individual HVLP guns and the average of the two HVLP guns for some of the comparisons. In
order to determine equivalency, a 95% confidence interval is being utilized to statistically
evaluate the data. Appendix D of the Tl-CG Data Notebook shows that the Tl-CG is
statistically equivalent or better than the individual HVLP guns and the HVLP average for all but
one combination (Small-Primer-HVLP #1). However, there was a large variation in percent
solids between the Tl-CG sample and the HVLP samples, due to the difference in time between
mixing and solids analysis. The short pot life of the primer is characterized by increasing
viscosity and decreasing percent solids over time. If the percent solids data was normalized
between the Tl-CG and the HVLP guns (use the same value for all primer calculations), the
revised TE for the Tl-CG for this combination (Small-Primer) is greater than the revised HVLP
TE data.

The test results indicate that the Tl-CG was able to provide an environmental benefit
equivalent to or better than an HVLP baseline and maintain the required finish quality of the
applied coating.

5.3.1 Response Factors

Responses to the process conditions and parameters were considered to be
important due to their effect on, or ability to evaluate, TE and finish quality; therefore,
these responses were documented, and the appropriate tests required to identify these
characteristics were performed. Any response that was characterized using laboratory
equipment followed accepted industrial and ASTM standards. Table 7 presents the
average results for the response factors for the Tl-CG spray gun. A more detailed
discussion of the data is presented in Section 3 of the T1 -CG Data Notebook.

Table 8. Tl-CG Response Factor Results

Target Size

Large

Small

Coating

Primer

Basecoat

Clear

Primer

Basecoat

Clear

Dynamic Input Air

Pressure (psig)

Dynamic Output Air

N/A

Pressure (psig)

Not HVLP

Air Flow (scfm)

Average DFT (mils)

0.4

0.1

2.5

0.8

0.2

1.8

Average Gloss (units)

DOI (units)

Average TE (%)

83.3

56.2

78.3

27.8

15.9

29.3

The initial large and small clearcoat combinations using the Tl-CG were found to
have DFTs well below the range of both HVLP spray guns. In order to ensure
comparability, those two combinations were re-run at new horizontal gun speeds and the
new data is presented in this report. Although the average DFT varied between the Tl-
CG and each of the HVLP guns, no corresponding variation in the associated TE was
shown in the verification tests. If a direct correlation between these parameters does exist,
detailed testing is required to establish that correlation, an activity that is beyond the
scope of this project. No corrective action was taken for this deviation from the TQAPP.

-------
The gloss data indicate that the coating finish applied by the Tl-CG is comparable
to the HVLP baseline data based on the intended application of the test coating.

The TE for each gun is a representation of the exact verification test conditions,
which includes the paint that was sprayed while the guns were between the panels and
outside the boundaries of the racks. The calculation of the TE uses the total amount of
paint sprayed and the weight gain of the coated panels, both determined through
gravimetric weight measurements.

5.3.2 Assessment of Laboratory Data Quality

The Tl-CG TE results were compared to the HVLP baseline data. The Tl-CG
results for DFT and gloss were compared to the HVLP baseline data. The information
gathered was considered to be statistically valid and significant such that the advantages
and limitations of Tl-CG, per these test conditions, could be identified with a high degree
of confidence. It can be stated with greater than 95% confidence that the Tl-CG provided
an equivalent or higher TE than the HVLP baseline.

5.4 Technology Data Quality Assessment

Accuracy, precision, and completeness goals were established for each process parameter
and condition of interest, as well as each test method used. The goals are outlined in the TQAPP.

All laboratory analyses and monitored process conditions and parameters met the
accuracy, precision, and completeness requirements specified in the TQAPP. The definition of
accuracy, precision, and completeness, as well as the methodology used to maintain the limits
placed on each in the TQAPP, are presented below. The actual accuracy, precision, and
completeness values, where applicable, are presented in Section 5 of the Tl-CG Data Notebook.

5.4.1 Accuracy, Precision, and Completeness

Accuracy is defined as exactness of a measurement; (i.e., the degree to which a
measured value corresponds with that of the actual value). To ensure that measurements
were accurate, standard reference materials, traceable to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), were used for instrument calibration and periodic
calibration verification. Accuracy was determined to be within the expected values listed
in the TQAPP. Accuracy results are located in the T1 -CG Data Notebook.

Precision is defined as the agreement of two or more measurements that have
been performed in exactly the same manner. Ensuring that measurements are performed
with precision is an important aspect of verification testing. The exact number of test
parts coated is identified in the TQAPP, and the analysis of replicate test parts for each
coating property at each of the experimental conditions occurred by design. Precision
was determined to be within the expected values listed in the TQAPP. All precision data
are listed in the Tl-CG Data Notebook.

-------
Completeness is defined as the number of valid determinations and expressed as a
percentage of the total number of analyses conducted, by analysis type. CTCs laboratory
was striving for at least 90% completeness. Completeness is ensured by evaluating
precision and accuracy data during analysis. All laboratory results for finish quality were
100% complete. All results were reviewed and considered usable for statistical analysis.
Completeness results are shown in the Tl-CG Data Notebook.

5.4.2 Audits

The ETV CCEP QA Officer conducted an internal technical systems audit (TSA)
of the Tl-CG verification test. Also, prior to the certification of the data, the ETV CCEP
QA Officer audited a portion of the data generated during the T1 -CG test.

The TSAs verified that CTCs personnel were adequately trained and prepared to
perform their assigned duties, and that routine procedures were adequately documented.
The ETV CCEP QA Officer examined copies of test data sheets that recorded
information such as process conditions, spray booth conditions, equipment setup, and
coating preparation, and also reviewed laboratory bench sheets showing data for coating
pretreatment weights, densities, and percent nonvolatile matter.

The ETV CCEP QA Officer audit found that the Tl-CG test was conducted in a
manner that provides valid data to support this Verification Statement/Report. Several
deviations from the original TQAPP were identified by the TSA and are discussed in
Section 2 of the Tl-CG Data Notebook. Those deviations included:

• Some of the gun configurations and settings are different than the TQAPP due to
changes made during gun set up.

• Some of the anticipated variations in density, viscosity, and percent solids were
exceeded for the NCP-280 Primer due to the short pot life of that coating.

• The curing step was conducted in a laboratory oven as opposed to the factory
floor.

• The fan pattern for the clear coat over the small panels was set at 12.7 cm. Also,
the clear coat combinations required the addition of one extra pass, based on
changes made during gun set up.

• Some of the DFT obtained were below the target range.

-------
Section 6
Vendor Forum

[Sharpe Manufacturing has been offered the opportunity to comment on
findings of this report. No comments were received at the time this report
published.]

20

-------
Section 7
References

1.	Curran, T., et al., National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1990, EPA-
450/4-91-023, NTIS PB92-141555, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
November 1991.

2.	Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Title III - Hazardous Air Pollutants, November
15, 1990.

3.	Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Title I - Attainment/Maintenance of National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), November 15, 1990.

21

-------