CleanerSolutions Database
Toxics Use Reduction Institute · Surface Solutions Laboratory
 
Toxics Use Reduction Institute




Surface Solutions Laboratory

Trial Report



Trial Number 0

(Client Number 244, Project Number 1)

Trial Purpose: To evaluate drying times for various floor finishes.

Date Run: 05/31/05

Experiment Procedure:
The moisture content at the time of testing will influence results due to the hydroscopic nature of the base materials. Therefore, efforts must be taken to ensure that the moisture content and temperature remain constant during the evaluation period. Ideally, the sample floor should be kept at 65+/-1% relative humidity and 68+/-6 F.

During laboratory testing, conditions were slightly drier, 40% relative humidity, but the temperature was within the given temperature range ~70 F).

The flooring material supplied was Hardwood flooring made from Red Oak. The boards were ?? thick, 2 ?? wide and cut into 8? sections. Some pieces of the flooring had to be sanded prior to making initial thickness readings to remove residual packing tape adhesive.

Three coupons were coated with a supplied floor finish according to the manufacturers? specifications. The finish was applied using a 1? Pure Bristle 1500 paint brush. To ensure consistent coating application, the finish was leveled off using a 10 mils Precision Gage & Tool Co Dow Film Caster. Three coats were used for each floor finish as this was common number of coating layers suggested by the various manufacturers. Each coating layer was allowed to dry for 2 hours prior to the application of the next coat. Completed coupons were allowed to sit for a minimum period of 24 hours before performance evaluations were conducted.

During the sample preparation with floor finish, drying times were monitored. Observations were made after the first coat at every 10 minutes until the finish was dry to the touch. The amount of drying completed during each time interval was estimated and recorded. Subsequent coats were analyzed in the same manner. Drying times for each finish were compared to each other.

Trial Results
Observations made were based on the approximate area that looked and felt dry. 

Drying Times (minutes)      Observations % Dry  - qualitative visual assessment
First Coat                              10  20  30   40  50  60  70  80  90
Capitol Polyurethane Gloss              15  20  37   42  45  67  87  95  97
Pro Finisher Water Based Polyurethane   65  97  100
Pro Finisher Water Based Sanding Sealer 75  95  100
Quide SA Aqua Deva Metro                55  80  90   95  100
                                                      
Second Coat                             10  20  30   40  50  60  70  80  90
Capitol Polyurethane Gloss              70  80  95   100
Pro Finisher Water Based Polyurethane   80  85  100
Pro Finisher Water Based Sanding Sealer 80  90  100
Quide SA Aqua Deva Metro                90  95  100

Third Coat                              10  20  30   40  50  60  70  80  90
Capitol Polyurethane Gloss              90  100
Pro Finisher Water Based Polyurethane   100
Pro Finisher Water Based Sanding Sealer 100
Quide SA Aqua Deva Metro                100


Success Rating
A cleanliness study, addressing only various analytical techniques.

Conclusion
The oil based floor finish required the longest drying time, nearly 40 minutes longer than the slowest drying water based product. Each product dried faster after each coat. The third coat took about 10 minutes to dry for the water based products and around 20 minutes for the oil based finish.