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




Surface Solutions Laboratory

Trial Report



Trial Number 19

(Client Number 244, Project Number 1)

Trial Purpose: To evaluate abrasion resistance for additional floor finishes

Date Run: 09/06/05

Experiment Procedure:
Control of Moisture Content and Temperature
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).

Sample Preparation
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. With the boards cut into 8? coupons, three readings were made using a Brown & Sharpe Micrometer to measure each coupons initial board thickness. Each reading was made to 0.001? and the three values were averaged to give a baseline thickness for the coupons. In addition to the thickness baseline, baselines were established for Gloss, Coefficient of Friction, Impact, Small Area Loads. Procedures for each baseline measurements followed the procedures to be outlined.

Following the establishment of the baselines, 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.

Abrasion Resistance
The methodology used for this experiment uses little from the ASTM standard. The 80 grit aluminum oxide was used as sandpaper, the testing went for two, 100 cycles and the Navy-type Wear Tester instrument was replaced with the BYK Gardner Abrasion Tester (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Abrasion Tester Apparatus

Coupons were placed into the Abrasion tester and subjected to the 100 cycles with the 80 grit sandpaper. At the end of the first cycle, the coupons were wiped with a dry sponge to remove any dust that was generated. Three thickness measurements were made and recorded to determine the decrease in surface thickness. The coupon was then subjected to the second 100 revolutions with the sandpaper. Measurements were made in the same manner as the first set. Averages for both sets were calculated and compared to the other floor finishes.

Trial Results
Initial Thickness        Overall Ave Coating
Kiilto
7.542                    7.563
7.562                    
7.584 
Kiilto with Primer                   
7.510                    7.558
7.553                    
7.612                    

Coupon Thickness After Abrasion Testing
Product   Coupon  Center  End 1   End 2   Ave     Final Coat - Cycle 1   Ave Product  Ave Cycle 1
Kiilto     A      7.508   7.513   7.572   7.531   0.011                    7.550      0.012
           B      7.516   7.556   7.585   7.552   0.010                
           C      7.558   7.564   7.580   7.567   0.016                
w/Primer    J      7.475   7.460   7.552   7.496   0.014                    7.523      0.036
           K      7.475   7.473   7.560   7.503   0.050                
           L      7.548   7.573   7.588   7.570   0.042                

Product   Coupon  Center  End 1   End 2   Ave     Final Coat - Cycle 2    Cycle 2 Ave loss Diff Cycle 1 -Cycle 2
Kiilto        A   7.483   7.488   7.540   7.504   0.039                    7.535      0.027        0.015
              B   7.510   7.531   7.577   7.539   0.023                        
              C   7.570   7.560   7.558   7.563   0.021                        
w/Primer       J   7.461   7.455   7.501   7.472   0.038                    7.488      0.071        0.035
              K   7.460   7.451   7.480   7.464   0.089                        
              L   7.515   7.537   7.528   7.527   0.085                        

Cumulative Coating Losses
                    Coating Loss
Product             Cycle 1    Cycle 2
Polyurethane Gloss  0.033      0.029 
WB Polyurethane     0.034      0.038 
WB Sanding Sealer   0.034      0.047 
Aqua Deva Metro     0.054      0.060 
Uncoated            0.052      0.033 
Hydro 202 Satin     0.035      0.046
SafeCoat Satin      0.021      0.036
SafeCoat Gloss      0.034      0.054
Kiilto              0.012      0.027
w/ Primer           0.036      0.071


Success Rating
A follow up test, usually based on company input.

Conclusion
Kiilto with out the primer resulted in the least amount of coating thickness loss.