Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page

Where’s the Data? Call for Standards Issued at Coatings Symposium

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

More items for Good Technical Practice

Architects, construction specifiers and building owners are shortchanged on comprehensive, objective technical information about the properties and performance characteristics of architectural paint and coatings when faced with the task of evaluating and specifying such materials.

Walter Scarborough

That was a central message delivered Tuesday during the opening program presentation at the SSPC Commercial Coatings and Flooring Symposium, part of the SSPC 2012 convention in Tampa, Fla.

Walter Scarborough, Dallas regional manager of HALL Building Information Group LLC and a nationally recognized authority on construction specifications, said specifiers and architects find it problematic to evaluate or make comparisons among architectural paint and coatings products due to the “lack of independent and objective product standards based on technical testing of product qualities and performance.”

Scarborough was the opening speaker at the Commercial Coating and Flooring Symposium, a diverse program sponsored by Durability + Design. He addressed the topic of “An Architect’s Call for Paint Standards.”

Scarborough’s presentation served as a kind of thematic preface to the Commercial Coating and Flooring Symposium, which was organized and presented by the recently formed SSPC Commercial Coating Committee.

SSPC has given the committee a mission of developing independent, consensus-based standards on various types of coatings and related materials used in commercial and institutional applications. The committee’s scope of work also includes the development of guides related to surface preparation, coatings selection and coatings application for the commercial, architectural and institutional sectors.

Ken Trimber, president of KTA-Tator Inc., is chair of the Commercial Coating Committee.

The Specifier’s Dilemma

Jokingly calling the standards-deprived reality faced by specifiers “My Personal Dilemma,” Scarborough said that as an architect, he “gets a little depressed” when he is faced with writing an architectural paint specification because he doesn’t have the technical data to evaluate and select the appropriate paint products.

“It’s almost impossible, because of the absence of independent product standards, to make an educated decision based on an evaluation of competitive products,” he said.

Illustrating the point, Scarborough recited some of the terms he frequently encounters when reviewing product data literature on architectural paint and coatings. The products might be described as offering “long-lasting beauty,” for example, or be called “best,” “high hiding,” “resistant to scuffs,” or maybe even the “ultimate in stain resistance” or “revolutionary.”

“How long is ‘long lasting,’ and what is the definition of ‘beauty?’” he said. “Are there paint products that are short-lasting and ugly?”

The term “best” implies that other products might be labeled as “good” or “better” or maybe even “economy,” he continued. “However, product literature containing these other words has never been seen.”

He proceeded to skewer the subjectivity of such product-literature claims, asking, for example, if “very easy application” implies that other products are “hard to apply,” or ask what is meant by “superior scuff and burnish resistance.”

“Does that term mean other products possess other levels of resistance? What constitutes burnish?” he asked.

Scarborough said a short list of data information currently seen in product literature is somewhat useful, such as solids by weight and volume, gloss level and volatile organic compound content. Other data may be useful to the applicator, such as viscosity, dry time, coverage, and cleanup.

But far too often, he said, specifiers are left to make too many decisions based on common perceptions, such as the conclusion that percentage of titanium dioxide is the definitive measure of quality, that three coats should be applied to any surface to be painted, or that water-based products are inferior to solvent-based products.

“When a specifier writes a specification, one of the most important objectives is to establish a competitive bidding environment, which is usually accomplished by naming several manufacturers and products in which the products are competitively equivalent,” he said. “However, this is almost impossible for architectural paint products because there is no categorization of paint types nor objectively-based data about quality and performance properties. There is not an effective way to establish that competitive bidding environment because it is impossible to determine equivalent products.

“Essentially, there are no standards for architectural paint products.”

The Standards Imperative

Specifiers, Scarborough said, typically rely on independently developed industry standards in crafting specifications. These standards are usually developed and maintained by a consensus of members of an association, society, council, or institute directly involved with the material, service or function that is the subject of the standard.
 
In the case of architectural paint and coatings, meanwhile, the specifier is left to his or her own investigative skill or experience to evaluate and specify products and systems.

To address this void, Scarborough listed a number of measures of product performance and characteristics where standards should be developed. These measures should include washability, scrubbability, hiding, hardness, durability, resistance to stains and scuffs, abrasion resistance, surface burning characteristics, permeability and resistance to air infiltration, and sustainability.

He said such standards should quantify and qualify such performance or properties, and in some cases define such qualities at different performance levels. Such standards, he said, should be similar to those that currently apply to high-performance protective coatings.

The Symposium

The SSLPC 2012 Coating and Flooring Symposium also included the following presentations and speakers:

• Extending the Life Cycle of Coatings Applied to Commercial Buildings, Barry Law, Master Painters Institute;

• Fundamentals of Making Good Decisions in Coating Selection, Allen Zielnik, Atlas Material Testing Technology, an AMETEK Company;

• New Architectural Wall Coatings Technology Targeted at Stricter Hospital Infection Protocols, Steven Reinstadtler, Bayer MaterialScience;

• Moisture Vapor Emission Rates of Concrete Floors—Can Moisture Meters be Used Instead of Anhydrous Calcium Chloride?, Kevin Brown, KTA-Tator Inc., and George Holz;

• Hard Truths about Concrete Polishing, Joe Reardon, PROSOCO Concrete Products Group;

• The Impact of the Painting Industry by New Building Codes and Standards for Air/Vapor Barriers, Kevin Knight, Retro-Specs Ltd.

• Air Barrier Testing of Concrete Masonry Assemblies and the Effects of Surface Coatings on Air Permeance, Nicholas R. Lang and Jason J. Thompson, National Concrete Masonry Association;

• Use of Atlas Test Cells to Assess the Performance of Coatings over CMU with Varied Permeance, Cindy O’Malley, KTA-Tator Inc.; Chuck Duffin, Sto Corp.; and Steve Revnew, The Sherwin-Williams Company;

• The New SSPC Commercial/Light Industrial Committee, Ken Trimber, KTA-Tator Inc.

Comment from Ken Johnson, (2/1/2012, 10:27 AM)

I agree with Mr Scarborough. Currently we are seeing more coatings promoted as being "self-priming" but, when we ask the manufacturer for supporting data containing comparative data with traditional primers, we get little information. The manufacturers should make it clear as to whether or not we are now dealing with a two-coat system or a three-coat system.

Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (2/1/2012, 10:27 AM)

This article is more a complaint of marketing used by the painting companies (or their reluctance to release the information.) Pretty much all of the needed properties for durability, application, hiding, et cetera are covered by the ASTM D01 paint committee methods, specifically the D01.42 subcommittee. Just about every paint company performs this performance testing in their labs (or farms it out) to test performance. Somewhere between the lab and marketing, the information is often condensed down to "great scrub resistance!" I invite Mr. Scarborough and the rest of the Architectural community to become more involved with ASTM. The membership fee is low, involvement can be entirely online and by phone, and ASTM takes great pains to make sure everyone has a voice. Some example methods which cover the concerns voiced: Scrub Resistance: ASTM D2486. Washability (stain removal): ASTM D4828. Hiding power: ASTM D344, D2805, D5150. Several standards cover the properties which might come under "easy to apply" such as ASTM D7073, D4707 and D4958. NOTE: ASTM methods are generally written to determine a VALUE (result) and not assigning a pass or fail. For example, scrub resistance to failure (through the film) might be 200 scrubs for one paint, 600 for another and 900 for still another. It is up to the architect or specifier to decide what to set as a minimum value for passing. Do you want 200 scrubs? 800? You also need to be aware of any options available in the method. An SSPC committee sounds like an excellent way to come to a consensus for where those results should be.

Comment from Arnie Knipp, (2/2/2012, 12:16 AM)

Suggest we have a "Levels of Paint Finish" for Architectural surfaces (similar to Drywall Industry). The various levels would indicate performance characteristics of the coating(s)such as volume solids, scrubs,etc, as well as number of coats.

Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (2/2/2012, 9:05 AM)

Arnie - that sounds like a great plan to complement the existing methods. Put in some solid pass/fail numbers for a variety of performance tests, condense the results to a single "level of finish"

Comment from Tim Race, (2/3/2012, 9:30 AM)

It has been almost 20-years since I was invited by ASTM to chair a subcommittee tasked with developing product specifications for architectural coatings. I drafted 3 or 4 product specs for our initial meeting in Ft. Lauderdale. I followed the successful approach used by the ASTM committee that developed product specifications for caulking materials. The meeting room was packed - standing room only. The response was icy cold. During a break I pigeon-holed a couple of upper echelon representatives from major paint producers and asked them what it would take. The take away message was, and this was why the room was packed, no way no how would the paint companies ever go along with ASTM product specs for architectural coatings. At that time I worked for the largest single buyer of architectural coatings in the world, the DoD. Under procurement reform, all government agencies were under a mandate to start procuring off-the-shelf commercial products. But the government largely has its hands tied when it comes to sole source procurement. So how does one specify quality? Merely specifying product X or equal doesn't work. And hence my involvement with ASTM. Needless to say I quickly resigned as ASTM chair and to this day there are still no ASTM architectural coating specs. Because the industry refused to play, DoD was free to use a non-consensus approach, they wrote what are called Commercial Item Descriptions, accomplishing by fiat what could not be accomplished by consensus. I plan to support the new SSPC venture into institutional/light industrial coatings. I'm curious to see how the paint companies will respond to this effort. I am also curious what other folks think about this topic.

Comment from Phil Kabza, (2/4/2012, 2:26 PM)

Neither the author nor the several comment contributors above have acknowledged the existence of the Master Painter Institute (MPI) standards which have been extensively developed over the last several decades, and are the basis for specifications published by the Federal government (Uniform Facility Guide Specifications) and the American Institute of Architects (MasterSpec). Is this omission because the writers are not aware of this existing extensive system of product testing/approval/specifying, or because the writers take exception to the MPI system and methodology? If the latter, what are this systems' shortcomings? Certainly just ignoring its existence does not further readers understanding of the issues involved in trying to objectively specify paints and coatings. In the meantime, millions of square feet of painting and coating work are accomplished each year utilizing the MPI system.

Comment from Tim Race, (2/6/2012, 9:32 AM)

Phil good point. Yes I am fully aware of MPI. I can remember attending many Tri-Services meetings (Army, Navy, Air Force, NIST, and GSA) where we discussed adopting MPI standards. As a Federal employee and also as a contractor to DoD, I incorporated many of the MPI products into the Army UFGS and CWGS. The federal procurement reform initiative mandated the use of industry consensus standards for products and services. However, MPI is not a consensus-based organization. Nonetheless, MPI is important and is a great resource for architects and other coatings specifiers. I would like to hear from others with regards to both the utility and the transparency of MPI.

Comment from Walter Scarborough, (2/7/2012, 12:14 PM)

I am very much aware of the existence of MPI however the need for standards goes beyond MPI. Even with MPI, specifiers are not able to make decisions about architectural paints with regard to properties such as durability, abrasion resistance, scrubability, hardness, washability, permeability, stain resistance, etc. With regard to sustainability, just because a product is identified as a green product, does not mean it is the most appropriate product for a particular project. In the world of architectural paints there needs to be a way to select from among good, better, and best (grades which most paint manufacturers have) and to select products that are suited for the application conditions. There are a considerable number of tests to which high-performance coatings are subjected that provides the specifier with the technical data in which to select a group of competitive products that are appropriate for the project; why can’t something similar be available for architectural paints as well? Just like specifiers, MPI would benefit from consensus-based standards developed by the paint industry. For example, explain the physical properties and performance differences between a latex enamel and an alkyd …

Comment from Jonathan Duarte, (2/8/2012, 1:25 PM)

From a contractors point of view the reason the the MPI is used on Federal Projects and not much private is because the cost is a lot higher using MPI. In the world where projects are not funded by our goverment(not many anymore)the MPI is not a efficent standard. Most products in the MPI are over specified or outdated. I would love to see a standard adopted, I think it would make everyone's job easier and could improve the quality and consistency of the coatings being applied.

Comment from Phil Kabza, (2/9/2012, 8:44 AM)

I look forward to a more transparent set of paint standards than we have with MPI, and hope that the end result of what will be an enormous amount of work in multiple committees will be a set of tools we can rely upon as specifiers. The challenges are particularly acute in the paint industry due to constantly changing formulations and our existing over-reliance on manufacturer marketing statements and selection more often based upon ease of application rather than in-service objective performance. I hope that the new standards will go beyond a consensus-required low bar for quality, and actually allow the specifier to select appropriate paint quality without over-specifying as Walter urges. Other construction industry standards groups have had varying success in producing reliable standards that represent more than just the lowest common denominator. Hopefully the manufacturer and contractor participants will value the input of specifiers and facility owners in the development of these standards.

Comment from Tom Schwerdt, (2/9/2012, 8:57 AM)

Tim, I am sorry to hear about your experience. This is why ASTM is 1 organization, 1 vote and has limits on committee composition from particular interest groups - to limit undue influence. Big Paint Company "Z" can attend the meeting with 10 reps, but they still only get 1 vote.