Paint Technology and Tests

by Henry A. Gardner

Condensed Results of Inspection. The results of inspection as obtained by the fence committee[17] having in charge the inspection of the test, have been condensed into [table form], and are presented on pages 130-131.

[17] R. S. Perry, Director Scientific Section, Paint Manufacturers’ Association of the U. S.; George Butler, Official Painter, representing Master House Painters’ & Decorators’ Association, H. A. Gardner, Asst. Director.

Second Annual Inspection of the Atlantic City Test Fence. After the original paints which had been applied to the Atlantic City Fence had been exposed for over two years, another inspection was made by a committee representing the Master Painters’ Association of Philadelphia and the Scientific Section of the Paint Manufacturers’ Association of the United States. A digest of the report of this committee[18] follows:

[18] George Butler, Official Painter Atlantic City Test Fence, representing Philadelphia Master Painters’ Association; Charles Macnichol, Master Painter; Henry A. Gardner, Director Scientific Section, Paint Manufacturers’ Association of the U. S.

“The painted panels were all carefully inspected by the inspectors in the usual manner. With the aid of high-power magnifying glasses, checking was determined. The degree of chalking exhibited by the various paints was ascertained by rubbing a piece of black cloth across the surface of each paint. Close observance was made to determine scaling, peeling, cracking, gloss, color, and the other factors to be considered when examining a painted surface. From these observations it was possible for the inspectors to state whether a panel exhibited general good condition, general fair condition, or general poor condition.

CHART OF RESULTS—FIRST INSPECTION—ATLANTIC CITY TEST FENCE

For- mula No.	Car- bon- ate Lead		Zinc Ox- ide		Sub- limed White Lead		Zinc Lead White	INERT PIGMENTS								First Coat	Sec- ond Coat	Third Coat	Aver- age	Pa- nel No.	Condition	Hiding Power	Color	Hard- ness		Checking	Chalking	Gloss	Remarks
								Calci- um Car- bon- ate		Calci- um Sul- phate	Mag- ne- sium Sili- cate		Bari- um Sul- phate	Silica	Blanc Fixe
	%		%		%		%	%		%	%		%	%	%
1	30.0		70.0													610	987	664	754	1	Good	Good	Excellent	8			Very Slight	High	Like rubbed varnish work.
2	50.0		50.0													913	1066	948	976	3	Good	Good	Good	5		Hard Matt	Moderate	Med. High
3	20.0		50.0		20.0			10.0								912	914	786	871	5	Good	Fair	Good	4			Medium	Slight
4	48.5		48.5					3.0								759	939	1047	915	7	Good	Good	Good	5			Very Slight	Med. High
5	22.0		50.0					2.0			26.0					714	1000	709	808	9	Good	Weak	Good	8	1⁄2		Slight	High	Hard surface.
6			64.0										36.0			928	1189	863	993	11	Fairly Good	Weak	Good	8		Matt		Good	Surface rough.
7	37.0		63.0													763	972	891	875	13	Good	Good	Off Color	7			Slight	High
8	38.0		48.0											14.0		786	910	767	821	15	Good	Good	Good	8	1⁄2		Slight	High
9			73.0								2.0			25.0		716	1081	812	870	17	Fair	Poor	Good	9		Heavy Matt	Medium	High	Peeling started.
10	44.0		46.0					5.0			5.0					861	1014	862	912	19	Good	Fair	Good	5			Some	Med. High
11	50.0		50.0													822	959	918	900	21	Good	Good	Excellent	7	1⁄2	Med. Matt	Some	Med. High	Some washing and discoloration.
12	60.0		34.0					6% Inert Pigments								862	965	734	854	23	Good	Medium	Good	4		Heavy Matt	Bad	Medium
13			27.0		60.0			3.0			10.0					916	1031	1121	1073	25	Good	Good	Good	4			Medium	Fair
14	25.0		25.0		20.0			5.0		25.0						564	806	785	718	27	Bad	Medium	Good	5		Evident	Some	Medium	Dead, spongy, surface. White incrustations.
15	20.0		40.0				30.0	10.0								935	1044	1359	1113	29	Good	Medium	Good	8	1⁄2	Coarse Matt	Slight	High
16	33.0		33.0										34.0			799	903	994	899	31	Fair	Fair	Good	7	1⁄2	Bad	Slight	Good	White incrustations.
17	40.0		40.0								3.0		13.0		4.0	806	1016	884	902	33	Good	Fair	Good	4			Some	Fair
18	75.0		25.0													788	1257	973	1006	145	Good	Good	Excellent	3		Hard Matt	Moderate	Medium
19			25.0		75.0											700	1183	1400	1094	147	Good	Good	Excellent	2		Hard Matt	Slight	Very Little
20	67.0		19.5					10.0			3.5					776	1063	877	905	149	Good	Good	Good	5			Very Little	Medium
33	15.0		30.0		25.0									30.0		512	836	689	679	176		Fair						Good	Rough surface.
34	38.9	5	33.5	8	4.8	1		19.4	8		3.1	8				523	800	810	711	175	Good	Medium	Good	4		Evident	Slight	Egg Shell
35	37.5	1	25.8	7	7.8	4		20.3	6		8.4	2				450	893	724	689	180	Good	Good	Good	4		Matt		Egg Shell
36	100.0															408	711	861	660	181	Bad	Good	Good	1		Very Apparent	Bad	Egg Shell	Same as 177, but checking not so bad.
37	100.0															524	1065	828	806	182	Bad	Good	Good	1		Very Apparent	Bad	Egg Shell	Same as 177 but wood shows more plainly.
38	100.0															555	888	794	746	177	Bad	Good	Good	1		Bad	Bad	Egg Shell	Cracking and perishing evident.
39							100.0									550	941	916	802	178	Good	Fair	Good	6			Some	Good
40					100.0											643	810	998	817	168	Good	Good	Good	2			Considerable	Egg Shell
45			100.0													850				170	Fair	Fair	Good	9		Very Evident		High
46			61.0										39.0			783				169	Fair	Good	Good	9		Some		Good
47			100.0													730				172		Good	Good	10		Apparent		Good	Indication of scaling.

“An inspection of the white lead paints on the fence indicated in every instance a rough, chalked, and disintegrated surface that seemed to be well worn, in some cases nearly to the wood. The strongly oxidizing air of the seacoast is probably responsible for the early decay of this pigment.

“It was observed that the combination type of paint showed better hiding power than white lead, over the black crosses placed on the priming coat of each panel, as a hiding power test.