Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Chemical and Heat Resistance of Selected Waterborne Products vs. Arm-R-Seal

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    9,648

    Chemical and Heat Resistance of Selected Waterborne Products vs. Arm-R-Seal

    I used the samples I had prepared for the appearance study I recently posted for several waterborne products, with Arm-R-Seal as the comparative oil based product, to test their chemical and heat resistance.

    I used yellow mustard, Windex, and Breckenridge bourbon (a favorite of the auther) to see how the specimens compared. I used a small dallop of mustard, and 1/2 ml of Windex and bourbon, and left them on the specimens for 1 hour. This photo is after some period of time, but I can't remember if it was the full hour. The specimens were Arm-R-Seal on the left, then EnduroVar, then GF's High Performance, and TC's EM-8000CV with w/o crosslinker on the right.



    At the end of 1 hour they looked like this:



    The mustard did nothing to any of them. Windex and bourbon had no effect on ARS or EnduroVar. The High Performance specimen had a white spot from both the Windex and bourbon. With the EM-8000CV, Windex and bourbon wet through the finish and the bourbon left a white shadow.

    Close ups:









    At this point, only EnduroVar had matched the performance of ARS.

    Next I tested how the specimens did against exposure to hot water. I filled coffee cups with boiling water and placed them on the specimens, then drooled 2 ml of the hot water down the edge of the cup, and left them for 1 hour.





    After I removed the cups:



    And after drying the specimens:








    I forgot to take a picture of the ARS specimen but it was unaffected.

    To test the heat resistance I used coffee cups heated in an oven to 350F, then set them straight on to the specimens and left them until they had cooled back to room temperature. Then I removed them and examined for any damage.

    Left cup is EnduroVar over Sealcoat, then EM-8000CV over Sealcoat, then ARS.



    Afterwards:



    The ARS was unaffected, but you can see where the cups bonded slightly to both the EnduroVar and EM-8000CV specimens.

    My conclusions from this testing is that no uncatalyzed waterborne is resistant to chemicals and heat as Arm-R-Seal, and likely most oil based varnishes. Of the finishes I tested, EnduroVar was the best, suffering only very slight damage from the hot water and hot cup tests. I knew High Performance was not that resistant to Windex so the current results were no surprise, but I was very surprised to see how poorly the EM-8000CV performed, being damaged to some degree by everything except mustard. With that in mind I decided to see how EM-8000CV would do with the Crosslinker added. That will be reported in the next post.

    John

  2. Quote Originally Posted by John TenEyck View Post
    I used the samples I had prepared for the appearance study I recently posted for several waterborne products, with Arm-R-Seal as the comparative oil based product, to test their chemical and heat resistance.

    I used yellow mustard, Windex, and Breckenridge bourbon (a favorite of the auther) to see how the specimens compared. I used a small dallop of mustard, and 1/2 ml of Windex and bourbon, and left them on the specimens for 1 hour. This photo is after some period of time, but I can't remember if it was the full hour. The specimens were Arm-R-Seal on the left, then EnduroVar, then GF's High Performance, and TC's EM-8000CV with w/o crosslinker on the right.



    At the end of 1 hour they looked like this:



    The mustard did nothing to any of them. Windex and bourbon had no effect on ARS or EnduroVar. The High Performance specimen had a white spot from both the Windex and bourbon. With the EM-8000CV, Windex and bourbon wet through the finish and the bourbon left a white shadow.

    Close ups:









    At this point, only EnduroVar had matched the performance of ARS.

    Next I tested how the specimens did against exposure to hot water. I filled coffee cups with boiling water and placed them on the specimens, then drooled 2 ml of the hot water down the edge of the cup, and left them for 1 hour.





    After I removed the cups:



    And after drying the specimens:








    I forgot to take a picture of the ARS specimen but it was unaffected.

    To test the heat resistance I used coffee cups heated in an oven to 350F, then set them straight on to the specimens and left them until they had cooled back to room temperature. Then I removed them and examined for any damage.

    Left cup is EnduroVar over Sealcoat, then EM-8000CV over Sealcoat, then ARS.



    Afterwards:



    The ARS was unaffected, but you can see where the cups bonded slightly to both the EnduroVar and EM-8000CV specimens.

    My conclusions from this testing is that no uncatalyzed waterborne is resistant to chemicals and heat as Arm-R-Seal, and likely most oil based varnishes. Of the finishes I tested, EnduroVar was the best, suffering only very slight damage from the hot water and hot cup tests. I knew High Performance was not that resistant to Windex so the current results were no surprise, but I was very surprised to see how poorly the EM-8000CV performed, being damaged to some degree by everything except mustard. With that in mind I decided to see how EM-8000CV would do with the Crosslinker added. That will be reported in the next post.

    John
    VERY INTERESTING! Cant wait for the cross linker as that is what I just used on my cabinets.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,652
    This is great research John. Thank you. The kind of useful info that the magazines should be reporting.

  4. #4
    John,
    Thanks for this good information.
    One quick question - was the ARS one coat or multiple coats? Brushed or wiped on?

    I don't like finishes that are thicker than they need to be, so I sometimes find myself searching for the top of the bell curve. Which is to say, at what point do we achieve the full protection of the product where additional coats are offering little or no additional protection, and maybe only detracting from the look? Hopefully this makes sense. The manufacturer says 3 coats, but if your experiment yielded these performance results with less, it would be interesting to me.

    With ARS, I have been in the habit of multiple very thin wiped on coats, usually 2-3. Even then it builds up more than I sometimes like, aesthetically speaking.

    Edwin

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    9,648
    Edwin, the ARS specimen had 4 wiped on coats. The WB specimens had 3 coats applied with a foam brush. I added the 4th coat of ARS in order to get about the same film thickness as the WB products.

    I understand exactly what you mean about top of the bell curve. I think in order to get full protection you need to apply however many coats are needed to get a contiguous film of finish; more likely doesn't add any benefit. For dense, closed pore woods that means fewer coats than for porous or low density ones. I don't think there's a one size fits all answer.

    John

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    924
    True to form, another great post, John. Thanks!
    Rustic? Well, no. That was not my intention!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central, PA
    Posts
    416
    Thanks for the info.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Grafton NY
    Posts
    275
    John, thanks for your research. Did you do any tests with the crosslinker added to the em8000? My understanding is that it improves the resistance. I use it in all my final coats.
    Some Blue Tools
    Some Yellow Tools
    A Grizzly Collection
    ShapeokoXL
    Blue and White 50 Watt

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Clark Hussey View Post
    John, thanks for your research. Did you do any tests with the crosslinker added to the em8000? My understanding is that it improves the resistance. I use it in all my final coats.
    https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread....esults-Part-II

    He did. Prashun also contributed some additional testing.
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •