Efc38 as a mild stripper

[reed 500]

unknown semi trans, oil

[Firedkm 14]

Reed,

I have also used the efc-38 to strip old failed finishes. It has worked very well for me. I have not however used any kind of brightner afterwards. I have had good results.

Below is a deck that was cleaned with efc-38. This deck had a clear on it.

[reed 500]

Dale,

Check your MSDS, the pH of percarbs is around 9. Try the brightener afterwards, you'll be amazed.

Reed

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Ah yep.... have stripped decks with it. EFC-38 is a great choice in light duty strippers. I have seen it remove Wolman F&P, Ready Seal, and Menwood with no problem. Since it's not as caustic as HD-80 it's also a safer choice. Neutralizing afterwards is something we always do.

Looks great. :) :groovy3:

Beth

[Firedkm 14]

Dale,

Check your MSDS, the pH of percarbs is around 9. Try the brightener afterwards, you'll be amazed.

Reed

The next deck that I use efc-38 on I will try a brightner on it.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Hey all!

Silent Rod on Board...

Just wanted to share something with everyone as a learning experience I had.

Recently... I washed a 6 month old deck with EFC-38 only because the owner had not applied anything to the deck, It just needed a good wash to remove the mildew.

2 days later, I drove by to check on the deck and was disappointed to see the wood was darker than usual. As a rule, I 2 step a deck when I wash them but felt in this case it would be over kill...NOT! Lesson learned. :yoda:

I informed the customer that I would like to give the deck an additional treatment to bring the wood color up so that the seal would give a better result. He agreed. I re-wet the deck and applied Citralic at 8oz/gal and then rinsed. Viola!

Just thought I would share this in the event anyone else has had the same happen to them.

As Reed stated, percarbs are at about a 9pH so brightening would benefit the overall look.

:idea: One thing that occured to me was that since the owner did not know exactly what kind of pressure treatment the wood had, I now believe it is the ACQ version since I dont usually have this result with CCA wood.

Just goes to show that you can never know enough in this profession and that keeping up on the latest is the best for you and your customers.:cool:

Good to see everyone here sharing and networking, take care all...:sonic:

Silent Rod~

[Aplus 525]

I've been meaning to pick up a new ACQ treated board at Lowes to do some testing with. I haven't come across any in the field yet. Good points silent Rod!

[CLASSICPW 14]

Could a light mix of hd-80 achieve the same effect as a efc-38 application and be not as caustic? Or is it always caustic now matter what?

[Firedkm 14]

Could a light mix of hd-80 achieve the same effect as a efc-38 application and be not as caustic? Or is it always caustic now matter what?

Efc-38 will not hurt any vegetation at all. Hd-80 is a caustic and you have to take precautions to avoid killing the plants. You dont have to use the Hd-80 at full strenght all the time. Mixed at 1/2 will work for most apllications to remove failed finishes.

[reed 500]

Absolutely what Dale said. The only time I am using full strength is when encountering CWF-UV. Why did they ever make that stuff.

Reed

[Dale 16]

This is a post I posted on the deckguide board a couple months ago..I thought it was interesting because of the difference in recommended treatment methods. Reed and Alpha were the only responses.

I was just wondering if anyone else read about a difference in caring for ACQ or CBA vs. CCA? Its news to me and I thought throwing it out there might be an interesting topic. Rather than blither myself, I'll just qoute Bob Sturgis from Wolmans.

"..The application protocol for CCA treated wood remains the same....However, the protocol for caring for the "new" ACQ and CBA pressure-treated wood is quite different. Because ACQ and CBA contain a combination of inorganic and organic compounds. the pressure treated wood being marketed to consumers post 2003 appears to be more prone to mold and mildew and other signs of wear than the CCA pressure-treated wood of the past. They will also react differently to deck and fence coatings.

Extensive testing in Wolman Wood Care Products labs has demonstrated that splitting, checking, cracking, and the growth of mold and mildew on these chemically different woods can be curtailed by cleaning the ACQ or CBA-treated and immediately coating it with a penetrating oil-based water repellent, like Wolman Rain-Coat.....then allow the wood to weather for six months........After six months, the wood should be cleaned again and then coated with an oil or water based stain"...

This info works both ways...on the one hand it could be used to differentiate yourself from others with your vast knowledge of current techniques....on the other hand it could be seen by a client as a line of crap to drive up the price by needing 2 treatments in year....this could also drive consumers to composites ..but if its true..its true.

What do you all think of this info?

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Hey Dale,

Rod here,

I think any info is good to take into concideration in our line of work because so many factors affect our work and the end result.

It seems that there is no 'be all, end all' solutions anymore. With all the different wood species, treatments, sealers, cleaners, pollutants, microbial contaminants, and so on, you have to be aware of the symptoms that each of these cause and know how to remedy the situation according to what is present. With the weekend warriors and harry homeowners, beginner pw'ers and the conditions they inflict on wood structures these days, you just about have to take a forensic science approach to each structure you are about to work on.

Some manufacturers are on the ball with testing and developement of new ways to deal with the changing pt lumber market, but then there are also manufacturers who shy away and just keep putting product on the shelves expecting anyone to buy them with out informing of how things may have changed in the wood they will be applying it to. I am not refering to any in specific but in general according to your information you posted. I applaud wolman for at least making the effort to help people understand how to get the best results and protection with the latest pt lumber. It shows responsibility to the consumer and that is important to me.

Likewise, we evaluate the products we use in order to determine which give the best and longest lasting results taking into consideration the conditions surrounding the structure applied to. Its a reflection of your company to the consumer when a product fails even though you didnt make the product. They dont know any better and just assume that since it is on the shelves it must be good so that means to them that the contractor did something wrong and that is why the sealer failed so soon. Perception is key here as always and we are in the public eye. What we do is what is judged, not the manufacturer who made the product that let you down!

just a few thoughts...

Rod~:seeya:

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Beth's turn....

USDA Forestry Labs latest research shows that to minimize damage, all newly built decks (wooden) should be cleand and sealed in two weeks time of being built.

It makes sense. Think about it...the wood drys out, you can't replace the natural moisture content. Also wood dries from the outside inward, so you will have less penetration on a newer deck and get better coverage than on an older deck. Better penetration is not necessarily better on a new deck, the goal being to preserve it and keep what is natural to the wood, in the wood. The wood is basically exposed as it is outdoors.... it no longer has bark. That was removed when it was chopped down. The sealer is the closest you are going to get to that.

Ok, off my soapbox...

Beth :groovy3: :groovy2: :groovy:

[Dale 16]

Hey Rob,

Thanks for the input...I kinda missed your reply for a few days. Your point about all the variables is well taken. This is only my 3rd. year in wood restoration so I'm just now getting maintence work and so far THE biggest issue is the beginning of mildew in the lower areas of siding or decks.. maybe its been the unusually wet couple of years...hence my wondering about bleach...I can hear people howling already..aarrooOOOOOooo. anyway I'm juuust aasking what peoples observable long term difference is. This has also made me wonder about the effectiveness of borate treatments i.e. thought they're a more profitable upsell..are they more effective than simply adding a mildewicide to the product you're applying? I recall Greg R mentioning borate isn't all THAT effective against mildew...its more of a pesticide. I'm juust aasking now. For those that have been in the biz more than 3 yrs., what are your DIRECT experiences and observations??.. not sales pitch or rote info.. direct experiences with..bleach vs. percarbs...borates vs. mildewicides .. I know that this goes back to Robs point about reading each project on individual conditions..but there must be some generally agreed upon observations like...huh..ya know that borate don't seem to do all that much...or...that mildewicide sure is easy to use and it really seems to work...or..ya know..no matter what I do I'll be back in 2-3 yrs anyway. Thers a "mold" company site at www.smold.com/removing_mold.html that seems to recommend mildewicides to kill mold.....Not wood speciffic though.

[Dale 16]

..oops..wrong link...www.sdmold.com/removing_mold.html

[Cleveland Mobile 14]

I notice everyone has bad things to say about cwf-uv. In the Cleveland area it is really popular, probably because they make it right in Hudson. I've seen a lot of failures of the product but i've seen it work too. I think it has to do with the application. I just stripped a deck (approx 400 sq. ft) that has had a coat of cwf put on every year for 12 years. I make all my own strippers and I used one with caustic potash and butyl. Took me an hour and it was down to the bare wood. And believe it or not the customer wants cwf again. In all honesty at least in Cleveland I have seen them all fail. Twp, cuprinol..cwf...Penofin is just crap. Doesnt last and looks like gargage when applied. I have always used the strategy of selling a maintenance every year or 2 years. As long as the product is easy to work with I'm happy.

Its amazing how different stains sell in different markets. Wolman is even hard to find here....and it has a terrible reputation. Then there is One Time Wood which is clear coat for cars with a cedar tint. Nothing I would want to use...have seen it peal. If you guys have any imput on different stains that you have felt comfortable with let me know...i would love to try them.

Andy

[Dale 16]

Cleveland,

It's funny you should bring up cwf-uv..its one of the reasons I'm so interested in peoples experience with mildew control. Last fall I stripped a deck and small cedar house that had cwf on it and honestly if it wasn't for the mildew in problem areas the finish looked fine after 7 yrs!!..good color retention..pseudo- Sikkens sheen in tact. I replaced the finish with the X100's prefinish and wet on wet top-coats..labor intensive and product slurping...she paid for the 2-step idea of durability...maybe the cedar was really thirsty, but its already kinda fading. I'll be back there at least 3 times in 7 yrs. How about waterbased?? any experience in the difference in mildew return with water vs. oil? could wasterbased plus a mildewicide be a better option? supposedly some of the new water based finishes out perform the oils i.e. the rap against water based is getting to be mostly a mind-set issue.