Sealer Composition

[jnoden 15]

Since i have a fair amount of time on my hands until spring I figured i would post another question I have been curious about.

I always hear about the different types of oils that various sealer companies utilize in their stains. I also hear about the benefits of finely grounded transoxide pigments found in good stains. I never hear anything about the ingredient in a stain that actually seals moisture out. Is it the oil that repels moisture or is there something else? (speaking of oil based stains only). Does every company use the same ingredient/ chemical. Is it found more in some stains than others? If it is just the oil in the stain well than i guess water bourne stains use something else that generally last longer.

[RPetry 564]

Russell,

Thanks for the timely reply. You are correct, the single customer in question was a job done two years ago this coming November. The WTW is "aged".

I'm a big believer in standards. Yes, my intention is to remove the WTW and apply RS. That is, if I can do the job before November! Also affirm your statement that RS does not get "tacky", at least in the 4 yrs. I've been using it. The one downside with RS on initial application, with most species your cannot use enough of it.

Unless it was just applied a day or so before, a milder product like EFC-38 will take it right off.

Good. Don't mind stripping if needed but contend that NaOH is bad for wood. Did not want to contribute to Back to Nature's coffers on my own dime. Yeah, its only one job but BFS II gets real expensive to correctly apply in labor costs. If a strong percarb works, that is great news. Not so much concerned about "color", know I can make wood look fine. The fact that RS will be compatible with any remaining WTW is a blessing.

I would like you to elaborate on your statement about the products "lack of penetration."

This may be an inaccurate choice of words on my part. Compared to RS or what I imagine the characteristics of ESI's paraffinic oil stain, WTW has a coverage rate of 2X or maybe 3X. I am assuming that less product goes into the wood.

One other clarification. Our discussions began with basic wood stain ingredients. I was referring to linseed oil as a base, without additives to correct deficiencies in the oil as an exterior treatment. Miscommunication.

Gotta' drive up to Syracuse, NY and rescue my wife from the bowels of winter hell. I would like to continue this thread on more education about exterior wood stains. Thanks.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

I think, as Rod said, he is just playing Devils Advocate, or something. There is no actual logic in that statement. In my experience RS is not the type of stain to get tacky. Besides that, being that it is a paraffinic oil, it would migrate through the existing Wood-Tux finish unless it was freshly applied and I assume you are talking about an aged finish. In addition I believe that your stated intention was to remove the existing Wood-Tux before applying RS correct?

Not arguing with you but keep in mind, this is a result my customers have conveyed to me. They have had us apply WT and then bought into someone else who applied RS and this was the result. I haven't any idea of what process was used but they called us back to fix it. Now regarding WTW, this may not be the case. The incident was more than 2 years ago before WTW using WT. (balls in your court)

With regard to Wood-Tux being difficult to remove, I've seen others post that in the past too, but again that's just not our experience nor consistent with how the finish is designed. Unless it was just applied a day or so before, a milder product like EFC-38 will take it right off.

I would have to assume from that statement that the formulation has changed over the years. We had a colleague in our area who used WT and the customer wanted a different color afterwards. We all know the picky kind. But he called us after trying to strip it and was not having much luck in doing so. My advice was a longer dwell time and defur the deck afterwards. Has WTW become a product that is easier to strip off than the original? Business depends on these kinds of answers.

What? I understand about WTW and WTW's lack of penetration. No doubt it is a different animal than paraffinic oil stains. Must have gotten 250 sq. ft. to the gallon on a percarb/citric prepped deck. Are you saying that I may not be able to strip and use RS?

I am giving you something to be aware of due to a couple of our customers who had this problem. (see quote above in blue) We deal with wtw daily and love the results. When Russell first debuted this product it was fulfilling all our product requirements and one being that it didn't have to be stripped in order to maintain it. It was known to be difficult to remove at the time of application so we made sure to qualify our customers selection before hand. Penetration has not been an issue although I admit that rs will penetrate ad infinitum. Not the same design of course but considering a lack of a drier in the rs formulation and the requirement of a surface free of any barriers to penetration (like so many other products) it may not be suitable after having wtw applied. Do a test patch to investigate further.

I don't know of your methods and how thorough you are since you have an aversion to caustic strippers so I am just relaying my cautions. You know what you can do and if you feel you can get wtw off thoroughly then by all means proceed.

I myself am adverse to stripping in general and is why I work hard to convince our clients that once they go with our product to stay with it and avoid exposing their wood to the unnecessary stripping associated with changing products which can speed up the aging process as you may likely agree.

Rod!~

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Rod, I have noticed that same problem with Olympic Maximum. After I strip it off and brighten the wood, the deck still looks kinda "drab."

That interesting. We quit using Olympic products unless by request of the customer.

Our problems were in application after behr being installed. The wood never looks as good clean or with another product on it in our experience.

Rod!~

[Russell Cissell 65]

Not arguing with you but keep in mind, this is a result my customers have conveyed to me. They have had us apply WT and then bought into someone else who applied RS and this was the result. I haven't any idea of what process was used but they called us back to fix it. Now regarding WTW, this may not be the case. The incident was more than 2 years ago before WTW using WT. (balls in your court)

Rod

It isn't practical for me to address that. At best you are giving me second hand information about what you and the homeowner think happened with another contractor. You provide no information about what method the second contractor used to prep the deck prior to the application of RS.

Have you personally ever tried to remove Wood-Tux and then apply RS or any other finish?

The picture below shows aged Wood-Tux after the application of EFC-38. It is clear to see that the finish has been easily removed (without the use of a power washer). There is no reason whatsoever that after removing the old Wood-Tux another finish could not be applied to the wood.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Russ,

We have done and seen many things in the field and as you are fully aware have removed and applied many finishes. Perhaps rather than doubting, it would be best to embrace the information. In some cases more information may be available than in other cases. This is unfortunate but is reality. Not everyone will understand to get information. Most homeowners would not know to do this and neither would some contractors...others will. We get what information we can. Also you said wood tux would never crack or peel. http://www.thegrimescene.com/forums/look-whats-new/4513-wood-tux-wet-faq.html We have seen it do this under a very specific set of circumstances as well. There was a deck which a homeowner burned with a store bought chemical containing bleach. He poured it straight onto the deck. We restored the deck, and when we went back to look at it two years later, a very very small area, about the size of a quarter was peeling. The rest of the deck looked fine. As we reviewed the deck, it hit us (we had before shots at the office of where the product burns were and we reviewed them) that the one place it cracked and peeled was where there was a burn. It did happen. There are conditions that can create problems, and that's the bottom line. This does not take away from Wood Tux as a product at all, but it may help another contractor who experiences a fluke instance to see and perhaps understand what they are facing.

Beth :cool:

p.s. it amazes me how Behr continues to effect wood even after a really solid stripping job....

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Rod

It isn't practical for me to address that. At best you are giving me second hand information about what you and the homeowner think happened with another contractor. You provide no information about what method the second contractor used to prep the deck prior to the application of RS.

Agreed, there is no way to recapitulate the method used but the event none-the-less happened. Consider it feedback for contemplation.

Have you personally ever tried to remove Wood-Tux and then apply RS or any other finish?

No, we have not used rs since we switched to wt and concurrently wtw. We avoid having to strip in general as I have told Rick. It is not a good practice. WTW has been applied sucessfully after other products, the behr ingredient is the one that makes whg look dark.

The picture below shows aged Wood-Tux after the application of EFC-38. It is clear to see that the finish has been easily removed (without the use of a power washer). There is no reason whatsoever that after removing the old Wood-Tux another finish could not be applied to the wood.

no pic??

Regardless, then this would be the answer in that the formula has changed. Before, at 8oz/gal efc-38 would not strip it but clean it quite well. The recoat would be very rich. If it is that easy to strip now using a beefed up percarbonate then I can assume it will not last as long as the old formula before the VOC laws forced reformulations. Thanks.

Seems our enthusiasm has segway'd this off topic so...

Now, back on topic for sealer composition

Rod!~

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Ok, saw the pic; as an avid user, how long was the dwell time? I am trying to avoid this condition when using efc-38 and given the proof it helps to know how to instruct my crews so they don't strip wtw unintentionally.

Rod!~

[Russell Cissell 65]

Regardless, then this would be the answer in that the formula has changed. Before, at 8oz/gal efc-38 would not strip it but clean it quite well. The recoat would be very rich. If it is that easy to strip now using a beefed up percarbonate then I can assume it will not last as long as the old formula before the VOC laws forced reformulations. Thanks.

The formula has changed very little in the past 5 years. There was the addition of the WET technology a few years ago. Wood-Tux is low in VOC because it is very high in pigment and resin solids. Many finishes that are sold in the less restrictive states are solvent based. These are the types of formulas that had to change in order to meet the lower VOC regulations in the North East.

As far as the removal of Wood-Tux, I think we are talking about opposite ends of the service life. The board in that picture is three years old. The stain was applied in the Midwest and aged in partial to full sun. It has been through hot summer months and freezing winter months. As you can see there is still plenty of color, but the finish has lost much of it's vibrance. This finish is entering the last 25% of it's estimated service life.

At this point there are three options:

1. Allow the finish to remain and wait 1 more year. There is still plenty of color so the wood is protected from UV, It should still be preventing deep water intrusion and there is plenty of mildewcide.

2. Give it a gentle wash and reapply a very light fresh coat. Maybe use the same color, of even go a little lighter or darker. What is important is that you rejuvenate the finish and allow it to cure and seal the surface.

3. Strip the finish off using full strength EFC-38 or a weak solution of HD-80.

Here in the Midwest the practical service life of Wood-Tux is right around four years. That means that if I let it go 4 years I have lost options 1 & 2. Obviously, here, after 4 years number 1 is no longer true on flat deck surfaces. Option 2 would likely lead to patches where there is less color than others, primarily in the high traffic areas of the floor. This will lead to an uneven finish if I try to apply over it so it must be stripped.

If you want to avoid stripping you do the maintenance about half way through the products practical service life. It's much faster and uses less product.

Now in the early stages of it's service life, say in the first 6 months to 1 year, it will be more difficult to remove because it is very water repellent. The finish doesn't really want to allow EFC-38 to emulsify it. HD-80 is a much faster solution if you have to remove the finish when it's new.

[Russell Cissell 65]

Ok, saw the pic; as an avid user, how long was the dwell time? I am trying to avoid this condition when using efc-38 and given the proof it helps to know how to instruct my crews so they don't strip wtw unintentionally.

That was about 10 minutes or so, but that is extremely subjective. The more aged it becomes the easier it is to remove. I sort of feel backed in a corner by questions like this. The best true answer that I can give you is, it depends on the circumstances.

What are you using the EFC-38 for? Is the deck really dirty so you need the cleaning action? Is the finish still too fresh but you want to open it up so it will take more stain?

Pass this tip on to your crews:

Do a scratch test on the dry deck before you begin. Use smooth coin like a penny or nickel. With light pressure scratch the surface of the finish back and forth. If the finish holds up to the scratch test in several of the most aged places on the deck, you can clean it will EFC-38 if you have to.

Depending on how dirty the deck is you may only need a very weak solution of cleaner. The goal is to create a surface that is free of dirt and debris. If you are there to maintain the finish, there is no reason to overdo it. EFC-38 is not like a percarbonate cleaner, it was designed to remove oil based finishes.

I only advocate using bleach on wood if you have a serious mildew situation however. . .if you are cleaning the finish and not the wood a solution of bleach and a yellow dish soap makes a nice surface cleaner. Try 1 part bleach to 4 or 5 parts water and add about 1 teaspoon of dish soap per gallon.

There is no way for me to write one set of instructions for all of our products. It always comes down to a judgment call in the field. You have to apply your practical experience to determine the best plan of attack. When you turn employees loose to do the work, the same applies. The best you can do is give them the theory, they will have to develop the art of restoration on their own, unless you want to stand over their shoulder all day.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

Thanks Russell.

Rod!~

[plainpainter 217]

This is what I do to clean a deck for restoration. 1 part 6% bleach to 4 parts water, if in a 5 gallon container - add 1 cup of TSP and 1/2 cup of nonylphenol. Apply liberally, dwell, scrub, light a cigarette, watch porn, then pressure wash off. Cleans decks spotless everytime.

[Beth n Rod 1,279]

bad painter, no stir stick!

:lol:

Rod!~

[Chappy 138]

Sorry Rick, didn't mean to offend. Just sharing what I have read.

I dread working on decks coated with the stuff. The wood never looks as clean and bright again and the stain goes dark again because of what is left in the wood. Strippers won't remove it if it was the first product installed on the wood. That part I think has to do with some other ingredient in their product of which I have no clue. I apply warm honey gold and get yuck honey brown.

Trying to sand the wood is a bugger to say the least (hardened wood) and if I don't get below 6mils the darkening will show through.

Rod!~

I think I ran into my first one like this. I striped with HD 80, strengthed it and striped again Im talking to the HO about when I brighten how the wood just changes like magic, then hit it with ox and absolutely nothing! stays dark as hell. so I let it dry a little and can see more stain and splotches and dots where its fairly thick but inside the wood, not surface film. after some more drying I hit it with 36 grit sandpaper. the dust is purple and obviously the stain is fairly deep.

By accident (wrong communication on my part,) my helper brushed mineral spirits on the worst part which seemed to get rid of the purple tint.

I then applied the wood tux. but it just looked like crap. a deep brown color.

Am I right, is this the Behr were taling about or did I run into something else?

[Chappy 138]

needed to bring this back up as Id like this last question answered

[Russell Cissell 65]

Jon

I saw that you posted

needed to bring this back up as Id like this last question answered

I wasn't sure what the "last" questions was.

[seymore 90]

needed to bring this back up as Id like this last question answered

Jon i believe they were talking about the Behr stain left in the wood after stripping.The color left in the wood will darken/chang the color tone of any new semi-trans stain applied to the deck/fence.Behr is pretty much the common crap H.O's will buy from the Depot.It's ashame that's the best stain they have to offer consumers.

If you are stripping a old "reddish" stain and if you can't remove it completly you might want to try to stain with that same color tone.It will blend in better than trying to gold over a red stain cause it will never look like true gold.

[Chappy 138]

here's the deck that may have had the Behr on it. Ive never seen anything like this although my experience is limited. the oxalic didnt lighten it up at all. then the WHG wood tux was real dark. The second one is the before striping pic.

[James 625]

Jon, who ever applied the product made many mistakes. It uneven, Lapped, doesn't look stirred properly. If a product wasn't mixed properly it causes stripping problems. Figuring that out takes many strip jobs .

Don't bother stripping any more . Just sand the rest off.

A good tip when doing a difficult strip is. If you see an area on the deck drying fast and not damp after stripping. This means you still have product to strip off.

[RPetry 564]

Jon,

Is the first picture after WTW was applied? Man, that is bad looking. Think you may have run into what I suspect is impregnated mold/mildew stains below the substrate due to the infamous Behr bad mildewcide problem. Thats a mouthful but I've seen it before.

Had a shurflo leak a 1/2 cup or so of med. hot NaOH on one of these decks overnight. That got rid of the deep discoloring in the wood at that one spot. But short of having someone spray stripper continuously for 12 hrs. straight, or dismantling the deck and planing each board, I know of no solution. The few problem decks I've run into had stains much deeper than reasonable sanding could remove.

Attached are two pics of a Behr problem deck. The first is after stripping/brightening, with the balustrade partially stained. You can see the "muddled" coloring of the wood on the steps and floor boards. Also, if you look closely, the stained balustrade spindles and top handrail are still discolored. Second pic is after staining. Again, discoloration is obvious, but not as bad as your picture.

Stain is Ready Seal med. red on pressure treated.

[plainpainter 217]

I had some deckboards come out exactly the same way after stripping and neutralizing and then applying woodtux - the previous product I think was CWF. I used my portercable sander with 40 grit - and it did remove some of the darkness off - but it was so deep I would have been there for two days sanding a 3x8 section just to make it look nice again. Next time that happens to me - I am going to 'burn' the boards with bleach - sure it ain't great - but its better than doing all that resto work and then leaving the homeowner with sh$itty looking decking boards.

[Chappy 138]

The problem is the term 'reasonable sanding'. We sanded for at least an hour and it seemed to keep bring up more, or the stuff was so far below the surface that I would have had to sand off several mils to get it all. That just isnt reasonable. At what point do you say enough is enough and just apply the new stain.

[RPetry 564]

Jon,

The above deck in the pictures was not sanded. Merely stripped with NaOH. I agree with you on the problem jobs I have seen. Sanding is not an option.

I think Dan may have a possible solution with a bleach treatment. I'll give it a try the next time I run into one of these Behr's nightmares.

[MMI Enterprises 289]

Back to topic...

To summize I see that it took awhile but it became apparent that paraffinics come by way of oil kerosene on into mineral oil which does not have to have parafin (wax) byproduct included. As RS website FAQ explains some products use the wax to bead water but that it is unnecessary and it evaporates away on first hot sun lit day anyway. The real barrier to element traffic into the wood is the oil and or binders/resins.

Russell,

In knowing that alkyd's are modified/changed condition of normally non-drying type oils into drying ones (boiled linseed) to create a film element to keep out the elements I get interested in the binder=resin discussion posed by Rick and how it applies in waterbased alkyds.

At some point resins/binders have to be leaned towards emulsion to become supposed waterbased clean up and so I ask what can you tell us about the use of synthetic (hydrocarbon) resins in exterior waterbased stains? Does WTW contain urethane and how common is it in the market in other brands?

From what I understand there are modified oil alkyds and there are modified oil based/water based alkyds and there can be much confusion between products. For instance can WTW be pinned into such designation much like Olympic Maximum 5 year deck,fence,siding stain(brown label/not green waterproofer) or the Cabot SPF24 can be designated into such a class?

[Russell Cissell 65]

Kevin

I'm not the guy to talk to about water based stains. There are some interesting things on the horizon, but for the most part I'm not happy with the chemistry and much prefer the oil based finishes. No doubt one day politics will bring an end to oil based formulations, but in my opinion they are far superior in nearly every way.

Wood-Tux is an oil based stain and sealer. It is not a hybrid or oil/water base. It does not contain urethane.

[MMI Enterprises 289]

Thanx Russell.. sample came..