Water Based Polyurethane Coatings

[JimJ]

I would like comment on the technical details and users experience of water based polyurethane coatings as detailed on this web page.

http://www.boatcraft.com.au/coat.htm

[JimJ]

I would like comment on the technical details and users experience of water based polyurethane coatings as detailed on this web page.

http://www.boatcraft.com.au/coat.htm

[JimJ]

I would like comment on the technical details and users experience of water based polyurethane coatings as detailed on this web page.

http://www.boatcraft.com.au/coat.htm

[thechemist]

Well, okay....I note they proudly proclaim the fact that the product contains no di-isocyanates, due to health risk. The most weather-stable polyurethanes are made from hexamethylene diisocyanate trimer [HDIT], which disassociates [in the can...with storage ageing...]into about one percent monomer [hexamethylene diisocyanate [HDI], relatively volatile and the source of health hazards in aliphatic [linear] isocyanate-cured polyurethane finishes.

They also say the stuff is water-resistant, which means nothing, for everything is "resistant" to a degree. Ask them if their polyurethane finishes are water-resistant to the degree that they can be painted on the bottom of a trailer boat which may sit in the water for some days or weeks. That will get them to tell you just what they mean by "water-resistant" and whether their "water-resistance" is really better than anyone else's. In all fairness, the best weather-resistant isocyanate-cured polyurethanes will peel after a month or two immersion in water, so waterproof does not guarantee the best freeboard or topsides finish.

There are other isocyanates from which weather-resistant coatings can be made, such as isophorone diisocyanate trimer [IPDIT]. It has a much reduced tendancy to disasociate into a monomer-trimer equilibrium, but these things are hard to really measure.....

Coatings made from IPDIT are much harder [less elongation capability] than those made form HDIT] and will do okay on GRP hulls but will fail sooner on wood hulls, and will fail a LOT sooner as a clear finish on wood. Ultraviolet ageing breaks molecular backbones and makes free radicals which make more cross-links, resulting in a stiffer coating. Failed varnish curls outwards because the outer surface has shrunk more than the surface below, due to the additional UV-induced cross-links closer to the outer surface, incidentally.

Besides adhesion failures, the most common failure mechanism of a pigmented coating is loss of gloss, and the next is color drift due to the manufacturer using colors that are not really the most light-stable [read here most expensive...it is all about profit when formulating these things...]. Loss of gloss has to do with molecular structure and the money the manufacturer spends on the UV absorbers and antioxidants that stabilize the coating. This shows up with time, and you have to do the ageing with part covered up, so you always have a comparison of the actual initial gloss and color.

Ask for their gloss measurements at inception, and a year or two later. It is a number, measured on a gloss-meter. Anything above 85 will look glossy at a casual glance.

There are various non-isocyanate cross-linkers for waterborne coatings, but these contain nitrogen compounds and such cause long-term yellowing of coatings. If they are using a non-isocyanate cross-linker, expect noticeable yellowing over even a year or two.

There is a short-term-water-resistant isocyanate which can be mixed with a waterborne basc component to make an isocyanate-cured waterborne system, but it [toluene di(methyleneisocyanate)] is a diisocyanate, and even if it were trimerized it has aromatic ring structures, would make a very inflexible coating which would chalk and yellow quickly. I would not use it outdoors.

The best test I know of is the ongoing coatings tests of clear finishes the Practical Sailor [also Powerboat Reports, from Belvoir Publications] conducts. They have an ongoing test of everyone's clear finish, and they are a subscription-only publication, accepting no advertising. When a big-name company's product goes to hell in six or twelve months, they are not afraid to [gleefully] publish the fact. They may have tested various waterborne finishes in recent years, and can compare them to others. They sell back issues, and usually report on the finishes in a spring issue.

[thechemist]

Well, okay....I note they proudly proclaim the fact that the product contains no di-isocyanates, due to health risk. The most weather-stable polyurethanes are made from hexamethylene diisocyanate trimer [HDIT], which disassociates [in the can...with storage ageing...]into about one percent monomer [hexamethylene diisocyanate [HDI], relatively volatile and the source of health hazards in aliphatic [linear] isocyanate-cured polyurethane finishes.

They also say the stuff is water-resistant, which means nothing, for everything is "resistant" to a degree. Ask them if their polyurethane finishes are water-resistant to the degree that they can be painted on the bottom of a trailer boat which may sit in the water for some days or weeks. That will get them to tell you just what they mean by "water-resistant" and whether their "water-resistance" is really better than anyone else's. In all fairness, the best weather-resistant isocyanate-cured polyurethanes will peel after a month or two immersion in water, so waterproof does not guarantee the best freeboard or topsides finish.

There are other isocyanates from which weather-resistant coatings can be made, such as isophorone diisocyanate trimer [IPDIT]. It has a much reduced tendancy to disasociate into a monomer-trimer equilibrium, but these things are hard to really measure.....

Coatings made from IPDIT are much harder [less elongation capability] than those made form HDIT] and will do okay on GRP hulls but will fail sooner on wood hulls, and will fail a LOT sooner as a clear finish on wood. Ultraviolet ageing breaks molecular backbones and makes free radicals which make more cross-links, resulting in a stiffer coating. Failed varnish curls outwards because the outer surface has shrunk more than the surface below, due to the additional UV-induced cross-links closer to the outer surface, incidentally.

Besides adhesion failures, the most common failure mechanism of a pigmented coating is loss of gloss, and the next is color drift due to the manufacturer using colors that are not really the most light-stable [read here most expensive...it is all about profit when formulating these things...]. Loss of gloss has to do with molecular structure and the money the manufacturer spends on the UV absorbers and antioxidants that stabilize the coating. This shows up with time, and you have to do the ageing with part covered up, so you always have a comparison of the actual initial gloss and color.

Ask for their gloss measurements at inception, and a year or two later. It is a number, measured on a gloss-meter. Anything above 85 will look glossy at a casual glance.

There are various non-isocyanate cross-linkers for waterborne coatings, but these contain nitrogen compounds and such cause long-term yellowing of coatings. If they are using a non-isocyanate cross-linker, expect noticeable yellowing over even a year or two.

There is a short-term-water-resistant isocyanate which can be mixed with a waterborne basc component to make an isocyanate-cured waterborne system, but it [toluene di(methyleneisocyanate)] is a diisocyanate, and even if it were trimerized it has aromatic ring structures, would make a very inflexible coating which would chalk and yellow quickly. I would not use it outdoors.

The best test I know of is the ongoing coatings tests of clear finishes the Practical Sailor [also Powerboat Reports, from Belvoir Publications] conducts. They have an ongoing test of everyone's clear finish, and they are a subscription-only publication, accepting no advertising. When a big-name company's product goes to hell in six or twelve months, they are not afraid to [gleefully] publish the fact. They may have tested various waterborne finishes in recent years, and can compare them to others. They sell back issues, and usually report on the finishes in a spring issue.

[thechemist]

Well, okay....I note they proudly proclaim the fact that the product contains no di-isocyanates, due to health risk. The most weather-stable polyurethanes are made from hexamethylene diisocyanate trimer [HDIT], which disassociates [in the can...with storage ageing...]into about one percent monomer [hexamethylene diisocyanate [HDI], relatively volatile and the source of health hazards in aliphatic [linear] isocyanate-cured polyurethane finishes.

They also say the stuff is water-resistant, which means nothing, for everything is "resistant" to a degree. Ask them if their polyurethane finishes are water-resistant to the degree that they can be painted on the bottom of a trailer boat which may sit in the water for some days or weeks. That will get them to tell you just what they mean by "water-resistant" and whether their "water-resistance" is really better than anyone else's. In all fairness, the best weather-resistant isocyanate-cured polyurethanes will peel after a month or two immersion in water, so waterproof does not guarantee the best freeboard or topsides finish.

There are other isocyanates from which weather-resistant coatings can be made, such as isophorone diisocyanate trimer [IPDIT]. It has a much reduced tendancy to disasociate into a monomer-trimer equilibrium, but these things are hard to really measure.....

Coatings made from IPDIT are much harder [less elongation capability] than those made form HDIT] and will do okay on GRP hulls but will fail sooner on wood hulls, and will fail a LOT sooner as a clear finish on wood. Ultraviolet ageing breaks molecular backbones and makes free radicals which make more cross-links, resulting in a stiffer coating. Failed varnish curls outwards because the outer surface has shrunk more than the surface below, due to the additional UV-induced cross-links closer to the outer surface, incidentally.

Besides adhesion failures, the most common failure mechanism of a pigmented coating is loss of gloss, and the next is color drift due to the manufacturer using colors that are not really the most light-stable [read here most expensive...it is all about profit when formulating these things...]. Loss of gloss has to do with molecular structure and the money the manufacturer spends on the UV absorbers and antioxidants that stabilize the coating. This shows up with time, and you have to do the ageing with part covered up, so you always have a comparison of the actual initial gloss and color.

Ask for their gloss measurements at inception, and a year or two later. It is a number, measured on a gloss-meter. Anything above 85 will look glossy at a casual glance.

There are various non-isocyanate cross-linkers for waterborne coatings, but these contain nitrogen compounds and such cause long-term yellowing of coatings. If they are using a non-isocyanate cross-linker, expect noticeable yellowing over even a year or two.

There is a short-term-water-resistant isocyanate which can be mixed with a waterborne basc component to make an isocyanate-cured waterborne system, but it [toluene di(methyleneisocyanate)] is a diisocyanate, and even if it were trimerized it has aromatic ring structures, would make a very inflexible coating which would chalk and yellow quickly. I would not use it outdoors.

The best test I know of is the ongoing coatings tests of clear finishes the Practical Sailor [also Powerboat Reports, from Belvoir Publications] conducts. They have an ongoing test of everyone's clear finish, and they are a subscription-only publication, accepting no advertising. When a big-name company's product goes to hell in six or twelve months, they are not afraid to [gleefully] publish the fact. They may have tested various waterborne finishes in recent years, and can compare them to others. They sell back issues, and usually report on the finishes in a spring issue.

[JimJ]

tc

Thanks for the review. It is a lot to digest.

[JimJ]

tc

Thanks for the review. It is a lot to digest.

[JimJ]

tc

Thanks for the review. It is a lot to digest.

[Wild Wassa]

This torment has been my medium of choice for the last two years. I just love the stuff, it reminds me of my student days. I refer to BoatCraft Pacific's material as the ultimate student grade paints. They are far from Professional grade. Professional boat builders have sayings like, "they still have issues with their materials." Too true. Especially lots of artifacts in the paints, I find their clear coat the worst for scum and bits.

Even their representatives, distributors have warned me about leaving the poly in the water for longer than 3 days at a time.

I've done natural aging tests on all their materials in Australian Sunlight. Their materials have given the term chalky new meaning, when left in sunlight (about 15 months).

But when it comes to a high-speed racing surface on a small racing dinghy I can't say I've painted with better. Their w/b poly is called Aqua-Cote. It polishes like glass, I tend to use twice as much as I would expect, with real paint. The shrink-rate of the poly is extreme. Throw away your paint comb (paint depth meter) you can apply the paint a mm deep and it shrinks to about 19-25 microns (at the most).

What you would expect with 2-3 coats of enamel equates to 10-12 with the poly (sometimes even more are needed). Sometimes I even use the poly straight out of the can, which still has me do a double take, just to make sure I haven't diluted the working medium. It is amazing watching, $250 worth of paint evaporate to nothing.

I find the material skins instantly, at normal room temps, anywhere between 5-12 seconds you won't get a third swipe with a brush. Recommended ambient temps are between 18-22C, I find my best results are at 12-14C. I still haven't sprayed the poly yet. Too much fun with the brush.

If you are prepared to work hard with the material, the results will come. I’ve just past 60 hulls as individual coats and am only just starting to feel competent with the stuff.

If you have a lot to paint, box your paints. The batch differences are huge. Hence the reference to student grade.

I also find that the material aerates when using a foam pad (foam brush) I do not recommend using foam to apply Aqua-Cote. When using a roller the pigment advances with the roller, and leaves a somewhat naked medium.

The ability to make coloured transparent glazes with the poly is the real strength of the paint to me. It's so thin to start with there isn't much to do.

Warren.

ps, boxing paint means to blend the batch or batches.

[ 03-18-2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[Wild Wassa]

This torment has been my medium of choice for the last two years. I just love the stuff, it reminds me of my student days. I refer to BoatCraft Pacific's material as the ultimate student grade paints. They are far from Professional grade. Professional boat builders have sayings like, "they still have issues with their materials." Too true. Especially lots of artifacts in the paints, I find their clear coat the worst for scum and bits.

Even their representatives, distributors have warned me about leaving the poly in the water for longer than 3 days at a time.

I've done natural aging tests on all their materials in Australian Sunlight. Their materials have given the term chalky new meaning, when left in sunlight (about 15 months).

But when it comes to a high-speed racing surface on a small racing dinghy I can't say I've painted with better. Their w/b poly is called Aqua-Cote. It polishes like glass, I tend to use twice as much as I would expect, with real paint. The shrink-rate of the poly is extreme. Throw away your paint comb (paint depth meter) you can apply the paint a mm deep and it shrinks to about 19-25 microns (at the most).

What you would expect with 2-3 coats of enamel equates to 10-12 with the poly (sometimes even more are needed). Sometimes I even use the poly straight out of the can, which still has me do a double take, just to make sure I haven't diluted the working medium. It is amazing watching, $250 worth of paint evaporate to nothing.

I find the material skins instantly, at normal room temps, anywhere between 5-12 seconds you won't get a third swipe with a brush. Recommended ambient temps are between 18-22C, I find my best results are at 12-14C. I still haven't sprayed the poly yet. Too much fun with the brush.

If you are prepared to work hard with the material, the results will come. I’ve just past 60 hulls as individual coats and am only just starting to feel competent with the stuff.

If you have a lot to paint, box your paints. The batch differences are huge. Hence the reference to student grade.

I also find that the material aerates when using a foam pad (foam brush) I do not recommend using foam to apply Aqua-Cote. When using a roller the pigment advances with the roller, and leaves a somewhat naked medium.

The ability to make coloured transparent glazes with the poly is the real strength of the paint to me. It's so thin to start with there isn't much to do.

Warren.

ps, boxing paint means to blend the batch or batches.

[ 03-18-2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[Wild Wassa]

This torment has been my medium of choice for the last two years. I just love the stuff, it reminds me of my student days. I refer to BoatCraft Pacific's material as the ultimate student grade paints. They are far from Professional grade. Professional boat builders have sayings like, "they still have issues with their materials." Too true. Especially lots of artifacts in the paints, I find their clear coat the worst for scum and bits.

Even their representatives, distributors have warned me about leaving the poly in the water for longer than 3 days at a time.

I've done natural aging tests on all their materials in Australian Sunlight. Their materials have given the term chalky new meaning, when left in sunlight (about 15 months).

But when it comes to a high-speed racing surface on a small racing dinghy I can't say I've painted with better. Their w/b poly is called Aqua-Cote. It polishes like glass, I tend to use twice as much as I would expect, with real paint. The shrink-rate of the poly is extreme. Throw away your paint comb (paint depth meter) you can apply the paint a mm deep and it shrinks to about 19-25 microns (at the most).

What you would expect with 2-3 coats of enamel equates to 10-12 with the poly (sometimes even more are needed). Sometimes I even use the poly straight out of the can, which still has me do a double take, just to make sure I haven't diluted the working medium. It is amazing watching, $250 worth of paint evaporate to nothing.

I find the material skins instantly, at normal room temps, anywhere between 5-12 seconds you won't get a third swipe with a brush. Recommended ambient temps are between 18-22C, I find my best results are at 12-14C. I still haven't sprayed the poly yet. Too much fun with the brush.

If you are prepared to work hard with the material, the results will come. I’ve just past 60 hulls as individual coats and am only just starting to feel competent with the stuff.

If you have a lot to paint, box your paints. The batch differences are huge. Hence the reference to student grade.

I also find that the material aerates when using a foam pad (foam brush) I do not recommend using foam to apply Aqua-Cote. When using a roller the pigment advances with the roller, and leaves a somewhat naked medium.

The ability to make coloured transparent glazes with the poly is the real strength of the paint to me. It's so thin to start with there isn't much to do.

Warren.

ps, boxing paint means to blend the batch or batches.

[ 03-18-2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[JimJ]

At Sailfest 2003 held here in Bribane last month, a boat advertised as being finished with the product in question had about 100mm of water in it after the first day's rain.

The coating, an opaque redish colour, had turned a whiteish colour under the water.

Does this mean that the water had penterated the coating somewhat and what would be the long term effect?

[JimJ]

At Sailfest 2003 held here in Bribane last month, a boat advertised as being finished with the product in question had about 100mm of water in it after the first day's rain.

The coating, an opaque redish colour, had turned a whiteish colour under the water.

Does this mean that the water had penterated the coating somewhat and what would be the long term effect?

[JimJ]

At Sailfest 2003 held here in Bribane last month, a boat advertised as being finished with the product in question had about 100mm of water in it after the first day's rain.

The coating, an opaque redish colour, had turned a whiteish colour under the water.

Does this mean that the water had penterated the coating somewhat and what would be the long term effect?

[Wild Wassa]

Jim J, that sounds like their sandable undercoat, or both their fillers. The undercoat is a light dullish pink (pinky grey). The sandable filler is the brightest red of the three. The third is their compression strengh filler. The epoxy needed to be painted still.

I've accidentally left a wet rag (with just water) on well cured sandable undercoat overnight.
It left a lighter milky pink patch, that didn’t disappear. I also have found this with their epoxy and fillers as well. I've rejected the sandable undercoat. I found that I couldn't fair it. I just couldn't true it no matter hard I tried. The materials in both parts(A and B) fell out of suspension far too quickly. Even over night in both the A and B solutions. I made a few skins of the sandable undercoat on glass and plastic. When I took them off they were far to brittle. This could be causing the leak.

BC P's, Compression strength filler and also their sander filler which are both added to the epoxy (as you know), are also pink. The sander filler has various dark reddish coloured grits in it, easy to identify because of the stripes that are left. If you fill an area, drawing a blade across the glue, this will cause the grits to leave long coloured trails. It is a perfect indicator, ... you can see where you have been. The epoxy with fillers and sandable undercoat must be coated. They have no resistence to UV.

Their compression strength filler although difficult to sand, I find is one of their best products. It takes a bit longer to finish but I find the results are truer.

I no longer use the sandable undercoat or the sander filler. Yet I used them for months thinking it was just me who was the problem.

One thing that I didn't mention (in the previous posting) is that although BCP claim, that their epoxy is amin free, I found that when painting with the water based poly, I was not getting the adherence of the poly to the epoxy unless I finished the epoxy coat as if I was removing amin blush. Once I finished the epoxy as though it had amin the results were far superior.

This tended to be just one more issue that wasn't consistent with their advertising.

My next posting I will make as a separate posting, about the toxicity of their poly having just recently suffered an injury while using the material.

[ 03-18-2003, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[Wild Wassa]

Jim J, that sounds like their sandable undercoat, or both their fillers. The undercoat is a light dullish pink (pinky grey). The sandable filler is the brightest red of the three. The third is their compression strengh filler. The epoxy needed to be painted still.

I've accidentally left a wet rag (with just water) on well cured sandable undercoat overnight.
It left a lighter milky pink patch, that didn’t disappear. I also have found this with their epoxy and fillers as well. I've rejected the sandable undercoat. I found that I couldn't fair it. I just couldn't true it no matter hard I tried. The materials in both parts(A and B) fell out of suspension far too quickly. Even over night in both the A and B solutions. I made a few skins of the sandable undercoat on glass and plastic. When I took them off they were far to brittle. This could be causing the leak.

BC P's, Compression strength filler and also their sander filler which are both added to the epoxy (as you know), are also pink. The sander filler has various dark reddish coloured grits in it, easy to identify because of the stripes that are left. If you fill an area, drawing a blade across the glue, this will cause the grits to leave long coloured trails. It is a perfect indicator, ... you can see where you have been. The epoxy with fillers and sandable undercoat must be coated. They have no resistence to UV.

Their compression strength filler although difficult to sand, I find is one of their best products. It takes a bit longer to finish but I find the results are truer.

I no longer use the sandable undercoat or the sander filler. Yet I used them for months thinking it was just me who was the problem.

One thing that I didn't mention (in the previous posting) is that although BCP claim, that their epoxy is amin free, I found that when painting with the water based poly, I was not getting the adherence of the poly to the epoxy unless I finished the epoxy coat as if I was removing amin blush. Once I finished the epoxy as though it had amin the results were far superior.

This tended to be just one more issue that wasn't consistent with their advertising.

My next posting I will make as a separate posting, about the toxicity of their poly having just recently suffered an injury while using the material.

[ 03-18-2003, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[Wild Wassa]

Jim J, that sounds like their sandable undercoat, or both their fillers. The undercoat is a light dullish pink (pinky grey). The sandable filler is the brightest red of the three. The third is their compression strengh filler. The epoxy needed to be painted still.

I've accidentally left a wet rag (with just water) on well cured sandable undercoat overnight.
It left a lighter milky pink patch, that didn’t disappear. I also have found this with their epoxy and fillers as well. I've rejected the sandable undercoat. I found that I couldn't fair it. I just couldn't true it no matter hard I tried. The materials in both parts(A and B) fell out of suspension far too quickly. Even over night in both the A and B solutions. I made a few skins of the sandable undercoat on glass and plastic. When I took them off they were far to brittle. This could be causing the leak.

BC P's, Compression strength filler and also their sander filler which are both added to the epoxy (as you know), are also pink. The sander filler has various dark reddish coloured grits in it, easy to identify because of the stripes that are left. If you fill an area, drawing a blade across the glue, this will cause the grits to leave long coloured trails. It is a perfect indicator, ... you can see where you have been. The epoxy with fillers and sandable undercoat must be coated. They have no resistence to UV.

Their compression strength filler although difficult to sand, I find is one of their best products. It takes a bit longer to finish but I find the results are truer.

I no longer use the sandable undercoat or the sander filler. Yet I used them for months thinking it was just me who was the problem.

One thing that I didn't mention (in the previous posting) is that although BCP claim, that their epoxy is amin free, I found that when painting with the water based poly, I was not getting the adherence of the poly to the epoxy unless I finished the epoxy coat as if I was removing amin blush. Once I finished the epoxy as though it had amin the results were far superior.

This tended to be just one more issue that wasn't consistent with their advertising.

My next posting I will make as a separate posting, about the toxicity of their poly having just recently suffered an injury while using the material.

[ 03-18-2003, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[Wild Wassa]

Last Saturday morning while mixing BoatCraft Pacific's water based polyurethane paint Aqua-Cote. I splashed the paint into my eye. I had just applied the cross linker to the paint and it was well blended. I wanted to put another coat on a hull before heading down to the lake, I was rushing a bit.

A small amount of paint splashed between my glasses and my face. The smallest drop.

I rinsed my eye immediately with water for quite a few minutes. I then asked my wife to check if she could find any chips or residue. All seemed clear and well. There was absolutely no discomfort to my eye after the splash.

I went and read the data sheet and warnings on the paint can. All cool and everything that was advised, I did. I had safety glasses on not goggles.

I then went down to the lake that afternoon, for a few hours, and played with Taipans (this is inherently dangerous). Still no drama. About 6pm my eye started to sting slightly, by 7 pm my eye had ruptured and I was in hospital, in extreme pain and almost a complete loss of vision. I was released on Sunday afternoon. Back in on Monday, for a check up. The checkups are ongoing over the next few weeks.

On Saturday night, 5 lts of saline solution was dripped into my eye over the next 8 hours. Something I don't wish to ever have happen again. The second litre had bi-carb of soda in it, it was not nice.

After each litre, a ph reading was taken of the fluid in my eye. After the first litre the reading was 8.5, after 5 lts it had only dropped to only 8. The first doctor who examined me was hoping to get the ph reading to 6.5 before they discharged me. When I was discharged the reading was still 8. My eye ball has exfoliated, and I'm still to regain my vision, although it is returning slowly, I'm still missing about 60-80% of the clarity. The medications are extreme, 4 different medications, three of them by 4 times daily, one is disgusting.

The eye surgeon who was called in to see me said, that he had not seen such a bad alkaline burn from paint to an eye. It was the damage from only a small amount that was splashed, that concerns him.

BoatCraft Pacific were contacted about getting a breakdown of the paint, so the surgeon could come to grips with the paint, BC P, have been excellent about the drama. I couldn't wish for more. This is how I found this old posting when I was looking for more info on what is in their paint.

I'm not after sympathy, I'm just giving a warning to all painters.

Warren.

ps, I'm in the Committee boat for the next few races, ... specializing in cock-eyed decisions.

[ 03-18-2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[Wild Wassa]

Last Saturday morning while mixing BoatCraft Pacific's water based polyurethane paint Aqua-Cote. I splashed the paint into my eye. I had just applied the cross linker to the paint and it was well blended. I wanted to put another coat on a hull before heading down to the lake, I was rushing a bit.

A small amount of paint splashed between my glasses and my face. The smallest drop.

I rinsed my eye immediately with water for quite a few minutes. I then asked my wife to check if she could find any chips or residue. All seemed clear and well. There was absolutely no discomfort to my eye after the splash.

I went and read the data sheet and warnings on the paint can. All cool and everything that was advised, I did. I had safety glasses on not goggles.

I then went down to the lake that afternoon, for a few hours, and played with Taipans (this is inherently dangerous). Still no drama. About 6pm my eye started to sting slightly, by 7 pm my eye had ruptured and I was in hospital, in extreme pain and almost a complete loss of vision. I was released on Sunday afternoon. Back in on Monday, for a check up. The checkups are ongoing over the next few weeks.

On Saturday night, 5 lts of saline solution was dripped into my eye over the next 8 hours. Something I don't wish to ever have happen again. The second litre had bi-carb of soda in it, it was not nice.

After each litre, a ph reading was taken of the fluid in my eye. After the first litre the reading was 8.5, after 5 lts it had only dropped to only 8. The first doctor who examined me was hoping to get the ph reading to 6.5 before they discharged me. When I was discharged the reading was still 8. My eye ball has exfoliated, and I'm still to regain my vision, although it is returning slowly, I'm still missing about 60-80% of the clarity. The medications are extreme, 4 different medications, three of them by 4 times daily, one is disgusting.

The eye surgeon who was called in to see me said, that he had not seen such a bad alkaline burn from paint to an eye. It was the damage from only a small amount that was splashed, that concerns him.

BoatCraft Pacific were contacted about getting a breakdown of the paint, so the surgeon could come to grips with the paint, BC P, have been excellent about the drama. I couldn't wish for more. This is how I found this old posting when I was looking for more info on what is in their paint.

I'm not after sympathy, I'm just giving a warning to all painters.

Warren.

ps, I'm in the Committee boat for the next few races, ... specializing in cock-eyed decisions.

[ 03-18-2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[Wild Wassa]

Last Saturday morning while mixing BoatCraft Pacific's water based polyurethane paint Aqua-Cote. I splashed the paint into my eye. I had just applied the cross linker to the paint and it was well blended. I wanted to put another coat on a hull before heading down to the lake, I was rushing a bit.

A small amount of paint splashed between my glasses and my face. The smallest drop.

I rinsed my eye immediately with water for quite a few minutes. I then asked my wife to check if she could find any chips or residue. All seemed clear and well. There was absolutely no discomfort to my eye after the splash.

I went and read the data sheet and warnings on the paint can. All cool and everything that was advised, I did. I had safety glasses on not goggles.

I then went down to the lake that afternoon, for a few hours, and played with Taipans (this is inherently dangerous). Still no drama. About 6pm my eye started to sting slightly, by 7 pm my eye had ruptured and I was in hospital, in extreme pain and almost a complete loss of vision. I was released on Sunday afternoon. Back in on Monday, for a check up. The checkups are ongoing over the next few weeks.

On Saturday night, 5 lts of saline solution was dripped into my eye over the next 8 hours. Something I don't wish to ever have happen again. The second litre had bi-carb of soda in it, it was not nice.

After each litre, a ph reading was taken of the fluid in my eye. After the first litre the reading was 8.5, after 5 lts it had only dropped to only 8. The first doctor who examined me was hoping to get the ph reading to 6.5 before they discharged me. When I was discharged the reading was still 8. My eye ball has exfoliated, and I'm still to regain my vision, although it is returning slowly, I'm still missing about 60-80% of the clarity. The medications are extreme, 4 different medications, three of them by 4 times daily, one is disgusting.

The eye surgeon who was called in to see me said, that he had not seen such a bad alkaline burn from paint to an eye. It was the damage from only a small amount that was splashed, that concerns him.

BoatCraft Pacific were contacted about getting a breakdown of the paint, so the surgeon could come to grips with the paint, BC P, have been excellent about the drama. I couldn't wish for more. This is how I found this old posting when I was looking for more info on what is in their paint.

I'm not after sympathy, I'm just giving a warning to all painters.

Warren.

ps, I'm in the Committee boat for the next few races, ... specializing in cock-eyed decisions.

[ 03-18-2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[JimJ]

WW

Don't get too one eyed will ya

[JimJ]

WW

Don't get too one eyed will ya

[JimJ]

WW

Don't get too one eyed will ya