Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 194 OF 516

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Evaluation of Propylene Carbonate in Air Logistics Center (ALC) Depainting Operations.
Author Rosenthal, S. ; Hooper, A. M. ;
CORP Author Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc., Edison, NJ.;Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. Risk Reduction Engineering Lab.
Publisher Sep 94
Year Published 1994
Report Number EPA-68-C9-0033; EPA/600/R-94/176;
Stock Number PB94-214681
Additional Subjects Aircraft maintenance ; Paint removers ; Air pollution control ; Methyl ethyl ketone ; Environmental chemical substitutes ; Solvents ; Solvent properties ; Alternatives ; Comparison ; Radomes ; Performance evaluation ; Propylene carbonate ; N-methylpyrrolidone ; Dibasic esters ; Depainting ; Paint stripping ; Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center ; Tinker Air Force Base
Internet Access
Description Access URL
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=300039EK.PDF
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
NTIS  PB94-214681 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. NTIS 11/11/1994
Collation 43p
Abstract
This report summarizes a two-phase, laboratory-scale screening study that evaluated solvent blends containing propylene carbonate (PC) as a potential replacement for methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) in aircraft radome depainting operations. The study was conducted at Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (OC-ALC) at Tinker Air Force Base (TAFB). The first phase of this study screened the performance of three solvent blends provided by Texaco Chemical Company. These blends contained varying concentrations of PC, n-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP), dibasic ester (DBE), and other organic solvents. The performance of each blend was compared with that of MEK-both by the paint removal time and by a visual estimate of the amount of paint removed without any visible substrate damage (removal efficiency). Phase 2 test results revealed that PC Blend 2 performed favorably in comparison with MEK in removing paint from the fiberglass/epoxy (F/E) test panels and in subsequent paint adhesion tests, despite an indication of possible substrate damage.