ELECTROSTATIC PAINT SPRAY SYSTEM
![]() |
|
Overview: | An electrostatic paint spray
system is a highly efficient technology for the application of paint to specific workpieces.
Negatively charged atomized paint particles and a grounded workpiece create an electrostatic field
that draws the paint particle to the workpiece, minimizing overspray.
For this technology, an ionizing electrode, typically located at the paint gun atomizer tip, causes paint particles to pick up additional electrons and become negatively charged. As the coating is deposited on the workpiece, the charge dissipates through the ground and returns to the power supply, completing the circuit. The electrostatic field influences the path of the paint particles. Because the charged particles are attracted to the grounded workpiece, overspray is significantly reduced. Paint particles that pass a workpiece can be attracted to and deposited on the back of the piece. This phenomenon is known as "wrap." The transfer efficiency is the percent of sprayed paint that is applied to the workpiece. Paint that is not applied to a workpiece is captured in the paint spray booth’s emission control system and ultimately disposed as waste. The typical transfer efficiency for an electrostatic paint spray system is 75%. In conventional paint spray systems, paint atomization occurs via high velocity air jets forcing paint through small air holes in the paint gun face caps. Air pressures used in these systems range from 40 to 80 pounds per square inch (psi), with air volumes of 8 to 30 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). The atomized paint particles travel at high velocities and have a greater tendency to bounce off the object being painted, as compared to electrostatic systems. Paints used for electrostatic painting must be formulated with polarizable solvents. Personnel responsible for ordering the paint should coordinate with the supplier/manufacturer to ensure that they obtain the proper formulation. No new wastes are generated when a conventional paint spray system is converted to an electrostatic paint spray system. Significant reductions in waste generation are achieved due to the electrostatic system’s increased transfer efficiency. A potential drawback to electrostatic finishing, particularly for coating complicated surfaces, is the Faraday cage effect: a tendency for charged coating particles to deposit around entrances of cavities. The Faraday cage effect allows electric charges on a conductor to reside on the outer surface of the conductor. In the case of coating complicated surfaces, the electric charge resides on the entrances of cavities. High particle momentum can help overcome Faraday cage effects, since particles with greater momentum (larger particles or particles traveling at higher speeds) are influenced less by the electrostatic forces. However, high particle momentum also lowers efficiency. Electrostatic paint equipment is available in three basic types: air atomized, airless, and rotating discs and bells. High-speed discs atomize the coating more finely than air atomization and direct more paint to the target. This technology is particularly efficient for the application of difficult to disperse, high-solids paints. However, the Faraday cage effect is generally greater with rotary atomizers than with air or airless types. Rotary atomizers, therefore, may not provide adequate coverage for complicated surfaces. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Compliance Benefit: | The higher transfer efficiency
achieved by the electrostatic paint spray system reduces the total volume
of paint that is used, which in turn results in the following compliance
benefits:
Compliance benefits include: 1) reduced recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the Title V permitting program, NESHAP Program and SARA programs; 2) potentially reduced compliance burden under RCRA; and 3) reduced administrative burden associated with OSHA (i.e., training and recordkeeping). The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as general guidelines and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g., the amount of workload involved. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Materials Compatibility: | All primers, paints and
coatings applied by electrostatic spray systems must be formulated with
polarizable solvents. Any material that can be atomized can accept an
electrostatic charge, regardless of the coating conductivity. The
workpiece must also be groundable. Metal and some wooden pieces can be
painted electrostatically, but plastic, rubber, ceramic, and glass can
not be.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Safety and Health: | Electrostatic paint spray systems
operate at high voltages (30 to 150 kV). Hence, operator safety is a
major concern. All items in the work area must be grounded, including the
operators, the paint booth, the application equipment (unless applying
conductive coatings), and conveyors. Ungrounded items should be removed
from the work area. Removing paint buildup from the paint booth helps
assure that workpieces are grounded. Workers should never wear rubber- or
corked-soled shoes (special shoe-grounding devices are available.).
Adequate skin contact is required when using hand-held guns. Painters
should grasp the gun with bare hands or use gloves with fingertips and
palms cut out.
Proper design, operation, and maintenance of the equipment is required for its safe use. The spray booth must be well ventilated. Additional health concerns depend on the coating being applied. Inhalation of lead and zinc chromate based paints can irritate the respiratory system. Some lead compounds are carcinogenic. Solvent-based coatings can irritate the lungs and mucous membranes. Prolonged exposure can affect the respiration system and/or the central nervous system. Proper personnel protective equipment should be worn, if required. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Benefits: |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Disadvantages: |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Economic Analysis: | Cost will vary, depending upon
specific applications: painting/coating type, paint volume, workpiece
specifications, and technique. Generally, electrostatic air systems cost
approximately $4,000, and electrostatic airless systems cost approximately
$6,500. Installation and training are additional costs. According to the
Air Force Corrosion Program Office, the costs for procuring polarizable
solvent paints may be higher than is stated in this analysis, particularly
for small volume users. Thus, the overall costs associated with using an
electrostatic paint spray system may be higher than what is presented in
this analysis:
Assumptions:
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for Electrostatic Paint Spraying and High Velocity Paint Spraying
Economic Analysis Summary:
Click Here to view an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the Back arrow in the Tool Bar. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
NSN/MSDS: |
*There are multiple MSDSs for most NSNs. The MSDS is only meant to serve as an example. To return from the MSDS, click the Back arrow on the Tool Bar. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Approving Authority: | Appropriate authority for
making process changes should always be sought and obtained prior to procuring or implementing
any of the technologies identified herein.
The Air Force Corrosion Prevention & Control Office is an approving authority for US Air Force applications. Table of Allowance (TA) 480 provides authorization, sources, and National Stock Numbers of electrostatic paint equipment, but authority resides at the local level. US AIR FORCE Technical Order 1-1-8, "Application of Organic Coating Systems to Air Force Equipment" also authorizes the use of electrostatic spray paint systems. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Points of Contact: | For more information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vendors: |
This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of equipment. Fluid Air Products
(Government Distributor) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sources: | Robinson, Frank and Dennis
Stephens, "Understanding Electrostatic Finishing," Industrial Finishing,
September 1990, p 34-37. "Reducing Waste in Railcar Coating Operations," Graco Equipment and Emissions Update, June 1994, pp. 8-9. Vern Novstrup, NFESC, November 1999. |