{"id":3947,"date":"2011-07-14T09:57:12","date_gmt":"2011-07-14T16:57:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/unrbep.org\/?p=3947"},"modified":"2011-07-14T09:57:12","modified_gmt":"2011-07-14T16:57:12","slug":"hvlp-vs-conventional-spray-guns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/unrbep.org\/dealerportal\/hvlp-vs-conventional-spray-guns\/","title":{"rendered":"HVLP vs. Conventional Spray Guns"},"content":{"rendered":"

Thanks to the University of Northern Iowa and the Iowa Waste Reduction Center<\/a><\/strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n

High Volume \u2013 Low Pressure (HVLP) spray guns are often viewed as the holy grail of spray painting transfer efficiency (TE).\u00a0 \u00a0Quite often, HVLP is automatically assigned a generous TE rating of 65% without much (if any) consideration of coating characteristics, spray gun setup parameters, finish quality requirements, and the geometry of the work pieces being coated.\u00a0 In general, any type of spray equipment (including HVLP) is capable of being used inefficiently if set up improperly.\u00a0 This is largely how conventional air spray equipment has developed such a bad reputation for transfer efficiency (generally considered to be 50% at best).<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t get me wrong, HVLP spray equipment definitely offers some impressive benefits\u00a0in certain applications and if used properly<\/em>.\u00a0 It does, however, have its share of limitations.\u00a0 Most notably, it lacks the energy needed to sufficiently atomize high viscosity (i.e., high solids \u2013 low VOC) coatings.\u00a0 In an effort to remedy this, particularly in situations where HVLP use is required, a spray operator may reduce the coating\u2019s viscosity by adding solvent.\u00a0 This quickly negates the environmental benefit of high solids \u2013 high performance coatings.<\/p>\n

The following are two fundamental points I\u2019ve learned from over a decade of experience in working with companies that apply coatings:<\/p>\n