Two is better than one. Fact? Opinion? Both? Neither? Ask anyone in our trade today about why they use a two-component waterborne finish vs. a single-component and you will open Pandora’s box, or, in this case, Pandora’s gallon. Before engaging in a debate of the merits of one over the other, a history lesson may be in order.
A History Lesson
Back in 1979, the first waterborne finish for hardwood floors was brought to market in Europe. This early version was touted as being non-flammable, fast drying, and non-yellowing; a dream come true for some, though viewed as snake oil or sorcery by others.
These finishes typically used an aziridine crosslinker, a second component (part B) that was poured into the gallon container (part A) prior to the final coat being applied. This crosslinker was added to improve the strength, durability, and chemical resistance of the final coat. You’ll notice that I reference it being used in the final coat versus the previous coats because it was not always necessary to use crosslinker prior to the final application, as the final was the coat that was providing the strength, durability, and chemical resistance.
While these crosslinked products were a vast improvement over the high volatile organic compounds (VOC), slow drying, and potentially hazardous coatings being used at the time (I realize that waterborne finishes can be potentially hazardous, so please don’t @me on social media!), they required a new process to be followed, including adding a second component to them and agitating the finish for a short period of time. All of this measuring, pouring, and mixing was too much of a change for many that were used to simply dunking their lambswool block in a bucket, and mopping the oil finish on the floor, then waiting for 8 to 12 hours before buffing and applying a second coat to the floor.
Innovations in the Waterborne Finishing Market
The year 1996 brought more innovation to the U.S. waterborne finish market in the form of the first viable single-component waterborne finish. This product was oxygen crosslinked, meaning that a second component was no longer necessary to obtain a viable topcoat. Game, set, and match, right? No need to look any further than a single-component waterborne that can dry in two hours and be double coated the same day? Wood floor refinishers across the globe were now dancing in the streets, and they all lived happily ever after, until… isocyanates entered the chat.
The Two-Component Era
Not long after the introduction of the oxygen-crosslinked miracle of 1996, the industry saw the beginning of a new two-component era. These products offered increased durability, more resistance to both chemicals and scuffs, and cured a bit quicker as well. They were clear, they dried in two hours, and some didn’t even need a sealer. Modern technology has saved us again, everything is wonderful, and the hardwood floor trade has arrived at Nirvana! Well, not exactly. Were they the easiest finish to apply? Not always. They could dry a bit too quickly and leave you with applicator marks if you applied them too thin. Another issue was the pot life. What’s pot life? We learned that the product was rendered useless after two hours; then it was off to the landfill. Do you know what else went to the landfill? Your money.
Revisiting Single Component Technology
In 2007/2008, the U.S. started to see a small influx of finish manufacturers that were from outside the U.S., and these manufacturers were not opposed to unconventional thinking and revisiting single component technology. They brought with them clear single component finishes that were much easier to apply. They offered improvements over the original class of single-components in the form of greater durability, clarity, and cure. Their arrival during this time period was quite fortuitous. Anyone remember what else happened in 2008? For those of you that aren’t history buffs, money got a bit tight in 2008 as the U.S. entered the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. This inspired contractors to find ways to save on their overhead, all the while maintaining the quality of their finished product.
During the last five to seven years, there has been significant work done in the way of single-component products. Some of these are even being touted as offering several of the benefits of two-component products without the waste, or expense. This has resulted in a shift in business to the point it could be said that there are more gallons of single-component waterborne vs. two-components being sold today.
Did I just say that these new single-component finishes were better in every way than the two-component finishes that had taken the industry by storm? I did not. What I am saying is these new single-component products checked a lot of the boxes for contractors: durable, clear, quick cure time, low VOC/low odor, and a much longer shelf life, reducing waste. More importantly, they really closed the technology gap. While they were not everything that a two-component product is/was, they were providing contractors with the majority of the features and benefits they were looking for in a finish without the financial strain associated with two-component products. Once the economy came back, everyone just rushed back to all those two-component products, right? Not necessarily.
During the last five to seven years, there has been significant work done in the way of single-component products. Some of these are even being touted as offering several of the benefits of two-component products without the waste or expense. This has resulted in a shift in business to the point it could be said that there are more gallons of single-component waterborne vs. two-components being sold today. Besides being the more economical choice, the new generation of single-components are the pragmatic choice. Let’s put that another way: Some of your clients want a nine-passenger SUV to take two kids to school and the grocery store. Do they need it? Probably not. Why do they want it? Someone told them that they needed it, and anything less was not up to the task. However, that’s only one cynic’s point of view.
What it all boils down to is this: When you are selecting a finish, keep in mind that there is no longer a huge disparity between single-components and two-component products. While you may think you want a product that will protect a floor from a meteor shower; often, all you need is one that can protect it from a dust mop, the stray ice cube, and everyday life.
Did I just tell you that, in some scenarios, a single-component finish is a better option than a two-component finish? Maybe, maybe not.
Gene Jarka is the Eastern regional manager for Pallmann. He can be reached at gene.jarka@uzin-utz.com.
