Jesstzn
New member
geekysteve said:
Did I miss part of the thread here .. I didn't see a posting by Mr. ketchum.
Xylene?
- Thread starter MnRiverman
- Start date
- Status
Did I miss part of the thread here .. I didn't see a posting by Mr. ketchum.
Steve @ Guru
New member
mmmm, Rachel Ray...
sorry.
sorry.
Jesstzn
New member
BW said:Umm, no, we're talking about the AutoInt.com article that the thread starter questioned...
FYI, it's Ketcham.:xyxthumbs
Ah ok .. I thought this was a thread on wether xylene was bad for clear coat not wether everything on Autoint.com is BS ... I wonder where this thread would go if the example that was found and used used was from some company like PPG?
Steve @ Guru
New member
That's part of the point...I don't believe PPG would ever say such a thing.
Jesstzn
New member
I guess I am still waiting for the expert posting from someone ( with documentation ) to say Xylene is not harmful to clear or other paints ..
jerry@robs
New member
Eagle One also has a New car prep called Body Prep in their pro-linem It says: Fast Acting Solvent is perfect for new car or freshly painted surfaces, Gentle yet effective, Body Prep will remove road tar, gum and cosmoline from all painted, chrome, plastic and glass surfaces. Fast drying formula prepares surface for final detailing.
I guess Xylene is safe for paint as long as you dont leave it on way too long. Ive been using 3M Wax Tar and Adhesive remover for over 5 years now and it's fine with my car...
I guess Xylene is safe for paint as long as you dont leave it on way too long. Ive been using 3M Wax Tar and Adhesive remover for over 5 years now and it's fine with my car...
safetyman2010
New member
geekysteve said:
I have no problem with you refuting what Ron has to say but I might suggest that before you post that hsi technical expertise is "nonsense" that you actaully disprove what the man has to say. His company actually consults with the paint manufacturers so at this point his credibility IMHO outweighs any "I don't believe it but don't have any proof to dispute it" posts here. I perform minor paint work and know without question that xylene is nasty stuff and should be dealt with with caution. The problem is that using products on a paint's finish without knowing how they will affect the finish tomorrow, six months down the road, a year down the road etc... is a gamble I won't take (with my own cars or my customers). I have seen the effects of people putting crap on their paint too many times over the last 10 years to know better.
Steve @ Guru
New member
I think we're talking about different "extremes" here - please re-read my comments about the Buytl Cellosolve.
I totally agree that straight, 100% Xylene is strong, nasty and potentially hazardous to many things. However, the 3M product isn't 100% Xylene, and I don't know of anyone who uses it "regularly."
"Gee, I don't have anything to do today...guess I'll go bathe the car in Xylene." (I'm positive that's not happening)
However, to use it as a spot cleaner, occasionally, is no problem. 3M has been around longer than AutoInt and I'm pretty sure has a lot more engineering resources available. Certainly they wouldn't produce a product that will be harmful to paint - they supply their General Purpose Adhesive Remover to thousands of body shops...
I've been using it for 15+ years and have never seen a problem with it. However, I use it as directed, as I believe most users do.
I totally agree that straight, 100% Xylene is strong, nasty and potentially hazardous to many things. However, the 3M product isn't 100% Xylene, and I don't know of anyone who uses it "regularly."
"Gee, I don't have anything to do today...guess I'll go bathe the car in Xylene." (I'm positive that's not happening)
However, to use it as a spot cleaner, occasionally, is no problem. 3M has been around longer than AutoInt and I'm pretty sure has a lot more engineering resources available. Certainly they wouldn't produce a product that will be harmful to paint - they supply their General Purpose Adhesive Remover to thousands of body shops...
I've been using it for 15+ years and have never seen a problem with it. However, I use it as directed, as I believe most users do.
safetyman2010
New member
geekysteve said:
You said it best yourself "they supply their General Purpose Adhesive Remover to thousands of body shops...". Products designed to be used in a paint refinish setting may not be ideally suited for use on automotive finishes in a detailing setting. I believe this was the exact point made by Ron in the post that originated this post.
Jesstzn
New member
theveed said:
Does the Eagle One Body Prep have Xylene in it? .. Just curious
Steve @ Guru
New member
ShineShop said:
Ok, you've really lost me now, on a few areas...
Ok, if that's the case, why do we use: Clay, DACP, Finesse-It II, Fine Cut, SMR, SFP, and any other line of products that were designed to be used in a body shop? You'd die if you found out some of those very products have solvents that are a close relation to the Xylene family...
No, that couldn't be further from what was being inferred...I've cut and pasted the line from the AutoInt website that got everyone excited:
Notice how vague their assertion is? According to them, the clear coat damage may have been caused by improper paint application, or it could have been caused by something containing Xylene rubbed on the paint one time or another.
I read that as saying, "We can't tell for certain what caused the problem, but it might have happened because someone once wiped a product containing Xylene over the paint."
Oh, you mean like the paint cleaner that body shops use to wipe down cars? Or perhaps the Xylene that's in certain detailing compounds?
Ugh. Talk about alarmist, and using scare tactics in the most inappropriate manner...
As DetailKing indicated earlier in this thread (he's a chemical engineer, by the way):
Are his points not valid? Or are they, and this has become simply a case of, "Don't try to share facts with me, I've already made up my mind."
Jesstzn
New member
Jesstzn said:
Yes .. I am too .. It would be interesting to read up on. Oh.. BTW .. geekysteve .. I think Ron drives a Ford product .. are they any good?
Steve @ Guru
New member
Nice work, quoting yourself there... and in my book, DetailKing (a chemical engineer by education and trade) has indicated that Xylene isn't harmful if used once in a while.
Try reading more than every 5th word of a post.
Try reading more than every 5th word of a post.
94BlkStang
New member
DETAILKING said:
Curious as to why you think Acetone is milder than Xylene? Flash point for Acetone is 0 deg f and Xylene is 82 deg f. The relative evaporation rate of Acetone is also 7.7 and Xylene is 0.8, while mineral spirits is 0.1 (higher means faster evaporating). You are correct that Xylene is commonly found in adhesive removers, usually at a 50% concentration. It is often mixed in with an aliphatic hydrocarbon that evaporateds about the same as Xylene to keep the cost down and it's been shown that it isn't necessary to use a 100% aromatic hydrocarbon (Xylene and Toluene) for cleaning so why make the blend 100% Xylene? It is also true that complete immersion with Xylene and continually wiping the car down with it and pretty much any solvent will deterioate the clearcoat over time, but that's because you are taking the oils out of the paint and not replenishing them with polish and wax. You could wipe your car down every day with Xylene with probably no effect if it was polished and waxed afterwards. In the solvent industry, Xylene is not that strong of solvent. I would consider it in the middle.
Butyl Cellusolve is another misrepresented product. About 15 years ago, the government did some tests (they didn't always use very good control factors) and found it to cause cancer in rats at enormous dosage amounts. The govenrment jumped in and put it on their hit list to remove from industry. Many formulators went away from the product, but upon further testing it was found to be not that serious and many formulators have been using it for years. It's found in almost every waterbased cleaner made to day. Products like 409 commonly have about 5 to 10% of Butyl Cellusolve in it.
I've been working for a chemical distributor for over 25 years and have gone to classes put on by many of the producers of these chemicals. If used properly solvents are very safe to use.
94BlkStang
New member
Jesstzn said:
Yes it does. It contains about 35% Xylene with the rest being a lesser cost Aliphatic Hydrocarbon (petroleum naptha, which is a faster evaporating mineral spirit.
foxtrapper
New member
That's a bit of a missprepresentation.
If you read the ACGIH documentation for 2-butoxyethanol (aka Butyl Cellusolve, CAS # 111-76-2) you find that almost all the studies dealt with toxicity, not carcinogenicity. Of that, the only government testing was of a subchronic nature, the U.S. National Toxicology Program 90 day drinking water test to be specific.
The carcinogenicity tests are current and under review. The carcinogenic classification is A3, and was never anything higher. A3 being a confirmed animal carcinogen with unknown relevance to humans.
Fairly extensive direct human studies have been done on this chemical. Which is the primary basis for the ACGIH and the OSHA TLV levels, 20 ppm respectively.
The history of the ACGIH screening level is as follows:
1948-1956 = 200 ppm
1957-1980 = 50 ppm
1981-1998 = 25 ppm
1999- pres = 20 ppm
As you can see, there is clearly raising of the screening level, ever. Nor is there a drastic drop in the screening level 15 years ago. The chemical has been under continuous study and the screening levels continuously revised.
If you look at it on a global level, you will see that by and large the entire planet is in agreement on the screening levels of this particular chemical. Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, and the UK all have a 25 ppm screening level as of two years ago (as per the third eddition of Occupational Exposure Limits for Airborn Toxic Substances, International Labour Office, Geneva). Germany, Sweden and Switzerland having 20 ppm screening levels.
So claims of a government witch hunt and subsequent correction are simply not true.
If you read the ACGIH documentation for 2-butoxyethanol (aka Butyl Cellusolve, CAS # 111-76-2) you find that almost all the studies dealt with toxicity, not carcinogenicity. Of that, the only government testing was of a subchronic nature, the U.S. National Toxicology Program 90 day drinking water test to be specific.
The carcinogenicity tests are current and under review. The carcinogenic classification is A3, and was never anything higher. A3 being a confirmed animal carcinogen with unknown relevance to humans.
Fairly extensive direct human studies have been done on this chemical. Which is the primary basis for the ACGIH and the OSHA TLV levels, 20 ppm respectively.
The history of the ACGIH screening level is as follows:
1948-1956 = 200 ppm
1957-1980 = 50 ppm
1981-1998 = 25 ppm
1999- pres = 20 ppm
As you can see, there is clearly raising of the screening level, ever. Nor is there a drastic drop in the screening level 15 years ago. The chemical has been under continuous study and the screening levels continuously revised.
If you look at it on a global level, you will see that by and large the entire planet is in agreement on the screening levels of this particular chemical. Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, and the UK all have a 25 ppm screening level as of two years ago (as per the third eddition of Occupational Exposure Limits for Airborn Toxic Substances, International Labour Office, Geneva). Germany, Sweden and Switzerland having 20 ppm screening levels.
So claims of a government witch hunt and subsequent correction are simply not true.
94BlkStang said:
safetyman2010
New member
geekysteve said:
Please allow me to address some of the questions you have with regards to my post then I am putting this puppy to bed.
1. Cleaning solvents used to prepare a vehicles bodywork in preperation for REPAINTING have absolutely no corelation to clay, compounds or polishes used AFTER a vehicle has been repainted or for correction of paint defects. You are correct in that buffing products used in bodyshops can be used in situations outside of a bodyshop.
2. It's great that Detailking is a chemical engineer and I am sure he knows his stuff as to how the chemicals are made and their dangers and potential uses etc... However, unless he or his company has done extensive testing on the effects of xylene (or any other strong solvent) use on a modern high solid clear coat then I don't think your point is relevant. Saying that you have used it and it didn't do any damage doesn't mean it won't. I have seen first hand the effects of some dumbass using paint thinners and strong solvents to remove tar/grease/paint overspray/sap from a vehicles paint and the results are devastating.
I for one will not use anything on a vehicle that has not been proven to not be harmful.
It sounds more to me like you have an axe to grind with Auto International for some reason. If you have PROOF to dispute their recommendations please feel free to post them and if you do so I will readily agree with your findings if found to be accurate. However, no one is doing that. Speculation about "well it could if you did this or it won't because of this" doesn't answer the question at hand. AI consults and troubleshoots for several of the paint manufacturers and the OEMS so I will trust their credibility until someone proves their information wrong.
94BlkStang
New member
ShineShop said:
Simple test. Go to a U Pull It wrecking yard and pick up a flip open gas lid from a car. Shouldn't cost more than $5.00. Maybe a body shop will give you a small piece of a car panel for free. Prep and wax the piece like you normally would and then wipe it with xylene every day. If you get two pieces, do the same thing with the other piece, but after wiping with xylene, then follow up with a polish and wax. I think you will be surprised at the results.
imported_Intermezzo
New member
geekysteve said:
LOL!!!
Psst! Jesstzn! Wrong account buddy.....
- Status