Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.

pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

RESEARCH ARTICLES
Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023
 RESEARCH
WATER PERMEABILITY OF EXTERIOR WOOD COATINGS:
WATERBORNE ACRYLATE DISPERSIONS FOR WINDOWS

Štěpán Hýsek,1* Hakan Fidan,2 Miloš Pánek,3 Martin Böhm,4 Kamil Trgala5

ABSTRACT
Permeability of coatings for water and water vapor is an important factor in their

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

wood protective function. In this study, the permeability of coatings in terms of liquid
water and water vapor absorption and desorption was measured based on different
parts of the standard EN 927. This study evaluated the permeability of commercial
coating systems and ascertained effects of coating layering on the coating permeabil-
ity. For this measurement, six different waterborne acrylate dispersions were used as
paint on spruce test samples. The results clearly revealed that liquid water and water
vapor uptake were affected by coating film thickness, number of coats, and coating
composition (producer). It was ascertained that the type of coating pigmentation
affected water absorption of coatings and that with a constant coating film thickness,
the number of coats affected water vapor absorption and desorption, but not water
absorption. Furthermore, it was observed that the number of coats affected the cor-
relation between the coating film thickness and water vapor absorption and desorp-
tion. The values for water vapor absorption were much higher than for liquid water
absorption and, unlike the water vapor absorption rate, the water vapor desorption
rate was approximately 50% lower.

KEYWORDS
wood, waterborne acrylates, exterior coatings, permeability, non-destructive coating,
thickness measurement

INTRODUCTION
Recent studies have shown the need to look for renewable and sustainable resources to avoid
doing harm to the environment and affecting climate change. As a renewable resource, wood
is less harmful to the environment than most of its alternatives. In addition, its ease of repair

1. Department of Wood Products and Wood Constructions, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences
Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Prague 6—Suchdol, Czech Republic, (*corresponding author: e-mail: hyseks@fld.czu.cz)
2. Department of Wood Chemistry and Wood Products, Duzce University, Konuralp Yerleşkesi, Konuralp, 81620 Düzce, Turkey
3. Department of Wood Products and Wood Constructions, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences
Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Prague 6—Suchdol, Czech Republic
4. Department of Wood Products and Wood Constructions, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences
Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Prague 6—Suchdol, Czech Republic
5. Department of Wood Products and Wood Constructions, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences
Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Prague 6—Suchdol, Czech Republic

Journal of Green Building 3

contributes to its environmentally friendly image and long service life (Windt et al. 2014).
Therefore, wood is widely used in outdoor constructions, such as for structural timber, windows,
and doors, and can be exposed to high moisture, direct contact with rainwater, and UV damage.
Despite all the advantages over other alternatives, some undesirable properties of wood could be
considered disadvantages. Wood is an anisotropic material that is unstable when it encounters
moisture and changes dimensions (Graystone 2001). Moisture uptake in wood can be explained
by three different mechanisms: liquid water absorption into the wood, water vapor absorption
into the wood, and water vapor desorption out of the wood (Ekstedt and Ostberg 2001). Wood
can be protected against moisture in different ways. Wood can also be modified to provide
dimensional stabilization by reducing moisture absorption (Ahola 1991; Hill 2006). For this

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

purpose, numerous methods have been developed such as exterior wood coatings. These coat-
ings have two functions: to give an aesthetically acceptable surface appearance and color, and
to provide sustainable protection for the wood with no cracking, blistering, flaking, adhesion
failure, or degradation via microbiological attack (Dawson et al. 2005). Protection against high
levels and rapid fluctuation of wood moisture content is one of the main functions of exterior
wood coatings, especially in humid areas (de Meijer 2002; Ekstedt 2003; Evans et al. 2015).
In recent years, waterborne coating systems have become a major area of research and develop-
ment due to their environmental friendliness, good processability, and mechanical properties
(de Meijer et al. 2001; Wang et al. 2013).
Liquid water and water vapor permeability, two of the most important properties that
affect coating performance, are influenced by coating film thickness (Feist et al. 1985). The
coating film thickness is as important as the ingredients of the coating system. According to
EN ISO 2808 (2007), the coating film thickness should be above 60 μm. For the determina-
tion of coating film thickness, several non-destructive methods have been developed, including
permanent magnet (Korolev and Melai 2012), magnetic induction (Shukevich et al. 2000),
eddy current (Zhang et al. 2015), X-ray fluorescence (Manhas et al. 2009), and ultrasonic
(Lavrentyev and Rokhlin 2001) methods. Wood is a diamagnetic material on which it is dif-
ficult to determine the coating film thickness correctly using ultrasonic methods. However,
developments in technology provide new techniques for measuring wood coating film thickness
through the ultrasonic method. In this study, the thickness of coating films was determined by
the ultrasonic method using the new method of signal processing, which has been previously
used (Hora and Betz 1998; Beamish 2004).
Up to the present, different tests have been developed to quantify the efficiency of a
coating at protecting wood from water (EN ISO 12572 (2001); EN ISO 7783 (2011). Moisture
permeability has become a part of the performance specifications of EN 927, the general
European standard related to exterior wood coatings. The specification EN 927-2 (2014) clas-
sifies performance criteria, in relation to the expected dimensional movement of the wood, into
stable (maximum water absorption 175 g/m2), semi-stable (250 g/m2), and non-stable (250+
g/m2) end-use categories. Furthermore, some researchers have derived their own methodology
by using classified standards combined with the neutron imaging method (NMR) and mag-
netic resonance imaging (MRI) (Pourmand et al. 2011; Johansson et al. 2013; Sonderegger et
al. 2015).
The purpose of this study is to evaluate water and water vapor permeability of exterior
wood coatings (waterborne acrylate dispersions for windows) at the initial phase after coating
application. These characteristics partly predict the performance and durability of wood coatings.

4 Volume 13, Number 3

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS AND MATERIALS
For the tests, Norway spruce (Picea abies) with a density of 496 kg/m3 (at an equilibrium mois-
ture content of 12%) was used (Window Holding a.s., Prague, Czech Republic). The samples
were prepared in the dimensions 140 mm ± 2 mm × 70 mm ± 2 mm × 20 mm ± 2 mm (lon-
gitudinal, tangential, and radial directions, respectively). For accurate results, specimens were
selected without any defects, such as knots, cracks, resin spots, etc., with four to eight annual
rings per 10 mm. Inclination of the growth rings to the test face was 45° ± 10°. The specimens
were conditioned before the coating applications according to standards (20 °C ± 2 °C and 65%
± 5% RH). Two types of coated samples, namely 3-layered samples and 4-layered samples, were
prepared from six different producers. The paints were applied by both spraying and dipping,

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

using waterborne acrylate dispersions. The technology of the paint application is presented in
Table 1. The composition of the coating systems of producers 1 through 6 is stated in Table 2.
All coatings were opaque. The coating application, including coating weight, was performed
according to technical data sheets supplied by the producers, which resulted in different thick-
nesses of coating film from different producers (80 μm to 130 μm). For each combination of
coating system and producer, 5 specimens were examined.
After the application of the coatings, all remaining sides were sealed with silicon-acrylate
paints. Paints were applied in three steps and stored for 72 h between each step. Before the
measurement started, the film thickness of the coating on all specimens was measured using
the non-destructive ultrasonic method. The determination of the coating film thickness using
ultrasound is a quick method, useful for practical application, which has been employed in
several scientific papers (Hora and Betz 1998; Moya et al. 2017). Although the pitfall of this
method is the uncertainty as to whether it yields sufficiently accurate results. The verification of
the accuracy of this method was already completed in the authors’ previous work (Hýsek et al.
2017). Certainly, there are other methods to determine and characterize coating film thickness
(Masaryková et al. 2010; Grüll et al. 2014; Moya et al. 2017), but this study used a fast and
reliable method that could be used in the industry as well. For this purpose, a Sursonic Squirrel
measuring device was employed (Testima, Prague, Czech Republic). The signal processing

TABLE 1. Technology of paint application for different coating systems.

Coating No. of Basis Middle Surface

system coats Colour Impregnation coat coat coat Pigmentation
1 3 brown dipping dipping none spraying iron oxide,
wolfram acid
2 4 brown dipping dipping dipping spraying iron oxide,
wolfram acid
3 3 white dipping dipping none spraying titanium
dioxide
4 4 white dipping dipping dipping spraying titanium
dioxide

Note: For all coating systems, the pigment volume concentration was below the critical pigment volume
concentration.

Journal of Green Building 5

TABLE 2. Composition of coating systems of different producers.

Producer Impregnation Basis coat Middle coat Surface coat

1 fungicides and acrylate basis acrylate basis acrylate basis,
insecticides UV-stabilizers
(propiconazole, (benzotriazol)
permethrin,
iodopropynyl
butylcarbamate
(IPBC))

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

2 IPBC and acrylate basis acrylate basis, zinc acrylate basis,
propiconazole as oxide zinc oxide,
fungicides phenyl-phosphates
3 IPBC and alkyd-acrylate hybrid acrylate basis alkyd-acrylate hybrid
permethrin as basis basis with zinc oxide,
biocides siloxanes, fungicides,
and UV-stabilizers
(benzotriazol)
4 propiconazole and acrylate basis acrylate basis acrylate basis,
permethrin as UV-stabilizers
biocides (benzotriazol),
silicon dioxide and
methylsiloxane
5 IPBC and acrylate basis acrylate basis, acrylate basis,
permethrin as UV-stabilizers UV-stabilizers
biocides (benzotriazol), (benzotriazol),
silicon dioxide and silicon dioxide and
methylsiloxane methylsiloxane
6 propiconazole and acrylate basis acrylate basis acrylate basis
IPBC as fungicides modified by fatty modified by fatty
acids and tall acids and tall oil,
oil containing also containing
UV-stabilizers UV-stabilizers
(benzotriazol). (benzotriazol).

Note: Exact composition of paints is not known because of secreting from the side of producers; technical and
safety data sheets include only the partial, above-mentioned information

technique in Sursonic is based on a convolution of the reference echo to obtain a similar signal
as the measured echo. This signal processing allows for the measurement of films that are thinner
than the wavelength of the ultrasound. Because the water permeability of some coatings can
change markedly during a relatively short exposure to water, the following pre-conditioning
procedures were completed twice for each specimen: 24 h floating in deionized water, 3 h
drying at 20 °C and 65% RH, 3 h drying at 50°C and 18 h drying at 20 °C and 65% RH.
After pre-conditioning, the weight of the specimens was measured with a 0.001 g accuracy. The
samples were floated in deionized water for 72 h at 20 °C, then weighed, and the values were
recorded for the calculation of liquid water permeability. For the measurement of water vapor

6 Volume 13, Number 3

permeability, the specimens were put in a climate chamber that was conditioned at 20 °C and
98% RH. Specimens were exposed to 98% RH for 14 days for the absorption cycle, weighed,
then put in 20 °C and 65% RH for 14 days for the desorption cycle and reweighed. In-between
the processes, samples were kept outside less than 5 min. Liquid water permeability and water
vapor permeability were determined by the weight differences between water absorption and
water desorption as stated by EN 927-4 (2000), which is now invalid, thus EN 927-5 (2006)
was used.
The statistical data analysis was conducted using Statistica12 software (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK,
USA). An analysis of variance, as well as Spearman’s correlation and linear regression analysis
were employed. A significance level of α = 0.05 was selected.

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The water absorption data for both 3- and 4-layered samples are shown in Figure 1. The coef-
ficients of determination were low; however, the regression models were statistically significant
and the following statements can be concluded. Water absorption values for lower film thick-
nesses were higher than 200 g/m2; however, water absorption values rapidly decreased for the
higher film thickness values. Water absorption values for uncoated samples (552 g/m2) were
nearly three times higher than for the coated samples. At around 130 μm film thickness, water
absorption rates were under 100 g/m2. When the water absorption rate of coatings obtained
in this study was compared with earlier findings, the absorption rate was higher than that
reported by other researchers (de Meijer 2002). This could be explained by different coating
systems. Otherwise, it was comparable to the observations by Ekstedt (2003). In contrast, for
uncoated samples, water absorption rates were lower than in earlier findings. According to EN
927-2 (2014), where coatings are classified in 3 end-use categories according to water absorp-
tion values, it can be stated that the tested coating systems were not sufficient to use in stable
(maximum water absorption 175 g/m2) constructions in lower film thickness rates. However,
the higher coating film thickness values that were provided required water repellency. This cor-
responded with the producers’ requirements for coating film thickness, which was at least 100
μm for all of the coating systems.
Water vapor absorption and desorption data for both 3- and 4-layered samples are shown
in Figures 2 and 3. The water vapor absorption average values for both 3- and 4-layered samples
(222.9 g/m2 and 205.9 g/m2, respectively) were much higher than the values for liquid water
absorption. This was explained by the longer sorption time as well as the different physical
process of permeation. Unlike the water vapor absorption rate, the water vapor desorption rate
(102 g/m2 for 3-layered samples and 98 g/m2 for 4-layered samples) was approximately 50%
lower, which means that less water could have been released than taken up into the wood in the
same period. It can be surmised that wood hysteresis was the cause of the lower desorption rate.
In addition, the coating might have affected the desorption rate because its chemical composi-
tion is different than wood. This phenomenon is explained later. The water vapor absorption
rate for uncoated wood (401 g/m2) was nearly two times higher than for coated samples; the
water vapor desorption (226 g/m2) was relatively similar.
The results of the correlation analysis led to the results predicted by Fick’s law and proved
that the water vapor absorption and desorption and water absorption of all coatings were nega-
tively correlated to coating film thickness. The correlation between coating film thickness and
water absorption can be classified as medium for both 3-layered and 4-layered coating systems

Journal of Green Building 7

FIGURE 1. Water absorption values, 3-layered samples (a), 4-layered samples (b).

260
y = 321.09 - 1.739*x
240
r = -0.5648; p = 0.00000
Water absorption [g/m 2 ]

220 r2 = 0.3190
200
180
160
140

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

120
100
80
60
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
a Coating thickness [µm]
260
y = 363.37 - 2.106*x
240
r = -0.6699; p = 0.00000
[g/m 2 ]

220 r2 = 0.4487
200
180
Water absorption

160
140
120
100
80
60
80 90 100 110 120 130 140
b Coating thickness [µm]

(it was stronger for 4-layered); the coefficients of correlation were in both cases lower than
–0.55. However, the correlation between coating film thickness and water vapor absorption/
desorption differed in 3-layered and 4-layered coating systems. While no statistically significant
influence between coating film thickness and water vapor absorption and desorption was found
for 3-layered coatings, a strong correlation (correlation coefficients were lower than –0.65) was
found in the samples coated with 4-layered coating systems. While in the case of 4-layered
coating systems, changes in water vapor absorption and desorption were explained by changes
in coating film thickness by 43%, for 3-layered coating systems these influences were negligible.
Furthermore, it was also observed that the coating system color affected the water absorption
of coatings (p < 0.01); white coatings reached higher water absorption. This may have been
caused by pigmentation, because it is well known that titanium dioxide decreases the stability
of coatings (Figure 4) (Liu et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2010). Nevertheless, at the same coating
film thickness level, the number of coats in the coating system did not affect water absorption,

8 Volume 13, Number 3

FIGURE 2. Water vapor absorption values, 3-layered samples (a), 4-layered samples (b).

340
y = 300.2257 - 0.7786*x
320
r = -0.2491; p = 0.0549
Water vapor absorp. [g/m 2]

300
r2 = 0.0621
280
260
240
220
200

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

180
160
140
120
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
a Coating thickness [µm]
340
y = 336.4841 - 1.1607*x
320
r = -0.6575; p = 0.00000
Water vapor absorp. [g/m 2]

300
r2 = 0.4323
280
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
b Coating thickness [µm]

as shown in Figure 4. However, at the same coating film thickness level, the number of coats in
the coating system led to statistically significant (p < 0.01) differences in water vapor absorp-
tion and desorption. This different effect of the number of coats on water absorption and water
vapor absorption/desorption was also noticeable from the coefficients of determination of linear
regression curves.
When the regression curves were investigated, the regression lines for water absorption
had a greater slope than the regression lines for water vapor absorption; with a decrease in
coating film thickness, water absorption increased more than water vapor absorption. This has
an important practical impact, because insufficient coating film thickness does not provide
sufficient protection against liquid water in comparison with protection against water vapor.
The slope of regression lines for water vapor absorption was greater than the slope of those for
water vapor desorption, and this corresponded with higher water vapor absorption than water

Journal of Green Building 9

FIGURE 3. Water vapor desorption values, 3-layered samples (a), 4-layered samples (b).

180
y = 144.2693 - 0.3928*x
160 r = -0.2226; p = 0.0873
[g/m 2]

r2 = 0.0496
140
Water vapor desorp.

120

100

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

80

60

40
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
a Coating thickness [µm]

180
y = 182.0953 - 0.7724*x
160 r = -0.6576; p = 0.00000
[g/m 2]

r2 = 0.4324
140
Water vapor desorp.

120

100

80

60

40
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
b Coating thickness [µm]

vapor desorption values. This phenomenon was largely explained by wood sorption hysteresis.
On uncoated reference samples, water vapor desorption reached 56% of the value of water
vapor absorption. The water vapor desorption of experimental samples reached 47% of their
water vapor absorption. This 9% difference is explained by differences in wettability between
the wood and coatings (Landry and Blanchett 2012).
Detailed graphs of liquid water absorption values are given in Figure 5. When the graphs
were investigated, the number of coats did not affect absorption rates. In addition, coating
system 4 had a smaller range of absorption rates, which can be defined by the variability of
absorption rates. Water absorption values were also influenced by the producer (Figure 5). The
best results for water absorption were observed for producer 6 and the brown-colored coating,
where tung oil and fatty acid treatment of the acrylate polymer system most likely increased its

10 Volume 13, Number 3

FIGURE 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)—Water absorption values for different coating. systems
(Explanation of coating systems can be found in Table 1)

190
180
[g/m 2 ]

170
160
Water absorption

150
140

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

130
120
110
100
1 2 3 4
Coating system

hydrophobicity. Although, for the white-pigmented system, the results were much worse. This
is important knowledge: one coating system from the same producer can give various practical
results due to different pigmentation, as was also seen in this work for producer 5 (Figure 5). It
is a well-known fact that adding only a small amount of different additives or pigments to the
polymeric base of a coating system can cause an expressive change in its properties (Grüll et al.

FIGURE 5. ANOVA—water absorption values for each producer.

280 Coating system 1

260 Coating system 2
Coating system 3
[g/m 2 ]

240 Coating system 4

220
200
180
Water absorption

160
140
120
100
80
60
1 2 3 4 5 6
Producer

Journal of Green Building 11

2014; Windt et al. 2014; Evans et al. 2015; Pánek and Reinprecht 2016). In this case, it could
be caused by titanium oxide in the white systems in contrast to iron oxide and wolfram acid in
the brown-pigmented systems. These results were in opposition to the results of other research
(Ekstedt 2003), where it was mentioned that white-colored coatings produced the lowest water
absorption rates in comparison with other colors. However, these differences could be explained
by the totally different coating types used in these two research projects, because the coating type
has a greater effect on coating properties (Gobakken and Lebow 2010; Robinson et al. 2013).
The coating systems of producers 3 and 4 showed similar water absorption values. The partly
different polymer base (alkyd-acrylate hybrid) in the two coats (producer 3), unlike having
acrylate in all coats (producer 4), did not have an important effect on the researched properties

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

in this work. A greater effect was observed for a combination of additives- oils in producer 6,
siloxanes and silica dioxide in producer 5. Coating systems containing zinc oxide as an addi-
tive, from producer 2, had the most homogenous and relatively consistent results, without a
large influence from layering and type of pigmentation, which confirmed this additive’s positive
effect on coating stabilization in former research (Schaller et al. 2012; Forsthuber et al. 2013).
Detailed graphics of water vapor absorption values are given in Figure 6. For the water
vapor absorption rates, producers 3 and 4 had the expected results for absorption rates and
number of coats; however, for the other producers only brown-colored coating systems had the
expected results for number of coats. Producer 6 had better results on average for this measure-
ment than the other producers. For this experiment, for liquid water absorption, white-colored
coating systems were more permeable than brown-colored coating systems.
Detailed graphics for water vapor desorption values are given in Figure 7. Water vapor
desorption values were much lower when compared with the absorption values. In coating
system 1 and coating system 2, the desorption rates decreased when the number of coats

FIGURE 6. ANOVA—water vapor absorption values for each producer.

340 Coating system 1

320 Coating system 2
[g/m 2 ]

Coating system 3
300 Coating system 4
280
260
Water vapor absorp.

240
220
200
180
160
140
120
1 2 3 4 5 6
Producer

12 Volume 13, Number 3

FIGURE 7. ANOVA—water vapor desorption for each producer by ANOVA.

180 Coating system 1

Coating system 2
Water vapor desorp. [g/m 2 ]

160 Coating system 3

Coating system 4

140

120

100

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

80

60

40
1 2 3 4 5 6
Producer
.

increased, whereas the desorption rates of coating system 3 and coating system 4 increased for
producers 5 and 6. For this measurement, producer 6 had the best results. For the 3-layered,
brown-colored system, a good ratio between low water vapor absorption and relatively higher
desorption was also observed in comparison with other producers (the water vapor desorption/
absorption ratio was at a level of 0.49; see Figures 6 and 7). This could be an important factor
in practice through the faster drying of wetted wood under the coating system. It was probably
caused by the oil additives, creating a more porous coating structure (see Experimental Methods
and Materials). However, this effect was minimal for the 4-layered system, and desorption
copied absorption with some level of hysteresis (the water vapor desorption/absorption ratio
at a level of 0.41).
It is possible to say that 4-layered systems provided more stable coatings in terms of scat-
tering values of water vapor absorption and desorption, as well as water absorption. In addi-
tion, correlations between coating thickness and water permeability were stronger for 4-layered
systems than for 3-layered systems.
Finally, it is necessary to point out that in this study coating systems were compared only
on the basis of water and water vapor permeability at the initial phase after coating application.
The permeability should not be the only aspect of coatings as a protective layer for wood, and
other aspects should be considered as well, e.g. resistance to weathering and biodegradation.
The water and water vapor permeability can change during altering the exterior because of the
decrease of coating film thickness and creation of microcracks. The extent of this degradation
of the polymer structure is different for different coating systems (Van den Bulcke et al. 2006;
Grüll et al. 2014; Valverde and Moya 2014; Evans et al. 2015; Moya et al. 2017).

CONCLUSION
This study measured the water and water vapor absorption and desorption characteristics of six
commercial waterborne acrylate dispersions that resulted in wide variations of these properties:

Journal of Green Building 13

 1. The investigated waterborne acrylate coating systems were not sufficient to use in stable
constructions in lower film thickness rates. However, higher coating film thickness
values, above 110 µm, could provide the required water repellency.
2. The water and water vapor absorption and desorption were dependent upon the pro-
ducers of the coatings. These differences can be explained by the different content and
composition of additives, pigments, UV-stabilizers, or by the modification of acrylate
basis in different coats of tested coating systems.
3. The permeability of the coating system from a producer was significantly influenced by
the pigmentation (the white coatings were more permeable than the brown coatings).
4. Layering affected the permeability, where 4-layered coatings were less permeable than

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

3-layerd coatings of the same coating film thickness.
5. The brown acrylate dispersion modified by oils showed that using 4 coats worsened the
water vapor desorption/absorption ratio, which was the best for this 3-layer system. This
can result in the prolongation of wood drying during exposition in exterior coatings.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was funded by Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, project no. CIGA 20174304.

REFERENCES
Ahola, P. (1991). “Moisture transport in wood coated with joinery paints.” Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff., 49(11),
428–432.
Beamish, D. (2004). “Using ultrasonic coating thickness gauges.” Materials Performance, 43(9), 30–33.
CEN (European Committee for standardization). (2014). “Paints and varnishes. Coating materials and coating
systems for exterior wood. Part 2: Performance specification” EN 927-2, Brussels.
CEN (European Committee for standardization). (2000). “Paints and varnishes. Coating materials and coating
systems for exterior wood. Part 4: Assessment of the water-vapour permeability” EN 927-4, Brussels.
CEN (European Committee for standardization). (2006). “Paints and varnishes. Coating materials and coating
systems for exterior wood. Part 5: Assessment of the liquid water permeability” EN 927-5, Brussels.
Dawson, B.S.W., Göttgems, A., and Hora, G. (2005). “Natural weathering performance of exterior wood coat-
ings on Pinus sylvestris and Pinus radiata in Germany and New Zealand.” Journal of Coatings Technology,
2(7), 539–546.
de Meijer, M. (2003). “Comparison between laboratory water permeability tests and wood moisture content of
full-scale window frames.” Surface Coatings International Part B: Coatings Transactions, 85(2), 79–168.
de Meijer, M., Creemers, J., and Cobben, W. (2001). “Relationship between the performance of low-VOC wood
coatings and the dimensional changes of the wooden substrate.” Surface Coatings International Part B: Coatings
Transactions, 84(1), 77–85.
Ekstedt, J., and Ostberg, G. (2001). “Liquid water permeability of exterior wood coatings-testing according to a
proposed european standard method.” Journal of Coatings Technology, 73(914), 53–59.
Ekstedt, J. (2003). “Influence of coating system composition on moisture, dynamic performance of coated wood.”
Journal of Coatings Technology, 75(938), 27–37.
Evans, P.D., Haase, J.G., Shakri, A., Seman, B.M., and Kiguchi, M. (2015). “The search for durable exterior clear
coatings for wood.” Coatings, 5(4), 830–864.
Feist, W.C., Little, J.K., and Wennesheimer, J.M. (1985). The moisture-excluding effectiveness of finishes on wood
surfaces. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison.
Forsthuber, B., Schaller, C., and Grüll, G. (2013). “Evaluation of the photo stabilizing efficiency of clear coatings
comprising organic UV absorbers and mineral UV screeners on wood surfaces.” Wood Science and Technology,
47(2), 281–297.
Gobakken, L.R., and Lebow, P.K. (2010). “Modelling mould growth on coated modified and unmodified wood
substrates exposed outdoors.” Wood Science and Technology, 44(2), 315–333.

14 Volume 13, Number 3

Graystone, J.A. (2001). “Moisture transport through wood coatings: The unanswered questions.” Surface Coatings
International Part B: Coatings Transactions, 84(3), 169–242.
Grüll, G., Tscherne, F., Spitaler, I., and Forsthuber, B. (2014). “Comparison of wood coating durability in natural
weathering and artificial weathering using florescent UV-lamps and water.” European Journal of Wood and
Wood Products, 72(3), 367–376.
Hill, C.A.S. (2006). Wood modification—chemical, thermal and other processes, Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
Hora, G., and Betz, A. (1998). “Measuring commercial layer-thickness on wood with an ultrasonic unit.” Paint
& Coatings Industry, 14(11), 62–69.
Hýsek, Š., Trgala. K., Fidan, H., Pánek, M., Lexa, M., Böhm, M., and Veverka, J. (2018). “Ultrasound measure-
ment of exterior wood coating thickness.” Maderas: Ciencia y Tecnología, article in press.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). (2001). “Hygrothermal performance of building materials
and products—determination of water vapour transmission properties.” EN ISO 12572, Brussels.

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

ISO (International Organization for Standardization). (2007). “Paint and varnishes—determination of film thick-
ness.” EN ISO 2808, Brussels.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). (2011). “Paints and varnishes. Determination of water-
vapour transmission properties. Cup method” EN ISO 7783, Brussels.
Johansson, J., Blom, A., and Dvinskikh, S. (2013). “NMR-measurement for determination of local moisture
content of wood.” Journal of Coatings Technology, 10(5), 601–697.
Korolev, K.V., and Melai, A.M. (2012). “Measuring the thickness of nonmagnetic coatings.”
Russian Engineering Research, 32(7-8), 587–589.
Landry, V., and Blanchett, P. (2012). “Weathering resistance of opaque PVDF-acrylic coatings applied on wood
substrates.” Progress in Organic Coatings, 75(4), 494–501.
Lavrentyev, A.I., and Rokhlin, S.I. (2001). “An ultrasonic method for determination of elastic moduli, density,
attenuation and thickness of a polymer coating on a stiff plate.” Ultrasonics, 39(3), 211–221.
Liu, Y.M., Ge, C., Ren, M., Yin, H.B., Wang, A.L., Zhang, D.Z., Liu, C.Y., Chen, J., Feng, H., Yao, H.P., and
Jiang, T.S. (2008). ‘‘Effects of coating parameters on the morphology of SiO2-coated TiO2 and the pigmentary
properties.’’ Applied Surface Science, 254(9), 2809–2819.
Manhas, F., Pereira, V., and Bueno, M.I.M.S. (2009). “Evaluation of varnish and paint films using digital imaging
processing, energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and chemometric tools.” Journal of Coatings
Technology, 6(4), 445–455.
Masaryková, M., Pánek, M., and Reinprecht, L. (2010). “Micro-structural analysis of coatings with nanoscale
particles after ageing in Xenotest.” Wood Structure and Properties. Technical University in Zvolen—Slovakia,
209–216.
Moya, R., Rodríguez-Zúñiga, A., Vega-Baudrit, J., and Puente-Urbina, A. (2017). “Effects of adding TiO2
nanoparticles to a water-based varnish for wood applied to nine tropical woods of Costa Rica exposed to
natural and accelerated weathering.” Journal of Coatings Technology, 14(1), 141–152.
Pánek, M., and Reinprecht, L. (2016). “Effect of the number of UV-protective coats on the color stability
and surface defects of painted black locust and Norway spruce woods subjected to natural weathering.”
BioResources, 11(2), 4663–4676.
Pourmand, P., Wang, L., and Dvinskikh, S.V. (2011). “Assessment of moisture protective properties of wood coat-
ings by a portable NMR sensor.” Journal of Coatings Technology, 8(5), 649–654.
Robinson, S.C., Tudor, D., Mansourian, Y., and Cooper, P.A. (2013). “The effects of several commercial wood coat-
ings on the deterioration of biological pigments in wood exposed to UV light.” Wood Science and Technology,
47(3), 457–466.
Schaller, C., Rogez, D., and Braig, A. (2012). “Organic vs inorganic light stabilizers for waterborne clear coats: A
fair comparison.” Journal of Coatings Technology, 9(4), 433–441
Shukevich, A.K., Lukhvich, A.A., and Sharando, V.I. (2000). “Magnetic measurements of component thickness
in structures composed of nonmagnetic coating and ferromagnetic base.” Russian Journal of Nondestructive
Testing, 36(1), 22–26.
Sonderegger, W., Glaunsinger, M., Mannes, D., Volkmer, T., and Niemz, P. (2015). “Investigations into the influ-
ence of two different wood coatings on water diffusion determined by means of neutron imaging.” European
Journal of Wood and Wood Products, 73(6), 793–799.

Journal of Green Building 15

Van den Bulcke, J., Rijckaert, V., Van Acker, J. and Stevens, M. (2006). “Adhesion and weathering performance of
waterborne coatings applied to different temperate and tropical wood species.” Journal of Coatings Technology,
3(3), 185–191.
Valverde, J.C. and Moya, R. (2014). “Correlation and modeling between color variation and quality of the surface
between accelerated and natural tropical weathering in Acacia mangium, Cedrela odorata and Tectona grandis
wood with two coating.” Color Research & Application, 39(5), 519–529.
Wanga, Y., Qiua, F., Xub, B., Xub, J., Jiangb, Y.,Yanga, D., and Li, P. (2013). “Preparation, mechanical properties
and surface morphologies of waterborne fluorinated polyurethane-acrylate.” Progress in Organic Coatings,
76(5), 876–883.
Windt, I.D., den Bulcke, J.V., Wuijtens, I., Coppens, H., and Ackererkstoff, J.V. (2014). “Outdoor weathering
performance parameters of exterior wood coating systems on tropical hardwood substrates.” European Journal
of Wood and Wood Products, 72(2), 261–272.

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/3/1/1768728/1943-4618_13_3_1.pdf by Indonesia user on 22 October 2023

Zhang, J., Yuan, M., Song, S., and Kim, H. (2015). “Precision measurement of coating thickness on ferromagnetic
tube using pulsed eddy current technique.” International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing,
16(8), 1723–1728.
Zhang, Y.S., Yin, H.B., Wang, A.L., Ren, M., Gu, Z.M., Liu, Y.M., Shen, Y.T., Yu, L.B., and Jiang, T.S. (2010).
‘‘Deposition and characterization of binary Al2O3/SiO2 coating layers on the surfaces of rutile TiO2 and the
pigmentary properties.’’ Applied Surface Science, 257(4), 1351–1360.

16 Volume 13, Number 3