Saturday. The spray operators averaged 7 hours a day actually manipulating the spray gun, making a total actual exposure of about 38 hours per week.

The company had been spraying furniture for about 10 years and in the process used varnish, lacquer, shellac, substitute shellac, thinner, and stains. It used a material to form the outer coat or glazing consisting of 40 per cent benzol, 20 per cent ethylate, 20 per cent butylate, and 20 per cent acetylate. The materials were applied with a standard pressure spraying system, using a pressure of 10 to 15 pounds in the container and 60 to 70 pounds to break up the material as it left the gun, and having a nozzle distance of approximately 15 inches.

The work was performed in booths equipped with separate exhausts, from which air was drawn by an exhaust fan. The velocity of the air at the working surface was estimated, from the size of the booth and the capacity of fan, to be 80 feet per minute. The agent was informed that the company furnished masks of the ordinary respirator type which were worn by some operators but not by others. It was also stated that at the time of the investigation 10 per cent of all spray material used consisted of a stain in which there was 40 per cent benzol. It is not known how effective the equipment may have been in clearing the spray room of fumes or of preventing materials from adhering to the person of the operator. Washing facilities with cold water only were furnished, a few taking advantage of these facilities.

Sometimes workers misinterpret regulations designed for their protection. In some plants visited printed regulations regarding the use of spray equipment had been posted. These were designed to keep continually before the worker the necessity of precautions in the use of equipment and handling of materials. These rules or regulations when first displayed were interpreted to mean that the work was extremely hazardous and spray operators promptly quit their jobs. The hiring of new spray operators proved a difficult problem in these plants because of the hysteria or mental stampede among employees at the time. In other plants regulations were posted, with no resulting trouble. This would seem to indicate that the workers in the latter plants were already educated to the possible hazards of the occupation. and had a full realization of the necessity of care in the work.

Conditions which apparently were responsible for cases of poisoning in plants studied have in many cases been improved to such an extent as to indicate the probable prevention of further trouble in such plants. In a few plants, however, where cases of poisoning had also occurred no definite steps have been taken in any direction, although various State agencies have pointed out to the plant officials that hazardous conditions have existed for some time.

In one plant where an employee had been affected by the materials sprayed, ventilation had not yet been provided at the time of this study, which was approximately a year after the poisoning. This plant had been engaged in doing touch-up body and fender work by spraying for only two months when the case occurred. Four men had been engaged on that particular part of the work, which was done in the rear of the establishment, in a room which was separated from the automobile repair shop only by a series of

stock racks. The operations of filing, grinding, applying the prime coat, sanding, and spraying were all performed within this room. The ceiling was about 15 feet high and the space for refinishing was about 60 feet square. There were no booths, nor was there any special provision for ventilation. The end of the building was practically all windows. There was a door in one corner for ingress and egress of cars, but the door was closed because of cold weather. During the agent's interview the door was opened to permit the entrance of a car, at which time the fresh air coming in was very noticeable. There were no windows open at the moment, but it is possible that they would be opened in warmer weather.

The air compressor, which furnished pressure for spraying, was electrically driven and drew air from the center of the working space. It was a small portable outfit of a size sufficient to operate but a single gun. The odors of the materials were very noticeable and, together with the dust from sanding, make conditions for all the employees in the room very poor.

The employees who worked in the finishing department were of the opinion that the products used were absolutely harmless. The fact that there was no provision for their safety did not appeal to them as having any serious consequences, and they took no precuations to prevent accumulation of material on their persons. The only washing facility was a spigot and trough, where cold water was available.

No safety rules were issued by the employer nor was a physical examination required. The employer said that if a mask was desired by any employee, he would furnish one of any type the man might ask for.

In a few very large plants covered in the study employing as many as 200 or 300 spray operators, there have been only 1 or 2 inconsequential cases of disability in the course of several years' experience. These examples indicate that many of the large manufacturers have worked out rather highly efficient and protective systems. In a few smaller plants covered several cases of disability have resulted from the operation of spray painting. Some of these cases, however, may be ascribed as much to the carelessness of the spray operators in using the safety equipment provided as to anything particularly wrong with the system itself. In fact, several examples were found where spray operators were actually antagonistic toward certain rules or safety equipment furnished for their protection, and other cases where operators imbued with a false sense of security were indifferent to the use of safety devices.

There were other plants visited where the conditions seemed very unsafe. The workmen in these plants, as a rule, were assured that the material used could have no harmful effects. The only guaranty, however, in many such cases was information furnished by salesmen who might or might not have known the formula or ingredients used in the manufacture of the materials.

Economies of Spray Painting

A FEW years ago manufacturers in general devoted a generous amount of working space to the finishing process necessary to make the

product marketable. In some industries a large per cent of the total space was devoted to finishing, because of the great amount of time required to obtain the desired finish with the methods and materials then in use. One example illustrating the evolution of finishing is that of the automobile body. In one plant manufacturing bodies just after the war 42,240 square feet of space was necessary to produce one body per hour. The minimum finish on many cars consisted of six rough coats, three coats of varnish, and two coats of color varnish, requiring about six weeks for the process. The paint alone on a car weighed 75 pounds. At that time, the high percentage of the space devoted to the building of a body was largely for the finishing department. Increasing demands for bodies brought about the adoption of other processes and finishing materials, which cut the space necessary for the production of one body per hour from 42,240 square feet to 16,000 square feet. This was previous to the adoption of pyroxylin lacquers. No record could be obtained of the space necessary since their adoption, but it is safe to say that it is far below the figures given above.

The real economies of spraying, however, can be shown by other examples. In considering the figures hereafter presented, one should bear in mind that paint brushed on seldom dries without brush marks, which are in fact alternate thick and thin streaks of paint. These inequalities often appear in the film of paint covering wood which has weathered ridges and grooves. In such cases, where the ridge of the wood and the thin portion of the brushed paint are in conjunction, the film is reduced to a minimum thickness and is bound to wear through much more quickly than where the thick part of the film crosses the groove in the wood. Also, where there is insufficient brushing small bubbles of air are often imprisoned by the paint film and the expansion and the contraction thereof by the heat and the cold in the weather, causes such a film to deteriorate rapidly. With such possibilities in mind, it is obvious that paint applied as a very fine mist by an experienced operator would not only cover the wood more evenly regardless of its surface characteristics, but also would prevent the formation of air bubbles beneath the film. Thus the skill of the painter and the quality of the film applied must be given due weight in making comparisons between brushing and spraying. An unskilled brush man may fail to apply paint evenly or to brush it out thoroughly, and an unskilled spray painter may apply the material either insufficiently or excessively.

The saving effected by a school board by spray painting1 is shown in the following:

We rented a machine from a local banker and, after a short trial, purchased a complete one-unit outfit. We continued during the summer to use both machines. With the help of two men to operate the spray guns and three helpers, we completely decorated the interiors of these six large buildings, including our senior high school.

Before we began the work with spray guns, we had specifications prepared and requested the painting contractors in town to bid on the work. We received some 9 or 10 bids for the work on the six buildings, ranging from $8,375 to $9,667 for the work complete, the painter to furnish labor, materials, and equipment. At the completion of the job we found our total expense, which included rent for each of the two machines and all labor, materials, and equipment, including

electricity and all other items, to be only $5,521.55, making a saving of $2,848.95, figured on the price of the lowest bidder.

We found the spray gun used about 50 per cent more paint on one coat than putting on by brush, but we found also that the one coat will cover as well as two coats with the brush, thus resulting in a net saving of 25 per cent of the paint. Everyone (even painters who were not friendly with the spray gun) who has seen the decoration agrees that the paint is more evenly applied and looks better than it would if put on by brush. Our experience proves that one man with a spray gun, on an average, can do as much work as four to five skilled painters with brushes.

Another example of the economy of spray painting is found in the spraying of a previously painted metal roof. The facts are analyzed as follows:

Spraying required approximately 10 per cent more paint than brushing. Brushing required approximately 200 per cent more labor than spraying.

Still another example is the spraying of a previously painted brick wall with stone cornices:

Spraying_required approximately 7 per cent more paint than brushing. Brushing required approximately 109 per cent more labor than spraying.

An example of interior work on the ceiling and walls of a plastered room is shown below:

Spraying required approximately 40 per cent more paint than brushing but gave quite good "hiding" in one coat. Brushing required approximately 160 per cent more labor than spraying and gave poor "hiding" in one coat.

A test by the United States Navy between handwork and spray painting on the U. S. S. Neptune was made on the inside of the midship tank, using a red-lead paint. Stages had to be rigged for the handwork, while all parts could be reached with the gun without staging. The results were as follows:

The paint was sprayed at the rate of 1,024 square feet per hour by the spray equipment, using 2.73 gallons of paint per thousand square feet. In the same tank, under similar conditions, 82.5 square feet per hour were painted by hand, using 2.02 gallons of paint per thousand square feet of surface.

Another example shows that:

A contracting painter made a bid of 65 cents per square yard for painting a stucco house, and was low bidder at a total of about $650. He bought a small spray painting outfit and did the work at a cost of slightly over $350.

Spray Equipment in the Government Service

SPRAY painting was also observed at three arsenals, two air depots, two navy yards, and a proving ground. Steps were being taken at one of the arsenals at the time of the bureau agent's visit to install efficient equipment and to establish regulations which would guarantee the protection of the spray operators. At the other seven posts efficient equipment was already in operation. Such equipment had been installed in most cases to eliminate possible hazards rather than to correct conditions which had been in any way conducive to poisoning from the process. In comparison with the conditions observed at the different manufacturing plants the conditions