Chapter 2.9.
2
Chemical Stripping
John Steinhauser
Basic Principle of Operation
Chemical strippers are typically used for two
generic applications: removing old oil-based (alkyd)
paint and removing other coatings, such as epoxies,
urethanes, vinyls, coal tars, elastomerics, and/or other
chemically resistant coatings.
In either application area, very few restrictions
apply as to which substrates are present, with the
major exception that caustic strippers will attack
aluminum and/or aluminum paint, and precautions
must be taken in those applications.
For those applications involving removal of oil-
based paint, caustic strippers have proven to be both
productive and economical. These strippers contain
one or more common caustic chemicals, such as
sodium, calcium, and magnesium hydroxide. They are
formulated as heavy pastes so that they will adhere
well to vertical as well as over-hanging surfaces such
as may be found on the underside of an elevated
water storage tank.
For applications other than oil-based paint, the
two most common strippers are those that contain n-
Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone (NMP) and those based on
selective adhesion-release agents, known as SARA
strippers. Both of these generic strippers have proven
effective for removing chemically resistant coatings as
described above.
The effectiveness of SARA strippers on
different generic coating types is covered in reference
1. SARA strippers are not effective on rigid urethanes
and aromatic Novolac amine epoxies.
It should be noted here that since both stripper
types have either low or no volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs), they typically react more slowly than
the early generation toxic strippers, sometimes taking
as long as 48 hours for complete removal.
SARA strippers are biodegradable and can be
left to soak into the ground. A permeable membrane
(e.g. cheesecloth) can be spread on the ground to filter
out debris as the SARA stripper and paint are removed
by water cleaning.
Historical Development
The use of chemicals for paint removal is not
new, as paint strippers containing solvents have been
in use for a number of decades. Most of these early
chemical strippers, which still exist today, contain one
or more chemicals designated as being toxic, such as
methylene chloride, toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, and
methyl alcohol. The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) has placed tight restrictions on
permissible exposure limits (PELs), which apply to
painting contractors, requiring them to use strippers
that are less hazardous, both from worker safety as
well as environmental standpoints. 2,3,4
During the 1990s, this new generation of paint
strippers has been used on industrial and commercial
job sites, ranging from large steel structures, such as
bridges and storage tanks, to masonry structures,
such as warehouses, water treatment plants, school
buildings, and churches.
Stripper Selection, Process Equipment,
Procedures
Chemical stripper selection is based upon a
number of variables that can be best assessed by
performing patch tests on the actual surface to be
stripped. End users should seek the assistance of a
trained manufacturer’s representative, who can adjust
the application parameters such as formulation,
stripper thickness, and/or dwell time in order to deter-
mine which product best fits a particular application. To
account for variations of both paint type and paint
thickness, which can occur frequently on old struc-
tures, patch tests should be conducted in more than
one location; and each test should cover at least one
square foot of surface.
Since many older structures have multiple
layers and types of paint, more than one application of
a stripper or more than one type of stripper may be
required; and therefore, the owner should rely on
testing done by the manufacturer to determine which
product(s) work most effectively. By performing pre-job
testing, the owner can be best assured that the proper
stripper has been selected to suit the particular
application and job scope.
In specifying process equipment, consider-
ation must first be given to containment structures and
materials. Containment guidelines for chemical
stripping involve: containment during stripper applica-
tion; during stripper removal; during surface prepara-
tion for painting; and during painting. In general, the
containment structure should be in accordance with
SSPC-Guide 6, Guide for Containing Debris Gener-
ated During Paint Removal Operations, Class 1C, 2C,
or 3C.5 Additional containment guidelines are also
discussed in SSPC-TU 6, Chemical Stripping of
Organic Coatings from Steel Surfaces.6 Typical
chemical stripping containment structures require only
that the solid and liquid waste products be contained
within the structure for easy collection and disposal.
Remaining process equipment used for
chemical stripping includes either hand tools or paint
pumps for application of strippers, hand tools for bulk
removal of stripper wastes, and equipment for rinsing
or otherwise removing remaining stripper residues in
preparation for subsequent painting. For stripper
application, typically airless paint pumps can be used
to provide adequate production rates; however, most
caustic strippers are quite thick and require air spray
pumps modified to handle thicker materials. Either
type of pump is readily available through the distribu-
tors who market the stripper products. Stripper manu-
facturers, during test patching, can assist in recom-
mending proper application equipment. For rinsing and
removing remaining stripper residues, a number of
options exist, with an objective to keep liquid wastes to
a minimum.
Commercial and industrial paint stripping
projects have successfully employed a number of
processes for cleaning stripper residues. These
include sponges, hand spray pumps or bottles, paint
pumps using water, ice blasting, carbon dioxide
blasting, pressure washing, steam cleaning, and
vacuum rinsing. Each method should be evaluated on
its own merit as it would pertain to a particular paint
stripping job. Again, owners should contact stripper
manufacturers, who can demonstrate these processes
at the job site, in order to determine which provides the
best scenario regarding cost and productivity.
At the job site, the stripper is applied to the old
paint using one or more of the techniques described
above. Thickness and dwell time will have been pre-
146
determined by patch tests. Daily production rates will
also have been pre-determined. In general, productiv-
ity is limited to that amount of surface area to which
stripper has been applied that can be effectively
cleaned within the timeline set by dwell time. While this
guideline is relatively flexible, some strippers, in
particular caustics, if left to dwell for too long a period,
can create extra labor and/or waste liquids. Since the
NMP and/or SARA strippers typically have low VOC
content, they can be left to dwell for longer periods
without creating added labor for removal. Also, when
some strippers are applied to concrete and/or other
masonry surfaces, a covering material may be
required in order to prevent the stripper from drying
before the old paint has completely reacted with it.
Manufacturers will determine this during patch test
procedures.
Following the proper dwell period, the stripper
is removed using one or more of the processes
described above. As with stripper selection and
application, optimum removal techniques can be
determined during the patch-test phase. Consideration
is given to waste (quantity as well as hazardous/
non-hazardous), containment requirements, and/or
other worker safety and environmental considerations.
Finally, the substrate is inspected for cleanliness and
surface conditions such as proper pH and/or any
existing corrosion. The substrate, at this point, is ready
for coating application.
Application Considerations
Chemical stripping offers many application
advantages when used for removing old coatings.
Since it is a wet process, it presents little or no air-
borne exposure to any hazardous materials that may
be present in old coatings, which, if removed with dry
processes, require expensive ventilation and filtration
equipment.
The most limiting factor when considering use
of chemical stripping is that the process does not leave
a profile on any substrate, metal or otherwise. How-
ever, moisture-cure polyurethanes and other coatings
technology developed in the late 1990s may be used
directly on clean steel surfaces without significant
profile as long as any loose corrosion or mill scale has
been removed, as described in SSPC-SP 3, Power
Tool Cleaning.
In addition to these coating advances, many
coatings are available which can be used directly on
bare, clean, masonry surfaces, avoiding the need for
using floor blasting equipment to remove the old
coatings.
Another limiting factor involves weather. Most
of the strippers discussed should be used at ambient
temperatures above 50°F (10°C). These chemicals
actually prefer warm moist weather but they work well
in dry areas if application cycles are compatible with
weather conditions. Chemical strippers are not im-
mune to rain, but production cycles can be adjusted
during the job to account for weather problems as is
done with other paint removal processes. Weather
limiting factors, as with other considerations, can be
adequately assessed during the patch-test phase of a
project.
Chemical stripping offers production rates that
are competitive with dry abrasive blast cleaning,
waterjetting, and power tool cleaning. Advantages of
chemical stripping include lower costs of waste
disposal and containment, with little or no costs
associated with dust control. Chemical stripping can
also be used on historic structures where abrasive
blast cleaning is not recommended.
Cleaning Rates and Costs
Productivity and process costs for chemical
stripping can vary greatly depending on a number of
factors such as structure geometry, which relates to
containment considerations; stripper dwell time;
existence of hazardous paint; and weather conditions.
Productivity can be reasonably estimated after patch
testing. For example, structures that are relatively
accessible, such as storage tanks and commercial
building exteriors, a three-worker crew can typically
produce clean surfaces at the rate of 3000–4000 ft2
(300–400 m2) per day. This rate assumes that one
worker can spray the stripper at the above rate; the
stripper typically dwells overnight; and two workers
clean the old paint and stripper residues the following
day while another surface is being coated with stripper.
On the other hand, complex jobs, such as bridges and
internal factory structures, require more difficult
scaffolding, and production rates are typically in the
range of 1000–2000 ft2 (100–200 m2) per day.
Accordingly, costs associated with these
production scenarios also vary according to the above
listed conditions and can nominally range from $4.00
to $8.00 per ft2 ($40 to $80 per m2). Other factors
include waste costs (both solid and liquid) and subse-
147
quent coating costs. For example, polyurethanes for
steel structures are typically more expensive than
acrylic or elastomeric coatings used on masonry
building exteriors and interiors. Costing these projects
relies on data gained from pre-construction testing,
again substantiating the importance of that phase of a
project.
Final Process Results
While standards do not presently exist for
chemically stripped surfaces, quality control guide-
lines, as specified by manufacturers, typical include
visible inspection for complete paint removal, removing
existing corrosion or other surface contaminants using
hand or power tools, and verification that substrate
cleanliness meets requirements for subsequent
painting. For example, if caustic strippers are used on
either steel or masonry structures, surface pH must be
within guidelines prescribed by the paint manufacturer.
In the case of masonry structures, acid neutralization
may be required. By following these quality control
procedures, owners can be assured that the cleaned
surface will be compatible with any subsequent
coating (See Figure 1).
Figure 1. Stripping red lead paint from the beams
supporting a bridge deck in Kingston, NY. The bridge
beam has had the bulk of the chemical stripper, along
with the old paint, scraped away. The remaining lead
residue has already been dissolved by the stripper. It
was later removed by ice blasting, a cleaning procedure
that generates less than 11 gallons (42 L) per hour of
liquid waste. This is far less than any other rinsing
process. A 3-coat micaceous iron oxide moisture-cure
polyurethane coating system was eventually applied.
Expected Advances in Chemical Stripping
Technology
While many advances have already been
made in the chemistry of paint stripping, such as
eliminating the use of toxic products, future technology
lies in the process of applying and removing the
resultant stripper residues. As more productive clean-
ing processes, such as ice blasting and steam
cleaning, become accepted by contractors, they will
improve the existing cost-effectiveness of chemical
stripping.
Prior to joining Dumond, Mr. Steinhauser held posi-
tions with manufacturers of abrasive blast cleaning
equipment, vacuum blasting equipment, and ultra high
pressure abrasive waterjet cutting and cleaning
equipment. He also spent four years in materials
technology engineering at Boeing Company,
Commercial Airplane Division.

References
1. O’Donoghue, Mike; et al. Chemical Strippers and
Surface-Tolerant Coatings: A Tandem Approach for
Steel and Concrete. Journal of Protective Coatings
and Linings, May 2000, pp 74-93. Also in Protective
Coatings Europe, June 2000, pp 53-63.
2. FIFRA Occupational Safety & Health Standards.
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1910, Title 29.
3. FIFRA Occupational Safety & Health Standards.
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1915, Title 29.
4. FIFRA Occupational Safety & Health Standards.
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1926, Title 29.
5. SSPC-Guide 6. Guide for Containing Debris
Generated During Paint Removal Operations; SSPC:
Pittsburgh.
6. SSPC-TU 6. Chemical Stripping of Organic
Coatings from Steel Surfaces; SSPC: Pittsburgh

Suggested Reading
Chemical Stripping Removes Lead Paint from Water
Tower. Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings,
March 1996, pp 43-44.
Mickelsen, R. Leroy; Haag, Walter M. Removing Lead-
Based Paint from Steel Structures with Chemical
Stripping. Journal of Protective Coatings and Linings,
July 1997, pp 22-29.

About the Author

John Steinhauser
John Steinhauser received a degree in chemistry from
Stanford University in 1961. He has thirty-five years
experience in materials and processes, both engineer-
ing and marketing positions, including 11 years in his
current position as sales manager for Dumond Chemi-
cals, manufacturer of chemical strippers, masonry
cleaners, and graffiti barrier coatings and removers.

148