{"id":166,"date":"2026-06-04T09:51:53","date_gmt":"2026-06-04T09:51:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kydefoamer.com\/?p=166"},"modified":"2026-06-04T09:52:28","modified_gmt":"2026-06-04T09:52:28","slug":"when-the-foam-refused-to-die-a-real-plant-story-of-switching-defoamer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kydefoamer.com\/ga\/when-the-foam-refused-to-die-a-real-plant-story-of-switching-defoamer\/","title":{"rendered":"Nuair a dhi\u00faltaigh an C\u00far b\u00e1s a fh\u00e1il: F\u00edorsc\u00e9al planda\u00edochta faoi aistri\u00fa d\u00ed-c\u00fairtheora"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>\n<div>\n<p dir=\"auto\">Bh\u00ed s\u00e9 d\u00edreach i ndiaidh mhe\u00e1n o\u00edche D\u00e9ardaoin nuair a chuir an maoirseoir t\u00e1irgthe glaoch orm. Bh\u00ed an l\u00edn\u00e9adach nua eapocsa aicrileach uisce-bhunaithe ag c\u00far chomh dona sin go raibh cuma an phuirt\u00edn a bh\u00ed buailte i meascth\u00f3ir ar an bp\u00e9int chr\u00edochnaithe. Bh\u00ed na sampla\u00ed datha l\u00e1n de pholl\u00e1in, agus bh\u00ed an both sprae\u00e1la ag di\u00falt\u00fa do phain\u00e9il ar r\u00e1ta nach bhfaca muid le blianta. Bh\u00ed triail bainte againn cheana f\u00e9in as an d\u00e1ileog d\u00ed-aimhritheora a mh\u00e9ad\u00fa \u00f3n 0.2 % bunaidh go 0.5 %, ach n\u00edor th\u00e1inig ach meath ar an bhfiuch\u00e1n d\u00e1 bharr. Mar gheall ar an o\u00edche sin, b'\u00e9igean d\u00fainn stopadh ag caitheamh le roghn\u00fa an d\u00ed-aimhritheora mar chinneadh simpl\u00ed den chine\u00e1l \u201ccuir beag\u00e1n eile leis\u201d.<\/p>\n<p dir=\"auto\"><!--more--><\/p>\n<p dir=\"auto\">The formulation itself wasn\u2019t new. It was a standard acrylic dispersion with TiO\u2082, two organic pigments, and the usual package of dispersants and wetting agents. The problem appeared after we changed to a slightly different grade of dispersant from another supplier. The new dispersant was more efficient at lowering viscosity, but it also created much more stable foam during high-shear dispersion. Foam height in our standard 250 ml graduated cylinder test jumped from 95 mm to 185 mm after ten minutes of mixing. The dried films showed an average of 11 pinholes per 10 cm\u00b2 and gloss at 60\u00b0 dropped from our normal 78 units to 61.<\/p>\n<p dir=\"auto\">We decided to run a quick but structured comparison on the actual production batch instead of just lab samples. We split the let-down tank into three smaller test batches and added three different defoamers at 0.35 % active, all added in two stages (half in the grind, half in the letdown). Here is what the data showed after dispersion and after 24 hours storage:<\/p>\n<ul dir=\"auto\">\n<li>The original mineral oil defoamer we had been using brought foam height down to 78 mm immediately, but after 24 hours the foam re-formed to 65 mm. Pinholes on draw-downs were still around 6 per 10 cm\u00b2. Gloss recovered only to 68 units. After two weeks at 50 \u00b0C we also saw slight surface haze.<\/li>\n<li>A standard silicone emulsion performed better on knockdown \u2014 foam height fell to 22 mm. Pinholes dropped to 2 per 10 cm\u00b2 and gloss reached 79 units. However, we noticed a small increase in surface slip, and one of the organic pigments started to show mild flooding after 24 hours. Storage stability was acceptable but not perfect.<\/li>\n<li>A polyether-modified silicone gave the cleanest results. Foam height stayed at 18 mm right after dispersion and only rose to 12 mm after 24 hours. Pinholes were essentially zero on both draw-downs and sprayed panels. Gloss came back to 84 units. After 30 days at room temperature there was no viscosity drift and no visible separation. The only minor trade-off was a slight increase in slip, which we later controlled by dropping the dosage to 0.28 %.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p dir=\"auto\">We moved forward with the modified silicone version. Within two shifts the reject rate in the spray booth fell from over 15 % to under 3 %. The operators also reported that the paint flowed better during filling, so we gained a small but measurable improvement in filling speed. The extra cost of the new defoamer was about 18 % higher per litre, but because we used less of it and cut rework dramatically, the net cost per tonne of finished paint actually dropped.<\/p>\n<p dir=\"auto\">That experience changed how I approach defoamer problems. I no longer assume that \u201ca defoamer is a defoamer.\u201d The chemistry matters, but so does the point of addition, the shear history of the batch, and how the defoamer interacts with the specific dispersant package. In this case the original mineral oil product simply could not compete with the more powerful foam-stabilizing effect of the new dispersant. The silicone options could, but only the modified version gave us both strong knockdown and long-term stability without creating new film defects.<\/p>\n<p dir=\"auto\">Since then I have made it standard practice to run small side-by-side trials whenever we change any surfactant or dispersant in a formula. We measure foam height immediately and after 24 hours, check pinholes and gloss on draw-downs, and always do a quick accelerated storage test. It takes a few extra hours in the lab, but it has saved us from repeating that midnight phone call more times than I can count.<\/p>\n<p dir=\"auto\">The broader lesson is simple but easy to forget on a busy production floor: when foam appears, the first question should not be \u201chow much more defoamer do we add?\u201d It should be \u201cwhat changed in the system, and which defoamers chemistry actually matches the new conditions?\u201d Sometimes the answer is a different chemistry entirely. In this case, switching from a mineral oil product to a properly modified silicone turned a production crisis into a more robust and slightly cheaper process. That kind of outcome is why I still treat every foam problem as a small investigation rather than a routine dosage adjustment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It was just after midnight on a Thursday when the production supervisor called me. The new waterborne acrylic enamel line was foaming so badly that the finished paint looked like it had been whipped in a blender. Draw-downs were full of pinholes, and the spray booth was rejecting panels at a rate we hadn\u2019t seen [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kydefoamer.com\/ga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kydefoamer.com\/ga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kydefoamer.com\/ga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kydefoamer.com\/ga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kydefoamer.com\/ga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=166"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/kydefoamer.com\/ga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":168,"href":"https:\/\/kydefoamer.com\/ga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166\/revisions\/168"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kydefoamer.com\/ga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kydefoamer.com\/ga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kydefoamer.com\/ga\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}