# zinsser says don't use TSP?



## pman6 (Jul 11, 2012)

http://www.rustoleum.com/~/media/Di...1_Bulls_Eye_1_2_3_Water_based_Primer_TDS.ashx


check that out. They say use ammonia instead.

Anyone know why no tsp?

I was about to buy a box of tsp to prep my beige semi gloss for a white-over.


----------



## Jmayspaint (May 4, 2013)

Too much potential for residue problems would be my guess. TSP is notorious for causing problems due to under rinsing. Plus, phosphate use for cleaning in general is falling out of favor because of environmental concerns.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Jun 17, 2008)

I know why they say not to use TSP, but I was wondering why they'd suggest ammonia? I did some reading, and it appears that ammonia is best used to remove animal fats and vegetable oils.

Ammonia gas dissolved in water is sold as a household cleaner also called "Ammonia". 

When you dissolve ammonia gas in water, what happens is that the ammonia gas molecule steals a hydrogen atom nucleus (a proton) from the water molecule, and you get two polar molecules that attract one another, namely NH3+ and OH- suspended in the water. These two molecules attract one another, so they remain close together in solution in the water.

They make soap from animal fats and vegetable oils through a process called "saponification". In saponification, what happens is that animal fats or vegetable oils are added to a strong solution of lye (which is NaOH) dissolved in water. The Na+ ions in the water tear the fatty acids off the fat or oil molecules and that Na+ ion at the end of the fatty acid molecule is attracted to polar water molecules, so the resulting molecule is soluble in water, and is what we call "soap". The Palmolive company gets it's name from the fact that they made soap from Palm and Olive oils.

In the case of ammonia gas dissolved in water, that single positive charge on the NH3+ molecule means that it can work just like a sodium ion (Na+) to break animal fats and vegetable oils into soap molecules too.

http://questions.sci-toys.com/node/73

And, because ammonia and H2O both evaporate completely without leaving a residue, cleaning with ammonia leaves no streaks, which is why it's often used to clean smooth surfaces like glass, mirrors and stainless steel.

The reason they recommend NOT to use TSP is because TSP was only used on linseed oil based paints because it etched the gloss of the linseed oil based paint, thereby roughening it's surface so that the new coat of paint stuck better. TSP was never worth spit as a cleaner, but it dulled the gloss of linseed oil based paints, and so that's the reason people used it prior to 1959 to clean walls before repainting them.

Then, in 1959, Glidden who were owned by ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries of Britain) came out with the very first interior latex house paints. TSP did absolutely nothing to the new latex paint, but people back then didn't understand that, and based on the advice of "experts" working at the paint stores, they kept cleaning every paint with TSP before repainting.

Even today people are still using TSP to clean walls before repainting them, even if they're wanting to paint over a latex paint with another latex paint. In that case, those people would be much better off to use a decent cleaner, like Mr. Clean or Fantastik instead of TSP. At least then, you'd get a cleaner wall.

If you were cleaning a linseed oil based paint prior to painting with a latex paint, then cleaning with TSP first would be appropriate and make perfect sense. But, once you already have a latex paint on your wall, cleaning it with TSP doesn't make sense any more because TSP is a pi$$ poor cleaner, and it won't etch the gloss of a latex paint. So, in that case, you're better off to use any good quality general purpose household cleaner to clean your latex paint before repainting.


----------



## pman6 (Jul 11, 2012)

Nestor_Kelebay said:


> If you were cleaning a linseed oil based paint prior to painting with a latex paint, then cleaning with TSP first would be appropriate and make perfect sense. But, once you already have a latex paint on your wall, cleaning it with TSP doesn't make sense any more because TSP is a pi$$ poor cleaner, and it won't etch the gloss of a latex paint. So, in that case, you're better off to use any good quality general purpose household cleaner to clean your latex paint before repainting.




That's interesting, because I have a gallon of regular Krud Kutter already.

But reading all the paint stuff on the internet seemed to suggest TSP was better particularly for dissolving oils.

But that residue issue......? hmm.

This beige paint is in a bedroom, so I suppose any cleaner would work.


I was also hoping TSP would remove the decades of grime on kitchen cabinet doors.


----------



## ToolSeeker (Sep 19, 2012)

There is a product called TSP substitute, it works, but so will the crud cutter.


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

I use a lot of krud cutter or this


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Jun 17, 2008)

pman6 said:


> But reading all the paint stuff on the internet seemed to suggest TSP was better particularly for dissolving oils.


Yes, I've read on the internet that TSP was supposedly an "excellent degreaser". What krud! I once tried using TSP to clean an old greasy stove cooktop, and all it did was make a mess.

The problem is that the subject of Paint and Painting isn't taught anywhere, so in the absence of any sort of authority, people seek advice from the salesmen working in paint stores, who as likely as not don't know much about the subject themselves. Using TSP to clean walls prior to painting them made sense as long as the walls were painted with a drying oil based paint (Linseed oil or Tung oil). That's ENTIRELY because it would etch the gloss of that paint so the new coat would stick better. As soon as you have latex paint on your walls, that whole rational falls apart because TSP does absolutely nothing to latex paint, except as JMay pointed out, give you residue issues to deal with.



pman6 said:


> This beige paint is in a bedroom, so I suppose any cleaner would work.


I'd agree with that. The two places in the house that I clean well prior to painting are the kitchen ceiling above the stove (or around the ceiling fan) and the bathroom ceiling and walls. That's because I'm concerned about the vapours from cooking oil or soap residue interfering with the adhesion of the paint.

But, Mr. Clean is so commonly used that people take it for granted. Mr. Clean is actually one of the best cleaners out there, along with Fantastik.
I use Mr. Clean in my carpet shampoo'er to clean my carpets and I spray it onto my floors when I machine scrub them with my floor machine. I use dish washing detergent for cleaning kitchen ceilings around the ceiling fan, and I use a phosphoric acid based bathroom cleaner to clean bathroom walls and ceilings prior to repainting them.



pman6 said:


> I was also hoping TSP would remove the decades of grime on kitchen cabinet doors.


TSP won't do squat to the grime on your kitchen cabinet doors. Most of that stuff is cooking oil residue. I use mineral spirits to clean my Phillipine Mahogany veneer kitchen cupboard doors. (My terminology is that the "cupboards" are above the counter top, and the "cabinets" are below the counter top.)


----------



## klaatu (Mar 9, 2015)

Tsp is ancient history. There really is quite a number of cleaners that are immensely better. Krud Kutter, 409, Mr clean, Simple green, DIRTEX, and on and on. The only thing I have ever had success cleaning with TSP was some lawn furniture, and it didn't work so well at that. It did take the bird poop of, but water probably would have worked by itself.

In fact, about the biggest use for TSP in the US is for the druggies to use as a bath salt and get high off of it. Look it up on Google.


----------



## klaatu (Mar 9, 2015)

Nestor_Kelebay said:


> I know why they say not to use TSP, but I was wondering why they'd suggest ammonia? I did some reading, and it appears that ammonia is best used to remove animal fats and vegetable oils.
> 
> Ammonia gas dissolved in water is sold as a household cleaner also called "Ammonia".
> 
> ...


Not to argue with you, but I thought the original Spread Satin came out in 1948. Dutch Boy Kem-tone was out in the late forties. I knew one of Dutch Boy's sales reps from then, and I'm pretty sure that's when he said it came out.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Jun 17, 2008)

Klaatu:

I checked, and it looks like we're both wrong.

And, it also depends on what exactly is meant by a "latex" paint.

This Glidden web page claims that Glidden introduced the first waterborne latex paint (called "Spred Satin") in 1948.

http://www.glidden.com/Glidden/medi.../PDFs/Glidden-Fact-Sheet-REVISED.pdf?ext=.pdf

But, this equally credible web page from the American Chemical Society states that Sherwin Williams "Kem-Tone" paint was the first water-based paint developed in 1941:

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/kem-tone.html

It says:

Shortages affected every corner of life during the war, from women who gave up stockings because silk was unavailable, to paint manufacturers who were required to ration linseed oil, a common paint binder. These constraints led Sherwin-Williams to accelerate their research into new coatings concepts. Their chemists took casein, a milk protein used by the ancient Egyptians for making paint, and emulsified (or suspended) varnish in it. They then added a number of other ingredients, with water as the largest component, to create a water-based paint.

The result was Kem-Tone© paint, a fast-drying emulsion that met with instant public acceptance and would ultimately become one of the best-selling paints in the United States. Kem-Tone© paint became the first widely accepted waterborne interior wall paint with sufficient binding power to allow washability.

Developed by a team of Sherwin-Williams chemists, Kem-Tone© paint did not depend on organic solvents (based on carbon, such as petroleum derivatives), and it reduced the required amounts of traditional binders, which were in short supply because of the war. Technologically, the chemists at Sherwin-Williams showed that it was chemically and commercially possible for a paint emulsified in water to produce a durable coating. 

Kem-Tone© was registered as a trademark on Sept. 23, 1941. In the next three years, more than 10 million gallons would be sold.

What that's saying to me is that Kem-Tone was a water based paint back in 1941, but it was nothing at all like the latex paints we have today. The original Kem-Tone consisted of liquid varnish emulsified in a liquid protein called "casein", and that mixture was then suspended as an emulsion in water. Nowadays, no latex paint has any varnish in it at all, and ditto for that casein stuff.

So, Sherwin Williams had a water based paint back in 1941, but it was nothing like the latex paints we use nowadays.

I don't know whether Glidden's Spread Satin was similar to latex paints of today, or completely different just like the original Kem-Tone paints.


Apparantly, that American Chemical Society said that the binders used to make Kem-Tone evolved, and so I expect there were problems with that initial formulation involving emulsifying casein and varnish in water.


----------



## klaatu (Mar 9, 2015)

Nestor_Kelebay said:


> Klaatu:
> 
> I checked, and it looks like we're both wrong.
> 
> ...


Did it mention that at one time Kem-tone came as a powder that the end user mixed water into? I've actually seen adds of that!


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Jun 17, 2008)

No, I didn't know that.

But, there's a learning curve in every technology. The first water based paints were different from the latex paints we used today just as the thing the Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk is different from the planes we use today. Every technology evolves.

My understanding was that before 1940, there were different kinds of paint commonly used for painting, including something called "milk paint", paints made from egg whites called "tempura" and a paint that was made from chaulk or lime called "Calsomine" paint or "Distemper" paint. And, of course, there were the drying oil based paints, like linseed and Tung oil based paints.

The ancient Egyptians used to crush coloured glass and apply it to wet plaster to make very colourful frescos to decorate the interiors of their houses. We have always wanted to decorate our living space somehow. In France, there are cave paintings on the walls made from the soot of wood fires, and it's astonishing to see how accurately neolithic man was able to portray the animals that he hunted using only soot as a medium for his art. It just goes to show that while it may have taken two to five million years for us to evolve from apes, there's been negligible change in us over the past 50,000 years. Cave men were every bit as good at depicting various animals using only soot as their working medium as any artist today could.


----------



## klaatu (Mar 9, 2015)

Nestor_Kelebay said:


> No, I didn't know that.
> 
> But, there's a learning curve in every technology. The first water based paints were different from the latex paints we used today just as the thing the Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk is different from the planes we use today. Every technology evolves.
> 
> ...


The milk paint and the "chalk" paint have come back into popularity in the last couple of years. people like the "old" look they have. And I actually still have a source for calcimine, believe it or not. They still use it during some restoration work.

I also remember being told that you couldn't clean the original Kem-tone with ammonia or ammonia based cleaners because it would take the paint off the wall! It makes sense to me now!


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Jun 17, 2008)

Any milk or chaulk paint that doesn't provide the same scrubbability as modern latex paints do won't stay popular for long.

Fads come and go, but for anything to remain popular, it has to be practical, economical and durable. I don't have any experience with milk or chaulk paints, but my expectation would be that they wouldn't stand up well to hard scrubbing to remove stubborn marks. Regardless of how trendy such a paint might look, if it's not practical and durable, it's not going to stay popular.


----------



## JourneymanBrian (Apr 1, 2015)

Depends how you apply the calcimine paint. If you apply it to fresh lime plaster in the fresco technique it's been known to hold up for ages.

It's as scrubable as stone since it basically becomes part of the stone.

If the substrate isn't alkaline, you have to mix casein (milk protein) into it which reacts to form a binder that's not water-soluble.

You can supposedly also make your calcimine with the powder form calcium hydrate (lime) from the hardware store.

I did it recently with pit lime "dough" mixed 1:3 with water. Worked well.


----------



## SeniorSitizen (Sep 10, 2012)

My wife is so smart. At one time she always used ammonia to clean. Then she heard Phyllis Diller's quote. It went something like this.

*"House cleaning may not kill you but why take the chance" :laughing:


*


----------



## JourneymanBrian (Apr 1, 2015)

Nestor_Kelebay said:


> Any milk or chaulk paint that doesn't provide the same scrubbability as modern latex paints do won't stay popular for long.
> 
> Fads come and go, but for anything to remain popular, it has to be practical, economical and durable. I don't have any experience with milk or chaulk paints, but my expectation would be that they wouldn't stand up well to hard scrubbing to remove stubborn marks. Regardless of how trendy such a paint might look, if it's not practical and durable, it's not going to stay popular.


The other advantages of calcimine over any latex or synthetic paint is that it breathes far better and is antifungal. It's problem is that only certain substrates are suitable.

Silicate, however, another mineral paint, can be purchased mixed with regular synthetic binder and can be painted over nearly anything. And you still have the antifungal/better breathing qualities


----------



## klaatu (Mar 9, 2015)

Nestor_Kelebay said:


> Any milk or chaulk paint that doesn't provide the same scrubbability as modern latex paints do won't stay popular for long.
> 
> Fads come and go, but for anything to remain popular, it has to be practical, economical and durable. I don't have any experience with milk or chaulk paints, but my expectation would be that they wouldn't stand up well to hard scrubbing to remove stubborn marks. Regardless of how trendy such a paint might look, if it's not practical and durable, it's not going to stay popular.


The fad thing is why I won't stock it. I got stuck with $7000.00 of Modern Masters faux finish paint and supplies once because my district manager made me order it. Sold two quarts in 5 years.


----------



## Nestor_Kelebay (Jun 17, 2008)

Yeah, faux finishes were another fad of the 90's, and have pretty much run their course.


----------



## JourneymanBrian (Apr 1, 2015)

Faux finishes are purely cosmetic, though, whereas other paints have practical advantages.

I mean back in the day I'm sure alkyd looked like a fad too, yet its been popular for 50 years...


----------



## klaatu (Mar 9, 2015)

Milk paint and chalk paints don't have any practical advantage that I can see. Other than being another way for people to destroy a valuable, original finish patina. Like putting stick-on turbo emblems on an Aston Martin DB7.


----------



## JourneymanBrian (Apr 1, 2015)

What patina? You can apply calcimine or silicate to new or old walls. They breathe umpteen times better and prevent mildew at the same time...


----------



## klaatu (Mar 9, 2015)

JourneymanBrian said:


> What patina? You can apply calcimine or silicate to new or old walls. They breathe umpteen times better and prevent mildew at the same time...


Sorry I was talking about the people that use it on furniture and what not.


----------



## jeffnc (Apr 1, 2011)

I use this mostly.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/SAVOGRAN-1-qt-Liquid-TSP-Substitute-Cleaner-10632/205491255

It says "no rinse", but in practice of course you're going to have to at least a little. You have to get the dirt off the walls somehow.

If I can make a mess, I spray it on with a tank sprayer. You can usually see the brownish gunk just dripping down the walls or trim after it's had a couple minutes to work. Then clean it up with a rinsed sponge or sponge mop.

The stuff seems to leave a surface that paint actually sticks to better than the bare walls. In other words, you don't have to rinse to the same extent as real TSP, so you are probably leaving a little residue of the stuff on the walls. It could be my imagination, but that little residue seems to be great to paint over.

Honestly I don't know if this stuff is the same thing or not.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/SAVOGRAN-1-lb-Box-TSP-Phosphate-Free-Heavy-Duty-Cleaner-10611/202967451

But the liquid is certainly easier to work with. The bottle is also marked in 8 ounce increments for easy mixing ratios.


----------

