Replies

1. 
   Oakman608 | May 13, 2004 08:26pm | #1

   In my spray room, I use a wall mounted fan to draw the air out of the room and exhaust outdoor.  Then in the door of the spray room (an interior door), I have a furnace filter to keep the dust out of the make up air.

   I've been very happy about how the system works.  Keeps out the dust, and keeps the finish fumes from filling the rest of the shop.  Seems most of the dust enters the room through tracking on the bottom of my shoes.  I just need to remember to wipe my feet well before entering.

2. 
   jackplane | May 13, 2004 10:36pm | #2

    You mention you'd like a setup "that will perform exceptionally well without the commercial spray booth purchase cost since I do this professionally"

     I think it's highly unlikely you'll get exceptional performance without a correspondingly high price. That said, direct exhaust through a fan to pull the air out through a filter, would be your best choice for your budget. I am fortunate to use a high end spray booth- 10' highx 15' long waterfall with 2 ten hp motors to pull the air after it's been dissipated thru the water trough.

1. 
   fdampier5 | May 13, 2004 11:05pm | #3

   Mostly water based paint!  thus he doesn't have the explosive risk that requires so much effort and cost..

     Sux rather than blow!  put a filter on the inlet side (for air drawn into the room) and a filter before the fan (just to keep the fan blades from being covered with paint ) 

     You'll track more dust in with your shoes as someone else pointed out so either cover your shoes when you enter or have a great way to get them clean..  

1. 
   arcdesign | May 13, 2004 11:42pm | #4

   Thanks for input. It seemed to me that more shops used the 'suck the air out' theory rather than push it out.

   Have any of you tried the filter frames that Grainger sells? They seem a great idea at a reasonable cost. On that matter - I'm not opposed to spending some money, just not the multiple thousands I've seen for setups like JACKPLANE mentioned. I know that the water-based is not completely safe but it certainly helps out with the hazards.

1. 
   Clay | May 14, 2004 09:49pm | #5

   The biggest advantage inherent in the pressurized room systems (blows rather than sucks) is that the VOC laden air doesn't pass through the fan.  This eliminates the need for very expensive explosion proof fan systems.  With ONLY water based coatings you have a lower concern about VOC's.  Still I would consider the positive pressure system setup (blows rather than sucks) for overall versatility and safety.  Neither system has a large advantage in efficiency, but what advantage there is will likely be to the positive pressure stystems.   As a firefighter the forced venting techniques were of particular concern and we found that positive pressure was both safer and faster when exhausting combustive gases and smoke from burning buildings.  We were able to eliminate the dangerous practice of roof venting (in most cases) by investing in a powerful gas-driven free-standing fan which would (in most cases) actually snuff out a house fire like it was a match when the front and back doors were opened (simultaneously).  This had the additional positive effect of allowing firefighters to see clearly when entering the fire area.  Previously we used to feel our way in as you could normally see nothing over 1 inch from your mask except where the open flames devoured the smoke.  We would use our hoses as an emergency evacuation route ... following them like Hansel and Gretel's crumb trail.  It is a whole different ball game when you can see!