Hardwood Floors June/July 2024

By Gene Jarka

A HISTORY LESSON Back in 1979, the first waterborne finish for hardwood floors was brought to market in Europe. This early version was touted as being non-flammable, fast drying, and non yellowing; a dream come true for some, though viewed as snake oil or sorcery by others. These finishes typically used an aziridine crosslinker, a second component (part B) that was poured into the gallon container (part A) prior to the final coat being applied. This crosslinker was added to improve the strength, durability, and chemical resistance of the final coat. You’ll notice that I reference it being used in the final coat versus the previous coats because it was not always necessary to use crosslinker prior to the final application, as the final was the coat that was providing the strength, durability, and chemical resistance. While these crosslinked products were a vast improvement over the high volatile organic compounds (VOC), slow drying, and potentially hazardous coatings being used at the time (I realize that waterborne finishes can be potentially hazardous, so please don’t @me on social media!), they required a new process to be followed, including adding a second component to them and agitating the finish for a short period of time. All of this measuring, pouring, and mixing was too much of a change for many that were used to simply dunking their lambswool block in a bucket, and mopping the oil finish on the floor, then waiting for 8 to 12 hours before buffing and applying a second coat to the floor. gallon. Before engaging in a debate of the merits of one over the other, a history lesson may be in order. Two is better than one. Fact? Opinion? Both? Neither? Ask anyone in our trade today about why they use a two-component waterborne finish vs. a single-component and you will open Pandora’s box, or, in this case, Pandora’s

the magazine of the national wood flooring association

69