SportsTurf provides current, practical and technical content on issues relevant to sports turf managers, including facilities managers. Most readers are athletic field managers from the professional level through parks and recreation, universities.
Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/484138
www.stma.org April 2015 | SportsTurf 19 be bright, durable, easy to use, have a finished film pH between 6 and 6.5, have great hiding, have as little VOCs as possible (preferably zero), dilute easily and have the other properties that sports turf managers require. During our comparative tests with existing grass coatings, we noticed significant differences in curing and re-wetting. The new formulation was performing extremely well all summer and into early fall. Unfortunately, product development often does not move in a straight line. While trying to create a solu- tion to one problem, you sometimes create a coating that has unexpected characteristics. After an unusually cool and dewy evening, we noticed that the square with the experimental coating had noticeably more dew than the squares painted with our existing formulations. Regardless of the intense dew, the experimental paint did not re- wet. Although the paint on the other squares had little dew, they re-wet overnight. The water resistance of the experimental prod- uct is a result of its extreme hydrophobicity. Therefore, water will bead on the coating like water beads on a freshly waxed car. Internally, we faced the question: Is this new formula- tion a success now that sports turf managers can get on their fields earlier in the morning without tracking paint? Or does the new formulation require additional work because turf managers might have to wait longer for the dew to dissipate? Unfortunately, the new resin technology does not play well with currently used paint technology. So, combining the two will not provide a perfect middle ground. Our new formulation was sent to a variety of climates for evaluation. In each case, pails, randomly labeled A, B and C were sent to test sites in different regions of the US. We asked for feedback on ease of use, whiteness, brightness, quickness to dry, and tendency to re-wet. We asked each test site to carefully evaluate the health of the grass from the samples. Finally, we wanted to know if anyone saw anything different or unusual. In general, these tests confirmed what we saw. The new formulation would not harm grass and was often brighter in the morning than other paints because no pigment bled down the blades with the dew. However, the new formulation held noticeably more dew than the surrounding areas. Rarely do improved technologies come along that are perfect replacements for existing ingredients. A new ingredi- ent may significantly enhance one performance aspect while slightly degrading another. Turf coatings are carefully balanced formulations and it's our job to find dependable solutions. Overall, there is a steady march toward better performance, an enhanced environmental profile, and more niche products to allow turf managers greater choice in providing good look- ing, healthy and sustainable fields.