For Case II, the retardation factor for the LPVC paint was nearly one order of magnitude greater than the value for HPVC, just as in Case I, but with predicted emissions closer to the experimental data.
Since the HPVC paint contains less polymer particles than the LPVC paint, there are fewer available spaces for adsorption; thus, the amount of TMPD-MIB used in each type of paint correlates with the amount of polymer in the paint.
The higher water content of the HPVC paint leads to more rapid changes in film properties than for LPVC paint, and this might be the reason why Case II improves the fit further for HPVC than for LPVC.
The thickness for the new set of painted samples was 273 and 277 [micro]m for LPVC and HPVC paints, respectively.
Table 3: Prediction results for thick paint layers Film size ([mu]m) Case type RMSE (%) [R.sup.2] 273 (LPVC) I 3.4 0.98 277 (HPVC) I 30.7 0.88 273 (LPVC) II 6.0 0.93 277 (HPVC) II 16.2 0.97 The model compares favorably with experimental data from the independent dataset.
No significant differences were found in the TMPD-MIB concentration profile for the LPVC paint when using either Case I or Case II.
Predicted emissions were compared with the experimental base case for the 134 [micro]m thickness LPVC paint experiment reported by Lin and Corsi.