Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenGirl69
A wagner paint gun? You've got to be kidding me! Do you expect to see your dentist using a power drill when you walk in? Why in the world would you use a commercial paintgun (intended for fences and walls) on a client's body? I did some research on this subject and you have been mislead my the common misconceptions. A lot of the information posted sounds like something a salesperson would say to sell the HVLP turbine over the airbrush.
My intentions are neither but to put some clarity on the issue. So here goes.
It is true that you have the ability to run a hobby shop compressor at 40 psi. However, that is way too high for an airbrush. Airbrushes operate at a level between 10 and 20 psi. But!!!! The hoses and openings are so small, usually less than .5 or .4 that it is very soft. Once the air bottlenecks through the tip your psi goes way down. If you set an airbrush to 10 psi it is probably 5psi or less at the tip. So the air is restricted at the tip and comes out slowly.
There is so much false information regarding HVLP systems it can make your head spin. The problem is that most of your claims are taken from the painting industry as if you were spraying a car with hazardous paint.
Unfortunately HVLP in professional painting and HVLP in spray tanning don't hold true to the same results. HVLP at 10psi at the tip is still 10X stronger air flow than any airbrush machine. It is because the volume of air (HENCE the HV for High Volume of Air at a Lower Pressure...the LP). All professional paint guns come with a manufacturers warning of not to spray directly on skin because of accidental paint injection into the skin and into the blood stream.
Tanning systems are usually private label and all the origional manuals have been removed and new modified versions are put back in their place.
Paint injected to the blood stream can be toxic and most paints have chemicals that go right through the skin's protective lining. Tanning solutions are non toxic and don't posses such harsh chemicals that injection would occur, rarely does the solution pass the stratum corneum.
The potential so called dangers with HVLP turbines would be application to areas of the body that are not as well protected and have thinner and more sensitive skin. A perfect example is the face.
So the FDA has never approved any spray gun, HVLP or not to be sprayed onto the skin.
When speaking to Fantasy Tan they replied that safety is their number one concern and that they have a new technology, a new innovation that uses HTAS vs HVLP which is much softer and is a mini spray gun that operates at 15psi and is restriced to body use only. It has a higher transfer efficiency than HVLP. HVLP guns have a 65% transfer efficiency. Conventional spray guns are horrible and they transfer solution or pain at ranges between 20-35%. HTAS has an 85% transfer efficiency and was developed in Europe because of much stricter emmision laws. The California EPA enforces a ruling which restricts spray guns to 10psi at the tip and then they are allowed to rate the gun as HVLP, however the air requirements generated to produce 10psi at the tip, remember air squeezing through a tiny hole on a turbine or compressed air system can be up to 50+ psi.
Sorry for the long story but I am always bothered by posts that are very vague and can be misleading. I hope this answers some questions. |
------------------------------------------------
Interesting.... Has anyone else found this to be true... (too much psi hitting the body with HVLP systems) I have to admit there are some major concerns about safety being overlooked in this industry. I don't own a salon but when I had my first airbrush tanning experience last week I felt that safety was the last thing on her mind.
Here's a little blurp I pulled together from some resource on the net:
When applying DHA sunless products in a spray or mist, it may be difficult to avoid exposure to eyes and lips or guard against accidental inhalation of the tanning mist. Mystic Tan, Inc. and the FDA recommend that users cover the area of the eyes with standard UV tanning eyewear, protect the lips with lip balm, and use a nose filter to protect membranes in the nasal passages, as well as avoid inhaling or ingesting the product.
DHA is not permitted for use in the area of the eye. The CFR defines "area of the eye" as follows:
"the area enclosed within the circumference of the supra-orbital ridge, including the eyebrow, the skin below the eyebrow, the eyelids and the eyelashes, and conjunctival sac of the eye, the eyeball, and the soft areolar tissue that lies within the perimeter of the infra-orbital ridge." (21 CFR 70.3s)
As with the lips and other areas covered by mucous membrane, the industry has not provided safety data to FDA in order for the agency to consider approving it for use in the area of the eye.
Consequently, FDA advises asking the following questions when considering commercial facilities where DHA is applied by spraying or misting:
· Are consumers protected from exposure in the entire area of the eyes, in addition to the eyes themselves?
· Are consumers protected from exposure on the lips and all parts of the body covered by mucous membrane?
· Are consumers protected from internal exposure caused by inhaling or ingesting the product?
If the answer to any of these questions is "no," the consumer is not protected from the unapproved use of this color additive. Consumers should request measures to protect their eyes and mucous membranes and prevent inhalation.
KYle