1739 McPherson St
Port Huron, MI 48060
ph: 810-858-2640
michael
Michael H. Schrader, PE
Wayne State University
Genevieve M. Schrader
Port Huron Northern High School
Port Huron, Michigan
May 2014
Introduction
Sign graffiti is a significant problem for many jurisdictions. In 2010, Honolulu reported replacing 300 signs a month due to graffiti, at a cost of over $100,000. (Baehr, 2010). Over $30 million annually is spent in Clark County, Nevada, home to Las Vegas and its suburbs, to clean graffiti. (Ragan, 2014). To clean, refurbish, or replace an overhead sign costs thousands of dollars (; Lopez, 2011; Ragan, 2014; TDOT spends thousands...,2008). Graffiti issues are not limited to a particular region of the United States (Baehr, 2010; Krishnan, 2010; Lopez, 2011; Ragan, 2014; TDOT..., 2008; Weber, 2013), nor are they limited to larger urban areas (Cost of gang graffiti, 2014; Navoy, 2013). Even Canada is having a graffiti problem. (Lawrynuik, 2014).
There are two methods for removing graffiti-ed signs – replacement or rehabilitation, or removal of the graffiti with solvents. For a larger jurisdiction like Honolulu, the cost of replacing graffiti-ed signs can readily exceed over $1 million a year (Baehr, 2010). At a cost of hundreds of dollar per sign (Baehr, 2010), replacement of graffiti-ed signs is not a viable option for many poorer or smaller jurisdictions operating on a very limited budget. Thus, many jurisdictions try to de-graffiti signs using solvents. Because of the numerous variety of cleaning solvents available, the wide variety of sign colors and materials, and differing materials used to tag signs with graffiti, it is challenging for jurisdictions wanting to detag and de-graffiti signs to choose which solvent will provide the best performance. The purpose of this study, is to test several cleaning agents with a variety of graffiti types, sign materials, and sign colors to determine their performance.
Methodology
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of different solvents in removing graffiti, eight graffiti-ed signs were selected. These signs represented a variety of colors, sheeting types, and graffiti material types to ensure as diverse of a sample as possible. Four different sign colors were selected: white legend on red background; black legend on white background; black legend on yellow background; black legend on strong yellow background. The retroreflective sheeting types represented by the sample were Engineer Grade (EG), High Intensity (HI), and Cubic Prismatic (CP). Graffiti materials included various spray paints, nail polish, and grease. The signs selected are shown in Figures 1 – 8.
FIGURE 1. Sign #1 – STOP with silver spray paint.
FIGURE 2. Sign #2 – STOP with nail polish
FIGURE 3. Sign #3 – SPEED LIMIT with grease
FIGURE 4. Sign #4 – STOP with black spray paint
FIGURE 5. Sign #5 – SCHOOL with black spray paint
FIGURE 6. Sign #6 – STOP with white spray paint
FIGURE 7. Sign #7 – NO TURNAROUND with black spray paint
FIGURE 8. Sign #8 – YIELD with white spray paint
Four solvents were selected from those available at a common discount store. These solvents were: “all purpose cleaner with bleach”; “Goof Off”; “Goo Gone”; “Lift Off”. The three branded products each claim to be able to remove graffiti without damaging the surface on which the graffiti was applied; the generic “all purpose cleaner with bleach” was the control product. Each of the four solvents was applied to a disposal rag which was then applied to a portion of the graffiti. In order to minimize bias due to order of application, the order in which the four solvents were tested was selected at random for each graffiti tested.
Analysis and results
The effectiveness of the four solvents in removing the various types of graffiti is stated in Table 1.For the purpose of this study, a product was considered to be effective in removing graffiti if the graffiti was removed without damaging the sign surface.
TABLE 1. Effectiveness of the solvents in removing the graffiti
| SOLVENT TYPE | |||
SIGN # | All purpose cleaner | Goof Off | Goo Gone | Lift Off |
1 | No, did not remove | YES, DID REMOVE | YES, DID REMOVE | YES, DID REMOVE |
2 | YES | YES | YES | YES |
3 | No | No | No | YES |
4 | No | YES | No | YES |
5 | No | No | No | YES |
6 | No | No | No | No |
7 | No | No | No | YES |
8 | No | No | No | YES |
As can be seen from the table, the control product, “all purpose cleaner with bleach”, had the worst performance, only being successful at removing the nail polish. All three branded products performed better than the control product to some extent. All four products successfully removed the nail polish; the “Goo Gone”, also removed the silver spray paint. The “Goof Off” successfully removed not only what the “Goo Gone” removed, but also the black spray paint on the STOP sign. The “Lift Off” was by far the most effective product, successfully removing all of the graffiti on all of the signs except the white spray paint on the STOP sign.
Conclusions
This was a very simple test of four different potential graffiti removal products. While simple “all purpose cleaner with bleach” was only effective in removing one of the eight graffitis, two of the branded products did not perform much better, being effective in removing two and three, respectively, of the eight graffitis. While one of the products did successfully remove seven of the eight graffitis, the intent of this research was not to endorse a particular brand of product, only to test if the products perform as advertised. As the cost of the branded products are significantly higher than “all purpose cleaner with bleach”, we suggest that jurisdictions perform a comprehensive benefit-to-cost study before selecting a brand. We also suggest that jurisdictions do their own similar test before making a definitive purchasing decision.
REFERENCES
Baehr, B. (2010, August 3) City to protect street signs from graffiti. KHNL Honolulu. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/12914442/city-to-protect-street-signs-from-graffiti
Cost of gang graffiti. (2014, February 25). WNDU South Bend. Retrieved May 13, 2014 from http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Cost-of-gang-graffiti-247033541.html
Krishnan, S. (2010, April 25). Graffiti vandals cost public millions. The Seattle Times. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2011702691_graffiti26m.html
Lawrynuik, S. (2014, April 24). Graffiti removal costs surge in Halifax, topping $380K. CBC News. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/graffiti-removal-costs-surge-in-halifax-topping-380k-1.2619873
Lopez, N. (2011, April 11). Highway vandalism: undoing road-sign graffiti proves a long, costly ordeal. The Monitor. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/highway-vandalism-undoing-road-sign-graffiti-proves-a-long-costly/article_5bae92a5-5336-5305-a640-0ff9d5c17cc0.html?mode=story
Navoy, S. (2013, March 14). Graffiti on traffic signs costing taxpayers $30,000. KIMA-TV Yakima. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.kimatv.com/home/video/Graffiti-on-traffic-signs-costing-taxpayers-30000-198382001.html
Ragan, J. (2014, February 1). Cleaning up graffiti a costly battle in the Las Vegas Valley. Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/cleaning-graffiti-costly-battle-las-vegas-valley
TDOT spends thousands on graffiti clean-up. (2008, September 2). NewsChannel5.com. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://graffiti911.wordpress.com/graffiti-cost/
Weber, M. (2013, August 29). Graffiti on road signs is getting harder to remove for road crews and more expensive for taxpayers. KSHB Kansas City. Retrieved May 13, 2014, from http://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/graffiti-on-road-signs-is-getting-harder-to-remove-for-road-crews-and-more-expensive-for-taxpayers
Abstract
Sign graffiti is a significant problem nationwide, necessitating the replacement of millions of dollars worth of signs still within their serviceable life. In lieu of replacement of otherwise good signs, another option is graffiti removal. Because of the plethora of graffiti removal products available, it is important for the sign maintenance professional to use a product that is effective for the largest number of sign color and graffiti conditions. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of various anti-graffiti products.
Eight different graffiti-ed signs were selected. Four different cleaners, all available off-the-shelf from a common discount store, were tested: all-purpose cleaner with bleach, “Goof Off”, “Goo Gone”, and “Lift Off”. The eight signs were of the following color combination: white legend on red background; black on white ; black on yellow ; black on strong yellow-green. The types of graffiti material were white paint, black paint, silver paint, white nail polish, and grease.
The “Lift Off” successfully removed graffiti with no damage to the sign surface on seven of the eight signs, followed by the “Goof Off” , “Goo Gone”, and the all-purpose cleaner with bleach. The nail polish was removed by all four cleaners, followed by the silver spray paint, the black spray paint, the grease, and the white spray paint. Sign color is irrelevant, as the same kind of graffiti on the same colored signs had different effectiveness results, and the same type of graffiti on different colored signs had the same effectiveness results.
CITE AS:
Schrader, M.H., & Schrader, G.M. (2014) Solvents' effective use on traffic sign graffiti. Total Transportation System Solutions.
Copyright 2018 Total Transportation System Solutions and Michael H Schrader, PhD, PE. All rights reserved.
1739 McPherson St
Port Huron, MI 48060
ph: 810-858-2640
michael