Blasting vs Direct-to-Rust Conversion
Cost & Time Analysis
Introduction
In corrosion maintenance, process overhead often drives the timeline and budget: surface preparation, safety controls, containment, and cleanup. That is why the smartest decision is often the method that reduces steps, labour hours, and downtime without sacrificing protection.
This article compares two approaches for localized steel corrosion repair: (1) a conventional workflow built around abrasive blasting, and (2) a direct-to-rust conversion workflow designed for minimal preparation. If you want to see how our industrial solution is positioned, visit Industrial and the Technology page for the underlying approach.
For small repair areas, fixed preparation steps often consume more time and labour than the actual rust treatment. The comparison below shows how removing blasting-related overhead fundamentally changes total execution time and direct labour cost.
Baseline
To keep this comparison practical and transparent, we use a small, defined work area and focus on direct execution drivers. This framing follows standard asset decision logic: evaluate alternatives by total execution effort, not only upfront material price (FHWA, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Primer).
- Area: 1 m² (10 sq ft)
- Substrate: carbon steel with visible rust
- Scope: surface preparation and primer stage only
- Metrics: labour time and direct labour cost
- Excludes: access equipment (lifts, scaffolding), large-project mobilization, and full coating system design beyond first stage
For typical use contexts, see our Applications page.
Time Assessment
Abrasive blasting is rarely just a few minutes of blasting. In real environments, blasting commonly triggers additional requirements around worker protection, exposure control, containment, and cleanup. These requirements translate into labour time even when the treated area is small (OSHA, Abrasive Blasting Fact Sheet).
Using the 1 m² (10 sq ft) baseline, the slide-based workflow comparison below highlights how overhead steps can dominate total labour time.
For application details and sequencing, you can also reference the Application Instruction.
Time Breakdown (per 1 m² / 10 sq ft)
Blasting time itself is rarely the main driver. Fixed steps such as safety setup, containment, and cleanup often dominate total labour time, even when the repair area is small.
| Process step | Abrasive blasting workflow | Direct-to-rust workflow |
|---|---|---|
| Surface prep, masking, safety setup, containment | 25 min | 5 min (minimal surface preparation) |
| Abrasive blasting | 5 min | Not required |
| Cleanup, teardown, washdown | 25 min | Not required |
| Priming stage | 5 min | 5 min |
| Total labour time | 60 min | 10 min |
The key difference is that blasting workflows include fixed overhead that does not scale down with area size. The direct-to-rust workflow eliminates these steps and concentrates labour into minimal surface preparation and application.
Direct Labour Cost
Direct labour cost differences are primarily driven by surface preparation intensity and step count, rather than coating material price.
Preparation expectations are commonly described using SSPC standards. A practical overview is available here:
American Galvanizers Association, SSPC Surface Preparation Standards.
For blasting-oriented preparation definitions and allowances, an official ANSI preview for commercial blast cleaning is available:
ANSI, NACE.
These standards help explain why blasting workflows tend to carry higher labour effort and additional operational controls.
Direct Labour Cost (Per Sq Ft)
| Service | Traditional Method ($/sq ft) | NanoTech Solution ($/sq ft) |
|---|---|---|
| Material cost | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| Wire brush (SSPC-SP2 / SSPC-SP3) | 0 | 0.9 |
| Commercial blast (SSPC-SP6), average | 4.6 | 0 |
| Pressure washing | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Primer application (brush/roll), first coat | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| Total (per sq ft) | $5.60 | $2.10 |
The key driver is fewer labour steps and reduced cleanup. For localized repairs, labour hours and workflow complexity often matter more than material price.
Practical Implementation Guidance
For facility maintenance scenarios such as railings, canopies, brackets, pipes, vents, and localized steel damage, the method decision often comes down to one practical question: do you need full abrasive blasting to meet the performance objective, or can durable corrosion protection be achieved using a simplified workflow?
- Confirm whether abrasive blasting is explicitly required by specification, asset criticality, or exposure conditions
- Account for containment, masking, and cleanup as real labour costs, even for small repair areas
- Reduce the number of process steps where permissible to lower downtime and rework risk
- Follow a consistent application procedure to ensure repeatable and predictable results
In many routine maintenance cases, a direct-to-rust coating approach can simplify execution while maintaining protection performance. Typical use scenarios and surface types are outlined in the Applications section, while step-by-step surface preparation and coating guidance is provided in the Application Instruction.
Conclusion
For a 1 m² (10 sq ft) localized corrosion repair, the comparison shows a clear execution gap: an abrasive blasting workflow can take about 60 minutes, while a direct-to-rust conversion workflow can take about 10 minutes. In direct labour terms, the slide-based estimate indicates $5.60 per sq ft versus $2.10 per sq ft.
The biggest difference is not the coating material. It is the process. When repair areas are small, fixed overhead steps such as masking, containment, PPE, and cleanup can dominate schedule and cost. Reducing step count can also reduce rework, coordination burden, and downtime, which is often the most valuable outcome in active facilities.
If you are evaluating a corrosion workflow for industrial or commercial assets, explore Industrial and Technology to see where direct-to-rust approaches fit best.
Let’s talk about your project
Discover the possibilities of your project. Let’s engage in a conversation to explore its full potential.
