Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 4

Client Number 127

Project Number 1

Trial Purpose:

To compare current tub & tile cleaners (Ecolab) with proposed new cleaners (Rochester Midland).

Date Run:

05/19/2000

Experiment Procedure:

The new products to be compared were diluted to 4 oz cleaner in one gallon of water (approximately 3% by volume) for the Rochester Midland Washroom Fixture Cleaner, 8 oz cleaner in one gallon (approx. 6.25% ) for the RM Tough Job, and 4 oz in one gallon (6.25%) for the RM glass cleaner, using DI water. The solution was put in a one quart plastic spray bottle, similar to the supplied for the current cleaning solution.

The contaminant solution was applied to the appropriate surface material, ceramic tub tiles, marble, or glass/mirror. The tiles were allowed to sit for five minutes before cleaning took place. Observations were made by SCL Staff member to determine what the baseline level of contamination looked like. After recording the sets of observations separately, the cleaning process was started. Cleaning involved spraying the tile with one spray, then wiped until clean with cloth rags. The spraying and wiping was performed by the same individual for all tiles and cleaners to ensure consistent cleaning. During the wiping, observations were made as to how easy the cleaning felt. After all tiles were cleaned, final clean observations were made by the same staff member. One tile was cleaned for each solution to be evaluated. The cleaning products were ranked according to all observation made during the entire trial.

SUBSTRATE MATERIAL: Marble Tile, Ceramic Tiles, Glass/Mirror
CONTAMINANTS: L-Gilchrist & Soames Skin Care soap with aloe vera(bar), L-Gilchrist & Soames Soap (bar), Colgate Fluoride Toothpaste, FRIZZ-EASE hair spray, Colgate foam shaving cream.
CONTAMINATING PROCESS USED: Formulated mixture of water, L-Bar soap, toothpaste, and foam shaving cream. The mix was applied using a swab. Hair spray was then applied to surface and allowed to dry.

Trial Results:

Company Product Surface Evaluation
Ecolab Oasis 499 Germicidal Ceramic Tile Easily cleaned, little streaking, surface shiny
Ecolab Oasis 266 All Purpose Ceramic Tile Moderate effort, some streaking, surface shiny
Ecolab Oasis Tub & Tile Ceramic Tile Easily cleaned, little streaking, surface shiny
Rochester Midland  EnviroCare Washroom Fixture Ceramic Tile Easily cleaned, some streaking, surface shiny
Rochester Midland  EnviroCare Tough Job Ceramic Tile Easily cleaned, little streaking, surface shiny
DI Water DI Water Ceramic Tile Moderate effort, some streaking, surface shiny
Ecolab Oasis 499 Germicidal Marble Easily cleaned, little streaking, surface shiny
Ecolab Oasis 266 All Purpose Marble Moderate effort, some streaking, surface shiny
Ecolab Oasis Tub & Tile Marble Difficult to clean, surface streaky and spotted
Rochester Midland  EnviroCare Washroom Fixture Marble Easily cleaned, little streaking, surface shiny
Rochester Midland EnviroCare Tough Job Marble Easily cleaned, little streaking, surface shiny
DI Water DI Water Marble Moderate effort, some streaking, surface shiny
Ecolab Oasis 255 SF Glass Glass/Mirror Easily cleaned, little or no streaking
Rochester Midland Envirocare Glass Cleaner  Glass/Mirror Moderate effort, leaves visible streaks
Rochester Midland EnviroCare Washroom Fixture Glass/Mirror Moderate effort, little streaking

Success Rating:

A follow up test, usually based on company input.

Conclusion:

For the marble and ceramic tile surfaces, the RM products were found to be at least as effective as the Ecolab cleaners.  For the glass/mirror surface, the Ecolab cleaner out performed the RM cleaners.

Save Report as a PDF