Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 4

Client Number 192

Project Number 1

Trial Purpose:

To clean additional supplied parts and analyzing using OSEE

Date Run:

10/21/2002

Experiment Procedure:

Two products from the previous trial were selected for cleaning supplied parts. One was diluted to 5% and the other was diluted to 3% using DI water in 1500 ml beakers. Both products were heated to 130 F on a hot plate. Each solution was degassed for 5 minutes in a Crest 40 kHz ultrasonic tank. OSEE readings for five supplied parts were recorded using a PET SQM 100. Multiple readings were made for each of the parts. One part was then cleaned using Acetone. Two parts were cleaned in each solution for 6 minutes using ultrasonic energy. Parts were rinsed in DI water at 120 F for 15 seconds followed by drying with a Master Appliance Heat Gun at 500 F for 30 seconds. Once dry parts were dry, OSEE readings were recorded. The parts were then visibly inspected and wiped with a white towel soaked with Acetone to determine cleanliness.

Contaminant: Milacron Marketing Company CIMTECH® 310 metal working fluid concentrate (102-71-6, 78-96-6, 26896-20-8)

Trial Results:

Both cleaners were very successful in removing the machining fluids and other contaminants from the outside of the parts. It was observed that there was some black residue on one end of the insides of the "T" parts. This was probably due to the way the parts were placed into the beakers. As the parts were cleaned, one end of the "T" was partially out of the cleaning solution for a portion of the cleaning cycle. If the parts were cleaned in the ultrasonic tank alone, the black residue would have been removed. The table below lists the readings made for the two cleaners and acetone.

Table 1. OSEE Readings

Cleaner Part OSEE DIRTY Average OSEE Clean Average
Acetone T1 132 122   148 156  
    149 112   158 185  
    53 63   136 202  
    136 143   166 177  
    90 99 110 166 159 165
Acetone E1Body 146     259    
    148     145    
    100     204    
    124     190    
    166     205    
    296   163 466   245
Citranox T2 122 216   249 228  
    114 109   298 338  
    160 174   286 351  
    199 297   285 263  
    130 166 169 234 201 273
Citranox E2 Body 190     225    
    97     254    
    121     283    
    70     175    
    123     229    
    178   130 358   254
Citranox E2 Ring 254     330    
    165     317    
    217     342    
    291     329    
    252     356    
    285   244 305   330
Citranox T3 147 131   305 279  
    123 136   272 250  
    201 185   344 284  
    166 109   235 261  
    132 110 144 267 263 276
Daraclean E3 Body 101     599    
    189     620    
    217     538    
    202     547    
    174     569    
    117   167 586   577
Daraclean E3 Ring 64     263    
    78     321    
    121     485    
    149     459    
    116     483    
        106 563   429
Daraclean T4 194 133   408 263  
    213 201   485 437  
    188 129   501 486  
    164 233   378 499  
    172 169 180 408 383 425
Daraclean E4 Body 116     222    
    166     299    
    226     276    
    105     223    
    104   148 231   277
Daraclean E4 Ring 240     252    
    150     388    
    337     292    
    300     391    
    231     666    
    304   260 474   411

The next table summarizes the cleaning results for the products evaluated.

Table 2. Summary Data

  Dirty    
  T E E Ring
Overall 151 152 203
       
  Clean    
  T E E Ring
Citranox 275 254 330
Daraclean 425 427 420
Acetone 165 245  
  288 308 298

Success Rating:

A follow up test, usually based on company input.

Conclusion:

Both products were very successful in cleaning the supplied parts. The results suggest that the Daraclean 282 cleaned the parts better than the Citranox and Acetone.

Save Report as a PDF