Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 0

Trial Purpose:

The purpose of this test is to check whether the supplied cleaners are effective in removing SSL Soil 2 (Glass soap scum) from the surface of the Glass, Chrome and Mirror coupons.

Date Run:

04/08/2014

Experiment Procedure:

Supplied products were used in full concentration (RTU Product). Pre-weighed Glass, Chrome, and Mirror coupons were coated with SSL Soil 2 (Glass soap scum: Water 51.5%, Hair gel 25.6%, Toothpaste 10.4%, Shaving cream 5.3%, Hair spray 3.7% and Spray deodorant 3.5%) using a handheld swab and allowed to dry for 24 hours at room temperature. The SSL Soil2 was soiled in the surface of the coupons. Coupons were left for 3-4 hours to dry. The contaminated coupons were weighed again to determine the amount of soil added.

Three coupons were placed in a Gardner Straight Line Washability unit. A Kimberly-Clark Wypal reinforced paper towel was attached to the cleaning sled and soaked with 4-6 sprays of cleaning solutions. Each coupon was sprayed 1-2 times with the same cleaning solution. The cleaning unit was run for 5 cycles (~10seconds). At the end of the cleaning, bottom part of the coupons was wiped once with a dry paper towel. After cleaning, cleaned coupons were left for 5 -6 hours to dry; possible residual cleaners on coupons from cleaning process were controlled. Final weights were recorded, efficiencies were calculated and recorded.

Visual observations were made on the coupons for spotting and filming following the general guidelines set forth in the CSPA DCC 09A. Filming is best recognized as "haziness" or overall "milkiness", while streaking is best identified as dried droplets or "spotting", usually found strung together into thin white lines. Each coupon was evaluated separately for filming and streaking, (i.e., product residues without added soil), according to a scale of "1" to "7" where:

Filming Streaking
7 = high filming 7 = high streaking poor (performance)
1 = no visible filming 1 = no visible streaking (excellent performance)

Trial Results:

All four supplied products removed over 85% of the glass soap scum using manual cleaning. Both Replenish glass cleaner reached overall 90% removal efficacy; both products were more effective on mirror and chrome than glass surface. In visual analysis, the filming and spotting levels on glass surface from the Replenish Glass TN-1300-87Dct was below the acceptable level from Green Seal. But the overall visual analysis passed the Green Seal standard. The table lists the amount of soil added, the amount remaining and the efficiency for each coupon cleaned.

 The table lists the amount of soil added, the amount remaining after cleaning and the calculated efficiency for soil used.

Cleaner Initial wt Final wt % Removed
Replenish Glass TN-1300-87D - Mirror  
  0.0580 0.0067 88.45
  0.0675 0.0075 88.89
  0.0861 0.0065 92.45
Replenish Glass TN-1300-87D - Chrome  
  0.1448 0.0068 95.30
  0.1223 0.0065 94.69
  0.0942 0.0068 92.78
Replenish Glass TN-1300-87D - Glass  
  0.1070 0.0134 87.48
  0.0739 0.0086 88.36
  0.1144 0.0074 93.53
Replenish Glass TN-1300-88D - Mirror  
  0.1264 0.0169 86.63
  0.1626 0.0104 93.60
  0.0767 0.0077 89.96
Replenish Glass TN-1300-88D - Chrome  
  0.2182 0.0154 92.94
  0.4937 0.0101 97.95
  0.4950 0.0114 97.70
Replenish Glass TN-1300-88D - Glass  
  0.2783 0.0396 85.77
  0.1824 0.0158 91.34
  0.2148 0.0321 85.06
409 Glass and Surface - Mirror  
  0.3076 0.0145 95.29
  0.2792 0.0106 96.20
  0.1475 0.0097 93.42
409 Glass and Surface - Chrome  
  0.8469 0.0101 98.81
  0.7217 0.0183 97.46
  0.4533 0.0152 96.65
409 Glass and Surface - Glass  
  0.0824 0.0044 94.66
  0.0954 0.0079 91.72
  0.0950 0.0022 97.68
7th Gen Glass and Surface - Mirror  
  0.0245 0.0068 72.24
  0.0297 0.0037 87.54
  0.0349 0.0053 84.81
7th Gen Glass and Surface - Chrome  
  0.0528 0.0088 83.33
  0.0603 0.0048 92.04
  0.0921 0.0055 94.03
7th Gen Glass and Surface - Glass  
  0.0542 0.0043 92.07
  0.1321 0.0046 96.52
  0.0949 0.0068 92.83

Visual Ratings

    Tester 1 Tester 2    
Product Substrate Filming Visual Observation Streaking Visual Observation Filming Visual Observation Streaking Visual Observation Average Filming Average Streaking
Replenish Glass TN-1300-87D Glass 4 3 4 3 3.67 3.17
3 3 4 3    
4 3 3 4    
Mirror 1 1 2 2 2.33 2.33
2 2 2 2    
3 3 4 4    
Replenish Glass TN-1300-88D Glass 3 2 2 3 2.67 3.33
2 3 2 4    
3 3 4 5    
Mirror 1 1 2 2 2.00 2.17
2 3 3 2    
2 2 2 3    
409 Glass and Surface Glass 4 3 3 3 3.33 3.17
4 4 4 3    
3 3 2 3    
Mirror 2 2 2 2 2.33 2.50
2 3 2 2    
3 3 3 3    
7th Gen Glass and Surface Glass 3 3 2 3 2.33 2.50
3 3 2 2    
2 2 2 2    
Mirror 2 2 4 5 3.50 3.67
3 3 5 5    
4 4 3 3    

Success Rating:

Results successful using TACT (time, agitation, concentration, and temperature, as well as rinsing and drying) and/or other cleaning chemistries examined.

Conclusion:

Both the supplied cleaners 87 DD and 88 DD were effective in cleaning the SSL Soil2 from the surface of the glass, mirror and chrome. Streaking and filming levels were both better than the recommended guideline of 3. Each compared closely with the two industry comparative products.

Save Report as a PDF