Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 2

Client Number 291

Project Number 1

Trial Purpose:

To evaluate supplied products for glass cleaning using manual cleaning

Date Run:

02/19/2014

Experiment Procedure:

Supplied products were diluted with room temperature water to the requested dilution.

Preweighed chrome and three glass 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 contaminated coupons were weighed again to determine the amount of soil added.

Three coupons were placed into a Gardner Straight Line Washability unit. A Wypall X60 reinforced wipe was attached to the cleaning sled and soaked with 2-3 sprays of cleaning solutions. Each coupon was sprayed 1-2 times with the same cleaning solution. The solution was allowed to penetrate for 30 seconds followed by cleaning in the SLW unit for 5 cycles (~10 seconds). At the end of the cleaning, coupons were wiped once with a dry paper towel. Final weights were recorded and efficiencies 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 three supplied products removed over 90% of the glass soap scum using manual cleaning. One product had filming and spotting levels below the acceptable level from Green Seal. The other two products had better results than the conventional product for filming and streaking. The table lists the amount of soil added, the amount remaining and the efficiency for each coupon cleaned.

Cleaner Initial wt Final wt % Removed
Scrubs - Mirror      
  0.0510 0.0019 96.27
  0.0656 0.0107 83.69
  0.0716 0.0052 92.74
Scrubs - Glass      
  0.0651 0.0014 97.85
  0.0572 0.0023 95.98
  0.0425 0.0008 98.12
Scrubs - Chrome      
  0.0451 0.0027 94.01
  0.0646 0.0037 94.27
  0.0665 0.0020 96.99
Windex - Glass      
  0.0547 0.0035 93.60
  0.0451 0.0007 98.45
  0.0406 0.0006 98.52
Windex - Mirror      
  0.0763 0.0018 97.64
  0.1352 0.0021 98.45
  0.0604 0.0014 97.68
Windex - Chrome      
  0.0566 0.0091 83.92
  0.0903 0.0042 95.35
  0.0967 0.0051 94.73

Visual Ratings

Cleaner   Filming Ave. Filming Streaking Ave. Streaking
Scrubs Glass 2.3 2    
    2.7 2.6 2 2.1
    2.7 2.3    
  Mirror 4 6    
    4.3 4.1 6 5.9
    4 5.7    
           
Windex Glass 4 5    
    2 3 6 5.7
    3 6    
  Mirror 5 4    
    4 4.2 6 5.1
      3.7   5.3

Success Rating:

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

Conclusion:

The three products had an overall average removal efficiency greater than 90% and as well as the conventional cleaning product. Only one product PC 200 had acceptable filming and streaking levels. However, all three supplied products had better results than the conventional product.

Save Report as a PDF