Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 4

Client Number 328

Project Number 1

Trial Purpose:

To evaluate supplied product for grease removal from floor surfaces following CSPA DCC 17

Date Run:

06/10/2010

Experiment Procedure:

The supplied product was tested using the CSPA DCC 17 - Greasy Soil Test Method for Evaluating Spray-and-Wipe Cleaners Used on Hard, Non-Glossy Surfaces standard. A few minor deviations from the standard were incorporated into the test conducted.

The Greasy Soil Test Method is a standard method that evaluates the cleaning performance of products intended for use on washable walls or other hard, non-glossy surfaces. This method provides instructions for soil application, cleaning and evaluation of spray-and-wipe cleaners under controlled cleaning conditions. This method can be used to assess product performance for cleaning a fabricated greasy soil blend applied to painted wallboard tiles. It is not inclusive of all soil or substrates typically encountered by a consumer while using these products.

Latex painted vinyl composite tiles were substituted for masonite wallboard tiles. These tiles were soiled with a mixture of melted, oily soils containing a small amount of carbon black. The tiles were dried overnight at room temperature. A measured amount of spray-and-wipe cleaner is applied to a reinforced paper towel was used in place of the sponge. The soaked towels were used to scrub a portion of the soiled substrate using a straight-line washability apparatus. The tile was rinsed after cleaning to remove loosened soil. Separate soiled coupons were cleaned with the other products being evaluated instead of using the same soiled coupon as another product.

This was done to eliminate any possible cross contamination of the cleaning process. Three coupons were cleaned by each cleaning product being evaluated. Cleaning performance was taken as a linear function of reflectance value, and visually evaluated by a panel of judges.

Coupon preparation:
Two coats of white paint solution were applied to the slightly rough side of the tiles, waiting 15 minutes between each coat. Coupons were allowed to dry overnight at room temperature, and then cure them at 50°C and 50% humidity for 24 hours. Five reflectance readings were taken for each of three separate tiles to obtain a baseline value.

Soil Preparation
A mixture of three cooking oils/greases was made. A melt blend of 33% vegetable shortening, 33% lard, 33% vegetable oil and 1% carbon lampblack was made up fresh for the testing. Care was taken in the application of the soil onto the coupons so that light and heavy areas were avoided. Allow the soiled tiles to dry for 24 hours at room temperature. Five reflectance readings were made for each of three soiled tiles to obtain a soiled reference value.

Cleaning Test
Place a soiled tile in the tray of the abrasion tester such that the direction of the soiling is perpendicular to the direction of the sponge. In place of using a sponge and pouring solution into dish for application, products were applied to the coated surfaces using 3-5 sprays from manual spray pump and 4-7 sprays onto the reinforced Wypal X60 paper towel attached to the cleaning instrument. The cleaning was performed using Gardner Straightline washability unit and conducted for the prescribed 5 cycles (10 strokes). Following the initial cycle, there was no discernable difference between the products and an additional 15 cycles were run. The coupons were immediately rinse with tap water only the surface which was scrubbed.

In addition to the L-value readings, gravimetric analysis was conducted to determine soil removal. Weights were taken before soiling, after soiling and after cleaning. Results were based on percent soil removal.

Cleaning data can be calculated as percent detergency in the following equation: % DET = R(cleaned) - R(soiled) / R(unsoiled) - R(soiled) X 100

Trial Results:

The new formulation performed as well as the existing formulation and the conventional product when analyzed with both the L-values and gravimetric analysis. All three products had %DET between 63 and 65 and soil removal efficiency between 89-91%. In both cases the current product had slightly higher effectiveness.

The tables list the l-value readings and gravimetric weights for each coupon cleaned.
L-Value Results

Cleaner Initial L Dirty L Final L Rc-Rs Ru-Rs [Rc-Rs/(Ru-Rs)]*100 Ave
Nutrisol-Calsoft L40              
  90.59 27.26 70.04 63.33 20.55 67.55 63.84
  90.19 37.23 67.84 52.96 22.35 57.8  
  88.93 30.99 69.33 57.94 19.6 66.17  
MD Stetson 3R              
  88.26 26 54.27 62.26 33.99 45.41 65.73
  88.12 27.81 68.71 60.31 19.41 67.82  
  85.75 29.37 72.82 56.38 12.93 77.07  
Green Bridge Control 32-1              
  86.2 23.61 65.41 62.59 20.79 66.78 63.43
  85.78 24 66.29 61.78 19.49 68.45  
  81.27 35.02 63.67 46.25 17.6 61.95  

Gravimetric Results

Cleaner Initial wt Final wt % Removed
Nutrisol-Calsoft L40 G      
  0.5499 0.0619 88.74
  0.6939 0.0674 90.29
  0.4194 0.0732 82.55
Nutrisol-Calsoft L40 G      
  0.4022 0.0318 92.09
  0.4446 0.0591 86.71
  0.3275 0.0376 88.52
Nutrisol-Calsoft L40      
  0.2632 0.0272 89.67
  0.3071 0.0391 87.27
  0.4560 0.0369 91.91
Nutrisol-Calsoft L40 L      
  62.0000 31.8900 48.56
  64.1700 37.3500 41.80
  62.8800 32.4800 48.35
Nutrisol-Calsoft L40 L      
  58.9000 25.7200 56.33
  61.2400 21.3600 65.12
  63.0100 23.1600 63.24
Nutrisol-Calsoft L40 L      
  63.3300 20.5500 67.55
  52.9600 22.3500 57.80
  57.9400 19.6000 66.17
MD Stetson 3R      
  0.6017 0.0943 84.33
  0.7370 0.0430 94.17
  0.4219 0.0284 93.27
Green Bridge Control 32-1      
  0.6481 0.0471 92.73
  0.3914 0.0195 95.02
  0.2771 0.0381 86.25

Success Rating:

A follow up test, usually based on company input.

Conclusion:

The new formulation performed as well as the existing formulation and the conventional product. All three removed over 89% of the grease-soil mixture using manual wiping.

Save Report as a PDF