Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 4

Client Number 362

Project Number 1

Trial Purpose:

To evaluate supplied products for glass cleaning using manual cleaning

Date Run:

07/21/2014

Experiment Procedure:

Supplied products were diluted with room temperature water to the requested dilution. Preweighed Glass, Chorme, 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 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 L20 reinforced wipe was ttached to the cleaning sled and soaked with 1 spray of cleaning solutions. Each coupon was sprayed 1-3 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
1 = high filming 1 = high streaking (poor performance)
7 = no visible filming 7 = no visible streaking (excellent performance)

Chemistries Evaluated: Windex; Hydrolysis Orange;

Trial Results:

Cleaner Initial wt Final wt % Removed Avg % Removal
Windex_Mirror 0.0576 0.0115 80.03 91.98
  0.1152 0.0033 97.14  
  0.1055 0.0013 98.77  
Windex_Glass 0.0515 0.0070 86.41 93.58
  0.0715 0.0031 95.66  
  0.0906 0.0012 98.68  
Windex_Chrome 0.1307 0.0509 61.06 64.12
  0.1840 0.0565 69.29  
  0.1880 0.0714 62.02  
HydrysOrange_Mirror 0.0537 0.0086 83.99 89.80
  0.0906 0.0066 92.72  
  0.0562 0.0041 92.70  
Hydrys Orange_Glass 0.0722 0.0126 82.55 90.41
  0.1272 0.0088 93.08  
  0.0911 0.0040 95.61  
Hydrys Orange_Chrome  0.1101 0.0743 32.5200 62.30
  0.1688 0.0363 78.50  
  0.1564 0.0377 75.90  

From the above gravimetric analysis, we can see that Windex performed better than Hydrolysis Orange at 83.23% compared to 80.84%.

Cleaners Substrate S1 F1 S2 F2 S3 F3 S4 F4 S5 F5
Windex Glass Mirror 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3
Windex Glass Mirror 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 4 4
Windex Glass Mirror 4.5 3 5 4 3 2 3 3 3 4
Windex Glass Glass 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5
Windex Glass Glass 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6
Windex Glass Glass 5 6 6 6 4 4 6 4 5 4
Hydrolysis Orange Mirror 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3
Hydrolysis Orange Mirror 2.5 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
Hydrolysis Orange Mirror 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 4 3
Hydrolysis Orange Glass 3.5 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4
Hydrolysis Orange Glass 4.5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.5 4 5
Hydrolysis Orange Glass 5 3 5 3 4 4 5 4 4 5

Summary

Cleaners Substrate Streaking Average Filming Average
Windex Mirror 3.2 3.3
Windex Glass 4.7 5.7
Hydrolysis Orange Mirror 2.5 3.0
Hydrolysis Orange Glass 4.3 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:

Windex and Hydrolysis Orange were both effective in removal of soil from mirror and glass. Both had removal of above 85%. Both cleaners were ineffective in removal of soil from chrome surfaces. Windex had a higher effective removal on all three surfaces compared to Hydrolysis Orange and also had less amount of surface residuals as shown on the visual analysis.

Save Report as a PDF