Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 1

Client Number 367

Project Number 7

Trial Purpose:

To evaluate three all-purpose cleaners supplied products for Bathroom Soil SSL-1removal from various surfaces.

Date Run:

01/05/2016

Experiment Procedure:

Two cleaners, Lav Safe and Soap Scum, were both received “Ready to Use” (RTU). The third cleaner, Soap Scum Concentrate, was diluted at the recommended 15.6; (1:6.4) with tap water at room temperature (68˚F). Nine pre-weighed coupons per cleaner (three Ceramic, three Plastic and three Stainless steel) were coated with one gram of Bathroom Soil SSL-1 (containing All-in-one shampoo and conditioner 28.6%, Dry skin lotion 21.4%, Liquid hand soap 21.4%, Liquid body wash 14.3%, Deodorant bar soap 7.2% and water 7.1%) at room temperature using a handheld swab. The contaminated coupons were air dried for 24 hours at room temperature and weighed again to determine the amount of soil added the following day.

The three coupons of each substrate were placed in the SLW equipment, and a KC Wypal reinforced paper towel was attached to the cleaning sled and soaked with two sprays of cleaning solution. Each coupon was sprayed twice with the same cleaning solution. The cleaning unit was run for 20 cycles (30 sec). At the end of the cleaning cycle, the coupons were wiped once with a dry paper towel. Coupons dried overnight and final weights were recorded. Efficiencies were calculated and recorded.

Cleaners evaluated: Soap Scum by EnvirOx; Soap Scum Conc. by EnvirOx, LAV Safe by MD Stetson Co Inc.

Trial Results:

After 20 cycles (30 seconds) on the SLW equipment, Lav Safe was most effective on ceramic and polycarbonate substrates. It had a harder time removing the Bathroom Soil from stainless steel. Soap Scrum RTU was the least effective out of all of the cleaners on all the substrates. Soap Scum Conc. (1:6.4) had similar removal of soil from substrates as Lav Safe and had similar issues with removal of soil from stainless steel.

Cleaner Substrate  Initial wt Final wt % Removed %Average %Overall Ave
Soap Scum RTU            
  Ceramic 0.2814 0.0618 78.04 79.47 78.30
    0.3073 0.0831 72.96    
    0.4163 0.0523 87.44    
             
  Polycarbonate 0.3356 0.1019 69.64 74.95  
    0.3297 0.0456 86.17    
    0.4520 0.1399 69.05    
             
  Stainless Steel 0.3456 0.0890 74.25 80.48  
    0.3917 0.0529 86.49    
    0.4162 0.0803 80.71    
             
Soap Scum Conc. (1:6.4)            
  Ceramic 0.2993 0.0572 80.89 80.38 80.71
    0.3033 0.0826 72.77    
    0.3321 0.0415 87.50    
             
  Polycarbonate 0.3444 0.0213 93.82 90.23  
    0.3439 0.0258 92.50    
    0.3833 0.0599 84.37    
             
  Painted metal 0.2760 0.1127 59.17 71.52  
    0.2633 0.0638 75.77    
    0.2764 0.0563 79.63    
             
Lav Safe            
  Ceramic 0.3419 0.0122 96.43 87.08 85.55
    0.3021 0.0308 89.80    
    0.2934 0.0733 75.02    
             
  Polycarbonate 0.3354 0.0115 96.57 96.36  
    0.3776 0.0110 97.09    
    0.3386 0.0155 95.42    
             
  Painted metal 0.3487 0.0907 73.99 73.20  
    0.3077 0.0943 69.35    
    0.3334 0.0221 93.37    

Success Rating:

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

Conclusion:

At the end of the cycle (30 sec), Envirox Soap Scum RTU had the lowest removal rate of the Bathroom Soil SSL-1, followed by the concentrate and the comparative bathroom cleaning product Lav Safe.  However, with the standard deviations factored in, the two supplied products could be considered to be comparable to the industry non-green product.

Save Report as a PDF