Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 2

Trial Purpose:

Test effectiveness of ND -17 in removing wax

Date Run:

06/06/1995

Experiment Procedure:

There were two goals for this trial, first, to test the effectiveness of MacDermid ND-17 for Plating Job Shop's needs. The second was to determine to most effective way to reduce wax drag out from the cleaning bath. For each substrate three different methods of removing the coupons from the cleaner bath was used. The first method (removal #1) was to quickly remove the coupons while the air sparging was still activated. The second method (removal #2) was to turn off the air sparging and then quickly remove the coupons. The final method (removal #3) was to keep the coupons in the solution after cleaning and allowing the solution to cool until the wax solidified and could easily be skimmed off the top.
Parts were weighed before and after contamination. Cleaning in the air sparged beaker would last for 20 minutes at 160 F. Rinsing was performed for 5 minutes in a tap water bath at 160 F. The coupons were then dried under air knives for two minutes and then placed in a convection oven set at 120 F for 90 minutes. The coupons were then allowed to cool for 2 hours and weighed once again.
To minimize the time of the trial, all 24 coupons were cleaned in a total of eight beakers. 3 coupons of the same material were used in each beaker. In each beaker 2 coupons were removed with either method #1 or #2 while the third coupons was removed with method #3.

Trial Results:

SURFACE CLEANING LAB

                                                    GRAVIMENTRIC ANALYSIS

sample # and substrate removal method clean mass (g) mass with contamination (g) mass after cleaning (g) contaminant removed (g) Percent Removal
61 - Steel 1 188.5192 190.6576  188.5282 2.1294  99.58%
65 - Steel 1 221.6276 223.9264 221.6356 2.2908 99.65%
16 - Steel 2 172.9255 174.9124 172.9260 1.9864 99.97%
28 - Steel 2 146.6684 148.3150 146.6696 1.6454 99.93%
1 - Steel 3 166.8401 168.4727 166.8416 1.6311 99.91%
5 - Steel 3 186.0529 188.1641 186.0515 2.1126 100.07%
16 - Al 1 21.0087 22.3233 21.0143 1.309 99.57%
17 - Al 1 21.0274 22.3866 21.0320 1.3546 99.66%
13 - Al 2 20.9922 22.4662 21.0001 1.4661 99.46%
15 - Al 2 20.9727 22.5154 20.9849 1.5305 99.21%
14 - Al 3 21.0111 22.4593 21.0181 1.4412 99.52%
18 - Al 3 21.0122 22.2181 21.0139 1.2042 99.86%
3579 Cu 1 35.3583 36.6686 35.3628 1.3058 99.66%
3988 Cu 1 35.3999 36.3755 35.4007 0.9748 99.92%
5096 Cu 2 35.5109 36.3669 35.5348 0.8321 97.21%
5581 Cu 2 35.5584 36.3573 35.5627 0.7946 99.46%
3545 Cu 3 35.3558 36.0879 35.3602 0.7277 99.40%
4076 Cu 3 35.4079 36.4492 35.4093 1.0399 99.87%
5251 Brass 1 34.5273 35.4646 34.5266 0.938 100.07%
6577 Brass 1 34.6592 35.5675 34.6580 0.9095 100.13%

The ND-17 did not create a lot of foam even under intense agitation.  Removal was alight, just as good as the Daraclean 283 but not nearly as good as the Daraclean 294xx.  The ND-17 would not be a desirable due to the intense discoloration of the brass coupons.

Success Rating:

Test showed little or no promise.

Conclusion:

Some recommendations for further trials would be to test several cleaners (Oakite 3800, Oakite 4000T, Calgon Geo-Guard 5210, and Chemtech CT-1), to find a chemistry that is compatible.  Some sort of agitation should be used on the rinse tank.  The temperature of the rinse and the cleaner tank must be over 140 F so that the wax melts but a slightly lower temperature of 150 might be tried to minimize the possibility of etching onto brass.

Save Report as a PDF