Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 3

Client Number 476

Project Number 1

Trial Purpose:

To evaluate the effectiveness of aqueous cleaners at the removal of gundrill oil/coolant from stainless steel alloy using heated ultrasonics.

Date Run:

06/18/2019

Experiment Procedure:

Initial weights were obtained for fifteen 2”x2” stainless steel alloy coupons. All coupons were soiled with gundrill oil/coolant mixture on half of the coupon on one side. All coupons were reweighed to obtain a dirty weight. One set of three coupons was immersed in each of the five cleaners. Cleaners and coupons were placed in heated ultrasonic machine for 25 minutes. Coupons were removed from cleaners and rinsed with DI water by dunking each coupon three times. Coupons were air dried for 1.5hrs at room temperature (68 F)

Chemistries Evaluated:

  1. Buckeye Immersion Cleaner
  2. Liquinox Critical Cleaning Detergent
  3. Alconox Powdered Precision Cleaner
  4. Micro 90 Concentrated Cleaning Solution
  5. CB100
Company Name Product Name Concentration Temperature
Buckeye International Buckeye Immersion Cleaner 2:10 125 F
Alconox Inc. Liquinox Critical Cleaning Detergent 1:100 100 F
Alconox Inc. Alconox Powdered Precision Cleaner 1:100 100 F
International Products Micro 90 2:100 100 F
Walter Chem. CB 100 100% 100 F

Trial Results:

Both the Alconox and Liquinox cleaners appeared to have one coupon that was much cleaner than the other two; this is especially evident in the data for the Liquinox cleaner. This could be due to a smaller initial amount of soil on the coupon, but for the Alconox cleaner, the coupon with the least amount of initial soil was not the coupon that appeared the cleanest. Coupons that were immersed in the CB100 cleaner appeared to be clean, however after air drying, it was evident that there was a large amount of cleaner residue on the coupons. It may be helpful to re-test this cleaner with a different rinse step. Alconox and Micro 90 performed the best with percentage removal over 97%. Buckeye Immersion Cleaner also was efficient at 97.85% removal. Both Liquinox and CB100 were not efficient for the removal of oil/coolant on stainless steel and were below 90% removal.

Cleaner Initial Weight of Contaminant Final Weight of Contaminant % Contaminant Removed Average
Buckeye Immersion Cleaner 0.0109 0.0002 98.17 97.85
0.0092 0.0003 96.74
0.0074 0.0001 98.65
Liquinox 0.0076 0.0013 82.89 85.84
0.0068 0.0016 76.47
0.0054 0.0001 98.15
Alconox 0.0057 0.0000 100.00 99.37
0.0053 0.0001 98.11
0.0093 0.0000 100.00
Micro 90 0.0116 0.0001 99.13 98.18
0.0087 0.0004 95.40
0.0080 0.0000 100.00
CB100 0.0070 0.0024 65.71 64.70
0.0078 0.0025 67.95
0.0048 0.0019 60.45

Success Rating:

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

Conclusion:

Results show that Buckeye Immersion Cleaner, Alconox Powdered Precision Cleaner, and Micro 90 Concentrated Cleaning Solution were all effective in removing gundrill oil and coolant from stainless steel alloy. Next step is to test Buckeye Immersion Cleaner, Alconox Powdered Precision Cleaner, Micro 90 Concentrated Cleaning Solution, Ozzy Juice SW3, and Ozzy Juice SW4 on contaminated parts provided by Synventive due to their effective results of 90% or higher removal overall. A rinse and dry step will need to be identified.

Save Report as a PDF