CleanerSolutions Database
Toxics Use Reduction Institute · Surface Solutions Laboratory
 
Toxics Use Reduction Institute




Surface Solutions Laboratory

Trial Report



Trial Number 19

(Client Number 275, Project Number 1)

Trial Purpose: To evaluate the supplied products for all purpose cleaning using manual cleaning.

Date Run: 03/12/10

Experiment Procedure:
The supplied cleaning products were used at the delivered concentrations. Preweighed ceramic, plastic and painted steel coupons were coated with Hucker's Soil Formulation (Jif Creamy Peanut Butter 9.2%, Salted Butter 9.2%, Arrowhead Mills stone ground wheat flour 9.2%, Egg Yolk 9.2%, Evaporated milk 13.8%, Distilled water 45.8%, Printer's ink with boiled linseed oil 0.9%, Shaws saline solution 2.7%) using a hand held 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 Kimberly Klark Wypall X60 reinforced wipe was attached to the cleaning sled and soaked with 5-7 sprays of cleaning solutions. Each coupon was sprayed 7-10 times with the same cleaning solution. The solution was allowed to penetrate for 30 seconds followed by cleaning in the SLW unit for 20 cycles (~33 seconds). At the end of the cleaning, coupons were wiped once with a dry paper towel. Final weights were recorded and efficiencies were calculated and recorded.

Trial Results
All of the submitted products were effective in removing over 85% of the soil from the surface using manual cleaning. The table lists the amount of
soil added and the amount remaining after cleaning and the product efficiency for each coupon cleaned.

Cleaner Initial wt   Final wt     % Removed
PC 101 1:200_Ceramic                        
        0.1694        0.0416        75.44
        0.1907        0.0446        76.61
        0.2241        0.0444        80.19
PC 101 1:200_Painted steel                        
        0.5027        0.0297        94.09
        0.4880        0.0232        95.25
        0.4890        0.0233        95.24
PC 101 1:200_Plastic                        
        0.3839        0.0130        96.61
        0.2793        0.0259        90.73
        0.1759        0.0116        93.41
PC 108 1:48_Ceramic                        
        0.1523        0.0347        77.22
        0.4360        0.0516        88.17
        0.2306        0.0294        87.25
PC 108 1:48_Painted steel                        
        0.1808        0.0142        92.15
        0.2879        0.0130        95.48
        0.3976        0.0135        96.60
PC 108 1:48_Plastic                         
        0.2396        0.0150        93.74
        0.3982        0.0194        95.13
        0.2965        0.0019        99.36
PC 220 1:128_Ceramic                        
        0.1589        0.0247        84.46
        0.6021        0.0011        99.82
        0.5636        0.1495        73.47
PC 220 1:128_Painted steel                        
        0.3513        0.0090        97.44
        0.1246        0.0140        88.76
        0.0761        0.0086        88.70
PC 220 1:128_Plastic                        
        0.3392        0.0586        82.72
        0.2834        0.0391        86.20
        0.1758        0.0206        88.28
3Rs 1:48_Ceramic                        
        0.3257        0.0439        86.52
        0.1857        0.0504        72.86
        0.2657        0.0494        81.41
3Rs 1:48_Painted steel                        
        0.5371        0.0312        94.19
        0.4014        0.0220        94.52
        0.4919        0.0230        95.32
3Rs 1:48_Plastic                        
        0.1969        0.0075        96.19
        0.3667        0.0041        98.88
        0.2987        0.0157        94.74


Success Rating
A follow up test, usually based on company input.

Conclusion
The three products had an overall average efficiency over 85% and performed as well as the conventional cleaning product.