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




Surface Solutions Laboratory

Trial Report



Trial Number 20

(Client Number 275, Project Number 1)

Trial Purpose: To evaluate the supplied products for bathroom cleaning using manual cleaning

Date Run: 03/16/10

Experiment Procedure:
The supplied cleaning product were used at the recommended concentration (2%, 2% and 1.5%). Preweighed chrome, ceramic and fiberglass, coupons were coated with SSL Soil 1 (Bathroom soap scum: 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%.) 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 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
The two supplied products both removed over 85% of the bathroom soap scum soil from the surfaces using manual cleaning. The conventional product
removed 75%. The table lists the amount of soil added, the amount remaining and the efficiency for each coupon cleaned.

Cleaner Initial wt   Final wt     % Removed
PC 108(1:48)_Ceramic                        
        0.3057        0.0155        94.93
        0.1234        0.0079        93.60
        0.0260        0.0025        90.38
PC 108(1:48)_Chrome                        
        0.0115        0.0019        83.48
        0.0273        0.0024        91.21
        0.0117        0.0038        67.52
PC 108(1:48)_Fiberglass                        
        0.0216        0.0020        90.74
        0.0221        0.0029        86.88
        0.0154        0.0015        90.26
PC 220(1:128)_Ceramic                         
        0.2548        0.0458        82.03
        0.5427        0.1034        80.95
        0.2379        0.0441        81.46
PC 220(1:128)_Chrome                        
        0.2916        0.0441        84.88
        0.2952        0.0265        91.02
        0.4028        0.0352        91.26
PC 220(1:128)_Fiberglass                        
        0.3183        0.0511        83.95
        0.2855        0.0230        91.94
        0.3232        0.0514        84.10
3M Non acid Bathroom cleaner -Ceramic                        
        0.3325        0.0840        74.74
        0.6008        0.2322        61.35
        0.3427        0.0912        73.39
3M Non acid Bathroom cleaner -Chrome                        
        0.3184        0.0768        75.88
        0.3851        0.0733        80.97
        0.1951        0.0429        78.01
3M Non acid Bathroom cleaner -Fiberglass                        
        0.6121        0.1472        75.95
        0.3844        0.0833        78.33
        0.4439        0.0881        80.15


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

Conclusion
The two products had an overall average efficiency over 85% and performed better than the conventional cleaning product.