Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 491

Trial Purpose:

To evaluate possible immersion cleaning process for Brookfield compared to other cleaning solutions.

Date Run:


Experiment Procedure:

Basic cleaning performance testing was conducted using ASTM G122 as the bases for cleaning. 

Four cleaners were tested at room temperature on aluminum, brass, and stainless-steel coupons to evaluate how the Navi Guard Way Lube 32 soil was cleaned. Preweighed coupons were coated with the supplied Navi Guard soil using a handheld swab and weighed a second time to determine the amount of soil added. Each cleaner was put in a beaker and three coupons were immersed into the solution for 5 minutes. The coupons were then stood upright to air dry for 15 minutes and then placed on a tray. There was no rinse. Once dry, final weights were recorded, and efficiency calculated for each coupon cleaned.

Trial Results:

Cleaner Substrate Initial Wt. Final Wt. % Removed
Fluosolv CX Aluminum 21.5357 21.5362 98.73
  Aluminum 21.5777 21.5790 96.95
  Aluminum 21.6689 21.6689 100.00
  Brass 69.4516 69.4517 99.51
  Brass 69.5391 69.5396 98.05
  Brass 69.6129 69.6129 100.00
  Stainless 60.1003 60.1009 97.35
  Stainless 63.9329 63.9331 99.45
  Stainless 63.8901 63.8941 90.85
Fluosolv NC Aluminum 21.0619 21.0619 100.00

Success Rating:

Preliminary compatibility tests on substrate coupons encouraging for at least one cleaning chemistry. More in-depth laboratory testing necessary.


All four cleaners efficiently removed the Navi Guard soil on all three substrates at room temperature. The least efficient cleaner used was Solstice 2A from Honeywell, with the lowest cleaning average on the stainless-steel substrate. The Solstice 2A was still an efficient cleaner with a 97.52% efficiency but was less efficient than the other cleaners used. The most efficient cleaner would be Solstice PF from Honeywell which had an efficiency of 98.48%. All cleaners worked extremely well.

Save Report as a PDF