Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 6

Trial Purpose:

To evaluate ultrasonic energy with successful cleaners.

Date Run:

11/05/2001

Experiment Procedure:

The three successful cleaners from the previous trials and the two client supplied cleaners were diluted to 5% using DI water in 600 ml beakers. Each solution was suspended in Crest 40 kHz ultrasonic tank heated to 130 F and degassed for 5 minutes.
Sixty preweighed coupons were coated with the four different contaminants and allowed to dry overnight. A second weighing was made.
Three coupons of the same contaminant were cleaned in each solution for 3 minutes. Coupons were rinsed in tap water at 120 F for 30 seconds and dried with a Master Appliance Heat Gun at 500 F for 1 minute. Once coupons cooled to room temperature, final clean weights were recorded and efficiencies calculated.

Substrate: 1010 and 1020 Steel
Contaminants: Houghton Rust Veto C3; Rust Preventatives: Castrol Rustilo DWX 30 (64742-82-1; 61790-48-5; 112-34-5),; Rust Preventatives: Castrol Industrial, Inc Rustilo DW 924 HF (64742-53-6, 61790-48-5, 64742-47-8); Lubricant; ITW Fluid Products Power Stamp II (5:1)

Trial Results:

Ultrasonic cleaning was very successful in removing all of the contaminants from the steel coupons. The overall cleaning average for all the cleaners and all the contaminants was 100% removal. The following table lists the efficiencies for each cleaner and the corresponding contaminant.

Table 1. Calculated Efficiencies

Cleaner Contaminant Coupon 1 Coupon 2 Coupon 3
Multikleen Stamp II 105.61 101.85 97.52
Multikleen DW 924 86.89 100.35 100.99
Multikleen BWX 30 101.32 100.81 101.67
Multikleen Veto C3 99.63 96.67 97.34
Inproclean Stamp II 99.96 100.75 101.48
Inproclean DW 924 100.21 118.52 101.25
Inproclean BWX 30 102.69 106.58 98.96
Inproclean Veto C3 100.88 93.71 103.38
Beyond Stamp II 102.09 101.69 100.94
Beyond DW 924 108.99 100.00 103.47
Beyond BWX 30 104.81 113.00 100.09
Beyond Veto C3 99.05 100.12 98.59
Dasco Stamp II 100.61 98.23 99.34
Dasco DW 924 99.94 102.97 100.15
Dasco BWX 30 101.18 104.27 99.19
Dasco Veto C3 76.06 102.94 100.34
Certa Stamp II 101.31 101.26 104.86
Certa DW 924 90.83 85.59 98.17
Certa BWX 30 99.77 82.82 110.39
Certa Veto C3 95.01 97.90 97.68

When comparing ultrasonic cleaning results to the immersion cleaning results, ultrasonic cleaning was found to be more effective than immrersion cleaning was for all but one contaminant. The Veto C3 was the only contaminant that cleaned better in immrsion cleaning. The second table is a comparison of the average cleaning efficiencies for the cleaning methods.

Table 2. Comparison of Cleaning Methods

Immersion Stamp II DW 924 DWX 30 Veto C3
Multikleen 97.76 98.82 99.49 99.59
Inproclean 89.33 99.17 99.80 99.99
Beyond 96.13 98.21 99.51 99.44
Dasco 97.35 98.68 99.68 99.27
Certa Clean 91.98 83.47 89.87 98.15
         
         
Ultrasonics Stamp II DW 924 DWX 30 Veto C3
Multikleen 101.66 96.08 101.27 97.88
Inproclean 100.73 106.66 102.74 99.32
Beyond 101.57 104.15 105.96 99.26
Dasco 99.39 101.02 101.55 93.11
Certa Clean 102.48 91.53 97.66 96.86

Success Rating:

A follow up test, usually based on company input.

Conclusion:

Ultrasonic was more effective than immersion cleaning in all but one situation.  In the ultrasonic trial, this contaminant was the last contaminant cleaned, therefore it was in the dirtiest solution.  In  the immersion test, the contaminant was the only one cleaned and therefore in a clean solution.  A follow test will be performed comparing immersion and ultrasonic for the Veto C3 contaminant.

Save Report as a PDF