Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors
To compare ultrasonic and immersion cleaning.
Two solutions for each of the five cleaners were diluted to 5% using DI water in 600 mL beakers. One set of beakers were heated to 130 F in a Crest 40 kHz ultrasonic tank. The second set was heated to 130 on a hot plate.
Thirty preweighed coupons were coated with the Houghton Veto C3 contaminant and allowed to sit for 2 hours. A second weighing was performed. Three coupons were cleaned in each solution for 3 minutes. Fifteen coupons were cleaned in the ultrasonic tank and the other coupons were cleaned using stir-bar agitated immersion.
After cleaning, coupons were rinsed in tap water at 120 F for 30 seconds and dried using a heat gun at 500 F for 1 minute. Once the coupons returned to room temperature, final weights were measured and efficiencies were calculated.
The ultrasonic energy was found to be more successful than the immersion cleaning was. The following table lists the calculated results for both methods.
|Cleaner||Contaminant||Coupon 1||Coupon 2||Coupon 3||Average||Previous Results|
Comparison of this data to the previous trial data revealed that the ultrasonic cleaning was more effective in a cleaner solution. The new immersion cleaning results were nearly identical to the previous trial results.
Success Rating:A follow up test, usually based on company input.
When comparing similar bath solutions (fresh), ultrasonic cleaning was found to be more effective than the immersion cleaning was for removing the rust preventative.