Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Client #298

Related Images

Project Number 1

Summary:

In total, the SSL evaluated 31 products on the six inks using manual cleaning. Ten aqueous products were ineffective on the Dykem ink and were discontinued from testing. Of the twenty-one semi-aqueous products, five had excellent removal, three were good, six were okay and the remaining products had little to no removal of the Dykem. Four products removed over 90% of the Markal, another four removed over 80%, three removed over 70% and one was ineffective. Two products were determined to be the same formulation with different names from the same vendor. This dropped the number of products down to ten possible products. On the Nu-Mark, four products removed over 90%, two over 80%, three over 70% and one under 50%. The Sharpie marker proved difficult to obtain accurate gravimetric results and effectiveness was based on visual cleanliness and time to remove the ink. The same was true for the Avery marker. The remaining ink from Sakura had six product remove over 90% and the remaining four remove under 60%. All of the selected products had VOC levels below the 2 pounds per gallon range except for one which had 2.1 pounds per gallon.

Test Objective:

To identify a HAP free, low voc cleaner for removing various types of ink.

Product Use:

Various valves and equipment pieces
Trial Number Date Run Purpose Success Rating
0 03/24/2008 To evaluate selected aqueous based low VOC products for manual removal of ink from aluminum coupons. Test showed little or no promise.
1 03/26/2008 To evaluate semi-aqueous low VOC products for manual removal of ink from aluminum coupons. Preliminary compatibility tests on substrate coupons encouraging for at least one cleaning chemistry. More in-depth laboratory testing necessary.
2 03/27/2008 To evaluate top products on second supplied ink using manual wiping. Results successful using TACT (time, agitation, concentration, and temperature, as well as rinsing and drying) and/or other cleaning chemistries examined.
3 03/28/2008 To evaluate top products on third supplied ink. Results successful using TACT (time, agitation, concentration, and temperature, as well as rinsing and drying) and/or other cleaning chemistries examined.
4 03/28/2008 To evaluate selected products on fourth supplied ink using manual wiping. Results successful using TACT (time, agitation, concentration, and temperature, as well as rinsing and drying) and/or other cleaning chemistries examined.
5 03/28/2008 To evaluate top ten products on fifth supplied ink Results successful using TACT (time, agitation, concentration, and temperature, as well as rinsing and drying) and/or other cleaning chemistries examined.
6 03/28/2008 To evaluate the sixth supplied ink on the top products. Results suggest a scale-up feasible match for cleaning chemistry and equipment. Pilot plant study with actual parts recommended.
7 04/17/2008 To evaluate new product with low voc and no HAPs on all six inks. Results suggest a scale-up feasible match for cleaning chemistry and equipment. Pilot plant study with actual parts recommended.
8 04/30/2008 To evaluate previously tested product at lower concentrations for cleaning the six inks. Results suggest a scale-up feasible match for cleaning chemistry and equipment. Pilot plant study with actual parts recommended.
9 03/20/2008 To replace HAP solvent and reduce VOC levels in cleaning operation. Technology Transfer.
10 08/19/2008 To evaluate reformulated product on six supplied inks. Results suggest a scale-up feasible match for cleaning chemistry and equipment. Pilot plant study with actual parts recommended.