Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 1

Trial Purpose:

To evaluate supplied product for bathroom removal from ceramic surfaces following the TURI Lab bathroom cleaning method and to ensure consistent final weights.

Experiment Procedure:

The following experimental procedure is in accordance to cleaning method TURI Lab bathroom for GS-37 cleaning standard operating procedure.
Soiling Process:

A set of ceramic substrates were coated on the back of the ceramic with a paint primer for water proof resistance. Pre-weighed coated ceramic substrates were contaminated with 0.5 grams of GS 37 (bathroom soil) using a hand held swab on the center of the ceramic surfaces. GS 37 was made with the following ingredients: 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%. The contaminated ceramic substrates were aged overnight at room temperature. The coupons were then to determine the amount of contaminant added.

Cleaning Process:

Three soiled coupons were placed into a Gardner Straight Line Washability unit. Two Wypall X60 reinforced wipe was attached to the cleaning sled and soaked with one spray of cleaning solutions. Each substrate was sprayed one time with the same cleaning solution. The solution was allowed to penetrate for 30 seconds, and followed by cleaning in the SLW unit for 20 cycles (~33 seconds).

Efficacy Rating Process:

The coupons were left to dry at room temperature, and weighed in time intervals of: 1 hour, 1 day, 2 days, and 3 days after the cleaning process. The visual ranking of the cleaned substrates was in accordance to the following ratings:

Visual Clean Rating Key (I made this up)
1 Virtually all soil removed
2 Approximately 75% soil removed
3 Approximately 50% soil removed
4 Approximately 25% soil removed
5 No or very little soil removed

Trial Results:

The objective of the experiment is to compare the effectiveness and to ensure consistency of the sampled cleaners: Mineral Shock 1270G with the comparative cleaners: Lav Safe, and Power Bathroom through gravimetric and visual efficacy evaluations.

Comparative Analysis

All three cleaning agents were effective in removing the GS37 bathroom soil from ceramic surfaces. However, the sample cleaner: Mineral Shock 1270G was observed to be more effective than the comparative cleaner: Lav Safe; with respective efficacy ratings of: 94% and 85%. In addition, the supplied product was observed to be as effective as the second comparative cleaner: Power Bathroom with respective efficacy ratings of: 94% and 92%.

On average, all ceramic substrates were drying at a rate of 2% per day at room temperature after being cleaned. However, the drying rate for the cleaning agents on average were consistent. Note that on the 3rd day for overtime dryness with the cleaning agent:

Gravimetric Results: The following table lists the amount of soil added, removed, and efficiency as determined gravimetrically for each product tested.

Gravimetric Result After Time Interval: 1 hour

Cleaner Initial wt (g) Final wt.(g) %Removed Avg. % Removed
Mineral Shock 1270G        
  0.1326 0.0118 91.1 91.63
  0.1331 0.0119 91.06  
  0.1349 0.0098 92.74  
Lav Safe        
  0.1345 0.0214 84.09 82.64
  0.1346 0.0278 79.35  
  0.1353 0.021 84.48  
Power Bat hroom      
  0.1374 0.0105 92.36 89.31
  0.1376 0.022 84.01  
  0.1351 0.0114 91.56  

Gravimetric Result After Time Interval: 1 day

Mineral Shock 1270G        
  0.1326 0.0085 93.59 93.95
  0.1331 0.0088 93.39  
  0.1349 0.0069 94.89  
Power Bathroom        
  0.1345 0.0184 86.32 85.16
  0.1346 0.023 82.91  
  0.1353 0.0186 86.25  
Power Bathroom        
  0.1374 0.0076 94.47 92.01
  0.1376 0.0155 88.74  
  0.1351 0.0097 92.82  

Gravimetric Result After Time Interval: 2 day

Mineral Shock 1270G          
  0.1326   0.006 95.48 96.25
  0.1331   0.0054 95.94  
  0.1349   0.0036 97.33  
Lav Safe          
  0.1345   0.0147 89.07 87.54
  0.1346   0.0197 85.36  
  0.1353   0.016 88.17  
Power Bathroom          
  0.1374   0.0022 98.4 94.69
  0.1376   0.0124 90.99  
  0.1351   0.0072 94.67  

Gravimetric Result After Time Interval: 3 day

Mineral Shock 1270G          
  0.1326   0.0043 96.76 97.92
  0.1331   0.0027 97.97  
  0.1349   0.0013 99.04  
Lav Safe          
  0.1345   0.0123 90.86 88.82
  0.1346   0.0183 86.4  
  0.1353   0.0146 89.21  
Power Bathroom          
  0.1374   -0.0011 100.8 96.05
  0.1376   0.0109 92.08  
  0.1351   0.0064 95.26  

Summary table of overtime dryness 

Cleaner: 1st day (%) 2nd day (%) 3rd day (%) Average Drying (%/day)
Mineral Shock 1270G 2.32 2.3 1.67 2.1
Lav Safe 2.52 2.37 1.29 2.06
Power Bathroom 2.7 2.68 1.36 2.25

Visual Results: Table pertaining to the amount of soil removed through a visual ranking by its respective cleaning agent..

Cleaner Visual Rating 
Mineral Shock 1270G 2
Lav Safe 3
Power Bathroom  2

Success Rating:

A cleanliness study, addressing only various analytical techniques.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the effectiveness of the cleaning agent resulted in the following order: Mineral Shock 1270G; Lav Safe; Power Bathroom.  Overall efficiencies tended to increase over time with extended drying times, but this change was equivalent for all products, thus no change in performance rankings occurred

Save Report as a PDF