Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 0

Trial Purpose:

First attempt to clean lubricant.

Date Run:

07/16/1997

Experiment Procedure:

Twenty four stainless steel coupons were weighed after the preclean treatment. The coupons were then contaminated with a lubricant and placed in an oven at 400 F for 10 minutes to simulate the process the client currently uses. After the coupons cooled down to room temperature, the contaminated weight was obtained.
Eight cleaning chemistries were chosen on the basis of their abilities to clean lubricants and grease off stainless steel surfaces from previous laboratory testing. The chemistries chosen were made into 10% solutions based on volume. The solutions were then heated to approximately 120 F on hot plates. Three coupons were placed into each solution for a period of 10 minutes with stir-bar agitiation. Upon completion of the cleaning time, the coupons were rinsed with tap water in beakers with stir-bar agitation at 120oF for two minutes followed by drying with a hot air gun at 115 F. The coupons were then allowed to cool down to room temperature and the cleaned weight was recorded.
SUBSTRATE MATERIAL: Stainless Steel
CONTAMINANTS: Lubri-temp Anti-Seize lubricant
CONTAMINATING PROCESS USED: Coupons were contaminated with the client supplied lubricant and placed in an oven at 400oF for 10 minutes.

Trial Results:

Of the eight chemistries selected, five showed good to excellent cleaning capabilities. The three solutions that did not perform well will not be further considered. The remaining chemistries will be tested using an ultrasonic unit.
During the trial, observations were made about each chemistry. 2000XS was noted to need less cleaning time. CT-1 was not outstanding in its removal of the contaminate. Geo Guard refouled the coupons upon the coupons removal from the cleaning solution. Sea-Wash appeared to need a shorter cleaning time. ND-17 looked like it might be recontaminating the coupons
when the coupons were removed from the cleaning solution. Daraclean needed the full cleaning time and it left a layer of contamination on top of the bath. Inproclean had excellent removal of the lubricant, thus needing less cleaning time. Valtron did not show any signs of removing the lubricant during the cleaning time.
The rinsing process could use agitation to limit the amount of contamination that is redeposited on the coupons upon removal. An increase in temperature and/or drying time might be useful in removing the excess water that remained after the current drying process.

Percent Contaminate Removed
  2000XS CT-1 Geo Guard Sea Wash ND-17 Daraclean Inproclean Valtron
  68.90 31.40 49.20 63.30 88.60 70.30 96.10 16.10
  96.50 18.90 62.90 80.30 97.60 87.90 126.00 14.90
  94.40 25.60 38.40 89.70 89.40 89.90 96.80 21.20
Average 86.60 25.30 50.20 77.80 91.90 82.70 106.00 17.40
std dev 15.40 6.30 12.30 13.40 5.00 10.80 17.10 3.30

Success Rating:

Results successful using TACT (time, agitation, concentration, and temperature, as well as rinsing and drying) and/or other cleaning chemistries examined.

Conclusion:

Five of the eight chemistries showed good to excellent removal of the lubricant and will be used in conjunction with an ultrasonic unit in the 40KHz range.  The chemistries selected were: 2000XS, Sea-Wash, ND-17, Daraclean, and Inproclean.

Save Report as a PDF