Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 0

Trial Purpose:

To evaluate supplied equipment for white board cleaning as compared to conventional products.

Date Run:

08/27/2015

Experiment Procedure:

A black dry erase marker was used to color in four sections of the white board with 4 inch square. The black square was aged at an accelerated rate by using a Master Appliance heat gun operating at the low setting (300F) from 8-9” above the surface. The heat was applied for 5 minutes.
After aging, the surface of the marked region was wiped once with a single pass using a dry bounty paper towel. An intermediate, light contrast and color reading were done on the surface to assess if there was any change from its initial dirty. Then the cleaning product was applied to the contaminated surface with 2 sprays. Thereafter the wet surface was wiped using a fresh bounty paper towel folded in half for a maximum of 30 seconds in a circular motion. A second application of cleaner was delivered only if the surface becomes dry during the wipe. Visual, light contrast and color observations were made on the white board to determine how effective the cleaning product was after manual wiping. The procedure was repeated for a total of three sections of the white board. The fourth colored square was used as a control for evaluation of how effective the cleaning products were able to remove the initial dirty dry erase marker from the surface. Products were ranked against the others by three staff members.

Chemistries Evaluated: Newell Rubbermaid; Quartet Whiteboard; G and O Cleaner

Trial Results:

Cleaner Initial  Dirty Final L Dirty % Change  Final % Change Dirty % Avg.  Final % Avg.
Newell Rubbermaid          
  -39.36 -40.18 -9.33 -2.08 76.3    
  -44.04 -43.18 -14.76 1.95 66.49    
  -41.94 -43.11 -11.76 -2.79 71.96 -0.97 71.58
Quartet Whiteboard          
  -47.64 -49.63 -5.52 -4.18 88.41    
  -40.17 -40.87 -0.31 -1.74 99.23    
  -43.28 -44.12 -2.4 -1.94 94.45 -2.62 94.03
G and O Cleaner          
  -38.35 -38.63 -2.3 -0.73 94    
  -44.26 -39.55 -1.79 10.64 95.96    
  -41.33 -47.73 -1.58 15.49 96.18 -1.86 95.38
Cleaner Initial a Dirty a Final a Dirty % a  Final %a Dirty %Avg. a Final %Avg. a
Newell Rubbermaid          
  2.08 2.22 0.61 -6.73 70.67    
  2.49 2.38 0.93 4.42 62.65    
  2.46 2.41 0.68 2.03 72.36 -0.09 68.56
Quartet Whiteboard          
  2.46 2.36 0.2 4.07 91.87    
  1.89 1.97 0.12 -4.23 93.65    
  2.15 2.15 0.06 0 97.21 -0.06 94.24
G and O Cleaner          
  2.13 2.13 0.17 0 92.02    
  2.44 2.22 0.08 9.02 96.72    
  2 2.55 0.11 -27.5 94.5 -6.16 94.41
Cleaner Initial b Dirty b Final b Dirty % b Final % b Dirty % Avg. b  Final % Avg. b
Newell Rubbermaid          
  2.16 2.19 0.55 -1.39 74.54    
  2.99 2.75 0.87 8.03 70.9    
  3.31 3.05 0.86 7.85 74.02 4.83 73.15
Quartet Whiteboard          
  2.53 1.59 0.07 37.15 97.23    
  2.1 2.06 0.52 1.9 75.24    
  1.76 2.42 0.08 -37.5 95.45 0.52 89.31
G and O Cleaner          
  2.75 2.78 0.2 -1.09 92.73    
  3.01 -2.72 0.08 190.37 97.34    
  2.08 -2.85 0.23 237.02 88.94 142.1 93
Cleaner  Board Layout Visual 1  Visual 2 Visual 3 Average Ranking
Newell Rubbermaid        
  Top 2 2 3    
  Middle 3.5 3.8 3.5    
  Bottom 2.2 2.5 3.5 2.89 3
Quartet Whiteboard        
  Top 1.5 2 3    
  Middle 1.1 1.1 2.5    
  Bottom 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.72 2
G and O Cleaner        
  Top 1.5 2 2    
  Middle 1.4 1.5 2    
  Bottom 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.63 1

Success Rating:

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

Conclusion:

After the cleaning agent has been applied, there was a significant difference in contrast between the light and dark color. Amongst the cleaners G and O Cleaner had the highest difference in light contrast of 95.38%. A higher light contrast represents that the initial dark surfaced white board is nearly turning back to a white surface. In addition to that it is noted that the surface pre-treated for Quartet Whiteboard cleaning agent may have been easier to erase since 2/3 of the boxes had shown signs of removability after just one manual wipe with a paper towel unlike the two other surfaces pre-treated for Newell Rubbermaid and G and O Cleaner. Visually the cleaning agent G and O Cleaner worked slightly better than Quartet Whiteboard. Visually G and O Cleaner is only 0.09 better than Quartet Whiteboard. Newell Rubbermaid did not visually work as well as the other cleaners. The boards treated with Quartet Whiteboard and G and O Cleaner visually looks spotless of any residual black dry erase marker on the surface. Overall the best cleaning agent would be as follows: G and O Cleaner, Quartet Whiteboard and Newell Rubbermaid.

Save Report as a PDF