Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 5

Trial Purpose:

To evaluate the effectiveness of three different Ascend formulations (Ware-washing, All Purpose TM09, and Hard Surface) with three different main ingredient variations (EDTA, DS IDA, and NTA) with All Purpose Testing.

Date Run:

07/13/2022

Experiment Procedure:

The initial experiment conducted was the warewashing formulation with EDTA, DS IDA, and NTA. The formulation consisted of 5 parts sodium metasilicate, 2.2 parts Sokalan PA, 50 parts (EDTA/DS IDA/NTA), 40 parts sodium hydroxide 50% concentrate, and 2.8 parts water. Nine pre-weighed coupons, three of each substrate per cleaner, were soiled with Hucker's Soil Formulation (Jiff Creamy Peanut Butter 9.2%, Salted Butter 9.2%, Arrowhead Mills stone-ground wheat flour 9.2%, Egg Yolk 9.2%, Evaporated milk 13.8%, Distilled water 45.8%, Printer's ink with boiled linseed oil 0.9%, Shaws saline Solution 2.7%) that was distributed onto each coupon using a swab. Dirty weights were recorded after the coupons had dried for two hours at room temperature (68° F). Three coupons of the same substrate were aligned into a Single Line Washing Unit (SLW) with Wypall X60 attached to the cleaning sled. The Wypall X60 reinforced wipe along with the coupons were all sprayed three times with the cleaner and then allowed to soak for 30 seconds. Afterwards the SLW was activated and the coupons were cleaned for 20 cycles. Cleaned coupons dried overnight at room temperature before the final weights were recorded.

Trial Results:

Table 1: Warewashing Formulation Results

Product Substrate Initial wt of cont. Final wt of cont. %Cont Removed Average Overall Average
EDTA Ceramic 0.1602 0.0719 55.12 58.49 32.02
0.1846 0.0865 53.14
0.1995 0.0654 67.22
Painted Metal 0.5330 0.3506 34.22 22.68
0.3032 0.2218 26.85
0.3716 0.3457 6.97
Plastic 0.2576 0.2385 7.41 14.88
0.3208 0.2439 23.97
0.2791 0.2421 13.26
DS IDA Ceramic 0.1959 0.1229 37.26 49.32 29.40
0.2190 0.1113 49.18
0.1892 0.0728 61.52
Painted Metal 0.2396 0.2279 4.88 22.07
0.2995 0.1373 54.16
0.2664 0.2473 7.17
Plastic 0.1265 0.1078 14.78 16.82
0.2109 0.1926 8.68
0.2122 0.1549 27.00
NTA Ceramic 0.1857 0.0874 52.93 36.36 29.74
0.1609 0.1366 15.10
0.2105 0.1241 41.05
Painted Metal 0.2102 0.2003 4.71 16.84
0.2031 0.1320 35.01
0.1490 0.1329 10.81
Plastic 0.2683 0.2491 7.16 36.03
0.4610 0.2092 54.62
0.4059 0.2179 46.32

EDTA was the most successful at removing contaminant from ceramic at 58.49% with DS IDA being slightly less effective at 49.32% and NTA being the least effective at 36.36%. EDTA and DS IDA were on par for contaminant removal on painted metal with average percent removals at 22%. NTA was the least effective at removing the Hucker's soil at 16.84% on painted metal but was the most effective at removing the soil from plastic substrates. EDTA and DS IDA were similar at approximately 15% at removing contaminant on plastic.

Success Rating:

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

Conclusion:

None of the versions of the warewash formulation were effective at removing the contaminant from ceramic, painted metal, or plastic. Percent content varied greatly and overall removal for all three products averaged at approximately 30%. Since all three products gave similar overall average removals, it is likely that the warewashing formulation itself is not effective.

Save Report as a PDF