Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 7

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:

07/15/2022

Experiment Procedure:

The third experiment conducted was the Hard Surface formulation with EDTA, DS IDA, and NTA. The formulation consisted of 0.8 parts (EDTA/DS IDA/NTA), 0.6 parts Multirope 1620 (substituting Lutensol), 0.8 parts Glucapon 420, 1.85 parts Texapon 842, and 95.95 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: Hard Surface Results

Product Substrate Initial wt of cont. Final wt of cont. %Cont Removed Average Overall Average
EDTA Ceramic 0.0956 0.0291 69.56 67.90 71.50
0.1002 0.0219 78.14
0.0841 0.0370 56.00
Painted Metal 0.2001 0.0412 79.41 79.58
0.1667 0.0331 80.14
0.1739 0.0362 79.18
Plastic 0.0995 0.0113 88.64 67.02
0.1467 0.0672 54.19
0.3179 0.1328 58.23
DS IDA Ceramic 0.1050 0.0222 78.86 72.96 70.08
0.0733 0.0220 69.99
0.0761 0.0228 70.04
Painted Metal 0.3173 0.0629 80.18 77.84
0.0863 0.0245 71.61
0.1380 0.0252 81.74
Plastic 0.2853 0.1121 60.71 59.44
0.1499 0.0730 51.30
0.1363 0.0459 66.32
NTA Ceramic 0.0530 0.0212 60.00 60.48 69.86
0.0801 0.0282 64.79
0.0616 0.0267 56.66
Painted Metal 0.1461 0.0378 74.13 74.71
0.1933 0.0322 83.34
0.1110 0.0370 66.67
Plastic 0.1319 0.0291 77.94 74.38
0.1434 0.0230 83.96
0.1360 0.0527 61.25

DS IDA was the most effective at removing the contaminant from ceramic substrates with an average of 72.96% removal, EDTA was slightly less effective at 67.90% removal, followed by NTA at 60.48% as the least effective. EDTA and DS IDA were similar in their removal percentages on painted metal with EDTA being slightly more effective at 79.58% removal and DS IDA at 77.84% removal. NTA was the least effective of the cleaners with an average removal of 74.71% on painted metal but was the most effective at removing the contaminant from plastic. NTA had an average removal percentage of 74.38% with EDTA following with an average removal of 67.02%, and DS IDA at an average removal of 59.44%.

Success Rating:

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

Conclusion:

The Hard Surface formulation was less effective than the TM09 All Purpose formulation but much more effective than the Warewashing formulation. EDTA, DS IDA, and NTA all averaged around 70 percent overall removal for this formulation, and the averages compared across substrates varied little. This formulation is somewhat effective and is more improved than the warewashing formulation. However, the TM09 All Purpose formulation remains the most effective across all substrates and EDTA/DS IDA/NTA changes.

Save Report as a PDF