Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 1

Trial Purpose:

Further evaluation of positioning during cleaning

Date Run:

05/16/1995

Experiment Procedure:

Testing the how the positions of the tubes will effect the cleaning inside the tubes. Two cleaners will be used, 10% Skyproducts Cleaner #10 and 4% ManGill #0650. For Each Cleaner. three position of the copper rods will be used. First the tubes will be filled with water and pointed hole side up (about a 60 degree angle). Second, the tubes will be filled with water and lie on their side. Finally, the tubes will be filled with water and pointed hole side down.

Samples were cleaned using Crest Ultrasonics in a beaker for 15 minutes at 140 degrees. For all three testing conditions we made sure that the tubes were totally filled with cleaner solution before cleaning. The samples were rinsed in a beaker filled with tap water at 140 degrees and agitated with a stirbar. The tubes were rinsed with the hole side up so that the oil was allowed to escape. After rinsing the water was drained out of the tubes and they were placed in a convection oven set at 160 for an hour and then in a vacuum oven set at for one hour. The tubes were then left out through the night in a desiccator. All samples were weighed before cleaning and after drying. The amount of residual oil on the inside of the tubes was checked by inserting a cotton swab in the hole and noticing the oil buildup on it. The amount of oil buildup will be termed: none, slight, moderate, heavy.

Trial Results:

Gravimetric Analysis

sample # and positioning amount of oil inside tubes (swab test) weight with contamination(g) weight after cleaning (g) weight change (g)
73,upward slight 15.6945 15.6683 0.0262
74, upward slight 15.7376 15.7181 0.0195
75, upward slight 15.562 15.5396 0.0224
76,upward slight 15.6617 15.6134 0.0483
77, upward slight 15.5974 15.5769 0.0205
78, upward slight 15.6204 15.6098 0.0106
79, upward none 15.6362 15.6256 0.0106
80, upward moderate 15.5382 15.4963 0.0419
81, sideways moderate 15.6331 15.6114 0.0217
82, sideways slight 15.5534 15.5463 0.0071
83, sideways slight 15.5617 15.5293 0.0324
84, sideways heavy 15.5791 15.5556 0.0235
85, sideways slight 15.4786 15.4661 0.0125
86, sideways slight 15.6695 15.6598 0.0097
87, sideways moderate 15.5421 15.5358 0.0063
88, sideways slight 15.6569 15.6247 0.0322
89, downward slight 15.6124 15.5965 0.0159
90, downward heavy 15.631 15.6305 0.0005
91, downward moderate 15.656 15.6271 0.0289
92, downward heavy 15.6042 15.5612 0.0430
93, downward moderate 15.6173 15.5832 0.0341
94, downward moderate 15.5984 15.5929 0.0055
95, downward heavy 15.6092 15.6122 ‑0.0030
96, downward moderate 15.6375 15.6071 0.0304

Notes and Observations:
Hole side up-Oil removal from the inside of the tubes was very noticeable upon insertion into the ultrasonic bath. Water easily entered the tubes during cleaning and rinsing. Average removal was .025 grams with a standard deviation of .0136.
Hole side down-No noticeable removal during cleaning, but when emptying the cleaner out of the tubes after cleaning, a lot of oil came out. The same observation was made after draining out the tubes after rinsing. Average removal was .0226 grams with a standard deviation of .0157. Sideways-After about ten minutes in the Ultrasonic bath, oil started to come out of the tubes and
continued for the duration of the cleaning. A bunch of oil came out of the tubes when drained after cleaning and rinsing. Probably would achieve better removal with either tubes pointed up slightly or with a longer cleaning time. Tubes were harder to fill up in the cleaner solution, they needed to be tipped up a bit and shaken around. Average removal was .0182 grams with a
standard deviation of .0107

Success Rating:

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

Conclusion:

Tubes looked pretty clean but there seemed to be a slight amount of white, tacky residue left on the tubes.  There was also a bit of copper chips noticed on the bottom of the beaker of Mangill cleaner solution.  I believe this wasn't caused by the Ultrasonic cleaning but was just the removal of small copper chips that were on the tubes prior to cleaning.  Swab tests showed that the upright positioning of the tubes did a better job of removing oil from the inside.  The Mangil Gillite 0650 cleaner was not as effective as the Skyproducts cleaner despite removing a larger mass in all three positions.

Save Report as a PDF