Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 2

Trial Purpose:

To evaluate the supplied tablet product for glass cleaning using manual wiping.

Date Run:

11/07/2012

Experiment Procedure:

The supplied product was diluted with water to the requested dilution (1.5 grams/16 ounces). A comparative product was used at the ready-to-use concentration.

Preweighed chrome and three glass coupons were coated with SSL Soil 2 (Glass soap scum: Water 51.5%, Hair gel 25.6%, Toothpaste 10.4%, Shaving cream 5.3%, Hair spray 3.7% and Spray deodorant 3.5%) using a handheld swab and allowed to dry for 24 hours at room temperature. The contaminated coupons were weighed again to determine the amount of soil added.

Three coupons were placed into a Gardner Straight Line Washability unit. A Wypall X60 reinforced wipe was attached to the cleaning sled and soaked with 1-2 sprays of cleaning solutions. Each coupon was sprayed 2-3 times with the same cleaning solution. The solution was allowed to penetrate for 30 seconds followed by cleaning in the SLW unit for 5 cycles (~10 seconds). At the end of the cleaning, coupons were wiped once with a dry paper towel. Final weights were recorded, and efficiencies recorded. Visual observations were made on the coupons for spotting and filming following the general guidelines set forth in the CSPA DCC 09A. Filming is best recognized as "haziness" or overall "milkiness", while streaking is best identified as dried droplets or "spotting", usually found strung together into thin white lines. Each coupon was evaluated separately for filming and streaking, (i.e., product residues without added soil), according to a scale of "1" to "7" where:

Filming Streaking
7 = high filming 7 = high streaking poor (performance)
1 = no visible filming 1 = no visible streaking (excellent performance)

Trial Results:

Both products removed more than 85% of the glass soap scum using manual cleaning. The on-the-market product was slightly better at reducing any filming on the surface than the supplied product. Both had equal ratings for streaking. Filming had the supplied product at 3.2 and the on-the-market product at 2.8. Both products were rated on average at 3.6 for streaking on the 7-point scale. The first table lists the amount of soil added, the amount remaining and the efficiency for each coupon cleaned. The second table lists the ratings made for filming and streaking.

Cleaner Initial wt Final wt % Removed
Sunstate - mirror      
  0.0153 0.0018 88.24
  0.0073 0.0026 64.38
  0.0152 0.0028 81.58
Sunstate - glass      
  0.0153 0.0019 87.58
  0.0124 0.0006 95.16
  0.0101 0.0001 99.01
Sunstate - chrome      
  0.0161 0.0021 86.96
  0.0185 0.0024 87.03
  0.0281 0.0024 91.46
Windex - mirror      
  0.0191 0.0040 79.06
  0.0136 0.0027 80.15
  0.0087 0.0024 72.41
Windex - glass      
  0.0208 0.0014 93.27
  0.0217 0.0036 83.41
  0.0112 0.0006 94.64
Windex - chrome      
  0.0177 0.0025 85.88
  0.0365 0.0026 92.88
  0.0373 0.0035 90.62

Visual Observations

Filming Observer    
Coupon A     B     C     Coupon Ave Product Ave
1A 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.1 3.2
1B 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1.7  
1C 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.9  
2A 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2.6 2.8
2B 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.1  
2C 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3.7  
Streaking                      
Coupon A     B     C        
1A 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4.3 3.6
1B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1.9  
1C 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4.4  
2A 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4.3 3.6
2B 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2.7  
2C 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.7  

Success Rating:

A follow up test, usually based on company input.

Conclusion:

The supplied tablet glass cleaner worked as well as the on-the-market product for soil removal and streaking and was only marginal less in the amount of filming left behind.

Save Report as a PDF