Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors
To identify a suitable, non- or less-toxic substitute cleaner for toluene and toluene-based solvents for this industry sector.
In this trial, the coupons were tested “wet,” only 30 minutes after they were contaminated. The procedure was the same as that for Trial 5: The BYK-Gardner Abrasion Tester was used with a stiff nylon brush.
Dry, clean stainless steel coupons were weighed, then contaminated with one of the two adhesives identified above. Coupons were secured two at a time length-wise, end-to-end into the Abrasion Tester holding tray. The nylon brush was dipped in the respective cleaning solution for several seconds, inserted into the Abrasion Tester, and the machine was turned on and run for 10 cycles. The coupons were then immediately rinsed by immersion into warm (130 F) water for 30 seconds, hung to dry, and then re-weighed to determine the cleaning efficiency.
SUBSTRATE MATERIAL: SS (202-410 B85) and SS (302-B86)
a. Solutia 1151 Adhesive (50601-74-6, 141-78-6, 110-54-3, 103-54-3)
b. Ashland Chemical Adhesive PS8034 (141-78-6, 108-88-3, 67-63-0)
Table 2 highlights the cleaning efficiencies of this experiment.
Table 2. Cleaning Efficiencies
Observations: In general, the cleaners performed better on the Ashland Chemical adhesive than on the Solutia adhesive. The Dynamold 104 appears to be the most effective cleaner for the two adhesives, with efficiencies of 75% and 50%, respectively.
The worst efficiency measures were 13.2%, 13.7%, and 19.6% for trial numbers 2a, 5a, and 3a, respectively, which is an improvement from Trial 5, in which efficiency readings of about 2,4, and 14% were noted. This suggests that the adhesives tested in this trial are not as persistent as the two tested in previous trials.
Success Rating:Results successful using TACT (time, agitation, concentration, and temperature, as well as rinsing and drying) and/or other cleaning chemistries examined.
Based on the results from this trial, it appears that Dynamold DS-104 is a relatively effective cleaner for this application. This is, however, a petroleum distillate formulation, which makes it less attractive from a health, safety and environmental standpoint. Nevertheless, it is rated as a 1 for health, and 2 for fire, meaning slight and moderate risk, respectively. Compared to toluene, rated at 2 and 3 (moderate and high) respectively, this is ostensibly an improvement. The next series of tests will incorporate actual hand wiping for clean up after abrasion testing is complete.