Trial Purpose:
To test the removal of buffing compound by the first 8 selected HSPiP formulations.
Date Run:
03/10/2022Experiment Procedure:
For silver bullet testing approximately 32 chemical combinations were determined via HSPiP. The first predetermined solvent combinations were selected based on their initial solvent in common. In this case, the eight chosen all contained D-limonene.
- Solvent 1 (91% D-limonene and 9% Acetone)
- Solvent 2 (67% D-limonene and 33% Benzyl Benzoate)
- Solvent 3 (85% D-limonene and 15% Dimethyl Glutarate)
- Solvent 4 (92% D-limonene and 8% 1-Propanol)
- Solvent 5 (48% D-limonene, 38% Benzyl Benzoate, and 14% Sec-Butyl Acetate)
- Solvent 6 (85% D-limonene, 14% Dimethyl Glutarate, and 1% Sec-Butyl Acetate)
- Solvent 7 (60% D-limonene, 31% Benzyl Benzoate, and 9% Dimethyl Glutarate)
- Solvent 8 (83% D-limonene, 16% Benzyl Alcohol, and 1% Dimethyl Glutarate)
All mixtures were tested as compatible with both stainless steel and aluminum. The initial contaminant to be tested with these 8 solvents was a buffing compound. Several trials were conducted to determine how to best coat the stainless steel coupons with the buffing compound evenly. Buffing compound is solid at room temperature and melts at temperatures 100F and up. Once heated it has a consistency similar to peanut butter. Unless heat is maintained the contaminant will return to its solid state very rapidly. Coupons were weighed prior to application. For application, the buffing compound was heated with a heat gun until it began to melt and the bottom 1/3rd of the coupons were coated using a knife. The coupons were then weighed again.
Testing was attempted using heated immersion and agitation. Testing began with heated immersion for 15 minutes. All 8 solvents were heated to 38°C (~100°F) in separate beakers each with a stir bar. Coupons were then immersed for 15 minutes and taken out to dry overnight. Clean weights were then taken the next day.
Trial Results:
Overall, solvents 1,3,4,6, and 8 were the most successful at removing the contaminant from the coupons. All had overall averages of 99% and above and were visually clean.
| Solvent | Initial | Dirty | Clean | %Cont Removed | % Average |
| 1 | 59.8741 | 60.6385 | 59.8889 | 98.06 | 99.16 |
| 64.2479 | 65.2430 | 64.2510 | 99.69 | ||
| 62.5696 | 63.8546 | 62.5730 | 99.74 | ||
| 2 | 59.5571 | 60.6692 | 59.5717 | 98.69 | 74.67 |
| 62.6273 | 63.7148 | 63.0858 | 57.84 | ||
| 48.0669 | 49.2687 | 48.4576 | 67.49 | ||
| 3 | 61.4056 | 62.7620 | 61.4115 | 99.57 | 99.48 |
| 63.8754 | 65.2828 | 63.8815 | 99.57 | ||
| 60.8231 | 62.0487 | 60.8314 | 99.32 | ||
| 4 | 63.6883 | 64.6625 | 63.6970 | 99.11 | 99.53 |
| 60.6820 | 62.1820 | 60.6882 | 99.59 | ||
| 61.2520 | 62.4503 | 61.2534 | 99.88 | ||
| 5 | 60.3449 | 62.1062 | 61.8450 | 14.83 | 44.16 |
| 63.8987 | 65.3898 | 63.9122 | 99.09 | ||
| 61.3968 | 62.8461 | 62.5771 | 18.56 | ||
| 6 | 61.2200 | 62.2431 | 61.2271 | 99.31 | 99.55 |
| 61.5231 | 62.9318 | 61.5230 | 100.01 | ||
| 61.5559 | 62.7099 | 61.5634 | 99.35 | ||
| 7 | 61.6283 | 62.5399 | 61.6525 | 97.35 | 75.74 |
| 47.9741 | 49.1548 | 48.7189 | 36.92 | ||
| 48.1116 | 49.0016 | 48.1742 | 92.97 | ||
| 8 | 48.1274 | 49.7392 | 48.1395 | 99.25 | 99.56 |
| 61.4065 | 62.6406 | 61.4100 | 99.72 | ||
| 60.7791 | 62.0579 | 60.7827 | 99.72 |
Success Rating:
Results successful using TACT (time, agitation, concentration, and temperature, as well as rinsing and drying) and/or other cleaning chemistries examined.Conclusion:
Solvents 1,3,4,6, and 8 were extremely efficient at removing the contaminant from the stainless steel coupons. The next step using these 8 cleaners would be to either begin testing on another substrate or to switch contaminants.
