Trial Purpose:
To evaluate ultrasonic energy with successful cleaners.
Date Run:
11/05/2001Experiment Procedure:
The three successful cleaners from the previous trials and the two client supplied cleaners were diluted to 5% using DI water in 600 ml beakers. Each solution was suspended in Crest 40 kHz ultrasonic tank heated to 130 F and degassed for 5 minutes. Sixty preweighed coupons were coated with the four different contaminants and allowed to dry overnight. A second weighing was made. Three coupons of the same contaminant were cleaned in each solution for 3 minutes. Coupons were rinsed in tap water at 120 F for 30 seconds and dried with a Master Appliance Heat Gun at 500 F for 1 minute. Once coupons cooled to room temperature, final clean weights were recorded and efficiencies calculated.
Substrate: 1010 and 1020 Steel
Contaminants: Houghton Rust Veto C3; Rust Preventatives: Castrol Rustilo DWX 30 (64742-82-1; 61790-48-5; 112-34-5),; Rust Preventatives: Castrol Industrial, Inc Rustilo DW 924 HF (64742-53-6, 61790-48-5, 64742-47-8); Lubricant; ITW Fluid Products Power Stamp II (5:1)
Trial Results:
Ultrasonic cleaning was very successful in removing all of the contaminants from the steel coupons. The overall cleaning average for all the cleaners and all the contaminants was 100% removal. The following table lists the efficiencies for each cleaner and the corresponding contaminant.
Table 1. Calculated Efficiencies
| Cleaner | Contaminant | Coupon 1 | Coupon 2 | Coupon 3 |
| Multikleen | Stamp II | 105.61 | 101.85 | 97.52 |
| Multikleen | DW 924 | 86.89 | 100.35 | 100.99 |
| Multikleen | BWX 30 | 101.32 | 100.81 | 101.67 |
| Multikleen | Veto C3 | 99.63 | 96.67 | 97.34 |
| Inproclean | Stamp II | 99.96 | 100.75 | 101.48 |
| Inproclean | DW 924 | 100.21 | 118.52 | 101.25 |
| Inproclean | BWX 30 | 102.69 | 106.58 | 98.96 |
| Inproclean | Veto C3 | 100.88 | 93.71 | 103.38 |
| Beyond | Stamp II | 102.09 | 101.69 | 100.94 |
| Beyond | DW 924 | 108.99 | 100.00 | 103.47 |
| Beyond | BWX 30 | 104.81 | 113.00 | 100.09 |
| Beyond | Veto C3 | 99.05 | 100.12 | 98.59 |
| Dasco | Stamp II | 100.61 | 98.23 | 99.34 |
| Dasco | DW 924 | 99.94 | 102.97 | 100.15 |
| Dasco | BWX 30 | 101.18 | 104.27 | 99.19 |
| Dasco | Veto C3 | 76.06 | 102.94 | 100.34 |
| Certa | Stamp II | 101.31 | 101.26 | 104.86 |
| Certa | DW 924 | 90.83 | 85.59 | 98.17 |
| Certa | BWX 30 | 99.77 | 82.82 | 110.39 |
| Certa | Veto C3 | 95.01 | 97.90 | 97.68 |
When comparing ultrasonic cleaning results to the immersion cleaning results, ultrasonic cleaning was found to be more effective than immrersion cleaning was for all but one contaminant. The Veto C3 was the only contaminant that cleaned better in immrsion cleaning. The second table is a comparison of the average cleaning efficiencies for the cleaning methods.
Table 2. Comparison of Cleaning Methods
| Immersion | Stamp II | DW 924 | DWX 30 | Veto C3 |
| Multikleen | 97.76 | 98.82 | 99.49 | 99.59 |
| Inproclean | 89.33 | 99.17 | 99.80 | 99.99 |
| Beyond | 96.13 | 98.21 | 99.51 | 99.44 |
| Dasco | 97.35 | 98.68 | 99.68 | 99.27 |
| Certa Clean | 91.98 | 83.47 | 89.87 | 98.15 |
| Ultrasonics | Stamp II | DW 924 | DWX 30 | Veto C3 |
| Multikleen | 101.66 | 96.08 | 101.27 | 97.88 |
| Inproclean | 100.73 | 106.66 | 102.74 | 99.32 |
| Beyond | 101.57 | 104.15 | 105.96 | 99.26 |
| Dasco | 99.39 | 101.02 | 101.55 | 93.11 |
| Certa Clean | 102.48 | 91.53 | 97.66 | 96.86 |
Success Rating:
A follow up test, usually based on company input.Conclusion:
Ultrasonic was more effective than immersion cleaning in all but one situation. In the ultrasonic trial, this contaminant was the last contaminant cleaned, therefore it was in the dirtiest solution. In the immersion test, the contaminant was the only one cleaned and therefore in a clean solution. A follow test will be performed comparing immersion and ultrasonic for the Veto C3 contaminant.
