Trial Purpose:
To evaluate bio-based floor strippers on plastic composite tiles and ceramic tiles.
Date Run:
01/18/2005Experiment Procedure:
One product, Johnson Floor Stripper, was used at 25% v/v concentration. Six pre-weighed plastic composite tiles were coated with Johnson Wax Professional Show Place floor finish (40861-29-8, 78-51-3, 34590-94-8, 111-90-0) using a hand held swab. The finish was dried using a hand held heat gun for two minutes at ~300 F. Once the finish/coupon had cooled, three more coats were applied following the same procedure. Coupons were reweighed to determine the amount of finish that was applied. Six other pre-weighed ceramic tiles were also provided with 3 coatings a similar way.
Three coupons from each substrate composition were sprayed with a cleaning product. The formulation was allowed to sit on the finish surface for 10 minutes. These coupons were placed in the Gardner Abrasion Tester for manual wiping. An abrasive pad (QEP Grout Clean Up Kit Coarse) was held firmly on the abrasive machine in order to imitate the working properties of the floor tripping machine. The cleaning lasted for 5 minutes with a spraying interval of 1 minute with spraying of the cleaning agent on the pad as well as on the tiles in between. At the end the performance of Johnson floor stripper was evaluated quantitatively using gravimetric method and qualitatively using black light. This evaluation was done on each of the three coupons for each cleaning method.
Trial Results:
The table below lists the amount of finish applied, remaining and the percent effectiveness for each coupon cleaned.
Quantitative Assessment of the cleanness:
| Cleaning Method | Ceramic Tiles | Plastic Tiles | ||||||
| Mechanical Abrasion | Initial wt | Final wt | % Removed | Average | Initial wt | Final wt | % Removed | Average |
| 0.5181 | 0.1125 | 78.28 | 0.4749 | 0.0167 | 96.5 | |||
| 0.698 | -0.0304 | 95.64 | 90.70% | 0.5499 | -0.0011 | 100.2 | 99.30% | |
| 0.5206 | -0.0126 | 97.58 | 0.4842 | -0.0061 | 101.3 | |||
| Rotary Pads | Ceramic Tiles | Plastic Tiles | ||||||
| Initial wt | Final wt | % Removed | Average | Initial wt | Final wt | % Removed | Average | |
| 0.7156 | 0.0769 | 89.25 | 0.5928 | -0.9976 | 268.3 | |||
| 0.5025 | 0.0491 | 90.23 | 91.8 | 0.4758 | 1.0928 | -129.67 | 81.6 | |
| 0.8136 | -0.0315 | 96.13 | 0.6444 | -0.0394 | 106.11 | |||
Qualitative Assessment of the cleanness:
| Ceramic Tiles | Plastic Tiles | |||
| Cleaning Method | Observer 1 | Observer 2 | Observer 1 | Observer 2 |
| Mechanical Abrasion | 98 | 90 | 99.9 | 99 |
| 99.9 | 99 | 99.9 | 99 | |
| 99 | 97 | 99.9 | 99 | |
| Ave Efficiency: | 95 | Ave Efficiency: | 99 | |
| Rotary Pads | 99 | 99 | 99.9 | 99 |
| 99 | 99 | 97 | 86 | |
| 99 | 99 | 99 | 97 | |
| Aver Efficiency: | 99 | Ave Efficiency: | 94 | |
Success Rating:
A follow up test, usually based on company input.Conclusion:
Johnson Floor Stripper seems to have worked pretty well in all operations and on all the coupons
