Trial Purpose:
To evaluate supplied products for glass cleaning using manual cleaning
Date Run:
06/25/2014Experiment Procedure:
Supplied products were diluted with room temperature water to the requested dilution. Preweighed Glass;Chorme;Mirror 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 spray of cleaning solutions. Each coupon was sprayed 1-3 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)
Chemistries Evaluated: EcoGreen; Windex; MD Stetson Vision;
Trial Results:
| Cleaner | Initial wt | Final wt | % Removed |
| EcoGreenCleanGlass_Chrome_GlassSoil_06_23_14 | |||
| 0.0401 | 0.0090 | 77.56 | |
| 0.0379 | 0.0061 | 83.91 | |
| 0.0532 | 0.0313 | 41.17 | |
| EcoGreenCleanGlass_Mirror_GlassSoil_06_23_14 | |||
| 0.0729 | 0.0089 | 87.79 | |
| 0.0429 | 0.0084 | 80.42 | |
| 0.0460 | 0.0115 | 75.00 | |
| EcoGreenCleanGlass_Glass_GlassSoil_06_23_14 | |||
| 0.0659 | 0.0128 | 80.58 | |
| 0.0523 | 0.0122 | 76.67 | |
| 0.0595 | 0.0116 | 80.50 | |
| Windex_Glass_GlassSoil_06_23_14 | |||
| 0.2405 | 0.0071 | 97.05 | |
| 0.4600 | 0.0092 | 98.00 | |
| 0.1337 | 0.0087 | 93.49 | |
| Windex_Mirror_GlassSoil_06_23_14 | |||
| 0.5213 | 0.0181 | 96.53 | |
| 0.3431 | 0.0052 | 98.48 | |
| 0.5661 | 0.0047 | 99.17 | |
| Windex_Chrome_GlassSoil_06_23_14 | |||
| 1.0054 | 0.0062 | 99.38 | |
| 0.4433 | 0.0116 | 97.38 | |
| 0.5079 | 0.0104 | 97.95 | |
| MDVision_Glass_GlassSoil_06_23_14 | |||
| 0.4509 | 0.0275 | 93.90 | |
| 0.1372 | 0.0421 | 69.31 | |
| 0.2672 | 0.0314 | 88.25 | |
| MDVision_Mirror_GlassSoil_06_23_14 | |||
| 0.1271 | 0.0285 | 77.58 | |
| 0.1055 | 0.0156 | 85.21 | |
| 0.1258 | 0.0074 | 94.12 | |
| MDVision_Chrome_GlassSoil_06_23_14 | |||
| 0.1598 | 0.0315 | 80.29 | |
| 0.7350 | 0.0449 | 93.89 | |
| 0.2220 | 0.0389 | 82.48 |
From the above gravimetric analysis, we can see that Windex performed the best, followed by MDVision and EcoGreen, with EcoGreen performing significantly worse than the competing products.
| Cleaners | Substrate | S1 | F1 | S2 | F2 | S3 | F3 | S4 | F4 | S5 | F5 | Avg. S | Avg. F |
| Eco-Green Clean Glass | Mirror | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.4 | 4.8 |
| Eco-Green Clean Glass | Mirror | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.6 | 4.0 |
| Eco-Green Clean Glass | Mirror | 5.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.8 | 4.2 |
| Eco-Green Clean Glass | Glass | 3.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.8 | 4.4 |
| Eco-Green Clean Glass | Glass | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.2 | 4.4 |
| Eco-Green Clean Glass | Glass | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 4.2 |
| Windex | Glass | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 3.4 | 3.4 |
| Windex | Glass | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.6 | 3.4 |
| Windex | Glass | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 3.2 | 4.0 |
| Windex | Mirror | 3.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 3.4 | 3.2 |
| Windex | Mirror | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 3.4 | 3.2 |
| Windex | Mirror | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.4 | 3.2 |
| MD Vision | Glass | 4.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.4 |
| MD Vision | Glass | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.2 | 4.2 |
| MD Vision | Glass | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 3.6 |
| MD Vision | Mirror | 5.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 4.4 | 4.4 |
| MD Vision | Mirror | 5.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| MD Vision | Mirror | 4.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 3.6 | 4.2 |
Average Streaking and Filming Results
| Streaking | Filming | |
| Eco-Green Clean Glass | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| 3.9 | 4.3 | |
| Windex | 3.4 | 3.6 |
| 3.4 | 3.2 | |
| MD Vision | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| 4.0 | 4.2 |
Success Rating:
Results successful using TACT (time, agitation, concentration, and temperature, as well as rinsing and drying) and/or other cleaning chemistries examined.Conclusion:
Windex and MDVision both had removal levels greater than 85% and thus were effective at removing the majority of the soil, while EcoGreen was not effective. This was reflected in the visual analysis, where Windex was shown to have the least amount of surface residue.
