Trial Purpose:
To evaluate supplied products for glass cleaning using manual cleaning
Date Run:
07/21/2014Experiment Procedure:
Supplied products were diluted with room temperature water to the requested dilution. Preweighed Glass, Chorme, and 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 L20 reinforced wipe was ttached 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
1 = high filming 1 = high streaking (poor performance)
7 = no visible filming 7 = no visible streaking (excellent performance)
Chemistries Evaluated: Windex; Hydrolysis Orange;
Trial Results:
| Cleaner | Initial wt | Final wt | % Removed | Avg % Removal |
| Windex_Mirror | 0.0576 | 0.0115 | 80.03 | 91.98 |
| 0.1152 | 0.0033 | 97.14 | ||
| 0.1055 | 0.0013 | 98.77 | ||
| Windex_Glass | 0.0515 | 0.0070 | 86.41 | 93.58 |
| 0.0715 | 0.0031 | 95.66 | ||
| 0.0906 | 0.0012 | 98.68 | ||
| Windex_Chrome | 0.1307 | 0.0509 | 61.06 | 64.12 |
| 0.1840 | 0.0565 | 69.29 | ||
| 0.1880 | 0.0714 | 62.02 | ||
| HydrysOrange_Mirror | 0.0537 | 0.0086 | 83.99 | 89.80 |
| 0.0906 | 0.0066 | 92.72 | ||
| 0.0562 | 0.0041 | 92.70 | ||
| Hydrys Orange_Glass | 0.0722 | 0.0126 | 82.55 | 90.41 |
| 0.1272 | 0.0088 | 93.08 | ||
| 0.0911 | 0.0040 | 95.61 | ||
| Hydrys Orange_Chrome | 0.1101 | 0.0743 | 32.5200 | 62.30 |
| 0.1688 | 0.0363 | 78.50 | ||
| 0.1564 | 0.0377 | 75.90 |
From the above gravimetric analysis, we can see that Windex performed better than Hydrolysis Orange at 83.23% compared to 80.84%.
| Cleaners | Substrate | S1 | F1 | S2 | F2 | S3 | F3 | S4 | F4 | S5 | F5 |
| Windex Glass | Mirror | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Windex Glass | Mirror | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Windex Glass | Mirror | 4.5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Windex Glass | Glass | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Windex Glass | Glass | 5 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Windex Glass | Glass | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| Hydrolysis Orange | Mirror | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Hydrolysis Orange | Mirror | 2.5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Hydrolysis Orange | Mirror | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Hydrolysis Orange | Glass | 3.5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Hydrolysis Orange | Glass | 4.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4.5 | 4 | 5 |
| Hydrolysis Orange | Glass | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
Summary
| Cleaners | Substrate | Streaking Average | Filming Average |
| Windex | Mirror | 3.2 | 3.3 |
| Windex | Glass | 4.7 | 5.7 |
| Hydrolysis Orange | Mirror | 2.5 | 3.0 |
| Hydrolysis Orange | Glass | 4.3 | 3.3 |
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 Hydrolysis Orange were both effective in removal of soil from mirror and glass. Both had removal of above 85%. Both cleaners were ineffective in removal of soil from chrome surfaces. Windex had a higher effective removal on all three surfaces compared to Hydrolysis Orange and also had less amount of surface residuals as shown on the visual analysis.
