Trial Purpose:
The purpose of this test is to check whether the cleaners Multipurpose, Multipurpose HC and Proforce Bathroom are effective in removing soil bathroom soil from the surface of the Ceramic, Fiber Glass and Chrome or not.
Date Run:
12/19/2014Experiment Procedure:
Preweighed chrome, ceramic and fiberglass, coupons were coated with SSL Soil 1 (Bathroom soap scum: All-in-one shampoo and conditioner 28.6%, Dry skin lotion 21.4%, Liquid hand soap 21.4%, Liquid body wash 14.3%, Deodorant bar soap 7.2% and water 7.1%.) 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 2-3 sprays of cleaning solutions. Each coupon was sprayed 1-2 times with the same cleaning solution. The solution was allowed to penetrate for 30 seconds followed by cleaning in the SLW unit for 20 cycles (~33 seconds). At the end of the cleaning, coupons were wiped once with a dry paper towel. Final weights were measured and efficiencies were calculated and recorded.
Cleaners: Multipurpose; Multipurpose HC; Proforce Bathroom
Trial Results:
The bathroom soil was already made and was soiled in the surface of the coupons. Coupons were left for 2 hours to dry. Dirty weight was recorded, and the coupons were cleaned using manual wipe and left overnight to dry. After cleaning, the weight was recorded, and percent removal was calculated. Based on the result, on average all cleaners were effective in removing soil from the surface of ceramic, fiber glass and chrome. The table lists the amount of soil added, the amount remaining after cleaning and the calculated efficiency for soil used.
| Cleaner | Initial wt | Final wt | % Removed | Average |
| Multipurpose 1:16_ceramic | 0.0467 | 0.0024 | 94.86 | |
| Multipurpose 1:16_ceramic | 0.0431 | 0.0025 | 94.20 | |
| Multipurpose 1:16_ceramic | 0.0739 | 0.0027 | 96.35 | 95.14 |
| Multipurpose 1:16_plastic | 0.0191 | 0.0111 | 79.17 | |
| Multipurpose 1:16_plastic | 0.0632 | 0.0940 | 65.22 | |
| Multipurpose 1:16_plastic | 0.0476 | 0.0508 | 85.82 | 76.74 |
| Multipurpose 1:16_chrome | 0.0535 | 0.0015 | 97.20 | |
| Multipurpose 1:16_chrome | 0.0660 | 0.0019 | 97.12 | |
| Multipurpose 1:16_chrome | 0.0944 | 0.0026 | 97.25 | 97.19 |
| Multipurpose HC 1:25.6_ceramic | 0.1881 | 0.0135 | 92.82 | |
| Multipurpose HC 1:25.6_ceramic | 0.0728 | 0.0009 | 98.76 | |
| Multipurpose HC 1:25.6_ceramic | 0.1399 | 0.0053 | 96.21 | 95.93 |
| Multipurpose HC 1:25.6_plastic | 0.2219 | 0.0539 | 75.71 | |
| Multipurpose HC 1:25.6_plastic | 0.2727 | 0.0493 | 81.92 | |
| Multipurpose HC 1:25.6_plastic | 0.2579 | 0.0074 | 97.13 | 84.92 |
| Multipurpose HC 1:25.6_chrome | 0.0533 | 0.0111 | 79.17 | |
| Multipurpose HC 1:25.6_chrome | 0.2703 | 0.0940 | 65.22 | |
| Multipurpose HC 1:25.6_chrome | 0.3583 | 0.0508 | 85.82 | 76.74 |
| Proforce Bathroom_ceramic | 0.2907 | 0.0356 | 87.75 | |
| Proforce Bathroom_ceramic | 0.1868 | 0.0483 | 74.14 | |
| Proforce Bathroom_ceramic | 0.0877 | 0.0096 | 89.05 | 83.65 |
| Proforce Bathroom_plastic | 0.2322 | 0.0601 | 74.12 | |
| Proforce Bathroom_plastic | 0.1795 | 0.0340 | 81.06 | |
| Proforce Bathroom_plastic | 0.2476 | 0.0218 | 91.20 | 82.12 |
| Proforce Bathroom_chrome | 0.1156 | 0.0130 | 88.75 | |
| Proforce Bathroom_chrome | 0.2436 | 0.0342 | 85.96 | |
| Proforce Bathroom_chrome | 0.2320 | 0.0318 | 86.29 | 87.00 |
Success Rating:
Results successful using TACT (time, agitation, concentration, and temperature, as well as rinsing and drying) and/or other cleaning chemistries examined.Conclusion:
On average, all three cleaners were efficient in cleaning bathroom soil from all surfaces, but they were not effective on all individual surfaces. Multipurpose was not effective in cleaning plastic surfaces at 76.74% removal. Multipurpose HC was not effective in cleaning chrome surfaces at 76.74% removal. Proforce bathroom was not effective in cleaning ceramic and plastic surfaces but was very close to the 85% standard threshold with efficiencies of 83.65% and 82.12% respectively.
