Trial Purpose:
To evaluate supplied products for glass cleaning using manual cleaning
Date Run:
10/30/2013Experiment Procedure:
Supplied products were diluted with room temperature water to the requested dilution; 1 gram of salt was resolved into 1.5 liter of water then were electronically activated two times. PH was 8.6 and chorine level was 50 ppm. 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 hand held 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 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)
ChemistriesEvaluated: Toucan; Perforce - Glass cleaner;
Trial Results:
Products had filming and spotting levels below the acceptable level from Green Seal cutoff number 3. The tables list the amount of soil added, the amount remaining, the efficiency for each coupon cleaned.
| Cleaner | Initial wt | Final wt | % Removed | Ave Substrate | Product Ave |
| Toucan Glass | |||||
| 0.1866 | 0.0141 | 92.44 | 96.36 | 91.00 | |
| 0.1201 | 0.0028 | 97.67 | |||
| 0.1460 | 0.0015 | 98.97 | |||
| Toucan Chrome | |||||
| 0.1807 | 0.0154 | 91.48 | 81.13 | ||
| 0.1952 | 0.0510 | 73.87 | |||
| 0.2027 | 0.0445 | 78.05 | |||
| Toucan Mirror | |||||
| 0.1130 | 0.0066 | 94.16 | 95.52 | ||
| 0.1355 | 0.0050 | 96.31 | |||
| 0.1226 | 0.0048 | 96.08 | |||
| Proforce Glass | |||||
| 0.1564 | 0.0023 | 98.53 | 97.45 | 94.11 | |
| 0.1509 | 0.0055 | 96.36 | |||
| 0.1538 | 0.0039 | 97.46 | |||
| Proforce Chrome | |||||
| 0.4493 | 0.0200 | 95.55 | 91.08 | ||
| 0.4054 | 0.0323 | 92.03 | |||
| 0.1542 | 0.0221 | 85.67 | |||
| Proforce Mirror | |||||
| 0.2922 | 0.0106 | 96.37 | 93.79 | ||
| 0.2387 | 0.0308 | 87.10 | |||
| 0.1338 | 0.0028 | 97.91 |
Visual Results
| Filming | Streaking | |||||||
| Coupon | tester 1 | 2 | 3 | AVE | tester1 | 2 | 3 | AVE |
| Toucan Glass | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3.3 |
| Toucan Mirror | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4.3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4.3 |
| Proforce Glass | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4.3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 4.3 |
| Proforce Mirror | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5.6 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6 |
Success Rating:
Results successful using TACT (time, agitation, concentration, and temperature, as well as rinsing and drying) and/or other cleaning chemistries examined.Conclusion:
The compared products had overall average removal efficiency greater than 90% but they did not have acceptable filming and streaking levels.
