Trial Number 0

Nine coupons per cleaner on three different substrates (ceramic, plastic and painted steel) were set up in rows of three on a tray. Initial weights were taken of all three substrates and immediately soiled with about 0.5g of Hucker’s soil. They were allowed to dry for two hours before recording the dirty weights of the coupons. Three coupons of a single substrate were placed into a Gardner Straight Line Washability unit at a time. A Wypall X60 reinforced wipe was attached to the cleaning sled and treated with two sprays of cleaning solutions.  Each coupon was sprayed two 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 (~30 seconds).  At the end of the cleaning, final weights were recorded and efficiencies recorded.

The Logo Technologies products had a wide range of percent efficiency to the comparative product, Kaboom. However, when the standard deviation for each cleaner was calculated for, all of the products fell within a similar confidence interval range. Therefore, all of the products could be considered effective.

In conclusion, the NatSurFact products performed fairly well, with efficiencies in the 70’s. The best of them was NatSurFact B which did have an efficiency of 79.42%. The Kaboom product was found to perform better than any of the NatSurFact products with an efficiency of about 87.49% overall, but standard deviation calculations showed all the products tested fell within the same range of effectiveness.