Default object view. Click to create a custom template, Node ID: 7166, Object ID: 7165

Trial #2

Trial #2

To evaluate products using a home dishwasher in place of an industrial research spray washer

2004

12

4

50

50

Coupon

11/22/2004

50.00

Low Pressure Spray

Jason Marshall

Ceramics
Glass/Quartz
Plastic

Hucker's Soil

Tap water spray

Air dry

Gravimetric

Three substrates were selected to represent possible materials that would be cleaned in a dishwasher. Two cleaning products were tested and compared to each other and to water. One scoop of a product was added to the Maytag home dishwasher. Jet-Dry rinse aid was added to the machine.

Six coupons of each substrate were contaminated with Hucker's soil using a hand held swab and allowed to sit for 24 hours. A second set of weights were recorded to determine the amount of soil added to each coupon. In addition to the six coupons that were contaminated, three uncontaminated coupons were included in the washing cycle as a way to determine redeposition of the contaminant onto the surface of the coupons. Therefore nine coupons per substrate were cleaned in the dishwasher (27 total). The cleaning cycle operated at 160 F and run for 50 minutes. At the end of the cleaning/rinsing, the coupons were removed from the unit and allowed to air dry for 48 hours. At the end of the air drying, final weights were recorded and efficiencies were calculated.

Both dishwashing products worked better than water alone on the Hucker's soil under the cleaning conditions. The table lists the amount of soil added, the amount remaining and the efficiency for each coupon and substrate cleaned.

Cleaner Initial wt Final wt Ceramic % Initial wt Final wt Glass % Initial wt Final wt Plastic%
Water 0.3460 0.0814 76.47 0.1803 0.0004 99.78 0.2474 0.0238 90.38
  0.2251 0.0431 80.85 0.211 0.0015 99.29 0.1375 0.0054 96.07
  2.1914 0.3131 85.71 0.1774 0.0017 99.04 0.3809 0.0153 95.98
  0.6356 0.0725 88.59 0.2527 0.0023 99.09 0.2473 0.0135 94.54
  1.0981 0.2328 78.80 0.1706 0.0008 99.53 0.2994 0.0050 98.33
  0.4674 0.0476 89.82 0.1632 0.0010 99.39 0.2021 0.0085 95.79
Cascade 0.3065 0.0092 97.00 0.2457 0.0003 99.88 0.3112 0.0079 97.46
  0.3138 0.0124 96.05 0.4853 0.0006 99.88 0.0978 0.0058 94.07
  0.8656 0.2287 73.58 0.2321 0.0003 99.87 0.1922 0.0037 98.07
  0.395 0.0292 92.61 0.3312 0.0001 99.97 0.2749 0.0036 98.69
  2.0125 0.2045 89.84 0.2054 0.0007 99.66 0.1877 0.0012 99.36
  0.3751 0.0248 93.39 0.2652 0.0016 99.40 0.9729 0.0010 99.90
Cogent 0.3224 0.0316 90.20 0.3096 0.0000 100.00 0.2464 0.0157 93.63
  0.5518 0.0409 92.59 0.1429 0.0006 99.58 0.2279 0.0021 99.08
  0.4962 0.0297 94.01 0.2544 0.0011 99.57 0.2887 0.0086 97.02
  1.1471 0.286 75.07 0.2722 0.0009 99.67 0.3457 0.0018 99.48
  0.4596 0.0547 88.10 0.2489 0.0004 99.84 0.2337 0.0047 97.99
  1.2510 0.1396 88.84 0.2584 0.0009 99.64 0.2960 0.0077 97.40

Substrate Summary

  Ceramic % Glass % Plastic %
Water 83.37 99.35 95.18
Cascade 90.41 99.78 97.93
Cogent 88.13 99.72 97.43

Again the ceramic coupons cleaned with the Cascade were the only control coupons to gain substantial weight during cleaning.

  Ceramic Glass Plastic
Water -0.0562 0.0018 0.0042
Cascade 0.0283 0.0005 0.0011
Cogent 0.0169 0.0003 0.0017

The Cogent and Cascade products compared very closely to each other when cleaning was performed in the Maytag dishwasher.

No relation

Name Class Section
Document Evaluation #0 Evaluation 3
Document Evaluation #1 Evaluation 3
Document Evaluation #2 Evaluation 3
Powered by eZ Publish™ CMS Open Source Web Content Management. Copyright © 1999-2014 eZ Systems AS (except where otherwise noted). All rights reserved.