Trial #2

Trial #2

To evaluate supplied products for glass cleaning using manual cleaning

2014

22

2

0

0

Coupon

11/19/2014

0.50

Manual Wipe

John Truong

Chrome
Glass/Quartz

Films
Soaps

None

Air dry

Gravimetric
Visual

Supplied products were diluted with room temperature water to the requested dilution.

Preweighed Glass; Chrome; 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 attached 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" wher:
Filming Streaking
1 = no visible filming 1 = no visible streaking (excellent performance)
7 = high filming 7 = high streaking (poor performance)

Chemistries Evaluated: H2 Orange 2 Tile 1:256; Tile Grout HC 1:512; Multi-Purp HC 1:256;

Visual Results

Filming  

From the above gravimetric analysis, we can see that the Multi-Purpose Hyper Concentrate is more effective on the glass, chrome, and mirror substrates at an average of 92.96% compared to H2 Orange 2 Tile and Tile Grout Hyper Concentrate at 86.92% and 81.76%, respectfully. Only H2 Orange 2 Tile Grout Hyper Concentrated and Multipurpose Hyper Concentrated cleaners are effective at removing glass soil as both cleaners have efficiency above 85%. Standard rating of a cleaner’s effectiveness is measured by the effective cleaner’s efficiency on the basis of 85% or above would deem a cleaner to be effective at removing that particular soil.

Multi-Purpose Hyper Concentrate had the least streaking on glass compared to the rest of the streaking caused by H2 Orange Tile Grout Hyper Concentrated and Tile Grout Hyper Concentrated. Overall H2 Orange Tile caused less streaking on the mirror with an average of 5.3%. However, it was only slightly better than Tile Grout Hyper Concentrate and Multipurpose Hyper Concentrated by 0.8% on average. Multipurpose Hyper Concentrated and Tile Grout Hyper Concentrated caused the less filming on average of 2.7% and 3% on glass respectively. Tile Grout Hyper Concentrated was the second most efficient with 3% on average for filming. Tile Grout Hyper Concentrated and Multipurpose Hyper Concentrated have an average close to 3.2% for causing filming on mirror substrates. However, H2 Orange Tile Grout Hyper Concentrated causes a filming on average of 6.2% on mirror substrates.

Overall Multipurpose is the most effective cleaner at removing glass soil from substrates and causes the less streaking on glass and filming on glass/mirror substrates. Even though Tile Grout Hyper Concentrated is not effective at removing glass soil; it does however cause the fewest filming and streaking on the substrates when cleaned. Although H2 Orange Tile Grout Hyper Concentrated does effectively clean the substrates; it causes a lot of filming and streaking as a result of cleaning.

No relation