Trial #6
To evaluate client requested products on supplied parts
Two products were selected based on client request for cleaning supplied parts. Both was diluted to 5% using DI water in 1500 ml beakers and heated to 130 F on a hot plate. Each solution was degassed for 5 minutes in a Crest 40 kHz ultrasonic tank. OSEE readings for six supplied parts were recorded using a PET SQM 100. Multiple readings were made for each of the parts. Three parts were cleaned in each solution for 6 minutes using ultrasonic energy. Parts were rinsed in DI water at 120 F for 15 seconds followed by drying with a Master Appliance Heat Gun at 500 F for 30 seconds. Once dry parts were dry, OSEE readings were recorded. The parts were then visibly inspected and wiped with a white towel soaked with Acetone to determine cleanliness.
Contaminant: Milacron Marketing Company CIMTECH® 310 metal working fluid concentrate (102-71-6, 78-96-6, 26896-20-8)
The parts cleaned during this trial did not show any signs of the black residue after wiping with acetone soaked towels and swabs. OSEE readings showed that Det O Jet performed slightly better than the Liquinox. Table 1 below lists the OSEE readings for all six parts cleaned.
Table 1. OSEE Measurements
| Det O Jet
|
|
|
|
Liquinox
|
|
|
|
Dirty OSEE
|
Clean OSEE
|
|
Dirty OSEE
|
Clean OSEE
|
| Elbow 1 body
|
157
|
471
|
Elbow 4 body
|
202
|
257
|
|
|
154
|
440
|
|
184
|
228
|
|
|
146
|
331
|
|
247
|
209
|
|
|
162
|
377
|
|
211
|
272
|
|
|
151
|
291
|
|
191
|
278
|
|
|
137
|
236
|
|
188
|
209
|
|
|
151
|
358
|
|
204
|
242
|
| Elbow 1 ring
|
260
|
573
|
Elbow 4 ring
|
225
|
288
|
|
|
272
|
531
|
|
293
|
314
|
|
|
246
|
493
|
|
244
|
327
|
|
|
323
|
521
|
|
314
|
314
|
|
|
271
|
707
|
|
339
|
375
|
|
|
445
|
444
|
|
365
|
281
|
| Average
|
303
|
545
|
Average
|
297
|
317
|
| Tee 1
|
154
|
276
|
Tee 2
|
35
|
273
|
|
|
136
|
321
|
|
199
|
268
|
|
|
118
|
315
|
|
206
|
243
|
|
|
154
|
288
|
|
158
|
288
|
|
|
147
|
311
|
|
223
|
268
|
|
|
171
|
268
|
|
157
|
239
|
|
|
153
|
248
|
|
171
|
201
|
|
|
109
|
305
|
|
188
|
321
|
|
|
144
|
383
|
|
203
|
288
|
|
|
113
|
354
|
|
161
|
272
|
| Average
|
140
|
307
|
Average
|
170
|
266
|
| Elbow 2 body
|
175
|
213
|
Tee 3
|
171
|
331
|
|
|
275
|
207
|
|
249
|
274
|
|
|
208
|
212
|
|
276
|
329
|
|
|
234
|
215
|
|
192
|
400
|
|
|
136
|
251
|
|
183
|
301
|
|
|
79
|
260
|
|
197
|
254
|
| Average
|
185
|
226
|
|
131
|
233
|
| Elbow 2 ring
|
181
|
244
|
|
164
|
257
|
|
|
170
|
230
|
|
262
|
277
|
|
|
213
|
223
|
|
198
|
312
|
|
|
185
|
208
|
Average
|
202
|
297
|
|
|
154
|
214
|
|
|
|
|
|
173
|
212
|
|
|
|
| Average
|
179
|
222
|
|
|
|
When comparing the results from this trial with the two products evaluated previously, the Daraclean product resulted in the cleanest parts based on OSEE readings, followed by Det O Jet. Citranox and Liquinox resulted in similar cleaning effectiveness. Table 2 lists the results from both this trial and the trial conducted for Daraclean and Citranox.
Table 2. Project Cleaning Comparison
| Trial 5
|
|
|
|
Trial 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dirty
|
|
|
|
Dirty
|
|
|
|
|
T
|
E
|
E Ring
|
|
T
|
E
|
E Ring
|
| Overall
|
151
|
152
|
203
|
Overall
|
171
|
219
|
229
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clean
|
|
|
|
Clean
|
|
|
|
|
T
|
E
|
E Ring
|
|
T
|
E
|
E Ring
|
| Citranox
|
275
|
254
|
330
|
Det O Jet
|
307
|
292
|
383
|
| Daraclean
|
425
|
427
|
420
|
Liquinox
|
281
|
242
|
317
|
| Acetone
|
165
|
245
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
288
|
308
|
298
|
|
|
|
|
Both products tested in this trial did remove the black coating that has been a problem for the client. Det-O-Jet was more effective than the Liquinox. When compared to the previous trial, Daraclean 282 was the most effective product evaluated thus far.
No relation