3100 EXTENDED TIME TEST
 Home
 Product
 Business Ops
 History
 Track Record
 FAQ
 TAX Credit?
 Affidavit
 SiteMap
 Order Form
 3020
 3030
 3060
 3070
 3100
 3110
 3080
 

 pHluorus Inc.

 Tier 3000 Series Technical Reports

 Report 3100

 EXTENDED TIME TEST FOR COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION OF PHLOURUS 

 AND MAJOR CLEANERS ON MOST COMMON TILE GROUPS

pHluorus Inc. PO box 95870 South Jordan UT, 84095-0870 1-800-SAV-SLIP

Copyright 1990, - pHluorus Inc.,

I. PURPOSE

 

The purpose of this test is to determine how pHluorus, an acid-based cleaning compound produced by pHluorus Inc., and five other industrial cleaners effect the surface abrasiveness of various floor tiles. The experiment simulates the wear and cleaning floor tiles would receive in a commercial area or restaurant kitchen environment over a ten month period. The experiment shows how effective the cleaners are with respect to one another in maintaining an abrasive slip-resistant surface.

 

 

II. EQUIPMENT

 

The following equipment and instruments were used in the experiment:

1. A force dial scale from Wagner Instruments, with a range from 1 to 11 pounds.

2. A pull spring scale, with a range of 0 to 15 pounds.

3. Three inch square samples of pyrolite, rubber, and leather shoe sole material each glued   to a wooden block. An eye bolt was attached to one end for pulling and sufficient weight   was added on top so that each unit weighed 5 pounds.

4. A five inch by ten inch sample of leather shoe sole material glued to a wooden box. A   nylon rope was attached at one end and sufficient weights were added inside the box   until the entire unit weighed 10 pounds.

5. A large size stranded mop of cotton/polyester blend, cut into twelve pieces.

6. Hamburger grease.

7. Terry cloth towel, cut into small squares.

8. Six commercially available industrial cleaners: Clorox, Kadet Quarry Tile Floor Cleaner,   Regain, pHluorus' pHluorus, Sure Trac Quarry Tile Floor Cleaner, and Tide.

9. Manufacturer; Dal Tile Company, ceramic floor tile samples:

  Red quarry tile with corundum particles embedded in the surface (abrasive), about 6"      square by 1/2" thick; 

    Granitie de ceramica from Italy; brown "granite appearing" unglazed ceramic tile, about   8" square by 5/16" thick;

  Dura-floor white glazed tile with a rough granular textured surface, about 8" square by   5/16" thick;

  Mosaic unglazed bath tiles of various colors, about 1" square by 3/16" thick.

 

 

III. TILE LAYOUT:

 

    Seven lots, each composed of the first four above listed tile types, were organized on tables. A large sample of mosaic unglazed bath tiles was prepared and partitioned into seven sections. The bath tiles were laid in grout. Cleaning compounds were assigned to each lot.

 

 

IV. PROCEDURE

 

    The following experimental procedure was taken in part from tests performed in 1987 by the Smith-Emery Company at the Ceramic Tile Institute in Los Angeles, California. [These earlier tests were conducted for pHluorus under the direction of Donald W. Kaufmann, P.E. (Quality Engineer No. 3882), and are identified by the Institute as File No. 1086, Lab No. L-87-2703.]

In order to simulate the treatment floor tiles would receive over a ten month period in a commercial area or restaurant kitchen environment, seven groups (lots) of five different kinds of floor tiles each were lightly smeared with hamburger grease (except for the granite de ceramica tiles which are not used in kitchen areas), after which all tiles were blow dried, washed with their respective cleaners, and then rinsed with water. This wash cycle constituted "one day" of wear. The tiles went through 30 wash cycles (equivalent to one month) and then were tested for surface abrasiveness using the method listed below. "10 months" of wash cycles and testings were completed, using the following cleaner concentrations as recommended by the compounds' manufacturers:

 

    Lot #1: 0.75 cup Tide in 3 gallons water.

    Lot #2: 2.25 cups Clorox and 0.75 cup Tide in 3 gallons water.

    Lot #3: 2 ounces liquid Regain in 1 gallon of water.

    Lot #4: 1 part pHluorus's pHluorus in 40 parts water.

Lot #5: 1 part Kadet in 32 parts water.

    Lot #6: 1 part Sure Trac in 32 parts water.

 

Lots one through six were washed with their assigned cleaner for the ten month period. Lot #7 was washed with various cleaners: lot #1's cleaner was used for months 1 and 2, lot #2's cleaner for 3 and 4, lot #3's cleaner for 5 and 6, lot #5's cleaner for 7,8, and 9, and Lot #6's cleaner for month 10. Lot #7 represents an environment where various cleaning compounds are used.

 

The tiles were initially tested for abrasiveness before any wash cycle was performed. At the end of the "10 month" period each lot was washed with a concentrated solution of their respective cleaners, rinsed with water, and allowed to dry. Measurements of slip-resistance were then taken using the 10 pound leather-surfaced box.

 

Following this special washing all of the lots were washed with a    concentrated solution of pHluorus's pHluorus compound and measurements of abrasiveness again were taken using the 10 pound leather-surfaced box.

 

The experiment was conducted blindly; those performing the experiment had no knowledge of which cleaners were being used at which lots; cleaners were designated by numbers associated with the lot. The compounds were mixed in the presence of two or more people to verify correct mixing proportions.

 

 

WASH CYCLE (Specific Procedure):

 

1. Grease Application:

 

Grease was applied to the regular quarry, abrasive quarry, white glazed, and bath tiles using squares of cotton terry toweling. Separate applicators were used for each lot. The grease was applied in a thin layer to simulate the amount accumulated on a restaurant floor in a day.

 

2. Blow Dry:

 

Using a 1250 watt blow dryer at maximum power, the lots were dried over a two minute period.

 

 

3. Wash:

 

    The lots were washed with their respective cleaners. The brown granite tile was washed first, the bath tiles last, and the others in random order. To wash, a mop was dipped in the cleaner and then swirled over a tile using light pressure. The mop was dipped in the cleaning solution in between individual washing as was needed to keep the mop wet.

    After use at a lot, the mops were washed in a Tide solution and rinsed thoroughly twice in water. Mops were assigned to lots and were used at those locations only. The lab technician rinsed his hands in water between washing of lots to prevent contamination of one cleaning compound by another.

 

4. Dry:

 

    After washing, each lot was allowed to stand for four to five minutes with the cleaning compound upon the face of the tiles.

 

5. Rinsing:

    

    The lots were rinsed with water, the brown granite tile first, the bath tiles last, and the others in a random order. Rinsing solutions and mops were assigned to each lot to prevent cross-contamination. Rinse water was changed after each use at a lot, and the mops were washed and rinsed as described above. The lab technician rinsed his hands in water between each lot.

 

 

TESTING PROCEDURE

 

    After one month of washing, tiles were allowed to dry completely and were brushed with a towel to remove any foreign material. The surfaces of the testing blocks were prepared in the following manner before use at a lot:

    All tests; months 1-6: washed with pHluorus solution;

    Wet tests; months 7 on: washed with water;

    Dry tests; months 7 on: wiped with dry towel.

    To measure friction, a test block was placed in the middle of a tile and the amounts of force required to start the block slipping and to keep it sliding across the tile were measured. As one person worked the blocks, the other recorded the measurements and conformed that the blocks were being pulled parallel to the horizon.

 

 

 

    

V. MEASUREMENTS/DATA:

 

    Four measurements on each tile surface were made during a single test, each measurement perpendicular to the previous one. These measurements were averaged together to give a description of slip-resistance. This average figure was reproducible consistently within a plus or minus 0.1 and 0.2 range when obtained with the five and ten pound blocks respectively.

    For each tile sample, five such averaged values were obtained by using five different blocks: five pound blocks consisting of pyrolite, rubber, and leather surfaces, and a ten pound leather surfaced block pulled by two different spring systems. All blocks were pulled by a Wagner force dial scale, and the ten pound block was pulled a second time using a pull spring scale. Values obtained by the five-pound blocks were multiplied by two to present them on the same order of magnitude as values obtained by the twice as massive ten-pound block. These five measurements made on each tile have been averaged together and are presented here. They represent the average amount of slip-resistance present at a given tile surface which has been washed using a certain cleaning compound over time. Divided by ten, they represent the actual coefficient of friction associated with tile surfaces. Measurement / data enclosed as enclosures 1, 2, 3, 4.

 

 

 

VI. RESULTS:

 

   Dry Surface Static Measurements: Of all dry tile samples tested, tile types washed with pHluorus's pHluorus had the highest average static coefficient of friction with one exception: quarry abrasive tiles washed with pHluorus had a static coefficient of 7.0, while all other cleaners measured either a 6.9, 7.0, or 7.1. As experimental months passed, the coefficients of friction tended to increase over time for all tile types and cleaning solutions. Averaging data over all time and all five tile types gives the following single values:

 

Cleaner      Coefficient of Friction

All (Lot #7) 5.6

Clorox6.6

Kadet6.8

pHluorus7.2

Regain6.7

Sure Trac6.7

Tide6.5

 

    Of these compounds, pHluorus's pHluorus proves to be the most effective at generating a slip-resistive dry surface.

 

    Dry Surface Kinetic Measurements: There are no general trends over time for these tests. Most all values of the kinetic coefficient for any dry tile sample washed with any cleaner lied within the range 5.3 plus or minus 1.2 . There are no dramatic differences between values averaged over all time and tile types with the exception of Lot #7:

 

Cleaner      Coefficient of Friction

All (Lot #7)4.5

Clorox5.4

Kadet5.7

pHluorus5.6

Regain5.4

Sure Trac5.4

Tide5.4

 

    pHluorus's pHluorus generated a slightly higher resistance on dry surfaces than all but one of these other compounds.

 

    Wet Surface Static Measurements: For a given tile type and cleaning compound, the coefficient of static friction generally tended to fluctuate over time within a 1-1.5 point range. Among the tiles washed with various cleaners, surface abrasiveness varied significantly:

 

 

Cleaner      Coefficient of Friction

All (Lot #7)5.0

Clorox6.0

Kadet        6.6

pHluorus7.0

Regain6.1

Sure Trac6.6

Tide5.7

 

    Tiles washed with pHluorus's pHluorus were overall more slip-resistant than tiles washed with these other compounds.

    Wet Surface Kinetic Measurements: These tests were the most difficult to obtain an accurate value for. The five-pound blocks would occasionally stick to the tile surfaces through capillary action and thus give unreliable readings. The large ten-pound block sometimes proved difficult to pull at a constant speed without having it skip across the tile. In general, tiles washed with Kadet, Regain, and Sure Trac compounds were associated with these effects while tiles washed with the other compounds were not. With the large number of measurements made over time, significant errors should be minimal, and the tiles give the following average values over all time and tiles:

 

Cleaner     Coefficient of Friction

All (Lot #7)4.3

Clorox4.5

Kadet5.3

pHluorus5.4

Regain4.7

Sure Trac5.0

Tide4.3

 

    pHluorus's pHluorus compound is the most effective of these compounds at generating a resistive surface when the surface is wet.

 

    Tests using Concentrated Solutions and pHluorus Compound: When each lot was washed with a concentrated solution of the cleaning compound assigned to that lot, the static coefficient of friction measured on a wet surface jumped significantly; when the lots were washed with a concentrated solution of pHluorus's pHluorus (one part pure compound in one part water), the coefficient climbed even higher:

 

Cleaner    Static Coef.    Static Coef.       Static Coef.

           (month ten's  (After wash with   (After wash with

            readings)      conc. solns.)     pHluorus conc.)

 

All (Lot #7)6.9n.a.8.8

Clorox6.27.48.9

Kadet7.06.68.4

pHluorus7.38.89.9

Regain6.98.28.8

Sure Trac6.97.08.3

Tide6.37.59.4

 

 

    All concentrated cleaning solutions were prepared by combining one part pure compound with one part water.

    This demonstrates that a slip-resistant surface may be generated by applying a concentrated solution of pHluorus to a tile surface that has previously been treated with any of these other industrial cleaners.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

    Because of the extensive number of measurements taken in these tests, the potential for error is highly minimized. These results therefore are reproducible.

 

 

    

    Tests were also conducted to determine if pHluorus deteriorates tile surfaces. The widths of the tiles washed with pHluorus were measured using a micrometer after the ten month washing period. These measurements compared with those taken on new tile show that the tiles treated with pHluorus did not deteriorate to an observable extent. The following are the mean averages of the measurements taken on various individual tiles. Values are in inches; N is equivalent to the number of measurements used to calculate these values at a 95% confidence level.

 

 

    NEW TILETREATED TILE

 

Durafloor.3158 ± .0012 (N=16).305 ± .002 (N=9)

Glazed.3171 ± .002 (N=16)

 

Granite de.3177 ± .0005 (N=16).3150 ± .0009 (N=9)

Ceramica.3171 ± .0011 (N=16).3153 ± .0006 (N=16)

 

Quarry.454 ± .002 (N=16).467 ± .004 (N=12)

Abrasive.459 ± .003 (N=16).467 ± .003 (N=12)

 

Quarry.4667 ± .0007 (N=16).4670 ± .002 (N=12)

Regular.4674 ± .0010 (N=16).4658 ± .0007 (N=12)

.4661 ± .0006 (N=16)

 

    Among the commonly used industrial cleaning compounds, pHluorus, when properly used, is superior at maintaining a slip-resistant floor. Businesses using pHluorus may have the confidence that they are creating a safe environment in which slip-fall accidents are minimized. The general safety of customers and employees is assured, and with pHluorus's guarantee that these tests and results are correct and replicable, businesses are protected legally should a slip\fall accident claim be brought against them. pHluorus will provide an affidavit upholding the results of this test.

   

 

Copyright 1990

All rights reserved

pHluorus Inc.

Draper, Utah

 

2132 copy

<<Back a Page

All of the information contained within this web site copyrighted 1998 by:
Next Page>>

 pHluorus Inc. PO box 95870 South Jordan UT, 84095-0870 1-800-SAV-SLIP

[Home][Product][Business Ops][History][Track Record][FAQ][TAX Credit?][Affidavit][Site Map][Order Form]