REPORT ON CLEANING for Acrylic base Soun Absorbing an Diffusing Panel Proucts 1. PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION TRADE NAMES: (AS LABELED) MANUFACTURER s OR DISTRIBUTOR s NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: (301)-249-0044 Clearsorber Deamp Diviewsor Formeffusor Harmonix K Moviewsor Omniviewsor RPG DIFFUSOR SYSTEMS, INC. 651C COMMERCE DR. UPPER MARLBORO, MD 20774 2. SUMMARY Fiel an laboratory tests of the cleaning of acrylic base soun absorbers an iffusers were performe. The panels can be cleane by wiping with a amp, micro-fiber cloth. Clear acrylic panels gave excellent cleaning results in all cases, while froste acrylic panels were iscolore after soiling with Arizona test ust. Dust accumulation in the micro-slits of the Clearsorber Deamp was visible, but slit with was not noticeably reuce. 200 cycles of cleaning i not give any recognizable wear, though some slight change in gloss was measure. Microorganisms were not etectable on the surface after 4 months exposure in a public bath on the Clearsorber Deamp panels. 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS A. Abrasion Testing Materials were cut to size 18 x 7, an cleaning with ry or moist microfibre cloths were performe in a washability apparatus (Erichsen Waschbarkeits- un Scheuerprüfgerät). 200 cycles of cleaning were performe on each material, with microfibre cloths attache to a 2088g weights. Gloss was measure on 20 areas of each panel before an after the cleaning test with a micro-tri-gloss reflectometer (BYK Garner GmBH, Geretsrie, Germany). Electrostatic charge was measure before an RPG DIFFUSOR SYSTEMS, INC. 651-C Commerce Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 Phone 301-249-0044 Fax 301-390-3602
after each test with ACL Moel 200 Electrostatic Locator (ACL International Inc, Elk Grove, Illinois). B. Cleanability Testing Dust coverage percentage was measure accoring to INSTA 800 before an after cleaning by use of BM Dustetector (BM Environmental Engineering). Three ifferent proceures for cleaning were employe: Wiping with ry micro-fiber cloth. Polyester/polyamie micro-fiber cloths were washe at 60ºC in a omestic type washing machine, an rie in a tumbleryer. Wiping with micro-fiber cloths as escribe in proceure 1, but use after spin rying (1100 rpm). Spraying with a 0,5 % solution of commercial etergent (Nilfisk Grovrent Extra, Nilfisk, Avance, Oslo) with 5-10 % nonionic tensies as main active ingreient, ph 10,9 in the ilute solution), an then wiping with amp cloths as escribe in proceure 2. Between cleaning, the panels were expose in three ifferent ways: Horizontally, examine face upwars, for 4-6 weeks in an office or a photocopying / printing room in Forskningsveien 3 B, Oslo. Three panels of each material were use. 12 sets of hanprints were artificially impose on the surface, an incubate for 7 ays before cleaning. Four panels of each material were use, Arizona test ust (ISO 12103-1) was sprea over the surface to a coverage of 10-20 % with the ai of a Swiffer isposable cloth, following internal stanar proceure of National Institute of Technology (Lekanger, pers. corr. 2008) (fig 10-11). Three of the panels previously use for hanprints were use. C. Fiel Testing Aluminum frames were aapte to acrylic panels, an attache to winow sills in Risenga public bath with clamps. After 4 months exposure, surfaces were sample for microorganisms by pressing TTC Agar Dip slies (Oxoi Lt, Basingstoke, UK) against the surface. Microbial contamination in the slits was examine with a similar proceure after cutting out 50 mm long pieces of the ribs between slits. After cleaning with amp, clean micro-fiber cloths, another set of samples were taken. Slies were incubate for 5 ays at 25 ºC before visual evaluation of growth. RPG DIFFUSOR SYSTEMS, INC. 651-C Commerce Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 Phone 301-249-0044 Fax 301-390-3602
4. RESULTS A. Abrasion Test Results are given in tables 4.1.1 an 4.1.2. Gloss is reporte as average an stanar eviation (s..) of 20 measurements. Only very slight changes in gloss an visual appearance were measure. Acrylic panels were electrostatically charge when the protecting layer was remove before the test, an this charge increase uring cleaning with ry cloth, while the panels in most cases was ischarge uring cleaning with amp cloth. Table 4.1.1. Results from wiping with ry micro-fiber cloth. Panel Materia Static Static Gloss, Gloss, Gloss change s.. Visual l charge, charge, before after (In appearan before after = loss) th i F1-1 Froste 150 1000 18,7 20,3 1,6 2,0 Unchange F1-2 Froste 150 2000 20,1 26,3 6,2 3,0 Unchange K1-1 Clear 500 2000 107,5 107,2 (0,3) 1,4 Unchange K1-2 Clear 500 2000 105,1 107,0 1,9 1,4 Unchange Table 4.1.2. Results from wiping with amp micro-fiber cloth. Panel Materia Static Static Gloss Gloss Gloss s.. Visual l charge charge,, after change (In appearanc Froste before after parenthesis = loss) F2-1 300 50 28,4 21,2 (7,2) 2,7 very slight Froste F2-2 -50 0 19,9 16,4 (3,5) 2,2 very slight Clear K2-1 500 1000 101,7 104 2,3 0,8 unchange Clear K2-2 750 500 105,25 107,5 2,2 1 unchange B. Cleanability Test I. Office ust Visually satisfactory results were achieve with both ry an amp cloths on all three teste materials. Dry wiping resulte in some static charge in the winter perio when relative air humiity is very low. Dust removal as measure with BM Dust Detector was satisfactory, an summarize in table 4.2.1 RPG DIFFUSOR SYSTEMS, INC. 651-C Commerce Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 Phone 301-249-0044 Fax 301-390-3602
Table 4.2.1. Results from panels in offices. Average of 3 paralles an 3 repeats. Material Cleaning Average Average Visual appearance after cleaning metho % ust % ust (before) (after) Clear acrylic Dry 1,2 0,2 Clean, no visible wear Clear acrylic Damp 1,0 0,3 Clean, no visible wear Froste Acrylic Dry 1,1 0,5 Clean, no visible wear Froste Acryli Damp 1,8 0,1 Clean, no visible wear II. Fingerprints Visually excellent results were achieve with both cleaning methos on clear acrylic panels (fig 7). Results were visually satisfactory for froste panels; however, some resiues were visible when viewing from some angles. Observations are given in table 4.2.2. Table 4.2.2. Results from laboratory testing with han prints. Average of 4 paralles before an after 3 repeats. Material Cleaning Visual appearance after cleaning metho Clear acrylic Dry Clean, no visible wear Clear acrylic Damp Clean, no visible wear Froste Acrylic Dry Some resiues visible Froste Acrylic Damp Some resiues visible III. Arizona Test Visually excellent results were achieve with both cleaning methos on clear acrylic panels. Some isfigurement was clearly visible after cleaning with both cleaning proceures on froste acrylic panels, even if no ust coul be etecte with BM Dust etector. Table 4.2.2. Results from laboratory testing with Arizona ust-. Average of 4 parallels before an after 3 repeats. Material Cleaning Visual appearance after cleaning metho Clear acrylic Clear acrylic Froste Acrylic Froste Acrylic Average % ust (before) Damp 15,2 0,1 Rinse & 12,8 0,6 Damp i Rinse & 18,7 3,1 wipe 21,5 1,5 Average % ust (after) Surface clean, no visible wear. Visible Clean, no visible wear. Marke coloration of Heavy lit iscoloration of surfaces. Heavy iscoloration of surfaces. Visual inspection of the gel-tape (Dustlifters) showe that some resiual ust coul be collecte from the slits, but not from the isfigure surfaces. RPG DIFFUSOR SYSTEMS, INC. 651-C Commerce Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 Phone 301-249-0044 Fax 301-390-3602
Examination of the micro-slits in Clearsorber Deamp clearly showe eposition of ust. For acrylic panels cleane without etergent, particles were eposite near the top surface, while panels cleane with etergent showe more even istribution of particles. When micro-slits were examine microscopically, it was not possible to measure any ecrease in slit with by this ust eposition. IV. 5. DISCUSSION Fiel Test All microbiological test were negative (< 1 cfu /cm²) after 4 months of exposure in the public bath, both before an after cleaning. The atmosphere was sufficiently moist an corrosive to give heavy surface corrosion of the items such as metal clamps, but no isfigurement was visible in test or reference panels. A few particles were visible on the surface an in the slits after 4 months. It has previously been shown (e.g. Nilsen & al. 2002) that har surfaces can be cleane efficiently with micro-fiber cloths. This stuy shows that similar results were achieve with the acrylic panels. In normal environments, the panels can be cleane with satisfactory results without etergents. For hyrophobic soling such as prints from greasy fingers or traffic ust, commercial etergents will ai the cleaning of the froste acrylic panels, but heavy soiling with Arizona ust left these materials visually unsatisfactory. The clear acrylic panels coul be cleane with excellent results with a moist microfibre cloth after all the teste contaminants. 6. REFERENCES INSTA 800: Cleaning quality - System for the establishment an assessment of cleaning quality. 2. e. Stanar Norway. 2006. ISO 12103-1:1997 Roa vehicles -- Test ust for filter evaluation -- Part 1: Arizona test ust; International Organization for Stanarization, 1997. Lekanger, R. 2008: National Institute of Technology, Oslo (personal communication). Nilsen, S.K., I. Dahl, O. Jørgensen & T. Schneier, 2002. Micro-fiber an ultra-micro-fiber cloths, their physical characteristics, cleaning effect, abrasion on surfaces, friction, an wear resistance. Builing an Environment, 37: 1373-137. RPG DIFFUSOR SYSTEMS, INC. 651-C Commerce Drive, Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 Phone 301-249-0044 Fax 301-390-3602