VOLUME I ?APPENDICES A THROUGH F
A EP3 Criteria ?Detailed Description
B Scoring Tools
Preferable Product Data Sheets
Preferable Product Score Sheet
C Facility Product Inventory Form
D Product Testing Forms
Current Product Baseline Data Collection
Preferable Product Review Form
Preferable Product Interview Form
E Data Summary Tables
F Preferable Product Test Reports
DISCLAIMER
The mention and demonstration of commercial products, their source, or their
use in connection with information reported herein is not to be construed as
an actual or implied endorsement or recommendation of such products by the
City and County of San Francisco. Identification and selection of commercial
products for testing during the EP3 Pilot were based on available information
at the time of project implementation, and is not intended to be inclusive or to
exclude any commercial products in the market or in development.
APPENDIX A
EP3 CRITERIA ?DETAILED DESCRIPTION
The EP3 team uses the EP3 criteria to evaluate the preferability of chemical products.
Appendix A contains detailed explanations of each criterion including descriptions, scoring,
references, and test specifications and standards where appropriate.
Version 4 ?Final
Criteria for Evaluating Chemical Products for Janitorial, Fleet, and Building Maintenance
The City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) is implementing the Environmentally Preferable
Purchasing Program (EP3) with the goal of using products with less impact on City workers,
residents and visitors, and on the environment. These criteria have been developed to evaluate
chemical products in three focus areas: janitorial, fleet, and building maintenance.
Products will be evaluated sequentially in three categories:
Health and Safety Hazards
Environmental and Community Impact
Other Issues
Scores for each criterion in each category are added together to obtain subtotals. A lower score
is better, and the three subtotal scores must each be less than the maximum allowable for each
category in order for the product to be accepted. A product's total score is the sum of the three
subtotals. A product's total score can be compared with other similarly-used products to assess
environmental preferability.
Products that survive evaluation in a given category (that is, have the allowable maximum)
continue to the next category. Products attaining a passing score in all three categories are
eligible for effectiveness evaluation.
After environmentally preferable products are identified, they will be further evaluated using the
fourth category of criteria -- product effectiveness -- through product testing at City facilities.
The City wishes to use existing test data wherever possible. Therefore, equivalent health-effects
tests on humans or animals, FDA-approved in-vitro tests, or toxicological modeling may be
considered in determining scores. These tests on humans and animals shall be performed in
accordance with all applicable regulations.
The EP3 criteria are periodically reviewed for validity and feasibility and therefore, the criteria and the way they
are used are subject to change.
A-1
Category I ?Health and Safety Criteria
The following health and safety criteria shall apply to the product in the concentration at which it
is shipped, undiluted by any water that users must add to prepare the product for use.
The product will be rejected if it receives a health and safety score of 200 or more points.
Category I ?Health and Safety Criteria
Criteria Scoring Remarks
Carcinogen: Causes cancer
1. Carcinogens, Mutagens, or Teratogens
Mutagen: Interferes with conception
The product shall contain no more than 0.1%
by weight of any intentionally added
= 0.1%: Teratogen: Interferes with fetal development
ingredient or known contaminant that is a
0 Points
known, probable, or possible human
These criteria are specified by Chapter 21F of
carcinogen, mutagen, or teratogen on any of
Part I of the San Francisco Municipal Code.
the following lists: *
? > 0.1%: Diethanolamine is listed here because
California Safe Drinking Water And
200 Points NTP will soon list it as a possible carcinogen.
Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop.
65), CCR Title 22, Division 2,
Scoring Examples:
Subdivision 1, Chapter 3, Section 12000
et seq.
1. Ingred. A - 0.01% - Carcinogen
? Ingred. B - 10% - Non-carcinogen
Latest edition of the Annual Report on
Carcinogens, National Toxicology Ingred. C - 89.99% - Non-carcinogen
Program (NTP). < http://ntp-
Score = 0 points
server.niehs.nih.gov>
2. Ingred. D - 5% - Carcinogen
? International Agency for Research on
Ingred. E - 10% - Carcinogen
Cancer (IARC), Group 1, 2A, or 2B.
Ingred. F - 85% - Non-carcinogen
http://193.51.164.11/default.html
Score = 200 points
? Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) regulated The 0.1% limit reflects the material safety data
carcinogens. sheet (MSDS) reporting level for carcinogens.
Also, the product shall contain no more than
0.1% by weight of:
? Diethanolamine [111-42-2]
___________
* This criterion does not apply to Silica sand.
A-2
Category I ?Health and Safety Criteria
Criteria Scoring Remarks
Neurotoxins damage or interfere with the nervous
2. Neurotoxins / Central Nervous System
systems of fish, animals and humans.
(CNS) Depressants
U.S. EPA lists neurotoxins in its IRIS, available at:
The product should contain no more than
=1.0%:
1.0% by weight of any ingredient that is listed
0 Points ngispgm3/iris/index.html>
by either EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) or the National Institute for
NIOSH lists neurotoxins in NIOSH Report 48,
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as
Organic Solvent Neurotoxicity (1987), available
having a known or probable effect upon the >1.0%:
at:
human nervous system. 100 Points
87104_48.html>
This criterion does not apply to:
This criterion is specified by Chapter 21F of Part I
? Ethyl alcohol [64-17-5]
of the San Francisco Municipal Code.
3. Eye Irritation Eye irritation effects shall be determined by test
methods specified by OPPTS 870.2400, as
The product as a whole should cause the least
published in EPA
possible eye irritation. Cat IV: 0 Pts
712瑿?8?95, August 1998.
If whole product test data are unavailable, the
overall eye irritation effect may be determined
Cat III: 30 Pts Eye irritation effects levels determined via these
as the weighted average of eye irritation
tests shall be stated as Category I, II, III, or IV, as
effects of each ingredient present above a
defined in OPPTS 870.1000, as published in EPA
concentration of 1.0%. Cat II: 50 Pts
712瑿?8?89, August 1998.
Points will be assigned as follows:
Cat I: 100 Pts Both OPPTS standards are available at:
OPPTS 870.1000
Health Effects Test Guidelines
OPPTS_Harmonized/>
EPA 712瑿?8?89, August 1998
The City wishes to use existing test data wherever
Eye Irritation Categories Score
possible. Therefore, equivalent eye irritation data
IV ?"Reddening" 0 Pts
from Draize tests, FDA-approved in vitro tests, or
III ?"Irritation" 30 Pts toxicological modeling may be considered in
determining the eye irritation score. Tests on
II ?"Sever Irritation" 50 Pts
humans and animals shall be performed in
I ?"Corrosive Damage" 100 Pts
accordance with all applicable regulations.
A-3
Category I ?Health and Safety Criteria
Criteria Scoring Remarks
Skin irritation effects shall be determined by
4. Skin Irritation
test methods specified by OPPTS 870.2500, as
published in EPA
The product as a whole should cause the least
712瑿?8?96, August 1998.
possible skin irritation.
Cat IV: 0 Pts
Skin irritation effects levels determined via
If whole product test data are unavailable, the
these tests shall be stated as Category I, II, III,
overall skin irritation effect may be determined Cat III: 30 Pts
or IV, as defined in OPPTS 870.1000, as
as the weighted average of skin irritation effects
published in EPA
of each ingredient present above a Cat II: 50 Pts
712瑿?8?89, August 1998.
concentration of 1.0%.
Cat I: 100 Pts
Both OPPTS standards are available at:
Points will be assigned as follows:
OPPTS 870.1000
OPPTS_Harmonized/>
Health Effects Test Guidelines
EPA 712瑿?8?89, August 1998
The City wishes to use existing test data
wherever possible. Therefore, equivalent skin
Skin Irritation Categories Score
irritation data from Draize tests, FDA-
IV ?"Reddening" 0 Pts approved in-vitro tests, or toxicological
modeling may be considered in determining
III ?"Irritation" 30 Pts
the skin irritation score. Tests on humans and
II ?"Severe Irritation" 50 Pts
animals shall be performed in accordance with
I ?"Corrosive Damage" 100 Pts
all applicable regulations.
A-4
Category I ?Health and Safety Criteria
Criteria Scoring Remarks
Although wearing gloves and goggles
5. Exposure Route ?Skin Absorbtion
may protect the user from skin
The product as a whole should have the least possible
absorbtion, the City wishes to
potential for skin absorbtion.
purchase products posing the least
Low Potential:
hazard to its employees.
0 Pts
If whole product test data are unavailable, the overall
amount of skin absorbtion may be determined as the
Skin absorbtion shall be determined
weighted average of each ingredient present above 1.0%.
by test methods specified by OPPTS
Moderate:
870.7600 for Dermal Penetration
Points will be assigned for the level of skin absorbtion
25 Pts
studies, as published in EPA 712瑿?br>
shown by the product or its ingredients when tested using
98?50, August 1998.
OPPTS 870.7800:
? The designations of low, moderate,
High:
Products or individual ingredients for which less
and high potential for skin absorbtion
50 Pts
than 1% of the test dosage is absorbed shall be
have been created for this project.
designated as having a 'low potential' for skin
absorbtion (0 Pts). OPPTS toxicology standards are
available on the internet at
? Products or individual ingredients for which 1% to
5% of the test dosage is absorbed shall be designated
OPPTS_Harmonized/>
as having a 'moderate potential' for skin absorbtion
(25 Pts). This criterion is specified by Chapter
21F of Part I of the San Francisco
? Products or individual ingredients for which more
Municipal Code.
than 5% of the test dosage is absorbed shall be
designated as having a 'high potential' for skin
absorbtion (50 Pts).
Products containing more than 1% of the following
ingredients shall be designated as having a 'high potential'
for skin absorbtion (50 points):
? Isopropanol [67-63-0]
? 2-butoxyethanol [111-76-2]
? Acetone [67-64-1]
? 1,1,1-TCE [71-55-6]
? MEK [78-93-3]
? Naphthalene [91-20-3]
? Triethanolamine [102-71-6]
? Ethylene Glycol [107-21-1]
? Toluene [108-88-3]
? Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether [113-34-5]
? Tetrachloroethylene [127-18-4]
? Monoethanolamine [141-43-5]
? Xylene [1330-20-7]
A-5
Category I ?Health and Safety Criteria
Criteria Scoring Remarks
The City wishes to limit the use of mineral
6. Corrosivity
acids and caustics that have the potential to
harm the user and the environment.
pH between
The product as a whole should have the lowest
Therefore, products having a pH between 2.5
2.5 - 11.5:
possible potential for corrosive action.
and 11.5 are preferred.
0 Pts
Aqueous products for which a pH is
pH<2.5:
measurable will receive a score according to
25 Pts
that pH level.
pH>11.5:
25 Pts
A-6
Category I ?Health and Safety Criteria
Criteria Scoring Remarks
The City wishes to restrict the use of flammable and
7. Flammability
combustible chemicals to only those applications
where they are essential for the task being done.
Class IIIB
The product should have as high a flash point
Flash Point
as possible.
>200F: 0 Pts As defined in OSHA Regulations (29 CFR) Hazard
Communication. - 1910.1200, "Flash Point" means
Liquid products as a whole shall receive a
the minimum temperature at which a liquid gives off
Class IIIA
score for their flash point measured by one of
a vapor in sufficient concentration to ignite when
140-200F:
the indicated methods.
tested using one of the following methods:
20 Pts
If whole product test data are unavailable, the
(i) For liquids with a viscosity of less than 45
Class II
lowest flashpoint for any individual ingredient
Saybolt Universal Seconds (SUS) at 100癋
100-140F:
present above 5.0% shall be used to determine
(37.8癈), that do not contain suspended solids and
30 Pts
the flammability score.
do not have a tendency to form a surface film under
test: Tagliabue Closed Tester (See American
Class I
Liquid products will be scored according to the
National Standard Method of Test for Flash Point by
<100F:
following OSHA classification:
Tag Closed Tester,
50 Pts
? Class I (Flammable) liquids have flash Z11.24-1979 (ASTM D 56-79)); or alternatively:
points below 100F (37.8C).
(ii) For liquids with a viscosity equal to or greater
? Class II (Combustible) liquids have flash
than 45 SUS at 100癋 (37.8癈), or that contain
points at or above 100F (37.8C) and below
suspended solids, or that have a tendency to form a
140F (60C).
surface film under test: Pensky-Martens Closed
? Class IIIA (Combustible) liquids have Tester (see American National Standard Method of
flash points at or above 140F (60C) and Test for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed
below 200F (93.3C). Tester,
Z11.7-1979 (ASTM D 93-79));
? Class IIIB (Combustible) liquids have
flash points at or above 200F (93.3C). or alternatively,
(iii) Setaflash Closed Tester (see American National
Standard Method of Test for Flash Point by
Setaflash Closed Tester (ASTM D 3278-78)).
Source:
slc.gov/OshStd_data/1910_1200.html>
A-7
Category II ?Environmental and Community Impact Criteria
The following criteria shall apply to the product in the concentration at which it is shipped,
undiluted by any water that users must add to prepare the product for use.
The product will be rejected if it receives an environmental and community impact score of
100 or more points.
Category II ?Environmental and Community Impact Criteria
Criteria Scoring Remarks
ODSs affect ozone located at the upper edge of the
8. Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS)
atmosphere. This ozone absorbs UV-B radiation,
which can damage DNA in living systems. When the
=1.0%:
The product shall contain 1.0% or less of
ozone layer is depleted, the amount of UV-B
0 Points
ozone depleting compounds.
radiation that reaches the earth's surface increases,
resulting in an adverse affect on plants, animals, and
>1.0%:
This requirement shall apply to any substance
plastic materials, and resulting in impacts to the
100 Points
defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act
health of human beings, such as skin cancers,
Amendment that contains any
cataracts, and suppression of immune systems.
? Class I ODSs
A list of prohibited substances as of September 1999
? Class II ODS after its scheduled phase-
is in the FLIS "Non-Ozone Depleting Substances"
out date
report (9/1/99).
? Alternatives listed as "unacceptable"
Also refer to the Federal Clean Air Act,
under the US EPA Significant New
available at:
Alternatives Policy (SNAP)
title6/sec602.html>.
Source: Evaluation of Non-Ozone Depleting
Substances as an Environmental Attribute for
Inclusion in the Federal Logistics Information
System (FLIS) September 1, 1999.
A-8
Category II ?Environmental and Community Impact Criteria
Criteria Scoring Remarks
Endocrine modifiers affect the hormone
9. Endocrine Modifiers
systems of fish, animals and humans.
=1.0%:
The product should contain 1.0% or less by weight
0 Points This criterion is specified by Chapter 21F of
of any ingredient that is a known, probable, or
Part I of the San Francisco Municipal Code.
possible endocrine modifier on the following list:
>1.0%:
? Preliminary List of Chemicals Associated
50 Points
With Endocrine System Effects (Illinois EPA,
2/97, with 4/98 Supplement)
In particular, products should contain less than 1.0%
of the following most commonly used ingredients:
? Nonylphenol ethoxylate [9016-45-9]
? Octylphenol ethoxylate [9036-19-5]
? Dibutyl phthalate [84-74-2]
Certain gases ?"greenhouse" gases ?absorb
10. Greenhouse Gases
solar radiation, heat the atmosphere, and, in
turn, warm the Earth's surface.
=1.0%:
The product shall contain 1.0% or less of any gas
0 Points
designated by the Kyoto Protocol of December 1997
The Kyoto Protocol (12/97) requires each
as having a greenhouse impact:
signatory to reduce its emissions of six
? carbon dioxide greenhouse gasses ?namely, carbon dioxide,
? methane methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
>1.0%:
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride ?7
100 Points
? nitrous oxide
percent below its 1990 emissions level by the
? hydrofluorocarbons year 2012.
? perfluorocarbons
Source: Evaluation of Non-Greenhouse
? sulfur hexafluoride
Impact as an Environmental Attribute
for Inclusion in the Federal Logistics
For applications where there are no products with
Information System (FLIS) July 28, 1999.
alternative ingredients the following may be used
with a score of 0 Points.
? Carbon dioxide may be used as a propellant or
as an active ingredient.
? Sulfur hexafluoride may be used in heating,
ventilating and air conditioning test
applications only.
A-9
Category II ?Environmental and Community Impact Criteria
Criteria Scoring Remarks
The City and County of San
11. Biodegradability
Francisco wishes to protect its
numerous and varied water habitats,
Level of
It is desired that either the product as a whole, or each
which help support the local
Biodegradability
ingredient comprising 5% or more of the total, shall meet
economy and quality of life for
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
residents, and therefore is concerned
Development (OECD) definition of readily biodegradable. Readily
about the environmental fate of
Biodegradable:
chemicals used in its operations.
0 Pts
To meet the definition of readily biodegradable,
independent lab results must achieve the corresponding
These criteria are specified by
score on one of the following tests:
Chapter 21F of Part I of the San
Nonbiodegradable
Test Readily Biodegradable Score Francisco Municipal Code.
: 25 Pts
DOC Die-Away Test 60% Theoretical CO2 Evolution
MITII Test 60% Theoretical Oxygen Demand
Closed Bottle Test 60% Theoretical Oxygen Demand
CO2 Evolution Test 60% Theoretical CO2 Evolution
Mod. OECD Screen 70% Dissolved Organic Carbon
Manimetric Resp. 60% Theoretical Oxygen Demand
For a product to be considered readily biodegradable, these
values must be met within 10 days of reaching 10% and
must also be met within 28 days of the beginning of the
test.
New testing is not required for any ingredient for which
sufficient information exists concerning its
biodegradability, either in peer-reviewed literature or
databases, or based in tests conducted according to standard
procedures equivalent to those listed here.
A-10
Category II ?Environmental and Community Impact Criteria
Criteria Scoring Remarks
VOCs are "any compound of carbon, excluding
12. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid,
metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium
VOC at
The product shall meet the VOC content
carbonate, which participates in atmospheric
new
requirements established by the California Air
photochemical reactions."
limits:
Resources Board (CARB).
0 Points
Because of their carbon content, VOCs are classified
VOC content of the product shall be determined
as organic. Unlike other organic compounds,
in accordance with California Air Resources
however, VOCs easily vaporize into the air and are a
Board Method 310.
component of photochemical reactions that cause
VOC at
smog.
present
Points shall be assigned for VOC ingredients
limits:
contained in the product:
California Air Resources Board limits are available
15 Pts.
? Product contains VOCs at lower CARB at: .
limits that will go into effect by the end of
calendar year 2004: 0 Points. Method 310 is available at:
www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/cptm/es_05.pdf>.
VOC over
? Product contains VOCs at existing CARB
present
limits: 15 Pts.
limits:
? Product contains VOCs at a level that 100 Pts.
exceeds the CARB limit: 100 Pts.
The City considers that, in most cases, the addition
13. Fragrances
of fragrances is superfluous to product performance,
and recognizes the potential impacts on chemically
Nonfunctiona
The product should contain 0.1% or less of a
sensitive people associated with some of these
l
fragrance that is either a nonfunctional
additives.
ingredient or a SARA 313 listed hazardous
material. or
? Fragrances added to natural gas or
SARA 313
petroleum products to make it easier for
Hazardous
users to detect the product shall be
Materials:
considered functional ingredients.
=0.1%:
? Fragrances added to groups of products to
0 Points
aid product identification shall be
considered functional ingredients.
>0.1%:
25 Points
? Ingredients added to give a psychological
(maximum)
impression to product users or building
occupants shall not be considered
functional.
A-11
Category II ?Environmental and Community Impact Criteria
Criteria Scoring Remarks
The City considers the addition of synthetic
14. Dyes
dyes to be superfluous to product
performance, and recognizes the potential
Nonfunctional
The product should contain 0.1% or less of a
hazard associated with some of these
coloring agent that is either a nonfunctional
additives.
ingredient or a SARA 313 listed hazardous or
material.
If a chemical is added for functional reasons,
SARA 313
? Different dyes added to groups of the dye should be FDA-approved for food use.
Hazardous
products to aid product identification Materials:
shall be considered functional
ingredients. =0.1%:
0 Points
? Dyes added to give a psychological
impression to product users shall not be
>0.1%:
considered functional.
25 Points
(maximum)
A-12
Category III ?Other Criteria
The following criteria shall apply to the product in the concentration at which it is shipped,
undiluted by any water that users must add to prepare the product for use.
The product will be rejected if it receives a score in this category of 35 or more points.
Category III ?Other Criteria
Criteria Scoring Remarks
Available as a The City desires where feasible to have
15. Available as a Concentrate
concentrate? products shipped to it as concentrates.
Where possible, products should be available in a
Yes: 0 Pts This criterion does not apply to products
concentrated form, which is defined as either:
that do not contain water, and that are
?a powder; or
not to be mixed with water prior to use.
No: 10 Pts
? a liquid product that is intended to be diluted by
at least 8 parts water (1:8 dilution ratio) prior to
use.
Available as a The City desires to minimize the use of
16. Available in Nonaerosol Container
nonaerosol propellant gasses, and to avoid the
potential for waste that can occur when
Where possible, products should be available in a
an aerosol nozzle stops working before
Yes: 0 Pts
nonaerosol form.
all of the product leaves the can.
No: 15 Pts
The City desires to receive products in
17. Refillable / Returnable / Locally Recyclable
containers that have the least possible
Container and Packaging
impact on the environment.
Container Score:
It is desired that the vendor shall provide for the __/5
management of all empty product containers and To be locally recyclable, containers and
packaging. packaging must be made of metal,
Packaging Score:
cardboard, glass, or of a plastic marked
__/5
Containers and packaging will both be scored separately
Type 1 (PETE) or 2 (HDPE). See
as follows:
Chapter 21A, Part 1 of the San
Combined Score:
Francisco Municipal Code.
Refillable or returnable 0 pts __/10
Recyclable locally in San Francisco
?Plastic Type 1 or 2 0 pts
?Glass 0 pts
?Cardboard 0 pts
?Metal (nonaerosol) 0 pts
Not refillable, returnable or recyclable
?Other plastics 5 pts each
?Cardboard/plastic hybrid 5 pts each
Contents of container or packaging
are not known: 5 pts
A-13
Category III ?Other Criteria
Criteria Scoring Remarks
The City desires to receive products
18. Recycled Content of Container and Shipping
in containers that have the least
Package
possible impact on the environment.
Container
Score:
Both the product container and shipping package should
__/5 For desired levels of post-consumer
maximize the use of post-consumer recycled content
recycled content, see the current
materials (defined as finished materials that would normally
edition of Chapter 21A, Part 1 of the
be discarded as solid waste having completed their life
San Francisco Municipal Code. At
cycle as a consumer item).
this writing the desired level is 25%.
Packaging
Container Score:
__/5
? Recycled content equals or
exceeds requirements of
Chapter 21A, Part 1 of the
San Francisco Municipal Code: 0 pts
Combined
? Recycled content less than these Score:
requirements, or are unknown: 5 pts __/10
Shipping Package
? Recycled content equals or
exceeds requirements of
Chapter 21A, Part 1 of the
San Francisco Municipal Code: 0 pts
? Recycled content less than these
requirements, or are unknown: 5 pts
A-14
APPENDIX B
SCORING TOOLS
Preferable Product Data Sheets (7 pages): Vendors can use these data sheets to
submit information on chemical products they want considered for use as an preferable
product. The EP3 staff will review the information provided, request additional data or
explanation when necessary, and determine a product's "preferability" based on the EP3
scoring system (see EP3 Criteria ?Detailed Descriptions for more information).
Preferable Product Score Sheet (1 page): The EP3 team uses the 1-page score sheet to
summarize the details and notes on a chemical product's preferability scoring.
Preferable Product Data Sheet
(Please complete a separate data sheet for each product.)
Vendors can use these data sheets to submit information on chemical products they would like
considered for use. The City will review the information provided, request additional data or explanation
when necessary, and determine a product's "preferability" based on the EP3 scoring system (see EP3
Criteria ?Detailed Descriptions for more information).
Company:
Contact Person:
Address:
Phone: FAX: E-Mail:
Product Name & Number:
Intended Use (Circle all that apply):
Janitorial Building Maintenance Fleet Maintenance
Toilet Bowl Cleaner Lubricant (Teflon/Moly/penetrants) Brake Cleaner
Glass Cleaner Electric Contact Cleaner Carburetor Cleaner
Graffiti Remover HVAC Coil Cleaner Engine Degreaser
Heavy Duty Degreaser Sewer Drain Maintainer Parts Washing Solution
Metal Cleaner Thread/Drill Lubricant Battery Care
Restroom Fixture Cleaner Equipment Degreaser
Urinal Screen
Please attach one copy of the MSDS, sample label, use instructions, training materials, and other information
considered applicable. When determining scores based on responses, if data is not available or submitted, a score
representing the worst case will be applied.
The City wishes to use existing test data wherever possible. Therefore, equivalent health effect tests on humans or
animals, FDA approved in vitro tests, or toxicological modeling may be considered.
For additional information on each criteria, see the complete City document on product evaluation criteria at:
www.sfgov.org/sfenvironment/aboutus/toxics/epp/criteria.htm
Ingredients Percent Comments/Source
List all ingredients and all known (For City Use)
hazardous constituents that are 1% or
more by weight of the product.
Identify the percentage by weight of
each ingredient or contaminant.
Page 1 of 8
Preferable Product Data Sheet
Comments/Source
EP3 Evaluation Criterion Your Response (For City Use)
1. Carcinogens, Mutagens,
& Teratogens
List any intentionally added
ingredient or known contaminant of
more than 0.1% by weight that is a
known, probable, or possible human
carcinogen, mutagen, or teratogen
as listed in:
?California Safe Drinking
Water And Toxic
Enforcement Act (Prop 65)
?NTP Carcinogens
?IARC Carcinogens
?OSHA Carcinogens
2. Neurotoxins
& CNS Depressants
List any intentionally added
ingredient or known contaminant
more than 1.0% by weight that is a
known, probable, or possible human
neurotoxins or Central Nervous
System depressant listed by either
EPA-IRIS or NIOSH.
Product has following level of eye irritation:
3. Eye Irritation
Eye Irritation Categories (Check One)
Eye irritation effects shall be
determined by test methods
IV ?"Reddening"
specified by OPPTS 870.2400, as
III ?"Irritation"
published in EPA
712瑿?8?95, August 1998; II ?"Severe Irritation"
where whole product data are I ?"Corrosive Damage"
unavailable, use the weighted
average of eye irritation effect of
Identify test method used:
each ingredient present above 1.0%.
The City wishes to use existing test
data wherever possible. Therefore,
equivalent eye irritation data from
Draize tests, FDA approved in vitro
tests, or toxicological modeling may
be considered in determining the eye
irritation score.
Page 2 of 8
Preferable Product Data Sheet
Comments/Source
EP3 Evaluation Criterion Your Response (For City Use)
Product has following level of skin irritation:
4. Skin Irritation
Skin Irritation Categories (Check One)
Skin irritation effects shall be
determined by test methods
IV ?"Reddening"
specified by OPPTS 870.2500, as
III ?"Irritation"
published in EPA
712瑿?8?96, August 1998; II ?"Severe Irritation"
where whole product data are I ?"Corrosive Damage"
unavailable, use the weighted
average of eye irritation effect of
Identify test method used:
each ingredient present above 1.0%.
The City wishes to use existing test
data wherever possible. Therefore,
equivalent skin irritation data from
Draize tests, FDA approved in vitro
tests, or toxicological modeling may
be considered in determining the
skin irritation score.
Product has following level of skin absorbtion (Check
5. Skin Absorbtion
One):
Skin absorbtion shall be determined
Products or individual ingredients for which less
by test methods specified by OPPTS
than 1% of the test dosage is absorbed shall be
870.7600 for Dermal Penetration
studies, as published in EPA 712? designated as having a 'low potential' for skin
C?8?50, August 1998. absorbtion.
Products or individual ingredients for which 1% to
Designations of low, moderate, and 5% of the test dosage is absorbed shall be designated
high potential for skin absorbtion as having a 'moderate potential' for skin absorbtion.
have been created for this project.
Products or individual ingredients for which more
than 5% of the test dosage is absorbed shall be
designated as having a 'high potential' for skin
absorbtion.
Skin absorbtion test data are not available.
6. Corrosivity
= pH of the whole product in its concentrated form.
Identify the pH of the product as a
whole, or state that there is no pH. = pH for the whole product when diluted for use.
Product does not have a pH because
______________.
Page 3 of 8
Preferable Product Data Sheet
Comments/Source
EP3 Evaluation Criterion Your Response (For City Use)
7. Flammability
The flash point of the whole product is:
As defined in OSHA Regulations
(29 CFR) Hazard Communication ?br>
1910.1200, "Flash Point" means the
If whole product test data are unavailable, the lowest
minimum temperature at which a
flashpoint for any individual ingredient present above 5.0%
liquid gives off a vapor in sufficient
is:
concentration to ignite.
8. Ozone Depleting Substances
List any intentionally added
ingredient or known contaminant of
more than 1% by weight that is an
ozone depleting substance, as
defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendment, i.e., any:
Class I ODS;
Class II ODS; or
Alternatives listed as
"unacceptable" under the US EPA
Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP).
9. Endocrine Modifiers
List any intentionally added
ingredient or known contaminant of
more than 1% by weight that is a
known, probable, or possible
endocrine modifier on this list:
Preliminary List of Chemicals
Associated With Endocrine System
Effects (Illinois EPA, 2/97, with
4/98 Supplement)
10. Greenhouse Gas
List any intentionally added
ingredient or known contaminant of
more than 1% by weight that is
designated by the Kyoto Protocol of
December 1997 as having a
greenhouse impact.
Page 4 of 8
Preferable Product Data Sheet
Comments/Source
EP3 Evaluation Criterion Your Response (For City Use)
11. Biodegradability
Yes. The product and its ingredients are all readily
Does the product as a whole, and
biodegradable.
does each ingredient comprising 5%
or more of the total, satisfy the
No. The product or one or more of its ingredients
Organization for Economic
are not readily biodegradable.
Cooperation and Development
(OECD) definition of readily Check the test method used:
biodegradable?
Test
DOC Die-Away Test
MITII Test
Closed Bottle Test
CO2 Evolution Test
Mod. OECD Screen
Manimetric Resp.
Other Test (provide Details)
We do not have any biodegradability test results for
either the product or its individual ingredients.
VOC Content ?Concentrate
12. Volatile Organic Compounds
lbs/gallon
What is the VOC content of the
Percent
product as determined in accordance
with California Air Resources
Board Method 310? VOC Content ?RTU
lbs/gallon
Percent
13. Fragrances
Identify any ingredient comprising
more than 0.1% by weight of the
total product that is added as a
fragrance for non-functional
purposes or that is a SARA 313
hazardous material.
14. Dyes
Identify any ingredient comprising
more than 0.1% by weight of the
total product that is added as a dye
for non-functional purposes or that
is a SARA 313 hazardous material.
Page 5 of 8
Preferable Product Data Sheet
Comments/Source
EP3 Evaluation Criterion Your Response (For City Use)
Answer one of the following:
15. Concentrate
No - Product is provided ready to use
Identify how much water the user is
supposed to add in order to prepare Yes - Water needs to be added.
the product.
If water is to be added:
Strongest/Heavy Duty Cleaning
Ounces of product are to be added to one gallon of
water.
Mildest/Light Duty Cleaning
Ounces of product are to be added to one gallon of
water.
Check one of the following:
16. Aerosol Container
The product is only packaged in an aerosol
Is the product available in a non-
container.
aerosol container?
The product is available in both aerosol and non-
aerosol containers.
The product is only packaged in a non-aerosol
container.
Check All That Apply:
17. Recycling
Product container
May be refilled & reused by site.
May be returned to supplier or other parties for
reuse.
Is made of a material that may be recycled in San
Francisco, for example: Number 1 and 2 plastic
bottles, metal cans, and glass containers.
Shipping materials and packaging
May be refilled & reused by site.
May be returned to supplier or other parties for
reuse.
Is made of a material that may be recycled in San
Francisco, for example: cardboard box and packing
papers.
Recycled content is less than requirements or not
known
Page 6 of 8
Preferable Product Data Sheet
Comments/Source
EP3 Evaluation Criterion Your Response (For City Use)
Answer both of the following:
18. Recycled Content
Percent of the product container is made of
post-consumer content.
Percent of the shipping package is made of
post-consumer content.
Contents of container or packaging is not known
User Training
Describe the training program that
your company provides to users of
this product. Attach additional
pages as needed.
Other Information
Please include any other information
about this product or your company
of which you wish the City and
County of San Francisco to be
aware.
Page 7 of 8
City of San Francisco EP3 Criteria
Chemical Product Score Sheet
Site: Area: Contact: Date:
Product: Amounts Used
Size Quantity Frequency Purchase Cost Disposal Route
Use:
MSDS No. & Date: Supplier / Manufacturer:
Recommendations: NFPA: HMIS:
H: H:
F: F:
R: R:
S: S:
Health and Safety Issues Score Possible Preferences
1. Carcinogens / Mutagens / Teratogens 0.1% or less
0 / 200
2. Neurotoxins 1.0% or less
0 / 100
3. Eye Irritation 0 / 30 / 50 / 100 Mild or no effect
4. Skin Irritation 0 / 30 / 50 / 100 Mild or no effect
5. Exposure - Ease of Skin Absorption 1.0% or less
0 / 25 / 50
6. Corrosivity 2.5 < pH < 11.5
0 / 50
7. Flammability Flashpoint > 200 癋
0 / 20 / 30 / 50
H&S Subtotal H&S Failing Score >= 200 points
0
Environmental Issues
8. Ozone-Depleting Substances 1.0% or less
0 / 100
9. Endocrine Modifiers 1.0% or less
0 / 50
10. Greenhouse Gases 1.0% or less
0 / 100
11. Biodegradability / Food Chain Exposure 0 / 25 Readily biodegradable
12. Volatile Organic Compounds 0 / 15 / 100 Meet CARB 2004 Limits
13. Added Fragrances 0.1% or less
0 / 25
14. Added Dyes 0.1% or less
0 / 25
Environmental Subtotal Enviro. Failing Score >= 100 points
0
Packaging Issues
15. Available as Concentrate 0 / 10 Shipped as concentrate
16. Available as Nonaerosol 0 / 15 Non-aerosol
17. Refill/Return/Recycle Container/Pkg 0 / 5 / 10 Refill/return, recycle OK
18. Recycled Content of Container/Pkg 0 / 5 / 10 25+% Post-consumer content
Packaging Subtotal Packaging Failing Score >= 35 points
0
Total 0
General Comments
Attach copies of MSDS's, supplier instructions, data sheets, etc. City and County of San Francisco ?EP3 Project ?Criteria Rev. 5
Page 1 of 1
APPENDIX C
FACILITY PRODUCT INVENTORY FORM
City facilities can use the "facility product inventory" form to catalogue the types, quantities,
and vendors of chemical products they use. The form is organized by common work activities to
facilitate a systematic and complete accounting of chemical products in use at the facility.
FACILITY PRODUCT INVENTORY
Work Area Which Products Used? Vendors / Amounts?
Carpet Cleaning Spot Removal Sprays
Deodorant
Bonnet Cleaner/Detergent
Prespray
Traffic Lane Cleaner
Shampoo
Hot Water Extractant
Gum Remover
Rust Remover
Hard Floor Care Sealant
Floor Finish
Stripper
Baseboard Stripper
Neutral Rinse
Surface Cleaner / Maintainer
Dust Mop Treatment
Glass Cleaning Aerosol Spray
Liquid Spray
Wipe Pads
Page 1 of 7
FACILITY PRODUCT INVENTORY
Work Area Which Products Used? Vendors / Amounts?
Metal Cleaning General Purpose Metal Cleaner
General Purpose Metal Polish
Brass Polish
Stainless Steel Cleaner
Stainless Steel Polish
Restroom Bath, Tub, and Tile Cleaner
Maintenance
Grout Cleaner
Fixture Cleaner
Bowl Cleaner (Acid and Non-
acid)
Disinfectant
Deodorant
Urinal Screens
Drain Opener and Maintainer
Kitchen Surface Cleaner/Degreaser
Maintenance
Exhaust Hood Cleaner
Disinfectant
Deodorant
Drain Opener and Maintainer
Page 2 of 7
FACILITY PRODUCT INVENTORY
Work Area Which Products Used? Vendors / Amounts?
Graffiti Removal Aerosol Spray
Liquid Spray
Gel
Wipe Pads
Wall and Ceiling General Purpose Cleaners
Care
Acoustic Tile Cleaner
Furniture Care Aerosol Spray
Liquid Spray
Other Janitorial
Work
Mechanical Penetrating Lubricant Aerosol
Equipment
Maintenance Grease
Lubricating Oil / Silicone
Solvent Cleaner / Degreaser
Adhesives
Gasket Compound
Paint Remover
Paint
Page 3 of 7
FACILITY PRODUCT INVENTORY
Work Area Which Products Used? Vendors / Amounts?
Electrical Solvent Cleaner / Degreaser
Equipment
Maintenance Contact Cleaner Aerosol
Tape Head Cleaner
Circuit Board Freezer
Motor Winding Paint
Paint Remover
Computer Screen Cleaner
Equipment Cabinet Cleaner
Dust Blow-Away Aerosol
Plumbing Drain Maintainer
Maintenance
Thread Compound
Solvent Cleaner / Degreaser
Solder Paste
Solder Flux
Solder
Paint
Paint Remover
Page 4 of 7
FACILITY PRODUCT INVENTORY
Work Area Which Products Used? Vendors / Amounts?
HVAC / Cooling Water Treatment Chemical
Tower / Boiler
Test Kit Chemical
Solvent Cleaner / Degreaser
Lubricant
Paints
Paint Remover
General Painting Paint Remover
Surface Preparation / Cleaner
Base Sealant
Primer
Paint
Surface Sealant
Caulk
Window Adhesive
Maintenance
Adhesive Remover / Solvent
Lubricant
Glazing Compound
Floor Tile Adhesive
Maintenance
Adhesive Remover / Solvent
Floor Sealant
Carpet Adhesive
Page 5 of 7
FACILITY PRODUCT INVENTORY
Work Area Which Products Used? Vendors / Amounts?
Fleet Vehicle Shampoo
Washing
Rinse Aid
Upholstery Cleaner
Wheel Cleaner
Engine Degreaser
Graffiti Remover
Battery Care Battery Cleaner
Battery Protectant
Brake Repair Aerosol Brake Cleaner
Spray Brake Cleaner
Brake Cleaning Sink
Transmission Aerosol Cleaner
Repair
Spray Cleaner
Transmission Washer
Engine Repair Aerosol Cleaner
Spray Cleaner
Gasket Compound
Page 6 of 7
FACILITY PRODUCT INVENTORY
Work Area Which Products Used? Vendors / Amounts?
Parts Washer Solvent Cleaner
Aqueous Cleaner
Electrical Repair Solvent Cleaner / Degreaser
Contact Cleaner Aerosol
Other Repair Choke / Carb Cleaner
Work
Page 7 of 7
APPENDIX D
PRODUCT TESTING FORMS
Current Product Baseline Data Collection (1 page): The EP3 team use this form
during preferable product testing to collect detailed information regarding who, how, where,
and in what quantities current chemical products are used.
Preferable Product Review Form (1 page): Staff at City facilities use this form during
effectiveness testing to record their evaluations following testing of preferable products.
Preferable Product Interview Form (1 page): The EP3 team use this form to record
the comments and ratings from City facility staff using preferable products during
effectiveness testing.
Current Product Baseline Data Collection
Site: Name of Product/Products Currently Used
Date:
How is current product purchased? Bulk? What size containers? _________
Ready to use? What size container? _________
Other? Describe ________________________
What are the handling requirements for the product?
1. Mixing requirements?
2. Indicate the dilution, if any, with water: _______ parts water to ______ parts product
3. Specialized application equipment of tools?
4. Other?
What is the unit cost for purchasing the current product?
1. Cost/unit or volume _______________
2. Number of cans/bottles/other per unit _____________
3. Other use costs (equipment or supplies) ___________
How many of the facility staff use the current product?
1 to 3 _____ 4 to 10 _____ 10 to 20 _____ >20 ______
On average, what amounts of time does staff spend using this product?
<1 hour/week _____ 1 to 2 hours/week _____ 2 to 5 hours/week_____
6 to 10 hours/week ______ >10 hours/week ______
Are there any residual wastes associated with the current product use?
Empty containers Yes No How are they disposed of? _____________________
Cost for disposal? _______________________________________
Residual product Yes No How is it disposed of? _________________________
Disposable equipment or materials Yes No How are they disposed? __________
__________________________________________
Cost for disposal? _______________________________________
Are any hazardous wastes generated as a result of using this product? Yes No
If yes, describe __________________________________________
Cost for disposal? ________________________________________
Other Issues? Write on back if you need more space.
Page 1 of 1
Preferable Product Review Form
Site/Person Doing Test: Date:
Supplier/Product Tested: Product tested on what cleaning job?
What product do you usually use for this job?
How dirty was the surface you cleaned?
Clean Dirty Very Dirty
How well did the test product work?
Great OK Poorly
How much test product was needed to get the job done as compared to your regular product?
Less than usual Same amount More than usual
How hard did you have to work with this product?
Less than usual Same work More than usual
Did it take more time to clean using this product?
Less than usual Same time More than usual
How does the product smell?
Great OK Bad
Did you have any health problems from using the product?
What do building occupants think of product?
Great OK Bad No one said anything
Would you recommend this product to others?
Yes No
Other Issues? Write on back if you need more space.
Page 1 of 1
Preferable Product Interview Form
Site: Product Tested:
Date:
Person(s) Being Interviewed: Surface types cleaned with product?
Types of graffiti cleaned with product?
Would this product be acceptable for use at your facility? Yes No
What specifically did you like about this product?
Have interviewee elaborate on what they liked. For example, if response is "It was simple to use," ask interviewee "In what
way...Was it the container applicator? The effectiveness in cleaning?"
1.
2.
3.
What specifically did you not like about this product?
Have interviewee elaborate on what they did not like. For example, if response is "It did not work," ask interviewee "Could
you provide an example of an application where it did not work?"
1.
2.
3.
How much product was needed to get the job done as compared to your regular product? (circle one)
Less than usual Same amount More than usual
Can you estimate what percentage more or less?
10% 25% 50% 100%
How often was the product used during the test period?
Less than once/day At least once/day Several times/day
Are there specific applications where you felt the product:
Could be used effectively?
Could not be used effectively?
Would you recommend this product to others? Yes No
Other Issues? Write on back if you need more space.
Log amount of product used: Started with ______ oz; used ________ oz.
Page 1 of 1
APPENDIX E
DATA SUMMARY TABLES
Appendix E contains a summary of the results from effectiveness testing for each of the
preferable products evaluated during the Pilot EP3. These results are more succinctly
summarized in Section 2.
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Brake Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms or OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Mirachem 500 by Innovative Environmental Product
PUC Yes No No Yes SC 9-20-01
Undecided
PUC No No No No No JC 9-26-01
PUC Yes No No No CC 10-9-01
Undecided
Interview Form Mirachem 500 is not acceptable to the PUC. Product didn't dry and not feasible for brakes. Liked the constant flow of product Frank
Confirm/Contrast (pump) and may be OK for other jobs like parts cleaner. Would not recommend to others. 10-16-01
Central Shops ? Yes No Yes No No No Name
Shop 3 12-3-01
Central Shops ? Yes No Yes No No Blue machine-shallow, tendency to spill/splatter. No Name
Shop 3 Black machine-poor design, hard to move 12-3-01
around. Lid interferes with cleaning.
Interview Form Mirachem 500 is not acceptable to Central Shops-Shop 3. Didn't like machines (too shallow, hard to use), product seemed to strip Nelson
Confirm/Contrast paint from brakes, didn't like smell. Would not recommend to others. 12-7-01
Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results
Clean N Safe by Citrus Safe
PUC Yes No No No No No Name
10-29-01
Interview Form Clean N Safe is not acceptable to PUC. Did not work, doesn't clean brakes well. Not recommended. Frank 11-5-
Confirm/Contrast 01
Central Shops ? Yes Yes No Yes No Other Issue ?how to deal with the waste? AH 10-22-01
Shop 3
Central Shops ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA 10-26-01
Shop 3
Central Shops ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No name
Shop 3 10-30-01
PUC Yes No No No No No Name
10-29-01
Interview Form Clean N Safe is acceptable to Central Shops-Shop 3. Worked well. Did not like spray, packaging. Prefer "brake baggie" CS 11-6-01
Confirm/Contrast
Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results
Undecided was considered a "no" in the fact sheet.
Page 1 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Brake Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms or OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Green Unikleen by IPAX - I assumed this was a 1:20 dilution forms did not say
PUC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Leo 11-20-01
PUC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Leo 12-3-01
PUC No No No No No Leo 12-20-01
PUC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Leo 1-4-02
PUC No No No No No Leo 1-11-02
Interview Form Green Unikleen is acceptable to PUC. Best product so far (for water based). Smells OK. Still not as good as aerosol/solvents. Frank
Confirm/Contrast Machine too big for brakes (good for parts cleaner). Concerned about heating ?would like a timer to shut off heater automatically. 12-20-01
Recommend to others.
Mixed Mixed
Summary Results Mixed Results Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Green Unikleen (1:20 dilution) by IPAX
Central Shops Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Name
11-15-01
Central Shops Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Name
11-21-01
Central Shops Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Name
11-26-01
Interview Form Green Unikleen (1:20 dilution) is acceptable to Central Shops. Cleans well. Best so far. Washing machine a bit too big, but not a Frank
Confirm/Contrast problem. Like the product a lot and the machine is mobile. Recommend to others. 12-20-01
Summary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Page 2 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Brake Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms or OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Dyna Green by Zep
PUC No No No No No Leo 12-20-01
PUC No No No No No Leo 12-20-01
PUC No No No No No Leo 1-11-01
Interview Form Dyna Green is not acceptable to PUC. Machine poorly designed, prefer IPAX product. Cleans and smells alright. Would not Leo 1-22-02
Confirm/Contrast recommend to others.
Central Shops Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA 10-10-01
Central Shops Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes The tank leaks and the cleaning sink stand is MB 10-10-01
not solidly attached to the tank.
Central Shops Yes No Yes Yes Yes Not recommended to others because Machine Phan 10-11-01
no good
Central Shops Yes No Yes Yes Yes Not recommended to others because Machine Gary 10-16-01
no good. Solution is good
Interview Form Dyna Green solution is acceptable to Central Shops but the machine is acceptable. The part washer hard to use has sharp edges, CS 10-19-01
Confirm/Contrast leaks, air ? up too low.
Summary Mixed Mixed Results Mixed Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results
Page 3 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Carburetor Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Clean n' Safe by Citrus Safe
MUNI - Scott Yes No No No No Surface was very dirty. Used on throttle body. Dave
Works OK for grease but not for heavy 5-13-02
formed carbon build-up.
MUNI - Scott No No No No No Surface was very dirty. Used on engine parts. Tom
Might be used for household only. 5-14-02
MUNI - Scott Yes Yes No No No Surface was very dirty. Used on brake job Jeff
and also tried it as a surface cleaner. 5-14-02
MUNI - Scott No No No No No Surface was very dirty. Used on engine parts Jim
and carburetor parts. 5-14-02
Interview Form Clean n' Safe is not acceptable to MUNI ?Scott. (Dave, Tom and Jim only) It removes light film only. Cuts grease better and the Jim and Tom
Confirm/Contrast smell is OK. However, it doesn't dissolve the grease. Takes more time to clean (rubbing). Doesn't break down carbon, doesn't 5-14-02
have penetrating ability.
Central Shops - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on brake boosters and engine parts; Nelson
Office of Contract surface was dirty 8-08-02
Administration
Central Shops - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used to spot clean floors; surface was dirty Albert
Office of Contract 8-29-02
Administration
Interview Form Nelson: This product would be acceptable for use at Central Shops. Cleaned great on brake boosters, engine compartment; Nelson /
Confirm/Contrast smells okay (no solvent smell). Albert: Cleans tough oil and grease spots off floor well (stated that he sometimes uses carb Albert
cleaner to spot clean floors) 8-08-02 / 9-
04-02
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
Page 4 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Carburetor Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Green Unikleen by IPAX Cleanogel
MUNI - Scott No No No No No Surface was very dirty. Used on carburetor No name
parts. 4-23-02
MUNI - Scott Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on engine oil pan. No name
Note: form states tester used cleaner on shop 4-23-02
floor not carburetor.
MUNI - Scott No No No No No Surface was very dirty. Used on engine parts. No name
4-23-02
MUNI - Scott No Yes No No No Surface was very dirty. Used on throttle No name
body. Recommend for general cleaning. 4-24-02
Interview Form Green Unikleen is not acceptable to MUNI ?Scott. Smell is OK. Solution didn't clean carburetor, didn't cut grease. Took longer to Jim
Confirm/Contrast clean. Didn't work at all on engine grease (even waited). 4-25-02
Central Shops - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used to clean engine; surface was dirty Nelson
Office of Contract 8-01-02
Administration
Central Shops - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was very dirty. Albert
Office of Contract 7-26-02
Administration
Interview Form Nelson: This product would not be acceptable at Central Shops. Required more effort & more product to clean parts (used an Nelson /
Confirm/Contrast entire bottle to clean one engine); however, it did not peel paint of parts like other product tested (Hurrisafe) / Albert: This product Albert
would be acceptable for parts cleaning at Central Shops. Worked well to clean parts and required less effort. Skin itched after use. 8-01-02
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
Page 5 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Carburetor Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Hurrisafe Carburetor Cleaner by PCI of America
MUNI - Scott No No No No No Surface was dirty. Used on intake manifold Jeff
and brake parts. Too strong of a smell. 6-18-02
MUNI - Scott No No No No No Surface was very dirty. Used on manifold. Dave
6-19-02
Interview Form Hurrisafe is not acceptable to MUNI ?Scott. Smells bad, required more effort and doesn't clean grease/carbon. Jeff and Dave
Confirm/Contrast 6-19-02
Central Shops - Yes Maybe No Yes Yes Surface was very dirty. Albert
Office of Contract 6-28-02
Administration
Central Shops - Yes No Yes Yes Yes Used to clean engine; surface was dirty Nelson
Office of Contract 7-18-02
Administration
Interview Form Albert /
Hurrisafe is acceptable to Central Shops. Smells OK, Cleaned well ?brake rotors parts. However, it required more product to
Confirm/Contrast Nelson
do the cleaning. / Same time & effort as required by Zep product (currently used); left sticky residue and needed to be rinsed off
7-18-02 /
after application; did not clean as well as Zep; some paint peeled off after cleaning. Hurrisafe is not acceptable to Central
8-01-02
Shops.
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
Page 6 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Five Coil Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Bioclean (1:10) by Rochester- Midland
BBR Yes No No No No Surface was dirty. Smells great. No name
4-9-02
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Smells OK. No name
4-10-02
Interview Form Bioclean is acceptable to BBR. Cleaned well (used on condensers). Smells OK. One user preferred Koil Klenz. Robert and
Confirm/Contrast Leo
4-29-02
Airport Yes Did not have Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. No name
data 3-27-02
Airport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. No name
4-8-02
Interview Form Bioclean is not acceptable to the Airport. Smells OK. Color is nice. Not effective on dirty units. Doesn't work on outside units, Pete, Amor,
Confirm/Contrast roof units, ops units. Took more time to clean. Would not recommend to others. Randy no date
City Hall Yes No Yes Yes Yes Surface was clean. Takes too much _____ No name
(can't read writing) to use. Respirator No date
required.
Interview Form Bioclean is not acceptable to City Hall. Cleaned alright. Requires too much preparation (PPE). Cannot be used effectively for Kevin Kelly
Confirm/Contrast indoor coils. Maybe used for outdoor coils due to ventilation (not respirator needed). 6-14-02
Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results
Page 7 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Five Coil Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Coil-ite by Arrow Magnolia
BBR Yes No Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on indoor coils. Robert Renear
Building occupants did not like the product. 11-25-01
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on outdoor air Jay Moore
conditioning coils. 12-27-01
Interview Form Coil-ite is not acceptable for indoor use by BBR (due to the bad odor). Use for outside coils is OK. Works well and cleans Robert Renear
Confirm/Contrast well. Bad odor. 12-25-01
Interview Form Coil-ite is acceptable to BBR. Cleans by itself ?just spray o and the product cleans. No strong smell. Efficient, gets the job Jay Moore
Confirm/Contrast done. Better than the one being used now. 12-27-01
Airport No No No No No Surface was dirty. No name
5-21-02
Interview Form Coil-ite is not acceptable to the Airport. Smells good. Not as good as current product. Requires more effort, time and product. Pete
Confirm/Contrast Still didn't clean, needed to use brush. Possibly better with higher concentration. 6-11-02
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Product foams. Best to No name
use outside. 2-27-02
Interview Form Coil-ite is acceptable to City Hall. Cleans OK. Foamed too much. Made it harder to clean. Needed to rinse more. Rommel Hueck
Confirm/Contrast 2-28-02
Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results
Page 8 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Five Coil Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Coil-zyme (1:5) by United Laboratories
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on condenser coils Robert Renear
outside. 2-6-02
Interview Form Coil-zyme is acceptable to BBR. Cleans well. Best one so far (like better than Coil-ite and NY4). Smell not too bad. Spray better Robert Renear
Confirm/Contrast than aerosol, easier to adjust flow of liquid. 2-7-02
Airport Yes No No Yes No Surface was dirty. Used on ___ dryer coils. No name
7-23-02
Interview Form Coil-zyme is not acceptable to the Airport. Used more product than usual, used whole bottle to clean 5 coils, didn't like smell. Randy &
Confirm/Contrast This cleaner is not good for heavy duty cleaning. Airport cleans coils quarterly (outside) and semi-annually (inside). Michael
7-24-02
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. No name
2-27-02
Interview Form Coil-zyme is acceptable to City Hall. Rommel Hueck
Confirm/Contrast 2-28-02
Mixed Mixed
Summary Yes Yes Mixed Results
Results Results
Page 9 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Five Coil Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Koil Klenz (1:6) by Mantek/NCH
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. No name
4-10-02
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on HVAC No name
condenser coil. 4-10-02
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Jay
5-15-02
Interview Form Koil Kleaz is acceptable to BBR. Cleans better than other preferred products tested so far. Rinsed out well. Best coil cleaner so Robert and
Confirm/Contrast far. (used on outdoor coils) Leo
4-29-02
Airport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was very dirty. No name
3-20-02
Airport No No No answer No No Surface was dirty. No name
given 4-3-02
Airport No No No Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on AC coils. No name
4-8-02
Interview Form Koil Kleaz is not acceptable to the Airport. Used more product than usual. Let product sit for ?hour and still didn't work. Took Pete 4-25-02
Confirm/Contrast an hour more to clean units.
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on AC coils. No name
2-27-02
Interview Form Koil kleaz is acceptable to City Hall. Rommel
Confirm/Contrast Hueck 2-28-02
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
Page 10 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Five Coil Cleaners
Used Same Worked as Takes Same
Amount or Hard or Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Less than Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
NY4 by Naturally Yours
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on AC coils. All indoor Robert Renear
coil cleaning. 10-31-01
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on indoor and outdoor Robert Renear
coils. 11-20-01
Interview Form NY4 is acceptable to BBR for indoor use. Easy to use. It works. Hard to spray in tight space. Spray did not work well. Robert Renear
Confirm/Contrast Recommend transfer solution from original bottle to a spray bottle because the original bottle did not work. 11-6-01
Interview Form NY4 is acceptable to BBR. Works well. Cleans well. Smells good. Good for indoor and outdoor. Robert Renear
Confirm/Contrast 12-27-01
Airport No No No No No Surface was dirty. Used to clean air dryers. Randy
Winston
8-21-02
Interview Form NY4 is not acceptable to Airport. Smells fine, but won't remove rust on coils, even with scraper on air dryers, outdoor A/C unit. Randy and
Confirm/Contrast Product doesn't make a difference and required more than usual. Suggest using the product as a tile cleaner for removing mold, Rico
but is ineffective removing rust. Airport's main concern is time and would prefer products that require less time and effort. 8-21-02
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on AC coils No name
2-21-02
Interview Form NY4 is acceptable to City Hall. Liked best out of all products tested. Cleaned well ?"Shiny" Rommel
Confirm/Contrast Hueck 2-28-02
Summary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Page 11 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Contact Cleaners
Takes Same
Used Same Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Amount or Less Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend than Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Positron by Ecolink
BBR ?Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on cleaning mostise lock mechanism RL 7-19-01
?deadbolt. Strong petroleum smell but
would still use product.
Interview Form Recommend to others. Works well, as well as WD-40. Did not like smaller bottle, stream nozzle and petroleum smell. Used same RL 7-19-01
Confirm/Contrast amount as regular product. Was effective in jobs tested. It was used less than once a day.
BBR ?Electrical Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on motor starters. MC 10-7-01
Shop
Interview Form Acceptable to BBR ?Electrical Shop. No residue does the job and removes dirt. Effective in cleaning electrical contacts. Recommend MC 10-8-01
Confirm/Contrast to others.
MUNI-Green Maybe Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on electric circuit boards etc. Odor BS 7-19-01
Electrical Shop OK at first but quickly becomes bad. Low
flashpoint ?fire risk. Possible long-term
effects from residue on components.
MUNI-Green Yes No No No No Tested on electromechanical controller to MG 7-20-01
Electrical Shop remove adhesive and grease. No directional
nozzle, drys slowly.
MUNI-Green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Denatured alcohol destroys plastic; therefore, LC 7-20-01
Electrical Shop there is an advantage in using Positron on
these surfaces.
Interview Form Not acceptable for MUNI-Green Electronic Shop. Doesn't dry fast enough, not sure about residue and needs much smaller nozzle to Fernando
Confirm/Contrast get into tight spaces. Used more product than our regular product. Would not recommend to others. Currently use Ecolink 2005 CFC 7-20-01
Free Contact Cleaner &CAIG DeoxIT D5. Like Ecolink Trigger.
MUNI-Green Yes No No No No Preventive maintenance. Left residue. CJ 7-20-01
PMI
Interview Form Not acceptable for MUNI-Green PM1. Left residue, takes a long time to dry and potential fire hazard ?fumes may ignite (very CJ 7-20-01
Confirm/Contrast nervous about that). Used more product than our regular product. Would not recommend. Currently use and like CAIG DeoxIT D5.
Page 12 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Contact Cleaners
Takes Same
Used Same Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Amount or Less Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend than Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Positron by Ecolink
Airport - Auto No No No No Tested on cleaning dirt off of wires. BE 7-11-01
No
Shop
Airport - Auto Yes No No No No Tested on corroded terminal. BE 7-17-01
Shop
Airport - Auto No No No No No Tested on connectors. John 7-20-
Shop 01
Airport - Auto Yes No No No No Tested on electrical connectors. RM 7-26-01
Shop
Airport - Auto No No No No No Tested on electrical plug. SL 7-26-01
Shop
Interview Form 7-26-01 BE. Not acceptable to Airport ?Auto Shop. Would not recommend to others. No pressure, takes a long time to dry and BE 7-26-01
Confirm/Contrast leaves a residue that you have to wipe off (more effort). Takes more product than regular due to pump bottle product. Amp dialectic BE & Joe
cleaner (currently in use) dries a lot faster. Smell is OK. 7-26-01
7-26-01 BE & Joe. Pump bottle is not good for this application ?uses too much product, does not dry as quickly as current product,
do not like mist but smell is OK.
Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results
Page 13 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Contact Cleaners
Used Same Worked as Takes Same
Facility Review Works Amount or Less Hard or Less Amount of Time or Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend than Regular than Regular Less than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Electron by Ecolink
BBR - Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on key switches GS 9-7-01
BBR - Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes RK 9-7-01
Interview Form GS. Acceptable. Easy to apply. Cleans well. Container too large easy to tip over. Same amount used as current product. Recommend to GS
Confirm/Contrast others. RK 9-7-01
RK. Acceptable. Effective. Pleasant odor. Would like product in a smaller container. Same amount used as current product.
BBR - Electrical Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on power tools, and electrical MC 9-7-01
Shop switches
BBR - Electrical Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on air compressor JF 9-7-01
Shop
Interview Form MC. Acceptable to BBR Electric Shop. Works great, spray gets into small areas. Recommend to others. MC 9-7-01
Confirm/Contrast JF. Product OK for some jobs. Smells good and good soaking. Leaves residue. Recommend to others. JF 9-7-01
MUNI-Green No No No No No Tested on circuit board RS 8-30-01
Electrical Shop
MUNI-Green Yes No Yes No Yes Tested on connector contacts. Worked like a LC 8-30-01
Electrical Shop lubricant than a solvent. Wiped excess off
with alcohol to dry out connector.
Interview Form Not acceptable to MUNI-Green Electronic Shop. Not effective. Residue does not dry for a long time. More product needed to do the job. RS 8-30-01
Confirm/Contrast Not recommend to others. Like and use Ecolink 2005.
MUNI-Green PMI Yes Yes Yes No No Works better than Ecolink 2005 on heavily JG 8-16-01
soiled and grease caked surfaces.
Interview Form Acceptable for cleaning surfaces other than contacts. Recommend for component washing only. Takes more elbow grease and have to CJ 8-30-01
Confirm/Contrast work longer. It is a good degreaser better than Super Electrosafe.
Airport ?Auto, No Yes No No No No name
Annex & GTU 9-4-01
Airport ?Auto, No No No No No Tested on electrical connectors and terminals No name
Annex & GTU 10-1-01
Airport ?Auto, Yes No Yes Yes Yes Tested on bulk wire connector in Annex. Not No name
Annex & GTU strong enough to clean old corrosion. 10-4-01
Interview Form Not acceptable to the Airport facilities. Does not clean, residue does not dry quickly. Not recommend to others. BE & GS
Confirm/Contrast 10-5-01
Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results
Page 14 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Contact Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Super-Electrosafe by Rochester-Midland
BBR ?Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes RK 8-8-01
BBR ?Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes RL 8-8-01
BBR ?Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes GS 8-9-01
Interview Form RK. Acceptable for BBR 璍ock Shop. Effective as it is designed. Odorless, non-aerosol spray and cleans well. Bottle too big. RK 8-9-01
Confirm/Contrast GS. Acceptable for BBR ?Lock Shop. Acceptable. Does the job same as what we are using now. Bottle too big, Do not like spray, GS 8-9-01
prefer applicator tube. Recommend to others.
?Electrical Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on contacts. MC 8-9-01
?Electrical Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on float contacts. JF 8-9-01
Interview Form Acceptable for quick fixes/small jobs at BBR ?Motor Shop. Too many restrictions for use on warning label. Bottle leaks when tipped JF & MC
Confirm/Contrast over. All leaks even when spray is tightened. Recommend to others. 8-9-01
MUNI-Green Yes No No Yes Yes Tested on dirty electronic circuit board. Takes RS 8-9-01
Electrical Shop hours to dry. Directions say "Do not mix or
rinse with water" Can't pinpoint application.
Interview Form Not acceptable to MUNI-Green Electronic Shop. Takes a long time to dry and difficult to apply in small spaces. More product is RS & LC
Confirm/Contrast needed. Would not recommend to others. 8-10-01
MUNI-Green Yes Yes Yes No No Tested on plastic lenses and windows. Chan 7-24-
PMI 01
Interview Form Not acceptable to MUNI-Green PMI. Takes longer to do job, long drying time and leaves film. More product is needed. Would not KJ 8-10-01
Confirm/Contrast recommend to others.
Airport - Auto No No No No No Tested on corroded electrical terminals. BE 8-15-01
Shop
Airport - Auto No No No No No Tested on dirty wires. JP 8-8-01
Shop
Interview Form Not acceptable to Airport ?Auto Shop. Residue stays for a long time, does not clean well and not enough pressure, hard to get into BE & JP
Confirm/Contrast small areas. More product is needed. Would not recommend to others. 8-23-01
Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results
Page 15 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Contact Cleaners
Used Same Worked as Takes Same
Facility Review Works Amount or Less Hard or Less Amount of Time or Evaluator
Forms and Great Recommend than Regular than Regular Less than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms or OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Ecospray by Ecolink
BBR ?Lock Shop
BBR ?Lock Shop
BBR ?Lock Shop
Interview Form
Confirm/Contrast
BBR ?Electrical
Shop
BBR ?Electrical
Shop
Interview Form
Confirm/Contrast
MUNI-Green No No No No No Circuit boards; contacts Karl Johnson
Electrical Shop 7-03-02
Interview Form Ecospray is not acceptable to MUNI ?Green. Product dried too quickly, not allowing enough time to wipe surface or brush dirt off. Bob Stanton
Confirm/Contrast May be okay for light-duty cleaning, but is not effective for large, dirty contacts. 7-03-02
MUNI-Green
PMI
Interview Form
Confirm/Contrast
Airport - Auto Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Electrical connectors; surface was dirty Bob
Shop 5-15-02
Airport - Auto Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Electrical connectors; surface was very Victor
Shop dirty 4-23-02
Airport - Auto Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cleaned corroded wiring; surface was John
Shop clean 4-30-02
Interview Form Ecospray is acceptable to the Airport Auto Shop. It works just like the product they are currently using now. Evaporates well, Bob, Victor,
Confirm/Contrast comparable to the current product. Smells okay. John 5-23-02
Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results
Page 16 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Six Glass Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Facility and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
SF Blue by Aldran (full strength)
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes First day to use this product on windows ?worked GN 4-5-01
well, smelled OK
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on chrome railings today ?worked OK. GN 4-6-01
Does better on glass
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes GN 4-10-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Does good job on windows GN 4-11-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Good product. I like it very much, would use again! GN 4-12-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes JC 4-13-01
Interview Form Supervisor (DB) approves of product. Works on glass best. Works OK on metals (not very effective). Less than or the same amount of DB 4-13-01
Confirm/Contrast product was used. Product tested once to several times a day. Would recommend to others.
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WA 4-19-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VS 4-19-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DP 4-19-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NM 4-19-01
Interview Form Product is acceptable for City Hall. Works well as current cleaner which they are very happy with (in terms of time and amount). Same WA 4-25-01
Confirm/Contrast amount of product used. Product tested several times a day. Would recommend to others.
Summary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Liquid Sunshine by United Labs (1:128 dilution)
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Does well on glass doors GN 4-25-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes GN 4-26-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Does well on glass windows and doors GN 4-30-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Does a good job GN 5-4-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ML 4-25-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ML 4-26-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ML 4-28-01
Interview Form Product is not acceptable for Main Library. Too strong for glass. Better on grease. Smells great. Same amount of product used. DB 5-2-01
Confirm/Contrast Product tested several times a day. Would recommend to others.
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WA 5-4-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes RR 5-1-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VS 5-1-01
Interview Form Product is acceptable for City Hall. Smells good. Good shine. Used on mirrors only, not glass. Have to spend more time wiping off, WA 5-10-01
Confirm/Contrast but once it's all wiped off, looks great. Same amount of product used. Product tested several times a day. Would recommend to others.
Page 17 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Six Glass Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Facility and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Summary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Page 18 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Six Glass Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Facility and Great Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms or OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
NY6 by Naturally Yours (full strength)
Main Library Yes No No No No First day working with product. Cleaned chrome GN 4-16-01
fairly well. Needed more rubbing in spots that were
bad.
2nd day working with product. Does OK job on
Main Library Yes Maybe No No No GN 4-17-01
windows and chrome.
Main Library Yes Yes No No No Seems OK on chrome, better on windows or glass. GN 4-19-01
Main Library Yes Yes No No No GN 4-20-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes JC 4-21-01
Interview Form Product is acceptable for Main Library but it takes more time and effort than usual to clean. Acceptable for glass. Not acceptable for DB 4-24-01
Confirm/Contrast chrome or metal. Required same amount of product for normal soiling conditions and more than usual for heavy soiling conditions.
Product tested at least once a day. Would recommend to others.
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WA 5-16-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VS 5-16-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes AS 5-16-01
Interview Form Product is acceptable for City Hall. Same amount of product was used. Product tested several times a day. Would recommend to WA 5-24-01
Confirm/Contrast others.
Summary Yes Yes Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Page 19 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Six Glass Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Facility and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Earthshine by Earthsafe & Wellness (1:2 dilution)
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes On some spots on glass doors, had to rub some GN 3-2-01
finger prints off before using squeege
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Some spots "finger prints" had to be rubbed a little GN 3-5-01
before being cleaned, but not a significant
problem.
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cleaned chrome OK but needed a little extra effort GN 3-6-01
in difficult spots.
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes This product is doing a good job as I am getting GN 3-7-01
used to it.
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cleaned elevators well, needed a little more in GN 3-8-01
spots but was OK
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes JC 3-2-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes JC 3-3-01
Main Library Yes No Yes Yes No JC 3-6-01
Main Library No No Yes Yes Yes It did not take off finger prints JC 3-7-01
Main Library No No No No No JC 3-8-01
Interview Form Product is not acceptable for Main Library. Takes more effort than usual to clean fingerprints. Same amount of product was used. DB 4-24-01
Confirm/Contrast Product tested several times a day. Would not recommend to others.
City Hall Yes No Yes Yes No VS 3-6-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NM 3-14-01
City Hall Yes No No Yes Yes DB 3-14-01
City Hall Yes No Yes No No DP 3-23-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes No WA 3-23-01
Interview Form Product is not acceptable for City Hall. More time needed to clean surfaces. WA 3-28-01
Confirm/Contrast
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
Page 20 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Six Glass Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Facility and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Envirocare by Rochester-Midland (1:32 dilution)
Main Library Yes No Yes Yes No Cleaned chrome railings good but needed a GN 3-28-01
little extra elbow work. Bad smell.
Main Library Yes No Yes Yes Yes Cleans glass good but needs to be a stronger GN 3-29-01
solution.
Main Library Yes No No No No Needs more solution to do the same work, GN 3-30-01
therefore more time to clean the same area.
Main Library Yes No Yes Yes Yes GN 4-3-01
Main Library No No No No No Cleans glass windows OK but needs more GN 4-4-01
solution & elbow grease to do the same work.
Not recommended.
Main Library Yes No No No No JC 4-4-01
Interview Form Product is not acceptable for Main Library. Needs more elbow grease to do the same job. More product was used. Product tested at DB 4-4-01
Confirm/Contrast least once a day or less. Would not recommend to others.
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes No WA 3-30-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NM 3-31-01
City Hall No No Yes Yes No Bad smell. VS 3-31-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes No DP 4-2-01
City Hall No No Yes No No DB 4-6-01
Interview Form Product is acceptable for City Hall. Takes more time than usual to clean. Same amount of product was used. Product tested several WA 2-25-01
Confirm/Contrast times a day. Would recommend to others.
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
Page 21 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Six Glass Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Facility and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
The Natural by Clean Environment (full strength)
Main Library No No No No No The dilution rate was too weak for the job. GN 3-20-01
Main Library No No No No No GN 3-21-01
Main Library No No No No No GN 3-22-01
Main Library No No No No No GN 3-23-01
Main Library No No No No No GN 3-26-01
Main Library Yes No No No No JC 3-20-01
Main Library Yes No No No No JC 3-21-01
Main Library Yes No No No No JC 3-22-01
Main Library Yes No No No No JC 3-23-01
Interview Form Product is not acceptable for Main Library. Too dilute, not effective. Had to work harder. More product was used. Would not DB 3-27-01
Confirm/Contrast recommend to others.
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VS 3-6-01
City Hall Yes No No No No JC 3-24-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WA 3-24-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes No No NM 3-27-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DB 3-27-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DP 3-27-01
Interview Form Product is acceptable for City Hall. Same amount of product was used. Would recommend to others. WA 2-25-01
Confirm/Contrast
Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results
Page 22 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Six Graffiti Removers
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Big Orange E by Zep
DPW - BSES Yes Yes No No No Graffiti type -markers and paint. JB 8-15-01
Surface cleaned - signs.
DPW - BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type -markers. CM 8-15-01
Surface cleaned ?parking signs.
DPW - BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type ?no infor. Surface cleaned - signs. EH 8-15-01
DPW - BSES Yes Maybe No No No Graffiti type -markers. MB 8-15-01
Surface cleaned ?no infor. Smells great.
DPW - BSES No No No No No Graffiti type 璼tickers, markers & paint. DA 8-15-01
Surface cleaned - metal signs.
DPW - BSES Yes Yes Yes No Yes Graffiti type 璶o infor. Walker 8-15-
Surface cleaned ?no infor. Smells great. 01
DPW - BSES No No No Yes Yes Graffiti type - stickers and markers. AM 8-15-01
Surface cleaned ?poles, mailboxes,signs &
traffic boxes
DPW - BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type -stickers and paint. Smells badly. LJ 8-15-01
Surface cleaned - signs. Works poorly on paint.
DPW - BSES Yes Yes for Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type - stickers & paint. Smells badly. SG 8-15-01
stickers Surface cleaned - signs. Works poorly on paint.
No for paint
DPW - BSES Yes No Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type -markers. FH 8-15-01
Surface cleaned - street signs.
DPW - BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type -markers and paint. AZ 8-15-01
Surface cleaned - signs.
DPW - BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type 璶o infor. LL 8-15-01
Surface cleaned ?no infor.
Interview Form Not acceptable to DPW ?BSES. Does not work. Stopped after a couple of days because it did not work. Sandy
Confirm/Contrast 9-6-01
Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results
Page 23 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Six Graffiti Removers
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Orange Gel by Zep
DPW - BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type -markers. Surface cleaned - signs. JB 10-3-01
I would like to use this product on a daily basis.
This product is really great.
DPW - BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type -markers. Surface cleaned ?signs EH 10-3-01
and windows at Bus Shelters.
DPW - BSES No No Yes No No Graffiti type -markers. Surface cleaned - signs. DA 10-3-01
DPW - BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type -markers and paint. AM 10-3-01
Surface cleaned ?glass and signs
Interview Form Not acceptable to DPW ?BSES. Does not work. Like the thickness. Sandy
Confirm/Contrast 10-5-01
MUNI - No No No No No Graffiti type -markers and paint. JE 9-27-01
Stationary Surface cleaned -. entire bus.
Interview Form Not acceptable to MUNI - Stationary. Does not work. JE
Confirm/Contrast 10-23-01
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
Page 24 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Six Graffiti Removers
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Powersol 900 by Minuteman
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type -markers. JB 10-10-01
Surface cleaned ?news racks, signs
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type -markers. Surface cleaned - CM 10-10-01
signs.
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type 璶o information. Worked well. EH 10-10-01
Surface cleaned ?signs, news racks &
windows.
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type 璶o info. Surface cleaned ?signs MB 10-10-01
DPW ?BSES No No No No No Graffiti type -markers. Surface cleaned ? DA 10-10-01
signs
DPW ?BSES No No No No No Graffiti type 璼pray paint. HH 10-10-01
Surface cleaned ?street signs
DPW ?BSES No No No No No Graffiti type ?no info. Surface cleaned ?no SG 10-10-01
info.
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type ?no info. Surface cleaned ?no Walker
info. 10-10-01
DPW ?BSES No No comment No comment No comment No comment Graffiti type 璵arkers. Surface cleaned ? OJ 10-10-01
comment signs
Interview Form Not acceptable to DPW ?BSES. Does not work. Strong smell. Do not like the thickness. Sandy
Confirm/Contrast 10-12-01
MUNI - No No No No No Graffiti type -markers and paint. JE 9-27-01
Stationary Surface cleaned -. entire bus.
Interview Form Not acceptable to MUNI - Stationary. Does not work. JE
Confirm/Contrast 10-23-01
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
Page 25 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Six Graffiti Removers
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Vortex by Ecolink
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type -markers. Recommend this product JB 10-10-01
Surface cleaned ?news racks, signs
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type -markers. Surface cleaned - signs. CM 10-10-01
DPW ?BSES No No No No No Graffiti type ?no information. Doesn't work. EH 10-10-01
Surface cleaned ?signs, news racks & windows.
DPW ?BSES No No Yes No No Graffiti type 璶o infor. Surface cleaned ?signs MB 10-10-01
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type 璵arkers & spray paint DA 10-10-01
Surface cleaned ?sign/metal Real good
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type 璼pray paint. HH 10-10-01
Surface cleaned ?street signs
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type ?no infor. Surface cleaned ?no infor Walker
10-10-01
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type ?no infor. Surface cleaned ?no infor OJ 10-10-01
DPW ?BSES No No No Yes Yes Graffiti type 璵arkers. Surface cleaned ?signs AM 10-10-01
Interview Form Acceptable to DPW ?BSES. Works better than the others tested. Smell too strong, even close the lid and put inside truck. A lot of Sandy
Confirm/Contrast people complained after use. Would not recommend to others. 10-12-01
MUNI - No No No No No Graffiti type -markers and paint. JE 9-20-01
Stationary Surface cleaned -. entire bus.
Interview Form Not acceptable to MUNI - Stationary. Does not work. JE 10-23-01
Confirm/Contrast
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
VG151 by Ecolink
DPW - BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type -markers. Surface cleaned - signs. DA 10-3-01
Interview Form Not acceptable to DPW ?BSES. Does not work. Like the thickness. Sandy
Confirm/Contrast 10-5-01
MUNI - Stationary No No No No No Graffiti type -markers and paint. JE 9-20-01
Surface cleaned -. entire bus.
Interview Form Not acceptable to MUNI - Stationary. Does not work. JE 10-23-01
Confirm/Contrast
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
Page 26 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Six Graffiti Removers
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
NY26C by Naturally Yours
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type ?no information MB
Surface cleaned ?windows
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type ?no information Walker
Surface cleaned ?no information
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type ?no infor. Surface cleaned ?no OJ
infor.
He likes product because it doesn't burn your
skin and you never get tired of the good smell.
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type 璵arkers & spray paint AZ
Surface cleaned ?news racks, signs, poles
DPW ?BSES Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Graffiti type 璵arkers CM
Surface cleaned ?news racks & plastic
DPW ?BSES No No No No No Graffiti type ?markers & spray paint EH
Surface cleaned ?poles, signs, walls, doors
Used ?dilution
Interview Form Acceptable to DPW ?BSES. Works better than the others tested. Smelled better than the others tested. Would recommend to Sandy
Confirm/Contrast others. 10-30-01
MUNI Woods - No No Yes No response Yes Graffiti type - spray paint does not work for LE
Mobile interior ceiling, smell too strong 11-19-01
MUNI Woods - No No Yes No response Yes Same comments as LE ?11-19-01 Dave
Mobile 11-19-01
Interview Form Acceptable to MUNI Woods ?Mobile but ONLY as a back up. Works better than the others tested. Smell too strong and it took
Confirm/Contrast too long to remove graffiti such as spray paint. Would not recommend to others.
MUNI No No No No No Takes off freshly put graffiti like marker. It JE
did not work on spray paint. 11-16-01
Interview Form Not acceptable for MUNI. Requires more work, did not work on spray paint and it has a strong smell. Would not recommend to JE
Confirm/Contrast others. 11-16-01
Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Yes Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results
Page 27 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Kitchen and Breakroom Surfaces Degreasers
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and Date
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments on Form
Harvest Gold 2000 by United Labs
DPW Yes No Yes Yes Yes Used on kitchen counter, already fairly Fontaine
clean. Too greasy 5-16-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on kitchen counter, already fairly LM 5-16-02
clean.
DPW No No Yes No No Used on kitchen counter, floor, urinal, Raymond
soap scum, all were dirty. 5-16-02
DPW Yes No Yes Yes Yes Used on kitchen counter, walls, table, No Name
machine, equipment, some already clean 5-29-02
& some dirty.
Smells OK but leaves an oily residue on
surface and gloves or hands ?needs to be
rinsed off.
Interview Form Not acceptable to DPW. Left greasy film, did not degrease. Did not like residue, requires rinsing. Would not recommend to Raymond, Joe,
Confirm/Contrast others. Pleasant citrus smell. Used in lunchrooms, kitchens, microwaves. Fontaine no date
Rec & Park Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on kitchen counter, work surface. One form for
Other ?cannot read. information 6 testers
According to MSDS, we have no way of 4-17-02
following directions and label
instructions and .... cannot read the
remaining information
Interview Form Acceptable to Rec & Park. Worked well, however, still prefer to use current product. Used on tables, tabletops, countertops. Frank, Eladra,
Confirm/Contrast Ramiro 4-18-02
Mixed Mixed
Summary Yes Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results
Page 28 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Kitchen and Breakroom Surfaces Degreasers
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms or OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Liquid Sunshine 777 by United Labs
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on greasy kitchen counter tops. They No name
were dirty. 6-20-02
DPW Yes Yes No Yes Yes None provided No name
6-20-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on kitchen walls, table, work surfaces, No name
machine equipment, shower. Already fairly 6-20-02
clean.
Interview Form Acceptable to DPW. Smells good, deodorizing, picked up grease, cleaned well. Recommend to others. Fontaine, Joe
Confirm/Contrast 6-20-02
Rec and Park Yes Yes, with Yes Yes Yes Used on kitchen counter, work surfaces. One form for 3
reservations Already fairly clean. testers 5-9-02
Interview Form Acceptable to Rec and Park for routine maintenance. Not acceptable for stainless steel. Worked "alright" Did not seem to do as well Frank, Cladio
Confirm/Contrast as current product on stainless steel. Required a little more elbow grease. 5-9-02
Summary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Page 29 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Kitchen and Breakroom Surfaces Degreasers
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
NY3 by Naturally Yours
DPW Yes No Yes Yes Yes Used on kitchen counter, table, microwave. No name
Already fairly clean. Smell OK to Bad. 2-25-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on telephones and cement floors. No name
They were dirty. Tested on soil and grease. 4-17-02
DPW No No answer No No No Used on work surfaces. No name
Already fairly clean. 4-23-02
DPW Yes No Yes Yes Yes No information on what surfaces were No name
cleaned. 4-23-02
Surfaces were already fairly clean. Smell
changed. Did not like smell.
Interview Form Not Acceptable to DPW. Smell made testers a little nauseated after awhile. Did not leave a fresh smell. Worked well on Raymond, Joe,
Confirm/Contrast microwave and kitchen table. Fontaine 4-26-
02
Rec and Park Yes Yes, with Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom surfaces. Already fairly 4-3-02
reservations clean.
Used on daily soil and dirt. Current product
is multi-purpose and this product is not.
Interview Form Acceptable to Rec and Park. Cleaned formica well in restrooms. Smell is OK. Frank, Ramiro,
Confirm/Contrast Eladio 4-4-02
Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results
Page 30 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Kitchen and Breakroom Surfaces Degreasers
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Powersol 500 by Minuteman
DPW Yes No Yes Yes Yes Used on kitchen counter, wall, table, Can't read
work surface, refrigerator, microwave. name
Already fairly clean. Has food grease. 4-8-02
Does not smell fresh. Leaves streaks on
walls. Smells funny.
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on kitchen counter, table. Surfaces Polisa
were dirty. 4-9-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on doors, panic bar, telephones, Can't read
kitchen tables. Surfaces were dirty. name
No date
Interview Form Acceptable to DPW. Cleaned well e.g. tabletops, stainless steel, steel sinks etc. Ray
Confirm/Contrast 4-9-02
Rec and Park No No No No No Used on machine and floors. Surfaces No name
very dirty. 3-13-02
Rec and Park No No No No No Used on kitchen counter, machine and No name
floors. Surfaces were dirty. 3-13-02
Interview Form Not acceptable to Rec and Park. Wo8uld not recommend to others. Works "alright". Not as good as current product. Didn't work Frank, Ramiro,
Confirm/Contrast as well as current product on ceiling fans. Did not remove grease as effectively as current product. Note: tested on ceiling fans, Eladio 3-14-02
mosaic tile floors, machine scrubbing, kitchen areas (floors, tables). Current degreaser, (Soilsolv) is multi-purpose.
Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results
Page 31 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Two Disinfectants Tested on Kitchen and Breakroom Surfaces
Used Same Worked as Takes Same
Facility Review Works Amount or Less Hard or Less Amount of Time Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend than Regular than Regular or Less than Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Regular Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Neutracide - Surtec
Laguna Honda No No No No No Cleaned kitchen sink, table tops, No name
stainless steal, food stuffs and cooking 7-11-02
oils; surface was dirty to very dirty
Interview Form Used in kitchen; didn't remove grease; left streaks; didn't seem to work at all; watery; didn't have detergent quality Joe, Ed, Pete
Confirm/Contrast 7-23-02
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
AF315 - Betco
Laguna Honda Yes No Yes Yes No Used on dirty kitchen counters, sink, Results for 2
and floor users
Interview Form (Kitchen) Not acceptable to Laguna Honda; doesn't clean well; watery; not strong enough; left film; cannot be used on surfaces Tony Ornano
Confirm/Contrast that require more than once-a-day cleaning; could be used for end-of-day cleaning; not suitable for hospital use b/c it takes too 8-13-02
long to clean
Summary Yes No Yes Yes No
Page 32 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Five Machinery Parts Degreasers
Used Same Worked as Takes Same
Amount or Hard or Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Less than Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Cleanaire1200 (1:20) by Rochester- Midland
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on a generator. Used No name
on soil and grease. Smell is strong. 7-15-02
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on an emergency No name
generator. Used on soil and grease. Smell is 7-16-02
strong but OK.
Interview Form Cleanaire 1200 is acceptable to BBR. Works well, cleans well, gets job done. Smell is a little strong but not irritating. Jay Moore &
Confirm/Contrast Note ?all machinery parts degreasers worked well at BBR. Leo Soto 7-18-
02
Airport No No No No No Surface was very dirty. Used on bearings, No name
shafts. Used on dirt and bearing grease. 5-21-02
Airport Yes No Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on air handling unit. Julius ?
Used on grease. Not strong enough. More 6-4-02
concentrate may work.
Airport No No No No No Surface was dirty. Used on fan blades (outside No name
on roof top) and other parts. Used on dirt and 6-13-02
dust.
Interview Form Cleanaire 1200 is not acceptable to the Airport. Smell is OK. Cleaned a little bit. Worked better than last products. Spent more Ron Anderson
Confirm/Contrast time cleaning. Didn't clean as well as current product, even at higher concentrations. Would not recommend to others. 6-4-02
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
Page 33 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Five Machinery Parts Degreasers
Used Same Worked as Takes Same
Amount or Hard or Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Less than Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Harvest Gold 2000 (1:1) by United Laboratories
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on Kohlor emergency Leo
generator engine. Used on soil and grease. 5-16-02
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on machinery. Jay Moore
5-24-02
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on generator. Used on Robert 5-28-02
grease.
Interview Form Harvest Gold 2000 is acceptable to BBR. Worked well on generator, did the job, came out just like new. Best preferred product Leo & Robert
Confirm/Contrast so far. 5-29-02
Airport No No No No No Surface was very dirty; product tested on air Julius G.
handling units/pumps to remove grease. PM 8-21-02
cleaned once every 3 months.
Interview Form Harvest Gold 2000 is not acceptable to the airport. It required more product than normal and did not remove grease or dirt. Julius & Ed
Confirm/Contrast Airport staff are primarily concerned with the amount of time it takes to complete job; prefer products that require less time and Cayabyab 8-21-
effort. Would like to try orange/citrus product. 02
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
Page 34 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Five Machinery Parts Degreasers
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Liquid Sunshine 777 (1:10) by United Laboratories
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on generator. Jay Moore
6-25-02
BBR Yes Yes Yes No No Surface was very dirty. Used on generator. No name
Used on grease and soil. 6-25-02
BBR Yes No Yes No Yes Surface was dirty. Used on emergency No name
generator engine block. Used on soil and 6-17-02
grease.
Interview Form Liquid Sunshine 777 is acceptable to BBR. Smells good. Cleaned fine. Jay, Leo,
Confirm/Contrast Robert no date
Airport No No No No No Surface was dirty. Used on compressor in No name
service and compressor parts torn down for 7-24-02
rebuild. Used on compressor oil, grease and
normal dirt and grime.
Interview Form Liquid Sunshine 777 is not acceptable to the Airport. Did not cut through grease (6 months worth). Smells great. Not for heavy Randy &
Confirm/Contrast duty cleaning. Michael
7-24-02
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results Results
Page 35 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Five Machinery Parts Degreasers
Used Same Worked as Takes Same
Facility Review Works Amount or Less Hard or Less Amount of Time Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend than Regular than Regular or Less than Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Regular Cleaner Comments Date on Form
N14 (1:32) by Clean Environment
BBR (1:20) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on motor engine. No name
4-10-02
Note form said they used dilution 1:20.
BBR (1:20) Yes Yes No Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on HVAC No name
motor/compressor. 4-10-02
Note form said they used dilution 1:20.
Interview Form N14 (1:20) is acceptable to BBR. Worked well on compressor motors and engines. Smells OK. Leo and Robert
Confirm/Contrast 4-29-02
Airport (1:32) No No No No No Surface was very dirty. Used on oil and No name
grease on machine. 4-3-02
Airport (1:32) No No No No No Surface was dirty. Used on misc. pump No name
parts. 4-5-02
Will try with higher concentration.
Airport (1:32) No No No answer given No No Surface was fairly clean. No name
No date
Interview Form N14 (1:32) is not acceptable to the Airport. Too dilute. Didn't remove grease. Doesn't work (bearings). Have to work much harder Julias and
Confirm/Contrast with this product. One user didn't like the smell. Randy
4-25-02
Mixed Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results Results
Page 36 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Five Machinery Parts Degreasers
Used Same Worked as Takes Same
Facility Review Works Amount or Less Hard or Less Amount of Time Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend than Regular than Regular or Less than Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Regular Cleaner Comments Date on Form
NY53(1:10) by Naturally Yours
BBR (1:10) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on circulating Leo 3-25-02
pump motor.
BBR (1:10) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on motor No name
pumps. 4-10-02
Interview Form NY53 (1:10) is acceptable to BBR. Odor not strong. No smell. Perform better than the one being used (Hot shot). Leo 4-4-02
Confirm/Contrast
Interview Form NY53 (1:10) is acceptable to BBR. Cleaned well. (motors and pumps). Robert 4-29-02
Confirm/Contrast
Airport (1:10) Yes No Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on air handling Julius 6-4-02
unit. Had a bad smell.
Airport (1:10) No No Yes No No Surface was dirty. Used on grease from A. Bautista
garbage compactor. Smell was OK. 6-7-02
Need more time and effort to achieve
same performance with current product.
Airport (1:5) Yes No Yes Yes Yes Surface was very dirty. Used on air Julius 6-7-02
handling unit. For small jobs only. Not
for industrial jobs like air handling units.
Interview Form NY53 (1:10) is not acceptable to the airport. Worked better than other product (Cleanaire 1200) Cleaned dust and grease. Would Julius 6-4-02
Confirm/Contrast like stronger concentration.
Interview Form NY53 (1:5)4 is not acceptable to airport. 1:5 dilution worked better than 1:10 dilution. Liked the fact the product was non toxic. Julius and
Confirm/Contrast Does not break down grease with 1:10 dilution. Takes more time to clean and more effort. Bautista
6-7-02
Mixed
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Results
Page 37 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Penetrating Lubricants
Used Same Amount or Takes Same Amount of
Works Great Recommend Less than Regular Time or Less than Regular
Facility or OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Comments
Liquid Sunshine by United Labs (1:10, 1:32 and 1:64 dilutions)
Main Library Yes Yes Yes No 1:10 It works a little bit, takes more time
Main Library Yes Yes No No 1:10
Main Library Yes Yes Yes No 1:32 works the same as 1:10 dilution
Main Library Yes Yes Yes No 1:32
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes 1:32
City Hall Yes Yes Yes No 1:32
City Hall Yes No Yes No 1:32
City Hall Yes Yes Yes No 1:32
Main Library No Yes Yes No 1:64 It does not work
1:10 dilution worked best for Library
Summary Yes Yes Yes Yes
NY3 Degreaser by Naturally Yours (full strength, 1:16 and 1:32 dilutions)
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Full strength
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Full strength. Works well heavily soiled
areas
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes 1:16
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes 1:16
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes 1:16
City Hall Yes No Yes No 1:16
City Hall Yes No No No 1:16
Main Library Yes Yes Yes No 1:32 very good for very light soiled areas
Summary Yes Yes Mixed Results Mixed Results
Page 38 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Penetrating Lubricants
Used Same Amount or Takes Same Amount of
Works Great Recommend Less than Regular Time or Less than Regular
Facility or OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Comments
Wrench Wrinser by Ecolink (wipes)
Main Library Yes Yes No No
Main Library Yes Yes No No
Main Library Yes Yes No No
Main Library Yes No No No
Main Library Yes No comment Yes No
Main Library Yes/no No comment Yes Yes
Main Library No No comment Yes Yes
Main Library Yes No comment Yes Yes
City Hall Yes No Yes No
City Hall No No No No
City Hall No No No No
City Hall No No No No
Summary Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
N13 Glass Cleaner by Clean Environment (full strength, 1:2 and 1:4 dilutions)
Main Library No No comment No No Full strength
Main Library No Yes Yes No Full strength
Main Library No Yes No No 1:2
Main Library No Yes Yes No 1:2
Main Library No Yes No No 1:4
Main Library No Yes No No 1:4
City Hall Yes Yes Yes No 1:4
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes 1:4
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes 1:4
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes 1:4
Summary Mixed Results Yes Mixed Results Mixed Results
Page 39 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Penetrating Lubricants
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of Evaluator
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Initials and
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Date on
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Form
Pent 254 by Ecolink
BBR ?Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on closet carrier rods. FM 5-24-01
BBR ?Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested inside lock mechanism RL 5-24-01
BBR ?Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on latches. Packaging ?container too tall GS 5-31-01
?tips easily
BBR ?Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on locks that are not working well. Had RK 7-19-01
to prep more because not an aerosol
BBR - Sheet Yes No Yes Yes Yes Tested for drilling. Taste in throat, mouth and MB 5-22-01
Metal Shop nose
BBR ?Sheet Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on lubricating pipe cutter Smell is strong DM 5-30-01
Metal Shop but OK. Better review with more time to use.
BBR ?DPW Yes No Yes Yes Yes Tested for cleaning and polishing. Offensive No Name
Shop smell ?makes one sick. 5-24-01
BBR Yes No Yes Yes Yes Tested on pipes. BM 5-24-01
BBR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Name
5-30-01
Interview Form 5-30-01 Comments from entire BBR group. Product acceptable for BBR. Works OK with proper ventilation. Smell is too strong. Entire group
Confirm/Contrast Lingers all day. Can is too tall ?can't get into tight spots. Tips over easily. Would like a pressure can. Same amount of product was 5-30-01 &
used. Effective if used in open areas. Could not be used effectively as a cutting lubricant, enclosed areas. Two weeks is not long 6 people
enough to test properly for all the various job applications. Normally use about 2 cans/year. 5-31-01 &
5-31-01 Comments from 6 people in BBR Lock, Sheet Metal and Plumbing Shops. Objectionable odor and Difficult application. Ray
Effective for light duty cleaning outdoors. Use for outdoor work, no for indoor work. Prefer aerosol. 7-19-01
7-19-01 Ray's comments - BBR Lock Shop. Works as well as WD-40. Would like a smaller bottle with a stream nozzle. Effective for
all jobs. Would recommend to others.
Page 40 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Penetrating Lubricants
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of Evaluator
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Initials and
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Date on
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Form
Airport - Auto Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on bare metal tools that rust. BE 5-24-01
Shop Product smells bad.
Airport - Auto Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on tools. Product smells bad. BE 5-25-01
Shop
Airport - Auto Yes Yes No Yes Yes Tested on door latch. Product smells bad. BE 5-31-01
Shop
Airport ?Annex Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on a paver Usebaldo
5-25-01
Airport - Annex Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on bolt threads Usebaldo
5-28-01
Airport - Annex Yes Yes No Yes Yes Tested on rust. Not enough time to use product Clay
for proper evaluation. 5-30-01
Interview Form 5-31-01 GS, BE and entire group. Cleans dirt well. Smelly (indoor and outdoor). A lot of waste associated with trigger sprayer, more GS, BE and
Confirm/Contrast product comes out than needed. Effective on thin asphalt layer, dirt. Not effective on thick tar. Works the same as WD-40. Extend entire group
test time to a month. 5-31-01 &
5-31-01 GS and 3 staff. Would not recommend to others. Bad odor, difficult application and did not clean heavy duty stuff such as GS & 3 staff
nuts and bolts. Effective for light duty only. Mist stays in air a long time. Two week testing not long enough. 5-31-01
Mixed Mixed
Summary Yes Results Results Yes Yes
Page 41 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Penetrating Lubricants
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
LP40 Penetrating Lubricant by Betco
BBR - Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on rusty plumbing parts FM 6-25-01
BBR - Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on latches Greg 6-28-01
BBR - Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on latches GS 6-28-01
BBR - Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on gate latches Ramon 6-28-01
BBR - Lock Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes RL 6-28-01
BBR - Sheet Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on bottom of sliding doors (metal to Ross
Metal Shop metal). Able to pinpoint and lasts longer. 6-28-01
BBR - Sheet Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on gate hardware/door rollers. Tube DM 6-29-01
Metal Shop allows use in tight spaces. Works longer than
WD-40 for lubricating.
BBR - Sheet Yes Not yet able to Yes Yes Yes Tested on brake for metal bending MB 6-29-01
Metal Shop say
Interview Form Product is generally acceptable for the BBR Lock and Sheet Metal Shops. Easier application than the Pent 254, odor more Lock & Sheet
Confirm/Contrast acceptable. Like product more than Pent 254. Not yet sure if we would recommend to others. Works about the same as Pent 254. Metal Shops
Use about the same amount of product as our regular cleaner. 6-28-01 &
Greg BBR
Lock Shop
6-28-01
Airport Yes Yes No Yes No Tested on rusty bolts. Recommend to others BE 6-5-01
only because of being environmentally safe.
Airport Yes Yes No Yes No Tested on rust. Recommend to others only BE 6-13-01
because of being environmentally safe.
Airport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tested on brake drum to axle. JF 6-19-01
Airport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Don 6-27-01
Airport Yes No No Yes Yes Tested on rusted bolts. BM 6-27-01
Interview Form Product is not acceptable for Airport. Like aerosol applicator. Does not clean well for the types of work at the Airport, for example GS & 3 staff 6-
Confirm/Contrast the heavy duty stuff. More product was needed. About the same performance as Pent 254 except smells better. 27-01
Mixed
Summary Yes Mixed Results Results Yes Mixed Results
Page 42 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Penetrating Lubricants
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
P&L Lubricant - Ecolink
SFO - Auto Shop Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2 Testers;
Victor, Bob
8-14-02
Interview Form This product is acceptable to SFO Auto shop; smells okay, not bad; works well; works just the same as Zep (current product); Bob, Victor
Confirm/Contrast more for rusting gears for auto 8-22-02
Summary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Page 43 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Restroom Fixture Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Clean - Up by Aldran
DPW Yes No Yes Yes Yes Used 1:22 dilution. Used on restroom Joe
counter, wall, sink, toilet, urinal. Surface 4-8-02
already fairly clean. Seems to shine and
clean metal fixtures but becomes dull
when dry. Has a citrus smell but not a
fresh clean smell.
DPW Yes No Yes Yes Yes Used 1:22 dilution. Used on restroom Police ?
sink, toilet, urinal. Surface dirty. 4-9-02
DPW Yes No No response No response No response Used 1:22 dilution. Used on restroom Phamt ?
sink. Surface was dirty. Smells bad, No date
building occupants didn't like it.
Interview Form For 1:22. Not acceptable to DPW. Didn't shine fixtures as well as current product, shine dulled when dry, "too weak", smell Martin,
Confirm/Contrast not fresh. Didn't work on copper sink fixtures (streaked). Most sinks were stainless steel. Fontaine, Joe
4-9-02
Interview Form For 1:32 dilution. Not acceptable to DPW. The smell was too strong, occupants and users complained. User stop testing due to Raymond
Confirm/Contrast smell (irritated noses). O'Neill
4-9-02
Rec & Park Yes No No No Yes Used 1:32 dilution. Used on restroom JP
sink, toilet, urinal, exposed pipes and all 3-13-02
bathroom fixtures. Surface already fairly
clean.
Rec & Park Yes No No No Yes Used 1:32 dilution. Used on restroom Cheng Wu,
sink, toilet, urinal, exposed pipes and all Phong
bathroom fixtures. Surface already fairly 3-13-02
clean.
Interview Form For 1:32 dilution. Not acceptable to Rec & Park. Cleans poorly (takes too long to clean), took 2x as long, current product Frank, Ramiro,
Confirm/Contrast cleans better. Clean-up takes more time, product and user effort. Smells OK. More product should have been provided and Eladio 3-14-02
surfaces were dirty (swimming pool restrooms).
Summary No No No No No
Page 44 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Restroom Fixture Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Envirocare Washroom Cleaner (1:4) by Rochester Midland
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom counter, wall, sink, No name
partition. 4-26-02
Surface already fairly clean.
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on window frames, table tops, plastic No name
chairs; heavy soil on chairs and table tops 4-15-02
DPW No No No No Yes Used on sink, toilet; surfaces already fairly No name
clean 4-23-02
DPW No Yes No No Yes Used on sink and toilet; surfaces already No name
fairly clean 4-23-02
Interview Form Acceptable to DPW. Worked well on knobs, sinks. Smell was mild. Left nice smell. Fontaine
Confirm/Contrast Raymond, Joe
4-26-02
Rec and Park Yes Yes, with Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom sink, toilet, urinal. One form for _
Surfaces already fairly clean. Current testers
reservations
4-3-02
product is multi-purpose and this product
is not.
Interview Form Acceptable to Rec and Park with reservations - i.e. many fixtures have moss which current product removes easily but this Frank, Ramiro,
Confirm/Contrast product does not. Cleans, smells good, same amount of time. Product not multi-purpose. Eladio 4-4-02
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Results Results Results Mixed Results Yes
Page 45 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Restroom Fixture Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Liquid Sunshine 777 by United Labs
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used 1:10 dilution. Used on restroom Fontaine
counter, hand towel dispensers. Surfaces 5-16-02
were already fairly clean. We like it.
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used 1:10 dilution. Used on restroom LM
counter, wall, hand towel dispensers. 5-16-02
Surfaces were already fairly clean.
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used 1:10 dilution. Used on restroom Can't read name
counter, wall, partition, urinal. Surfaces were 5-16-02
already fairly clean.
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used 1:10 dilution. Used on restroom Joe
counter, sink. Surfaces were already fairly 5-29-02
clean. Has fresh scent.
Interview Form Acceptable to DPW. Cleaned well but required more effort. Liked smell. Shined metal and chrome. Concentration is too weak, Raymond, Joe
Confirm/Contrast would recommend a stronger solution. Recommend to others. Fontaine
5-29-02
Rec and Park Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used 1:64 dilution. Used on sinks, faucets, One form for 6
toilets, urinals. Surfaces already fairly clean. testers 4-17-02
Interview Form Acceptable to Rec and Park. Cleaned fine. Frank, Eladio,
Confirm/Contrast Ramiro 4-18-02
Summary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Page 46 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Restroom Fixture Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Powersol 700 (1:32) by Minuteman
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom counter, wall, sink, No name
partition, toilet, urinal, exposed pipe. 6-20-02
Surfaces were already fairly clean. Used on
regular dirt and grease.
DPW No No Yes No No Used on windows, tabletops, doors. RWP
Surfaces were dirty. Used on fingerprints, 6-20-02
ink, dusty tops. Stings if you get it in your
eyes.
DPW No No Yes No No Used on restroom counters and fixtures. No name
Surfaces were dirty. Streaks stainless steel. 6-20-02
Interview Form Not acceptable to DPW. Streaked stainless steel, leaves residue, didn't clean too well, product too weak, will not work on ____ Fontaine, Joe
Confirm/Contrast to clean surface. 6-20-02
Rec and Park Yes Yes with Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom counter, sink, toilet, and One form for 3
toilet room hardware. Surfaces were already testers.
reservations
fairly clean. Used on natural soil from 5-9-02
washing hands.
depending on type of surface that you are
cleaning.
Interview Form Acceptable to Rec and Park for routine maintenance. Cleaned well especially for routine maintenance. Frank, Eladio
Confirm/Contrast 5-9-02
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Results Results Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Page 47 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Restroom Fixture Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Neutracide - Surtec
Laguna Honda Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom sink, toilet, urinal, and Results for 2
floor; surface was dirty users
Interview Form Works well (restroom) ?removes floor marks; scratches; better smell than current product; possibly better; keeps shine Francisco Soto
Confirm/Contrast 7-23-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes We like it Fontaine
5-16-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -- 5-16-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom walls, sinks, toilets, Joe
urinals and showers; surfaces were already 5-16-02
fairly clean
DPW No No No No No Used on toilets and urinals; the product has 5-16-02
a very weak dilution; it might work better
if it was higher
Interview Form Acceptable to DPW; used on restroom sinks; liked smell; cleans well (left fixtures shiny); would like to try at higher Raymond,
Confirm/Contrast concentration Fontaine, and
Joe
5-29-02
Rec & Park Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on fairly clean restroom counters, Results for 2
sinks, toilet, urinals, and to spot clean users
ceramic tile walls and painted surfaces
Interview Form Used in restroom; good product; smells good; used same amount Frank, Eladio,
Confirm/Contrast Ramiro
4-18-02
Mixed Mixed
Summary Results Mixed Results Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Page 48 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Restroom Fixture Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
AF315 - Betco
Laguna Honda No No No No No Used on dirty sink, toilet, urinal, and Results for 2
floor. Product irritated user's nose. users
Interview Form (Restroom) Not acceptable to Laguna Honda; smell is too strong; bothers nose; doesn't clean well Francisco Soto
Confirm/Contrast 8-13-02
Mixed Mixed
Summary Results No Results Mixed Results No
Lemonex -Zep
Rec & Park No No No No No Used in restrooms on fairly clean toilets Wu Cheng;
and urinals Phong D
Coung
2-25-02
Interview Form Used in restrooms, not acceptable for Rec & Park; worked "okay"; smelled nice; required more product to clean; didn't work as Frank, Ramiro,
Confirm/Contrast well as current product (which has bleach added ?PP does not have bleach); did not clean stench from toilets; Rec & Park uses Eladio
disinfectant as toilet bowl cleaner 3-14-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on dirty restroom walls, sinks, Joe
toilets, and urinals; works okay but does 4-08-02
not have a pleasant cleaning or
disinfecting smell (would not recommend
for this reason)
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on dirty panic bar, telephones, door
handles
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom floor tile Panco
4-9-02
Interview Form Acceptable to DPW; cleaned okay (restroom floor, etc) and smells good; smell not as fresh as current product; not as good for Martin,
Confirm/Contrast cleaning as current product; smell does not signify cleanliness, but smell of PP not fresh; works well on stainless steal knobs, Fontaine, Joe,
walls, phone, etc. Ramond
4-09-02
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Results Results Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Page 49 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Restroom Fixture Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
AF79 - Betco
Rec & Park Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on fairly clean vertical tiles to 4-3-02
remove natural soil on restroom surfaces
Interview Form Selectively acceptable to Rec & Park; it cleaned fine and smelled alright; concern about mixing with bleach (currently they mix Frank, Eladio,
Confirm/Contrast product with bleach); current product is multipurpose, PP is not; used cotton towels to clean Ramiro
4-4-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cleaned restroom counters and walls No name
4-23-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on all restroom surfaces; tested on No name
built-up scum and dirty shower stalls 3-13-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on fairly clean counters and walls No name
4-23-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on all restroom walls, sinks, No name
toilets, urinals, floors and exposed pipes 2-26-02
Interview Form Acceptable for DPW; product worked okay, no better than current product; fresh smell; would not use in locker room (need Raymond,
Confirm/Contrast more concentrated product) Fontaine, Joe
4-26-02
Summary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Page 50 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Restroom Tile Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
NY4 by Naturally Yours
DPW Yes No Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom wall, partition. Joe
Surface already fairly clean. Has a bad 4-8-02
smell. Makes user nauseous. Leaves
streaks and dull film when dry.
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom tile. Surface very Police ?
dirty. 4-9-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on stainless steel door knobs, Phamt ?
panic bar, telephone, desktops, walls. No date
Surface was dirty.
Interview Form For NY4 - acceptable to DPW. Worked well. Raymond
Confirm/Contrast O'Neill
4-9-02
Interview Form Martin,
For NY3 (form circled tile cleaner) ?- acceptable to DPW but one user did not recommend it. Smells OK, cleans well,
Confirm/Contrast Fontaine, Joe 4-
especially on scum, took same amount and effort. One user objected to the smell, left a dull film, made users light-headed.
9-02
Rec & Park No No No Yes No Used on restroom shower. Surface was Cheng Wu &
very dirty. Phong
3-13-02
Rec & Park No No No Yes No Used on restroom wall, shower. Surface JP
was very dirty. Used on soap scum and 3-13-02
organic matter.
Interview Form Not acceptable to Rec & Park. Did not remove soap scum as well as current product. Required more time and user effort. Users Frank, Ramiro,
Confirm/Contrast were dissatisfied due to increased effort to clean. Cleaned but not as well as current product. Used in swimming pool restrooms. Eladio 3-14-02
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Results Results Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Page 51 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Restroom Tile Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
N7 Basin Tub Tile Cleaner (1:2) by Clean Environment
Rec and Park Yes Yes, with Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom counter, wall. Surface One form for 9
already fairly clean. current product is testers
reservations
4-3-02
multi-purpose, this product is not.
Interview Form 1:2 dilution is acceptable to Rec and Park with reservations - i.e. concern about products ability to clean swimming pools - didn't Fontaine
Confirm/Contrast have enough product to test entire pool. Also not a multi-purpose product. Raymond, Joe
4-4-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom counters, shower. Surface No name
already fairly clean. 4-23-02
DPW Yes No Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom counters, sink, shower. No name
Surface already fairly clean. 4-23-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on stainless steel partitions. Surface No name
was dirty. 4-23,24,25-02
DPW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Used on restroom counters, sink, partition, No name
shower. Surface already fairly clean. 4-26-02
Interview Form 1:2 -- Worked well on grout, showers (used scrub pads and let sit); smells better making it easier to work with; softened soap Joe, Raymond,
Confirm/Contrast scum Fontain 4-26-02
Mixed
Summary Yes Results Yes Yes Yes
Page 52 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Restroom Tile Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms or OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Re-test with 1:4 dilution of N7 by Clean Environment
Rec and Park Yes No Yes No No Used on restroom wall, toilet, urinal, shower, No name
floor. Surface already fairly clean. Used on 5-29-02
body oil and grease.
Interview Form 1:4 dilution is not acceptable to Rec and Park. Not comparable to current product. Does not work on dirty surfaces (may be OK Frank, Eladio
Confirm/Contrast for routine maintenance). Requires more effort and still does not remove scum from dirty surfaces. Smells good. Would 5-30-02
recommend for routine maintenance, offices, breakrooms. Not for dirty facilities or swimming pools. N7 recommended for
facilities used less frequently (cleaner).
Mixed
Summary Yes Results Yes No No
Page 53 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Five Shop Floor Degreasers
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
Harvest Gold 2000 (1:2) by United Laboratories
Central Shops Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on WD-40, No name
*conditional engine oil and ATF on shop floor and 4-29-02
Building occupants did not like the
product. *if solution cut the solvents and
were to mix with the water, then it would
be used and recommended.
Central Shops Yes No No Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on engine oil and No name
coolant on shop floor. Product does not 5-1-02
dry well. It leaves a soapy residue and the
floor becomes very slippery. This product
is designed to be hosed off of the surface
after use. That cannot be ____.
Interview Form Harvest Gold 2000 is not acceptable to Central Shops. Smells OK but leaves an oily film and floor is slippery after use. Also ? Cliff
Confirm/Contrast didn't do the job. 5-31-02
PUC Corporation No No No No No Surface was dirty. Used on vehicle grease No name
Yard on shop floor. 6-20-02
PUC Corporation No No No No No Surface was dirty. Used on vehicle grease No name
Yard and dirt. 6-21-02
Interview Form Harvest Gold 2000 is not acceptable to PUC. Didn't clean grease and left greasy film on floors. Frank
Confirm/Contrast 5-31-02
Mixed
Summary Results No No Mixed Results Mixed Results
Page 54 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Five Shop Floor Degreasers
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
HC 150 (1:20) by Surtec
Central Shops Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on soil and grease No name
on shop floor 3-22-02
Interview Form HC 150 is acceptable to Central Shops. No smell and cleans well on grease and soil. Note: Central Shops cleans floors regularly Nelson
Confirm/Contrast while PUC cleans their floors "occasionally" or "as needed" is. 3-22-02
PUC Corporation No No No No No Surface was very dirty. Used on shop floor. No name
Yard 3-19-02
Interview Form HC 150 is not acceptable to PUC Corporation Yard. Works OK for light soils. Didn't work for heavy duty cleaning. Current Frank
Confirm/Contrast product works much better. Used on floor grease - use for spot cleaning only. "Like putting water on grease" 3-19-02
Mixed Mixed Mixed
Summary Results results Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Powersol 500 (1:22) by Minuteman
Central Shops Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on oil and grease No name
on shop floor 3-19-02
Central Shops Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on oil and grease No name
on shop floor 3-19-02
Central Shops Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on oil and grease No name
on shop floor 3-19-02
Central Shops Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on dirt and oil on No name
shop floor 3-21-02
Interview Form Powersol 500 is acceptable to Central Shops. Didn't notice a difference between Powersol and current product. Works fine. Gary
Confirm/Contrast Didn't last as long as current product. 4-9-02
PUC Corporation No No No No No Surface was dirty. Used on oil, grease and No name
Yard dirt on shop floor 4-9-02
Interview Form Powersol 500 not acceptable to PUC Corporation Yard. Better than first product. Cleaned a little better. Does not work as well as Frank
Confirm/Contrast Zep. 4-9-02
Mixed Mixed
Summary Results Results Mixed Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Page 55 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Five Shop Floor Degreasers
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Facility Review Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Forms and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Date on Form
RLP 9000+ (1:10) by Arrow Magnolia
Central Shops Yes No Yes Yes Yes Surface was dirty. Used on dust and grease No name
on shop floor. Smell is bad. Leaves mop 6-21-02
marks.
Interview Form RLP 9000 is not acceptable to Central Shops. Cleans OK but smell is too strong, leaves streaks and took more time to clean. Nelson
Confirm/Contrast 6-29-02
PUC Corporation Yes No Yes No No Surface was dirty. Used on motor oil and Gil Leons
Yard grease on shop floor. 7-9-02
Interview Form RLP 9000 is not acceptable PUC Corporation Yard. Required more effort and doesn't work as well as current product. Smells Gil
Confirm/Contrast OK. Better than other products tested. . 7-9-02
Summary Mixed No Mixed results Mixed results Mixed results
results
Weatherzyme (1:32) by United Laboratories
Central Shops No No No Yes No Surface was dirty. Used on dirt on shop Nelson
floor. 4-28-02
Central Shops No No No No No Surface was already fairly clean. Used on Ramon
engine oil on shop floor. 4-29-02
Interview Form Weatherzyme is not acceptable to Central Shops. Doesn't cut grease. Nelson
Confirm/Contrast No date
Interview Form Weatherzyme is not acceptable to Central Shops. A little soapy. Doesn't pick up grease. No smell and didn't leave a film. Not for Ramon
Confirm/Contrast floors, maybe as an all purpose cleaner. 4-29-02
PUC Corporation No No No No No Surface was dirty. Used on shop floor. No name
Yard 6-5-02
PUC Corporation No No No No No Surface was dirty. Used on shop floor. No name
Yard 6-6-02
Interview Form Weatherzyme is not acceptable to PUC Corporation Yard. Doesn't clean oil. Works better than other products thus far but still not Leo
Confirm/Contrast as good as Zep. Would work to clean only dirt and dust. 4-29 -02
Summary No No No No No
Page 56 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Toilet Acid Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Facility and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Bowl Tamer by Rochester Midland
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-25-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-29-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Product smells bad NG 5-29-01 to
6-5-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-30-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-31-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 6-1-01
Interview Form Product acceptable for Main Library. Same amount of product was used. Product tested at least once a day. DB 6-9-01
Confirm/Contrast
City Hall Yes No Yes No No Product smells bad NM 6-29-01
City Hall Yes No No No No DP 6-29-01
City Hall No No No No No Product smells bad TH 6-29-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes VS 7-3-01
Interview Form Product is acceptable for City Hall. OK for regular cleaning purposes. Not good for deep cleaning. Have to work harder. Same WA 7-17-01
Confirm/Contrast amount of product used. Product tested several times a day. Would recommend to others.
Mixed Mixed
Summary Results Mixed Results Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Page 57 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Three Toilet Acid Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Facility and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
NY 7 Bowl Cleaner by Naturally Yours - full strength
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N? 4-5-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N? 4-9-01
Main Library Yes No Yes Yes Yes It is too concentries. It contrain soap. W? 4-5-01
Main Library Yes No Yes No No It is concentries and stikes. It contains too ?L 4-10-01
much soap
Main Library Yes No Yes No No Same comment as on 4-10-01 ?L 4-11-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NE no date
Interview Form Product is not acceptable for Main Library. Darren's main concern is whether or not it had the same disinfecting properties of a DB 4-13-01
Confirm/Contrast biquatenary (misspelled) bowl cleaner. This chemical is not listed on the label. It was also too concentrated and had too much
soap. Less product was used but not equivalent. Product tested once to several times a day. Undecided on whether to recommend
to others.
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes LL 7-10-01
City Hall No No Yes No Yes NM 7-11-01
City Hall No No No No No VS 7-11-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WA 7-12-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DP 7-12-01
Interview Form Product is acceptable for City Hall. Not good for deep cleaning. Same amount of product used. Product tested several times a WA 7-17-01
Confirm/Contrast day. Would recommend to others for regular cleaning only.
Mixed Mixed
Summary Results Mixed Results Results Mixed Results Mixed Results
Page 58 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Toilet Non-Acid Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Facility and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Bowl Shine by Zep
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NE 4-16-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NE 4-18-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NE 4-23-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes I like Bowl Shine because it cleans, NE 4-25-01
disinfects and deodorizes.
Interview Form Product is acceptable for Main Library. Cleans, disinfects and deodorizes well. Same amount of product was used. Product tested at DB 5-2-01
Confirm/Contrast least once a day. Would recommend to others.
City Hall Yes No Yes No No Smells great VS 6-1-01
City Hall No No Yes Yes No NM 6-1-01
City Hall No No Yes No No TH 6-1-01
City Hall Yes No Yes No Yes WA 6-1-01
Interview Form Product is not acceptable for City Hall. Could be used for general cleaning but not used for deep cleaning. Other issues ?needs WA 6-7-01
Confirm/Contrast something for spot cleaning. Would not use everyday. Same amount of product used. Product tested several times a day.
Mixed
Summary Results Mixed Results Yes Mixed Results Mixed Results
Super Bowl by Aldran
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 6-12-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 6-14-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 6-18-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 6-20-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 6-21-01
Main Library Yes Yes No Yes Yes NE 6-25-01
Interview Form Product is acceptable for Main Library. Between same amount and more product used. Product tested at least once a day. Would DB 6-26-01
Confirm/Contrast recommend to others.
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DP 6-13-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WA 6-13-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes CG 6-13-01
City Hall
Interview Form Product is acceptable for City Hall. Good for maintaining an already clean surface. Not good for rusty areas. Same amount of WA 6-20-01
Confirm/Contrast product was used. Product tested several times a day. Would recommend to others.
Summary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Page 59 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Toilet Non-Acid Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Facility and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Strike NABC by Surtec
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-3-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NE 5-3-01 to
5-8-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-4-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-5-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-8-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-9-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-10-01
Interview Form Product is acceptable for Main Library. Did not have to use too much product to get the job done. Same amount of product was used. DB 3-27-01
Confirm/Contrast Product tested at least once a day. Would recommend to others.
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Light cleaning LL 7-24-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Only light cleaning CG 7-24-01
City Hall Yes No No No No NM 7-24-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes RP 7-24-01
City Hall Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Only for light cleaning WA 7-25-01
Interview Form Product is acceptable for City Hall. Good for regular cleaning. Not good for deep cleaning. Same amount of product was used. WA 2-26-01
Confirm/Contrast Product tested at least once a day. Would recommend to others for light cleaning.
Summary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Seven people tested the product. Only one person didn't like it. Therefore, the summary row reflects the majority of the evaluators.
Page 60 of 61
Summary of Individual Evaluations of Four Toilet Non-Acid Cleaners
Used Same Takes Same
Amount or Worked as Amount of
Works Less than Hard or Less Time or Less Evaluator
Facility and Great or Recommend Regular than Regular than Regular Initials and
Interview Forms OK to Others Cleaner Cleaner Cleaner Comments Test Date
Sani Blue Plus by Rochester Midland
Main Library Yes Yes No Yes Yes NE 5-22-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-15-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-16-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-17-01
Main Library Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MP 5-18-01
Main Library Yes Yes No Yes Yes MP 5-19-01
Interview Form Product is acceptable for Main Library. Same amount to more than usual amount of product was used. Product tested at least once a DB 5-22-01
Confirm/Contrast day. Would recommend to others.
Summary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Page 61 of 61
APPENDIX F
PERFERABLE PRODUCT TEST REPORTS
Appendix F contains a 2-page summary of each preferable product test including effectiveness in
a variety of evaluation categories and cost data.
Brake Cleaner
Carburetor Cleaner
Coil Cleaner
Contact Cleaner
Deodorizing Urinal Screen
Glass Cleaner
Graffiti Remover
Kitchen and Breakroom Degreaser
Machinery Degreaser
Metal Cleaner
Penetrating Lubricant
Restroom Fixture Cleaner
Shop Floor Degreaser
Toilet Bowl Cleaner
|