ASTM D3751 D3751M-10(2017) Standard Practice for Evaluation of Furniture Polish.pdf

1、Designation: D3751/D3751M 10 (Reapproved 2017)Standard Practice forEvaluation of Furniture Polish1This standard is issued under the fixed designation D3751/D3751M; the number immediately following the designation indicates theyear of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last re

2、vision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of lastreapproval. A superscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 This practice covers the definition of properties to testand the apparatus to use in evaluating the performance offurniture p

3、olishes.1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound unitsare to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated ineach system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, eachsystem shall be used independently of the other. Combiningvalues from the two systems may result in non-conforma

4、ncewith the standard.1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter-mine the applicability of regulatory lim

5、itations prior to use.1.4 This international standard was developed in accor-dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-ization established in the Decision on Principles for theDevelopment of International Standards, Guides and Recom-mendations issued by the World Trade Organizatio

6、n TechnicalBarriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.2. Terminology2.1 Definitions:2.1.1 furniture polisha polish used for cleaning and im-proving the appearance of furniture finishes.3. Significance and Use3.1 This practice defines the properties to be tested, theapparatus to be used, and the comparisons o

7、f product perfor-mance. It is recognized that considerable discretion existsamong formulators and marketers of furniture polish on whichproperties or performance characteristics are best for theirproducts. This practice will be flexible to honor this fact withinthe confines of the furniture polish d

8、efinition below.3.2 The methods of testing are subjective and empirical inorder to conform to the basic characteristics of the industry andto allow flexibility in testing.4. Apparatus and Materials4.1 Control Polish, selected subjectively for comparison tothe test polish. It may be a competitive pro

9、duct, a modifiedformulation of the test polish, etc. The one stipulation is thatthe control polish be of the same or similar type as the testpolish. For example, if the test polish is an aerosol emulsionpolish, the control shall be an aerosol emulsion polish. It wouldnot be meaningful to select a pa

10、ste or liquid product as acontrol for comparison to an aerosol emulsion test polish.4.2 Test Substrate for which the test polish is intended. Thetest surface shall be in good physical condition, not badlycracked, scratched, or otherwise damaged so as to interferewith evaluation of polish properties.

11、 The minimum test surfacearea for each sample shall be 1290 cm2200 in.2.4.3 Polishing ClothMaterials such as washed cheesecloth, rumple cloth, flannel, cotton diaper cloth, and nonwovenfabrics are suitable for this purpose. The same type polishingcloth should be used with each sample tested. Use sep

12、aratecloths for each sample. Do not use felt or paper.4.4 Cleaning Solvent, aliphatic, with kauri-butanol valuesless than 38.4.5 Eye Droppers and Tap Water.5. Test Specimen5.1 The test specimen shall be the sample of polish to betested.6. Selection of Testers6.1 The application and evaluation of the

13、 test and controlpolishes requires four individuals. They shall be capable ofmaking discriminating judgments of subjective, physical, andaesthetic properties. Training and orientation to specific prod-uct performance characteristics may be required.6.2 Each person applies the polishes to one of the

14、four testpanels. The tester then rates all properties except applicationproperties on the remaining three panels that they did notpolish. The person applying the polishes rates ease of use andother application properties. This means there will be only fourreadings on application properties. The thre

15、e rating the otherpolish properties do not observe the application because theyrate properties of each polish “blind.”1This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D21 on Polishesand is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D21.04 on Performance Tests.Current edition approved Sept.

16、1, 2017. Published October 2017. Originallyapproved in 1979. Last previous edition approved in 2010 as D3751 10. DOI:10.1520/D3751-10R17.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United StatesThis international standard was developed in accor

17、dance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for theDevelopment of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.17. Procedure7.1 Cleaning of Test

18、 SubstratesUse an aliphatic solventhaving a kauri-butanol value less than 38, to clean the testsubstrate thoroughly. Use new paper towels each time to applythe solvent to the surface and to wipe it clean.7.2 Application of PolishAssuming the control polish orthe test polish is a commercially availab

19、le product, follow thedirections on the container so far as possible. When in doubt onthe method of use, follow the directions for similar products.Use equal volumes of control and test polish to avoid exces-sively thin or heavy coats of polish. Use one or two applica-tions depending on the substrat

20、e and the discretion of the tester.Use the same number of coats for both the test polish and thecontrol polish.7.3 Placement of Polishes:7.3.1 Alternative AA controlled randomized method oflaying out the test (X) and control (C) polishes is representedas follows:Test Panel Left Center Right1CXC2CCX3

21、X4XXCThese four positionings should be written on tags and drawnrandomly by each of the four who apply the polishes.7.3.2 Alternative BA controlled randomized method oflaying out the test (X) and control (C) polishes is representedas follows:Test Panel Left Right1CX2XC3C4XThese four positionings sho

22、uld be written on tags and drawnrandomly by each of the four who apply the polishes.8. Evaluation8.1 Compare the test polish and the control as follows:8.1.1 Application Properties (Ease of Rub-Out to MaximumGloss)During application of the polishes note the time andease with which each product devel

23、ops maximum gloss.8.1.2 Final PropertiesEvaluate any or all of the followingproperties no sooner than 5 min following application:8.1.2.1 GlossEvaluate as depth of gloss.8.1.2.2 UniformityObserve the surface for streaks, unpol-ished dry spots, and general uniformity.8.1.2.3 Film ClarityObserve the c

24、learness or sharpness ofan objects image in the polished surface. Overhead lights,face, hand, or other objects may be used for reflection. This testmay be eliminated for low-luster surfaces that do not possessmirror-like finishes.8.1.2.4 Smear and Mar ResistanceSmear is the degree ofoiliness or grea

25、siness after the polish is rubbed-out to thedesired polish appearance. Mar is the degree of film damageresulting from a glancing blow to the polish substrate. Checksmear by making a design such as an S with ones finger. Aglancing blow with ones knuckles or soft object such as abook or magazine may b

26、e used for determining the degree ofmar.8.1.2.5 Film HealingObserve the length of time requiredfor the smear or mar in 8.1.2.4 to disappear from the polishfilm.8.1.2.6 RebuffabilityObserve the ease and completenessof repairability when the smears and mars are buffed with apolishing cloth. The amount

27、 of physical effort and length oftime required is noted.8.1.2.7 CleaningObserve the ease of removal of oldpolish films as well as common soiling materials such as dust,grease, oils, finger marks, beverage stains, etc. This may bedone either in the laboratory or observed during actual usetrials of th

28、e products. In the laboratory, removal of old polishmay be determined by applying multiple coats (10 to 20applications) and determining polish build-up. A polish show-ing little build-up would be rated a good cleaner for old polish.Other materials, such as grease, oils, sugar solutions, etc.,should

29、be tested on an individual basis.8.1.2.8 Water SpottingAt least 2 h after application of thepolishes, place at random on the polished surfaces several spotsof water about the size of a penny. Allow the water to remainon the surface for 5 min, 15 min, 30 min, and 1 h. At preciseintervals, blot the wa

30、ter with a paper towel or other absorbentmaterial. DO NOT WIPE. Observe the presence and degree offilm damage. Other materials such as milk, coffee, juice,alcoholic beverages, etc., may be used to supplement the watertest.8.1.2.9 Gloss RetentionObserve the degree of gloss of afreshly applied polish

31、film compared to that of an aged polishfilm.8.1.2.10 Dust AttractionMeasure by carefully wiping thetest surface to remove all dirt and dust. Place the test substratein a place to accumulate dust. Check dust build-up on the panelafter 24, 48, and 72 h, and after 1 week.9. Report9.1 Alternative AUsing

32、 7.3.1 rate all properties 0 to 5. Avalue of 5 equals excellent and 0 equals complete failure.Values in between are various degrees between these extremes.This is a monodic value system for each test surface evaluatedbased on each individual raters own reference scale. Since thethree individuals rat

33、ing the final properties do not know theplacement sequence, each polished area is rated “blind” withno possibility for bias.9.1.1 Fig. 1 may be used to record the raw data. Fig. 2 maybe used to summarize and compare data. The followingcalculation provides a rating factor for each property tested:F 5

34、Xpropertyn(1)Fc5Cpropertyn(2)D3751/D3751M 10 (2017)2Rating Scale: 0 to 55 = excellent 2 = fair4 = very good 1 = poor3 = good 0 = complete failureNOTE 1Designate the position of the product (X or C) in the box designating the position on the test panel; for example: left, center,orright.FIG. 1 Furnit

35、ure Polish Evaluation Individual Ratings for 9.1.1D3751/D3751M 10 (2017)3FIG. 2 Furniture Polish Evaluation Summary of Individual Ratings for 9.2.1D3751/D3751M 10 (2017)4where:F = rating factor for test polish,Fc= rating factor for control polish,Xproperty= sum of all readings of a specific property

36、 for thetest polish,Cproperty= sum of all readings of a specific property for thecontrol polish, andn = number of observations.9.2 Alternative BUsing 7.3.2 rate all properties 1 to 5,with the control surface always given a rating of 3. The scaleis as follows:1 = significantly poorer than control,2 =

37、 slightly poorer than control,3 = no difference from control,4 = slightly better than control, and5 = significantly better than control.This value system is a paired comparison with the controlsurface always acting as the point of reference. Since the threetesters rating the final properties need th

38、e control surface to beidentified, the identification of the control product must not berevealed to prevent bias.9.2.1 Fig. 3 may be used to record the raw data. Fig. 4 maybe used to summarize and compare data. The followingcalculation provides a rating factor for each property tested:F 5Xpropertyn(

39、3)where:F = rating factor for test polish,Xproperty= sum of all readings for a specific property for thetest polish, andn = number of observations.Specific properties of the control polish are assigned a valueof 3.0.9.2.2 Record temperature and relative humidity at whichtests were run.10. Precision

40、and Bias10.1 Alternative ADue to the subjective nature of this testmethod, no precision and bias can be established.10.2 Alternative B(Same as Alternative A.) However,since all the rating factors are in relation to the control, thevalues can be analyzed statistically to determine if the differ-ences

41、 observed are significant.11. Keywords11.1 furniture polish; polishesTest Panel Application No. 1 Test Panel Application No. 2Properties Control Test Test ControlTest Panel Application No. 3 Test Panel Application No. 4Properties Control Test Test ControlRating Scale: 1 to 55 = significantly better

42、than control4 = slightly better than control3 = no difference from control2 = slightly poorer than control1 = significantly poorer than controlFIG. 3 Furniture Polish Evaluation Individual Ratings for 9.2.1D3751/D3751M 10 (2017)5ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any pat

43、ent rights asserted in connection with any item mentionedin this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the riskof infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.This standard is subject to revision

44、 at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years andif not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standardsand should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comm

45、ents will receive careful consideration at a meeting of theresponsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you shouldmake your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.This standard is copyrighte

46、d by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959,United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the aboveaddress or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or serviceastm.org (e-m

47、ail); or through the ASTM website(www.astm.org). Permission rights to photocopy the standard may also be secured from the Copyright Clearance Center, 222Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, Tel: (978) 646-2600; http:/ 4 Furniture Polish Evaluation Summary of Individual Ratings for 9.2.1D3751/D3751M 10 (2017)6