1、Designation: D 4955 89 (Reapproved 2008)Standard Practice forField Evaluation of Automotive Polish1This standard is issued under the fixed designation D 4955; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revisio
2、n. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 This practice covers the evaluation of the performanceproperties of automotive polishes. This practice is applicable toproducts t
3、hat are commonly referred to as car/auto wax,cleaner wax, polish, and the like. This practice is limited to acomparison among test polishes, with a standard polish, orboth, under the conditions of the individual test. The compara-tive results are indicative of absolute performance only insofaras the
4、 test conditions are representative of all normal applica-tion and use conditions.1.2 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 and health practices and d
5、etermine the applica-bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.2. Terminology2.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:2.1.1 automotive polishsubstance which aids in cleaningand improving the appearance of automotive finishes.3. Significance and Use3.1 This practice is intended to defin
6、e the range of proper-ties to be tested, the apparatus to be used, and the comparisonsof automotive polish performance to be made. Since condi-tions, products, and apparatus vary, considerable discretionmust exist among formulators and marketers in these areas andon what properties or performance ch
7、aracteristics are mostsignificant for their products. This practice is intended to beflexible enough to honor this fact within the description ofautomotive polish in Section 2.3.2 The test methods are subjective and empirical in order toconform to the basic characteristics of the class of products a
8、ndto allow flexibility in testing. This also conforms to typicalconsumer experience.3.3 The practice also allows for flexibility in choice ofenvironmental characteristics under which the durability test-ing is done. This allows discretion to be exercised by thosetesting the products in order to prov
9、ide greatest significance forthe products being tested as they are intended for variousmarketplace needs.4. Apparatus and Materials4.1 Sample of Polish to be tested.4.2 Sample of Control PolishA control polish should beselected for comparison to the test polish. It should berecognized that automotiv
10、e polishes are formulated to performdifferent functions. The control polish should be selected witha clear justification in mind, such as, test and control polishshould be designed for same function (high durability, ease ofapplication, or other performance features). These factorsshould be taken in
11、to account when interpreting results andchoosing the control polish. All results are reported with theclearly identified control comparison.4.3 Test SubstrateSince this test is designed to test auto-motive polish performance under natural and normally occur-ring environmental conditions, the substra
12、te chosen shall beone for which the test polish was intended on a vehicle whichcan be subjected to the chosen environmental conditions in amanner meeting these criteria. The test surface shall be in goodphysical condition, not badly cracked, scratched, or otherwisedamaged so as to interfere with eva
13、luation of polish properties.The test surface for each sample is intended to be one half ofthe surface area of the vehicle to be polished. In no case shouldthe area polished for each product be less than 1290 cm2(200in.2). The surface is divided as described later in the method.(Procedures evaluatin
14、g more than two polishes per vehicle maybe done as a screening technique; however, results are notsufficiently reproducible to be covered by this method.)NOTE 1New vehicle paints (paints with service life less than oneyear) give properties such as, water beading and high gloss, very similarto those
15、being evaluated for the polish. Therefore, evaluation of appear-ance and durability due to the polish formulation are minimized. Somepaint types, such as metallic paints, may also give atypical results.1This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D21 on Polishesand is the direct respon
16、sibility of Subcommittee D21.04 on Performance Tests.Current edition approved March 1, 2008. Published April 2008. Originallyapproved in 1989. Last previous edition approved in 2002 as D 4955 - 89(2002).1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-29
17、59, United States.4.4 Polishing ClothThe same type and size of polishingcloth shall be used with each sample tested. Separate clothsshall be used for each sample. Materials such as washedcheesecloth, rumple cloth, flannel, cotton diaper cloth, andnonwoven fabrics are suitable for this purpose. Felt
18、or papershall not be used.4.5 Automobile Washing ProductThe formula given be-low is a mild anionic surfactant-based solution sufficient toremove surface soils while having a minimum detrimentaleffect on polish properties. When properly rinsed, it will notleave a residue that might affect performance
19、 attributes of thepolishes.% by weightSodium salt of linear dodecyl benzenesulfonate5.0 %ASodium lauryl ether sulfate 2.5 %AWater (0150 ppm hardness) qs_APercent active ingredientThis is a stock solution which can be diluted to approxi-mately one ounce per gallon of wash water (0150 ppmhardness).4.6
20、 Wash WaterThe water source used for washing andrinsing should be evaluated for hardness, dissolved minerals,pH, and other similar properties. It should be chosen ormodified so as to minimize adverse effects on polish properties.4.7 Washing and Drying AppliancesThese appliancesshould be nonabrasive
21、and clean. The washing applianceshould be typical to the automotive washing operation, such asa sponge, soft cloth, or soft bristle brush. The drying applianceshould also be typical for automotive drying (chamois, softterry cloth, cotton flannel, and the like).NOTE 2Complete drying is important to e
22、nsure that no residue fromthe washing or rinsing process is left on the car surface.5. Precautions5.1 Weather conditions at the time of polishing should beconsistent for all polish applications of the test. These condi-tions should be recorded and compared with directions givenwith polish used.5.2 T
23、he substrate should be prepared in accordance withpolish application recommendations but should not differbetween test polish and control polish.5.3 Unusual conditions during the test should be recordedand reported in the final report.6. Personnel and Instructions6.1 For each test application, one i
24、ndividual shall apply bothtest polish and control polish. There may be as many individu-als as there are test applications. The individuals shall bephysically capable of applying the polishes in an equivalentmanner and shall be capable of making discriminating judg-ments of subjective physical and a
25、esthetic properties. Trainingand orientation to specific product application and performancecharacteristics may be required.6.2 The individuals shall apply the polishes to designatedareas without knowledge as to the actual identity of the formulaother than a code matching sample and area to be polis
26、hed.Each individual will assess application characteristics andresults in order to compare performance and to ensure that bothpolishes are equivalently applied.6.3 A minimum of five evaluators will provide a subjectiveassessment of the test surfaces at the specified intervals. Theassessment will inc
27、lude those physical properties chosen formonitoring. The individual must be capable of making dis-criminating judgments of those properties.6.4 All personnel who participate in application or evalua-tion should be unaware of product identities and should not beable to deduce those identities by tech
28、nical or personalunderstanding atypical of an average consumer of the productsbeing tested. Every effort should be made to ensure that thosewho apply the polish and those who evaluate durability arerepresentative of typical consumers.7. Procedure7.1 Surface SubdivisionThere are two plans that can be
29、used for dividing the car surface for application of the test andcontrol polishes side by side for comparative evaluation. Ineither case, using several vehicles and regularly varying thepattern used increases the accuracy of the test results byminimizing the effect of a unique paint, surface conditi
30、on,weathering pattern, or wear pattern.7.1.1 The surface should be divided longitudinally so thatthe test polish and control polish are applied parallel to eachother separated by the midline of the vehicle. One polish isapplied to the drivers side and the other to the passenger side.Normally the ent
31、ire side of the vehicle is polished. In no caseshould the area polished be less than 1290 cm2(200 in.2). Sincewear patterns of auto polishes are known to vary by position onthe vehicle, there should be several vehicles tested with half ofthe vehicles having test polish applied to the drivers side an
32、dthe other half having test polish on the passenger side (controlpolish vice versa).7.1.2 Checkerboard Pattern Surface SubdivisionEach ofthe horizontal surfaces of the vehicle can be divided so thatthere are four equal sections with one dividing line being thelongitudinal midline of the vehicle. The
33、 test polish and controlpolish are then applied so as to resemble a checkerboarddesign: test polish on drivers side front corner and passengerside back quarter on the first car and passenger side frontquarter and drivers side back corner on the second car. In nocase should each section polished be l
34、ess than 1290 cm2(200in.2). The same pattern should be repeated on each horizontalsurface (hood, roof, and rear deck) if more than one is to beused.NOTE 3Screening procedures can be done comparing more than twopolishes by“ checkerboarding” the car with polish areas so that areas ofhigher wear and lo
35、wer wear are used for each polish. The front of the carreceives more wear than the back; drivers side more than passenger side;horizontal surfaces more than vertical, especially in intense sun areas.7.2 Application of PolishAssuming the test polish or thecontrol polish is a commercially available pr
36、oduct, follow thedirections on the container insofar as possible. When in doubtas to the method to use, the directions for similar products maybe used. Equal volumes of control and test polish shall be usedto avoid excessively thin or heavy coats of polish. One or twoapplications may be used dependi
37、ng upon the substrate and theD 4955 89 (2008)2discretion of the tester. The same number of coats must be usedfor both the test polish and the control polish.7.3 Durability Test ConditionsThe test vehicles should besubjected to typical environmental conditions. If desired, avariable such as an automa
38、tic car wash cycle can be scheduledbetween evaluation cycles.7.4 Cycle of EvaluationPeriodic evaluation for effect ofenvironment on the polish properties should be done. Depend-ing on the environmental conditions and the durability of thepolish properties being evaluated, the periodicity of the cycl
39、eof evaluation may be adjusted. A recommended period is oneweek.7.5 Durability Evaluation ProcedureAt the periodicevaluation procedures, the vehicles are washed with a mildsurfactant solution (see 4.3) to remove surface soil and providea standard pre-evaluation treatment. The vehicles are thendried.
40、After the vehicles have been prepared, they are evaluatedby a team of five or more evaluators who respond to aquestionnaire detailing properties of interest. After an evalua-tion of the properties of the dry polish film, the vehicles can besprayed with water to evaluate water runoff and size, shape,
41、and contact angle of water drops on the finish.7.5.1 There are a number of properties which can bemonitored over the service life of the polish to determine polishdurability (see 8.4). No single property would be adequate asthe sole criterion of polish durability. Polish durability mustalso be measu
42、red for a sufficiently long time to understand therate of decay in polish performance. Loss of polish perfor-mance cannot be assumed to be linear. Thus, polishes shown tohave significantly different performance at some point in theirservice life might become more similar at other points. Arecommende
43、d minimum monitoring period is twelve weeks ofweekly evaluation. This will give enough comparative data formeaningful comparisons with the control. Products should bemonitored as to what is judged to be a failure; if failure occursbefore 12 weeks for the product of interest the test can beterminated
44、.8. Evaluation8.1 GeneralComparison is made between the test polishand the control. Both may be rated subjectively on a numericalscale so as to allow statistical comparison of data for eachpolish.8.2 Application PropertiesThe individuals who applyboth polishes can provide an evaluation of applicatio
45、n featuresof the polishes. In each case compare the test polish with thecontrol. Evaluate all or any of the following properties:8.2.1 Ease of ApplicationDuring the application of thepolishes note spreadability and absence of drag.8.2.2 CleaningFollowing the application of the polishesinspect the di
46、scoloration, if any, on applicators (towels). Alsonote the effect of applying the polishes on the test surfaces.8.2.3 Drying RateTake readings of time in minutes foreach polish to dry.8.2.4 Ease of Wipe-OffNote effort necessary to wipe offeach of the polishes from the test substrate.8.2.5 PowderingN
47、ote the degree of powdering, if any,during the wipe off of polishes from test substrate.8.2.6 Ease of Rub-Up to Maximum GlossDuring applica-tion of the polishes, note the time and ease with which eachproduct develops maximum gloss.8.3 Final Properties After ApplicationAn evaluation ofthe polish appe
48、arance properties may be made 10 to 30 minafter application. The properties evaluated at this time shouldbe the same as those evaluated for polish durability (see 8.4).8.4 Durability of PropertiesAll properties can be assessedby evaluators and can be recorded versus time. Examples ofproperties which
49、 may be monitored are as follows:8.4.1 GlossGloss of both test and control polishes may bemonitored periodically over time. Gloss is evaluated as depthof gloss.8.4.2 Distinctness of ImageClearness or sharpness of animage in the polished surface. This is appropriate for mirror-like finishes only.8.4.3 UniformityThe surface should be observed forstreaks, unpolished spots, mars, smeariness, and general uni-formity.8.4.4 Water BeadingThe polished surface can be judgedfor quickness of water run-off, size of water drops, contactangle with the s
