ASTM D4002-81(2016)

Standard Practice for Evaluation of Buffable Shoe Polish

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
3.1 This practice is intended to define the properties to be tested, the apparatus to use, and the comparisons of product performance. It is recognized that considerable discretion exists among formulators and marketers of shoe polish on what properties or performance characteristics are best for their products. This practice will be flexible to honor this fact within the confines of the shoe polish definition in 2.1.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the definition of properties to test and the apparatus to use, in evaluating the performance of buffable shoe polishes.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

General Information

• Status: Historical
• Publication Date: 30-Sep-2016
• ICS: 71.100.99 - Other products of the chemical industry
• Technical Committee: D21 - Polishes
• Drafting Committee: D21.04 - Performance Tests

Standards Content (Sample)

NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: D4002 − 81 (Reapproved 2016)
Standard Practice for
Evaluation of Buffable Shoe Polish
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D4002; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope product, a modified formulation of the test polish, etc. The one
stipulation is that, the control polish be of the same or similar
1.1 This practice covers the definition of properties to test
type as the test polish. For example, if the test polish is an
and the apparatus to use, in evaluating the performance of
aerosol-emulsion polish, the control should be an aerosol-
buffable shoe polishes.
emulsion polish. It would not be meaningful to select a paste or
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the
liquid product as a control for comparison to an aerosol-
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
emulsion test polish.
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
4.3 Test Substrates—The test substrate should be one for
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
which the test polish is intended. Separate tests should be
1.3 This international standard was developed in accor-
conducted for smooth-grained leather substrates to which the
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
most current leather finishes have been applied at a tannery.
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
The finished leather should be the exact type normally used by
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom-
the shoe manufacturer to fabricate everyday dress shoes. Test
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
substrates of man-made materials should be obtained in the
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
same manner. The test surface should be in good physical
condition, not badly cracked, scratched, or otherwise damaged
2. Terminology
so as to interfere with evaluation of polish properties. Various
2.1 shoe polish—aids in cleaning, improving the
colors are required, see Section 9.
appearance, and protecting leather or other shoe materials from
4.4 Applicators—Several methods of shoe polish applica-
such common damaging effects as scuffs, water, salt water, and
tion to substrates should be tested. Various types of applicators
other surface deposits, commonly encountered with the use of
shoes outdoors or indoors. A buffable shoe polish requires include brush, cloth, and foam. The same type of applicator
should be used to apply the polish for both the control and test
buffing to obtain appearance improvements.
polish.
3. Significance and Use
4.5 Polishing Cloth—The same type of polishing cloth
3.1 This practice is intended to define the properties to be
should be used for each sample. Materials such as washed
tested, the apparatus to use, and the comparisons of product
cheese cloth, rumple cloth, flannel, cotton diaper cloth, and
performance. It is recognized that considerable discretion
nonwoven fabrics are suitable for this purpose. Felt or paper
exists among formulators and marketers of shoe polish on what
should not be used.
properties or performance characteristics are best for their
products. This practice will be flexible to honor this fact within 4.6 Polishing Brush—A separate horsehair brush or horse-
the confines of the shoe polish definition in 2.1.
hair composition shoe brush should be used with each sample.
4.7 Cleaning Solvent—Aliphatic solvents with kauri-
4. Apparatus and Materials
butanol values less than 38.
4.1 Test Polish.
4.8 Eye Droppers and Tap Water.
4.2 Control Polish—The control polish is selected subjec-
tively for comparison to the test polish. It may be a competitive
4.9 Sharp Metal Knife.
4.10 Light-Colored Wool, Polyester/Cotton Pieces, of trou-
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D21 on Polishes ser or dress clothing.
and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D21.04 on Performance Tests.
Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2016. Published May 2017. Originally approved 4.11 Thermometer.
in 1981. Last previous edition approved in 2008 as D4002 - 81(2008). DOI:
10.1520/D4002-81R16. 4.12 Humidity Gage.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
D4002 − 81 (2016)
5. Precautions 8.1.1 These four positionings should be written on tags and
drawn randomly by each of the four who apply the polishes.
5.1 The temperature and relative humidity of the test runs
should be measured and recorded. The temperature should be 8.2 Method B—A controlled, randomized method of laying
within 13 to 29°C (55 to 85°F) with a relative humidity of 20 out the test (X) and control (C) polishes is represented as
to 80 %. follows:
Test Panel Left Right
5.2 The substrate should have the same temperature as the
1 C X
surrounding area.
2 X C
3 C X
5.3 Comparisons should not be made between two separate
4 X C
swatches (or leather objects) since leather substrates may vary
8.2.1 These four positionings should be written on tags and
widely.
drawn randomly by each of the four who apply the polishes.
5.4 Leather substrates are normally used only one time.
9. Evaluation
6. Personnel and Instructions
9.1 Compare the test polish and the control as follows:
6.1 The application and evaluation of the test and control 9.1.1 Application and Buffıng Properties (ease of rub-up to
polishes require four individuals. They should be capable of maximum gloss)—During application and buffing of the
making discriminating judgments of subjective physical and polishes, note the time and ease with which each product
aesthetic properties. Training and orientation to specific prod- develops maximum gloss.
uct performance characteristics may be required. 9.1.2 Final Properties—Evaluate any or all of the following
properties no sooner than 5 min following application:
6.1.1 The four persons should apply the polishes to one of
each of the four test substrates. All persons then rate all 9.1.2.1 Gloss—Evaluate as depth of gloss and buffing.
9.1.2.2 Uniformity—Observe the surface for streaks, unpol-
properties, except application properties, on the remaining
three panels that they did not apply polish to. The persons ished dry spots, and general uniformity.
9.1.2.3 Film Clarity—Observe the clearness or sharpness of
applying the polishes should rate ease of use and other
application properties. This means there will be only four an object’s image in the surface of the polish. Overhead lights,
face, hand, or other objects may be used for reflection. This test
readings on application properties. The three rating the other
properties, do not observe the application because they rate may be eliminated for low-lustre surfaces that do not possess
mirror-like finishes.
properties of each polish “blind.”
9.1.2.4 Smear and Scuff Resistance—Smear is the degree of
oiliness or greasiness after the polish is rubbed-up to the
7. Procedure
desired polish appearance. Scuff is the degree of film damage
7.1 Cleaning of Test Substrates—An aliphatic solvent hav-
resulting from a glancing blow to the polish substrate. Check
ing a kauri-butanol value less than 38 should be used to lightly
smear by making a design such as an “S” with one’s finger. A
wipe the test substrate. Soft cotton towels may be used to apply
glancing blow with one’s knuckles or soft object such as a
the solvent to the surface and to wipe it clean. New or
book or magazine may be used for determining the degree of
adequately laundered towels should be used each time.
scuff.
7.2 Surface Subdivision—The precleaned surface of each
9.1.2.5 Film Healing—Observe the length of time required
test substrate should be divided and outlined by tape with
for the smear or scuff in 9.1.2.4 to disappear from the polish
uniform squares.
film, should it occur.
9.1.2.6 Rebuffability—Observe the ease of completeness or
7.3 Application of polish or wax—Assuming the control
repairability when the smears and scuffs are buffed with a
polish or the test polish is a commercially available product,
polishing cloth. The amount of physical effort and length of
follow the directions on the container as far as possible. When
time required is noted.
in doubt on the method of use, the directions for similar
9.1.2.7 Cleaning—Observe the ease of removal of old
products may be
...

This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Because
it may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current version
of the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.
Designation: D4002 − 81 (Reapproved 2008) D4002 − 81 (Reapproved 2016)
Standard Practice for
Evaluation of Buffable Shoe Polish
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D4002; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope
1.1 This practice covers the definition of properties to test and the apparatus to use, in evaluating the performance of buffable
shoe polishes.
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility
of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory
limitations prior to use.
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization
established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued
by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
2. Terminology
2.1 shoe polish—aids in cleaning, improving the appearance, and protecting leather or other shoe materials from such common
damaging effects as scuffs, water, salt water, and other surface deposits, commonly encountered with the use of shoes outdoors or
indoors. A buffable shoe polish requires buffing to obtain appearance improvements.
3. Significance and Use
3.1 This practice is intended to define the properties to be tested, the apparatus to use, and the comparisons of product
performance. It is recognized that considerable discretion exists among formulators and marketers of shoe polish on what
properties or performance characteristics are best for their products. This practice will be flexible to honor this fact within the
confines of the shoe polish definition in 2.1.
4. Apparatus and Materials
4.1 Test Polish.
4.2 Control Polish—The control polish is selected subjectively for comparison to the test polish. It may be a competitive
product, a modified formulation of the test polish, etc. The one stipulation is that, the control polish be of the same or similar type
as the test polish. For example, if the test polish is an aerosol-emulsion polish, the control should be an aerosol-emulsion polish.
It would not be meaningful to select a paste or liquid product as a control for comparison to an aerosol-emulsion test polish.
4.3 Test Substrates—The test substrate should be one for which the test polish is intended. Separate tests should be conducted
for smooth-grained leather substrates to which the most current leather finishes have been applied at a tannery. The finished leather
should be the exact type normally used by the shoe manufacturer to fabricate everyday dress shoes. Test substrates of man-made
materials should be obtained in the same manner. The test surface should be in good physical condition, not badly cracked,
scratched, or otherwise damaged so as to interfere with evaluation of polish properties. Various colors are required, see Section
9.
4.4 Applicators—Several methods of shoe polish application to substrates should be tested. Various types of applicators include
brush, cloth, and foam. The same type of applicator should be used to apply the polish for both the control and test polish.
4.5 Polishing Cloth—The same type of polishing cloth should be used for each sample. Materials such as washed cheese cloth,
rumple cloth, flannel, cotton diaper cloth, and nonwoven fabrics are suitable for this purpose. Felt or paper should not be used.
4.6 Polishing Brush—A separate horsehair brush or horsehair composition shoe brush should be used with each sample.
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D21 on Polishes and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D21.04 on Performance Tests.
Current edition approved March 1, 2008Oct. 1, 2016. Published April 2008May 2017. Originally approved in 1981. Last previous edition approved in 20022008 as D4002
- 81(2002).81(2008). DOI: 10.1520/D4002-81R08.10.1520/D4002-81R16.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
D4002 − 81 (2016)
4.7 Cleaning Solvent—Aliphatic solvents with kauri-butanol values less than 38.
4.8 Eye Droppers and Tap Water.
4.9 Sharp Metal Knife.
4.10 Light-Colored Wool, Polyester/Cotton Pieces, of trouser or dress clothing.
4.11 Thermometer.
4.12 Humidity Gage.
5. Precautions
5.1 The temperature and relative humidity of the test runs should be measured and recorded. The temperature should be within
13 to 29°C (55 to 85°F) with a relative humidity of 20 to 80 %.
5.2 The substrate should have the same temperature as the surrounding area.
5.3 Comparisons should not be made between two separate swatches (or leather objects) since leather substrates may vary
widely.
5.4 Leather substrates are normally used only one time.
6. Personnel and Instructions
6.1 The application and evaluation of the test and control polishes require four individuals. They should be capable of making
discriminating judgments of subjective physical and aesthetic properties. Training and orientation to specific product performance
characteristics may be required.
6.1.1 The four persons should apply the polishes to one of each of the four test substrates. All persons then rate all properties,
except application properties, on the remaining three panels that they did not apply polish to. The persons applying the polishes
should rate ease of use and other application properties. This means there will be only four readings on application properties. The
three rating the other properties, do not observe the application because they rate properties of each polish “blind.”
7. Procedure
7.1 Cleaning of Test Substrates—An aliphatic solvent having a kauri-butanol value less than 38 should be used to lightly wipe
the test substrate. Soft cotton towels may be used to apply the solvent to the surface and to wipe it clean. New or adequately
laundered towels should be used each time.
7.2 Surface Subdivision—The precleaned surface of each test substrate should be divided and outlined by tape with uniform
squares.
7.3 Application of polish or wax—Assuming the control polish or the test polish is a commercially available product, follow the
directions on the container as far as possible. When in doubt on the method of use, the directions for similar products may be used.
Equal volumes of control and test polish or wax should be used to avoid excessively thin or heavy coats. One or two applications
may be used depending on the substrate and the discretion of the tester. The same number of coats must be used for both the test
sample and the control.
8. Placement of Polishes or Waxes
8.1 Method A—A controlled, randomized method of laying out the test (X) and control (C) polishes or waxes is represented as
follows:
Test Panel Left Center Right
1 C X C
2 C C X
3 X C X
4 X X C
8.1.1 These four positionings should be written on tags and drawn randomly by each of the four who apply the polishes.
8.2 Method B—A controlled, randomized method of laying out the test (X) and control (C) polishes is represented as follows:
Test Panel Left Right
1 C X
2 X C
3 C X
4 X C
8.2.1 These four positionings should be written on tags and drawn randomly by each of the four who apply the polishes.
9. Evaluation
9.1 Compare the test polish and the control as follows:
D4002 − 81 (2016)
9.1.1 Application and Buffıng Properties (ease of rub-up to maximum gloss)—During application and buffing of the polishes,
note the time and ease with which each product develops maximum gloss.
9.1.2 Final Properties—Evaluate any or all of the following properties no sooner than 5 min following application:
9.1.2.1 Gloss—Evaluate as depth of gloss and buffing.
9.1.2.2 Uniformity—Observe the surface for streaks, unpolished dry spots, and general uniformity.
9.1.2.3 Film Clarity—Observe the clearness or sharpness of an object’s image in the surface of the polish. Overhead lights, face,
hand, or other objects may be used for reflection. This test may be eliminated for low-lustre surfaces that do not possess mirror-like
finishes.
9.1.2.4 Smear and Scuff Resistance—Smear is the degree of oiliness or greasiness after the polish
...