ASTM D4955-89(2008)
(Practice)Standard Practice for Field Evaluation of Automotive Polish
Standard Practice for Field Evaluation of Automotive Polish
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
This practice is intended to define the range of properties to be tested, the apparatus to be used, and the comparisons of automotive polish performance to be made. Since conditions, products, and apparatus vary, considerable discretion must exist among formulators and marketers in these areas and on what properties or performance characteristics are most significant for their products. This practice is intended to be flexible enough to honor this fact within the description of automotive polish in Section 2.
The test methods are subjective and empirical in order to conform to the basic characteristics of the class of products and to allow flexibility in testing. This also conforms to typical consumer experience.
The practice also allows for flexibility in choice of environmental characteristics under which the durability testing is done. This allows discretion to be exercised by those testing the products in order to provide greatest significance for the products being tested as they are intended for various marketplace needs.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the evaluation of the performance properties of automotive polishes. This practice is applicable to products that are commonly referred to as car/auto wax, cleaner wax, polish, and the like. This practice is limited to a comparison among test polishes, with a standard polish, or both, under the conditions of the individual test. The comparative results are indicative of absolute performance only insofar as the test conditions are representative of all normal application and use conditions.
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.
General Information
Relations
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NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.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: D4955 − 89(Reapproved 2008)
Standard Practice for
Field Evaluation of Automotive Polish
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D4955; 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 ing is done. This allows discretion to be exercised by those
testingtheproductsinordertoprovidegreatestsignificancefor
1.1 This practice covers the evaluation of the performance
the products being tested as they are intended for various
propertiesofautomotivepolishes.Thispracticeisapplicableto
marketplace needs.
products that are commonly referred to as car/auto wax,
cleaner wax, polish, and the like. This practice is limited to a
4. Apparatus and Materials
comparison among test polishes, with a standard polish, or
both, under the conditions of the individual test. The compara-
4.1 Sample of Polish to be tested.
tive results are indicative of absolute performance only insofar
4.2 Sample of Control Polish—A control polish should be
as the test conditions are representative of all normal applica-
selected for comparison to the test polish. It should be
tion and use conditions.
recognized that automotive polishes are formulated to perform
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the
different functions. The control polish should be selected with
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
a clear justification in mind, such as, test and control polish
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
should be designed for same function (high durability, ease of
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
application, or other performance features). These factors
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
should be taken into account when interpreting results and
choosing the control polish. All results are reported with the
2. Terminology
clearly identified control comparison.
2.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
4.3 Test Substrate—Since this test is designed to test auto-
2.1.1 automotive polish—substance which aids in cleaning
motive polish performance under natural and normally occur-
and improving the appearance of automotive finishes.
ring environmental conditions, the substrate chosen shall be
one for which the test polish was intended on a vehicle which
3. Significance and Use
can be subjected to the chosen environmental conditions in a
3.1 This practice is intended to define the range of proper-
manner meeting these criteria.The test surface shall be in good
ties to be tested, the apparatus to be used, and the comparisons
physical condition, not badly cracked, scratched, or otherwise
of automotive polish performance to be made. Since
damaged so as to interfere with evaluation of polish properties.
conditions, products, and apparatus vary, considerable discre-
The test surface for each sample is intended to be one half of
tion must exist among formulators and marketers in these areas
the surface area of the vehicle to be polished. In no case should
and on what properties or performance characteristics are most 2
the area polished for each product be less than 1290 cm (200
significant for their products. This practice is intended to be 2
in. ). The surface is divided as described later in the method.
flexible enough to honor this fact within the description of
(Proceduresevaluatingmorethantwopolishespervehiclemay
automotive polish in Section 2.
be done as a screening technique; however, results are not
3.2 Thetestmethodsaresubjectiveandempiricalinorderto sufficiently reproducible to be covered by this method.)
conformtothebasiccharacteristicsoftheclassofproductsand
NOTE1—Newvehiclepaints(paintswithservicelifelessthanoneyear)
to allow flexibility in testing. This also conforms to typical
givepropertiessuchas,waterbeadingandhighgloss,verysimilartothose
consumer experience.
being evaluated for the polish. Therefore, evaluation of appearance and
durability due to the polish formulation are minimized. Some paint types,
3.3 The practice also allows for flexibility in choice of
such as metallic paints, may also give atypical results.
environmental characteristics under which the durability test-
4.4 Polishing Cloth—The same type and size of polishing
cloth shall be used with each sample tested. Separate cloths
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D21 on Polishes
shall be used for each sample. Materials such as washed
and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D21.04 on Performance Tests.
cheesecloth, rumple cloth, flannel, cotton diaper cloth, and
Current edition approved March 1, 2008. Published April 2008. Originally
nonwoven fabrics are suitable for this purpose. Felt or paper
approved in 1989. Last previous edition approved in 2002 as D4955 - 89(2002).
DOI: 10.1520/D4955-89R08. shall not be used.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
D4955 − 89 (2008)
4.5 Automobile Washing Product—The formula given be- 6.3 A minimum of five evaluators will provide a subjective
low is a mild anionic surfactant-based solution sufficient to assessment of the test surfaces at the specified intervals. The
remove surface soils while having a minimum detrimental assessment will include those physical properties chosen for
effect on polish properties. When properly rinsed, it will not monitoring. The individual must be capable of making dis-
leave a residue that might affect performance attributes of the criminating judgments of those properties.
polishes.
6.4 All personnel who participate in application or evalua-
% by weight
tion should be unaware of product identities and should not be
able to deduce those identities by technical or personal
A
Sodium salt of linear dodecyl benzene 5.0 %
understanding atypical of an average consumer of the products
sulfonate
A
Sodium lauryl ether sulfate 2.5 %
being tested. Every effort should be made to ensure that those
Water (0–150 ppm hardness) qs
who apply the polish and those who evaluate durability are
A representative of typical consumers.
Percent active ingredient
This is a stock solution which can be diluted to approxi-
7. Procedure
mately one ounce per gallon of wash water (0–150 ppm
7.1 Surface Subdivision—There are two plans that can be
hardness).
used for dividing the car surface for application of the test and
4.6 Wash Water—The water source used for washing and
control polishes side by side for comparative evaluation. In
rinsing should be evaluated for hardness, dissolved minerals,
either case, using several vehicles and regularly varying the
pH, and other similar properties. It should be chosen or
pattern used increases the accuracy of the test results by
modifiedsoastominimizeadverseeffectsonpolishproperties.
minimizing the effect of a unique paint, surface condition,
weathering pattern, or wear pattern.
4.7 Washing and Drying Appliances—These appliances
7.1.1 The surface should be divided longitudinally so that
should be nonabrasive and clean. The washing appliance
the test polish and control polish are applied parallel to each
should be typical to the automotive washing operation, such as
other separated by the midline of the vehicle. One polish is
a sponge, soft cloth, or soft bristle brush. The drying appliance
applied to the driver’s side and the other to the passenger side.
should also be typical for automotive drying (chamois, soft
Normally the entire side of the vehicle is polished. In no case
terry cloth, cotton flannel, and the like).
2 2
shouldtheareapolishedbelessthan1290cm (200in. ).Since
NOTE 2—Complete drying is important to ensure that no residue from
wearpatternsofautopolishesareknowntovarybypositionon
the washing or rinsing process is left on the car surface.
the vehicle, there should be several vehicles tested with half of
the vehicles having test polish applied to the driver’s side and
5. Precautions
the other half having test polish on the passenger side (control
polish vice versa).
5.1 Weather conditions at the time of polishing should be
7.1.2 Checkerboard Pattern Surface Subdivision—Each of
consistent for all polish applications of the test. These condi-
the horizontal surfaces of the vehicle can be divided so that
tions should be recorded and compared with directions given
there are four equal sections with one dividing line being the
with polish used.
longitudinal midline of the vehicle. The test polish and control
5.2 The substrate should be prepared in accordance with
polish are then applied so as to resemble a checkerboard
polish application recommendations but should not differ
design: test polish on driver’s side front corner and passenger
between test polish and control polish.
side back quarter on the first car and passenger side front
quarter and driver’s side back corner on the second car. In no
5.3 Unusual conditions during the test should be recorded
and reported in the final report. case should each section polished be less than 1290 cm (200
in. ). The same pattern should be repeated on each horizontal
surface (hood, roof, and rear deck) if more than one is to be
6. Personnel and Instructions
used.
6.1 Foreachtestapplication,oneindividualshallapplyboth
NOTE 3—Screening procedures can be done comparing more than two
test polish and control polish. There may be as many individu-
polishes by“ checkerboarding” the car with polish areas so that areas of
als as there are test applications. The individuals shall be
higher wear and lower wear are used for each polish. The front of the car
physically capable of applying
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.