ASTM D4955-89(2002)
(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NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.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 2002)
Standard Practice for
Field Evaluation of Automotive Polish
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D 4955; 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 (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope ing is done. This allows discretion to be exercised by those
testing the products in order to provide greatest significance for
1.1 This practice covers the evaluation of the performance
the products being tested as they are intended for various
properties of automotive polishes.This practice is applicable to
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
4.1 Sample of Polish to be tested.
both, under the conditions of the individual test. The compara-
4.2 Sample of Control Polish—A control polish should be
tive results are indicative of absolute performance only insofar
selected for comparison to the test polish. It should be
as the test conditions are representative of all normal applica-
recognized that automotive polishes are formulated to perform
tion and use conditions.
different functions. The control polish should be selected with
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the
a clear justification in mind, such as, test and control polish
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
should be designed for same function (high durability, ease of
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
application, or other performance features). These factors
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
should be taken into account when interpreting results and
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
choosing the control polish. All results are reported with the
2. Terminology clearly identified control comparison.
4.3 Test Substrate—Since this test is designed to test auto-
2.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
motive polish performance under natural and normally occur-
2.1.1 automotive polish—substance which aids in cleaning
ring environmental conditions, the substrate chosen shall be
and improving the appearance of automotive finishes.
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
manner meeting these criteria.The test surface shall be in good
3.1 This practice is intended to define the range of proper-
physical condition, not badly cracked, scratched, or otherwise
ties to be tested, the apparatus to be used, and the comparisons
damaged so as to interfere with evaluation of polish properties.
of automotive polish performance to be made. Since condi-
The test surface for each sample is intended to be one half of
tions, products, and apparatus vary, considerable discretion
the surface area of the vehicle to be polished. In no case should
must exist among formulators and marketers in these areas and
the area polished for each product be less than 1290 cm (200
on what properties or performance characteristics are most
in. ). The surface is divided as described later in the method.
significant for their products. This practice is intended to be
(Proceduresevaluatingmorethantwopolishespervehiclemay
flexible enough to honor this fact within the description of
be done as a screening technique; however, results are not
automotive polish in Section 2.
sufficiently reproducible to be covered by this method.)
3.2 Thetestmethodsaresubjectiveandempiricalinorderto
conform to the basic characteristics of the class of products and
NOTE 1—New vehicle paints (paints with service life less than one
to allow flexibility in testing. This also conforms to typical
year) give properties such as, water beading and high gloss, very similar
consumer experience. to those being evaluated for the polish. Therefore, evaluation of appear-
ance and durability due to the polish formulation are minimized. Some
3.3 The practice also allows for flexibility in choice of
paint types, 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.
Current edition approved May 26, 1989. Published July 1989. Originally
published as D 4955 - 89. Last previous edition D 4955 - 89.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
D4955–89 (2002)
cheesecloth, rumple cloth, flannel, cotton diaper cloth, and 6.3 A minimum of five evaluators will provide a subjective
nonwoven fabrics are suitable for this purpose. Felt or paper assessment of the test surfaces at the specified intervals. The
shall not be used. assessment will include those physical properties chosen for
4.5 Automobile Washing Product—The formula given be- monitoring. The individual must be capable of making dis-
criminating judgments of those properties.
low is a mild anionic surfactant-based solution sufficient to
remove surface soils while having a minimum detrimental 6.4 All personnel who participate in application or evalua-
tion should be unaware of product identities and should not be
effect on polish properties. When properly rinsed, it will not
leave a residue that might affect performance attributes of the able to deduce those identities by technical or personal
understanding atypical of an average consumer of the products
polishes.
being tested. Every effort should be made to ensure that those
% by weight
who apply the polish and those who evaluate durability are
A
Sodium salt of linear dodecyl benzene 5.0 %
representative of typical consumers.
sulfonate
A
Sodium lauryl ether sulfate 2.5 %
Water (0–150 ppm hardness) qs
7. Procedure
______________
7.1 Surface Subdivision—There are two plans that can be
A
Percent active ingredient
used for dividing the car surface for application of the test and
This is a stock solution which can be diluted to approxi-
control polishes side by side for comparative evaluation. In
mately one ounce per gallon of wash water (0–150 ppm
either case, using several vehicles and regularly varying the
hardness).
pattern used increases the accuracy of the test results by
4.6 Wash Water—The water source used for washing and
minimizing the effect of a unique paint, surface condition,
rinsing should be evaluated for hardness, dissolved minerals,
weathering pattern, or wear pattern.
pH, and other similar properties. It should be chosen or
7.1.1 The surface should be divided longitudinally so that
modifiedsoastominimizeadverseeffectsonpolishproperties.
the test polish and control polish are applied parallel to each
4.7 Washing and Drying Appliances—These appliances
other separated by the midline of the vehicle. One polish is
should be nonabrasive and clean. The washing appliance
applied to the driver’s side and the other to the passenger side.
should be typical to the automotive washing operation, such as
Normally the entire side of the vehicle is polished. In no case
a sponge, soft cloth, or soft bristle brush. The drying appliance
2 2
shouldtheareapolishedbelessthan1290cm (200in. ).Since
should also be typical for automotive drying (chamois, soft
wearpatternsofautopolishesareknowntovarybypositionon
terry cloth, cotton flannel, and the like).
the vehicle, there should be several vehicles tested with half of
NOTE 2—Complete drying is important to ensure that no residue from the vehicles having test polish applied to the driver’s side and
the washing or rinsing process is left on the car surface.
the other half having test polish on the passenger side (control
polish vice versa).
5. Precautions
7.1.2 Checkerboard Pattern Surface Subdivision—Each of
5.1 Weather conditions at the time of polishing should be
the horizontal surfaces of the vehicle can be divided so that
consistent for all polish applications of the test. These condi-
there are four equal sections with one dividing line being the
tions should be recorded and compared with directions given
longitudinal midline of the vehicle. The test polish and control
with polish used.
polish are then applied so as to resemble a checkerboard
5.2 The substrate should be prepared in accordance with
design: test polish on driver’s side front corner and passenger
polish application recommendations but should not differ side back quarter on the first car and passenger side front
between test polish and control polish.
quarter and driver’s side back corner on the second car. In no
5.3 Unusual conditions during the test should be recorded case should each section polished be less than 1290 cm (200
and reported in the final report. 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
polishes by“ checkerboarding” the car with polish areas so that areas of
test polish and control polish. There may be as many individu-
higher wear and lower wear are used for each polish. The front of the car
als as there are test applications. The individuals shall be
re
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.