NAVSEA Report On:
Aqueous Oxygen Cl-eaning
Products and Processes
24 March 1994
Naval Sea Systems Command
2531 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22242-5160
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
SYSTEMS COMMAND
NAVAL SEA
2531 JEFFERSON DAVIS H W Y
m
IN REPLY REFER
ARLINGTON V 22242-5160
A
515.07
OPR 03Y2A56
Ser 03Y2A/081
24 Mar 1994
Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command
From:
NAVSEA REPORT ON AQUEOUS OXYGEN CLEANING PRODUCTS AND
Subj:
PROCESSES
(a) MIL-STD-l330C, Cleaning and Testing of Shipboard
Ref:
Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen Gas Piping Systems
(b) COMNAVSEA Ltr Ser 03V2/376 dtd 6 Dec 93, Ozone
Depleting Substances Class 1 Procurement Approvals In
Support Of Fleet Assets
Encl : (1) NAVSEA Report On Aqueous Oxygen Cleaning Products and
Processes, Revision - Original dtd 2 4 March 1994
1. The solvent CFC-113 (FREON 113) will cease production on 1
January 1996 according to the Montreal Protocol. In response,
NAVSEA has been aggressively pursuing alternatives for one of the
critical applications -- Cleaning of Oxygen Systems.
2. Enclosure (1) reports on our efforts and is forwarded for
information. All activities are requested to review enclosure
(l), and to initiate actions that would support a 31 December
1994 implementation.
3. The results of enclosure (1) detail the successful
development of an aqueous oxygen cleaning process that will meet
reference (a) requirements. The process centers around a newly
developed aqueous inorganic alkaline cleaning agent termed Navy
Oxygen Cleaner (NOC). This product is approved as an alternative
to the cleaning agents specified in reference (a) when used as
prescribed in enclosure (1). The product was jointly developed
by NAVSEA and OCTAGON Process Inc, and will be commercially
available by late April 1994.
4. We will engage in a test period with the new product and
process through late summer. During this period, all activities
are encouraged to use the product and process, and provide
comments. Pending the outcome of the test period, direction for
mandatory implementation of the process addressed in enclosure
(1) is expected to be issued by 1 September 1994. It is our
intent to eliminate the use of CFC-113 to clean MIL-STD-1330C
systems and components by 31 December 1994. For the following
applications, continued procurement of CFC-113 is authorized by
reference (b):
Subj: NAVSEA REPORT ON AQUEOUS OXYGEN CLEANING PRODUCTS AND
PROCESSES
a. Oxygen and Life Support System Gauges Instrumentation
&
b. Oxygen Cleanliness Verification
c. Oxygen Wipe Solvent Applications
d. Liquid Oxygen Applications Incompatible With Aqueous
Processes
5. Activities are cautioned against using any solvent or
cleaning agent for oxygen or life support system cleaning not
approved by NAVSEA. There have been several recent oxygen
incidents reported by other DOD activities caused by using non-
approved solvents such as Isopropyl Alcohol. For those
applications identified in paragraph 4 where alternative solvents
represent an unacceptable risk to personnel safety, we will
continue to use CFC-113 until acceptable solutions are
determined. Preparations for establishing a CFC-113 stockpile
are underway in the event efforts to identify alternatives for
the remaining applications are unsuccessful.
6. If you have any technical questions, please contact Mr.
Thomas Guinan, SEA 03Y2, (703)602-5552 EXT201 or Mr. Neil Antin,
SEA 03Y2A, (703)602-5552 EXT205. DSN is 332.
M.H. PETZ
By direction
DISTRIBUTION:
CNO (N4)
CINCPACFLT
CINLANFLT
COMNAVSURFLANT
COMNAVSURFPAC
COMNAVAIRLANT
COMNAVAIRPAC
COMSUBLANT
COMSUBPAC
NAVSURWARCEN NAVSSES
NAVAIRWARCEN AD LAKEHURST, NJ
-COMNAVSUPSYSCOM WASHINGTON, DC
FLETRACEN NORFOLK, VA
NAVSUBCOL GROTON, CT
NAVSUBTRACENPAC PEARL HARBOR, HI
SERVSCOLOM SAN DIEGO, CA
NAVSEA REPORT ON AQUEOUS OXYGEN CLEANING PRODUCTS AND
Subj:
PROCESSES
DISTRIBUTION (cont'd) :
SUBTRAFAC CHARLESTON, SC
SUBTRAFAC NORFOLK, VA
NAVSEA DET PORTSMOUTH, VA
NISMF PORTSMOUTH, VA
NISMF BREMERTON, WA
NISMF PHILADELPHIA, PA
NISMF PEARL HARBOR, HI
NAVEXPDIWNIT, PANAMA CITY, FL
NAVSEALOGCNTR, MECHANICSBURG, PA
NAVSHIPYD, NORFOLK, VA
NAVSHIPYD, PORTSMOUTH, NH
NAVSHIPYD, CHARLESTON, SC
NAVSHIPYD, LONG BEACH, CA
NAVSHIPYD, MARE ISLAND, CA
NAVSHIPYD, PEARL HARBOR, HI
NAVSHIPYD, PUGET SOUND, WA
NAVSHIPYD, PHILADELPHIA, PA
NAVSNIPREPFAC YOKOSUKA, JA
NAVSHIPREPFAC GUAM, MI
NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER (01)
NAVAL UNDRSEA WARFARE CENTER (22)
NAVAL ORDANCE CENTER (N73)
NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER KEYPORT, WA
SIMA CHARLESTON, SC
SIMA GUANTANAMO BAY, GU
SIMA LITTLE CREEK, VA
SIMA NORFOLK, VA
SIMA MAYPORT, FL
SIMA NEW YORK, NY
SIMA NEWPORT, RI
SIMA PASCAGOULA, MS
SIMA PEARL HARBOR, HI
SIMA PORTSMOUTH, VA
SIMA SAN DIEGO, CA
SIMA SAN FRANCISCO, CA
SUPSHIP BATH, ME
SUPSHIP BOSTON, MA
SUPSHIP CHARLESTON, SC
SUPSHIP GROTON, CT
SUPSHIP JACKSONVILLE, FL
SUPSHIP LONG BEACH, CA
SUPSHIP NEW ORLEANS, LA
SUPSHIP NEWPORT NEWS, VA
SUPSHIP PASCAGOULA, MS
SUPSHIP PORTSMOUTH, VA
SUPSHIP SAN DIEGO, CA
SUPSHIP SAN FRANCISCO, CA
SUPSHIP SEATTLE, WA
SUPSHIP STURGEON BAY, WI
TRIREFFAC BANGOR, WA
TRIREFFAC KINGS BAY, GA
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NAVSEA REPORT ON:
AQUEOUS OXYGEN CLEANING
PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES
REVISION - ORIGINAL
24 March 1994
Approved Bv:
Director, Auxiliary Systems: '%JAVSEA03Y Date
Date
Deputy Director, Auxiliary Systems: NAVSEA 03YB
3 --2 q-+/
,
-Lc2c.m
--
w
Head, Submarine Special Systems: NAVSEA 03Y2 Date
Prepared By:
3 - ZV- YY
Project Engheer: NAVSEA 03Y2A Date
Naval Sea Systems Command
2531 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22242-5 160
DOC: Y12E82
THIS PAGE " T I O N A L L Y LEFT BLANK
NAVSEA REPORT ON AQUEOUS OXYGEN CLEANING
PRODUCTS & PROCESSES
SHEET
ERRATA
1. Page 2, Paragraph 2.4.5, the allowable exposure limit for trichloroethylene is 4 . 1 ppm.
2. Page 7, Paragraph 4.12, revise paragraph to include: "Minimize contact of NOC with glass. Lengthy
stowage (days) of NOC in glass may result in the NOC forming a silicate gel that will deposit on the glass
container. Any spills of NOC on glass must be rinsed immediately to prevent hard deposits forming on the
glass when the NOC dries. Glass sampling containers should be PYREX type glass which will minimize the
formation of precipitate during lengthy stowage. Preferred sampling containers are those fabricated from teflon,
teflon lined glass or stainless steel. Suitable containers are available from laboratory suppliers such as Thomas
Scientific, Customer Service (800)345-2100, Government Sales (800)524-1364".
3. Page 8, Paragraph 4.15, second sentence should read, "Disposal shall follow appropriate local, state and
federal regulations.".
4. Page' 12. Paragraph 6.4.9, first sentence should read, "...with NOC is performed on a sample of either the
cleaner from the UT tank or bath, or on a sample of the rinse water.".
5. Page 42, Table 11, Paragraph 2, third sentence should read, ".a minimum protection, any time open
..s
containers......
6. Page 48, Table 17, for NOC, the material compatibility of MIL-P-25732C should indicate "C".
7. Page 48, Table 17, for NOC, the material compatibility of MIL-R-83285,60 & 80 durometer, should indicate
"12L".
8. Page 53, Table 22, for NOC, the material compatibility of ASTM D1248 should indicate "C".
9. Page 53. Table 22, for TSP, the material compatibility of ASTM D2287 should indicate "C".
10. Page 53, Table 22, for Water, the material compatibility of ASTM D1457 should indicate "C".
- STOCK NUMBERS
NAVY OXYGEN CLEANER WOC)
1. Supply support for NOC is being handled by Defense Logistics Agencypefense General Supply Center
@LA/DGSC) under the following stock numbers.
....... 6850-01-389-3880
a 55 GALLON DRUM......
b. .5 GALLON CONTAINER................
685041-389-3859
-
2. NOC is manufactured by OCTAGON Process Inc under the title of OCC-RTU (Oxygen Cleaning Agent
Ready To U e .
s)
3. The DLA/DGSC Point of Contact is M . Cliff Meyers, Commercial Phone: (804)279-3995,
r
Fax: (804)2794149.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NAVSEA REPORT ON AQUEOUS OXYGEN CLEANING
PRODUCTS & PROCESSES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In March 1992, the Naval Sea Systems Command initiated a task under the umbrella of the U.S. Navy CFC
Reduction Program to qualify alternative cleaning agents and processes to meet the requirements of MIL-STD-
133OC. Cleaning And Testing Of Shipboard Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen Gas Piping Systems. The
previously approved cleaner -- CFC-113 (FREON-113) would cease production in 1996 according to the
Montreal Protocol. The only alternative cleaner was a Tri-Sodium Phosphate (TSP) aqueous solution which
had limited applicability and success, and was an environmental hazard.
The results of the task revealed that to date, no drop-in replacement solvent exists for CFC-113. This
redirected the task to aqueous processes. A thorough evaluation of TSP and other aqueous cleaning processes
was performed. All advantages and disadvantages were carefully examined. The lack of test data substantiating
the various parameters governing aqueous processes seriously impeded t s progress. Many previously accepted
ak
practices were found during testing to be incorrect. Many limitations were discovered with blacklight inspection,
material compatibility with aqueous cleaners, soil removal by aqueous cleaners, and cleanliness verification using
aqueou: cleaners. This was further complicated by the sometimes exaggerated claims of cleaning agent
manufacturers.
The results presented in this report detail the successful efforts to develop aqueous oxygen cleaning processes
that would meet the cleanliness requirements of MIL-STD-1330C. The aqueous processes center around an
inorganic alkaline cleaner that was jointly developed by NAVSEA and OCTAGON Process, Inc. A joint patent
was filed with the U.S.Patent Office on 14 January 1994 and is pending. The aqueous processes addressed in
this report eliminate the use of CFC-113 for component and pipe line cleaning. Continued use of CFC-113 will
be required for cleaning instrumentation and cleanliness verification. Tasks to find suitable solutions for these
applications are on-going.
It is intended that this report serve as an interim technical supplement to MIL-STD-1330C for applicable U.S.
Navy Activities and Contractors until the Military Standard is revised. Use of this report by any other activity,
agency or contractor must be approached with caution. Each oxygen application -- shipboard, diving,
aerospace, medical -- represents a unique set of requirements and concerns that must be individually evaluated
and ultimately validated. Most of the data obtained during the task are provided in this report for that purpose.
The cleaning processes addressed in this report have been validated for shipboard and diving gaseous oxygen
systems.
i
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
..
11
NAVSEA REPORT ON AQUEOUS OXYGEN CLEANING
PRODUCTS & PROCESSES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following Government Activities are acknowledged for their various efforts.
Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Material and Chemical Laboratory performed all NOC, TSP, Water and CFC-113
testing, and designed and fabricated the pipe test loop and fixture. The Point of Contact is Mr. Doug Burgess
(707)646-1625.
Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Ocean Engineering Department performed component cleaning process validation
of NOC and obtained example components to test cleaning performance. The Point of Contact is Ms. Karen
Williams (707)646-4857.
Naval Experimental Diving Unit, Oxygen Clean Room evaluated cleaning of component and pipe with NOC.
The Point of Contact is Mr. Crowder Gibson (904)230-3310.
Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), Annapolis Laboratory together with the NASA White Sands Test
Facility performed the flammability testing of NOC and other cleaners. The Point of Contact for NSWC is Ms.
M r Joe Bieberich (410)293-2758. The Point of Contact for NASA is Dr. Harry Johnson (505)524-5725.
ay
Navy Environmental Health Center performed the Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology review of NOC and other
cleaners. The Point of Contact is Mr. Jim Crawl (804)444-4657.
Cherry Point Naval Aviation Depot Material Laboratory performed all Pre-Cleaner testing. The Point of
Contact is Ms. Stacy Luker (919)466-8142.
NASA White Sands Test Facility, Submarine Atmosphere Control Laboratory performed the off-gas analysis
of NOC and other cleaners. The Point of Contact is Dr. Harry Johnson (505)524-5725.
...
1ll
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
iv
NAVSEA REPORT ON AQUEOUS OXYGEN CLEANING
PRODUCTS & PROCESSES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
&&
Section
......................................................................................................................................................
.
1 0 PURPOSE 1
2.0 BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................... 2
3 . NOC PRODUCT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................
0 4
...........................................................................................................
4 . NOC PRODUCT INFORMATION
0 5
5 0 NOC ADVANTAGES AND NEW FEATURES ....................................................................................
. 8
OXYGEN COMPONENT CLEANING PROCESS ............................................................................... 9
6.0
General Information..................................................................................................................................... 9
6.1
Pre-Cleaners.................................................................................................................................................. 9
6.2
Pre-Clean & Rinse....................................................................................................................................... 10
6.3
Final Clean & Verification..........................................................................................................................
6.4 11
Rinse.............................................................................................................................................................. 13
6.5
Dry & Package............................................................................................................................................. 13
6.6
Component Cleaning Process Validation................................................................................................... 13
6.7
OXYGEN PIPE LINE CLEANING PROCESS ......................................................................................
7.0 14
General Information..................................................................................................................................... 14
7.1
NOC Oxygen Pipe Line Cleaning.............................................................................................................. 15
7.2
Rinse & Dry ................................................................................................................................................. 16
7.3
Pipe Flushing Hardware............................................................................................................................... 16
7.4
PARTICULATE CLEANLINESS VERIFICATION..............................................................................
8.0 17
NOC Particulate Inspection........................................................................................................................
8.1 17
TSP Particulate Inspection.......................................................................................................................... 17
8.2
MIL-STD-1330C Particulate Inspection....................................................................................................
8.3 17
HYDROCARBON CLEANLINESS VERIFICATION..........................................................................
9.0 18
White Light Inspection................................................................................................................................. 18
9.1
Inspection..........................................................................................................................
Blacklight 0 18
9.2
Shake Test..................................................................................................................................................... 18
9.3
Solvent Extraction & Infrared Spectroscopy.............................................................................................
9.4 18
Discussion Of PPM & M G m Cleanliness Levels...............................................................................
9.5 21
10.0 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 23
V
NAVSEA REPORT ON AQUEOUS OXYGEN CLEANING
PRODUCTS & PROCESSES
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Comparison Of NAVSEA Approved Oxygen Cleaning Agents............................................................ 25
NOC Physical Properties..........................................................................................................................
2. 26
3. Hydrocarbon Soil Removal Efficiency By Soaking.................................................................................. 27
Fluorinated Soil Removal Efficiency By Soaking.....................................................................................
4. 29
Hydrocarbon & Fluorinated Soil Removal Efficiency By Ultrasonics...................................................
5. 31
6. NOC Silicone Soil Removal Efficiency By Ultrasonics.......................................................................... 33
NOC Soil Removal Efficiency By Pipe Flow At 3 FPS.........................................................................
7. 35
NOC Soil Removal Efficiency By Pipe Flow At 6 FPS .........................................................................
8. 37
Diluted NOC Soil Removal Efficiency By Pipe Flow At 6 FPS..........................................................
9. 39
Cleaning Agent Soil Removal Efficiency By Pipe Flow ..........................................................................
10. 41
11. NOC Safety Precautions For Use............................................................................................................. 42
.
13 Metallic Material Compatibility................................................................................................................. 43
13. NOC Metallic Corrosion Results.............................................................................................................. 44
14. TSP Metallic Corrosion Results................................................................................................................ 45
15. Water Metallic Corrosion Results.............................................................................................................. 46
16. Seven Day Metallic Corrosion Rates......................................................................................................... 47
17. Rubber Material Compatibility................................................................................................................... 48
18. NOC Rubber Compatibility Results......................................................................................................... 49
19. TSP Rubber Compatibility Results........................................................................................................... 50
20. Water Rubber Compatibility Results......................................................................................................... 51
21. CFC-113 Rubber Compatibility Results.................................................................................................... 52
22. Plastic Material Compatibility..................................................................................................................... 53
23. Plastic Compatibility Results For NOC & TSP.................................................................................... 54
24. Plastic Compatibility Results For CFC-113 & Water........................................................................... 55
25. Aqueous Pre-Cleaner Application Guide.................................................................................................. 57
26. Pre-Cleaner Metallic Material Compatibility............................................................................................ 59
27. BRULIN 815GD Metallic Corrosion Results........................................................................................ 62
28. TURCO 3878 LF-NC Metallic Corrosion Results.............................................................................. 63
29. DOT 111/113 Metallic Corrosion Results............................................................................................... 64
30. SIMPLE GREEN Metallic Corrosion Results...................................................................................... 65
31. Pre-Cleaner Rubber Material Compatibility............................................................................................. 66
32. BRULIN 815GD Rubber Compatibility Results................................................................................... 67
33. TURCO 3878 LF-NC Rubber Compatibility Results......................................................................... 68
34. DOT-111/113 Rubber Compatibility Results.......................................................................................... 69
35. SIMPLE GREEN Rubber Compatibility Results................................................................................. 70
36. Pre-Cleaner Plastic Material Compatibility.............................................................................................. 71
.
37 Plastic Compatibility Results For BRULIN 815GD & TURCO 3878 LF-NC............................ 72
38. Plastic Compatibility Results For DOT 111/113 & SIMPLE GREEN.......................................... 73
39 . List Of Oils & Greases Tested For Fluorescence Under UV Light.................................................... 75
40. Solvent Properties Comparison Chart....................................................................................................... 77
41. NOC Solvent Extraction With CFC-113................................................................................................... 81
42. Pipe Length For l p Internal Surface Area .......................................................................................... 82
vi
NAVSEA REPORT ON AQUEOUS OXYGEN CLEANING
PRODUCTS & PROCESSES
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Egg
Figure
Aqueous Pipe Cleaning Test Fixture......................................................................................................... 83
1.
Aqueous Oxygen Component Cleaning Process Flow Ch.................................................................... 84
2.
Aqueous Flushing Rig Example................................................................................................................. 85
3.
Vii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
...
Vlll
NAVSEA REPORT ON AQUEOUS OXYGEN CLEANING
PRODUCTS & PROCESSES
1.0 PURPOSE
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the unique concerns and requirements
associated with cleaning material for oxygen and life support service.
-
1.2 The purpose of this report is to define the characteristics and attributes associated with the Navy Oxygen
Cleaner ( N O C ) ~ as well as other cleaners associated with oxygen cleaning.
1.3 The purpose of this report is to document the attributes and parameters required to integrate the Navy
Oxygen Cleaner and other cleaners into a successful Aqueous Oxygen Cleaning Process. The intent is that this
information along with existing guidance will be used to prepare detailed process and inspection procedures.
1.4 The purpose of this report is to present and document the test data obtained in the course of verifying
Aqueous Oxygen Cleaning Products and Processes. This data provides assistance in the selection and
implementation of the various products and processes, as well as presenting an approach for future evaluations.
1.5 The purpose of this report is to detail the limitations, correlations and where possible, the basis of the
various analyses and techniques used to verify cleanliness.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 The standards of the Department of Defense @OD), National Aeronautical and Space Administration
(NASA), National Fire Protection Agency ("PA), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) all specify that the rigorous removal of organic and particulate
contamination from oxygen and oxygen enriched handling equipment is absolutely necessary to prevent a fire
hazard. Failure to thoroughly clean oxygen and oxygen enriched handling equipment has resulted in
catastrophic fiies.
2.2 Testing by NASA has demonstrated that, in the presence of an ignition source resulting from particulate
contamination or organic material, many metals will burn in an oxygen enriched atmosphere. For example,
ASTM document G94-88, "Standard Guide for Evaluating Metals for Oxygen Service",reports 6061 aluminum
in 100% oxygen at 4000 psi burned at an average propagation rate of 13.86 centimeters per second, and 316
stainless steel in 100% oxygen at 4000 psi burned at an average propagation rate of 1.24 centimeters per second.
2.3 Accompanying the fire hazard is the toxicity hazard associated with oxygen and oxygen enriched handling
equipment used in providing life support functions. There are numerous reports of personnel injury from toxic
residue remaining in life support equipment cleaned with a cleaning agent that was inadequate. The cleaning
agent either failed to remove toxic contaminates or it contained toxic contaminates that were not removed
during the cleaning process. For example, the U.S. Navy prohibits the contact of chlorinated hydrocarbon
solvents such as trichloroethylene and methyl chloroform with underwater diving life support equipment. These
compounds dehydrochlorinate in alkaline bed carbon dioxide scrubbers forming highly toxic and flammable
dichloroacetylene.
2.4 The requirements for oxygen cleaning agents include the following attributes:
2.4.1 The cleaner must be capable of removing thin films of hydrocarbon soils such as lubricating oils, greases
or organic surfactants not removed during the pre-clean process. The presence of these soils represents
extreme fire hazards in an oxygen enriched atmosphere. The pre-clean process is used to remove all visible
soil before proceeding to a final clean and verification process. CFC-113 is unique in that it can be used in
both the pre-clean process, and the final clean and verification process.
2.4.2 The cleaner must be capable of removing thin films of halogenated lubricants approved for use in oxygen
systems not removed during the pre-clean process. Failure to remove these lubricants during cleaning provides
areas where particulate and hydrocarbon contamination can be trapped.
2.4.3 The cleaner must be capable of removing particulate such as grinding dust, loose corrosion products and
metal fines. The presence of particulate contamination provides a potential ignition source in an oxygen
enriched atmosphere.
2.4.4 The cleaner must be non-flammable in high pressure oxygen in the event the cleaner is not completely
removed. It has been the U.S. Navy'sexperience that a small amount of cleaner is left behind when cleaning
irptalled pipe systems with either CFC-113 or an aqueous cleaner.
2.4.5 The cleaner must be non-toxic in the event the cleaner is not completely removed. If the cleaner contains
toxic components, the effects of both the cleaner and its decomposition during system or component operation
must be evaluated. Additionally, the removal and monitoring of the toxic components should be within the
capability of an industrial laboratory. For example, trichloroethylene is a common solvent having an allowable
toxic Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of 50 ppm. However, because of harmful decomposition products which
are difficult to detect, the U S Navy prohibits the use of trichloroethylene for diving applications, and reduces
..
its allowable limit to 0.5 ppm.
2.4.6 The cleaner must be capable of being analyzed for low level hydrocarbon or non-volatile residue
contamination. CFC-113 per MIL-C-81302 Type 1 has a background hydrocarbon level, measured by infrared
spectroscopy, of less than or equal to 1 ppm, and a non-volatile residue level, measured by gravimetric, of less
than equal to 1.6 m a . TSP has a solvent extractable background hydrocarbon level, measured by infrared
spectroscopy, of generally less than or equal to 2 ppm. Additionally, hydrocarbon contamination at levels less
than 1 ppm can be detected in either fluid. These attributes have satisfied the various DOD, NASA and
Commercial oxygen cleanliness verification requirements.
2.5 Currently, for the U.S. Navy Department and other DOD organizations, the two predominantly used
approved oxygen system and life support fluid system final cleaning agents are CFC-113 (trichlorotrifluoroethane
solvent) per Military Specification MIL-(2-81302 or a 10% aqueous solution of TRIBASIC SODIUM
PHOSPHATE (TSP) DODECAHYDRATE per Federal Specification 0-S-642 mixed 4.5 pounds per 5 gallons
of demineralized water. A comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of these two cleaning agents is
presented in TABLE 1. Included in TABLE 1 are the advantages and disadvantages of the new Navy Oxygen
Cleaner (NOC)" -.
2.6 The post cleaning quantitative analysis for either residual total hydrocarbon or non-volatile residue
contamination is specific to oxygen cleaning. Oxygen cleanliness, with regard to organic contamination, is
verified based on these analysis results.
2
2.6.1 Analysis results are provided in "ppm" when analyzing used cleaning agent for soil removed during
cleaning. A DOD limit of 5 ppm hydrocarbon applies for MIL-STD-l330C, Cleaning and Testing of Shipboard
Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen Gas Piping Systems applications.
2.6.2 Analysis results are provided in "mass/surface area" when determining soil remaining after cleaning. A
DOD limit of 3 mg/ft2 non-volatile residue applies for MIL-STD-l359B, Cleaning Methods and Procedures for
Breathing Oxygen Equipment applications.
2.6.3 For information, the SAJ3 "mass/surface area" non-volatile residue limit for oxygen cleanliness is 2.5
mg/ft2. The NASA "mass/surface area" non-volatile residue limit for oxygen cleanliness is 1 mg/f?.
2.6.4 The difference in cleanliness requirements should be approached with caution. It is important to
recognize that a significant difference exists between the relative hazard of an oxygen system providing life
support and oxygen systems providing propulsion. Oxygen life support systems although operating at high
pressure, most often have low flow rates with no rotational friction concerns. In comparison, oxygen propulsion
systems (rocket motors) employ high speed turbine pumps operating at high pressure and high flow. Recognize,
however, that only a rigorous hazard analysis evaluating the application, materials, configuration, operation,
pressure, flow, and failure modes can fully define the relative risk. Further complications arise because data
simulmg the many materials, applications and configurations is absent. The easiest goal is often to achieve
the highest possible level of cleanliness using the best available technology. Thus, the different and sometimes
conflicting requirements.
2.7 The NAVSEA "down selection" process used to identify candidate cleaning agents was based on a Request
For Proposal (RFP) issued through the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) in March 1992. The RFP requested
input from cleaning agent vendors. Copies of the NAVSEA Test Plan for Evaluating Alternative Oxygen
Cleaning Agents was provided to each interested vendor. The test plan detailed screening requirements
including the request for formulas. This permitted a detailed review of each cleaning agent by senior scientists,
allowing the differentiation between fact and fiction. The final candidate selection was according to a source
selection plan. Three Categories of cleaning agents were ultimately reviewed -- solvents, aqueous organic and
aqueous inorganic.
2.7.1 Testing and review of alternative solvents available commercially or experimentally was unsuccessful in
identifying a CFC-113 replacement. Hydrocarbon solvents, chlorinated hydrocarbon solvents, perfluorinated
(F'FCs) solvents and blends, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) all had
problems with either soil removal, flammability, toxicity, or cleanliness verification.
.
2.7.1.1 Isopropyl Alcohol was flammable and slow to dry. Perchloroethylene had acceptable soil removal and
was non-flammable, but was carcinogenic and slow to dry. PFCs were non-flammable, but would not effectively
remove hydrocarbon soils. HFCs would dry quickly and had low non-volatile residue, but would not effectively
remove hydrocarbon soils. HCFC-141b had excellent soil removal, but was flammable, had high non-volatile
residue and was an ozone depleting substance.
2.7.1.2 Currently, NAVSEA is funding the evaluation of HCFC-225 by NASA White Sands. Intended as a
gauge and wipe cleaner, this chemical is manufactured by Asahi Glass Ltd. of Yokohama, Japan. HCFC-225
has physical properties similar t CFC-113. The recommended toxic exposure limit for HCFC-225 is 100ppm.
o
The Newark Ar Force Base is coordinating acquisition of material between the vendor and NASA. Test results
i
on HCFC-225 will be reported when available.
3
2.7.2 Review of aqueous organic (biodegradable) cleaners indicated these products contain hydrocarbon
derivative surface active agents (surfactants) and solvents which do not satisfy the requirements of paragraphs
2.4.4,2.4.5 or 2.4.6. Additionally, the surfactants and solvents can prove difficult to remove.
2.7.2.1 Many of the cleaners will be flammable in high pressure oxygen due to constituents such as 2-
Butoxyethanol and d-Limonene. Compounds such as these are more flammable than the soils being removed.
2.7.2.2 Many of the cleaners contain toxic constituents such as 2-Butoxyethanol or N-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone.
These compounds have TLV toxicity limits of 25 ppm and 100 ppm respectively. In comparison to the simple
hand held halide detector used to monitor for CFC-113, hydrocarbon compounds would be much more difficult
to detect.
2.7.2.3 Most of the cleaners are incapable of being analyzed for low level residual total hydrocarbon
contamination or non-volatile residue because of very high organic background levels. Also, many of the
organic constituents in the cleaners are essentially water soluble oils or solvents with high boiling points making
removal from inaccessible areas problematic at best. 2-Butoxyethanol boils at about 3405;.
2.7.2.4 The U.S. Navy will prohibit the use of any organic based biodegradable cleaner in any application where
irpccessible areas may trap cleaner such as welded socket joints, brazed joints and complex pipe systems.
Testing of one organic aqueous cleaner as pipe line cleaner revealed significant problems. The cleaner foamed
excessively requiring the addition of an organic anti-foaming agent. Difficulty in removing all traces of the
cleaner from the pipe system was encountered. Even after three separate rinses with fresh water, post flushing
with an aqueous inorganic alkaline cleaner showed evidence of excessive foaming. This indicated that the
cleaner probably deposited a thin film of surfactant on the interior surfaces, and the solubility of the surfactant
was not 100% in fresh water.
2.7.3 Various formulations of aqueous inorganic alkaline cleaners were tested. Testing revealed that multiple
component cleaners did not clean as well as singular chemical solutions such as a 10% solution of Tri-Sodium
Phosphate (TSP). The U.S. Navy has used TSP as a verification cleaner for limited oxygen applications. The
U.S. Navy evaluated various combinations of potassium silicate, sodium metasilicate, potassium pyrophosphate,
sodium tripolyphosphate, tri-sodium phosphate, sodium hydroxide, and borax. When combined, the strengths
of the individual chemicals could not be preserved. The cleaning agent鈥檚 soil removal, soil retention, rinsability
and corrosion resistance performance were always affected.
3.0 NOC PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
3.1 NOC: NAVY OXYGEN CLEANER. Aqueous, inorganic, alkaline, phosphate free, non-toxic, non-
flammable, oxygen safe, environmentally compatible, non-comsive industrial cleaner.
See TABLE 2.
3.2 NOC PHYSICAL PROPERTIES:
3.3 NOC EXAMPLE MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET (OCC-RTU): Attached.
3.4 NOC POINTS OF CONTACT (POC). NOC was developed by NAVSEA and OCTAGON Process Inc.,
-and a joint patent filed 14 January 1994 is pending.
3.4.1 Government POC & Address:
4
i
3.4.1.1 Mr. Neil E. Antin
NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND
NAVSEA Code 03Y2
2531 Jefferson Davis Hwy
Arlington, VA 22242-5160
(703)602-5552 Ext 205
3.4.2 Vendor(@, Poc & Address:
3.4.2.1 Mr. Douglas P. Jackson
Vice President Research & Development
OCTAGON PROCESS INC.
596 River Road
Edgewater, NJ. 07020
(201)313-1187
OCTAGON PROCESS INC., manufactures the NOC under the title of: OCC-RTU:
OXYGEN CLEANING COMPOUND -READY TO USE
4.0 NOC PRODUCT INFORMATION
4.1 NOC is an inorganic alkaline solution comprised of water, sodium silicate, sodium molybdate and sodium
fluoroborate. The cleaner is unique in that the formulation is synergistic amplifying the inherent strength of
each component. The cleaner will remove common organic fat based soils by neutralization or solubilization.
The cleaner removes the more difficult industrial based hydrocarbon and halogenated synthetic and mineral
based oil and grease soils from the surface by displacement. The principle displacing agent is a polysilicate
anion, At the selected silicon dioxide:disodium oxide mole ratio, polysilicate anions exist as highly charged cyclic
silicate molecules. These highly charged cyclic silicate molecules develop electrostatic forces that displace and
disperse the soil from the substrate while depositing an inorganic amorphous glass surface. The inorganic
amorphous glass surface prevents soil redeposition and is easily hydrated and removed by rinsing with water.
To prevent the formation of hard insoluble mineral or metal based silicate deposits, the quality of the raw
materials used to manufacture the cleaner is carefully controlled and rigorous filtration steps are employed.
4.2 NOC removes particulate; hydrocarbon oils, greases and fats; and fluorinated oils & greases from metallic
surfaces, rubber surfaces and plastic surfaces when applied hot at temperatures of 140掳F to 170掳F. The product
is most effective when used with agitation in applications such as a pumped ultrasonic tank, pumped pipe line
cleaner or spray impingement cleaner.
4.2.1 The results of U S Navy testing of NOC as a batch tank and ultrasonic tank cleaner are provided in
..
TABLES 3 through 6. Comparative data with CFC-113, TSP and Hot Water are included. During the testing,
no effort was made to orient the test coupons for best advantage. This bcttcr simulated actual use where
component configuration prevents careful orientation in an ultrasonic tank. The testing demonstrates that the
effectiveness of the product as a batch tank cleaner and ultrasonic tank cleaner is dependent on type of soil and
thickness. Based on testing and observation, the addition of agitation such as a pump will increase the cleaning
efficiency of NOC when used as a batch tank cleaner or ultrasonic tank cleaner. Directions regarding use of
NOC for component cleaning applications are addressed in Section 6.
5
4.2.2 The results of U.S. Navy testing of NOC as a pipe line cleaner are provided in TABLES 7 through 10.
Some comparative data with TSP, and affects of adding surfactants to NOC are included in TABLE 10. These
results were obtained from a test loop incorporating two contamination carriers oriented to experience two
different types of flow - perpendicular to parallel and parallel to perpendicular. The contamination carrier test
fiture is illustrated in FIGURE 1. Each carrier consisted of a threaded plug with a 5.5-inch long, 0.25-inch
diameter, 20 threads-per-inch, rod inserted and potted into the center of the threaded plug. This allowed
accurate measurement of soil removal by weight change, and simulated a worst case cleaning configuration. The
testing demonstrated that time, flow velocity and flow direction all influence soil removal performance.
Directions regarding use of NOC for pipe line cleaning applications is addressed in Section 7. For information,
it was found that threaded rods contaminated with grease were best cleaned by swirling them in an ultrasonic
tank filled with NOC. Attempts to clean the rods by soaking in CFC-113 were unsuccessful. The CFC-113
would dissolve the oil part of the grease, but would leave the filler in the threads. This would appear to
contradict the success in using CFC-113 to remove grease from flat plates listed in TABLES 3 and 4,and
should be recognized.
4.3 NOC is non-flammable in high pressure gaseous oxygen. Autogenous ignition testing in accordance with
ASTM G72-82 (Reapproved 1991)resulted in no ignition at 493掳C (920掳F) with an initial 100% oxygen pressure
of 3000 psig. The NASA White Sands Test Facility performed the testing.
4 4 NOC is non-toxic, and is safe for use in any life support system including multiple atmosphere diving
.
systems. NOC has been evaluated by the U.S. Navy Environmental Health Center, the U.S. Navy Submarine
Medical Command, and the Senior Diving Medical Officer at the U.S. Navy Experimental Diving Unit. Each
activity reviewed the cleaner composition and the results of 24 hour off-gas testing at 38掳C and 82掳C performed
by the NASA White Sands Test Facility. NOC has been approved for use in oxygen and life support systems
when used as prescribed. In addition to the safety precautions addressed by the product Material Safety Data
Sheet (MSDS), the U.S. Navy Environmental Health Center specified the Safety Precautions For Use listed in
TABLE 11.
4.5 NOC is compatible with metallic materials. Although silicate solutions are reputed to have inherent
corrosion resistance characteristics, U.S. Navy testing with aluminum materials indicated otherwise. Specifically,
aluminum alloys 5052,5456and 6061, which are used in aerospace oxygen systems, demonstrated rapid corrosive
attack by silicate solutions. This was corrected by the addition of sodium molybdate and sodium fluoroborate,
inorganic environmentally safe corrosion inhibitors. These chemicals produced a synergistic inhibitor system
greater than the sum of the individual compounds without affecting the cleaning performance. The compatibility
of NOC with various metals is provided in TABLE 12. Included in TABLE 12 are the compatibility of TSP
and Hot Water with various metals. The basis of the metallic compatibility table are the results of 24 hour total
immersion and 7 day residual corrosion tests reported for various metals in TABLES 12 and 16. Similar data
for TSP and Hot Water are also provided in TABLES 14 through 16.
4.6 NOC is compatible with many non-metallic rubber materials. The compatibility of NOC with various
rubbers is provided in TABLE 17. Included in TABLE 17 are the compatibility of TSP, Water and CFC-113
with various rubbers. The basis of the rubber compatibility table are the results of 24 hour total immersion
tests in NOC, TSP, Water and CFC-113 reported for various rubber materials in TABLES 18 through 21
respectively.
1.7 NOC is compatible with many non-metallic plastic materials. The compatibility of NOC with various
plastics is provided in TABLE 22. Included in TABLE 22 are the compatibility of TSP, Water and CFC-113
with various plastics. The basis of the plastic compatibility table are the results of 24 hour total immersion tests
6
in NOC, TSP, Water and CFC-113 reported for various plastic materials in TABLES 23 and 24. A special
warning regarding the compatibility of VESPEL with NOC, TSP and other alkaline cleaners should be noted.
Testing revealed inconsistent deterioration of VESPEL test coupons when exposed to NOC and TSP for 24
hours. Often only one of three triplicate test coupons would be affected. The deterioration was always
characterized by a drop in material hardness, tensile properties and surface blistering. Once dried, the tensile
properties returned to normal. However, any surface defects were permanent. One hour exposures did not
reveal any material degradation.
4.8 NOC is capable of being directly analyzed for residual total hydrocarbon contamination by solvent
extraction using either CFC-113 or FLON S-316. FLON S-316 is a HORIBA Instruments Incorporated
patented CFC non-hydrocarbon solvent. For U.S. Navy activities which do not have an infrared
spectrophotometer, HORIBA Instruments Incorporated manufacture a low cost self-contained solvent extractor
(20 mL sample/lO mL solvent) with non-dispersive infrared analyzer OCMA-220. The analyzer is suitable for
residual total hydrocarbon analysis of NOC, TSP and CFC-113. Additional information is provided in Section
9.
4.9 NOC is being evaluated for direct analysis of soil residue by infrared (IR) spectrophotometry. The cleaner
does not show any evidence of aggregating into micron or sub-micron sized colloidal particles when the proper
silicate-mole ratio and manufacturing filtration process are used. Therefore, the cleaner can be filtered to
extremely low levels (less than 1.0 micron) to remove suspended contaminants without removing the constituents
of the cleaner which could interfere with the analysis. The material removed by the filter, free of interfering
water, would then be analyzed for organic contaminants by I spectrophotometry. The resulting advantage
R
would be an analysis free of solvent use. This analysis has a high probability of success. Additional information
will be delineated when available.
4.10 NOC is also being evaluated for direct analysis of soil residue by ultraviolet (UV) spectrophotometry.
Since the cleaner does not show any evidence of aggregating into micron or sub-micron sized colloidal particles,
the cleaner is optically clear. The resulting advantage may be the ability to evaluate the presence of extremely
low levels of contaminates by the change in reflected light. Most contaminates should exist in the cleaner as
colloidal particles which may be detectable by W light. The first step of the evaluation is to determine
whether the target soils absorb UV light at the expected concentrations. Reliminary evaluation indicates that
this analysis has a low probability of success. Additional information will be delineated when available.
4.11 For information, NOC and TSP were evaluated for analysis of soil residue by Total Carbon Analysis
(ASTM D-2579) without success. The Total Carbon Analyzer converts carbon ace^^^ matter to carbon dioxide.
The high alkalinity of both solutions resulted in the absorption of carbon dioxide from air producing levels of
50 to 500 ppm. This severely affected the ability to differentiate between carbon dioxide derived from the
oxidation of organic contaminants and carbon dioxide absorbed from the air. Attempts to eliminate the
background carbon dioxide by acidification, vacuum and sonication where unsuccessful. Acceptable analysis
repeatability could not be established.
4.12 NOC does not experience any separation during a freeze-thaw cycle or when boiling.
4.13 NOC is completely rinseable leaving no residue. Residue remaining from product drying in-place will
tightly adhere to the substrate with a hard surface (no dusting will occur), but is dissolvable in water.
4.13.1 Two 50 mL samples of NOC were boiled to dryness on a hot plate, resulting in complete dehydration
of the NOC. One sample of NOC residue dissolved in 100 mL water at 1059; with no agitation within 2 hours.
7
The other sample of NOC residue dissolved in 100 mL water at 775; with no agitation in 24 hours. Faster
rehydration is possible by using a warm (90F-110"E) solution of NOC diluted 1:lO with water.
4.13.2 Two 2 mL samples of NOC were boiled to dryness on a hot plate, resulting in complete dehydration
of the NOC. One sample of NOC residue dissolved in 100 mL water at 105掳F with no agitation within 5
minutes. The other sample of NOC residue dissolved in 100 mL water at 77掳F with no agitation within 15
minutes. Faster rehydration is possible by using a warm (9O"F-llO"F) solution of NOC diluted 1:lO with water.
4.13.3 Fifty (50) mL of NOC left exposed t the atmosphere at room temperature, lost 25 mL to evaporation
o
after 7 days. The cleaner developed a thin gel like surface which limited further evaporation.
4.14 NOC does not produce or contribute to any significant stable foam. In a splashing environment, bubbles
of limited height (1 inch at most) above the surface may form. Once the agitation stops, the bubbles will
dissipate within 5 minutes.
4.15 Although NOC does not contain environmentally hazardous components, the cleaner is alkaline and the
soil(s) removed during the cleaning process may be environmental hazards. Disposal shall follow appropriate
local regulations. However, note the following recommendations.
4.15.1 Do not acidify NOC unless the product has first been diluted with water at least 1:5. The cleaner being
a relatively concentrated silicate solution will precipitate and may gel if acidified before dilution. There is no
concern of this during use since the cleaner is extremely well buffered. Diluting the product 1:lO with water
will reduce the pH by only 1 pH unit.
4.15.2 Since the primary soil removal mechanism is displacement, the majority of soil in the product will exist
as a suspension which should be removable by fitration. Therefore, to extend the product life, and to meet
disposal effluent regulations, filtering the product through 10,5, or even 1 micron filters should remove most
suspended soil.
4.16 All manufacture of NOC will be in accordance with a rigorous government approved Quality Assurance
Plan. This will ensure consistent product quality and prevent any unauthorized modifications.
5.0 NOC ADVANTAGES AND NEW FEATURES
5.1 Unlike CFC-113, NOC contains no chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and therefore, is not an Ozone Depleting
Substance (ODS). NOC has no Global Warming Potential.
5.2 Unlike CFC-113 & TSP, NOC is not an environmental hazard.
5.3 Unlike TSP, NOC is not corrosive to aluminum.
5.4 In comparison to TSP,NOC has better hydrocarbon and halogenated soil removal and retention capacity.
In testing, NOC was more sensitive to cleanliness verification by solvent extraction than TSP, and had better
repeatability.
5.5 In comparison to TSP, NOC residue remaining from product drying in-place will not form harmful dust
and is dissolvable in warm water.
5.6 Unlike TSP, NOC will not precipitate at low temperature, or on low temperature surfaces. NOC does not
experience any separation during a freeze-thaw cycle or when boiling.
5.7 Unlike most altemative solvents and many aqueous organic cleaners, NOC is non-toxic.
5.8 Unlike many aqueous organic cleaners, NOC is non-flammable in high pressure oxygen.
5.9 Unlike aqueous organic cleaners, NOC contains no hydrocarbon constituent or derivative that would
interfere with reasonable residual total hydrocarbon contamination analyses.
5.10 Unlike many aqueous organic cleaners, NOC will not produce any significant foam allowing product use
as a spray and pumped cleaner. The organic surfactants used in biodegradable cleaners often produce a great
deal of foam requiring the addition of organic de-foaming agents to allow product use as spray or pumped
cleaners.
5.11 Unlike most aqueous cleaners, NOC can be filtered to the sub-micron level without effecting the cleaner.
The surfactants in many cleaners exist as relatively large particles. Filtering these solutions to very low levels
may remove, in addition to particulate and soil, the surfactant.
5.12 Cnlike many cleaners, NOC will be manufactured and inspected in accordance with a government
approved Quality Assurance Plan to ensure consistent product quality. Many commercial cleaners are
manufactured with limited Quality Assurance provisions resulting in inconsistent quality and unannounced
modifications.
6.0 OXYGEN COMPONENT CLEANING PROCESS
6.1 GENERAL INFORMATION
6.1.1 For oxygen applications, the following Component Cleaning Process will result in acceptable particulate
and hydrocarbon cleanliness levels if properly implemented. It is intended that for the component cleaning
process, each organization review its needs against the available pre-cleaners, final cleaners and application
methods, and develop the most cost effective process. A process flow chart is illustrated in FIGURE 2.
6.1.2 The objective of the Component Cleaning Process is to remove all visible soil and particulate during a
Pre-Clean & Rinse Step before proceeding to a Final Clean & Verification Step. An effectivePre-Clean Step
increases the probability of a successful Final Clean & Verification Step reducing overall process cost.
Remember that the Final Clean & Verification Step is normally accomplished in an Oxygen Clean Room.
Therefore, any rework requires considerable effort in comparison to a Pre-Clean Step which is intended to be
accomplished in an easily accessible and ventilated area.
6.2 PRE-CLEANERS :
6.2.1 The four commercial aqueous cleaners listed in TABLE 25 will function adequately as Pre-Cleaners for
the Component Cleaning Process. Although there are numerous other aqueous cleaners, these were selected
based. on their current industrial acceptance. Aqueous pre-cleaners instead of solvents were selected because
of the inherent f i e and toxicity safety. The flammability and toxicity of many solvents precluded selection.
Caution should be exercised when using other aqueous cleaning agents as pre-cleaners. The vendor claims
regarding material compatibility and performance should be verified.
9
6.2.2 The disposal of all pre-cleaners shall be in accordance with local regulations. Recognize that the soils
removed during the Pre-Clean process are themselves environmental hazards which may affect the disposal of
biodegradable cleaners. Refer to appropriate personnel for direction.
6.2.3 The four commercial aqueous cleaners listed in TABLE 25 are additional choices to the commonly used
aqueous solution of 0.1 to 0.5 oz Non-Ionic Detergent (per MIL-D-16791) per gallon of water. For information,
the use of Non-Ionic Detergent (NID) should be limited to concentrations less than 0.5 oz/gal of water and
temperatures less than 1205;. The solubility of NID decreases as temperature increases leading to deposition
of the detergent (a hydrocarbon surfactant) on surfaces being cleaned.
6.2.4 CAUTION, the four commercial aqueous cleaners listed in TABLE 25 (and NID) have not been
evaluated for Oxygen or Life Support safety. They all contain hydrocarbon surfactants, and shall not be used
for any Final Cleaning Step.
6.2.5 The four commercial aqueous cleaners listed in TABLE 25 were reviewed for basic application, and
evaluated for material compatibility.
6.2.5.1 The compatibility of the four pre-cleaners with various metals are provided in TABLE 26. The basis
afthe pre-cleaner metallic material compatibility table are the results of 24 hour total immersion tests reported
for various metals in TABLES 27 through 30. Similar compatibility data for NOC, TSP and Hot Water are
provided in TABLES 12 through 16.
6.2.5.2 The compatibility of the four pre-cleaners with various non-metallic rubbers are provided in TABLE
31. The basis of the rubber material compatibility tables are the results of 24 hour total immersion tests
reported in TABLES 32 through 35. Similar compatibility data for NOC, TSP, Hot Water and CFC-113 are
provided in TABLES 17 through 21.
6.2.5.3 The compatibility of the four pre-cleaners with various non-metallic plastics are provided in TABLE
36. The basis of the plastic material compatibility tables are the results of 24 hour total immersion tests
reported in TABLES 37 and 38. Similar compatibility data for NOC, TSP, Hot Water and CFC-113 are
provided in TABLES 22 through 24.
6.3 PRE-CLEAN &RINSE
6.3.1 Select one or more of the Pre-Cleaners, in one or more of the recommended cleaning applications, and
pre-clean each component until all visible soil or particulate is removed. At the completion of Pre-Cleaning,
immediately rinse with fresh water or demineralized water to remove all loose soil, particulate and cleaning
agent. The rinse water temperatwe should be equal to or less than the applicable Pre-Cleaner maximum use
temperature indicated in TABLE 25. Components should be disassembled to achieve maximum cleanliness.
6.3.1.1 The Pre-Cleaners may require a significant rinse process to completely remove the organic surface
wetting agents (surfactants) from the substrate. Carry-over of the organic surfactant to the Final Cleaning Step
could result in repeated f n l cleaning and cleanliness verification steps leading to higher process cost. To
ia
prevent this, it is recommended that the volume of water and/or contact time required to completely remove
the pre-cleaner during the Pre-Clean rinse step be verified during the initial validation of the process. A simple
shake test of the rinse water, and subsequent observation for foam remaining after 5 minutes, indicating residual
~
cleaner, is generally all that is required. A check for hydrocarbon concentration in the rinse water by solvent
extraction is another alternative. Refer to Section 9.0 for additional information on shake tests and solvent
extraction methods.
10
6.3.1.2 NOC, TSP or Hot Water can be used for the Re-Clean step if desired. However, be aware that
depending on the type of soil and application, these cleaners may not perform as well as the Re-Cleaners listed
in TABLE 25. When using Hot Water recognize that it has limited soil retention capacity. This can lead to
soil redeposition when used in a batch tank or ultrasonic tank.
6.3.2 The use of demineralized water during the Pre-Clean Step to either prepare cleaners or rinse cleaners
is not required unless demineralized water is required to prevent material degradation. Pre-Cleaning of
corrosion resistant metals such as stainless steel, nickel-copper (MONEL) and copper-nickel can safely use
municipal fresh water provided temperatures are less than 1205;. At higher temperatures, or where municipal
water supplies leave undesirable deposits, the use of demineralized water meeting U.S. Navy Grade B
requirements (maximum chlorides of 1.0 ppm and a minimum resistivity of 50K ohms) is recommended. The
level of chlorides and other contaminants is much lower in Grade B water than municipal water. Municipal
or Grade C water may have as high as 35 ppm chlorides and as low as 2K ohms resistivity. Note that water
meeting ASTM D1193 Type I1 is usable since it exceeds Grade B water requirements -- chlorides less than 0.1
ppm and minimum resistivity of 1M ohms.
6.3.3 Organizations which elect to use multiple Pre-Cleaners, must rinse between each different cleaner
application to prevent any harmful reaction which may occur when different cleaning agents are combined.
6.3.4 Review the Metallic, Rubber and Plastic Material Compatibility Tables against the type of materials being
cleaned and select only those cleaners which are compatible.
6.3.5 When attempting to remove difficult soils such as heavy waterproof greases, silicone greases and
fluorinated greases, most of the Pre-Cleaners will have limited effectiveness if used without agitation in soak
tanks or ultrasonic t n s Hand scrubbing or the use of scrub brushes and an ultrasonic t n may be the best
ak. ak
altemative. The NOC product based on its pipe cleaning ability should be capable of removing the difficult
soils from components when used in a spray parts washer.
6.3.6 Drying of components following the Re-Clean Step is required when the delay between the completion
of Pre-Cleaning and start of Final Cleaning could result in material degradation from the formation of rust or
corrosion. The actual time willbe dependent on the type of material. Stainless steel, copper-nickel and nickel-
copper should tolerate delays of up to one hour without any problem. However, for alloy steels, rapid
processing will be required to prevent the formation of surface rust.
6.3.7 F're-Cleaning is not required to be accomplished in a clean area. Unless an automated process is
implemented, most organizations will be best served by performing the Pre-Clean Step in a well ventilated area
extemal to the oxygen clean room. Many of the Re-Cleaners are organic products whose off-gas constituents
can cause high total hydrocarbon levels in enclosed spaces with limited ventilation such as an oxygen clean
room.
6.3.8 For oxygen applications, Final Cleaning following the Pre-Clean Step is mandatory.
6.4 F'INAL CLEAN & VERIFICATION:
6.4.1 The objective of the Component Final Clean & Verification Step is to apply an oxygen and life support
safe cleaning agent to remove thin soil films and particulate that may remain after the Pre-Clean Step and
ultimately verify the requisite cleanliness. It is not the intent of the Final Clean Step to remove large quantities
of soil or contamination.
11
6.4.2 For MIL-STD-1330C applications, Component Final Cleaning shall be performed in an appropriate clean
room or area. Clean rooms meeting FED-STD-209 Class 100,000 requirements are applicable.
6.4.3 Selecting either NOC or TSP, perform final cleaning in an ultrasonic tank for 15 to 30 minutes to verify
particulate and hydrocarbon cleanliness in accordance with the applicable cleaning requirement. Both NOC
and TSP have the ability to remove thin soil films remaining after the Preclean Step. U.S. Navy testing
indicates that NOC will remove fluorinated soil better than TSP. Components should be disassembled to
achieve maximum cleanliness.
6.4.3.1 For NOC, the recommended ultrasonic tank temperature is 1405; to 1605;.
6.4.3.2 For TSP, the recommended ultrasonic tank temperature is 160掳F to 1805;.
6.4.4 CAUTION, none of the Re-Cleaners listed in TABLE 25 have been evaluated for Oxygen or Life
Support safety. Any use of a Pre-Cleaner identified as having hydrocarbon organic constituents as a Final
Cleaner is specifically prohibited.
6.4.5 Review the Material Compatibility Tables against the type of materials being cleaned and select only a
Final Cleaner which is compatible.
6.4.6 The ultrasonic tank should be capable of being heated to HOOF, have a minimum generator frequency
of 25 kHz, and have a generator power per radiated surface of at least 3 watts/in'.
6.4.6.1 The power per radiated surface area can be determined by dividing the total generator power by the
surface area of tank bottom or side where the generator transducers are located. The following example is
provided: BLACKSTONE Model HT-5.6 UT Tank/SE-600A Generator has a tank dimension of 12"xl2"x11"
deep with the transducers mounted on the bottom and a generator power of 600 watts. With 600 watts power
and a surface area of 144 in', the resulting power is 4.2 watts/in'. For information, the GSA cost for the
BLACKSTONE Ultrasonic Tank as of October 1993 was $3,716.
6.4.6.2 Use of ultrasonic tanks with generator frequencies of less than 25 kHz should be approached with
caution since cavitation damage to aluminum may occur.
~
6.4.7 Organizations performing large quantities of cleaning should consider use of pumped and filtered
ultrasonic tanks to extend the bath life of the NOC or TSP solutions. Filtration will reduce the soil loading
since both of these cleaners tend to remove target soils primarily by displacement rather than solubilization.
6.4.8 Components too large for ultrasonic tanks, such as flasks, can be fiial cleaned with NOC in a batch
process. Fill the component with cleaner, then heat (strip heaters or recirculation heater) and agitate (with a
pump) for 30 minutes at 140掳F to 160掳F before drawing samples for cleanliness verification. Since this method
will not be as effective as an ultrasonic tank, close attention to the Pre-Clean Step is recommended. The
addition of spray impingement at 120掳F to 140掳F before the batch process will enhance the Final Clean step.
A note of caution, however, ensure adequate precautions are in place to prevent overheating or eroding the
component.
-6.4.9 Particulate cleanliness verification of components cleaned with NOC is performed on a sample of the
cleaner from the UT tank or bath. Refer to Section 8.0 for additional direction.
12
6.4.10 Particulate cleanliness verification of components cleaned with TSP is performed on a sample of the
rinse water. Refer to Section 8.0 for additional direction.
6.4.1 1 Hydrocarbon cleanliness verification of components cleaned with NOC or TSP is performed by drawing
a sample of the used cleaning agent from the UT tank, bath or parts washer and performing a shake test and
a solvent extraction with Trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113 per MIL-C-81302). The solvent extract is analyzed
with an infrared spectrophotometer. Refer to Section 9.0 for additional direction.
6.5 RINSE:
6.5.1 Following Final Cleaning of components with NOC or TSP, each component shall be rinsed in a batch
tank, ultrasonic t n or under flowing water with demineralized water meeting U.S. Navy Grade B requirements
ak
(maximum chlorides of 1.0 ppm and a minimum resistivity of 50K ohms). Note that water meeting ASTM
D1193 Type I1 is usable since it exceeds Grade B water requirements -- chlorides less than 0.1 ppm and
minimum resistivity of 1M ohms.
6.5.1.1 For NOC, the rinse water temperature shall be a minimum of 110掳F.
6.5.1.2 .For TSP, the rinse water temperature shall be a minimum of 140掳F.
6.5.2 Components shall be rinsed until the effluent water pH measures 8.0 or less, but not less than 30 seconds,
indicating removal of the NOC or TSP cleaning solution. Analysis of pH can be accomplished with plastic pH
probes, litmus paper or phenolphthalein indicator solution.
6.6 DRY &PACKAGE:
6.6.1 Components shall be dried in accordance with specified requirements. In the absence of requirements,
dry gaseous oxygen components with oil-free dry nitrogen until no moisture is visible. For components with
inaccessible area such as flasks, drying to -40掳F a 1 atm outlet dewpoint generally ensures complete removal
t
of any inaccessible moisture. The use of heated nitrogen, heat guns, ovens, and vacuum ovens will expedite the
drying process. Be careful not to over-heat non-metallic material.
6.6.2 Components shall be packaged in accordance with specified requirements.
6.7 COMPONENT CLEANING PROCESS VALIDATION
6.7.1 All Component Oxygen Cleaning Process procedures should be validated annually in accordance with the
procedure specified in paragraph 6.7.2. The basis for the validation process is the inherent weakness with
aqueous cleaning processes. Unlike CFC-113 which accomplished pre-cleaning, final cleaning and cleanliness
verification with minimal operator interaction, aqueous component oxygen cleaning processes require multiple
steps, often multiple cleaning agents, al significantly influenced by the hardware and operator. Annual
l
validation reaffiis the strength of the process by ensuring the successful integration of the cleaner(s), hardware
and operator.
6.7.2 Three certified clean MONEL or 3041316 Stainless Steel coupons of dimensions 0.875-1.125"X 3.875-
4.125':X 0.0625-0.125"will be weighed. All three coupons will then be contaminated on one surface at 100-150
mg/inz with the same soil and weighed. MIL-G-24139 Hydrocarbon Grease, MIL-S-8660 Silicone Grease and
13
MIL-G-27617 Fluorinated Grease will each be tested. The contaminated coupons will then be cleaned and
analyzed in accordance with the process(es), and weighed. The weight after cleaning shall indicate that 100%
of the soil was removed when weighed with a scale capable of measuring 0.1 mg. The process cleanliness
verification method (solvent extraction or solvent rinse) shall reflect the lowest detectable results.
6.7.3 Where MIL-STD-1330 is invoked, the requirement for an annual validation is mandatory. The results
of the annual component cleaning process validation shall be recorded and maintained available for audit for
a period of 3 years. Failure of the process to meet the validation requirements shall be immediately corrected,
assessed for impact on previously delivered oxygen clean material, and reported in writing to Naval Sea Systems
Command, NAVSEA Code 03Y.
7.0 OXYGEN PIPE LINE CLEANING PROCESS
7.1 GENERAL INFORMATION
7.1.1 For oxygen applications, the following Pipe Line Cleaning Process will result in acceptable particulate and
hydrocarbon cleanliness levels if properly implemented. It is intended that for the pipe line cleaning process
each organization review its applications against the controlling parameters and manufacture or purchase a cost
effective pipe line cleaning apparatus. The direction that will be presented is based on the following concems.
7.1.2 Cleaning a pipe system is especially challenging because the majority of area is inaccessible. Visual
observation of cleanliness is very limited. Only rigorous compliance to process parameters ensures achieving
desired cleanliness levels. To obtain maximum cleaning, mechanically jointed valve bodies, filter intemals, and
check valve intemals which would impeded flow should be removed, and suitable flush plugs and jumpers
installed.
7.1.3 Brazed joints and socket welds incorporate intemal circular gaps that can trap cleaner deposited during
the cleaning process. The high heat of the fabrication process, especially welding, should bum-off all organic
contaminants in the heat effected zone which includes the gap area. The introduction of an organic cleaner
can subsequently contaminant the gap area. The U S Navy has experienced significant difficulty with
..
eliminating CFC-113 from pipe systems after cleaning. Complex diving systems have required weeks of hot
nitrogen purging, heat gun applications and vacuum pumps to reduce CFC-113 levels to 10 ppm or less. Any
aqueous or solvent organic cleaner would experience even greater difficulty because of the higher boiling point
and lower evaporation rate. Additionally, the residue remaining may be flammable in oxygen and toxic.
7.1.4 The use of any cleaner identified as having hydrocarbon organic constituents as a Pipe Line Cleaner is
specifically prohibited. CAUTION, none of the organic based F're-Cleaners have been evaluated for Oxygen
or Life Support safety. The only exception is for Pre-Cleaning of pipe containing no joints, sockets or other
configuration that could trap cleaner. The intent being that follow-on cleaning and/or verification with NOC
or TSP will remove any organic residue.
7.1.4.1 To minimize the time and expense of cleaning an oxygen pipe system, it is strongly recommended that
prior to fabrication, each length of pipe be Re-Cleaned. This removes the majority of fabrication oils, and
other contaminants deposited during storage. Failure to Re-Clean will significantly increase the quantity of
cleaner, and time and effort used to flush a fabricated pipe system. The high levels of contamination will clog
flushing filters, possibly contaminate the flushing rig, and possibly require multiple clean and rinse processes.
14
7.1.4.2 Refer to the Pre-Cleaner manufacturer for direction if the cleaner produces too much foam. Often,
a lower temperature or flow rate will reduce foaming. There are organic anti-foaming agents such as Dow
Coming H-10 that can be added to reduce foaming. Note that steam, hot water, NOC and TSP will not foam.
7.1.5 Before cleaning an installed pipe system with NOC or TSP, or any other aqueous cleaner, ensure all
joints are leak-tight by pre-flushing with warm fresh water (preferably U.S. Navy Grade B or better). This will
eliminate the time consuming clean-up of spilled or leaked cleaner.
7.2 NOC OXYGEN PIPE LINE CLEANING:
7.2.1 To successfully clean with NOC a complex pipe configuration comprising long lengths of pipe, valve
bodies, elbows, tee-fittings, socket welds, and other fittings that disturb flow, the following parameters must be
satisfied. The basis of the pipe flushing parameters are the results of testing provided in TABLES 7 though
10 which report the results of removing target soils by fluid velocity and fluid direction.
7.2.2 Additional testing is being performed to evaluate lower application temperatures and high velocities at
various durations. The results will be reported when available.
7.2.3 The recommended application temperature for NOC is 150掳F to 170掳F. Maintain the temperature of
NOC at the outlet from the pipe system being cleaned at a minimum of 140掳F.
7.2.4 The minimum fluid velocity is 3 feet-per-second (fps). At fluid velocities of less than 3 fps, soil
redeposition may occur. U.S. Navy testing with NOC flowing through a clear acrylic tube showed redeposition
of silicone and fluorinated grease at 1 f p s fluid velocity.
7.2.4.1 The use of high velocities will result in an increased rate of soil removal, however, exercise caution to
prevent erosion damage to softer metals such as brass and copper. The copper and brass threaded rods used
in the U.S. Navy contamination carriers showed slight evidence of erosion on the leading edge of the threads
after 40 hours of operation at 6 fps.
7.2.4.2 Note that the 3 fps minimum fluid velocity is much higher than that specified in MIL-STD-1330C or
MIL-STD-1622A. These documents specify minimum flush rates of 1.5 to 2.0 times the pipe diameter. It was
believed that establishing turbulent flow was all that was necessary to achieve cleanliness. Testing with NOC
and TSP revealed that the ability of an aqueous cleaner to penetrate, dislodge and suspend soil (including
particulate) is very dependent on velocity. There are reports of systems cleaned in accordance with ML-STD-
133OC and MIL-STD-1622A subsequently experiencing excessive valve seat leakage; most likely because of soil
not removed during the cleaning process.
7.2.4.3 When using NOC or TSP, the flow rate in gpm equivalent to 3 f p s can be determined by multiplying
the square of the pipe or tube inside diameter in inches times 7.4 such that: GPM,,, = (IDJ2(7.4).
7.2.5 The flushing time for various applications are as follows:
7.2.5.1 For installed piping systems, or sections of piping systems with expansiodcontraction fittings or
components, the minimum flushing time is 60 minutes followed by a back-flush for an additional 60 minutes.
7.2.5.2 For lengths of pipes incorporating only bends or elbows, the minimum flushing time is 30 minutes.
Back-flushing is not required. Bends and elbows present relatively smooth transitions which do not develop
areas of stagnant flow like blank fittings and valve bodies.
15
7.2.5.3 For piping systems and sections fabricated of Pre-Cleaned pipe and components, the minimum flushing
time is 30 minutes followed by a back-flush for an additional 30 minutes.
7.2.6 At the completion of flushing, perform particulate cleanliness verification by drawing a sample of the
effluent cleaning agent from the pipe system. Refer to Section 8.0 for additional direction. If a return filter
is installed, sample for cleanliness before the filter.
7.2.7 At the completion of flushing, perform hydrocarbon cleanliness verification by drawing a sample of the
effluent cleaning agent from the pipe system and performing a shake test and a solvent extraction with
Trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113 per MIL-C-81302). The solvent extract is analyzed with an infrared
spectrophotometer. Refer to Section 9.0 for additional direction. If a return filter is installed, sample for
hydrocarbon cleanliness before the filter.
7.3 RINSE & DRY:
7.3.1 After cleaning with NOC, remove the cleaner (refer to Section 4.15 for disposal) and then flush with
demineralized water at a minimum temperature of 1105: at a minimum velocity of 3 fps. Minimize the time
between draining NOC and rinsing with water to prevent redeposition of soil and formation of cleaner residue.
Although the NOC residue will dissolve in the rinse water, additional rinse time and cost will be incurred. The
M s e water shall meet U S Navy Grade B demineralized water requirements (maximum chlorides of 1.0 ppm
..
and a minimum resistivity of 50K ohms). Additionally, the rinse water particulate level shall meet the applicable
system cleanliness requirement. Note that water meeting ASTM D1193 Type I1 is usable since it exceeds Grade
B water requirements -- chlorides less than 0.1 ppm and minimum resistivity of 1M ohms.
7.3.1 Prior to rinsing, any return filter(s) that was used during the pipe line cleaning (flushing) step shall be
removed, replaced, or bypassed. This will prevent any possible recontamination of the pipe caused by soil
releasing from the filter during the rinse step.
7.3.2 While rinsing, measure the effluent rinse water pH. When the pH measures 8.0 or less continue to rinse
for a time in seconds equal to the approximate length (in feet) of pipe being cleaned divided by 3. This will
rinse one additional pipe volume ensuring complete removal of the cleaner. Analysis of pH can be
accomplished with plastic pH probes, litmus paper or phenolphthalein indicator solution.
7.3.3 Piping shall be dried in accordance with specified requirements. In the absence of requirements, dry
gaseous oxygen systems to -40掳F at 1 am dewpoint with oil-free dry nitrogen. The use of heated nitrogen, heat
t
guns applied to joints areas, and vacuum pumps will expedite the drying process. Be careful not to over-heat
non-metallic material.
7.4 PIPE FLUSHING HARDWARE:
7.4.1 FIGURE 3 illustrates an example diagrammatic for a pipe flushing rig incorporating the ability to
circulate, filter and reverse flow. The following guidance is provided for fabrication.
7.4.2 Restrict non-metallic materials to TEFLON (such as hoses) and VITON (such as gaskets). Use of other
non-metallics may result in high organic levels. The cleaner will extract organics from non-metallic material.
This was experienced with the stowage of NOC in black high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic drums. NOC
stored in HDPE plastic had organic levels of 15 to 30 ppm. This lead to the decision to package NOC in steel
containers. The small exposed surface area of non-metallic valve seats should not be a problem. If large
surface area diaphragm valvesare used, the diaphragms should be fabricated from TEFLON.
16
7.4.3 Installation of a return filter is strongly recommended. The 5 micron filter in FIGURE 3 is sized and
located to extend the life of the cleaner, minimize soil deposits in the tank, and prevent the possible
redeposition of soil in the pipe system being cleaned. A nominally rated 5 micron filter should maintain the
particulate level of the cleaning agent in accordance with MIL-STD-133K particulate cleanliness requirements.
For other applications, such as MIL-STD-1246A Class 100, a lower micron rating may be required. Refer to
the invoked particulate cleanliness specification for guidance. The filter should be fabricated from TEFLON
or non-corrosive metal such as stainless steel or MONEL. Obtaining a filter that can be cleaned in accordance
with the Oxygen Component Cleaning Process will extend filter life, thus reducing cost. As an example,
FILTERITE Technology manufactures a 10-inch pleated stainless steel filter (part no. PSP-05-1OA-"T) and
175psig rated stainless steel housing (part no. LMOSSlOS-1") with l-inch "T fittings for a combined cost of
about $700as of 15 March 1994. Review individual applications with the filter manufacturer to ensure the filter
willsupport the required pressure and flow.
7.4.4 At a minimum, a 150 mesh strainer should be installed at the tank inlet. This should minimize
accumulation of insoluble grease in the tank.
8.0 PARTICULATE CLEANLINESS VERIFICATION
8.1 NOC PARTICULATE INSPECTION.
8.1.1 Particulate cleanliness verification of piping & components cleaned with NOC is performed on a sample
of the cleaning agent and shall meet the invoked specification.
8.1.1.1 NOC is filtered through 0.1 micron filters during production, This allows use of the cleaner, similar
to CFC-113, as a particulate cleanliness verification fluid.
8.1.1.2 For NOC applications, use of filters sized at 5 micron should extend use of the cleaner for MIL-STD-
133OC particulate verification.
8.2 TSP PARTICULATE INSPECTION.
8.2.1 Particulate cleanliness verification of piping & components cleaned with TSP is performed on a sample
of the rinse water and shall meet the invoked specification.
8.3 MIL-STD-1330 PARTICULATE INSPECTION
8.3.1 Where MIL-STD-1330 is invoked, the particulate cleanliness acceptance criteria and procedure specified
in MIL-STD-133OC paragraph 4.2.3.1 applies wherein the appropriate sample is inspected using a minimum 100
foot-candle white light for the presence of any visible particulate.
paragraph 4.2.3.1is that the human eye
8.3.2 The basis of the visible particulate inspection of MIL-STD-1330C
corrected to 20/20 can repeatedly observe particles of 50 micron or larger subject to particle shape and color.
Therefore, the resulting MIL-STD-133K particulate limit essentially corresponds to no particles 50 micron or
larger. Smaller particles may be detectable depending on color, shape and density. A large quantity of 25
micron particles may be detectable as a cloud. When in doubt, perform a particle count.
8.3.3 A general purpose two D-cell flashlight, in good condition, positioned no greater than 18 inches directly
above a surface will illuminate the surface with an intensity of not less than 100 foot-candles.
17
9.0 HYDROCARBON CLEANLINESS VERIFICATION
9.1 WHITE LIGHT INSPECTION:
9.1.1 For Oxygen Cleaning Processes, the use of a white light inspection is limited only to determining the
presence of organic contamination. White light inspections shall not be used to establish the absence of organic
contamination.
9.1.2 For Oxygen Cleaning Processes, any evidence of oil, grease, ink, dye, particulate or fibers on the surface
being inspected shall be cause for rejection.
9.2 BLACKLIGHT (W) INSPECTION:
9.2.1 For Oxygen Cleaning Processes, the use of a blacklight inspection is limited only to determining the
presence of organic contamination. Blacklight inspections shall not be used to establish the absence of organic
contamination.
9.2.2 For Oxygen Cleaning Processes, any evidence of fluorescence when a surface is inspected with ultraviolet
(W) light having a wavelength of 3600 to 3900 angstroms shall be cause for rejection.
9.2.3 The basis of a blacklight inspection is that some oils and greases have molecules which will fluoresce
under the specified W wavelength. However, testing by the U.S. Navy indicates that most of the target soils
do not fluoresce. Therefore, the absence of fluorescence can not be interpreted as a surface free of organic
contamination. Refer to TABLE 39 for results of the U S Navy testing.
..
.
9.3 SHAKE TEST:
9.3.1 For Oxygen Cleaning Processes, the use of a shake test is limited only to determining the presence of
organic contamination. Shake tests shall not be used to establish the absence of organic contamination. Shake
tests are applicable only to inorganic aqueous solutions such as NOC, TSP and water.
9.3.2 For NOC, TSP and water, any evidence of bubbles remaining on the surface for longer than 5 minutes
after 15 seconds of vigorous agitation in a half-full sample bottle shall be cause for rejection.
9.3.3 The basis of the shake test is that the presence of polar (water soluble) organic compounds such as
organic surfactants in very small quantities can often be detected in inorganic aqueous solutions by the presence
of a stable foam. As an example, vigorous agitation of NOC in a sample bottle for 15 seconds will result in
the formation of bubbles on the fluid surface which will completely disappear within 5 minutes. The addition
of 5 mg of Non-Ionic Detergent (MIL-D-16791) in one liter of NOC (equivalent to about 5 ppm) resulted in
the formation of bubbles on the fluid surface which remained in excess of 45 minutes.
INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY:
9.4 SOLVENT EXTRACTION &
9.4.1 The objective of solvent extraction and infrated spectroscopy is to determine the quantity of oil and
grease in an inorganic aqueous solution. This is accomplished by mixing a sample of the aqueous solution with
. a suitable solvent allowing the solvent to extract the oil and grease, drawing off the solvent extract, and
analyzing the solvent with an infrared spectrophotometer.
18
9.4.1.1 The basis of the extraction process is that the solvent will be non-polar (does not absorb water) and
will have a considerable difference in density so the solvent will separate from the aqueous inorganic solution.
Additionally, the solvent will have a high affinity for target soils as well as the ability to dissolve the target soil.
9.4.1.2 The basis of the infrared spectroscopy process is that most hydrocarbon oils and greases have a distinct
infrared (IR) absorption peak in the wavelength region of 3.4 microns. By selecting a solvent with no
hydrocarbons (C-H bonds) in its structure, the solvent willnot absorb IR light in this region. Therefore, any
absorption peak in the region of 3.4 microns can be attributed to the presence of oil and grease.
9.4.1.3 CFC-113 is unique in its ability to satisfy both the solvent extract process and the infrared spectroscopy
process. CFC-113 has no C-H bonds in its structure, is denser (by 60%) than water, is relatively non-polar,
has a high affinity for most organic soils, is non-flammable, and in comparison to most other solvents has
relatively low toxicity. A possible non-CFC alternative is perchloroethylene. However, this solvent is often
stabilized with organic material, is a suspected carcinogen, and has not been successfully tested. A comparison
of some common solvents is provided in TABLE 40. Note that none of the solvents have the same combination
of desirable CFC- 113 characteristics regarding toxicity, flammability, non-volatile residue, evaporation, and
surface tension.
9.4.1.4,Direct IR analysis of aqueous solutions has not been successful. A broad water absorption peak in the
region of 3.2 microns interferes with the hydrocarbon peak.
9.4.1.5 NOC and TSP are unique in that they are inorganic having little or no hydrocarbon contamination.
Therefore, any oil and grease extracted from these cleaners will be from the material being cleaned, and not
from the cleaner itself. Solvent extraction of organic containing aqueous cleaners (such as surfactant based
biodegradable cleaners) has not proven successful. The high organic background (often in thousands of ppm)
prevents differentiating between the organic from the cleaner and the organic from the soil. Additionally, the
solvent extraction processes often form a non-separating emulsion.
9.4.1.6 For information, highly polar (water soluble) organic compounds such as Isopropyl Alcohol and NID
may not be detected by the solvent extraction IR process. These types of compounds often have a higher
affinity for the water than the solvent. However, a simple shake test can often identify the presence of these
compounds.
9.4.1.7 Some soils such as fluorinated oils and greases will not be identified at the IR wavelength region of 3.4
microns. If this is a concern, a non-volatile residue (NW) test (in addition to the infrared spectroscopy) of
the extracted solvent may be advisable. Applicable procedures are addressed by ASTM D-4281, Standard Test
Method for Oil and Grease by Gravimetric Determination. It is often possible to differentiate hydrocarbon
residue from fluorinated residue by performing an Infrared Analysis of the dried NVR. Fluorinated residue
will have infrared absorption peaks around wave numbers of 1300 and loo0 indicating the presence of C-F
fluorocarbon bonds.
9.4.2 Solvent extraction of NOC or TSP is performed by drawing a sample of used (effluent) cleaning agent
and performing a solvent extraction with Trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113) per MIL-C-82302. The solvent
extract is then analyzed with an infrared spectrophotometer. The procedures specified in ASTM D-3921,
Standard Test Method For Oil and Grease and Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Water and MIL-STD-1330C
parapphs 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.1.3 apply except as noted below:
19
i
9.4.2.1 For NOC, the acidification step is deleted. NOC is a highly buffered cleaner which would require
excessive quantities of fluoroboric acid to neutralize the solution. Additionally, acidification will result in a
precipitate that would affect both the analysis and equipment. U S Navy testing showed that solvent extraction
..
without acidification did not effect identification of target soils. Refer to TABLE 41 for the test results. The
non-linear results for some soils in TABLE 41 are attributed to the preparation of the standards, the size of
the samples, and how the samples were drawn. Refer to Section 9.4.4 below for additional details.
9.4.2.2 For NOC and TSP, sample preparation prior to solvent extraction is critical. Since both cleaners tend
to displace, rather than dissolve most of the target soils, adequate agitation is required immediately before
extraction to obtain the best soil distribution. Testing has shown the NOC product to disperse soil and hold
it in suspension better than TSP. Therefore, providing increased probability of an accurate sample. Standards
of 5 mg/L and 25 mg/L of MS2190TEP oil in TSP solution were difficult to detect.
9.4.3 HORIBA Instruments Inc, Irvine, CA 1-800-446-7422,manufactures the OCMA-220 Oil Content
Analyzer. This instrument is a bench top device incorporating a self-contained solvent extractor with Non-
Dispersive Infrared (NDIR) Analyzer reading 0-5 ppm or 0-20 ppm. On the 0-5 ppm scale, the instrument
extracts 20 ml of sample with 10 ml of solvent for up to 5 minutes. On the 0-20 ppm scale, the instrument
extracts 15 ml of sample with 15 ml of solvent for up to 5 minutes. When the extraction is complete, the
hydrocarbon contamination in the extracted solvent is read by the NDIR analyzer. The average time to
complete one analysis is about 5 minutes. The instrument cost as of 1 April 1993 was $4,368.00. The
instrument uses very little solvent and is configured to allow easy solvent recovery.
9.4.4 The sensitivity of the HORIBA Instruments Inc, OCMA-220 Oil Content Analyzer to NOC contaminated
with various soils was performed using CFC-113 Solvent (MIL-(2-81302). The results are provided in TABLE
41, and are considered acceptable for h4IL-STD-1330C applications. Some observations should be noted.
9.4.4.1 As expected, Isopropyl Alcohol, NID (per MIL-D-16791), and fluorinated oils and greases were
essentially undetected. Also as expected, the sensitivity of silicone oils and greases was very low.
9.4.4.2 The results of the hydrocarbon oils and greases were higher than expected and mostly non-linear. This
is attributed to the method in which the NOC soil standards were prepared, how the samples were drawn and
the sample size. Standards were prepared by placing known quantities of soil in a container, diluting to one
liter with NOC, vigorously shaking for 15 to 30 seconds, and then placing the container in a 25 MIZ, 600 watt
ultrasonic tank for 30 minutes. The analysis samples were obtained by simply pouring out the required volume.
This was to simulate the conditions that would be experienced during actual cleaning.
9.4.4.3 Samples obtained from a pipe flushing process reflected different results. During a pipe cleaning test,
the pipe and test fixtures were contaminated with sufficient MS2190TEP oil to result in a concentration of 25
mg/L in NOC. After flushing for 60 minutes at 160掳F and 6 fps, the NOC measured 18.8 ppm (18.8 mg/L
equivalent). The sample was obtained downstream and below the cleaner recirculation t n . Inspection of the
ak
pipe, and weight analysis of the contamination carriers indicated 100%soil removal. The lower than expected
result is attributed to layering in the tank causing incomplete mixing, and the sample size and location. Further
analysis into the apparent layering of insoluble soil in NOC will be performed and reported when available.
9.4.5 U.S.Navy activities which presently analyze CFC-113 with an infrared spectrophotometer should continue
to analyze NOC extracted CFC-113 solvent. The extraction process would be performed
. to use their instrument
in a separatory funnel. However, as previously specified, the acidification step is deleted. Any decision to
purchase the HORIBA device should recognize that by next year a new solvent-free analysis using different
instruments should be available.
20
9.5 DISCUSSION OF PPM & M G m CLEANLINESS LEVELS
9.5.1 U.S. Navy Shipboard and Diving applications in accordance with MIL-STD-1330C for oxygen and MIL-
STD-1622A for air are unique in using parts-per-million (ppm) hydrocarbon contamination as the unit of
measure for cleanliness. Most other organizations such as NASA, NAVALR, AIR FORCE, S A E , and ASTM
use mg/ft2 Non-Volatile Residue (NVR) as the unit of measure for cleanliness. To clarify the differences, a
discussion of the basis of each measurement, and conversion methods follows.
9.5.2 The unit mg/ft! is straight forward in that it specifies a quantity of non-volatile soil per square foot
remaining after the cleaning process. This is normally determined by rinsing a "clean" surface with a volatile
solvent such as CFC-113, filtering to remove particulate, evaporating the filtered solvent, and weighing the
remaining residue to determine the non-volatile residue. The determination of NVR will detect non-
hydrocarbon soils such as fluorinated lubricants, but will detect only the non-volatile components of volatile
hydrocarbon soils such as most alcohols. TABLE 40 lists the NVR for common solvents.
9.5.2.1 The current NVR limits associated with oxygen cleanliness appear based on the performance of the
solvent, and the lowest value of NVR that can.be repeatedly achieved and has demonstrated an adequate level
of safety.
9.5.2.2'Determination of NVR is often accomplished on only a sample area or sample component according
to statistical sampling methods.
9.5.3 The unit ppm is a weight per weight measurement specifying the concentration of detectable soil in the
cleaning agent. The analysis of hydrocarbons in CFC-113 by infrared spectroscopy is generally based on
comparison with n-Hexane standards such that 1.6 mg of n-Hexane in 1.0 liter of CFC-113 equals 1.0 ppm.
Standardizing the infrared spectrophotometer so that 1.O mg of soil in 1.O liter of CFC-113 equals 1.O ppm will
result in a more conservative analysis. The data in TABLE 41 are based on a standardization of 1.0 mg/L
equals 1.0 ppm. However, remember that IR analysis per MIL-STD-133OC and MIL-STD-1622A will detect
only hydrocarbons which are both extractable and absorb infrared light in the wavelength region of 3.4 microns.
9.5.3.1 When a component or pipe system is cleaned, analysis of the effluent cleaner in terms of ppm
corresponds to the concentration of hydrocarbon soil, removed from the component or pipe surface, existing
in the cleaner. MIL-STD-133OC implies that if the proper cleaner and process was used, and the effluent
cleaner hydrocarbon soil concentration is 5 ppm or less, the system is oxygen clean. Only prior rigorous testing
can confirm this statement since the inside area of a pipe system is inaccessible.
9.5.3.2 The risk of relying on IR analysis of effluent cleaner for measuring hydrocarbons is that the entire
cleaning process may not be properly performed. As an example, using hot water as a cleaning agent in the
MIL-STD-133OC process and obtaining an effluent measurement of 5 ppm would not ensure oxygen level
cleanliness. Many target soils would not be removed with hot water. Therefore, no confidence would exist that
the 5 ppm measurement would be valid. Extensive testing of CFC-113, TSP and NOC against various soils
validates the cleaning processes and cleanliness verification methods outlined. Whereas the ability of CFC-113
to dissolve all target soils minimizes process dependence, the same cannot be stated for aqueous processes.
Adherence to time, temperature, and velocity parameters are critical for the success of any aqueous process.
mdf? is possible using the following formula.
9.5.4 .Converting ppm to
21
9.5.4.1 Where: ppm = concentration of soil in cleaner obtained from analysis equipment
9.5.4.2 Where: volume = volume of cleaner (liters)
9.5.4.3 Where: area = wetted area of fitting, component, or pipe being cleaned (f?)
9.5.4.4 Where: K = correction factor for ppm to mg/L ( m m p p m )
9.5.5 The correction factor K is dependent on the sensitivity of the selected analysis equipment to the target
soils. The K factor is often determined by empirical results.
9.5.6 For MIL-STD-1330C applications where CFC-113 with n-Hexane is used to calibrate the IR
spectrophotometer, K = 1.6 mg/L/ppm. Since the K factor is based on n-Hexane standards, the soil per
surface area should be expressed as mg/ft2 equivalent n-Hexane.
9.5.7 NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) has developed a cleanliness verification technique incorporating 25
lcHz sonicated 18 meg-ohm water and a total carbon analyzer where K = $3.125mg/L/ppm. NASA KSC based
the K factor on the detection sensitivity of a DORMAN Model 990 total carbon analyzer to various target soils,
spx5fically silicone.
9.5.7.1 The following limitations are associated with the NASA KSC Total Carbon verification technique: (1)
Minimum UT Tank Power is 4 wam/ii2, (2) UT Tank Temperature is 52掳C. (3) Maximum Volume Of
Verification Water is 2500 mL, (4) Maximum Valve Body Surface Area is 1 ft', (5) Maximum Fitting Surface
Area 4 ft2, (6) Maximum Time Between Drawing Sample and Analyzing Sample is 10 minutes, and (7) the
Preferred Total Carbon Analyzer is a DORMAN Model 990 Operated At 880掳C with a 0.2 mL Sample Size.
9.5.7.2 Testing of the NASA KSC technique by the U.S. Navy verified it as a usable technique if carefully
implemented. Wide-scale implementation for DOD applications is not currently being pursued because of the
following concems: (l), preliminary review revealed that the NASA KSC K value was not applicable to U.S.
Navy target soils which would require significant follow-on testing to validate, (2) a highly trained operator for
the Total Carbon Analyzer was required for accurate repeatable results, (3) changes in ambient temperature
and humidity had a noticeable effect on analyzer performance, and (4) the cost of the required analyzer and
UT t n hardware was about $30,000 with a predicted high annual operating cost for the Total Carbon
ak
Analyzer.
9.5.8 To determine the inside surface area of pipe, TABLE 42 specifies the pipe length equivalent to 1 ft'
intemal surface area, and associated volume, for various intemal diameter pipe.
9.5.9 The following are two examples of converting ppm to mg/ft2.
9.5.9.1 Using K = 1.6 mg/L/ppm: if a clean flushing rig containing 40 liters is used to flush 100 feet of 3/4-
inch ID pipe, and 5 ppm is ultimately measured, the actual soil per surface area would be 15.3 mg/ff. The
calculation is shown as follows: 15.3 mdf? = (5 ppm)(40 L)(1.6 mg/L/ppm)/(19.6ft2).
9.5.9.2 Using K = 1.6 mg/l/ppm: if a 15 liter ultrasonic tank is used to verify cleanliness of a valve body
having 1 ft' surface area, and 5 ppm is ultimately measured, the actual soil per surface area would be 120.0
mg/ft2. The calculation is shown as follows: 120.0 mg/ft2 = (5 ppmI(l5 LM.6 mg/L/ppm)/(lft').
22
10.0 SUMMARY
10.1 The NAVSEA task to qualify alternative cleaning agents and processes for oxygen and life support systems
was performed according to a detailed test plan. Although many changes occurred during the task, the
importance of the test plan cannot be overstated. The test plan provided scope, direction, and control.
10.2 A drop-in replacement for CFC-113 currently does not exist. No solvent has CFC-113's delicate balance
of excellent solvency, excellent penetration, low toxicity, non-flammability, low non-volatile residue, ease of
analysis, low moisture absorption, high but usable evaporation, low but usable boiling point, and indefinite
storage capability.
10.3 Aqueous cleaners and associated processes can successfully meet the various cleanliness requirements for
oxygen and oxygen enriched systems and components. In many cases, a carefully implemented aqueous process
will clean better than CFC-113. However, successful cleaning is process dependent. Compliance with process
parameters and verification by operators, laboratory technicians, chemical vendors, and equipment vendors is
crucial.
10.4 An aqueous cleaning process to clean oxygen components and piping for MIL-STD-1330C requirements
has b e p developed. Implementation of the process will initially proceed slowly before wide scale
implementation on or about 1 September 1994.
10.5 The cleaning process for each general oxygen application such as shipboard, diving, aerospace, and medical
must be evaluated individually. Unique applications, operating conditions, materials, configurations, and ambient
conditions preclude acceptance of a single universal process.
10.6 Cleanliness verification, and in particular the use of "ppm in the effluent cleaner" versus "mg/ft2 non-
volatile residue remaining after cleaning" will undoubtedly foster strong debate among activities external to
NAVSEA and its contractors. The MIL-STD-1330C organic cleanliness requirement of 5 ppm essentially
implies that oxygen cleanliness is achieved when the process removes no more than 5 ppm organics. NAVSEA
has over twenty-five years of success with this concept. However, the results of this study clearly indicate that
only testing and validation can verify this statement.
10.7 Cleanliness verification without CFC-113 requires further study. The Naval Research Laboratory,
Washington, DC is currently investigating non-solvent analysis techniques to determine the concentration of
organics in NOC. This t s should complete by 30 September 1994. In the interim, NAVSEA has approved
ak
continued procurement and use of CFC-113 for cleanliness verification.
10.8 Cleaning of gauges and instrumentation without CFC-113 requires further study. NASA, White Sands,
NM is currently investigating the use of altemative solvents, including HCFC-225, to clean gauges and
instrumentation. This task should be completed by 30 September 1994. In the interim, NAVSEA has approved
continued procurement and use of CFC-113 to clean oxygen gauges and instrumentation.
23
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY L E m BLANK
24
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF NAVSEA APPROVED OXYGEN CLEANING AGENTS
Doc: Y m?
TRISODIUM PHOSPHATE (TSP)
NAVY OXYGEN CLEANER (NOC) CFC-113 (FREON)
'
COLD HALOGENATED SOLVENT HOT ALKALINE CLEANER
HOT ALKALINE CLEANER
ADVANTAGES
ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES
- o Non-Flammable - No Oxygen Flash Point o Non-Flammable - No Oxygen Flash Point
Non-Flammable No Oxygen Flash Point
o
o Acceptable Toxicity - High Treshold o Non-Toxic
oNon-Toxic
Effective In Removing Most Soils Limit Value (TLV) o Effective In Removing Most Hydrocarbon Soils
o
o Removes Most Soil During Cold Soak o Cleaner Contains No Organic Material
Cleaner Contains No Organic Material
o
o Cleaner Does Not Foam When Agitated
o Fast Drying
Compatible With Materials Used In Oxygen Systems
o
o Compatible With Materials Used In
Easily Analyzed For Particulate Cleanliness
o
oHydrocabon Cleanliness verification I Possible
s Oxygen Systems
Without CFC-113 - Analysis Being Developed o Easily Analyzed For Hydrocarbon &
o Cleaner Delivered Ready-TeUseRequiring Particulate Cleanliness
o Effective For Cleaning Instrumentation
No Preparation
o Cleaner Does Not Precipitate Or Foam During Use o Cleaner Delivered Ready-To-UseRequiring
o Cleaner Can Be Used In Pre-Clean, Final Clean And No Preparation
o Cleaning Efficiency I Not Process or
s
Verification Steps For Pipe Line Cleaning
Operator Sensitive
o Cleaner I Usable In Pre-Clean, Final Clean
s
And Verification Stem
DISADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
o Cannot Be Used To Clean Gauges & Instrumentation o Hazardous Waste
o Ozone Depleting Substance (0.8ODP)
o Hazardous Waste o Not Compatible With All Oxygen System Materials
o Applied At 140-1 7OoF With Agitation For Best
o Not Compatible With All Non-Metallic o Marginal In Removing Fluorinated & Silicone Soils
Soil Removal
Materials
o Cleaning Efficiency I Process & Operator Dependent o Cannot Be Used To Clean Gauges & Instrumentation
s
o Agitation Required To Remove High Soil Loading o Vapors Are Odorless And Can Displace Air o Applied At 160-190掳F With Agitation For Best
o Removal of Most Fluorinated & Silicone Greases Soil Removal
-
Requires Agitation o Precipitates AI Low Temperatures <1 2OoF
o Drying Is Very Labor Intensive o Cleaning Efficiency I Process & Operator
s
o Not Compatible With All Non-Metallic Dependent
Materials o Agitation Required To Remove High Soil Loading
o DeliveredAs A Powder Requiring On-Site
o Component Cleaning Requires Multiple Steps
o Hydrocarbon Cleanliness Verification Preparation
Currently Requires CFC-113 For Solvent Extraction o Drying Is Very Labor Intensive
o Hydrocarbon Cleanliness Verification
Requires CFC-113 For Solvent Extraction
25
NOC PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
TABLE 2.
Water; Sodium Silicate in a specific
1. PRODUCT COMPOSITION
SiO,:N%O mole ratio; with Sodium
Molybdate and Sodium
Fluoroborate inorganic corrosion
inhibitors and stabilizers
- 10.0%
2. POLYSILICATE ANION CONCENTRATION 9.3
Liquid
3. STATE
I
II
11 4. 1.090 - 1.1055
SPECIFIC GRAVITY (25/20"C)
1 5. Water White
COLOR
None
6. ODOR
11.90 - 12.00"'
7. pH (25掳C)
240掳F
8. BOILING POINT
17mmHg
9. VAPOR PRESSURE (38掳C)
10. INSOLUBLE MATTER <0.500 mg/L
~ 2 . 0ppm
11. CHLORIDES
- 0 0 ppm
12. SOLVENT EXTRACTED OIL AND GREASE 4.
-00
4. mg/L
13. SOLVENT EXTRACTED NON-VOLATILE RESIDUE
58 - 60dynes
14. SURFACE TENSION
1 15. MINIMUM & MAXIMUM STOWAGE TEMPERATURE 35掳F - 160掳F
1 16. RECOMMENDED CONCENTRATION FOR USE 100%
1 17. MINIMUM & MAXIMUM USE TEMPERATURE I 100掳F - 200掳F
II I
11 18. I 140掳F - 160掳F
RECOMMENDED UT TANK TEMPERATURE
1 19. RECOMMENDED PIPE FLUSHING TEMPERATURE I 150掳F - 170掳F
20. MINIMUM PIPE FLUSHING VELOCITY 3 fps
21. SHELF LIFE 2 years
26
HYDROCARBON SOIL REMOVAL EFFICIENCY BY SOAKING
TABLE 3.
DOC: Y2M7
1 I
solL CFC-113 TSP WATER NOC
10%-170掳F 17OoF 160掳F
99.4% 90.2% 61.1% 95.9%
Lubricating Oil, MS2190-TEP, MIL-L-17331
100.0% 79.6% 76.4% 91.3%
Lubricating Oil, MS21lO-TH, MIL-L-17672
I
99.7% 92.9% 66.2%
Lubricating Oil, MS9250, MIL-L-9000 ~~
I
2.8% <1.O% 1.2%
Waterproof Grease, MIL-G-6032 ~~
1
99.8% <1.O% <1 .OYo 1.P/o
Waterproof Grease, MIL-G-24139
100.00/0 81.7% 2.5%
Waterproof Grease, Termalene, A-A-50433
99.9% 24.9% 3.1%
Waterproof Grease, Premier Co. Blue Grease
99.4% 1.5% <1.OYo
General Grease, MIL-G-24508 1.8%
28.3% 97.3% 100.00/0
Flux, Brazing, 0-F-499 1oo.oo/o
100.07/0 98.3% 100.0% 100.0%
Leak Detector, MIL-L-25567
I
I(
~~
I
98.7% 1.6% <1.O% 1.6%
Silicone Grease, Dow Comins DC-4, MIL-S-8660
I I I I
98.2% 86.0% 1.2% 98.8%
I F G r e i e , Dow Corning DC-33, MIL-S-8660 ~
1 I I I I
Silicone Oil, Dow Coming DC-200, MIL-S-8660 99.6% 2.3% 14.6%
l.o?/o
The soil removal capability of each cleaning agent was determined during a static soak test.
1. Place 100mL of cleaning agent in a beaker obtaining at least 2-inches of fluid depth. Heat the cleaning agent to the required temperature.
2. Obtain a MONEL 1/8 to 1/4-inch thick metal coupon of sufficient dimension to have an area of 2-in2 wetted when immersed in the cleaning agent. Clean and record the
coupon tare weight.
3. Coat one surface of the coupon with 200mg +1Omg of soil. The area coated with the soil shall be completely wetted when immersed in the cleaning agent. Record the
weight of the coupon.
4. Immerse the coupon in the cleaning agent and soak (no agitation) for 30 minutes. Position the coupon so that the contaminated surface is fully visible.
5. For TSPand NOC, remove coupon and soak in a beaker of lOOmL pure water at 100-llO掳Ffor 15 minutes.
6. Remove coupon and place contaminated side up in an oven. Dry the coupon in the oven at 105OC for 20 minutes. Record the weight of the coupon.
27
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
28
FLUORINATED SOIL REMOVAL EFFICIENCY BY SOAKING
TABLE 4.
oc:Y2A57
SOIL CFC-113 TSP WATER NOC
10%-17OoF 17OoF 16OoF
Halocarbon Oil, HP 4.2S, DOD-L-24574 100.0% 97.9% 97.5% 99.9%
Halocarbon Grease, HP 25-55, MIL-G-47219 97.1% 82.7Yo 46.5% loo.P/o
Halocarbon Grease, HP X9O-lOM, MIL-G-47219 1oo.P/o 67.3% 68.0% 53.6%
Fluorolube Oil, Hooker Chemical S 3 0 100.0% 96.8% 93.6% 99.9%
Fluorolube Oil, Hooker Chemical T-80 95.6% 92.3% 99.3%
1oo.P/o
Fluorolube Grease, Hooker Chemical GR-290 98.9% 13.1% 9.6% 7.8?/0
Fluorolube Grease, Hooker Chemical GR-362 99.5% 22.9% 28.6% 16.4%
Krytox Oil, DuPont 143AA, DOD-L-24574 99.9% 92.8% 95.3% 98.4%
Krytox Oil, DuPont 143AB, DOD-L-24574 100.0% 96.0% 96.3% 99.6%
Krytox Oil, DuPont 143AC, DOD-L-24574 100.0% 96.5% 90.8% 99.4%
Krytox Grease, DuPont 240AC, MIL-G-27617 99.7% <1.O% <1.O% 2.6%
Molykote, Dow Coming Molykote 2,MIL-M-7866 1.PI0
98.1% 95.3% 23.5%
The soil removal capability of each cleaning agent was determined during a static soak test.
1. Place l00mL of cleaning agent in a beaker obtaining at least 2-inches of fluid depth. Heat the cleaning agent to the required temperature.
2. Obtain a MONEL 118 to 114-inch thick metal coupon of sufficient dimension to have an area of 2-in2 wetted when immersed in the cleaning agent. Clean and record the
coupon tare weight.
3. Coat one surface of the coupon with 200mg +1Omg of soil. The area coated with the soil shall be completely wetted when immersed in the cleaning agent. Record the
weight of the coupon.
4. Immerse the coupon in the cleaning agent and soak (no agitation) for 30 minutes. Position the coupon so that the contaminated surface is fully visible.
5. For TSP and NOC, remove coupon and soak in a beaker of lOOmL pure water at 100-llO掳Ffor 15 minutes.
6. Remove coupon and place contaminated side up in an oven. Dry the coupon in the oven at 105'C for 20 minutes. Record the weight of the coupon.
29
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
30
HYDROCARBON & FLUORINATED SOIL REMOVAL EFFICIENCY BY ULTRASONICS
TABLE 5.
TSP - 10YoConcentrate
SOIL NOC
Lubricating Oil, MS211O-TH,MIL-L-17672 100.oYo 91.2%
59.0% 85.3%
Waterproof Grease. MIL-G-6032
I
1 1
~~ ~
Waterproof Grease, MIL-G-24139 95.6% 100.0%
1-
I
11
~
100.0% 100.0?/0
W a t e L f G r e a s G m i e r Co. Blue Grease
General Grease, MIL-G-24508 81.3% 83.2%
Halocarbon Grease, HP X90-10M, MIL-G-47219 99.9% 32.7%
Fluorolube Grease, Hooker Chemical GR-290 33.9% 15.9%
Fluorolube Grease, Hooker Chemical GR-362 89.6% 24.0%
Ktytox Oil, DuPont 143AA, DOD-L-24574 100.0% 99.4%
Krytox Grease, DuPont 240AC, MIL-G-27617 63.1% 11.3%
1 I 1
Molykote, Dow Coming Molykote 2,MIL-M-7866 98.8% 93.8%
~
PFPE Grease, Aero Space Tribolube-16, MIL-G-27617 15.3% 9.2y0
Silicone Grease, Dow Coming DC-4, MIL-S8660 51.0% 17.6%
Silicone Oil, Dow Coming DC-200, MIL-S-8660 99.8% 80.4%
The capability of NOC and TSP to remove the above soils in a Bransonics Model B32H tabletop UT Tank was determined. The UT tank was 1l.Sx6"x6" with a generator power
of 150 watts and a frequency of 47 kHz.
1. Fill the UT tank with cleaning agent to a depth that covers the metal coupons with not less than 3/4-inch of cleaning agent. Raise the UT tank temperature
to between 140-160掳F.
2. Obtain 1" X 4" X 0.125-0.250"thick MONEL coupons. Clean and record the tare weight of the coupon.
3. Coat one surface of the coupon with 200 +1Omg of soil. Record the weight of the coupon.
4 Fully immerse the MONEL coupons in the UT tank for not greater than 30 minutes. Record the total immersion time. The coupons shall not be placed on the tank bottom.
The cross-sectional of the coupons shall not exceed 75% of the tank area.
5. Remove the MONEL coupons and rinse with no agitation in a freshwater bath at 100-llO掳Ffor 15 minutes.
6. Dry the coupon in an oven at 105OC for 20 minutes. Record the coupon weight.
31
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
32
NOC SILICONE SOIL REMOVAL EFFICIENCY BY ULTRASONICS
TABLE 6.
(BRANSON 11.5"x6'x6', 150 watt, 47 KHz Ultrasonic Tank; 30 Minutes; Stainless Steel Coupons; Contaminated On 2-in2)
DOC: Y2A57
SOIL SOIL LOADING 100% NOC 50"iiNOC & 50"hDDIW
160掳F 160掳F
Silicone Grease DC-4 44.1 mg/in2 29.7% NT
Silicone Grease DC-4 43.3 mg/in2 29.2% NT
Silicone Grease DC-4 39.9 mg/in2 35.0% NT
66.3% NT
Silicone Grease DC-4 21.1 mg/in2
46.0% NT
Silicone Grease DC-4 19.6 mg/in2
Silicone Grease DC-4 16.2 mg/in2 100.0"/0 NT
Silicone Grease DC-33 18.2 mg/in2 100.0% NT
Silicone Grease DC-33 12.9 mg/in2 99.4% NT
Silicone Grease DC-33 12.8 mg/in2 100.0% NT
Silicone Grease DC-4 21.8 mg/in2 NT 39.3%
Silicone Grease DC-4 19.3 mg/in2 NT 69.4%
Silicone Grease DC-4 15.1 mglin2 NT 41.4%
Silicone Grease DC-4 9.9 mg/in2 NT 98.0%
Silicone Grease DC-4 9.4 mg/in2 NT 98.4%
Silicone Grease DC-4 7.8 mg/in2 NT 100.0%
Silicone Grease DC-33 23.9 mglin2 NT 100.0%
Silicone Grease DC-33 17.1 mglin2 NT 100.0%
Silicone Grease DC-33 15.3 mg/in2 NT 100.0%
N T = NOT TESTED
33
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
34
SOIL REMOVAL SOIL REMOVAL
SOIL DURATION SOIL LOADING 3 Feet/Sec Flow SOIL LOADING 3 Feet/Sec Flow
Perpendicular Parallel To
To Parallel Perpendicular
30 min 320.7 mg 100.00/0 100.P/O
Lubricating Oil, MS-2190-TEP, MIL-L-17331 361.5 mg
30 min 298.9 mg 100.oYo
Lubricating Oil, MS2110-TH, MIL-L-17672 168.7 mg 100.00/0
30 min 426.5 mg
Lubricating Oil, MS-9250, MIL-L-9000 100.00/0 386.5 mg 100.0%
60 min 353.9 mg 14.8% 410.7 mg 5.3%
Waterproof Grease, MIL-G-6032
60 min 9.4%
260.2 mg 232.1 mg 8.8%
Waterproof Grease, MIL-G-24139
30 min 214.7 mg 89.2%
Waterproof Grease, Termalene, A-A-50433 265.0 mg 88.4%
60 min 221.1 mg 91.4%
Waterproof Grease, Premier Co. Blue Grease 238.8 mg 55.2%
30 min 258.5 mg 14.7%
General Grease, MIL-G-24508 173.0 mg 12.3%
30 min 379.3 mg
Halocarbon Grease, HP 25-58, MIL-G-47219 99.1% 440.1 mg 98.5%
60 min
Halocarbon Grease, HP X90-10M, MIL-G-47219 428.9 mg 81.4% 465.2 mg 75.2%
Fluorolube Oil, Hooker Chemical T-80 (S30) 30 min 1079.7 mg 99.0% 965.4 mg 99.0%
60 min 652.1 mg 36.4%
Fluorolube Grease, Hooker Chemical GR-290 496.9 mg 13.3%
60 min 735.4 mg
Fluorolube Grease, Hooker Chemical GR-362 47.4% 535.0 mg 36.0%
30 min
Krytox Oil, DuPount 143AC (143AA/AB), DOD-L-24574 867.0 mg 99.9% 736.3 mg 99.1Yo
Krytox Grease, DuPont 240AC, MIL-G-27617 60 min 655.6 mg 97.5% 706.2 mg 52.2%
Molykote, Dow Corning Molykote 2, MIL-M-7866 30 min 21.0 mg 100.0% 16.0 mg 100.0%
60 min 307.2 mg
Silicone Grease, Dow Corning DC-4, MIL-S-8660 1oo.o?/o 430.7 mg 24.6%
30 min 366.6 mg
Silicone Grease, Dow Coming DC-33 94.9% 263.2 mg 57.4%
30 min 256.9 mg 100.P/O
Silicone Oil, Dow Coming DC-200 - 30K cps 581.O mg 100.00/0
35
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
36
(Temperature - 160 $OF, 5.5in L X 0.25-in D Copper or Brass Threaded Rod Soil Carriers in 3/4-in Copper Tube)
- Ym7
DOC:
SOIL REMOVAL SOIL REMOVAL
SOIL LOADING
SOIL DURATION SOIL LOADING 6 FeeVSec Flow 6 Feet/Sec Flow
Perpendicular Parallel To
To Parallel Perpendicular
Lubricating Oil, MS-2190-TEP, MIL-L-17331 NT NT NT NT NT
Lubricating Oil, MS-2110-TH, MIL-L-17672 NT NT NT NT NT
Lubricating Oil, MS-9250, MIL-L-9000 NT NT NT NT NT
Waterproof Grease, MIL-G-6032 60 min 793.1 mg 44.2% 683.5 mg 19.1%
Waterproof Grease, MIL-G-24139 60 min 796.0 mg 62.2% 793.0 mg 7.1%
Waterproof Grease, Termalene, A-A-50433 30 min NT NT 363.4 mg 100.0%
Waterproof Grease, Premier Co. Blue Grease 60 min 359.1 mg 100.0% 370.7 mg 99.1%
General Grease, MIL-G-24508 60 min 592.3 mg 33.9% 637.2 mg 1.5%
Halocarbon Grease, HP 25-55, MIL-G-47219 NA NT NT NT NT
Halocarbon Grease, HP X90-10M, MIL-G-47219 60 min 1331.9 mg 92.0% 1328.3 mg 85.2%
Fluorolube Oil, Hooker Chemical T-80 (S30) NT NT NT NT NT
Fluorolube Grease, Hooker Chemical GR-290 60 min 1310.8 mg 80.3% 1158.1 mg 20.4%
Fluorolube Grease, Hooker Chemical GR-362 60 min 1284.0 mg 36.9% 1101.2 mg 16.4%
Krytox Oil, DuPount 143AC (143AA/AB), DOD-L-24574 NT NT NT NT NT
Krytox Grease, DuPont 240AC, MIL-G-27617 60 min 483.1 mg 97.4% 494.5 mg 62.4%
Molykote, Dow Corning Molykote 2, MIL-M-7866 NT NT NT NT NT
Silicone Grease, Dow Coming DC-4, MIL-S-8660 60 min 354.9 mg 100.0% 356.7 mg 38.8%
Silicone Grease, Dow Coming DC-33 60 min 375.6 mg 314.8 mg 95.6%
100.0%
Silicone Oil, Dow Coming DC-200 - 30K cps NT NT NT NT NT
N T = NOT TESTED
37
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
38
SOIL REMOVAL
SOIL REMOVAL
6 Feet/Sec Flow
SOIL LOADING SOIL LOADING 6 Feet/Sec Flow
NOC DILUTION DURATION
Perpendicular Parallel To
To Parallel Perpendicular
II I I I I I II
100% NOC - 0% DI Water 60min 796.0mg 793.0 mp
62.2% 7.1%
1
I I I I I
60 min 707.4 mg 664.3 mg
21.6% 28.7%
I I
II I I I 1
50% NOC -So% DI Water 60 min 559.9 mg 660.9 mg
23.5% 13.1%
-
- 75% DI Water
25% NOC 60 min 566.7 mg 591.7 mg
38.9% 34.8%
FLUORINATED GREASE, DUPONT KRYTOX 240AC, MIL-G-27617
100% NOC - 0% DI Water 60 min 483.1 mg 494.5 mg
97.4% 62.4%
- 25% 60 min 1066.5 mg 1065.0 mg
95.4%
DI Water 83.8%
75% NOC
50% NOC - 50% DI Water 1091.7 mg
60 min 954.2 mg
100.0% 94.3%
25% NOC - 75% DI Water 972.0 mg
60 min 20.6% 1069.5 mg 8.6%
l
SILICONE GREASE, DOW CORNING DC-4, MIL-S-8660
100% NOC - 0% DI Water 60 min 354.9 mg 356.7 mg
100.0"/0 38.8%
75% NOC - 25% DI Water 60 min 708.1 mg 100.0% 627.2 mg 50.1%
50% NOC - 50% DI Water 60 min 722.9 mg 736.6 mg
100.0% 83.1%
25% NOC - 75% DI Water 60 min 750.8 mg 824.8 mg
90.5% 19.7%
39
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
40
FLUSH CLEANER SOIL SOIL REMOVAL SOIL SOIL REMOVAL
Flow Parallel To
CLEANING AGENT VELOCITY TEMP DURATION LOADING Perpendicular LOADING
To Parallel Flow Perpendicular
- ~
~~
NOC - 100% Concentration 541.4 mg 532.8 mg 4.70/.
20.7%
125? 60 min
6 fps
NOC - 100% Concentration & 0.1% NID(') 613.9 mg 768.6 mg 17.5%
60 min 68.3%
6 fps 125OF
NOC - 100% Concentration & 0.1% L-720" 513.2 mg 555.4 mg 14.4%
60 min 33.3%
6 fps 14OoF
- 1.o% 1.o%
1 fps(3) 16OoF 60 min 320.3 mg 544.4 mg
NOC 100% Concentration
Tri-Sodium PhosDhate - 4.5 lbs/5 a d Water 6 bs 17OoF 60 min 604.8 ma 42.5% 506.3 ma 41.1%
NOC - 100% Concentration 6 fps 60 min 1221.6 mg 98.9% 1169.3 mg 77.3%
125OF
NOC - 100% Concentration & NID(') 6 fps 125OF 60 min 1448.6 mg 88.170 1176.3 mg 25.2%
O.IO/~
NOC - 100% Concentration & 0.1% L-720" 14OoF 60 min 1047.5 mg 69.1% 1126.4 mg 44.2%
6 fps
NOC - 100% Concentration 1 fpS(3 16OoF 60 min 1050.8 mg 1021.2 mg 78.7%
55.0%
Tri-Sodium Phosphate - 4.5 lbs/5 gal Water 17OoF 60 min 767.1 mg 100.0% 1141.9 mg 36.4%
6 fps
- 100% Concentration 60 min 736.6 mg 100.00/0 641.6 mg
NOC 47.2%
6 fps 125OF
NOC - 100% Concentration ti 0 . 1 NID(')
~~ 934.3 mg 70.9% 783.4 mg 37.8%
125OF 60 min
6 fps
NOC - 100% Concentration & 0.1% L-720'a 60 min 513.5 mg 533.0 mg 39.7%
14OoF 83.8%
6 fps
1 fps(3' 160掳F 60 min 634.7 mg
NOC - 100% Concentration 25.77'0 594.1 mg 15.4%
Tri-Sodium Phosphate - 4.5 lbs/5 gal Water 60 min
6 bs 762.0 mg 100.0%
17OoF 750.3 ma 100.0%
('I0.1% Of DOW CORNING H-10 Organic Anti-Foaming Agent Was Added To Prevent Excessive Foaming. The Surfactant Was Difficult To Remove. Three Rinses With Fresh
Water Failed To Remove The Surfactant. Post Flush With NOC Indicated Residual Surfactant. The Application Temperature Is the Cloud Point For The Surfactant.
(2)L-720 Is A Non-Foaming Silicon Surfactant Manufactured By Union Carbide. The Surfactant Was Difficult To Remove. Three Rinses With Fresh Water Failed To Remove
The Surfactant. Post Flush With NOC Indicated Residual Surfactant. The Application Temperature I the Cloud Point For The Surfactant.
s
Fps I Equivalent To The Current Specified Minimum Flush Rate Of Two Times The Pipe Diameter.
s
(3)1
41
t
TABLE 11. NOC SAFETY PRECAUTIONS FOR USE
Ref: Commanding Officer, Navy Environmental Health Center Ltr 8282 Ser 34/4085 dtd 30 AUG 93;
Submarine Materials Review: Altemate Oxygen System Cleaning Agent OCTAGON OCC-RTU
Endorsements:
Chief, Bureau Of Medicine And Surgery Lr 6275 Ser MED-21/0277 dtd 01 SEP 93.
t
Commander, Naval Experimental Diving Unit Ltr 6275 Ser 02/028 dtd 26 JAN 94.
1. Eye contact with NOC could result in chemical burns. Wear chemical worker鈥檚 goggles for all
operations where eye contact with NOC could occur. Use a full-length face shield for any operation
where splashing of the material could occur. In the event of eye contact with NOC, personnel should
flush their eyes thoroughly with potable water for a minimum of 15 minutes, then seek prompt medical
attention. Provide emergency eyewash system, conforming to the design requirements of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI), near the work area should its use be required.
2. Skin contact with NOC will result in severe irritation and possible chemical burns. Wear impervious
protection clothing, constructed from neoprene, or other material of equivalent resistance to penetration
so as to prevent skin contact. Use elbow length gloves (with cuffs) as minimum protection, and time
open containers of the cleaning agent are handled. Wash potentially exposed skin areas with soap and
water at breaks, and at the conclusion of the operation. Do not use organic solvents for this purpose.
Thoroughly clean protective garments at the conclusion of the operation and store for reuse. Remove
clothinghniforms which become contaminated as soon as feasible, and thoroughly clean prior to reuse.
Seek prompt medical assistance should a rash, chemical burn, or other adverse affect be experienced,
which may be related to working with NOC. Do not store or consume food and tobacco in areas where
they could be contaminated with NOC.
3. According to the information provided on the OCTAGON PROCESS INC. Material Safety Data
Sheet (MSDS) for OCC-RTU,overexposure to mistslvapors from NOC may result in sneezing, coughing,
respiratory system irritation, and possibly chemical burns and subsequent edema in the upper airways.
Based on off-gas testing at temperatures up to 82掳C (1809;), such a possibility is unlikely, considering the
magnitude and frequency of use. In the event any adverse health effects are experienced, cease
operations involving NOC and consult the cognizant medical department representative for additional
guidance.
4. Provide personnel working with NOC with pre-assignment as well as periodic updating training.
Include a review of the chemical nature of the material, potential adverse affects/symptoms of
overexposure, use of personal protection equipment and engineering controls, proper work practices, as
well as fist aid and spill cleanup and disposal procedures. The MSDS serves as the nucleus for this
training effort. OPNAVINST 5100.19B provides additional guidance.
42
TABLE 12. METALLIC MATERIAL COMPATIBILITY
x:Y2A!i7
I I I 1
SPECIFICATION NOC TSP WATER
METAL
TESTED 17OoF 17OoF 17OoF
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5052-0 WW-T-70014 I I
C
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5456 I R
ASTM 8209, HT116 C
ALUMINUM, Alloy 6061-T6 QQ-A-200I8F I
C C
ALLOY STEEL MIL-S- 16216K C C C
AHOVHY-100
R
ASTM 8167 CW C C
INCONEL, Alloy N06600~
ASTM 8167 HF C C C
INCONEL, Alloy NO6625 ASTM B446 CR C C C
NAVAL BRASS, Alloy 464 R
ASTM B171 R C
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTM B148 C C
R
Alloy C95800
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE R
ASTM B150 C R
Alloy C63000-HR50
NICKEL-ALUMIUM-BRONZE R
QQ-C-465A C R
Alloy C64200-HR50
MIL-P-1368C C C C
NICKEL-COPPER
QQN-281 CL-A C C C
QQ-N-286 Cold-Aged C C C
R
MIL-P-2469113 C C
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 304
R
QQ-S-763 Cold C C
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 316 QQS-763 Cold C C C
TITANIUM, Pure ASTM 0337 C C C
TITANIUM, Ti-6AI-4V ASTM 8265 GR5 C
C C
R = REVIEW COMPATIBILITY TEST RESULTS FOR
I = INCOMPATIBLE
C = COMPATIBLE
APPLICABILITY (R = Testing Did Not Result In A Significant Corrosion Rate, But The Material Surface Was Discolored)
43
TABLE 13. NOC METALLIC CORROSION RESULTS
24 Hour Total Immersion Testing At 170'F
1 I I
DOC: Y2A57
SPECIFICATION CORROSION APPEARANCE
METAL
TESTED RATE
No Change
WW-T-700/4 +0.66 mg/cm2
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5052-0
No Change
ASTM 8209, HT116 +0.09 mg/cm2
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5456
No Change
QQ-A-200/8F 0.00 ma/cm2
ALUMINUM. AIIov 6061-T6
No Change
MIL-S-16216K 0.00mg/cm2
ALLOY STEEL
Alloy HY-100
Translucent Film - Cleaner Residue
MIL-S-23008D -0.60mg/cm2
No Change
ASTM A336 CL F-22 0.00 mg/cm2
ALLOY STEEL
Alloy MIL-F-22606B
No Change
MIL-F-22606B +0.04 mg/cm2
ALLOY STEEL, Alloy 4130
No Change
QQ-B-654 -0.41 mg/cm2
BRAZING MATERIAL, BCUP-5
I I I
CDA922 -+0.06 mg/cm2 No Change
BRONZE
I 1 No Change
+0.05 mg/cm2
MIL-S-22698
CARBON STEEL,
ABS Grade EH36
I
MIL-T-241078 +0.52 mg/cm2 No Change
COPPER, Alloy C1220O-H80
+0.07 mg/cm2 No Change
MIL-T-16420K
COPPER-NICKEL
MIL-C-15726F 0.00 mg/cm2 No Change
Alloy C715-70/30
No Change
+0.07 mg/cm2
ASTM 8167 CW
INCONEL, Alloy NO6600
0 0 mg/cm2 No Change
.0
ASTM 8167 HF
I Light Tarnish
NAVAL BRASS, Alloy 464 ASTM B171 -0.16mg/cm2
I I 1
+0.45 mg/cm2 No Change
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTM B148
I
Alloy C95800
I 1
0.00 mg/cm2 No Change
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTMB150
AHOVC63000-HR50
QQ-C-465A +0.56 mg/cm2 No Change
NICKEL-ALUMIUM-BRONZE
Alloy C64200-HR50
+0.44 mg/cm2 No Change
MIL-P-1368C
NICKEL-COPPER
+0.56 mg/cm2 No Change
QQ-N-281 CL-A
QQ-N-286 Cold-Aged +0.64 mg/cm2 No Change
MlL-P-24691/3 0.00mg/cm2 No Change
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 304
QQ-S763 Cold +0.59 mg/cm2 No Change
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 316 QQ-S763 Cold +0.06 mg/cm2 No Change
TITANIUM, Pure ASTM 8337 0.00 mg/cm2 No Change
TITANIUM, Ti-6AI-4V ASTM 8265 GR5 +0.02 mg/cm2 No Change
44
TABLE 14. TSP METALLIC CORROSION RESULTS
24 Hour Total immersion Testing At 17OoF
I
DOC: Y2A57
I 1
METAL SPECIFICATION CORROSION APPEARANCE
TESTED RATE
~~ ~
-49.00 mg/cm2 Severely Corroded
WW-T-700/4
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5052-0
-12.15 mg/cm2 Severely Corroded
ASTM 8209, HT116
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5456
-57.97 mn/cm2 Severely Corroded
ALUMINUM. AIIov 6061-T6 QQ-A-200/8F
No Change
MILS-16216K +0.43 mg/cm2
ALLOY STEEL
Alloy HY-100
MIL-S-23008D +0.22 ma/cm2 No Change
+0.62 mg/cm2 No Change
ASTMA336 CL F-22
ALLOY STEEL
Alloy MIL-F-22606B
No Change
MIL-F-22606B +0.18 mg/cm2
ALLOY STEEL, Alloy 4130
+1.77 ms/cm2 No Change
QQ-B-654
BRAZING MATERIAL, BCUP-5
I I I
BRONZE CDA922 +0.28 mg/cm2 Tarnished
No Change
MIL-S22698 +0.30 mg/cm2
CARBON STEEL,
ABS Grade EH36
+0.15 mg/cm2 Tarnished
COPPER, Alloy C12200-H80 MIL-T-24107B
-0.02 mg/cm2 No Change
MIL-T-16420K
COPPER-NICKEL
+o.o~
mg/cm2 No Change
MIL-C-15726F
Alloy C715-70/30
+0.31 mg/cm2 Cleaner Residue
ASTM 8167 CW
INCONEL, Alloy NO6600
No Change
ASTM 8167 HF +.I
OO mg/cm2
mg/cm2 No Change
+O
OI
.
ASTM B446 CR
INCONEL. Allov NO6625
___
~~~~ ~~
+0.19 mg/cm2 Tarnished
NAVAL BRASS, Alloy464 ASTM B171
-0.28 mg/cm2 Dull Coating
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTM B148
Alloy C95800
-0.05 mg/cm2 Dark Iridescent Film
ASTM B150
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE
Alloy C63000-HR50
~-
~~ ~ ~
-0.12 mg/cm2 Dark Tarnish
NICKEL-ALUMIUM-BRONZE OQ-C-465A
Alloy C64200-HR50
+0.04 mg/cm2 No Change
MIL-P-13686
NICKEL-COPPER
QQ-N-281 CL-A -0.04 mg/cm2 No Change
QQ-N-286 Cold-Aged +0.34 mg/cm2 No Change
MIL-P-24691/3 +0.40 mg/cm2 Cleaner Residue
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 304
QQ-S763 Cold +0.37 mg/cm2 Cleaner Residue
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 316 QQ-S763 Cold No Change
-0.06 mg/cm2
TITANIUM, Pure ASTM 0337 +0.19 mg/m2 No Change
TITAN1UM, Ti-6AI-4V ASTM 8265 GR5 +0.20 mg/cm2 No Change
45
TABLE 15. WATER METALLIC CORROSION RESULTS
24 Hour Total Immersion Testing At 17OoF
DOC: Y2A57
I METAL SPECIFICATION CORROSION APPEARANCE
RATE
TESTED
+0.22 mg/cm' Pitting Attack
WW-T-70014
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5052-0
I I
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5456 ASTM 8209, HT116 +0.17 mglcm' Tarnished
I
~
No Change
QQ-A-200/8F +0.23 mglcm'
ALUMINUM, Alloy 6061-T6
Dark Dull Film
MIL-S-16216K +0.30 mg/cm'
ALLOY STEEL
Alloy HY-100
Dark Dull Film
ms/cm'
MlLS23008D +O.I
I I Dark Dull Film
ASTM A336 CL F-22 +0.47 mglcm'
ALLOY STEEL
Alloy MIL-F-22606B
1 I I
ALLOY STEEL, Alloy4130 MIL-F-226068 -0.03 mg/cm' Dark Dull Grey Surface
No Change
+6.04 mg/cm2
BRAZING MATERIAL, BCUP-5 QQ-5654
+0.17 mg/cm' No Change
BRONZE CDA922
+0.26 mg/cm' No Change
CARBON STEEL, MIL-S-22698
ABS Grade EH36
No Change
0.00 mg/cm2
COPPER, Alloy C1220O-H80 MIL-T-24107B
-0.34 mglcm' No Change
MIL-T-16420K
COPPER-NICKEL
+0.50 mg/cm2 Oxide Coating
MIL-C-15726F
Alloy C715-70/30
+o.o~mg/cm' Residue On Surface
ASTM 8167 CW
-0.23 mglcm' No Change
ASTM 8167 HF
-0.26 mglcm' No Change
ASTM 8446 CR
+0.07 mglcm' No Change
NAVAL BRASS, Allov 464 ASTM B171
NICKEL-ALUMIN UM-BRONZE -0.17 mglcm' No Change
ASTM 6148
Allov C95800
~~ ~ ~~~
0.00 mg/cm' Slight Iridescent Film
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTM 8150
Alloy C63000-HR50
+0.01 mg/cm' Light Tarnish
NICKEL-ALUMIUM-BRONZE QQ-C-465A
Alloy C64200-HR50
I No Change
MIL-P-1368C -O.mmg/cm'
NICKEL-COPPER
No Change
QQ-N-281 CL-A +0.03 mg/cm2
QQ-N-286 Cold-Aged +0.40 mg/cm' No Chanae
1 +O.IO mg/cm2
MIL-P-24691/3 Residue On Surface
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 304
QQ-S-763 Cold +0.28 mg/cm' Residue On Surface
~
STAINLESS STEEL, Allov 316 QQ-S-763 Cold -0.10 mglcm' No Chanae
TITANIUM, Pure +0.50 mglcm'
ASTM 8337 No Change
TITANIUM, Ti-6AI-4V ASTM 8265 GR5 +0.76 mglcm' No Change
46
TABLE 16. SEVEN DAY METALLIC CORROSION RATES
7 Day Residue Testing At 90% Humidity 8 95OF
DOC: Y%7
I 1 1
1
METAL SPECIFICATION NOC TSP WATER
TESTED
0.00 mg/cm2 -0.02 mg/cm2 -0.1 8mg/cm2
WW-T-700/4
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5052-0
ASTM B209, HT116 +0.05 mg/cm2 +0.11 mg/cm2 -0.14 mg/cm2
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5456
+1.29 ma/cm2 +0.86 ma/cm2
QQ-A-200/8F -0.48 ma/cm2
ALUMINUM, AIIov 6061-T6
~~~
ALLOY STEEL MIL-S-16216K +0.38 mg/cm2 +0.12 mg/cm2 mg/cm2
+O
OI
.
Alloy HY-100
MIL-S-23008D +O.13 mg/cm2 +0.49 mg/cm2 +0.35 mg/cm2
-0.50mg/cm2 +0.06 mg/cm2 -0.03 mg/cm2
ALLOY STEEL ASTM A336 CL F-22
Alloy MIL-F-22606B
+o.o~
+0.18 mg/cm2 mg/cm2 +0.06 mg/cm2
ALLOY STEEL, Alloy 4130 MIL-F-22606B
-1.82 mg/cm2 -1.16 mg/cm2 -1.16 mg/cm2
BRAZING MATERIAL, BCUP-5 QQ-B-654
BRONZE CDA922 +0.29 mg/cm2 +15.11 mg/cm2 +28.77 mg/cm2
CARBON STEEL, MIL-S-22698 +0.05 mglcm2 +1.12 mg/cm2 +0.89 mg/cm2
ABS Grade EH36
MIL-T-24107B +0.27 mg/cm2 mg/cm2 -0.24 mg/cm2
COPPER, Alloy C12200-H80 +O.II
-1.36 mglcm' -1.OO mg/cm2
MIL-T-1642OK i0.05 mg/cm2
COPPER-NICKEL
+0.23 mg/cm2 +0.06 mg/cm2 +0.26 mg/cm2
MIL-C-15726F
Alloy C715-70/30
-0.09 mg/cm2
+0.14 mg/cm2 -0.20 mg/cm2
ASTM 8167 CW
INCONEL, Alloy NO6600
-0.01 mg/cm2 -0.08 mg/cm2
ASTM 8167 HF mq/cm2
+O.II
-0.01 mg/cm2 -0.13 mg/cm2
ASTM 8446 CR -0.29 mg/cm2
INCONEL, Alloy NO6625
-0.07 mg/cm2
+0.18 mglcm2 +0.04 mg/cm2
NAVAL BRASS, Alloy 464 ASTM B171
-0.06 mg/cm2
+0.07 mg/cm2 0.00mg/cm2
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTM B148
I
Alloy C95800
l I
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTM 8150 mg/cm2 mg/cm2 -0.08 mg/cm2
+O
OI
.
+O
OI
.
AIIov C63000-HR50
.I + o . o ~mg/cm2
NICKEL-ALUMIUM-BRONZE QQ-C-465A -0.45 mg/cm2 -0.61 mg/cm2
Alloy C64200-HR50
MIL-P-1368C +0.04 mg/cm2 -0.74 mg/cm2 -0.91 mg/cm2
NICKEL-COPPER
QQ-N-281 CL-A -0.01 mg/cm2 -0.76 mg/cm2 -0.86 mg/cm2
QQ-N-286 Cold-Aged -0.02 mg/cm2 +0.15 mg/cm2 +0.13 mg/cm2
MIL-P-24691I3 -0.60 mglcm2
+0.17 mg/cm2 -0.69 mg/cm2
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 304
QQ-S-763 Cold mg/cm2
+O.OI -0.71 mg/cm2 -0.75 mg/cm2
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 316 QQ-S-763 Cold +0.13 mglcm2 +0.05 mg/cm2 -0.02 mg/cm2
2
TITANIUM, Pure ASTM B337 -0.07 mg/cm2 +1.13 mglcm +I.OI mg/cm2
TITANIUM, Ti-6AI-4V ASTM 8265 GR5 -0.08 mg/cm2 +i.09 mg/cm2 mg/cm2
+I.OO
47
TABLE 17. RUBBER MATERIAL COMPATIBILITY
DOC: Y2A57
Chemical Name SPECIFICATION TESTED NOC TSP WATER CFC-113
VENDOR NAME 17OoF
17OoF 17OoF 7OoF
MIL-P-551OC C C C C
MIL-P-5516C- Class A C C C 12L
Butadiene-Nitrile
MIL-P-5516C - Class B C C C 1L
BUNA-N
MIL-P-25732C 12L C C 1L
MIL-P-83461B C 12L C 1L
I c I c - 1 ,
Butadiene-Styrene MIL-S-21923 I C
BUNA-S
Chloroprene MIL-S-6855
NEOPRENE I
I I I
I I I I
Chlorosulfonate MIL-R-81828- Amend 1 C 12L C C
Polyethylene
HYPALON-40
I I I I I
MIL-G-22050C- 65 Durometer 12L 12L 12L
I
MIL-G-22050C- 80 Durometer 12L 12L 12L
I
NAS-1613- 70 Durometer 12L C C
Ethylene Propylene
EP NAS-1613- 88 Durometer C C C 12L
MIL-R-83285- 60 Durometer C C C I
I I1
I I I
MIL-R-83285- 80 Durometer C I C I C
I c
Polychlorotrifluoroth
ylene Commercial 12L 12L
KEL-F lL
Polysulfide Commercial C 12L C C
THIOKOL FA
Polyether Urethane Commercial 1L 12L 12L 1L
ADRIPRENE
Vinylidene Fluoride + MIL-R-83248B- 75 Durometer 12L C 12L 12L
Hexafluoroproplyene
MIL-R-83248B- 90 Durometer 12L 12L C C
VITON
Vinyl-Methyl-Polysioxane I I
Commercial I12L I C I C
SILICONE
h =NOT TESTtD
C= COMPATIBLE.
12L= LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS.
1 L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR.
I= INCOMPATIBLE.
48
TABLE 18. NOC RUBBER COMPATIBILITY RESULTS
24 Hour Total Immersion At 170掳F
C' Y 2 M 7
Chemical Name SPECIFICATION TESTED UL ELONG VOLUME
DUROMTR TENSILE ~
Y
O
VENDOR NAME HARDNESS Yo
Y
O
CHANGE ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CHANGE
MIL-P-551 C
O -5 98% 92%
~~~~
MIL-P-5516C- Class A 89%
93% +1.19%
0
Butadiene-Nitrile
-
MIL-P-5516C Class B -1 83% 83%
BUNA-N
MIL-P-25732C -1 83% 83% +1.34%
+o.29%
MIL-P-83461B -1 91% 109%
MIL-S-2 1923 84%
Butadiene-Styrene 90% +0.99%
0
BUNAS
Chloroprene MIL-S-6855 +2 98% 87Yo +2.55%
NEOPRENE
Chlorosulfonate MIL-R-81828- Amend 1 +2.30%
9 2%
-5 88%
Polyethylene
HYPALON-40
MIL-G-22050C- 65 Durometer 103% 97% -0.43%
+3
~
MIL-G-22050C- 80 Durometer +3 98% 9 70/0 -1.23%
NAS-1613- 70 Durometer -5 83% 109% +1.57%
Ethylene Propylene
EP NAS-1613- 88 Durometer +3 129% 109% +0.39%
I
MIL-R-83285- 60 Durometer -1
MIL-R-83285- 80 Durometer -1.12%
Commercial 99YO 61% +O. 14%
Polychlorotrifluorothylene
I
KEL-F
I I
PolysuIf ide 85%
Commercial 92%
THIOKOL FA -5
I
Polyether Urethane Commercial -6 49% 177% +1.80Y0
ADRIPRENE
~~
Vinylidene Fluoride + MIL-R-83248B- 75 Durometer 111% 77% +2.10%
+5
Hexafluoroproplyene
MIL-R-83248B- 90 Durometer -3 108% 75% +0.56%
VITON
Viny I-MethyI- Polysioxane Commercial 104% 151y -0.13%
0 o
SILICONE
c= COMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in no significant degradation of the material physical properties; tensile and elongation did not drop below
85%. hardness was 25 units. and volume change was -W+lO%.
OF 12 HOURS:
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM 24 hour exposure resulted in some degradation of the material physical
7556. hardness was 27 units. and volume change was -5/+10%.
properties; tensile and elongation did not drop be&
1L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR: 24 hour exposure resulted in significant degradation in one of the material
physical properties; tensile and elongation dropped to 6W, or hardness was 29 units. or volume change was -10/+15%.
I= INCOMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resutted in significant degradation in one or more of the material physical properties; tensile and elongation dropped
to 60% or less. hardness changed by greater than or equal + units. and vdume changed by greater than or equal to -10/+15%.
9
49
TABLE 19. TSP RUBBER COMPATIBILITY RESULTS
24 Hour Total Immersion At 17OoF
DOC: Y2A57
SPECIFICATION TESTED DUROMTR TENSILE UL ELONG VOLUME
Chemical Name
Y
O
VENDOR NAME HARDNESS Y
O %
ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CHANGE
CHANGE
MIL-P-551OC +2 99% 97yo +1.80%
I I I I
~~
MIL-P-5516C- Class A 88% 95% +2.11%
+1
Butadiene-Nitrile
MIL-P-5516C - Class B +1.76%
93% 88%
+1
BUNA-N
MIL-P-25732C 93%
+1 88% +1.76%
MIL-P-83461B -6 96% +3.10%
100%
Io
ButadieneStyrene MIL-S-21923
BUNA-S
~~~
Chloroprene MIL-S-6855 98% 84%' +3.00%
0
NEOPRENE
Chlorosulfonate MIL-R-81828- Amend 1 -3 78% 81% +4.70%
Polyethylene
HYPALON-40
+4 98% 97yo -0.80%
MIL-G-22050C- 65 Durometer
MIL-G-22050C- 80 Durometer +5 9 To/. 99% -1.70%
+2 102% 109% +1.68%
NAS-1613- 70 Durometer
Ethylene Propylene
EP NAS-1613- 88 Durometer +2 106% 99% +3.70%
I I I I
MIL-R-83285- 60 Durometer +1 102% 103% +0.90%
MIL-R-83285- 80 Durometer +2 102% 93% 0.00%
101% 74%
Polychlorotrifluorothylene Commercial 0 0.00%
KEL-F
Io
Polysulfide Commercial
THIOKOL FA
I I
Polyether Urethane Commercial 84% 135% +9.60%
-2
ADRIPRENE
Vinylidene Fluoride + MIL-R-83248B- 75 Durometer +4 106% 87% +5.30%
Hexafluoroproplyene
MIL-R-83248B- 90 Durometer +1 103% 96% -0.60%
Vinyl-MethyI-Polysioxane 0 103% 132% +1.90%
Commercial
SILICONE
c= COMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resuked in no significant degradation of the material physical properties; tensile and elongation did not drop below
85%- hardness was + units. and volume change was -0/+10%.
5
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS: 24 hour exposure resulted in some degradation of the material physical
properties; tensile and ebngation dd not drop bebw 75%. hardness was + units. and volume change was -5!+10%.
i ?
1L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR: 24 hour exposure resulted in significant degradation in one of the material
physical properties; tensile and elongation dropped to 60%. or hardness was + units. or volume change was -10/+15%.
9
I = INCOMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in significant degradation in one or more of the material physical properties; tensib and elongation dropped
to 601/.or less. hardness changed by greater than or equal + units, and vdume changed by greater than or equal to -10/+15%.
9
50
TABLE 20. WATER RUBBER COMPATIBILITY RESULTS
c:Y2A57
Chemical Name
VENDOR NAME
Butadiene-Nitrile
BUNA-N
Butadiene-Styrene
BUNA-S
Chloroprene
NEOPRENE
Chlorosulfonate
Polyethylene
HYPALON-40
Ethylene Propylene
EP
Polychlorotrifluorothylene
KEL-F
Polysulfide
THIOKOL FA
-2 129% -1.30%
78%
Commercial
Polyether Urethane
ADRIPRENE
Vinylidene Fluoride + 83% +4.20%
110%
+6
MIL-R-83248B- 75 Durometer
Hexafluoroproplyene
110% +0.10%
0
MIL-R-83248B- 90 Durometer 87Yo
VlTON
+1 104% 99% +2.90%
Commercial
Vinyl-Methyl-Polysioxane
SILICONE
c= COMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in no significant degradation of the materiil physical properties; tensile and elongation did not drop below
85%. hardness was + unils. and volume change wan .01+10%.
5
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS: 24 hour exposure resulted in some degradation of the material physical
properties: tensile and ebngatim did not drop below 75%. hardness was 57 units, and volume change was -5/+10%.
1L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR: 24 hour exposure resuked in significant degradation in one of the material
physical properties: tensile and elongation dropped to W or hardness was + units. or volume change was -10/+15%.
/' 9
I= INCOMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in significant degradation in one or more of the material physical properties; tensile and elongation dropped
to 6 ? or less. hardness changed by greater than or equal 59 units. and vdume changed by greater than or equal to -10/+15%.
Uh
51
TABLE 21. CFC-113 RUBBER COMPATIBILITY RESULTS
24 Hour Total Immersion At 7OoF
DOC: Y2A57
*
TENSILE
DUROMTR
SPECIFICATION TESTED
Chemical Name
HARDNESS %
VENDOR NAME
+
ORIGINAL
CHANGE
I 87% 95%
MIL-P-551OC +2
80% 85% +0.95%
MIL-P-5516C- Class A
Butadiene-Nitrile
MIL-P-5516C- Class B 73% 76% +13.90%
BUNA-N
73%
MIL-P-25732C
71% 77% +1.70%
MIL-P-83461B
57% 70% +36.50%
MIL-S-21923
Butadiene-Styrene
BUNA-S
I 87Yo 89% +8.OO%
MIL-S-6855
Chloroprene
NEOPRENE -l
I 106% +2.70%
91%
MIL-R-81828- Amend 1
Chlorosulfonate
Polyethylene
HYPALON-40
MIL-G-22050C- 65 Durometer 78% +67.60%
-8 77%
MIL-G-22050C- 80 Durometer 83% +59.60%
-8 84%
鈥?
90% +17.20%
NAS-1613- 70 Durometer -7 67Yo
Ethylene Propylene I
EP 90% +1.40%
-2 83%
NAS-1613- 88 Durometer
+31.so%
104%
+10 96%
MIL-R-83285- 60 Durometer
77yo +41.90%
MIL-R-83285- 80 Durometer -9 71%
I I
I
181% +1.70%
111%
Polychlorotrifluorothylene Commercial 0
KEL-F
~
96% +0.20%
99%
Polysulfide Commercial 0
THIOKOL FA
I I I 129% +2.90%
Commercial
Polyether Urethane
ADRIPRENE 60%
+l
--
H
Vinylidene Fluoride + 106% 75% +5.4O%
MIL-R-83248B- 75 Durometer +1
Hexafluoroproplyene
97yo 91% +4.40%
MIL-R-83248B- 90 Durometer -2
VITON
I I 101Yo +52.90%
101%
Commercial
+l
c= COMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in no significant degradation of the material physical properties; tensile and elongation did not drop below
hardness was + units, and volume change was -a/+lO%.
83
5,
鈥? 5
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS: 24 hour exposure resulted in some degradation of the material physical
properties; tensile and elongation dd not drop below 75%, hardness was + units, and volume change was -5/+10%.
i 7
1L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR: 24 hour exposure resulted in significant degradation in one of the materiai
physical properties; tensile and elongatim dropped to 60%. or hardness was + units, or volume change was -10/+15%.
Q
I= INCOMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in significant degradation in one or more of the materiil physical properties; tensile and elongatim dropped
to m o r less. hardness changed by greater than or equal + units, and volume changed by greater than or equal to -10/+15%.
9
52
TABLE 22. PLASTIC MATERIAL COMPATIBILITY
DOC: Y2A57
- Unfilled
Commercial
COMPATIBLE.
C=
12L= LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS.
1 L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR.
I= INCOMPATIBLE.
53
SPECIF1CATION NOC NOC TSP TSP
Chemical Name
TESTED TENSILE WEIGHT TENSILE WEIGHT
VENDOR NAME
Yo ORIGINAL Yo CHANGE Yo ORIGINAL Yo CHANGE
+0.01% 100% +0.96%
ASTM-D2133 99%
Acetal Resin
DELRIN
+1.09% 98%
Commercial 101% +0.90%
Acrylonitrile Butadiene
Styrene
ABS
Commercial - Unfilled +1.78%
78% +1.99% 73%
Epoxy Resin
EPOXY
95%
ASTM-D2116 100% +0.01% -0.01%
Fluoethyl Propylene
TEFLON FEP
NT 74% NT
lonomer Resin
SURLYN
NT 99% NT
8 7% +1.10%
LUCITE 8 PLEXIGLAS
Polyamide Resin ASTM-D4066- Nylon 6,6 66% +5.52% 67% +3.9 2%
NYLON
+o.23%
Polycarbonate Resin Commercial 96% 99% +O.3 1Yo
LEXAN
I I +0.03% 99%
ASTM-Dl248 95%
High Density Polyethylene +0.03%
HDPE
Polyimide Resin + Graphite Commercial 24 Hr Fail 24 Hr Fail 24 Hr Fail 24 Hr Fail
VESPEL-21 1 Hr Pass 1 Hr Pass 1 Hr Pass 1 Hr Pass
Polypropylene ASTM-D4101- Unfilled 94% +0.05?'0 97yo +0.04%
PP
Polytetrafluoroethy
lene ASTM-D1457 88% 91%
0.00% 0.00%
TEFLON TFE
+o.270/0
Polyurethane Commercial 95% +2.26% 97%
NA
101% +0.34%
Polyvinyl Chloride ASTM-D1784- Rigid 96% +0.46%
PVC
+o.32%
95%
ASTM-D2287- Nonrigid 92% +O.86%
c= COMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in no signaicant degradation of the materii physical properties; tensile did not drop below 95% and weight
change was -0/+1%
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS: 24 hour exposure resulted in some degradation of the material physical
properties; tensile d d not dmp below 90% and weight change was O / + X
1L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR: 24 hour exposure resulted in signilicant degradation in one of the material
physical properties; tensile dropped to 85% or weight change was -0/+3%.
1= INCOMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in significant degradation in one or more of the material physical properties: tensile dropped to 85% or less.
and weight changed by greater than or equal to -0/+3%
54
TABLE 24. PLASTIC COMPATIBILITY RESULTS FOR:
CFC-113 & WATER
24 Hour Total Immersion: CFC-113 At 7OoF & Water At 17OoF
WATER WATER
CFC-113 CFC-113
Chemical Name SPECIFICATION
TENSILE WEIGHT TENSILE WEIGHT
TESTED
VENDOR NAME
Acetal Resin ASTM-D2133 101% 99%
1 1 1
DELRIN
101% +0.06% 103% +0.94%
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Commercial
Styrene
ABS
Commercial - Unfilled
Epoxy Resin 100% 70%
EPOXY
+o. 14%
Fluoethyl Propylene ASTM-D2116 102% 98% 0.00%
TEFLON FEP
lonomer Resin
SURLYN
Commercial - 9720
+o.02%
96%
MethyI-Methacrylate MIL-P-5425D- Finish A 87% +1.09%
~
LUCITE 8 PLEXIGLAS
Polyamide Resin +0.02% 65% +5.31%
100%
ASTM-D4066- Nylon 6,6
NYLON
I I I
Polycarbonate Resin 101% +0.02% 98% +0.32%
Commercial
LEXAN
I +o.o 2%
103% +0.48% 101%
High Density Polyethylene ASTM-D1248
HDPE
Polyimide Resin + Graphite +0.02%
Commercial
VESPEL-21
1Pp
Polypropylene ASTM-D4101- Unfilled 100% +0.36% 96% +0.03%
lPolytetrafluoroethylene 98% 0.42% 95% 0.00%
ASTM-D1457
TEFLON TFE
85%
Polyurethane Commercial +0.73% 67% +2.63%
102% +0.38%
Polyvinyl Chloride 102% 0.00%
ASTM-D1784- Rigid
I pvc +1.29%
99%
97% -2.47%
ASTM-D2287- Nonrigid
c= COMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resutted in no significant degradation of the materiml physical properties; tensile did not drop below 95% and weight
change was o/+l%.
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS: 24 hour exposure resulted in some degradation of the material physical
properties; tensile did not drop bebw 90% and weight change was -0/+2%.
1L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR: 24 hour exposure resulted in significant degradation in one of the material
physical properties; tensile dropped to 85% or weight change was -0/+3%.
I= INCOMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resuked in significant degradation in one or more of the materii physical properties; tensib dropped to 85% or less,
and weight changed by greater than or equal to -0/+3%.
55
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
56
TABLE 25. AQUEOUS PRE-CLEANER APPLICATION GUIDE
DOC: Y2A57
I TURCO 3878 LF-NC
BRULIN 815GD DELTA-OMEGA DOT-111/113
CHARACTERISTIC SIMPLE GREEN
1 TURCO Products, Inc.
The Brulin Corporation DELTA-OMEGA Technologies SUNSHINE MAKERS, Inc.
1. Manufacturer
2920 Dr. Andrews J. Brown Ave 7300 Bolsa Ave P.O. Box 81518
2. Address& 15922 Pacific Coast Highway
Layayette, LA 70598
P.O. Box 270 Westminister, CA 92684
Telephone Number Huntington Harbor, CA 92649
Indianapolis, IN 46206 714-890-3600 318-237-5091 800-2284709
800-776-71 49
/I= Yes Yes
3. Contains Hydrocarbons Yes Yes
11 Concentrated Liquid Concentrated Liquid
4. Physical Form Concentrated Liquid Concentrated Liquid
I
I
I 5. 12.0 9.0 9.5
8.5
pH of Concentrate
1 6. I I I I
Color Transparent Blue Transparent Stfaw-Color Clear Transparent Green
Mild Odor Mild Odor Odorless Strong SassafrasOdor
7. Odor
Yes Yes
8. Biodegradable Yes Yes
1 :10 1 :5
8. Maximum Concentration 1:lO 1:48
14OoF - 18OoF 14OoF- 180掳F
9. Temperature Range 18OoF Maximum 1 2OoF Maximum
Yes
10. Hand Scrub Application Yes Yes Yes
Usable At Room Temperature Usable At Room Temperature
Test Against Target Soils Test Against Target Soils
1 1. Batch Tank Application Yes Yes
Best At Maximum Temperature Best At Maximum Temperature
Yes Yes
12. Ultrasonic Application Yes Yes
-
~~~
Limited - Product Developes Limited - Product Developes
Yes - Product Contains Limited - Product Developes
13. Pumped'Spray
Medium To High Foam Anti-Foaming Agents
Application Medium To High Foam Medium To High Foam
Refer To MSDS; Product
Refer To MSDS
14. Special Safety Precautions Refer To MSDS Refer To MSDS; Product
Contains Evironmentally Contains 2-Butoxyethanol A
Hazardous Tripolyphosphates Glycol Ether Suspected Of
And Human Toxic Hazard Causing Adverse Reproductive
Glycol Ethers Effects In Males & Females
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFI' BLANK
58
TABLE 26. PRE-CLEANER METALLIC MATERIAL COMPATIBILITY
DOC:Y2A57
BRULIN 815GD TURCO3878 LF-NC DELTA-OMEGA SIMPLE GREEN
1:5 Concentration DOT-1111113 1: 8Concentration
METAL SPECIFICATION 1:lO Concentration 4
TESTED 150掳F 14OoF 1:10 Concentration 1O 掳
OF
14OoF
I
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5052-0 WW-T-70014 C C C
I 1
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5456 ASTM B209, HT116 C C
ALUMINUM, Alloy 6061-T6 QQ-A-2OO/8F C NT C C
1
ALLOY STEEL MIL-SI 62 16K C C C
Alloy HY-100
1
1
MIL-S23008D C NT
1 1
ALLOY STEEL ASTM A336 CL F-22 C NT
Alloy MlL-F22606B
ALLOY STEEL, Alloy 4130 MIL-F-22606B C NT C NT
BRAZING MATERIAL, BCUP-5 Qa-B-654 I
R 1 NT
CDA922
BRONZE R R R NT
MIL-S22698
CARBON STEEL, C NT 1 1
ABS Grade EH36
COPPER, Alloy C12200-H80 MlL-T-241078 R C R
R
MIL-T-1642OK R
C C C
COPPER-NICKEL
R NT R
R
Alloy C715-70130 MIL-C-15726F
ASTM 8167 CW C NT C C
. INCONEL, Alloy NO6600
ASTM 8167 HF C C C C
C = COMPATIBLE
I = INCOMPATIBLE
N T = NOT TESTED
R = REVIEW COMPATIBILITY TEST RESULTS FOR APPLICABILITY - Testing Did Not Result In A Significant Weight Loss, But The Material Surface Was Discolored
59
LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
60
PRE-CLEANER METALLIC MATERIAL COMPATIBILITY (CONT鈥橠)
TABLE 26.
DOC: Y2A57
~~ ~~
BRULIN 815GD TURCO 3878 LF-NC DELTA-OMEGA SIMPLE GREEN
SPECIFICATION 1:lO Concentration 1:5 Concentration
METAL DOT-1111113 1:48 Concentration
150掳F
TESTED 14OoF 1:lO Concentration
14OoF
I
ASTM B446 CR
INCONEL, Alloy NO6625 C NT C C
ASTM B171 R
NAVAL BRASS, Alloy 464 R
NT R
R
ASTM 6148
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE C R
C
Alloy C95800
~
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTM B150 NT NT NT NT
Alloy C63000-HR50
QQ-C-465A C NT C R
NICKEL-ALUMIUM-BRONZE
Alloy C64200-HR50
I
MIL-P-1368C NT NT NT NT
NICKEL-COPPER
I
QQ-N-281 CL-A C NT C C
R
QQ-N-286 Cold-Aged C C C
M1L-P-24691I3 C C C C
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 304
QQ-S763 Cold C NT C C
I I
I
~
STAINLESS STEEL,-Alloy 316 QQ-S763 Cold C NT C C
-
I I
ASTMB337 C
TITANIUM, Pure C C
I
I I
TITANIUM, Ti-6AI-4V ASTMB265GR5 NT NT NT
NT
C = COMPATIBLE
I = INCOMPATIBLE
N T = NOT TESTED
R = REVIEW COMPATIBILITY TEST RESULTS FOR APPLICABILITY - Testing Did Not Result In A Significant Weight Loss, But The Material Surface Was Discolored
61
TABLE 27. BRULIN 815GD METALLIC CORROSION RESULTS
24 Hour Total Immersion Testing At 1:lO Concentration & 150掳F
c:Y2A57
SPECIFICAT1ON
METAL PERCENT APPEARANCE
TESTED WEIGHT LOSS
None No Change
WW-T-70014
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5052-0
None No Change
ASTM 8209, HT116
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5456
ALUMINUM, Alloy 6061-T6 QQ-A-20018F None No Change
None No Change
MIL-S16216K
ALLOY STEEL
Alloy HY-100
MIL-S-23008D None No Change
ASTM A336 CL F-22 None No Change
ALLOY STEEL
Alloy MIL-F-22606B
MIL-F-22606B None No Change
ALLOY STEEL, Alloy 4130
oQB-654 0.10% Tarnished
BRAZING MATERIAL, BCUP-5
BRONZE CDA922 None Lightly Tarnished
CARBON STEEL, MILS22698 None No Change
ABS Grade EH36 ~
COPPER, Alloy C12200-H80 MIL-T-241078 None Slightly Discolored
MIL-T-16420K None No Change
COPPER-NICKEL
MIL-C-15726F None Severely Tarnished
Alloy C715-70/30
ASTM B167 CW None No Change
INCONEL, Alloy NO6600
None No Change
ASTM B167 HF
None No Change
ASTM 8446 CR
INCONEL, Alloy NO6625
NAVAL BRASS, Alloy464 ASTM B171 None Severely Tarnished
None No Change
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTM B148
Alloy C95800
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTM B150
Alloy C63000-HR50
NICKEL-ALUMIUM-BRONZE QQ-C-465A None No Change
Alloy C64200-HR50
MIL-P-1368C NT NT
NICKEL-COPPER
None No Change
QQ-N-281 CL-A
I I
QQ-N-286 Cold-Aged None No Change
I I
MIL-P-24691/3 None No Change
I I
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 304
QQ-S-763Cold None No Change
I I
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 316 QQ-S-763Cold None NoChange
~~
TITANIUM. Pure ASTM 8337 None No Change
TITANIUM, Ti-6AI-4V ASTM 8265 GR5 NT NT
62
TABLE 28. TURCO 3878 LF-NC METALLIC CORROSION RESULTS
24 Hour Total Immersion Testing At 1:5 Concentration 8 14OoF
ALLOY STEEL
Alloy HY-100
BRAZING MATERIAL, BCUP-5 Severely Tarnished
~~
I I
BRONZE -0.02% Tarnished
I
I MIL-S-22698 NT
CARBON STEEL, ,
NT
ABS Grade EH36
I None No Change
COPPER, Alloy C12200-H80 MIL-T-24107B
-0.01 % Tarnished
COPPER-NICKEL
NT NT
NT NT
ASTM 8167 CW
IASTMB167HF
INCONEL, Alloy NO6600
None No Change
I ASTM 8446 CR NT NT
INCONEL, Alloy NO6625
NT NT
NAVAL BRASS, Alloy 464 ASTM B171
Severely Tarnished
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTM B148
Alloy C95800
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTM B150
AIIoY C63000-HR50
QQ-C-465A NT NT
NICKEL-ALUMIUM-BRONZE
Alloy C64200-HR50
NT NT
MIL-P-1368C
~~
NICKEL-COPPER
NT NT
Qa-N-281 CL-A
-0.02% Tarnished
QQ-N-286 Cold-Aged
None No Change
MIL-P-2469113
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 304
QQ-S-763 Cold NT NT
I I I
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 316 QQ-S-763Cold NT NT
I I I
TITANIUM, Pure ASTM 8337 NT NT
I I I
TITANIUM. Ti-6AI-4V ASTMB265GR5 NT NT
63
METAL SPECIFICATION PERCENT APPEARANCE
TESTED WEIGHT LOSS
WW-T-70014 None No Change
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5052-0
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5456 ASTM B209, HT116 None No Change
QQ-A-20018F None No Change
ALUMINUM, Alloy 6061-T6
MIL-S16216K None No Change
ALLOY STEEL
Alloy HY-100
MIL-S-23008D Black Residue
-0.002%
Black Residue
ASTM A336 CL F-22 +0.002%
ALLOY STEEL
Alloy MIL-F-22606B
MIL-F-226068 None No Change
ALLOY STEEL, Alloy 4130
Discolored
QQ-B-654
BRAZING MATERIAL, BCUP-5 -1 1.000%
Lightly Tarnished
CDA922 +0.060%
BRONZE
Black Residue
CARBON STEEL, MIL-S22698
ABS Grade EH36
I Liohtlv Discolored
COPPER, Alloy C12200-H80 MIL-T-241078 None
I No Change
MIL-T-16420K None
COPPER-NICKEL
Severely Tarnished
MIL-C-15726F
AIIov C715-70130
No Change
ASTM 8167 CW
INCONEL, Alloy NO6600
I No Change
ASTMB167HF None
1 I I I
INCONEL, Alloy NO6625 ASTMB446CR None No Change
Severely Tarnished
NAVAL BRASS, Alloy 464 ASTM B171 None
No Change
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTM B148 None
Alloy C95800
NT
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE ASTM B150 NT
Alloy C63000-HR50
NICKEL-ALUMIUM-BRONZE QQ-C-465A None No Change
Alloy C64200-HR50
MIL-P-1368C NT
NT
W-N-281 CL-A None No Change
QQ-N-286 Cold-Aged None No Change
None
MlL-P-24691/3 No Change
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 304
QQ-S763 Cold None No Change
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 316 QQ-S-763 Cold None No Change
TITANIUM, Pure ASTM 8337 None No Change
TITANIUM, Ti-6AI-4V ASTM B265 GR5 NT NT
.
64
TABLE 30. SIMPLE GREEN METALLIC CORROSION RESULTS
24 Hour Total Immersion Testing At 1:48 Concentration 8 100掳F
DOC: Y2A57
SPECIFICATION PERCENT APPEARANCE
METAL
TESTED WEIGHT LOSS
WW-T-70014 None No Change
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5052-0
ASTM 8209, HT116 -0.01% Etched
ALUMINUM, Alloy 5456
QQ-A-20018F None No Change
ALUMINUM, Alloy 6061-T6
MIL-S16216K -0.01 % Visibly Corroded
ALLOY STEEL
Alloy HY-100
I
MIL-S-23008D None Slightly Corroded
I Severely Corroded
ASTM A336 CL F-22 None
ALLOY STEEL
Alloy MIL-F-22606B
I I I
ALLOY STEEL, Alloy 4130 MIL-F-22606B NT NT
NT NT
BRAZING MATERIAL, BCUP-5 QQ-E654
CDA922 NT NT
BRONZE
None Visibly Corroded
CARBON STEEL, MIL-S-22698
ABS Grade EH36
- None Slightly Discolored
MIL-T-241078
COPPER, Alloy C12200-H80
MIL-T-16420K None No Change
I I
COPPER-NICKEL
MIL-C-15726F None Severely Tarnished
Alloy C715-70130
ASTM 8167 CW None No Change
INCONEL, Alloy NO6600
ASTM 8167 HF None No Change
ASTM 8446 CR None No Change
INCONEL. Alloy NO6625
I I I
NAVAL BRASS, Alloy 464 ASTMB171 -0.01% Tarnished
ASTM 8148 -0.01% Tarnished
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE
Alloy C95800
ASTM B150 NT NT
NICKEL-ALUMINUM-BRONZE
Alloy C63000-HR50
QQ-C-465A None Tarnished
NICKEL-ALUMIUM-BRONZE
Alloy C64200-HR50
MIL-P-1368C NT NT
NICKEL-COPPER
None No Change
QQ-N-281 CL-A
I I I
QQ-N-286Cold-Aged None No Change
I I
MIL-P-2469113 None NoChange
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 304
QQ-S763 Cold None No Change
STAINLESS STEEL, Alloy 316 -763 Cold None No Change
TITANIUM, Pure ASTM 8337 None No Change
TITANIUM, Ti-6AI-4V ASTM B265 GR5 NT NT
65
TABLE 31. PRE-CLEANER RUBBER MATERIAL COMPATIBILITY
DOC: Y2A57
SPEC1FICATION TESTED BRULIN TURCO DELTA-
Chemical Name SIMPLE
815GD 3878LFNC OMEGA
VENDOR NAME GREEN
1:lo-15OoF 1:5-14OoF DOT1111113 1:48-1OO0F
1:lO-140掳F
MIL-P-551 C
O NT NT
MIL-P-5516C- Class A
Butadiene-Nitrile
MIL-P-5516C- Class B
BUNA-N
MIL-P-25732C 12L
I
MIL-P-83461B C C NT
I I
MIL-S-2 1923 12L I
Butadiene-Styrene
BUNA-S
I
I
MIL-S-6855 C 1L
Chloroprene
NEOPRENE
I
NT NT
I
Chlorosulfonate MIL-R-81828- Amend 1
Polyethylene
HYPALON-40
I
MIL-G-22050C- 65 Durometer C C 1L
MIL-G-22050C- 80 Durometer C C C 12L
I C C 12L
NAS-1613- 70 Durometer
Ethylene Propylene
I I I I
EP NAS-1613-88Durometer C NT NT NT
C C C NT
MIL-R-83285- 60 Durometer
I
NT NT
I
MIL-R-83285- 80 Durometer
NT NT NT NT
Polychlorotrifluorothylene Commercial
KEL-F
NT NT NT NT
Polysulfide Commercial
THIOKOL FA
Polyether Urethane Commercial
ADRIPRENE
Vinylidene Fluoride + I
12L
MIL-R-83248B- 75 Durometer C 1L
Hexafluoroproplyene
C C C 12L
MIL-R-83248B- 90 Durometer
VITON
Vinyl-Methyl-Pol
ysioxane NT NT NT NT
Commercial
SILICONE
r= NOT TESTED
C= COMPATIBLE.
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS.
1 L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR.
I= INCOMPATIBLE.
66
TABLE 32. BRULIN 815GD RUBBER COMPATIBILITY RESULTS
SPECIFICATION TESTED DUROMTR TENSILE UL ELONG VOLUME
Chemical Name
Y
O
HARDNESS %
VENDOR NAME %
ORIGINAL
CHANGE ORIGINAL CHANGE
MIL-P-5510C 83% 106% +2.57%
0
I I I
~~
111%
MIL-P-5516C- Class A -2 61% +2.670/0
Butadiene-Nitrile
MIL-P-5516C- Class B 84% 117% +6.30%
BUNA-N
117% +6.30%
MIL-P-25732C
MIL-P-83461B 114% 106% +2.15%
I I I
MIL-S-21923 84% 100% +2.16%
Butadiene-Styrene
BUNA-S -5
100%
MIL-S-6855 90% +3.43%
Chloroprene -5
NEOPRENE
MIL-R-81828- Amend 1 -10 +5.73%
55% 107%
Chlorosulfonate
Polyethylene
HYPALON-40
MIL-G-22050C - 65 Durometer -5 113% 104% +1.10%
MIL-G-22050C- 80 Durometer 161% 105% +0.20%
0
I I
150% +1.63%
-10
NAS-1613- 70 Durometer 113%
Ethylene Propylene
EP +1.os%
146%
NAS-1613- 88 Durometer 115%
-5
I I I
MIL-R-83285-60 Durometer 90%
0
MIL-R-83285- 80 Durometer -10 102%
I I I
Polychlorotrifluorothylene Commercial
I I
NT NT
KEL-F
Commercial NT NT
Polysulfide
THIOKOL FA
Commercial 55%
Polyether Urethane -5
ADRIPRENE
Vinylidene Fluoride + MIL-R-83248B- 75 Durometer +5 105%
Hexafluoroproplyene
MIL-R-83248B- 90 Durometer -5 99%
VITON
Vinyl-Methyl-Polysioxane Commercial NT NT
SILICONE
c= COMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in no significant degradation of the rnateriil physical properties; tensile and elongation did not drop below
85%. hardness was 6 uriis. and volume change was 0/+10%.
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS: 24 hour exposure resulted in some degradation of the material physical
properties; tensile and ebngatim did not dmp bebw 75%. hardness was + units. and volume change was -5!+10%.
7
1L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR: 24 hour eqmsure resuked in significant degradation in one of the material
to 6 % or hardness was + units. or volume change was -10/+15%.
physical properties; tensile and ebngation drop& 9
0.
I= INCOMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in significant degradation in one or more of the materii physical properties; tensile and elongation dropped
to BOSL or less. hardness changed by greater than or equal + units. and volume changed by greater than or equal to -10/+15%.
9
67
I UHGW 3618 Lk-NG HUBBtH O M P A I lt31LI I Y HESULTS
I A B L t 33.
24 Hour Total Immersion In 1:5 Concentration At 14OoF
E:Y2A57
SPECIFICATION TESTED
Chemical Name DUROMTR TENSILE UL ELONG VOLUME
VENDOR NAME HARDNESS Y
O %
YO
ORIGINAL ORIGINAL
CHANGE CHANGE
MIL-P-5510C NT NT NT +3.30%
I I I
MIL-P-5516C - Class A -7 630/0 68%
Butadiene-Nitrile
MIL-P-5516C- Class B -10 48% 42% +4.63%
BUNA-N
MIL-P-25732C -10 48% 42% +4.63%
MIL-P-83461B 60% 12% +5.23%
0
MIL-S-21923
Butadiene-Styrene -10 61% 57yo +3.770/0
BUNA-S
Chloroprene MIL-S-6855 -10 65% 54% +5.37%
NEOPRENE
Chlorosulfonate MIL-R-81828- Amend 1 NT NT NT NT
Polyethylene
HYPALON-40
1,
MIL-G-22050C- 65 Durometer -5 64% NT
59%
MIL-G-22050C- 80 Durometer +I .8O%
193% 73%
0
NAS-1613- 70 Durometer 106% 83% +O .6O%
0
Ethylene Propylene
EP NAS-1613- 88 Durometer NT NT NT NT
MIL-R-83285- 60 Durometer 104% 75%
0
MIL-R-83285- 80 Durometer NT NT NT +1.13%
Commercial
Polychlorotrifluorothylene NT NT NT NT
KEL-F
Polysulfide Commercial NT NT NT NT
THIOKOL FA
Commercial
Polyether Urethane NT NT NT +9.23%
ADRIPRENE
Vinylidene Fluoride + MIL-R-832488- 75 Durometer -5 82% 60% +0.87%
I I I I
Hexafluoroproplyene
MIL-R-83248B-90 Durometer 94% 103% +1.00%
-5
VlTON
I I I
Viny I-Methyl-Polysioxane Commercial NT NT NT NT
SILICONE
c= COMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in no significant degradation of the materii physical proprties; tensile and elongation did not drop below
hardness was + units, and volume change was -ol+lWa
5
8'
5Y
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS: 24 hour exposure resuked in some degradation of the material physical
hardness was + units, and volume change was -Y+lO%.
properties; tensile and ebngation did not drop bebw 7'
5Y 7
1L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR: 24 hour exposure resulted in signflicant degradation in one of the material
physical properties; tensile and elongation dropped to SO%, or hardness was +9 units. or volume change was -10/+15%.
I= INCOMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in significant degradation in one or rwre of the material physical properties; tensile and elongation dropped
to 60% or lass. hardness changed by greater than or equal 29 units. and volume changed by greater than or equal to -10/+15%.
68
TABLE 34. DOT-111/113 RUBBER COMPATIBILITY RESULTS
24 Hour Total Immersion In 1:lO Concentration At 14OoF
DOC: Y2A57
Chemical Name SPECIFICATION TESTED DUROMTR TENSILE UL ELONG VOLUME
HARDNESS Y
O
VENDOR NAME % %
CHANGE ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CHANGE
NT NT +0.90%
MIL-P-551OC -5
MIL-P-5516C- Class A 66% 120% +2.00%
-5
Butadiene-Nitrile
MlL-P-5516C- Class B NT NT +2.00%
0
BUNA-N
MIL-P-25732C NT NT +2.00%
0
MIL-P-83461B 98% 56% +2.33%
0
MIL-S21923 -10 90% +1.OO%
Butadiene-Styrene 87%
'
I
BUNAS
I I
MIL-S-6855 -10 84% 95% +4.00%
Chloroprene
NEOPRENE I
I
NT
Chlorosulfonate MIL-R-81828- Amend 1 -10
Polyethylene
HYPALON-40 NT NT
MIL-G-22050C- 65 Durometer 103%
-5
MIL-G-22050C - 80 Durometer +o.5
193% 91% 7%
0
130% 194% +1.33%
NAS-1613- 70 Durometer 5
Ethylene Propylene
EP NT
NAS-1613- 88 Durometer NT NT +1 .OO%
I I I I I
MlL-R-83285- 60 Durometer 95% 102% +1.00%
-5
MIL-R-83285- 80 Durometer -10 102% NT +0.33%
Polychlorotrifluorothylene Commercial NT NT NT NT
I I I I
KEL-F
Polysulfide Commercial NT NT NT NT
THIOKOL FA
NT +4.00%
55%
Polyether Urethane Commercial -5
ADRIPRENE
Vinylidene Fluoride + 99% 75% +1.OO%
0
MlL-R-832488- 75 Durometer
Hexafluoroproplyene
127% 121% +1.OO%
-5
MlL-R-83248B- 90 Durometer
VITON
Vinyl-Methyl-Polysioxane Commercial NT NT NT NT
SILICONE
c= COMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resuked in no significant degradation of the material physical properties; tensile and elongation dd not drop below
85%. hardness was 25 unils. and volume change was 4/+10%.
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS: 24 hour exposure resuked in some degradation of the material physical
properties; tensile and elongation did not drop bebw 75%. hardness was 27 units. and volume change was -5/+100/.
1L = LIMIT EXPOSURE T o A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR: 24 hour exposure resuked in signikant degradation in one of the material
physical properties; tensile and ebngatim dropped to 6OY' or hardness was + unls. or volume change was -10/+15%.
9
1= INCOMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resuked in significant degradation in one or "re of the material physical properties; tensile and elongation dropped
+e
to 60% or less. hardness changed by greater than or equal units, and vdume changed by greater than or equal to -10/+15%.
69
TABLE 35. SIMPLE GREEN RUBBER COMPATIBILITY RESULTS
24 Hour Total Immersion In 1:48 Concentration At 1OO掳F
DOC: Y2A57
Butadiene-Nitrile
Ethylene Propylene
c= COMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in no significant degradation of the m a t e d physical properties; tensile and elongation did not drop below
65% hardness was + units, and volume change was -0/+10%.
5
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS: 24 hour exposure resulted in some degradation of the material physical
properties; tensile and ebngation did not drop bebw 75%, hardness was 57 units, and volume change was -5/+lW.
1L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR: 24 hour exposure resulted in significant degradation in one of the material
physical properties; tensile and ebngation dropped to 6wd.or hardness was + units. or volume change was -10/+15%.
9
I= INCOMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in significant degradation in one or more of the material physical properties; tensile and elongation dropped
hardness changed by greater than or equal + units. and vdume changed by greater than or equal to -10/+15%.
9
to 6 0 % 1-s.
~
70
TABLE 36. PRE-CLEANER PLASTIC MATERIAL COMPATIBILITY
DOC: Y2A57
BRULIN DELTA- SIMPLE
SPECIFICATION TESTED TURCO
Chemical Name
3878LFNC OMEGA GREEN
8 15GD
VENDOR NAME
DOT1111113 1:48-100掳F
1:lo-150掳F 15-140掳F
1:lo-140掳F
I
C C
ASTM-D2133 NT
Acetal Resin
DELRIN
Commercial NT
Acrylonitrile Butadiene
Styrene
ABS
Commercial - Unfilled C
Epoxy Resin
EPOXY
I
ASTM-D2116
Fluoethyl Propylene
TEFLON FEP
Commercial - 9650 NT
lonomer Resin
I I
SURLYN
- 9720 NT NT NT NT
Commercial
NT
Methyl-Methacrylate MIL-P-5425D- Finish A
LUCITE 8 PLEXIGLAS
NT
ASTM-D4066- Nylon 6,6
Polyamide Resin
NYLON
. NT
Polycarbonate Resin Commercial
LEXAN
I
ASTM-D1248
High Density Polyethylene
HDPE lL
Polyimide Resin + Graphite Commercial NT
VESPEL-21
1L
Polypropylene ASTM-D4101- Unfilled
PP
ASTM-D1457 NT
Polytetrafluoroethy
lene
TEFLON TFE
Polyurethane Commercial
NA I I
I
Polyvinyl Chloride ASTM-D1784- Rigid I C NT C I C
I
I
I
PVC I
I I
1 ASTM-D2287-Nonrigid NT NT
NT= NOT TESTED
C= COMPATIBLE.
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS.
1L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR.
I= INCOMPATIBLE.
71
TABLE 37. PLASTIC COMPATIBILITY RESULTS FOR:
BRULIN 815GD & TURCO 3878 LF-NC
24 Hour Total Immersion In: BRULlNAt 1:lO And 150掳F & TURKOAt 1:5 And 14OoF
DOC: Y2A57
I I
I I I
BRULIN TURKO
SPECIFICATION BRULIN
Chemical Name TURKO
TENSILE WEIGHT TENSILE
VENDOR NAME TESTED WEIGHT
Yo ORIGINAL % CHANGE % ORIGINAL % CHANGE
93%
Acetal Resin ASTM-D2133 +0.45%
DELRIN
I I 100%
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Commercial NT
Styrene
NT NT
ABS
Commercial - Unfilled 75% NT
Epoxy Resin NT
EPOXY
+o.02?/0 43%
Fluoethyl Propylene ASTM-D2116 44% NT
TEFLON FEP
I
NT NT
Commercial - 9650 NT NT
lonomer Resin
SURLYN
+o.77%
NT
Commercial -9720 NT +0.30%
~
NT
MethyI-Methacrylate MIL-P-5425D- Finish A NT +0.78% NT
LUCITE 8 PLEXIGLAS
ASTM-D4066- Nylon 6,6 NT +2.40% NT
Polyamide Resin +2.27%
I I
NYLON
NT
Commercial NT NT
Polycarbonate Resin
LEXAN
~~
ASTM-D1248 86% NT +0.17%
0.00%
High Density Polyethylene
HDPE
Polyimide Resin + Graphite NT
Commercial NT
VESPEL-21
Polypropylene ASTM-D4101- Unfilled 88% 85% +O.13%
0.00%
PP
Polytetrafluoroethylene ASTM-D1457 NT +0.02% NT NT
TEFLON TFE
+6.30%
Polyurethane Commercial NT +3.9 1% NT
NA
+o. 18%
Polyvinyl Chloride ASTM-D1784- Rigid 96% 93% +0.23%
PVC
ASTM-D2287- Nonrigid NT -1.27% NT +3.63%
c= COMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resuked in no significant degradation of the material physical properties; tensile did not drop below 95%and weight
change was 0/+19h
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS: of the materii physical
24 hour exposure resuked in some degradation
90% and might change was -W+2%.
properties; tensile dd not drop be&
i
1L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR: 24 hour exposure resuked in significant degradation in one of the materid
physical properties; tensile dropped to 85% or weight change was -0/+3%.
I= INCOMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in significant degradation in one o more of the materii physical properties; tensile dropped to 85% or IBSS.
r
and weight changed by grbater than or equal to -W+3%.
72
TABLE 38. PLASTIC COMPATIBILITY RESULTS FOR:
DOT-111/113 & SIMPLE GREEN
24 Hour Total Immersion In: DOT-111/113 At 1:10 And 150掳F 8 SIMPLE GREEN At 1:48 And 100掳F
DOC: Y2457
SPECIFICATION
Chemical Name
VENDOR NAME
I I
MethyI-Methacrylate MIL-P-5425D- Finish A
NT
LUCITE 8 PLEXIGLAS
ASTM-D4066- Nylon 6.6 NT +2.30% NT +1.17%
Polyamide Resin
NYLON
Commercial NT NT
Polycarbonate Resin +0.30% +0.23%
I I
LEXAN
I
ASTM-D1248 84% 4.04% NT
High Density Polyethylene +0.04%
HDPE
Polyimide Resin + Graphite Commercial NT NT NT NT
VESPEL-21
Polypropylene ASTM-D4101- Unfilled 98% 94% +0.04%
4.05%
PP
Polytetrafluoroethylene ASTM-D 1457 91% -0.08% 104% NT
,
TEFLON TFE
Commercial NT +2.50% NT +0.03%
Polyurethane
NA
+o. 13%
Polyvinyl Chloride ASTM-D1784- Rigid 98% 96% +0.04%
. .-
PVC I I
I I
ASTM-D2287- Nonrigid NT +1.27% NT +0.17%
c= COMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resulted in no significant degradation of the material physical properties; tensile did not drop below 95% and weight
change was-o1+1?4
12L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF 12 HOURS: 24 hour exposure resulted in some degradation of the material physical
90% and weight change was -O/+PA
properties; tensile dd not drop be&
i
1L = LIMIT EXPOSURE TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE HOUR: 24 hour exposure resuked in significant degradation in one of the material
physical properties; tensile dropped to 85% or weight change was -0/+3v!!
I= INCOMPATIBLE: 24 hour exposure resuked in significant degradation in one or more of the material physical properties; tensile dropped to 85% or less.
and weight changed by greater than or equal to -01+3%.
73
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
74
TABLE 39. LIST OF OILS & GREASES TESTED FOR FLUORESCENCE UNDER UV LIGHT
DOC: Y2A57
MATERIAL VENDOMRADE NAME SPECIFICATION FLUOROSCENCE UNDER
ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT
Hvdrocarbon Lubricating Oil. Steam Turbine MS-2190-TEP MIL-L-17331 none
I
I
I MS2 110-TH MIL-L-17672 none
Hydrocarbon Lubricating Oil, Hydraulic
MS-9250
Hydrocarbon Lubricating Oil, Diesel MIL-L-9000 none
Rockwell International Co.
Hydrocarbon Waterproof Grease, Plug Valve MIL-G-6032 none
Hydrocarbon Waterproof Grease, Sliding Surface Accumteric Co. MIL-G-24139 none
Hydrocarbon Waterproof Grease, Sliding Surface TE RMALENE A-A-50433 none
Hydrocarbon Waterproof Grease, Sliding Surface Premier Co. BLUE GREASE none none
General Grease, Bean'ng Royal Lubricants Co. ROYCO MIL-G-24508 none
Flux, Brazing Lucas-Mihaupt HANDY FLUX 0-F-499 none
I I I
Leak Detector Snoop Leak Detector MIL-L-25567 none
Halocrabon Products 4.2s
Fluorinated Oil DOD-L-24574 none
Hooker Chemical S30 & T-80
Fluorinated Oil none none
Fluorinated Oil DuPont KRYTOX143AA, 143AB & 143AC DOD-L-24574 none
Fluorinated Grease Halocarbon Products 25-58 & X90-10M MIL-G-47219 none
Fluorinated Grease Hooker Chemical GR-290 & GR-362 none none
DuPont KRYTOX240AC
Fluorinated Grease MIL-G-27617 none
Dow Coming Molykote 2
Molykote Powder MIL-M-7866 none
I I I
Silicone Oil Dow Coming DC-200 (30kpi) MIL-S-8660 none
I I I
~
Silicone Grease Dow Coming DC-4 & DC-33 MIL-S8660 none
75
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
76
TABLE 40. SOLVENT PROPERTIES COMPARISON CHART
DOC: Y2A57
I
I
1 I EVAPORATION
COMMON SPECIFICATION BOILING NON-VOLATILE FIRE REACTION TOXICITY
SOLVENT
I I !YNT RATE TLV
RESIDUE HAZARD WITH
(carbon tetra- mglliter OXYGEN PPm
NAME
chloride = 100)
14OoF
P-D-680Type I
1 350 4 flash 500
Dry Cleaning 100.0
Fluid point
I
0-T-236 Grade A 250-254 no 25 (鈥?
PERK, PCE, Dry 40.0 none(4)
Cleaning Fluid 27
570F
0-E-760 Type 1, 171-176 37 10.0 flash 1000
Ethyl Alcohol
Grade A point
56OF
lT-1-735Grade A 179-181 34 flash 400
Isopropyl Alcohol 20.0@)
Isopropanol
point
770掳F(4)
0-T-634Type 1 lea-190 69 ignition
TCE 29.0(2) 50
Trichloroethylene
temperature
TCA, 998掳F(4)
0-T-620Type 1 162-190
Methyl 139 ignition 350
13.0(2)
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Mil-T-81533 temperature
Chloroform
(OW
ASTM D4701 102-106
Methylene 147 26.0 not 500
Dichloromethane
Chloride specified
Mil-C-81302, 118 280 no
FREON-113, 1.6 none 1000
Tnchlorotrifluoroethane
CFC-113 Type 1
I flammable
Allied Signal
HCFC-141b 316 10.0 limits in air 500
Ethane, 1,l-Dicloro-
6.4-15.1%
1-Fluor0
(鈥橧Perchloroethylene is classified as a suspected human carcinogen.
(2)Special NASA & Commercial Grades having lower Non-Volatile Residue are available.
OSHA has recommended reducing the Methylene Chloride exposure limit from 500 ppm to 25 ppm based on the solvent being a suspected human carcinogen
(3)
The addition of organic inhibitors may increase the fire hazard.
(4)
77
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
78
~~~ ~
Perchloroethylene is classified as a suspected human carcinogen.
(鈥?)
Trichloroethylene is not currently classified as a suspected human carcinogen.
(3) OSHA has recommended reducing the Methylene Chloride exposure limit from 500 ppm to 25 ppm based on the solvent being a suspected human carcinogen.
(4) Recommended by AIHA
79
LEFT BLANK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
80
TABLE 41. NOC SOLVENT EXTRACTION WITH CFC-113
DOC: Y2A57
~ ~~
NOC SOIL CONCENTRATION: mg/L(鈥?)
1 mgtL 5 mglL 25 mg/L
SOIL
Average Standard Deviation Average Standard Deviation Average Standard Deviation
Isopropyl Alcohol NT NT 0.5 ppm NT NT
1. 0.2 ppm
(TT-1-735)
2. Non-Ionic Detergent NT NT 1.4 ppm 0.2 ppm
(MIL-D-16791)
3. Hydrocarbon Oil 4.8 ppm 0.2 ppm 10.8 ppm 0.2 ppm 0.0 ppm
37.0 ppm
(MS2190TEP)
4. Hydrocarbon Oil 4.0 ppm 0.2 ppm 9.1 ppm 0.1 ppm 21.3 ppm 0.3 ppm
(MS21IOTH)
5. Hydrocarbon Grease 4.9 ppm 0.1 ppm 10.7 ppm 0.1 ppm 39.4 ppm 0.2 ppm
(Termalene)
6. Hydrocarbon Grease 0.0 ppm
1.6 ppm 5.1 ppm 0.1 ppm 29.7 ppm 0.3 ppm
(MIL-G-24139)
7. Silicone Oil 0.8 ppm 0.1 ppm 1.6 ppm 0.1 ppm 7.7 ppm 0.2 ppm
(DC-200)
8. Silicone Grease 0.1 ppm
0.8 ppm 0.0 ppm
0.1 ppm 1.2 ppm 4.8 ppm
(DC-4)
9. Fluorinated Oil 0.2 ppm 0.2 ppm 0.8 ppm 0.1 ppm 3.8 ppm 0.3 ppm
(Krytox 143AC)
10. Fluorinated Grease 0.0 ppm 0.0 ppm 0.2 ppm 0.1 ppm 2.6 ppm 0.2 ppm
(Krytox 240AC)
NT= NOT TESTED
(鈥業 Analyzed With HORIBA Instruments Inc, Model OCMA-220 Oil Content Analyzer Which Incorporates a Non-Dispersive Infrared (NDIR) Analyzer. Analyzer Was Standardized
With Clean CFC-113 per MIL-C81302Type 1 for 0 ppm, and 20 mg/L of MS2190TEPOil In CFC-113for 20 ppm so that 1 ppm = 1 mg/L. NOC Was Not Acidified. NOC
Standards Were Prepared By Vigorous Agitation Followed By 30 Minutes In A 25 kHz, 600 Watt Ultrasonic Tank At Room Temperature. The 1 & 5 mg/L Standards Were
Prepared From 25 mg/L Standards.
81
TABLE 42. PIPE LENGTH FOR 1FT2 INTERNAL SURFACE AREA
DOC: Y2A57
PIPE LENGTH FOR 1 F Y INTERNAL SURFACE AREA
VOLU MEIFT*
LENGTHIF?
ID
(feet) (liters)
(inches)
15.3 0.15
0.250
10.2 0.22
0.375
7.6 0.29
0.500
6.1 0.37
0.625
5.1 0.44
0.750
0.52
0.875 4.4
1.ooo 3.8 0.59
3.4 0.66
1.125
3.1 0.75
1.250
2.8 0.82
1.375
2.5 0.87
1.500
2.4 0.98
1.625
2.2 1.04
1.750
1.875 2.0 1.09
1.9 1.17
2.000
82
I
I
83
FIGURE 2. AQUEOUS OXYGEN COMPONENT
CLEANING PROCESS FLOW CHART
.
P R E W UNTIL ALL
VISIBLE SOIL REMOVED
PERFORM VISUAL INSPECTION
TO VERlFY REMOVAL OF
A I L w n L SOIL
s3 E
+-
RINSE WlTH WATER TO
REMOVE SOIL & CLEANER
PERORM SHAKE TEST
TO VERIFY CLEANXR
WAS REMOWD
I
I 1
I
I
PERFORM HYDROCARBON &
PARTICULATE INSPECTION TO
VERIFY OXYGEN CLEANLINESS
RINSE ANDVERIFY
REMOVAL OF CLEANER
PBRFORM PH ANALYSIS
OF RINSE WATER TO VERIFY
c w REMOVED
DRY & PACKAGE!
84
FIGURE 3. AQUEOUS FLUSHING RIG EXAMPLE
OPERATION
m
1. PIPE PLUSHTNG
v-1.4, s & 7 OPEN
rl V-2.6 6r9 SHUT
2. PIPB B C -
AK
V-1, S, 6 & 9 OPEN
v-2.4 6r7 m
D
cI+uMNo TAMC:
3. RINSE TO
TANK
v-2,4,5 & 7 OPEN
V-l,6 & 9 SEiUT
TANK RBcIRc:
4. C T Z A " G
V-l,4 & 6 OPfM
v-2,5,7 & 9 SHUT
8 7 Y-2
v-1
. I
v-3
V4
FLn I
v-9
Y
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
86
OCTAGON PROCESS INC.
EXECUTIVE OFFICES:
The Marketplace at Edgewater
725 River Road
Edgewater, New Jersey 0 7 0 2 0
dTAt ON Phone (201) 9 4 5 9 4 0 0
FCIX (201) 945-1203
-- _-.
-
Telex 4754324
/ d o s/
Dear Customer:
',
Octagon Process Ink. (OPI) is pleased to enclose, for your use, the
following Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS):
I
1
(PREP/REV DATE 4 / 2 7 / 9 4
OCTAGON OCC-RTU
I
Liquid Oxye;en Cleaning Compound
This MSDS takes precedence over any previous MSDS you may have for
this product.
Under the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29CFR 1910.1200 &.
~ e c [ . ) , all
manufacturers are required to supply MSDS's to customers with
the.first shipment, whenever the MSDS is updated and whenever a copy is
requested.
. Please note that in Section 8 of this MSDS, Supplier Notification
information is provided pursuant to Section 313 of Title I11 of the
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Please
further note that if you repackage or otherwise redistribute this
material, you are required to send the recipient notice containing this
SARA 313 information.
This MSDS contains information relative to safety and health for use
in establishing safe handling procedures for your employees. Please see
that this MSDS reaches those in your organization responsible for health
and safety practices and for OSHA compliance.
Employers subject to the provisions of the OSHA Hazard Communication
Standard are required to make MSDS's available to their employees and to
incorporate the information in their training programs.
Please contact our Safety and Health office if you have questions
about this MSDS or if additional copies are needed.
Very truly yours,
OCTAGON PRCGE5-S INC.
VICE PRESIDENT
HEALTH, SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
&
enclosures
(201) 313-1187
P U N T : 596 River Road Phone (201) 313-1187
Edgewater, New Jersey 0 7 0 2 0 Fax (201)'313-K37
THIS PAGE IN'IENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5-09-94 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET 00378 PAGE 1
5s-14165 OCTAGON PROCESS INC.
SECTION -1----MANUFACTURER
INFORMATION
....................................
ANUF/DIST : Octagon Process Inc. CHEMTREC.................: 800-424-9300
......
596 River Road EMERGENCY PHONE...; : 201-945-9400
Edgewater, NJ 07020 PREPAEWTION/REVISION DATE: 04/27/94
(201) 313-1187
REPARER/CONTACT: J.J. Burgard REVISION: C
!
TRADE NAME/SYNONYMSe..: OCTAGON OCC-RTU
CHEMICAL NAME/SYNONYMS: Liquid Oxygen Cleaning Compound
CHEMICAL FAMILY.... i . . : Silicated Alkaline Cleaners
FORMULA . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . : Mixture
PRODUCT CODE..........: 1001595
/
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
_-_______-______-___-----------------_--
..........................
*
*
* *
HEALTH........ 1
* *
FLAMMABILITY.. 0
REACTIVITY. .... 1
* *
* *
PROTECTION.... H
*
*
..........................
a
鈥橦IS PRODUCT CONTAINS HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS : YES
%
CHEMICAL/COMMON NAME CAS-NUMBER PEL-OSHA TLV-ACGIH
---
---
鈥檕lysilicate Anions 20-30
1344-09-8
:HIS PRODUCT CONTAINS CARCINOGENS (NTP, IARC, or 0SHA):NO
3EALTH EFFECTS (Acute And Chronic)-
3YES: Will cause redness, irritation and burns.
SKIN: May cause severe irritation and burns; in milder cases will cause
a skin.rash. Also, will cause cold and clammy skin with bluish or . -
pale color.
INHALATION: Will cause breathing difficulties. Also will cause sneezing,鈥? *
7>
coughing, irritation, burns and edema in the upper airway. ,+
INGESTION: Will cause nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. 鈥橫ay cause painful.
swallowing, profuse salivation, and burns to:the mouth, 鈥榚soph
. * !
stomach, and lower G.I. tract.
PRIMARY ROUTES OF ENTRY-
EYES/SKIN: Yes INHALATION: Yes INGESTION: Not likely
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET 00378
05-09-94
OCTAGON PROCESS INC.
CSS-14165
MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED. BY-EXPOSURE-
Pre-existing skin and respiratory conditions may be aggravated.
EMERGENCY FIRST AID PROCEDURES-
EYES: Flood with water for at least 15 minutes. ' Get immediate medical
attention.
SKIN: Flush with water for at least 15 minutes. If irritation occurs and
persists, get medical attention. If burns occur, wrap in dry, sterile
dressings and get immediate medical attention.
INHALATION: Move victim to fresh air. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen.
If breathing has stopped, administer artificial respiration (moutk
to mouth is preferred) if trained - get immediate medical
attention. 1
INGESTION: DO NOT INDUCE GOMITING. If victim is conscious, administer 4-8
02. of water $0 dilute stomach contents. Rinse mouth thoroughly.
Get immediate,lmedical attention.
- CHEMICAL DATA
SECTION 4
.........................
.............
....
BOILING POINT (F) : 240掳F SPECIFIC GRAVITY (WATER=l) : 1.05
.........
VAPOR PRESSURE (mmHg): 17mmHg PERCENT VOLATILE BY VOLUME ( % ) : 85%
Acetone =l): < 1
VAPOR DENSITY (AIR=l): 0 . 4 EVAPORATION RATE (
XBILITY IN WATER-
complete
J1
APPEARANCE AND ODOR INFORMATION-
Clear water-white liquid, odorless.
- PHYSICAL HAZARD DATA
SECTION 5
................................
FLASH POINT (Method Used): None FLAMMABLE LIMITS : Lel=N.D. UEL=N.D.
(TTC)
EXTINGUISHING MEDIA-
Water spray or fog, foam, dry chemical or C02
SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES-
Keep fire-exposed containers cool with water spray. Wear chemical resistant
clothing and NIOSH/MSHA-approved SCBA (as recommended by the NFPA).
UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS-
None known
INCOMPATIBILITY (Materials To Avoid)-
Acids
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS-
i d e s of silicone
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET 00378
15-09-94
OCTAGON PROCESS INC.
:SS-14165
~ILLHAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION- OCCUR-
l
o
:ONDITIONS TO AVOID FOR POLYMERIZATION-
lone
THE PRODUCT STABLE-
:S
res
:ONDITIONS TO AVOID FOR STABILITY-
ivoid contact with acids '\
-
SECdION 6 SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURES
/
;TEPS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE~ATERIALIS RELEASED OR SPILLED-
lecover spilled material for re-use if possible. Neutralize spill with dilute
iuriatic or acetic acid, absorb with inert material and place into proper
:ontainers for disposal. Comply with all spill notification regulations.
i l l response activities must comply with HAZWOPER (refer to 29CFR 1910.120).
JASTE DISPOSAL METHODS-
)ispose of waste in compliance with local, state and federal regulations.
zycle waste where applicable.
JENTILATION-
MECHANICAL (General): Fan
LOCAL EXHAUST: Recommended
OTHER...............: N/A
SPECIAL......: N/A
iESPIRATORY PROTECTION-
E conditions warrant, use NIOSH/MSHA-approved respiratory protection
f
(refer to 29CFR 1910.134).
?ROTECTIVE GLOVES-
Yeoprene, Rubber or PVC
3THER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT-
llways use eye protection when handling chemicals. If excessive splashing is
zxpected, use a face shield and rubber apron during handling. Provide local
smergency showers and eyewash stations.
3THER ENGINEERING CONTROLS-
Jse forced ventilation to minimize vapor concentrations in the workplace.
WORK PRACTICES-
All users should consult
'-loid eye/skin contact and breathing of vapors/mist.
. MSDS before handling this product.
e
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET 00378
05-09-94 PAGE
OCTAGON PROCESS INC.
CSS-14165
- *.-
--
HYGIENIC PRACTICES-
Wash hands and face after handling this material. Remove contaminated
clothing and flush exposed skin'areas thoroughly with water. Launder
contaminated clothing before re-use.
PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORAGE-
Store in a cool, dry place,. Store away from acids and oxidizers. Keep
containers closed when not'iin use.
MAINTENANCE PRECAUTIONS- i1
Clean all contaminated equipment before starting any repair work.
/
I
OTHER PRECAUTIONS- I
Avoid eye/skin contact and breathing of vapors.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS-
NEW JERSEY RIGHT TO KNOW INFORMATION:
7732-18-5 Water
1344-09-8 Polysilicate Anions
13755-29-8 Sodium Tetrafluoroborate
is product contains no materials which are regulated under I11
SARA
Section 313 Supplier Notification Requirements.
rtT
..
.. ,
..
|