SCIENTIFIC SERVICES S/D INC October 2004 ASTM D 3556 RESEARCH Deposition on Glassware During Mechanical Dishwashing Background1 Preliminary Soil Exp. 3-5.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 2 The Process of Experimentation
Advertisements

Objective: To learn and use other important principles of experimental design. HW: Read the rest of section 5.2 and complete pink ditto (double sided).
The ISA for Physics What you need to revise.
Randomized Complete Block and Repeated Measures (Each Subject Receives Each Treatment) Designs KNNL – Chapters 21,
Displaying data and calculations  How many trials have been performed?  Were there enough to satisfy the IB Internal Assessment criteria? FYI: IB wants.
Uncertainty & Errors in Measurement. Waterfall by M.C. Escher.
LSU-HSC School of Public Health Biostatistics 1 Statistical Core Didactic Introduction to Biostatistics Donald E. Mercante, PhD.
Analysis of Variance Outlines: Designing Engineering Experiments
Chapter 14Design and Analysis of Experiments 8E 2012 Montgomery 1.
CW 5: PRECISE Scientific Measurement Assn. 8. Every scientific measurement must include ALL the certain digits plus the first uncertain digit in the last.
SCIENCE FAIR PERMANENT SHARPIE? CATEGORY: SOLUTIONS BY NATALIE BRIGGS.
Experimental Design, Statistical Analysis CSCI 4800/6800 University of Georgia Spring 2007 Eileen Kraemer.
Cal State Northridge  320 Ainsworth Sampling Distributions and Hypothesis Testing.
L Berkley Davis Copyright 2009 MER301: Engineering Reliability Lecture 14 1 MER301: Engineering Reliability LECTURE 14: Chapter 7: Design of Engineering.
Independent t-Test CJ 526 Statistical Analysis in Criminal Justice.
8. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 8.1 Elements of a Designed Experiment
Introduction to the design (and analysis) of experiments James M. Curran Department of Statistics, University of Auckland
Chemometrics Method comparison
Scientific Evaluation: Being Objective
Chapter 4 Hypothesis Testing, Power, and Control: A Review of the Basics.
Describing Data: Displaying and Exploring Data Chapter 04 McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2014, 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. 1 Chapter 25 Categorical Explanatory Variables.
Design of Experiments Chapter 21.
An Evaluation of A Commercial Data Mining Suite Oracle Data Mining Presented by Emily Davis Supervisor: John Ebden.
How to successfully complete your science project using the…
HD 2007 Rule Diesel Fuel Sulfur Testing and Sampling Methods and Requirements US EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality November 20, 2002.
Education Research 250:205 Writing Chapter 3. Objectives Subjects Instrumentation Procedures Experimental Design Statistical Analysis  Displaying data.
Shelf-life Estimation1 FST 151 FOOD FREEZING FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 151 Shelf-life Prediction of Frozen Foods & Case Studies Lecture Notes Prof. Vinod.
Scientific Inquiry & Skills
Science Project Type your project title here Your name Mueller Park Junior High You are welcome to choose any design style for your project!
1 Chapter 3: Screening Designs 3.1 Fractional Factorial Designs 3.2 Blocking with Screening Designs.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Comparison Chapter 18.
Scientific Evaluation: Being Objective
Today: Assignment 2 misconceptions Our process True Experiments: Single-Factor Design Assignment 3 Q&A Mid-term: format, coverage.
DOX 6E Montgomery1 Unreplicated 2 k Factorial Designs These are 2 k factorial designs with one observation at each corner of the “cube” An unreplicated.
© 2014 Carl Lund, all rights reserved A First Course on Kinetics and Reaction Engineering Class 12.
Chapter 36 Quality Engineering (Part 2) EIN 3390 Manufacturing Processes Summer A, 2012.
© 2014 Carl Lund, all rights reserved A First Course on Kinetics and Reaction Engineering Class 12.
Orthogonal Linear Contrasts This is a technique for partitioning ANOVA sum of squares into individual degrees of freedom.
Lecture 16 Section 8.1 Objectives: Testing Statistical Hypotheses − Stating hypotheses statements − Type I and II errors − Conducting a hypothesis test.
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) BCT 2053 CHAPTER 5. CONTENT 5.1 Introduction to ANOVA 5.2 One-Way ANOVA 5.3 Two-Way ANOVA.
Independent t-Test CJ 526 Statistical Analysis in Criminal Justice.
Statistical Process Control04/03/961 What is Variation? Less Variation = Higher Quality.
CSIRO Insert presentation title, do not remove CSIRO from start of footer Experimental Design Why design? removal of technical variance Optimizing your.
Data Analysis.
Uncertainty & Errors in Measurement. Waterfall by M.C. Escher.
Experimentation in Computer Science (Part 2). Experimentation in Software Engineering --- Outline  Empirical Strategies  Measurement  Experiment Process.
Opener Imagine that all the birds around the school are dying. How might you investigate the problem? Write a brief description of your investigation.
Uncertainty & Errors in Measurement. Waterfall by M.C. Escher.
Type your project title here Your name Mueller Park Junior High
Chapter 9 Designing Experiments
Process Capability and Capability Index
Statistical Core Didactic
Do now: Identify the population and sample
Practical clinical chemistry
Gage R&R Estimating measurement components
Scientific Method 1.
Modification and Testing the Performance of Floor Surface Cleaning Gel
Psych 231: Research Methods in Psychology
Introduction to Experimental Design
Chapter 9 Designing Experiments
Section 1: The Methods of Science
Observation/Research Formulate a Hypothesis Experiment
Scientific Method.
Steps of the Scientific Method
DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS by R. C. Baker
14 Design of Experiments with Several Factors CHAPTER OUTLINE
DOE Terminologies IE-432.
Presentation transcript:

SCIENTIFIC SERVICES S/D INC October 2004 ASTM D 3556 RESEARCH Deposition on Glassware During Mechanical Dishwashing Background1 Preliminary Soil Exp Soils,2Levels, ½ Factorial 6-12 Precision of Evaluation Preparation of Standards20-24

BACKGROUND

PRELIMINARY EXPERIMENT - SENSITIVITY TO CURRENT D 3556 SOILS

Preliminary Test of Soil Effect - 2 Level Factorial Design – Main Effects Only Liquid and Powder commercial Detergents at recommended use level Equal Amounts of Tallow/Lard/Margarine Greasy Soil – 16 or 48g Oatmeal+Dry Milk ASTM Soil - 16g or 48g 165 ppm in Maytag MDB3700AWX

Conclusions from Preliminary Experiment All three variables have significant effects. Liquid and powder detergents react differently to soil kind and amount. Liquid Detergent gave more more spots than powder. Powder gave more film. Higher amounts of grease reduced film but had no effect on spots. Higher amounts of oatmeal reduced both film and spots. Additional work was done with more realistic levels of soils and the three soils – fat, starch and protein were each investigated.

INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS OF THREE “SURFACE ACTIVE” SOILS Variables Liquid and Powder Commercial Detergents at Recommended Dosage Hi and Low Levels of Grease Dry Milk Oatmeal Levels chosen to approximate household amounts Maytag Model No. MDB3700AWX inexpensive model 165 ppm 2/1 Ca/Mg synthetic hard water Evaluate after 1,2 3 Cycles by Rating and by Ranking

Experimental Design – Half Factorial – 4 Variables – 2 levels RowsPatternDetergentGreaseOatmealDry MilkSpots & Film Response 1----Liquid4g16g4g 2--++Liquid4g30g16g 3-+-+Liquid16g 4-++-Liquid16g30g4g 5+--+Powder4g16g 6+-+-Powder4g30g4g 7++--Powder16g 4g 8++++Powder16g30g16g

Fractional Factorial Structure Factor Confounding Rules Dry Milk = Detergent X Grease X Oatmeal Aliasing Structure Detergent Grease Oatmeal Dry Milk Detergent X Grease = Oatmeal X Dry Milk Detergent X Oatmeal = Grease X Dry Milk Detergent X Dry Milk = Grease X Oatmeal

3rd Cycle Main Effects of 4 Variables from Experimental Design Evaluation by Ranking and by Rating against Standards

1 st, 2 nd & 3 rd Cycle Main Effects from 4 variable Experimental Design

Interactions from 4 Variable Design - Data from Evaluation by Ranking

Conclusions from study of three separate soils with Liquid and Powder Detergents Ranking results used. Ranking vs Rating Discussed Later At the lower levels of soil significant effects were still seen and interactions between the variables were important. Also, there were differences after 1, 2, and 3 cycles. Evaluation of 3 rd cycle glasses only show more grease gave more spots. More oatmeal caused more film. More dry milk gave less film. With Liquid Detergent there were more spots and Powder resulted in more film Including evaluations from all three cycles gives similar, but not identical, results. Grease causes both film and spots to increase. Oatmeal gives fewer spots. Dry Milk still gave less film. Powder detergent is preferred for less spotting but Liquid Detergent is better for less film.  There are many significant two way interactions between the variables. But, there is confounding because of the half-factorial experimental design, so don’t know whether the effects shown are soil-to-soil synergisms of their soil-detergent counterparts. The importance is that soil type and amount affect Detergent Performance differently and need to be taken into account.

Precision of Evaluation Comparison of evaluation of sets of glasses by ranking best to worst versus rating against ASTM Standards. Three Operators Three separated Sessions Analysis by JMP Statistical Software

Evaluation by Ranking and against Standards by 3 Observers 3 Times 24 Miscellaneous FL Glasses

Evaluation of Glasses by 3 Observers 3 Times – 24 FL Glasses - Statistics

Effect of 3 Operators and 3 Sessions on Evaluation of 24 Glasses from Experimental Design

Statistics by Ranking and vs Stds. for 2 Level 4 Variable Partial Factorial Experimental Design

Interactions Data from 4 Variable Design by Evaluation Against Standards

Interactions – 3 rd Cycle Results from 4 Variable Design Vs Standards and by Ranking

Conclusions about Rating vs Ranking Operator differences cause less error when relative performance is evaluated by a procedure to rank an experimental set of glasses than when assignment of ratings against standard glasses is used. Either procedure will allow for the measurement of significant differences in performance. And the operator error introduced by ranking is of low or significance. Ranking is less stressful than Rating. New data show that elapsed time before evaluation can be a factor and should be controlled.

Preparation of Spot and Film Standard Glasses After much effort to select glasses from actual laboratory runs as spot and film standards, we developed methods for making spotted and filmed glasses “synthetically. Spots were made by spraying natural hard water. Film was made by applying a pigment dispersion. To relate the ASTM 1- 5 scales to household usage we conducted a consumer “acceptance” test. Twenty four glasses with a wide range of deposits from various laboratory runs and including synthetically spotted and filmed glasses. The synthetic glasses had deposits that were typical of laboratory runs. Deposit amounts were related to concentration of applied so that the final scale would be linear with amount applied. The consumer test was run in the panelists dishwasher. There were 12 panelists. The glasses were loaded into the dishwasher rack. The panelist was requested to remove the glasses and put them away or set them aside for rewashing. Acceptance or rejection was recorded. Data from the 10 synthetic filmy and spotty was plotted on Pareto Charts which follow. From the charts we estimated the concentration at which all panelists would reject the glass as too spotty or filmy for use. This concentration was divided by four to give five levels of soil related to the ASTM Scale. ASTM 1No Deposit ASTM 225% of Unacceptable Level ASTM 350% of Unacceptable Level ASTM 475 % of Unacceptable Level ASTM 5100% of Unacceptable Level We are currently perfecting our techniques and measuring reproducibility. We plan to repeat the consumer study to confirm our initial results.

FILM ACCEPTABILITY vs AMOUNT OF PIGMENT

ACCEPTABILITY OF SPOTS VS NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS

Future Work Use the information about soil effects to conduct further performance evaluations Refine the procedures to produce sets of standard spotted and filmed glasses to use as standards to rate dishwashing performance.