Writing an enormous check for cleaning equipment can be scary. Manufacturers engaged in critical cleaning and surface prep understand that effective product cleaning is essential for rugged finishing and for product reliability. How much should you spend? Are you spending wisely? What is the “just right” decision? The decision of how much to spend and what kind of cleaning equipment to purchase is only as good as the knowledge and experience of you and your team. We love success stories; and we periodically report favorable case studies. Hearing that manufacturer purchases new cleaning equipment, and as a result, the company makes better product happily ever after provides reassurance. However, understanding why problems happen provides knowledge and true confidence. We provide two anonymous case studies where purchasing new cleaning machines did not result in a Hollywood ending. In the first case study, “Does costly equipment translate to more effective cleaning”? you will discover that investing in costly, well-designed, high quality cleaning equipment does not in and of itself guarantee success. – not without considering the combination of chemical properties and fixturing. The second example, “Does more power mean better cleaning?” learn why the answer is – not necessarily.
Does costly equipment translate to more effective cleaning?
Not necessarily. A manufacturer produces high volume product at several facilities. Given regulatory concerns, corporate management demanded that a facility using a halogenated solvent for product cleaning stop the practice. An engineer with expertise in equipment design and process flow was tasked with finding a solution. They selected equipment from an experienced, reliable equipment provider and a non-halogenated solvent. The throughput appeared to be based on cycle time, using fixtures that stacked as many parts as possible into the cleaning chamber. To avoid down-time during equipment maintenance, the facility purchased not one but two pieces of cleaning equipment. The plan was to use the second piece of equipment only during maintenance/repair to eliminate downtime. The cleaning machines had a large footprint and required substantial engineering controls. The initial capital investment was in the high six figure territory; and the facility had two expensive systems that took up lots of manufacturing real estate.
Unfortunately, the new cleaning process did not adequately remove soils. Product had to be cleaned sequentially in both enormous pieces of cleaning equipment in hopes of achieving cleaning. There was nothing inherently wrong with the cleaning machine; there was nothing inherently wrong with the solvent. However, the combination of the chemistry and fixturing did not provide adequate contact of the parts with the cleaning agent. While this was an urgent process change, based on corporate concerns, investing in process development time, including coordination, and communication among chemists, production people and equipment designers would likely have resulted in a better outcome.
Does more power mean better cleaning?
Not necessarily. In the second example, the R&D chemists selected a cleaning agent and tested a small system for cleaning low-volume high-value parts using solvent and ultrasonics. The R&D folks tested several solvents and selected one that had appropriate solvency and high wettability to reach complex surfaces. They evaluated cleaning using high-frequency ultrasonics (over 100 KHz). The higher the frequency, the smaller the cavitation “bubbles,” the more gentle the cleaning. While low-frequency ultrasonics (40 KHz) can be a good choice for large, heavy metal parts, very delicate parts, especially those made of non-ferrous metals or non-metals, can be damaged.
Next, the engineering department was put in charge of the equipment. They figured that more power meant better and faster cleaning; so, they ordered cleaning equipment with lower frequency ultrasonics. What happened? Think of the iconic “Home Improvement” sitcom featuring Tim Allen, Tim “The Toolman” Taylor. If you’re too young to remember the show, stream it. Tim’s approach to life was the more power the better. As a result, Tim landed in the emergency room and/or there were large holes in his home improvement projects.
In manufacturing as in sitcoms, more power is not necessarily better. The product cleaning equipment destroyed the parts. This is the point where we were asked to troubleshooting the problem. Because the transducers were not easily swapped out for higher frequencies, the only solution was to order replacement equipment. The aggravation could have been avoided had the R&D folks and those ordering the equipment exchanged information or if R&D were given the opportunity to review the equipment specifications.
It’s not just the cleaning equipment
It takes a village to successfully change a cleaning process, not just equipment designers, not just chemists. Use the expertise of your team. Communicate that expertise! Communicating involves not only speaking up with your ideas and concerns. It also means hearing and taking seriously what others are saying. In Part 4, we will cover a more illustrations about mistakes in choosing cleaning equipment. We will also get into agendas.
References:
“Update or Replace Cleaning Equipment,” (Part 1) Clean Source, August 2025.
“New Cleaning Equipment Part 2 – Begin the Quest,” Clean Source, September 2025.
