The Cleaning Chemistry Is Changing: 5 Key Takeaways for Manufacturers
For decades, manufacturers have relied on proven cleaning processes to remove oils, greases, fluxes, particulates and other contaminants from critical components. But the chemistry behind those processes is changing quickly.
During the MicroCare webinar “High Reliability Cleaning in a Changing Environment,” Vince Libercci explored how tightening regulations, the phaseout of familiar cleaning fluids and growing scrutiny of PFAS are reshaping critical cleaning.
The message for manufacturers was clear: the cleaning process that worked yesterday may not be the one that carries you into tomorrow.
Here are five key takeaways.
1. Legacy Solvents Are Running Out of Road
The regulatory landscape for industrial cleaning fluids has changed dramatically.
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA has been evaluating chemicals for potential health and environmental risks and establishing risk-management requirements. Several solvents historically used in vapor degreasing are directly affected, including methylene chloride (MeCl), trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE) and n-propyl bromide (nPB).
According to the webinar, vapor degreasing with methylene chloride is now prohibited, most TCE uses have been prohibited, and PCE and nPB face stringent Workplace Chemical Protection Program requirements.
For manufacturers still relying on these chemistries, the question is no longer simply whether to consider alternatives. It is how to make the transition without compromising cleaning performance or disrupting production.
2. This Isn’t a One-and-Done Regulatory Change
Replacing one regulated solvent with another isn't necessarily a long-term solution.
The webinar outlined what it described as a multi-wave regulatory environment. Legacy chlorinated solvents are one wave. HFCs with high global warming potential face pressure under the AIM Act. PFAS scrutiny continues to grow, while additional chemicals are undergoing TSCA review.
That changes how manufacturers should think about solvent selection.
Performance still matters, but so does longevity. When evaluating a replacement, manufacturers need to consider whether today's solution could become tomorrow's regulatory challenge.
The goal isn't simply to replace a solvent. It's to choose a cleaning process with the future in mind.
3. The Cheapest Fluid May Not Be the Least Expensive
Price per gallon tells only part of the story.
A cleaning fluid that looks more expensive on paper may make better financial sense once the entire process is considered. Waste disposal, fluid losses, compliance monitoring, PPE, utilities and productivity can all affect the true cost of cleaning.
The equipment matters too.
In-line aqueous systems can offer high throughput, consistent operating parameters and strong fluid penetration. Vapor degreasing offers its own advantages, including fast clean-and-dry cycles, a relatively small footprint, low surface tension for complex geometries and distillation that allows the cleaning fluid to be recycled within the equipment.
Rather than asking “What does the fluid cost?”, a better question may be “What does it cost to clean each part reliably?”
4. There Is No Drop-In Answer for Every Cleaning Process
Changing cleaning chemistry isn't as simple as draining one fluid and pouring in another.
Before making a switch, manufacturers need to understand what they're actually cleaning. What are the soils? What materials are involved? What level of cleanliness is required? What happens to the part next? And what can the existing equipment accommodate?
A fluid that works well on machining oil may not perform the same way on wax, grease, flux or coolant. Material compatibility must also be evaluated across plastics, polymers, seals and metal alloys. Not just the primary substrate.
The stakes can be particularly high in industries such as medical device manufacturing, aerospace, electronics and precision metal fabrication, where cleaning can directly affect subsequent bonding, coating, plating, inspection or other critical processes.
The best replacement is the one that fits the part, soil, equipment and process. Not simply the one with the closest specifications to the old fluid.
5. Test First. Transition Second.
Perhaps the most practical takeaway from the webinar is also the simplest: don't make the production floor your test lab.
A structured transition begins by documenting existing fluids, soils, substrates, cleanliness requirements and equipment constraints. From there, candidate fluids can be screened and tested on actual contaminated parts before moving into equipment evaluation and limited production trials.
That work can uncover compatibility problems, cleaning limitations or equipment issues before they turn into downtime.
It also gives manufacturers the data they need to establish cycle parameters, compare performance against the existing process and validate the new cleaning method.
Don’t Wait for the Deadline
Changing a critical cleaning process takes time. Fluids need to be evaluated. Parts need to be tested. Equipment may need adjustment. Processes may need to be revalidated, and operators may require training.
Waiting until a familiar chemistry becomes unavailable or impractical to use leaves fewer options and increases the potential for production disruption.
As the webinar concluded, regulatory pressure is affecting both aqueous and vapor degreasing processes, from wastewater considerations to legacy solvents, HFC phase-downs and PFAS scrutiny. More sustainable alternatives are already available.
The takeaway? Don't just replace yesterday's cleaning chemistry. Build a cleaning process that's ready for what's next.
Want the Full Story?
These five takeaways are just part of the conversation. Watch the full recorded webinar, “High Reliability Cleaning in a Changing Environment,” for a deeper look at the regulatory changes affecting critical cleaning, what they mean for aqueous and vapor degreasing processes, and practical steps manufacturers can take to prepare for the transition.
Watch the full webinar on demand to learn more and start planning what comes next.
Use Passcode: i$1OgTxx
During the MicroCare webinar “High Reliability Cleaning in a Changing Environment,” Vince Libercci explored how tightening regulations, the phaseout of familiar cleaning fluids and growing scrutiny of PFAS are reshaping critical cleaning.
The message for manufacturers was clear: the cleaning process that worked yesterday may not be the one that carries you into tomorrow.
Here are five key takeaways.
1. Legacy Solvents Are Running Out of Road
The regulatory landscape for industrial cleaning fluids has changed dramatically.
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA has been evaluating chemicals for potential health and environmental risks and establishing risk-management requirements. Several solvents historically used in vapor degreasing are directly affected, including methylene chloride (MeCl), trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE) and n-propyl bromide (nPB).
According to the webinar, vapor degreasing with methylene chloride is now prohibited, most TCE uses have been prohibited, and PCE and nPB face stringent Workplace Chemical Protection Program requirements.
For manufacturers still relying on these chemistries, the question is no longer simply whether to consider alternatives. It is how to make the transition without compromising cleaning performance or disrupting production.
2. This Isn’t a One-and-Done Regulatory Change
Replacing one regulated solvent with another isn't necessarily a long-term solution.
The webinar outlined what it described as a multi-wave regulatory environment. Legacy chlorinated solvents are one wave. HFCs with high global warming potential face pressure under the AIM Act. PFAS scrutiny continues to grow, while additional chemicals are undergoing TSCA review.
That changes how manufacturers should think about solvent selection.
Performance still matters, but so does longevity. When evaluating a replacement, manufacturers need to consider whether today's solution could become tomorrow's regulatory challenge.
The goal isn't simply to replace a solvent. It's to choose a cleaning process with the future in mind.
3. The Cheapest Fluid May Not Be the Least Expensive
Price per gallon tells only part of the story.
A cleaning fluid that looks more expensive on paper may make better financial sense once the entire process is considered. Waste disposal, fluid losses, compliance monitoring, PPE, utilities and productivity can all affect the true cost of cleaning.
The equipment matters too.
In-line aqueous systems can offer high throughput, consistent operating parameters and strong fluid penetration. Vapor degreasing offers its own advantages, including fast clean-and-dry cycles, a relatively small footprint, low surface tension for complex geometries and distillation that allows the cleaning fluid to be recycled within the equipment.
Rather than asking “What does the fluid cost?”, a better question may be “What does it cost to clean each part reliably?”
4. There Is No Drop-In Answer for Every Cleaning Process
Changing cleaning chemistry isn't as simple as draining one fluid and pouring in another.
Before making a switch, manufacturers need to understand what they're actually cleaning. What are the soils? What materials are involved? What level of cleanliness is required? What happens to the part next? And what can the existing equipment accommodate?
A fluid that works well on machining oil may not perform the same way on wax, grease, flux or coolant. Material compatibility must also be evaluated across plastics, polymers, seals and metal alloys. Not just the primary substrate.
The stakes can be particularly high in industries such as medical device manufacturing, aerospace, electronics and precision metal fabrication, where cleaning can directly affect subsequent bonding, coating, plating, inspection or other critical processes.
The best replacement is the one that fits the part, soil, equipment and process. Not simply the one with the closest specifications to the old fluid.
5. Test First. Transition Second.
Perhaps the most practical takeaway from the webinar is also the simplest: don't make the production floor your test lab.
A structured transition begins by documenting existing fluids, soils, substrates, cleanliness requirements and equipment constraints. From there, candidate fluids can be screened and tested on actual contaminated parts before moving into equipment evaluation and limited production trials.
That work can uncover compatibility problems, cleaning limitations or equipment issues before they turn into downtime.
It also gives manufacturers the data they need to establish cycle parameters, compare performance against the existing process and validate the new cleaning method.
Don’t Wait for the Deadline
Changing a critical cleaning process takes time. Fluids need to be evaluated. Parts need to be tested. Equipment may need adjustment. Processes may need to be revalidated, and operators may require training.
Waiting until a familiar chemistry becomes unavailable or impractical to use leaves fewer options and increases the potential for production disruption.
As the webinar concluded, regulatory pressure is affecting both aqueous and vapor degreasing processes, from wastewater considerations to legacy solvents, HFC phase-downs and PFAS scrutiny. More sustainable alternatives are already available.
The takeaway? Don't just replace yesterday's cleaning chemistry. Build a cleaning process that's ready for what's next.
Want the Full Story?
These five takeaways are just part of the conversation. Watch the full recorded webinar, “High Reliability Cleaning in a Changing Environment,” for a deeper look at the regulatory changes affecting critical cleaning, what they mean for aqueous and vapor degreasing processes, and practical steps manufacturers can take to prepare for the transition.
Watch the full webinar on demand to learn more and start planning what comes next.
Use Passcode: i$1OgTxx