Cleanliness Verification: Where Most Manufacturers Are Exposed

Source | Getty Images

Many finishing operations can tell you what their cleaning process is supposed to do. Fewer can tell you, with documented evidence, whether it’s actually doing it on any given production run. That gap — between a cleaning process that was validated once and a cleaning process that is verifiably in control — is where customer rejections, coating failures and regulatory findings originate.

Cleanliness verification sessions at the 2026 Parts Cleaning Conference, running July 8-9 in Columbus, Ohio, address the measurement and documentation side of parts cleaning with a level of technical specificity that distinguishes them from general process content. These sessions are most relevant to quality engineers, process engineers at Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers, and anyone whose customer base includes automotive OEMs, medical device manufacturers or defense contractors — industries where cleanliness documentation is increasingly a condition of doing business.

Featured Content

Leaders in the Making: 40 Under 40 Class of 2026 READ MORE

Products Finishing Reveals 2026 Qualifying Top Shops READ MORE

Episode 68: An Interview With Kevin Biller, ChemQuest READ MORE

Sending parts to a lab and getting data back are not the same thing

A test result from an analytical lab is only as useful as the protocol that generated it. Manufacturers who outsource cleanliness testing — particle counts, NVR, ionic contamination — often receive numbers without the context to know whether those numbers mean the part will perform. The wrong extraction method can miss contamination entirely. The wrong detection technique can produce accurate data that answers the wrong question.

Ed and Barbara Kanegsberg of BFK Solutions (Pacific Palisades, California) will lay out the practical framework for working with analytical labs effectively: how to specify testing protocols, when to use direct-on-part testing versus residue extraction and what the choice of detection method implies for the validity of results. For quality managers at medical, aerospace or defense suppliers who sign off on lab results as part of their documentation package, this session addresses a real liability — if your lab protocol isn’t matched to your cleanliness requirement, your documentation may not withstand customer or regulatory scrutiny.

Adhesion and bond failures: Surface chemistry is usually the culprit

When a coating delaminates, an adhesive bond fails or a device fails in service, the failure analysis often leads back to surface contamination that wasn’t detected before the next process step. The challenge is that different contaminants — organic residues, inorganic films, hybrid contamination from cleaning chemistry — require different analytical techniques to find and characterize. Using the wrong tool produces a false negative.

CovalentConnect’s (Sunnyvale, California) Scott Bauman will present a decision framework for selecting among SEM/EDS, XPS, TOF-SIMS, FTIR, GCMS and Raman spectroscopy based on what kind of residue is suspected and what level of spatial resolution and chemical specificity the failure analysis requires. This session is aimed at engineers who have already experienced a field failure or coating failure with no clear root cause — and who need a structured approach to surface analysis rather than a shotgun selection of expensive techniques.

Spot testing a complex part is an incomplete quality check

Standard surface contamination testing samples a small area and extrapolates. For a flat, simple geometry, that may be adequate. For a part with flanges, grooves, threaded features or internal channels — which describes a significant share of precision-machined components — spot testing can confirm a clean zone while missing the contaminated one.

Dr. Alexander Blättermann from the Fraunhofer Institute for Physical Measurement Techniques (Breisgau-Nord, Germany) will present a whole-surface inspection approach using laser-induced fluorescence scanning that maps contamination across an entire part at speeds exceeding 1 million measurements per second. Detection sensitivity reaches 0.1 milligrams per square foot for lubricants, release agents and fingerprints.

The relevance for finishing operations is in where this technology fits in a production line. Used as a pretreatment quality gate — before painting, coating or bonding — it converts contamination from a downstream discovery into an upstream intervention. For operations where a single contaminated part that gets through to coating drives a reject, a rework and a customer notification, the economics of in-line detection are worth understanding.

Automotive and e-mobility suppliers: The standards are moving

Automotive cleanliness requirements have been defined for years by VDA 19.1 and ISO 16232. Those standards have been updated, and new categories of components, particularly those associated with electric drivetrains and autonomous driving systems, are presenting measurement challenges that the traditional liquid extraction methods can’t address.

Markus Roessler of Glaeser Inc. (Twinsburg, Ohio) will cover the updated standards and verification approaches being developed for components outside the traditional protocol. He’ll also preview what’s coming for medical and aerospace cleanliness standards. For Tier 1 and Tier 2 automotive suppliers already certified under VDA 19.1, and for manufacturers targeting medical or aerospace supply chains, understanding how these standards are evolving now — before customer audits — is considerably more useful than learning about them after a nonconformance.

Semiconductors and aerospace: When the cleaning step is only part of the problem

In high-purity applications — such as semiconductor components, vacuum systems, aerospace hardware — achieving a clean part at the cleaning station is necessary but not sufficient. Contamination introduced during handling, transfer or storage between process steps can negate the cleaning entirely. The challenge is managing cleanliness as a property of the entire process chain, not just the cleaning cell.

Michael Flaemmich from VACOM Montana (Lewistown, Montana) will address this specifically, drawing on the company’s experience at its new U.S. facility. His session examines where contamination is reintroduced after cleaning and what process and equipment design choices prevent it. Gerhard Koblenzer of LPW Reinigungssysteme GmbH (Riederich, Germany) approaches the same problem from the system integration side, with a case study on cleanroom transfer systems and the monitoring required to maintain high-purity conditions across the gray area between standard manufacturing and controlled environments.

Both sessions challenge a common assumption: that automation solves cleanliness control problems.