out of the sponge. The amount of water absorbed and the amount 

 squeezed out both are judged by gentle swinging of the sponge up 

 and down to feel the weight. The term "wet stiffness" is not used in 

 the trade, and the use of it therefore may not be desirable; but it 

 does describe accurately the property that causes poor cleanability, 

 or difficulty in squeezing out the water that has been absorbed. A 

 porous brick may absorb as much water for its size as a sponge does, 

 but it would be a worthless substitute, owing to the fact that water 

 cannot be replaced by squeezing and rewetting, 



V, Wet drainage when tipped, — An easy test of identity for Grass 

 sponges can be run by tnorougniy soaking the sponge, laying it gently 

 to drain on its flattest side without tipping, then tipping it by 

 lifting it by the top tufts. From a third to a half of the water will 

 pour out of the Anclote and Hudson Grass sponges in less than a minute* 

 In general, Anclote sponges will drain faster than will Hudson sponges. 

 For most uses, this property would be a disadvantage, so demerits are 

 given for it. In sponges used for cleaning with other solvents, how- 

 ever, this property could be an advantage. It would enable such a 

 sponge to be rinsed out readily without hand squeezing, for example, 

 which would be a convenient property when some solvent such as gasoline 

 is used to clean greasy motors, A quick quantitative test could be 

 set up to rate sponges according to this property, but it was thought 

 to be of minor importance at this time. A qualitative hand test, how— 

 ever, is as easily evaluated as are the tests for absorption and clean- 

 ability. 



Minor Faults 



A, Ragged clipping , — Only occasionally does the inspector en- 

 counter sharp corners left in sponges by poor clipping. Nothing but 

 the appearance is improved by smoother contours, however, so very few 

 demerits are justified for this defect. It is notable that Mediterran- 

 ean sponges are more carefully contoured than are the domestic sponges. 

 Failure to remove a tear by not making cuts from a form, may justify 

 all $0 demerits, 



B, Seaweed, etc,, soft , — Since it takes time to remove the last 

 traces of soft seaweed often found inbedded in the sponge and since 

 complete removal may be difficult without ruining the sponge, very 

 few demerits are justified for this defect. Furthermore, the soft ma- 

 terial soon washes out during use and causes no harm to the surfaces 

 being washed,^ 



C, Seaweed, etc., hard , — A more serious inclusion of woody 

 growths that might scratch surfaces deserves a greater number of de- 

 merits. More than 100 points would be justified except that almost 

 invariably, such particles are noticed the first time the sponge is 

 squeezed and are easily pulled out 



2$ 



