If there is anything humorous about pooling, it has to be its history of fueling imaginative and far-fetched theories to explain its occurrence. Following are some of the more popular ones:

• Static Electricity: This theory actually is based partly on a real observation: sharp differences in static charge that sometimes can be measured on either side of interfaces. Problem: No evidence yet indicates that the static is the cause of the problem rather than a secondary elect of some other cause, such as traffic.
• Electromagnetic Fields: A cousin of the static electricity theory, this hypothesis suggests that the changes in pile direction are caused by electromagnetic fields. Problem: No supporting evidence, and pooling occurs in the apparent absence of sources of electromagnetic fields.
• Air Flow: The winding, swirling lines of pooling's interfaces, combined with reports of its appearance near HVAC intakes and/or floor registers, apparently led to the perpetuation of this idea. Problem: No supporting evidence, and pooling has been documented in plenty of cases in the absence of such airflow.
• The "Domino Effect": This is the theory that the initial orientation of the pile is "set" the first few times the carpet is trafficked and that subsequent traffic exaggerates this orientation. As tufts in one area begin to lay over, they in turn begin pushing surrounding tufts over, and the pile reversal is thus spread throughout trafficked areas. Problem: None really. This is one theory that is fairly consistent with the observed characteristics of pooling, though it does not explain all of its behavior.
• Subfloor Irregularities: This theory suggests that slight irregularities in the subfloor telegraph through the carpet and result in pile reversal when the carpet is trafficked. This idea is not totally without merit, as a number of documented cases show a degree of correlation between the pattern of the pooling and features of the subfloor. It appears that while subfloor irregularities do not cause pooling, they may influence the pattern in which it occurs. (See Figure 7.) Problem: Pooling often occurs over relatively smooth surfaces, such as hardwood floors and stone.

Though any or all of the theories described above may have some influence, the exact cause or causes of pooling have not been conclusively determined. However, there are two common factors present in virtually every documented case of which we are aware:

1. Traffic: The forms of pile reversal discussed in this bulletin, including pooling, occur almost exclusively in and immediately adjacent to trafficked areas, though the volume of traffic required is minimal. Though stories of pooling occurring on untrafficked carpet still circulate, additional investigation almost invariably reveals that the affected areas received at least some traffic.

Stories of pooling being discovered on new, uninstalled rolls of carpet also circulate. Though some relatively rare forms of roll crush can be somewhat similar in appearance to pooling, the condition described in this bulletin occurs only with traffic.

2. Carpet Style: Pooling occurs primarily in relatively dense, untextured, cut-pile styles. Thickness does not appear to be a significant variable, as it occurs with comparable severity in short commercial styles as well as thicker residential products. Low-density constructions (e.g., shag) and loop-pile styles appear to be virtually immune to visible pile reversal.

Because it occurs in carpet and rugs of all fiber types (wool, nylon, polyester, acrylic, polypropylene, coir, silk, etc.), all construction types (woven, tufted, fusion bonded, modular, etc.), in all methods of installation, under virtually every imaginable combination of circumstances, the conclusion that pile reversal and pooling are not related to any of these factors is well-supported.

Documented cases support the conclusion that normal traffic is the primary cause; i.e., pile reversal and pooling are normal reactions to traffic of certain styles of carpet. Therefore, pooling, like random shading, is accurately considered a performance characteristic rather than an abnormality. While some may find this explanation too simple to account for the wild, swirling patterns in which pooling appears, it is the most consistent with the hundreds of cases on which reliable documentation exists.

The short answer is, No. In nylon and wool carpet, pooling sometimes can be reduced or eliminated by aggressive steaming (actual steam, not "steam" cleaning) and pile lifting, but it invariably reappears within a few days or weeks of correction.

It has been reported that diligent maintenance based on frequent pile lifting has minimized the degree to which pooling develops on nylon carpet in some commercial installations.

In one case of moderately affected nylon carpet, pooling was removed and did not recur. However, the furniture in the room was rearranged in such a way that the affected areas remained untrafficked.

Because of their poorer resilience and minimal response to steam, polyester and polypropylene usually do not yield even temporary correction.

Figure 6, 'puddling- areas of reversed pile completely enclosed by interfaces;

Figure 7, patterns of pooling influenced by high areas in subfloor (indicated by arrows);

Figure 8, pooling crossing and reversing at a seam where two different axminster carpets are joined.

Shading and pooling are recognized throughout the carpet industry as inherent characteristics of most cut pile products and are not considered a valid basis for claims.

In the Carpet and Rug Institute's Carpet Claims Manual, shading is defined as an "apparent color difference between areas of the same carpet caused by ... random difference[s] in pile lay direction. It is a characteristic of all cut-pile carpet and ... is not a manufacturing defect. The sides of fibers reflect more light and appear brighter and lighter than the ends, which absorb more light and appear to be duller and darker in color."

The Carpet Claims Manual also states, "Pile crushing, pile shading, watermarking, and soiling are not manufacturing defects and will not be considered as a basis for claims."

The Carpet Manufacturers Association of the West's Statement of Obligations and Responsibilities of Carpet Manufacturers and Purchasers of Carpet and Carpet Performance and Claim Guidelines states, "Highlighting and shading are differences in light reflection between surface areas and are not defects." This document also states, "Watermarking or pooling is a color change effect which arises from reversal or bending of the carpet pile fibers so that light is either absorbed or reflected from the pile. This is a common condition and is not related to carpet construction or fiber type and is not the basis for a claim."

The Carpet and Rug Institute's bulletin Pile Reversal ("Shading"; "Water Marking") states that "a thorough search of available literature has not revealed any reason as to why carpet, after it has been installed, may or may not develop pile reversal. The many theories have been studied, tested, and evaluated by one or more sources. It has been concluded that the theories were not valid.... At the present time, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that pile reversal may develop on the surface of some carpet after it is installed, and that pile reversal is not due to the materials which are used to produce the carpet, the manufacturing process, or any combination of these factors."