This report is about improper cleaning.
PROBLEM REPORTED: Browning
PROBLEM FOUND: Broken Yarn, Browning,& Shrinkage
SAMPLES FROM INSPECTION: Yes
PERSONS PRESENT: Inspector & Claimant
THE UPHOLSTERY
MANUFACTURER: See Report
FIBER/ ID METHOD: Cotton Warp, Rayon Weft-Burn
FIBER CONSTRUCTION: Damask
COLOR(S): White
TYPE: 2 Sofas
SIZE: 2 Six Footers
EMPLACEMENT STATISTICS
DEALER: See Report
SKU NUMBER: Not Available
DATE PURCHASE: Not Available
TYPE DWELLING: Residential
ESTIMATE VALUE See Report
AGE: 5 Years
USE & MAINTENANCE INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION
LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: Not Determined
TEMPERATURE: 72°F - 22.2° C RH 39%
ADULTS: 2 - CHILDREN: 3 - PET(S): 4 - 2 Cats & 2 Outside Dogs
DO THEY SMOKE? No
SPOTTING AGENTS: Nothing Yet
VACUUM/FREQUENCY: Professional Service See Report
ENTRY-MATS: Yes
SOIL: See Report
HEATING TYPE: Forced Air Gas
COOLING TYPE: Central - Electric
CLEANING: Professionally Cleaned By
METHOD: Steam Cleaning
TYPE OF CHEMICAL: See Report
DATE LAST CLEANED: 8/98
TREATMENTS APPLIED: See Report
REASON FOR COMMISSION
Both sofas suffered a change in color after cleaning.
THE REPORT
Site Conditions and Geographical Information
This is a large owner occupied house located in a gated community approximately 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean in Orange County. The condition and maintenance of the house was very good.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION MADE TO THE INSPECTOR
The claimant reports that she acted as her own dealer and purchased the sofa directly from the manufacturer. They moved into this house November of 1996 and the sofas originally sat in the livingroom, which was never used. Only a professional vacuuming had been performed in the past and until the day of the inspection there had been no problems with spotting. On the day of the inspection one of the animals had a urine accident on the side of one sofa.
Joe's Carpet & Upholstery Cleaning had been commissioned to perform carpet cleaning and it was recommended by one of the technicians that the sofa be 'wet cleaned'. According to the claimant, only water was reportedly used and upon inspection immediately after the cleaning, both sofas turned brown.
Both sofas were removed for three weeks for correction services and after being returned, significant improvements had been made but some brown spots remained. The fabric did not have the same sheen as before. The hand was not as soft, and some loops on the fringes had been broken. Seat cushion had appeared to shrink.
Joe Brown reports that corrections were performed using Chemspec's Haitian Cotton Cleaning solution and a Browning Solution.
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM AREA BY THIS INSPECTOR
· On the seat and arm cushions, faint brown spots were noted.
· There was a notable contrast where the seat back cushion laid on the seat cushion and the wear portion.
· The protected area was much whiter and brighter. Also, a similar contrast existed between remnants of the fabric not used in the upholstering and the back of the sofa.
· Broken loops on stringy loop fringe were also noted. The seat cushion on one sofa was measured at three inches shorter than the edge of sofa.
ON-LOCATION FIELD TESTING
In the burn test for fiber identification, the cotton appeared to make a ash and appeared to be only in the warp; the weft yarns did not make much ask and appeared to be rayon. Also, they appear to be present in the pattern only.
An ultra-violet light was used to draw a reflection from substances with optical brightening agents. The result of this test revealed that folded areas on the side of the sofas had a white reflection in the embroidery portion of the fabric as well as the un-upholstered remnant. Also, only the pattern portion of the had a reflection and not the background.
This shot was of taken form the side of one sofa and shows the protected material in the wedge of material. Note the ultra-violet reflection.
Numerous moisture tests were performed using a Tramex Moisture Encounter. This devise measures the percentage of moisture in the area that was being tested. This devise is suitable for measuring moisture in wood and concrete. The setting was set for 'dry wall' and modest high to high readings were noted in the cushions but no where else on the sofas.
Numerous pH tests were taken using a digital type pH meter and a special low moisture probe that made direct contact with the face yarns. This device is accurate to ± 0.1 and was calibrated with a laboratory testing solution immediately before these tests were made. The pH of all areas of the sofas was between 4.6 and 4.9.
A remnant taken from the claimant was soaked in a 3% sodium bisulfite solution and then was placed under an ultra-violet light. The fabric still had its original reflections from the light.
A remnant was placed into a 5.25% Clorox™ solution. The result of this test revealed that there was no change in appearance under an ultra-violet light.
THE ISSUES
The questions that I have been asked to address are: what has caused the appearance distortions and what can be done to correct the problems?
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE ISSUE
See 'THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS'.
INDUSTRY STANDARDS & DEFINITIONS
Guidelines for cleaning upholstery are being determined by the IICRC, but have not been published at the time of the writing of this report. Upholstery manufacturing guidelines are published by JOINT INDUSTRY FABRIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE and is called WOVEN & KNIT RESIDENTIAL UPHOLSTERY FABRIC STANDARDS & GUIDELINES and is available upon request.
THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS
Sofas turning brown after cleaning is an indicative behavior of many cottons; thus, when this sofa was cleaned initially with just water, substance indigenous to cotton caused it to turn brown. Non-typical of this fabric compared to other Damask fabrics is that this fabric has sheen or shine and an ultra-violet reflection inherent in the manufacturing of the fabric.
This ultra-violet shine is seen on the remnant and protected areas of the sofa, but not on areas with the most exposure, thus another issue is whether the sheen is missing or just hidden. Since the 5.25% CLOROX™ solution was not able to destroy the ultra-violet light reflection, it might be safe to assume that fluorescent dye is still present and is being covered by a chemical residue introduced during the corrective procedures. If this is the case, then this portion of the appearance can be restored.
Browning is typically handled in cotton with solutions of sodium bisulfite either in Haitian Cotton Cleaners or browning treatments as reportedly used. Repeated applications by an experienced and skilled technician should eliminate browning 100 percent; however, given the high moisture readings, over application of the product has likely aggravated browning.
Shrinkage in the seat cushion is not the result of overwetting or shrinkage would be noted all over the sofa. However, it occurs, there is a lack of stuffing inherent in manufacturing and is correctable by adding more stuffing. Thus, this problem is correctable too.
As to whether the cleaner is responsible for these problems, it is not clear in light of the lack of industry standards, but it is a common industry practice to notify consumers of the possible loss of sheen. It is the cleaner's responsibility to determine the presence of such treatments and make adjustments in the cleaning process to accommodate irregularities in the fabric. Fortunately for the cleaner, both sheen and ultra-violet reflections are likely still intact. Furthermore, moisture testing with the Tramex Moisture Encounter indicates that moisture was excessive although this instrument is not specifically designed for this purpose. pH measurements confer with what was reported by the cleaner.
CONCLUSION
Improper cleaning caused appearance distortions, but are correctable based upon testing and observations made at the time of the inspection.