|
|
No Stain Resistance Make SpotsThis report was commissioned by the mill. The fiber producer paid the claim.LOCATION TYPE: ResidentialDATE INSTALLED: 2/97 METHOD: Stretch In SUBFLOOR: Concrete on first & second levels, plywood on third level AREA INSTALLED: Dining-Room, Living-room., Hallways, 3 Bedrooms USE & MAINTENANCE INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: Dupont Spotting Guide TEMPERATURE: 70,6°F 24.4° C RH 63% ADULTS: 2 CHILDREN: 0 PET(S): 2 Dog & Cat DO THEY SMOKE? No SPOTTING AGENTS: See Report VACUUM/FREQUENCY: Oreck Upright Weekly & More ENTRY MATS? Yes SOIL: See Report HEATING TYPE: Central Force Air Propane COOLING TYPE: Central Electric CLEANING: Never Been Cleaned REASON FOR COMMISSION To investigate complaints about spots and stain resistance. THE REPORT Site Conditions and Geographical Information The carpet was installed in the claimant’s free standing three story house, located in an isolated Malibu Canyon area. The house was owner occupied, well maintained and was undergoing remodeling at the time of the inspection. THE CLAIM HISTORY ACCORDING TO THE CLAIMANT Spots from spills and accidents occurred two weeks after the carpet was installed and before the remodeling began. Spotting information was obtained from Dupont via phone, but the carpet did not respond to the treatments recommended. Only the claimant worked on the spots and was able to identify the source of each spot as to its source. Vacuuming was done by a professional service on a weekly basis, with occasional vacuuming by the claimant when needed. Most spots were reportedly more visible at night. DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM AREA BY THIS INSPECTOR No problems with the carpet were immediately noticeable and part of the downstairs was covered with plastic to protect the carpet from the remodeling. The claimant directed the inspector to specific spots that had known sources. The first spot was located in the dining-room near the kitchen. It was not readily noticeable upon viewing. It was globular in shape and measured seven by three inches. The edges of this spot were hard to define. Its appearance varied when viewed from different directions and was more visible in less light. There was no hue difference, no change of hand, and no odors noticed. Other coin size spots were noted in the dining-room near the window. These spots had similar characteristics but were more easily defined. All of the dining-room spots were reportedly food related. A circular dark, black or gray spot with defined edges was noted adjacent to the two sofas in the Living-room. This spot was allegedly made from a discharge from the vacuum cleaner. The discoloring was located at the tips of the yarns. The size was approximately four inches in diameter. There was no change of hand or odors noted in this spot. Another larger spot in the Living-room. was noted to the left of the stairs upon entering the room. This spot did not have well defined edges. Its appearance varied when viewed from different directions and was more visible in less light. There was no hue differences, no change of hand, and no odors noticed. A small circular spot was noted in a bathroom on the third level. This spot was easily seen in dim light and was not readily noticeable in bright light. There was no hue difference, no change of hand, and no odor noticed. The final spot was noted in the master bedroom. Reportedly this spot was made from makeup and originally had a red or pink hue. It was located in front of the dresser and was not easily noticed. . Its appearance varied when viewed from different directions and was more visible in less light. There was no hue difference, no change of hand, and no odor noticed. The claimant’s vacuum cleaner was inspected and was found to be in good working order. There were no burrs on the head. The brush was soft. ON LOCATION FIELD TESTING An inspection lamp was used for closer evaluation and to create shadows. This high intensity lamp is equipped with a 200 watt halogen bulb. Shining the light directly onto the spots made all, except the Living-room. spot adjacent to the sofa, disappear. An ultraviolet light was used to draw a reflection from substances with optical brightening agents. Yellow reflection will come from most urine stains; a blue or lavender reflection from detergents. The result of this test revealed that there were no reflections present. Numerous moisture tests were performed using a Delmhorst Moisture Sensor. This test would indicate the presence of moisture lock-up in salt compounds from urine and detergents. The results of these tests showed some moisture in the spot in the third level bathroom but no else where. A general spotting agent by Groom Industries called Perky SpotterŪ was applied to a towel and the towel was blotted onto the dark spot adjacent the sofas in the Living-room. The results of this test revealed that the spot was unaffected. A DuPontŪ Stain Resist Test was performed to determine the amount of stain resistance on the yarn. This kit was supplied with stain resist and dye chemicals. The yarn samples were taken from a remnant and were divided up into two groups. The first group was soaked in a stain resist material and then both sets of yarn were placed in a red dye solution. The results of these tests revealed that the untreated yarns took a noticeable dye stain while the treated yarns did not. THE ISSUES OF THIS REPORT The questions addressed in this report are: why did the carpet lack stain resistance and why did the spots persist? GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE ISSUE Stain Resistance can be missing when: 1. stain resistance has not been properly applied during manufacturing 2. the carpet has been maintained or used inappropriately 3. the carpet has been cleaned with chemicals inappropriate for stain resist carpet. Spots can occur when: 1. lighting conditions create shadows on the carpet 2. foreign substances have been spilt on to the carpet 3. substances from manufacturing or installation wick from underneath the yarn INDUSTRY STANDARDS & DEFINITIONS The Carpet & Fabricare Institutes says this in their rules section of their spotting manual: APPEARANCE Spots that are lighter than the surrounding unaffected area are the result of color loss. Spots that are darker than the surrounding unaffected areas are the result of something added. Spots that end up changing in different light and diminish or disappear in direct intense light are the result of texture variations, usually from over aggressive mechanical action. THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS The stain resist test indicates that the yarn was not stain resist, but could be made so. Since the test was taken from a remnant and ultraviolet light and moisture testing indicate that inappropriate chemicals have not been used, the lack of stain resistance was likely inherent in manufacturing. Since most of the spots could not be seen in intense light and had no hue differences, the staining substance has been effectively removed. The remaining spots were likely due to texture variations from excessive abrasion. The one visible spot that was adjacent to the sofas was likely rich in fine particulate soil. Such problems are similar to filtration soil and are typically difficult to remove under normal circumstances. CONCLUSION Lack of stain resistance in the carpet in question was due to problems inherent in manufacturing. All but one of the remaining spots were due to aggressive agitation in removing the spots. |