Protectant That Went Bad
Fluorochemical protectant applied after the installation on a wool carpet made a zigzag line.
THE CLAIM STATISTICSPROBLEM REPORTED: Serpentine Lines
WAS A DIAGRAM MADE?: No
SAMPLES FROM INSPECTION: None Taken
PERSONS PRESENT: Inspector & Claimant
THE CARPET
FIBER PROTECTANTS "Custom Treatment"
FIBER MANUFACTURER: Dupont
FIBER/ ID METHOD: Wool/Burn
COLOR: White
CONSTRUCTION: Tufted Looped
STYLE: Multi-Level Loop
SQUARE YARDAGE: Not Determined
BACK SYSTEM: Conventional Tufted
PRIMARY BACKING: Monks Cloth
SECONDARY BACKING: Monks Cloth
THE INSTALLATION
TYPE OF SITE: Residential
METHOD: Stretch-In
CUSHION: Not Determined
SUBFLOOR: Not Determined
AREA INSTALLED: Hallway, 5-Bedrooms, & 1-Bath
USE & MAINTENANCE INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION
LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: Yes
TEMPERATURE: 76.3°F - 24.6° C
RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 46%
ADULTS: 2 CHILDREN: 2 PETS: 2
TYPE OF PET(s): Dog & Cat
DO THEY SMOKE? No
SPOTTING AGENTS: None
VACUUM TYPE: Upright
FREQUENCY: Twice Weekly
ENTRY MATS: Yes
SOIL: See Report
HEATING TYPE: Central Force Air Gas
COOLING TYPE: Central - Electric
CLEANING: Professional
METHOD: Truckmount Steam
TYPE OF CHEMICAL: See Report
REASON FOR COMMISSION
To verify an unusual soiling condition that had taken place throughout the installation.
THE REPORT
Geographical Background Information
The carpet in question is installed in the claimant’s free standing house which was located on the southern edge of the Valley 8.3 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The condition and maintenance of the house and neighborhood is very good.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION MADE TO THE INSPECTOR
The carpet in question had been sold with no soil protection; therefore, the homeowner had professional cleaning service apply a solvent base fluorochemical protectant immediately after the installation. About a week after the installation a zigzag line began to develop in the hallway and then later in the master-bedroom and another bedroom. The lines became more noticeable with time. Two different truckmount steam cleaning were performed with special chemicals to remove chemical residues. The lines in both cases were removed but came back.
An inspection commissioned by the mill was given to an Inspection who reportedly said that the problem was installation related. The claimant had another report done by Another inspector said that the problem was from oily residue that ‘is usually only present if the yarn has not been properly scoured." To ensure that the problem was still prevalent after the last cleaning this inspector was commissioned to do a report.
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM AREA BY THIS INSPECTOR
The dark ‘S’ Wave shaped line ran most of the distance of the hallway. This line was more intense at the start of the hallway and lessened into obscurity at the end of the hall. The width of the line was a little over one foot. A faint trace of the line was also in the master-bedroom.
There was no difference in the pile height or texture of the carpet on the line. There was also no difference in bulk or size of the fibers. There was no texture difference or smell.
FIELD TESTING
Numerous moisture tests were performed using a Delmhorst Moisture Sensor. This test would indicate the presence of moisture in the area that was being tested. It is possible for water to be locked-up in salts compounds from residue from urine and other compounds long after the affected area has dried. Any recent /previous over-wetting of the carpet could also be found in the latex backing of a carpet with this device. The results of these tests revealed that there were no moisture readings.
An ultra-violet light was shone throughout the installation. This tool draws a yellow reflection from most urine stains and a blue or lavender reflection from detergents with optical brightening agents. The result of this test revealed that there were no reflections that corresponded to the ‘S’ shape line.
Numerous pH tests were taken using a pHep + Pen by Hanna®. This device is accurate to ± 0.1 and was calibrated with a laboratory testing solution immediately before these tests were made. All tests were made using distilled water with a pH of 7.0. The test results were as follows:
| all areas | 7.1 | 7.1 | 7.2 | 7.1 | 7.1 | Ave.7.12 |
The pH of any of the above substances if present at the time of testing would be affected by any other substance with a pH and also by dilution with the distilled-water.
Distilled water was applied to surrounding areas in an attempt to make foam from agitating the wet yarn. None was made. Next, a feel test was made by feeling the wet yarn. The carpet had a texture of "just wet carpet" with no slippery or sticky feel.
A general spotting agent by Groom Industries called Perky Spotter® was applied to a towel and the towel was blotted onto the trafficked and spotted areas. The result of this test revealed that the line was removed or was diminished.
THE ISSUE OF THIS REPORT
The issue of this report is: where did the soil attracting residue come from?
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE ISSUE
Resoiling residues can come from:
1. improper cleaning or maintenance
2. residues left in the carpet from installation or manufacturing
3. INDUSTRY STANDARDS, PRACTICES & DEFINITIONS
Oil and grease spots will normally be found in a pattern either across the width in a straight line or down the length in the same row of yarn. If they are caused by the mill, they will appear to be approximately the same distance apart. Oil and/or grease can usually be removed by cleaning with a solvent. If these spots appear randomly over the carpet, then they are not considered a manufacturing defect and were spots probably caused by a local source.
THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS
The pH, moisture, residue, and ultra-violet light tests all indicate that the soil attracting residue is not from a cleaning residue or other sources that the claimant would be likely to use. Also, the extensive cleaning should have removed any cleaning residue. Therefore what is in the carpet is likely insoluble. A likely substance that would fall into this category would be a stain and/or soil retardant that is not properly formulated.
The shape of the line does not conform to any known pattern found in manufacturing and Inspection’s assessment of the problem being installer related lacks evidence. The best answer is that the lines were created by an application of stain protectant that was not properly mixed or formulated. This application would have likely be applied with a pump-up type sprayer, use a cone-tip nozzle. This theory is supported by the shape of the lines and the manner in which after market protectants are applied.
CONCLUSION
The soil attracting residue is related to professional treatment made after the installation.