|
|
Resoiling from Defective Fluorocarbon AftersprayThis report was commissioned by the homeowner.THE CARPETFIBER PROTECTANTS After Market - See Report FIBER/ ID METHOD: Wool-Burn COLOR: White CONSTRUCTION: Tufted Looped STYLE: Looped Pile SQUARE YARDAGE: 45 BACK SYSTEM: Conventional Tufted PRIMARY BACKING: Jute SECONDARY BACKING: Jute THE INSTALLATION TYPE OF SITE: Residential METHOD: Stretch-In CUSHION: 1/4 Inch Fiber SUBFLOOR: Concrete AREA INSTALLED: Living Room USE & MAINTENANCE INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: No ADULTS: 2 CHILDREN: 0 PETS: 1 TYPE OF PET(s): Dog TEMPERATURE: 66.6°F - 19.2° C RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 44% VACUUM TYPE: Upright FREQUENCY: Weekly DO THEY SMOKE? No ENTRY MATS: Yes CONDITION of THE CARPET: Poor SOIL: Heavily Soiled HEATING TYPE: Central Force Air Gas COOLING TYPE: Central - Electric HOME SPOTTING AGENTS: Not Determined CLEANING: Professional METHOD: Steam Cleaning TYPE OF CHEMICAL: Acidic Residue Remover DATE LAST CLEAN: 4/27/95 TREATMENTS APPLIED: Solvent Base Fluorochemical REASON FOR COMMISSION The claimant has reported an appearance problem. BACKGROUND INFORMATION MADE TO THE INSPECTOR The carpet in question was replaced due to a redecorating effort. To preserve its appearance the claimant had ACME CARPET CLEANING apply a soil and stain resist protectant. The carpet was cleaned before this treatment was applied. Upon drying the carpet had a dark appearance. A second cleaning took place and a second treatment was made. Once again the carpet looked bad upon drying. Some time after that, the protectant was removed. After this, the carpet did not resoil at a rapid rate. Over several months, the carpet had a fuzzy look that developed. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION BY THE INSPECTOR The carpet had the appearance of heavy soiling. A seam running the length of the carpet was slightly peaked. The carpet also appeared to be fuzzy. ON-LOCATION FIELD TESTING 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 was nothing in the carpet with an optical brightening agent. 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 or 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 showed that there were no moisture readings. 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: affected areas 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 Ave. 6.9 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 detergency test was performed on one of the soiled areas using a portable steam extraction machine and a mild extraction cleaner. The results of this test revealed that the carpet could be cleaned. A DuPont® stain resist test was performed to determine the stain resistance on the face yarns. The result of this test revealed that a section treated with the Solvent Base Fluorochemical repelled a red dye stain. A remnant sample of this carpet was sent to Professional Testing Laboratory Inc. Of Dalton Georgia for AVERAGE LATEX BUNDLE WRAP and AVERAGE LATEX PENETRATION testing. The results of these tests were as follows: AVERAGE LATEX BUNDLE WRAP 77% AVERAGE LATEX PENETRATION’ 70% THE ISSUE OF THIS REPORT The question that I have been asked to address is: what caused the carpet to resoil so fast? CONDITIONS THAT CAN CAUSE THE PROBLEM Resoiling problems occur when: 1. There is a soil attracting residue on the carpet. 2. The carpet did not dry within an appropriate amount of time after cleaning. 3. Light and shadows cast hues on the carpet. 4. Normal foot traffic and atmospheric conditions over come the comfort zone on the occupants. INDUSTRY STANDARDS, PRACTICES & DEFINITIONS The Standard for Carpet Cleaning S001-1994 is published by the INSTITUTE OF INSPECTIONS, CLEANING and RESTORATION CERTIFICATION at the recommendation of the FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. These service standards are for professional cleaning and are recognized by nearly all carpet mills and carpet cleaning associations. Also, according to the FLOOR COVERING DICTIONARY the following definitions are given for latex: BUNDLE WRAP - The bead of latex that surrounds a pulled tuft. LATEX - A water emulsion of synthetic rubber, natural rubber, or other polymer. In carpet, latex is used for laminating secondary backings to tufted carpet, back dating carpet and rugs, and for manufacturing formed cushion. Almost all carpet latex consists of styrene-butadiene synthetic rubber (SBR) compounded with large quantities of powder fillers. The latter are most often whiting, which is calcium carbonate. Latex is the raw material from which rubber is made. LATEX PENETRATION - Yarn is removed from the primary and secondary backings and inspected under a microscope to determine how much latex penetrated the yarn bundle that exist beneath the primary backing. The results are stated as a percentage of latex penetration. A generally acceptable level is about 85% Latex penetration determines the tuft bind of the carpet. THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS Cleaning errors have not happened based upon the background information and the pH tests. Also the claimant’s own maintenance was good and usage was minor. Lighting conditions do not appear to be a problem either. This leaves the protectant as the most likely villain of the problem. Two things common to soil and stain protectants that create a resoiling are: · a sticky component such as a nonionic surfactant in the formula. In this case no such ingredient was found in the MSDS. · lack of stain resistance based upon the DuPont test The Solvent Base Fluorochemical was not guilty of these two items, however the background information cannot be dismissed due to the fact that since the treatment has been removed, the carpet has stopped resoiling. No official standards are published for bundle wrap, however manufactures generally have their own in-house numbers. A request was made for this in-house integrals, but the request was rejected. Consequently, the only quotable source known to this inspector is the dictionary definition. Other spoke persons in the industry have suggested numbers as high as 90% to assure no problems and nearly all agree that sixty per cent level will lead to fuzziness or pulled loops. Hence, this carpet looks fuzzy due to less than desirable latex penetration and bundle wrap. CONCLUSION The Solvent Base Fluorochemical has been the cause of the resoiling based upon the background information. |