Stain Resist Loss Due To Improper Cleaning
This report was commissioned by a carpet mill and had a commercial stain resist warranty. The stain resistance was destroyed by the cleaner who used concrete cleaner.
THE CARPET
FIBER PROTECTANTS Scotchgard® Carpet Protector & Stain Release
FIBER MANUFACTURER: BASF
FIBER NAME: Zeftron® 2000
FIBER/ ID METHOD: Nylon-Chemical
COLOR: Blue & White
CONSTRUCTION: Tufted Looped
STYLE: Level Loop
SQUARE YARDAGE: 608.33
BACK SYSTEM: Conventional Tufted
PRIMARY BACKING: Polypropylene
SECONDARY BACKING: Polypropylene
THE INSTALLATION
TYPE OF SITE: Commercial
TYPE OF BUSINESS: Retirement Center
DATE INSTALLED: February 1995
METHOD: Direct Glue Down
SUBFLOOR: Concrete
AREA INSTALLED: Dining-Room, Hallways
USE & MAINTENANCE INFORMATION AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION
LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: Not Determined
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 36
TEMPERATURE: 74.5°F - 23.6° C
RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 44%
VACUUM TYPE: Upright
FREQUENCY: Daily
ENTRY MATS: Yes
CONDITION of THE CARPET: See Report
SOIL: See Report
HEATING TYPE: Central Force Air Electric
COOLING TYPE: Central - Electric
CLEANING: See Report
REASON FOR COMMISSION
To determine the effectiveness of the stain resistance in the carpet.
THE REPORT
Geographical Background Information
The carpet in question was installed in this two story retirement facility. At the time of the inspection there were 78 residents. The condition and maintenance of the facility was good.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION MADE TO THE INSPECTOR
Carpet in this facility was replaced due to damages sustained from the Northridge earthquake. This carpet was sold direct to the claimant and installed by an outside installer. After the installation the claimant noticed spots and stains remained in the carpet after cleaning. The manufacturer inspected the carpet and found that it lacked stain resistance. The carpet was replaced with the same color and style that was stain resist.
Shortly after this installation, the claimant noticed that the new carpet was having similar staining problems. Also the carpet was soiling immediately after cleaning. A remnant of this new installation was tested and found to have stain resistance.
ACME Services, Inc of Los Angeles, California was commissioned by the manufacturer to clean the carpet. According to Intex Service their services were preceded by another company and both were unsuccessful in removing the red and yellow stains. It was also reported by the claimant that a recent change was made to ACME SANITATION SUPPLY from a previous supplier.
VISUAL DESCRIPTION BY THE INSPECTOR
Yellow and red stains were noted in the dining room area only. These stains were primarily located in the trafficked areas. The maintenance staff reported the yellow stains to be mustard and the red stains to be from Jell-O or red beverage.
The carpet was being cleaned by the claimant on the day of the inspection. The inspector noted that solution continued to come out of the jet of the wand after the solution control was released. The chemical being used was 3M Carpet Extraction sold by NATIONAL SANITATION SUPPLY.
FIELD TESTING
An ultra-violet light was shone throughout the dining-room. This tool draws a blue or lavender reflection from detergents with optical brightening agents. The result of this test revealed that there was a strong blue reflection. The extraction cleaner being used and all of the spotting chemicals that were reportedly used were tested and were found to have no ultra-violet reflection. The inspector went back to the claimant and took pictures of the carpet using ultra-violet light, see picture below) . The ultra violet light was used also on the remnant that was ordered from the manufacturer. These pictures revealed no ultra-violet reflection from the manufacturer’s remnant, but did from the carpet in question. The inspector visited the facilities of ACME Services and tested all of the chemicals reportedly used on the claimant’s carpet. These chemicals were mixed and applied to level-looped nylon carpet installed in their kitchenette area and were viewed with the aid of the ultra-violet light and the other with no light source. This test revealed that here was no reflection found.
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. The cleaning solution in the supply tank of the extractor measured 7.8. A Spotting agent called BOT #2729 was measured at pH 7.5 and another product called Spot Remover measured 9.4.
An attempt to remove a red and yellow spot using the method known as ‘HEAT TRANSFER’ was tried using a wet cotton towel, a clothes-steam iron, and a 7% solution of ammonium hydroxide. This attempt removed a substantial amount of the red stain, but not the yellow areas as seen in the photographs.
THE ISSUE OF THIS REPORT
The issue of this report is: what has caused a loss of stain resistance in the carpet in question?
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE ISSUE
Stain Resistance can be lost when:
1. the carpet has been cleaned with chemicals not approved for stain resist carpet.
2. stain resistance has not been applied during manufacturing
3. the carpet has been maintained or used in an inappropriate manner
The Cleaning Standards are:
1. The Standard for Carpet Cleaning S001-1994 published by the INSTITUTE OF INSPECTIONS, CLEANING and RESTORATION CERTIFICATION at the recommendation of the FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
2. the manufacturer’s cleaning instruction
INDUSTRY STANDARDS, PRACTICES & DEFINITIONS
The Standard for Carpet Cleaning S001-1994 is the standard for cleaning and 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.
According to the IICRC S001 - 1994 - STANDARD PRACTICE FOR ON-LOCATION CLEANING OF IN-STALLED TEXTILE FLOOR COVERING MATERIALS the procedure for the STEAM CLEANING METHOD are as follows:
7.4 Pre-Conditioning - In heavy soiling situations, a pre-conditioner that may contain solvents for emulsifying oily soils must be applied to entry, pivot and high traffic areas prior to the application of the steam cleaning method. For stain-resist carpet, this pre-conditioner must be anionic, non-ionic or combinations thereof, and have a pH of 10 or less. For wool carpet this preconditioner must range in pH from 5.5 to 8. Dilute pre-conditioners containing dry solvent additives must not contribute appreciable quantities of VOC’s (volatile organic compounds) to air within the structure.
Concerning problems in drying the STANDARDS say this:
7.11 Drying (ref. Section E, point 5, p. 13) - Complete drying will be accomplished within 1-24 hours (depending on soiling conditions and ambient humidity). When multiple pass cleaning is required on heavily soiled carpet, and especially when post-cleaning additives are applied to carpet following "steam" cleaning, longer unassisted drying times (12-24 hours) may be anticipated. Therefore, technicians must consider procedures to expedite drying and thus to avoid problems associated with over-wetting. Overwriting, or prolonged drying, may result from operator error.
There is a condition that is referred to as WICKING. It is defined in the Flooring Covering Dictionary as "Dispersing or spreading of moisture or liquid through a given area, vertically or horizontally; capillary action in material." A spot may appear after cleaning if a substance has penetrated through the carpet back. This substance would then act as a bridge between the face yarns and polypropylene backing on the underside of the carpet.
THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS
The inspector could not find anything unusual about the manner in which the carpet was being used and the inspector shares the belief that red stains were created by red drink or Jell-O and the yellow stain were created from mustard. The tests done on the new carpet suggests that the stain resistance was good at the time of installation.
The carpet cleaning has one unresolved issue which is: ‘where did the ultra-violet reflection come from?’. This seems to be a mystery since none of the chemicals tested had such a reflection; although ultra-violet reflection of this hue are common to non-carpet-cleaning products. Based upon research from this inspector virtually no major brand of carpet cleaning chemical contains optical brightener. The reason for this is that acid dye blocking component of stain resistance and optical brighteners are both dyes. As such there is an inherent conflict. In addition, the products that contain optical brighteners often contain alkalizes that exceed the pH 10 limitation for stain resist. If this reflection is the result of cleaning products not designed for stain resist carpet, then it would easily explain why the stain resist is not presently intact.
The reoccurrence of soil upon the drying of the carpet is due to process known as ‘Wicking’. If the resoiling occurred a few weeks or months after cleaning it would be related to ‘soil attracting residue’. This ‘wicking’ is the result of moisture going into the backing system of the carpet during cleaning. As the carpet dries, debris from the backing travels up the yarn and collects on the surface of the carpet. A major contributor to this problem would be the leaking jet on the claimant’s extraction wand during the first inspection.
CONCLUSION
The carpet in question has lost stain resistance due to improper cleaning based upon the ultra-violet reflections found in the carpet in question.