CRI Seal of Approval, Five Years Later

[Jim Pemberton]

Most of you know that I've opposed the CRI Seal of Approval Program. This opposition does not exist because I don't respect the CRI and its members; many of their members have been very supportive of the carpet cleaning industry and have partnered with us more than ever before. Nor does this opposition to the SOA mean that I don't believe that a product manufacturer doesn't have the right to set specifications for the maintenance of their product.

What I've disagreed with has been the way the CRI has tested the equipment and cleaning products that you use, and how they've ranked their effectiveness.

Debbie Lema, who some of you know, works for Racine Industries (the folks that make Host Dry Extraction Products) and has written a well researched paper regarding the testing protocols used by Professional Testing Laboratories, who the CRI contracted to develop the standards set by the Seal of Approval Program.

I have some questions about it, and figured you might too. So I've invited Debbie here to explain her experiences and her paper, which will be available to any MB member who might want to reference it.

 

[Randy Pierce]

Jim I would love to be able to read this. I can br reached at superiorsteamcleaners@verizon.net

 

[Jim Pemberton]

Debbie will email the study to you, Randy.

Its as easy to read as any scientific paper can be.

 

[Josh Adler]

I would like to read it too Jim.....

Josha@bayareafourstar.com

 

[green research]

Hi all; long time no see!

For my own sanity and to make things click-click easy, I put the paper that Jim's referring to online at the link below. (That being said, I'm still happy to send it via email.)

I'm grateful to Jim and Mike and all here for the opportunity to discuss some things that have been swirling around for a long time... thanks.

The SOA affects us all in one way or another. I really look forward to hearing what you guys think and getting a discussion going.

 

[Desk Jockey]

Debbie you did a excellent job with the paper, I really appreciate the effort you put into it.

As I mentioned to you before, I think it can be a very powerful tool exposing the junk science behind the SOA testing.

Thanks again!

 

[Jim Pemberton]

Debbie, I'd like to start with either the soil or the XRF gun.

Could you comment on whichever one makes the most sense to discuss first?

 

[green research]

Thanks back to you, Richard.

Jim, two out of three with this nickel says gun.

 

[Jim Pemberton]

Then gun it is.

The CRI seems very confident that XRF technology is the best way to test soil removal in carpet. Would you care to explain the technology in a way that a high school only graduate like me might understand?

Did they use the same gun as NASA uses, as they infer?

And how well do other experts in the field feel that XRF technology works for measuring soil in a carpet?

 

[Danny Strickland]

I think we should be more concerned with Mr & Mrs. Piffletons SOA!!! :wink:

good work Debbie. yore 10x smarter and way better looking than anyone on here!!! :shock:

used carpet is pulled from homes and businesses in all 50 states everyday. why can't samples be used from real world soiling by a PTL???

 

[Desk Jockey]

THIS?

NOT this?

Works like this?

 

[Lee Stockwell]

XRF is more appropriate for measuring/detecting very heavy elements, notably lead. However even in that arena it has limitations.

It is totally blind to the most common elements we face in soiled carpeting.

 

[green research]

I wish somebody would have told me that you guys knew all this already before I wrote that paper. Dang I spent a lot of time on that.

 

[Eric Valentine]

The paper was VERY well written.

 

[Lee Stockwell]

Agreed

 

[Jim Pemberton]

Don't let these wise guys impress you Debbie. They are google and cut and paste kings.

J/K friends! Those guys have more brains than me.

OK, Debbie, please realize that 99% of the observers here are not as informed as the previous posters and explain the XRF gun to the rest of us.

 

[green research]

Thanks all.

Danny--As far as using torn-out carpet for testing? Yes nothing wrong with that, it's very useful to do so. And really isn't testing what you do every day you work? The problem is that they're all different, with different soils and with different wear, etc. You can bet if the company that I work for got tested that way and did well, most folks would throw a fit. And vice versa! All across the board. Fair enough and as it should be. That being said Danny, I like the way you think--testing needs to be meaningful.

Richard! Thanks for putting those pictures up. And Lee, let's explore your "lead" train in a little bit; it's important.

I'll address the first of Jim's questions and come back for the rest:

Okay, XRF technology... XRF is AWESOME. There are lots of different kinds of XRF tools, and they're all amazing and useful to different extents. When I learned of XRF I wanted one pretty badly, so hence this research. Research is something I'm trained in, but I'm not a trained XRF expert.

The easiest nutshell way I've come up with to explain how XRF works (to myself anyway) is an analogy: shooting pool on a table with only one pocket. You've got a cue stick (energy out from the gun). ...But you're blind. Thankfully someone told you there are nine balls there amongst other things (eggs? ping pong balls?) on the table (calibration). Things of the right type that land in the pocket get counted. Sometimes things of the wrong type land in the pocket and get counted. Things that don't land in the pocket don't get counted. Since somebody told you there are nine balls, you could keep shooting until you either get nine balls counted or can't find any more or you get tired or whatever. If you DIDN'T know how many ball there were, you wouldn't have the amount of confidence when you stopped that you got everything. (This scenario assumes a flat surface, which obviously carpet is not, but that's the basic idea.)

Does that start to clarify things at all?

 

[Shawn Forsythe]

SOA has a laudable (original) intent, but a miserable implementation.

In the beginning, XRF testing just had this awesome "cool", "space-age","rocket science" aura about it. The purveyors for applicability to carpet soil removal testing just seemed bound and determined to have this be the centerpiece of the entire SOA program, no matter what. When step-by-step, the actual applicability showed serious flaws, the program attempted to adapt at every turn so that it could still be used. It's been whittled down to just differential equipment testing wherein the varied inclusion of many characteristics of cleaning systems have had to be set aside. Deborah's paper points out many flaws in just what is left of the credibility of what is left, without even touching on what has been lost.

A very fine paper, I hope it has real consequences.

 

[Royal Man]

Has anyone ever had a client that cared about the SOA.

 

[ruff]

Has anyone ever had a client that cared about the SOA.

Currently, most (99.99% to be scientific) do not care. They do not even know what it is.

However, like any "Warranty" type issue, it may become our issue as well.
If they push it enough, persuade some manufacturers to add it as a condition to maintain their warranty, it may very well affect us.

So we might as well pay attention.

 

[sweendogg]

Debbie,

Outstanding paper,

While the intentions of the CRI are admirable, the program standards were rushed through inorder to put a system in place that was more credible than their first attempt and a result of the flawed results is a system that can be manipulated by the industry the system attempts to govern.

BTW great explanation with the pool table analogy! Your general explanation can be used to describe any kinda of experimental testing device. The results are only as good as the researches who are using the equipment.

For years, scientists relied on telescopes to explore the universe. when man invented satellites, it changed our whole perception and understanding from what we were able to understand from telecopes alone. Moral of the story, when we rely on a single testing method, the results will be skewed and often flawed because there are no checks or balances that can be used to verify the data.

And so is such with the use of only the XRF. I mean with all of the other technologies out there today such as spectroscopy, hygienic resourse to verify the organic organisms present before and after, chemical breakdown and physical/chemical study of the material removed from the carpet. There are so many tests tha should be used to back each other test up.

 

[JeffC]

Debbie, that is one detailed and impressive explanation of some of the concerns with this program. It seems like the CRI originally had good intentions, and on paper their program sounds good, but it’s so far off track now I think it would be hard to fix the glaring errors.

From your report and a few others I’ve read I see a couple major faults with the testing.
1. They aren’t using real dirt.
2. The testing procedures aren’t consistent for truck mounts, portables and rentals.

But I also think the problems with the program go beyond the technical deficiencies and in fact the bar has been lowered instead of raised.

Being from Missouri I’ve had several friends over the years that work for Rug Doctor. If someone can’t afford a professional cleaning or for whatever reason decides to clean their own carpet that’s their choice, and it’s good they have that option. After all removing a small percentage of soil is better than living in unsanitary conditions.

But by giving Rug Doctor the highest ranking (platinum) this s a slap in the face to everyone, the IICRC, the mills, truck mount and portable manufacturers, distributors and all of the true professionals out their making a living cleaning carpets.

When this program was in its early stages and first being introduced years ago the speaker (I believe if I remember correctly it was at Connections in Florida) showed a slide that had the “Wal-Mart type” equipment removing 7% of soil, “Rentals”, removing 15% and a “Truck mount” removing 90% plus of the soil. I was actually excited about this, at least at first. A few years later Rug Doctor is not only on the approval list but has the highest designation. What happened?

The message this sends to the public is that they don’t need a professional to clean their carpets but rather can do a better job themselves. (Just take a look at some of Rug Doctors advertising.) The fact is, they need good equipment but the most important factor is a trained person to use it, as well as using the right products.

I think having 4 different designations is also very confusing and sends a mixed message as to what they’re trying to achieve with the program. The bar appears to be set awfully low which at least gives the appearance that they’re concerned more about making money by having approved equipment than having properly cleaned carpet. Since most customers have never heard of the CRI it would seem like for this program to be successful they need as much support from the mills, manufactures, distributors and cleaners to get their message out. Do the mills really want untrained homeowners cleaning their own carpets with rental equipment? I can’t imagine they do! Does the IICRC want people cleaning their own carpets with rental equipment? The answer is obvious. As far as professional carpet cleaners we know what most think about the program.

I guess the way I see it its too far off track to correct these glaring faults. I’d say they need to scrap the program and start over. Other than keeping “The Professional Test Laboratories” busy with make believe testing I see no value with the current direction this program is going.

Jeff Cutshall

 

[Lee Stockwell]

The SOA is a "success" for the CRI because it is finally making them money.

 

[Jim Pemberton]

At the time of Mr Braun's article on ICS, I believe that they had 830 service providers. I think they'd have to move the decimal point over one more to come close to being able to clean all the carpet that needs to be serviced during its warranty period.

I don't see that opportunity on the horizon if its taken 5 years to get this far.

Its a shame, because the program did start with such promise, as Jeff so well explained.

 

[Desk Jockey]

I would have loved to have been an SOA service provider.

We always look for ways to differentiate ourselves from our competition. We also use top of the line equipment & chems as well as provide continual training to our techs.

However by being a provider we would have to sign on to a program that is a farce, one doesn't do what it was originally intended to do. Give the consumer helpful direction, in fact it does quite the opposite.

It leads consumers to think that grocery store rentals are on par with professional equipment.

It's time to re-evaluate the program and repair it, or retire the whole idea.

830 is a drop in a bucket.

 

[green research]

"Did they use the same gun as NASA uses, as they infer?"

Do they use the NASA gun in the SOA testing? No.

Why do I care? They don't need the vacuum-assisted model to find the types of particles they use; it would be a waste of money. I care because they market it like they're using it. They market it that way perhaps because under NASA agreements, they agreed to promote NASA technology.

The first time I walked into the lab there I recognized it right off as not being the right model. You can see for yourself the two models in CRI's video: http://www.carpet-rug.org/media/SOA_XRF/SOA_XRF.wmv

I’ve experienced essentially 5 different responses regarding this:
1. The NASA gun was used “in the development of the SOA test soil.” (Doesn’t mean they use it in testing)
2. “The results are identical irrespective of which unit is used for measurement—we checked!” (Doesn’t mean they use it in testing)
3. CRI has a Space Act Agreement. (Doesn’t mean they use it in testing)
4. “NASA signed off on it.” (Doesn’t mean they use it in testing)
5. The NASA technology doesn’t actually refer to the gun; it refers to the NASA co-patented taggant (soil) technology. (Hm well even though they play up the vacuum-assist model, maybe this means something…)

So just look at the NASA co-patents: there are two. The first patent ([url="http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive...rs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 005160.pdf)[/url] is about the vacuum-chamber model, so that’s not relevant. The second patent (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6850592.html) is indeed about the taggants. But it’s about using the taggants for product authentication, as in: Is this a counterfeit document?, or even Who made this carpet? As a NASA release put it, “The first patent pertained to the vacuum-assist element... The second patent was for intrinsic product authentication through chemical tag identifiers that are converted to bar code language.” (http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/1256?task=view). This doesn’t seem relevant either. And frankly nor does it matter, since the press releases lead people to believe that they're using the NASA vacuum-assisted gun: "Carpet cleaning has now become rocket science through the use of NASA-enhanced x-ray fluorescence (XRF) technology, used by NASA for the Space Shuttle program. CRI incorporated XRF technology into its testing protocol..."

Statements like the following make we wonder if NASA really understands what the SOA testing is: per NASA, "Using the TRACeR III-V scanner (not PTL's model), laboratories can measure the starting compound applied to a carpet sample and then quantify the precise amount of soil removed following a cleaning. The scanner can additionally be used to determine the amount of water being removed from a carpet during a cleaning (they don't do this)..."

 

[Hoody]

I have one major problem with any program that'll be ever made. No matter all the money spent on testing on soil removal and blah blah blah, ect.

When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter the machine, product, whatever; because a failure in results or unsatifactory results is always going to end with the USER and NOT the equipment. Or atleast most if not all of the time because that is one VARIABLE that will never become constant. In order to have a true scientific experiment you need to have a CONSTANT variable.

IMO laboratory testing with never out-do real world testing.

However, the concept is admirable.

 

[Desk Jockey]

Wow I'm even more disappointed than I previously was.


What's with all the NASA innuendo? If they can't even be completely honest with that, what does it say about any information that come of of there. :shock:

 

[Jim Pemberton]

Well, I guess that puts the NASA and XRF mystique to bed.

Where do we go next Debbie?

The carpet sample that is nothing like the commercial carpet that the CRI seems to be primarily concerned about?

Or the "dirt"?

 

[timnelson]

I seem to remember a report created by the lab that discussed comparisons between XRF soil readings and spectrophotometer readings. The two showed very good correlation. My immediate thought was... "then why jack with (scientific term :wink: ) XRF?"