CRI Seal of Approval, Five Years Later

[Lee Stockwell]

There is certainly a need for someone to certify "certification bodies" for their authenticity.

 

[Leslie Judson Jones]

There is certainly a need for someone to certify "certification bodies" for their authenticity.

 

[Erik]

That rider looked to be a certified nut job!

 

[Dirtmonger]

Wow

You guys are deep. I think I just stumbled into the Star Chamber of the New World Order........makes sense, who would ever suspect carpet cleaners.

 

[KeithCo]

"One day, you go to your supplier to get a part that you used to be able to get right then. But now you're told that they don't stock them anymore: not enough sales on it so it's not worth stocking regularly. But you're welcome to use their phone if you like to call the manufacturer to order it. Connection #1 breaking.

You spend ten minutes on hold with the manufacturer, trying to figure out with a new temp who is obviously still in high school what the part number is. Where did the good customer service people go? The temp finally comes back only to tell you that they're backordered and it will be a couple of weeks. Thank goodness you still have .5 trucks you can use in the meantime to do your jobs! Hope nothing goes wrong with that half a truck. You slam the phone down. Connection #2 breaking."


Always turns back into a Vortex thread around here.

 

[Mikey P]

Tell me about it.

 

[sweendogg]

Thats because the truck suckkksss sooo hard it creates an eternal black hole!

 

[Hoody]

Thats because the truck suckkksss sooo hard it creates an eternal black hole!

In your wallet.

 

[sweendogg]

:mrgreen:

 

[Shorty]

What influence is the CRI - SOA going to have overseas in countries like the U.K. & Australia / New Zealand. :?:

Most of our equipment and chemicals are now imported from the USA.

To be honest with you, we laugh at someone that say's they can walk in off the street and hire a "certified SOA" rental machine, (such as a rug doctor), and honestly believe that they are going to do a better job at a cheaper cost than a professional carpet/upholstery cleaner that has years of training and experience in the real world.

How can the CRI justify endorsing rental machines to the general public as "SOA" approved. :?:

Will you be at Connections in Vegas this September. :?:

Regards,

Shortestwun.

:roll:



PS :::: My ex tried to get me certified, but the doctor of the day, ( he also was still practising ), said there was "no hope".

 

[LisaWagnerCRS]

Debbie,

I set aside "quiet time" to read your full paper today - as opposed to the scan I did a few days ago.

I wonder, after you are completed with receiving review comments, and publish the white paper, if you would have any interest of creating a "CRI for Dummies" version that most who are not accustomed to reading scientific papers might benefit from. Perhaps the main points from your summary into bullet points for the "masses" in the cleaning AND retailing world?

I would be happy to help be an interpreter... I speak Dummy fluently since I am one.

Thank you for the very thorough, seemingly unbiased presentation of the "facts."

Lisa

 

[green research]

What influence is the CRI - SOA going to have overseas in countries like the U.K. & Australia / New Zealand. :?:

Most of our equipment and chemicals are now imported from the USA.

To be honest with you, we laugh at someone that say's they can walk in off the street and hire a "certified SOA" rental machine, (such as a rug doctor), and honestly believe that they are going to do a better job at a cheaper cost than a professional carpet/upholstery cleaner that has years of training and experience in the real world.

How can the CRI justify endorsing rental machines to the general public as "SOA" approved. :?:

Will you be at Connections in Vegas this September. :?:

Regards,

Shortestwun.

:roll:



PS :::: My ex tried to get me certified, but the doctor of the day, ( he also was still practising ), said there was "no hope".

The short answer about the influence of the SOA internationally as of yet or even down the road is I don't know. I would think that the more it is written into standards and the more people advertise it (Rug Doctor, professional cleaners, etc), the more it will spread.

What I do know is that they get around, and that once something is adopted as The Way It's Done, most people just accept that and adopt it as well. No need to reinvent the wheel, right? Gotta compete, right?

How does CRI justify endorsing the Rug Doctor? "The test results speak for themselves."

Whenever I think about Rug Doctor, I remember that the testing as of yet doesn't mean anything. It hasn't been validated or scientifically demonstrated relevant to real world carpet, etc., and likely can't be.

[I don't know yet if I'll be at Connections.]

 

[green research]

Debbie,

I set aside "quiet time" to read your full paper today - as opposed to the scan I did a few days ago.

I wonder, after you are completed with receiving review comments, and publish the white paper, if you would have any interest of creating a "CRI for Dummies" version that most who are not accustomed to reading scientific papers might benefit from. Perhaps the main points from your summary into bullet points for the "masses" in the cleaning AND retailing world?

I would be happy to help be an interpreter... I speak Dummy fluently since I am one.

Thank you for the very thorough, seemingly unbiased presentation of the "facts."

Lisa

Thanks Lisa. I put a lot of effort into keeping my own bias out of the paper and to keep it just to the facts regarding the testing.

And while I don't know you, I say PAH -- you can't possibly be a dummy. And I think your idea of a cheat sheet is a good one... I'll see what I can whomp together soon and perhaps you can help translate if I fail miserably?

 

[John Watson]

Great work on this Debbie, Also thanks to Jim for keeping it out in front of us. Thanks to MB people for the great questions and input. Getting you and Lisa togethermight help me figure it out, I don't know if I am dumb dummie or a smart one? Still a smart arse, butt barely holding my own..

 

[Jim Pemberton]

Lisa

I appreciate your offer to help bring this message to a wider audience. If I may speak for Debbie, some of the thread does speak to simplifying some of the report (the pool table), and I'll see if we can lead Debbie into another aspect of the discussion.

That said, a single "XRF Study for High School" guideline would help, as that's all the education I have myself.

I would like to talk about your feelings on the soil used, Debbie. I think its part of the foundation of the testing protocol that creates the ability for a Rug Doctor to get listed higher than a truck mount. Am I correct in assuming this?

 

[Lee Stockwell]

Getting out those Ytrium Baride stains is where the Rug Doc excels...

 

[green research]

I would like to talk about your feelings on the soil used, Debbie. I think its part of the foundation of the testing protocol that creates the ability for a Rug Doctor to get listed higher than a truck mount. Am I correct in assuming this?

Hm this may be better in installments… Sorry I’m not doing very well at being brief.

As everybody may know, the soil mix used in the testing is a stand-in for the dry dirt found in vacuum bags from locations across the US from one manufacturer. Presumably, the collected dirt was from carpets that were available in the marketplace and had been walked on.

Using a stand-in for testing is perfectly acceptable and often necessary — for instance, we use crash test dummies to stand in for humans, or we use stunt doubles for action sequences in movies. I don’t have a problem with stand-ins. But have you ever seen a low-budget movie where the stand-in for the lovely young lady is a giant hairy man with the same outfit and a purse? It really distracts from the story.

That’s kind of how I see the designer soil used in the testing.

I accept that the designer soil adequately reflects the particle sizes of dry soil collected from vacuum bags. This acceptance of mine is based on seeing scanning electron microscope images comparing the designer soil with the dry soil… I gave it an unscientific “yes, they kind of look the same.” I might think these compounds would be fine stand-ins for a vacuuming test if all else worked.

However, the testing involves extractors, which (as we all know) are typically called in to get the stuff that wasn’t vacuumed. So essentially they’re not using ideal stand-ins to test a cleaning process that involves moisture. In other words, they’re ranking extractors as if they were vacuum cleaners, and miss out on testing extractors with soils that they are more designed to remove.

That being said, the test developers say that they never claimed that the XRF test does anything more than “test the general performance of the carpet cleaning equipment to remove Dry Particulate Soil.”

(To be continued...)

 

[Ron Werner]

so a good vacuum by itself could have been Gold Certified before an extractor even got turned on?

 

[truckmount girl]

Debbie, isn't a huge problem the allowance of "systems", wherein a company can basically write their own testing protocol which need not have any bearing on the use of said chems/equipment in the field?

Take care,
Lisa

 

[Desk Jockey]

The moisture caused the designer soil to clump and give errors in reading. Is this where it actually read as if it was more soiled after cleaning?

Would a different element read any different or are they just asking too much of the XRF gun?

It just seems that they found the XRF gun and fell in love with the technology before they saw if it was going to give them any results that were useful and valid.

Then once committed they disregarded how ineffective the gun was at reading the designer soil and pushed on. :?

 

[green research]

so a good vacuum by itself could have been Gold Certified before an extractor even got turned on?

It's conceivable. I've seen vacuums by themselves achieve bronze.

 

[Ron Werner]

[quote="Ron Werner":24ri1vfs]so a good vacuum by itself could have been Gold Certified before an extractor even got turned on?

It's conceivable. I've seen vacuums by themselves achieve bronze.[/quote:24ri1vfs]
This and the last couple comments, about writing ones own testing protocol, ie system, which is probably never used in real life, and soil clumping when wet which is like deodourizer powder or baking powder which many people throw on their carpet but needs to be removed dry, throws a lot of variables in a test that is supposed to be consistent and repeatable. Especially if the results of this test, ie Gold, Silver or Bronze, is going to be used to identify good cleaners from bad.

 

[green research]

Debbie, isn't a huge problem the allowance of "systems", wherein a company can basically write their own testing protocol which need not have any bearing on the use of said chems/equipment in the field?

Take care,
Lisa

Without a lot more information, I would argue that neither the system nor the extractor testing protocols have any bearing in the field. Which yes I think is a huge problem.

Even if the rankings mean something and are relevant, which I'm not prepared to accept:

There is more subjectivity involved with the systems testing, making only general comparisons possible within the ranks: the systems are not supposed to be compared too strongly with each other. Per a test developer: "...only general comparisons between different equipment can be done..." Also, because of this subjectivity (and even though it doesn't say so anywhere and it's a natural thing to do), the extractor rankings and the system rankings are not supposed to be compared against each other either. Hence the separate programs instead of one list of ranked things.

But it's hard not to assume a "Gold" extractor equals a "Gold" system, or that a "Platinum" system is necessarily better than a "Gold" one, when that's how it's presented.

For systems, they do have a check in place to prevent a wonky protocol... according to PTL, if they deem a protocol fishy at the lab, then it's sent to a CRI Review Board who is supposed to decide on it.

The subjectivity of the systems testing aside, it could be argued that the extractor testing protocol has little bearing in the field either. Many people with SOA extractors in the field pre-vacuum, use chemistry, agitate somehow, use fans, etc., and thus are not following the testing protocol of doing nothing but using a straight-suction vacuum cleaner followed by 2 plain water passes and 2 dry passes.

 

[green research]

The moisture caused the designer soil to clump and give errors in reading. Is this where it actually read as if it was more soiled after cleaning?

No -- different potential errors. Wicking caused the XRF set-up to measure that particular compound at a higher level after cleaning than before, simply because the soil was closer to it. They took this compound out of the line-up so that it wouldn't happen any more, but this wicking error helps prove that where the "dirt" is on the fibers or the backing helps determine how much is measured. (I guess kind of like your eyes would: if the dirt's down low, you can't see it as well or at all, but when it pops back up you can see it.)

Would a different element read any different or are they just asking too much of the XRF gun?

The rest of the soils probably don't wick. But they do move, for instance during cleaning due to water pressure or whatever. And if you move the soils or the soiled fibers, just like with the wicking thing, your measurement is messed up. Cleaning therefore is one way to mess up the measurements. (Which is kind of funny when you think of it that way.)

It just seems that they found the XRF gun and fell in love with the technology before they saw if it was going to give them any results that were useful and valid.

Then once committed they disregarded how ineffective the gun was at reading the designer soil and pushed on. :?

I spoke with one XRF expert outside the carpet industry who said (perhaps harshly), "too bad when people use technology without learning about it first." This person concluded that carpet is an impossible sample for XRF to measure well.

I can understand the excitement, and sympathize with the pressure for creating a test. But when confronted with flaws, the responses I get are things like We could have fixed that part but it was a cost/time issue, or "what do you have that's better?" I'd rather have things done right or not at all.

 

[Desk Jockey]

But when confronted with flaws, the responses I get are things like We could have fixed that part but it was a cost/time issue, or "what do you have that's better?" I'd rather have things done right or not at all.

WOW, people can sure get defensive when they get caught doing something they know isn't right.
:shock:

Those don't sound like answers to me, they sound like excuses!

 

[Ron Werner]

For systems, they do have a check in place to prevent a wonky protocol... according to PTL, if they deem a protocol fishy at the lab, then it's sent to a CRI Review Board who is supposed to decide on it.

More likely they present a protocol that is very reasonable, testable, and effective. The challenge being that in the field that protocol is never followed. So they get a Gold performance in the lab, but in practice it's barely a Bronze.

 

[Larry Cobb]

For systems, they do have a check in place to prevent a wonky protocol... according to PTL, if they deem a protocol fishy at the lab, then it's sent to a CRI Review Board who is supposed to decide on it.

The subjectivity of the systems testing aside, it could be argued that the extractor testing protocol has little bearing in the field either. Many people with SOA extractors in the field pre-vacuum, use chemistry, agitate somehow, use fans, etc., and thus are not following the testing protocol of doing nothing but using a straight-suction vacuum cleaner followed by 2 plain water passes and 2 dry passes.

Debbie;

The original test protocol was abused by some unscrupulous companies.

(I heard TEN cleaning passes was used by one underpowered manufacturer)

That is why the CRI Review Board checks the new applicant's protocol for a reasonable procedure.

Larry

 

[timnelson]

From CRI website:
Mighty Pack® with Rug Doctor Oxy-Steam®
Mighty Pack® with Oxy-Steam® Cleaner solution diluted 4 oz / gl Procedure: Each sample is cleaned using the Rug Doctor 2 step cleaning process. Step 1 - vacuum prior to cleaning at least 4 passes. Step 2 – Hot water extract with Rug Doctor Oxy-Steam® Carpet Cleaner detergent diluted 4 oz per gallon using 4 wet extraction passes at a rate of 1 ft/sec on each pass.

From Rug Doctor website:
Rug Doctor machines are designed to deep-clean and extract in one cleaning pass. Don't go over heavily soiled spots more than 2 times.

 

[Mikey P]

Debbie, do the Nasa testers ever pull 10 ear old carpet out of homes to test?


What I like to call the Lasagna effect that occurs in well used homes (family of five, friends of the 3 kids, 3 pets, a rug doctoring once or twice a year, a few Stanley Steemerings and twelve gallons of home use spotter all layered and wisked in with a POS canister or Oreck vacuum just can not be duplicated in any laboratory.

 

[green research]

(I heard TEN cleaning passes was used by one underpowered manufacturer)

I heard that too, but I can't remember where; was it on the CRI site for a while?

From CRI website:
Mighty Pack® with Rug Doctor Oxy-Steam®
Mighty Pack® with Oxy-Steam® Cleaner solution diluted 4 oz / gl Procedure: Each sample is cleaned using the Rug Doctor 2 step cleaning process. Step 1 - vacuum prior to cleaning at least 4 passes. Step 2 – Hot water extract with Rug Doctor Oxy-Steam® Carpet Cleaner detergent diluted 4 oz per gallon using 4 wet extraction passes at a rate of 1 ft/sec on each pass.

From Rug Doctor website:
Rug Doctor machines are designed to deep-clean and extract in one cleaning pass. Don't go over heavily soiled spots more than 2 times.

I guess the difference is that the samples are not "heavily soiled", so they can do 4 passes? The irony is of course that if something wasn't heavily soiled, you wouldn't need to do 4 passes.

One thing that's especially jumping out at me from the CRI-listed protocol here is "vacuum prior to cleaning at least 4 passes." At least 4 passes? What does "at least" mean in a protocol? I find that highly questionable.