Craig Lindquist said:
Jim,
Can you elaborate more on the testing soils. I have often wondered about that. Of course soil varies by region. Also there are many factors I am not convinced were addressed, such as food spills, compacted soils, petroleum oils, organic oils (food grade).
From what I can see, it appears that a synthetic soil was uniformly applied to a carpet sample, then testing was conducted.
Maybe I need to clean more carpets, but in the one I have cleaned, I have not come across any with a synthetic soil.
I have also never found one that was uniformly soiled.
Craig
I am not sure if you are referring to the SOA soil or not.
Proctor and Gamble has done a study to determine what soil is. These results are consistent throughout the world. Here are the results.
1. Moisture 2 TO 4%
2. Silica, Silicates (Sand), Clay, Quartz, Felspar 30 TO 40%
3. Oxides, Carbonates, Phosphates 6 TO 24%
4. Carbon 0 TO 3%
5. Animal Hair 10 TO 12%
6. Cellulosic Materials 10 TO 12%
7. Resins, Gums 6 TO 10%
8. Fats, Oils, Tars 3 TO 8%
9. Miscellaneous, Unknown 1 TO 3%
Resins, gums, fats, oil, and tars are the glue that holds everything left behind after vacuuming. Their small percentage makes up 90% of the cleaning challenge. Our professional cleaning systems with detergents are designed to remove this kind of soil.
Making a test soil without an oily component reminds me of the story on how to identify an aggie at a cock fight.
He brings a duck!
How would you know if the mafia were at the fight?
THE DUCK WINS!
Not having an oily component in the test soil is not a glitch in the program; it is not an oversight. It indicates that something more serious is wrong. These guys do not understand the basics of carpet cleaning. I do not mean this as a reflection of the CRI, because everything else that has come from them has been pretty good. I do not believe the regular technical staff of the CRI is in charge of this project; CR Mitchell is.