Has ATP testing been misrepresented in order to sell VLM equipment?

John G

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
911
C. Lee, still waiting for the first post of yours with ANYTHING to offer of value, what a waste of time.

I had one of dos OP machines I finally found a sucker to buy it from me........................he lives in Lincoln.
Jimmy you never had a Trinity, you are oldschool and you KNOW it.

Yes, got A's in Chemistry, Physics, Biology in college. Since then have always continued to learn.

If you read the article you know that common cleaning chemicals can "blind" the ATP test, yielding false negatives. Your testing is a proof of that.

IF IT WERE "CLEAN", a followup pass by a any HWE system would remove little or nothing. You fear that disclosure and try to avoid it at all costs.

A's never make up for common sense though Lee, we also use microscope pictures along with ATP, View attachment 4318
and you sit in your chair and type opinions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mardie
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
5,856
Location
California
Name
Shawn Forsythe
Until there exists a practical method for determining both quantitative and qualitative soil removal, the debate remains largely subjective. And this is to the advantage of marketing all but the "best" method available.

Yes, ATP results are overblown by method marketeers, because it is but one indicator of many that describe the multiple goals of the cleaning process, but not any specific demonstrable level of removal.

To "kill" the vestiges of biomass present in carpet soiling is not any defacto indicator of "clean". Just because it tests negative for bioactivity, it does not follow that ANYTHING, or any particular relative percentage of soil has been removed.

Visual appearance has flaws, as just because you can't see the soil, it also does not follow that it has been removed in any specific percentage. Some have suggested weight comparisons to measure relative soil removal. The flaw in this is that cleaning processes invariably actually remove quite a bit of substrate (physical fuzzing, breakage of fibers that are subsequently removed by extraction or post vacuuming, chemicals that attack substrate, etc).
 

Jimmy L

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
14,296
Location
Ne
Name
Jimmy L
I don't know about other areas of the country and their perverted way of grades but up in cheer they grade D and F's as top grades.

That sir is in science, biology and carpet cleaning.

So to put that in prospective..................we don't pass snakes around in church so who do you believe?

KEntucky, Tennesee, west virginia? HAhAHhAhahAHa!
 
  • Like
Reactions: GCCLee and Mikey P

Desk Jockey

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
61,349
Location
A planet far far away!
Name
Rico Suave
Until there exists a practical method for determining both quantitative and qualitative soil removal, the debate remains largely subjective. And this is to the advantage of marketing all but the "best" method available.

Yes, ATP results are overblown by method marketeers, because it is but one indicator of many that describe the multiple goals of the cleaning process, but not any specific demonstrable level of removal.

To "kill" the vestiges of biomass present in carpet soiling is not any defacto indicator of "clean". Just because it tests negative for bioactivity, it does not follow that ANYTHING, or any particular relative percentage of soil has been removed.

Visual appearance has flaws, as just because you can't see the soil, it also does not follow that it has been removed in any specific percentage. Some have suggested weight comparisons to measure relative soil removal. The flaw in this is that cleaning processes invariably actually remove quite a bit of substrate (physical fuzzing, breakage of fibers that are subsequently removed by extraction or post vacuuming, chemicals that attack substrate, etc).
c6b3d4a3-9182-421e-8fef-f2936a59b728_zps1c66fe24.jpg

You can stick a fork in him, I think that turkey is done! :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy L

John G

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
911
Shawn may be a friend, however he is also all HWE... and I would bet HE would have a hard time explaining what it is the Trinity does to carpets.. so how would he understand the value of testing, especially when he doesn't even seem to understand the protocols of the test itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: millbiller01
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
18,078
Location
Benton KY USA
Name
Lee Stockwell
Shawn may be a friend, however he is also all HWE... and I would bet HE would have a hard time explaining what it is the Trinity does to carpets.. so how would he understand the value of testing, especially when he doesn't even seem to understand the protocols of the test itself.

YOU, my friend, are the one who has "a hard time explaining what it is the Trinity does to carpets"...

WHAT does the Trinity do to carpets?
 

GCCLee

Supportive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
5,113
Location
East TN
Name
C. Lee
C. Lee, still waiting for the first post of yours with ANYTHING to offer of value, what a waste of time.



View attachment 4321

View attachment 4320

about all you'll get out of me,
My experiences an skillz are really none of your business as I have no desire to ever deal with YOU, or anyone who has a personality remotely close to yours : )
 

Desk Jockey

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
61,349
Location
A planet far far away!
Name
Rico Suave
especially when he doesn't even seem to understand the protocols of the test itself.
What protocol are you testing under. Last time I asked you directed me to your online get together. Can't you lay them out so others can get perform like testing.

Thanks
 

Art Kelley

Supportive Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,200
Location
Clawson,mi
Name
Rainbow Carpet And Upholstery Cleaning
LOL. It's like dealing with Joe Bristor. Maybe G's product is the best in the market. I don't know and will never know. I don't want to subvert any supplier in this industry trying to make a living but who's too ****ing stupid to know when to back down when they are in the wrong. And I sure don't want to go to court to battle some stupid dumbass. It's like the roadrage battles I fight. Just stupid and embarrassing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GCCLee

millbiller01

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
40
Shawn Forsythe
Until there exists a practical method for determining both
quantitative and qualitative soil removal, the debate remains largely subjective.

I see room for an on going debate, with what Mr. Chavez and Mr. Forsythe have offered. But, as flawed as the ATP testing may be, it is still a test. Until something better comes along, it seems it is the only tool available to use for utilization of on-location testing. Both gentleman, I imagine would be fantastic at giving a demonstration to a client, not saying they would, but I bet it would be fun to witness.

As subjective as the test seems to some, I think people that utilize it in their marketing and demonstrate how it works could really impress some perspective clients.

While the filter bag does hold a lot of gunk, with the ATP, you are still letting them see improvements due to cleaning, without subjecting them to a full filter bag looky-loo.

Maybe a more professional way of showing what was accomplished, utilizing whatever method the cleaner has chosen.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
5,856
Location
California
Name
Shawn Forsythe
...you are still letting them see improvements due to cleaning....

How do you define cleaning?

The ATP test does NOT test for "cleaning", it is simply a test of one quality of a soil or surface....and that is the existence of matter, that is living. It does not rule out non-viable once living matter, dead matter, or in fact... ANY non-living matter.

Let us consider the IICRC definition of cleaning:

cleaning - The purposeful activity of removing soil and undesired substances from an environment or surface to reduce damage or harm to human health or valuable materials. Cleaning is the process of locating, identifying, containing, removing and properly disposing of unwanted substances from an environment or material.
Levels of Cleaning include:

  1. Preventative maintenance;
  2. Appearance/interim cleaning, and
  3. Restorative cleaning.

Such a definition is very much weighted in quantitative measure, and a bit in qualitative, since it mentions "undesired substances", but still the emphasis is on actual REMOVAL, and not simply biologic viability.

I repeat. ATP testing DOES NOT indicate removal, only that the supposed existence of potential pathogens, no longer exhibit evidence of life processes.

Is it of value in marketing? Certainly. Any positive change is something it helps to capitalize upon, but I don't think that is the subject of this thread. The question is whether the determinations misrepresent the actual findings. Yes, they assuredly do IF YOU ARE MARKETING THE SURFACE AS CLEAN.







Are we arguing, simply because it is Friday?
 
Last edited:

Desk Jockey

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
61,349
Location
A planet far far away!
Name
Rico Suave
What is the point of testing? Is it to prove efficacy of cleaning or is it to sell OP machines?

If it is to prove efficacy are those areas not meeting the less than 300 count recleaned? On who's dime? How many tests are taken on the average cleaning job? Is the cost for the testing pens passed on to the client or absorbed by the cleaner?

Are you advocating every cleaner purchase a luminometer and test every job? That would be the only way to validate you left the carpet below the 300 count threshhold
 

The Great Oz

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
4,482
Location
seattle
Name
bryan
I'm not aware of any real and valued testing (other than Tony Wheelwright's boy scout weight's and measure pocket pal) that has the ability to take two identically soiled chunks of carpet and tell you which one weights less after cleaning. Can't trust the carpet mills to recommend a process, can trust the associations/foundations or anybody else (john included) to be honest about it
The CRI (carpet mill association) does scientific testing through Professional Testing Laboratory (PTL). The highly respected textile scientist Dr. Steven Spivak has checked PTL methodology and pronounced it sound. CRI/PTL have taken their lumps over the Rug Doctor ratings and are currently revising their program to take cleaning efficiency into account, so you'll never see a do-it-yourself portable rated with truckmounts again. The testing is honest and scientifically repeatable, they just didn't account for the amount of time it took to get equal-to-truckmount soil removal from a portable.

For example, if a truckmount removes over 90% of soil (by weight) from a test sample of low-loop CGD to earn top marks, it will do so while cleaning at a 1,000 SF per hour rate. A portable may also achieve 85% or better, but may clean 400 SF per hour or less. Increased speed equals reduced soil removal with all methods.

The more variables that are accounted for in the testing procedure the more accurate the result, but every variable added increases the cost of testing exponentially, so things like the time it takes to dump and fill a portable (or wash pads) are not going to be considered, and some common sense will still be required when reading the results.



PS: I haven't read the Vortex/pad thread and have no interest in throwing gas on that fire, but the oscillating machines sent in for testing averaged a 62% soil removal rate at an average cleaning speed of 160 SF per hour.
 
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
5,856
Location
California
Name
Shawn Forsythe
Bryan,

They also don't take into account that Iron Oxide, Zinc Oxide, Strontium Carbonate, Yttrium Oxide, and Zirconium Boride removal is not altogether indicative of efficiency of removal of real world soil. While the test is not used for chemical formulations (which is a good thing), it is very relevant in that it is used for systems testing, which is close as they get to methods testing (the subject of this particular thread).
 

The Great Oz

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
4,482
Location
seattle
Name
bryan
Shawn,
The composition of test soil is another factor that everyone wants to argue about.

Should there also be an oily component? Sure! OK, let's spend a few years arguing about the type of oil. Should the oil be aged to simulate oxidation? Of course! More arguments about test oxidation duration. The bottom line is that adding oily soil testing ads so much cost no one will pay for it.

They have to start somewhere, with a protocol that most agreed with. The cost of scientific testing of cleaning methods, and the threat of being sued by the losers, is why no one else has attempted it.
 
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
5,856
Location
California
Name
Shawn Forsythe
Bryan,

I certainly would not argue with the point you last made. A start? Sure it is. But as long as we all know that there are limitations that produce many anomalous and arbitrary results (i.e. Rug-Doctor platinum rating) in systems testing, Then yes, it's an unqualified start.

You see, I don't have a huge problem with XRF being used on equipment testing (no manufactured chemicals producing inconsistent variables). Where I have the issue is when it is introduced into systems testing.
 

handdi

Supportive Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
1,035
Location
Anderson sc
Name
Randy
Tried it on a job and its been in the garage since.. wow, ONE TRY and now, someone please come here and give me a free education.. seriously?

come on down john if you can show me how this is better i will be one of your best customers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GCCLee

GCCLee

Supportive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
5,113
Location
East TN
Name
C. Lee
Finally, were getting an education outta these threads : )


Sent from da parking garage of dee detention center
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom