Question for Shawn Forsythe, Jim Smith, and all chemists

[Jim Pemberton]

What type of cleaning product can be added to water that would it diminish the cleaning power of water alone, to the extent where a test could show that such a solution would be LESS effective in removing soil than clear water?

I ask this because individuals in the carpet manufacturing industry are making statements that they tested several cleaning products, and found a few (the number 9 floats around) that didn't clean as well as water.

Can someone explain the physics of how anything, however poor in its formulation, could interfere with the effectiveness of water to the point of diminishing its cleaning ability?

(I'm NOT talking about resoiling, color damage, etc here. Just soil release)

 

[Lee Stockwell]

I'm not a chemist, but I got A's in chemistry.

Some minerals could lessen pure water's inate cleaning ability.

 

[Shawn Forsythe]

Jim,

To answer the question, I think I would need to know a little more about the premise. That is provided I might be capable of answering. Are we talking about a prespray, or an in-tank emulsifier product? If neither, is it even an HWE product, or perhaps an encap?
If an in-tank emulsifier, what, if anything was used as a pre-conditioner? What was the test soil?

Not knowing anything, there are both chemical make-ups AND technique scenarios that might explain the issue, and a lot of them. I don't want to over-read, neither make assumptions.

There are components to a potential cleaning agent that can react negatively with soil (forming insolubles), bond with soil, fail to emulsify soil, leaving a residue of itself, or tertiary compounds leaving a net soil load higher than water could have removed alone. Yes, Lee touches on something, but I don't necessarily see someone formulating with it.

Conceivably, you could even have a situation where the soiling is so predominantly water soluble or flush-able, that the mere use of a product that left more residual of itself than if water alone had been used. This would of course presume that your measure or test of soil removal was quantitative, rather than qualitative.

 

[leesenter]

The figures I get from CRI is that 21 out of 25 products originally tested cleaned worse than water alone. However this did include resoiling, texture change and colour loss.
But for sure that is the terminology that was used, cleaned worse than water.

 

[Jim Pemberton]

Thank you all.

Shawn, I'm going with the CRI quote that Lee Senter referred to.

So, now with what you know about the products available in our industry, including the Jan San industry, do you truly feel any of them "make water worse?"

 

[Jeremy]

I'm not a chemist but if a product causes rapid resoiling, pH shifts or color loss I'd say it "makes water worse"...

 

[rhyde]

Do you have any of the testing data specifically the test parameters?


Other than minerals in water (most cleaning products builders to improve performance) soil type, concentration and water temperature would be a big factor.

TM solution are formulated for higher temperature cleaning and surfactants are chosen that work well in these higher temperature ranges mostly if not all are non-ionic ethylate based, if the test was conducted below the surfactants functioning temperature range (cloud point) there will be little micelle activity the surfactant will deposit on textiles like soil

 

[Jim Pemberton]

(I'm NOT talking about resoiling, color damage, etc here. Just soil release)

Thanks Jeremy, but the statement being bandied about is that "they" discovered products that didn't clean as good as water alone.

I would have no problem with clear statements that said that the products caused damage or resoiling. But they are not saying that.

 

[Hoody]

Jim,

Seems to me that they're looking for another excuse to blame on the carpet cleaner, for their newly made inferior products.

Smartstand comes to mind.

 

[hogjowl]

Well, since this thread has only got two appropriate responses, and both were from Shawn, I figured it was ok for me to post a DAP too.

At least I didn't brag on myself while doing it.

 

[sweendogg]

Shawn, alot of products add surfactants to lower the surface tension so the water can penetrate the surface of the carpet easier.

Are there certain chemistries (and i'm not necessarily talking about these generalized cleaning agents appropriate to this thread so I apolgize for going off track a little bit Jim) that will actually increase the surface tension of water and prevent it from adequalty penetrating the surface that its trying to clean? (besides changing the temperature of course)

Its been a few years since my college chemistry courses but I remember something about inorganic solutes increasing the surface tension of water.. but are there any additives that would qualify as an inorganic solute that chemists may be adding to certain products simply as a filler to bulk their chemicals up so gain more profit?

 

[Shawn Forsythe]

I remember something about inorganic solutes increasing the surface tension of water

David,

Sure, there are probably a lot that would do it, slightly. A salt water solution has slightly more surface tension than pure water. But would its presence in a cleaning agent raise it above pure water? No. That's because any "cleaning agent" is going to have a lowered surface tension by design with the over-riding effect of active components in use.

There are but a few "fillers" that are used in our industry. And you would still find many who would disagree on the matter. Powdered defoamers are probably the greatest example that might have some fillers. But even here it's not done for cost considerations, but for adding requisite bulk for the manner in which it is used.

Even using water itself might be considered by some to be nothing other than a filler, while others would see the same water as needed to make the product easier to use or mix. Imagine a liquid traffic lane cleaner so devoid of water that solids settle out, requiring you to have to shake well before using, but also foaming like crazy when you shake it. How does the lack of water make it better then? Is water a filler? Not always.

Some might view soda ash (Sodium Carbonate) as a "filler", being a less expensive alkaline builder than say Sodium TripolyPhospaphate. Since for most applications, it is less of a cleaning contributor in addition to lesser cost (quite a bit less these days), you might say it was a "filler", since you really need a builder, but you selected a lesser than commonly available. Someone else just as qualified to judge may have a different opinion altogether, seeing as they are both used for the same thing.

We may be getting a little off topic here, yours and Jim's too, so I'll stop. LOL

 

[sweendogg]

My thoughts were in line with your explanation, I didn't think it would be feasible to add anything that would increase the surface tension with the exception for any gained value other than perhaps an upholstery cleaning agent to avoid over penetration of the cleaning agent to the point that it could not be recovered adequately.


As far as staying on track with Jim's original question, if CRI are still refering to a chemical/ system's cleaning ability in referene to their "artificial soil," it would serve to reason that non oily soil such as their plastic beads would probably remove better with water alone in most cases if they are juding it by any residue left behind.

It would be very interesting to see all of the products they were talking about and the rest of the parameters of the experiment. This is the problem with CRI program, they want to be scientific and fair about certifying cleaning agents, but they don't publish their results to be critisized and critiqued in true scientific fashion. Instead they just want to be seen as THE experts with the final say. Atleast in this situation where they make such claims as stated about tested chems.

 

[hogjowl]

Yeah, I agree with Shawn too. :roll:

 

[Lee Stockwell]

"many products...."

http://www.polymerconcepts.net/sitebuil ... a_faqs.pdf


A big problem with their "XRF" system is that it won't accurately measure carbon and other atoms with a molecular weight of less than eleven.

 

[Larry Cobb]

I believe it was Shaw Industries technical service who did some original testing,
and discovered that many of the "janitorial" cleaning products left so much residue that they were judged worse than water.

At that time the "janitorial bonnet cleaner" was similar to the older shampoos,
which we all know was a resoiler.

Here is a quote from Shawmy emphasis)

"It is not a substitute for hot water extraction. It has very limited
capability for soil removal and often leaves most of the detergent in
the pile. The spinning bonnet may distort the pile of cut-pile carpets
and leave distinct swirl marks. Shaw’s experience has been that more
customer soiling complaints result from this system than all other
causes combined. The bonnet system may damage the edges of some carpet
tiles."

Carey Mitchell has stated that issue at several carpet cleaning conventions.

Larry