The Cleaning Products You Use, Part 3...SOA and MB

#1
MB Exclusive.
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
8,100
Credits
956
Points
956
Name
Jim Pemberton
For twenty years the cleaning industry evolved and mostly benefited from the changes wrought by the "stain resist revolution" in 1986.

By 2006 most of the issues that brought that revolution were not often thought of, except by "old timers" who remembered the "early days" (I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that I was an "old timer" already 10 years ago...)

Then came the "CRI Seal of Approval" issue.

Let's have some discussion from those who were here when Mikeysboard began, and how once again the manufacturing industry (carpet this time, not fiber producer) interacted with our industry with a combination of good intentions, condescension, and naivete'....
 
#3
Administrator
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
73,953
Location
The High Chapperal
Credits
10,607
Points
10,607
Name
Mike Pay-oh-tay
#4
MB Exclusive.
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
8,100
Credits
956
Points
956
Name
Jim Pemberton
Maybe I've been taking the "10 year" easy way out here Mike.

Perhaps it was 2007....when was the (in)famous interview with Werner from the CRI done?

I know I'm making an epic out of this, but I promise I'm getting to a point that is appropriate for today.

And...with all seriousness....thank you for being patient with all the verbosity of these posts Marty.
 
#6
MB Exclusive.
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
8,100
Credits
956
Points
956
Name
Jim Pemberton
Thanks Mike!

Considering of the time and money spent on this (mostly by manufacturer's who had their equipment and products tested), would anyone like to share how they have been impacted by not having (or having) CRI Seal of Approval chemicals and equipment, and by being a CRI Approved cleaner?
 
Likes: Bob Pruitt
#7
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
28,411
Location
Prattville, Alabama
Credits
4,366
Points
4,366
Name
Marty Sutley
Maybe I've been taking the "10 year" easy way out here Mike.

Perhaps it was 2007....when was the (in)famous interview with Werner from the CRI done?

I know I'm making an epic out of this, but I promise I'm getting to a point that is appropriate for today.

And...with all seriousness....thank you for being patient with all the verbosity of these posts Marty.
When E.F. Hutton talks ...
 
#9
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,150
Location
Antioch, California
Credits
81
Points
81
Name
Loren Egland
I used the cri/soa as a marketing tool in my brochure and website, but can't say by itself it brought me work. Just one more key on my key chain to open doors and separate me from the competition for all of $25 per year. That said, I didn't renew this year and even let my iicrc master status go. I don't have enough years left to matter.

Didn't somebody come up with the brilliant idea to use cold water instead of hot water to clean for health? Yikes!
 
#12
MB Exclusive.
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
8,100
Credits
956
Points
956
Name
Jim Pemberton
One of Racine Industries dumbest moves. She had the rare ability to talk about cleaning industry issues without making her own feelings on her preferred method part of the dispute.

Her white paper on the CRI testing method was devastating.

She's doing well and happy, and still has fond memories of this place and many of those she knew well then.
 
#14
MB Exclusive.
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
8,100
Credits
956
Points
956
Name
Jim Pemberton
I'll ask her if she still has it, though it may be the property of Racine Industries.

In a nutshell, it addressed the issue that the tool being used was not developed for an irregular surface (i.e. carpet) and that the type of soil used for testing was changed so that the device being used would work, at the sacrifice of any semblance to "real dirt".

As a result, a thorough dry soil removal could gain a "Bronze" rating. That and a few other issues were how a popular rental machine ended up with a "Gold" rating.
 
#17
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
253
Credits
208
Points
208
Most of the comments in this controversy had to do with the equipment. If a Rug Doctor could pass, then the testing had no merit. However, on the chemical side it was extremely hard to get a chemical to pass both the re-soil and cleaning test. I failed more CRI tests than all of the other tests combined in my entire life. I spent 2 years developing Zone Perfect CC03 so that it could pass the CRI test as well as be used by a lot of cleaners thereby passing the real world test. The initial soils used for testing had no oily components in them which did not reflect real world testing. This was changed a few years ago, but all of the formulas that had passed were grandfathered into the program. The importance of the CRI chemical test to the industry is that passing a re-soiling test is now standard (at least for Bridgepoint) before releasing new formulas to the marketplace.
 
#18
MB Exclusive.
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
8,100
Credits
956
Points
956
Name
Jim Pemberton
Most of the comments in this controversy had to do with the equipment. If a Rug Doctor could pass, then the testing had no merit. However, on the chemical side it was extremely hard to get a chemical to pass both the re-soil and cleaning test. I failed more CRI tests than all of the other tests combined in my entire life. I spent 2 years developing Zone Perfect CC03 so that it could pass the CRI test as well as be used by a lot of cleaners thereby passing the real world test. The initial soils used for testing had no oily components in them which did not reflect real world testing. This was changed a few years ago, but all of the formulas that had passed were grandfathered into the program. The importance of the CRI chemical test to the industry is that passing a re-soiling test is now standard (at least for Bridgepoint) before releasing new formulas to the marketplace.
Part of what I am building a case for in these threads that I've created is the "unexpected consequences" that in some cases brought about positive results. I was saving this issue for later, but since you brought it to the table, I'll add my 2 cents:

1. Its interesting that "damage to stain resistance" wasn't part of this test. Part of this was likely because issues with commercial carpet maintenance was one of the primary reasons the program was begun, and stain resist warranties don't apply to commercial products. The other part was the realization that most anything and everything removes some stain resistance, and that was a door best left unopened.

2. The resoiling issue is without a doubt far more important that stain resistance, and cleaners, to their credit, have tried any number of ways to minimize residues in their cleaning process. Having a manufacturer of cleaning products use this program to improve their products benefits us all. I appreciate Tom's passion on this subject, as he not only is a firm believer in good formulation, but has done extensive research into what systems best remove residues from carpet, including the best water to use.

Thanks Tom.
 
#20
Supportive Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
5,793
Location
Dallas, Texas USA
Credits
0
Points
0
Name
Larry Cobb
Perhaps Tom would like to reveal his insights into the types of rinsing water he has experience with.

We have been using RO water for rinsing detergent residues,
and believe it works very well for our customers.
They maintain it removes far more residue with a single rinse extraction pass.

Dave Gill is a long time user of this RO process, as well as Lance Golden in Arizona.

ZeroRez has their "electrolysed water" for their rinse process.

P.S. I do take issue with the "under 10" CRI guideline; mainly because of the widespread effective usage of percarbonate with a pH of 10.5. There reason for maintaining the pH limit was to protect the dyes used in todays carpets.
 
Last edited:
#24
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
9,885
Location
Grand Rapids, MN
Credits
2,408
Points
2,408
Name
Mark Saiger
Here is a link to an article on water quality done by Michael Adams and myself for Cleanfax. We focused our study on the the primary choices available to cleaners in terms of water quality. We did not look at other types available.
http://www.cleanfax.com/carpet-cleaning/water-quality/
Locally, my water that I am working with from my shop is 8.3 ph...cannot remember the hardness off the top of my head....but even with the softner, 8.3 ph...but we are able to get it down to neutral 7 ph numbers while cleaning...a lot of times 7.3 ph....

We are in the Iron Range, so also deal with a lot of iron ore soils and staining from that type of iron and minerals....

Now just five miles away from us...the city water in Coleraine and Bovey, MN is a 10.5 ph and minerals like crazy....

We don't hook up to anything in that area if we can avoid it...and we do have water softeners and filtration systems on the vans...but we do carry our water with us so we know what we are dealing with.

The article was great talking about how the heat from your TM can make things scale up more...and something we have experienced.

Now about 70 miles away, my brothers are in a zone that is more sandy, and the ph is in the neutral 7 ph ranges....BUT....

They have also had friends in that area with Truckmounts Scale up...but they themselves have had less of a problem....

I really enjoyed that article by the way...nicely done!
 
#25
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
3,733
Location
seattle
Credits
230
Points
230
Name
bryan
Considering of the time and money spent on this (mostly by manufacturer's who had their equipment and products tested), would anyone like to share how they have been impacted by not having (or having) CRI Seal of Approval chemicals and equipment, and by being a CRI Approved cleaner?

No impact when we were particiapating, so no impact now.



I think the SoA program was a very good thing at the beginning. The mills had a problem with garbage checmicals negatively impacting the perception of commercial carpet cleanability. The SoA program ended the common practice of JanSan suppliers selling anything foamy as a carpet cleaner. No one smaller than the CRI could have taken this on.

Testing euipment is what caused all of the strife with the CRI, but when some of the weaker performers in the cleaning industry threatened to sue Tom Hill for even mentioning methods testing... again, only the CRI was big enough to take this on. The testing was ultimately flawed and those flaws were taken advantage of by a few manufacturers. In hindsight (always easier!) the results should have been held back until they'd figured out a workaround of the manufacturer's workarounds, and before their credibility was questioned. A team of cleaning industry folks were finally asked to get involved and we solved the issue, it was just too late for anyone to care.
 
#26
MB Exclusive.
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
8,100
Credits
956
Points
956
Name
Jim Pemberton
Considering of the time and money spent on this (mostly by manufacturer's who had their equipment and products tested), would anyone like to share how they have been impacted by not having (or having) CRI Seal of Approval chemicals and equipment, and by being a CRI Approved cleaner?

No impact when we were particiapating, so no impact now.



I think the SoA program was a very good thing at the beginning. The mills had a problem with garbage checmicals negatively impacting the perception of commercial carpet cleanability. The SoA program ended the common practice of JanSan suppliers selling anything foamy as a carpet cleaner. No one smaller than the CRI could have taken this on.

Testing euipment is what caused all of the strife with the CRI, but when some of the weaker performers in the cleaning industry threatened to sue Tom Hill for even mentioning methods testing... again, only the CRI was big enough to take this on. The testing was ultimately flawed and those flaws were taken advantage of by a few manufacturers. In hindsight (always easier!) the results should have been held back until they'd figured out a workaround of the manufacturer's workarounds, and before their credibility was questioned. A team of cleaning industry folks were finally asked to get involved and we solved the issue, it was just too late for anyone to care.
Summed up perfectly Bryan!
 
#27
Supportive Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
5,793
Location
Dallas, Texas USA
Credits
0
Points
0
Name
Larry Cobb
At a past Experience presentation, CRI showed some great info comparing actual productivity with some different cleaning methods which showed Hot Water Extraction performing well.

Does Scott or anybody have any access to that info ?
 
#28
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
3,733
Location
seattle
Credits
230
Points
230
Name
bryan
The loophole exploited by "gold" winning portables was that they could determine how many wand passes were used during the test procedure. While most truck-mount makers stuck with a typical number that would be used for cleaning out in the world, the porty maker figured out that they could specify ten times that number (or more) and it didn't show up anywhere in the results except as similar soil removal.

My simple idea was to count the passes and add them to the narrative. You could then know that you could get the same level of clean with the porty... at a 50 square foot an hour rate. No need to do any more testing, as they had that information already. I suggested this information be added as a sidebar to their ratings charts and they would regain credibility. Scott would be the guy to say if they've done that, but the information was supposed to be published so should be available somewhere.
 
#29
Supportive Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,742
Location
West Jordan, UT
Credits
305
Points
305
Name
Scott Warrington
Any results of CRI testing doen before this year were basicsally grandfathered in by past agreements. SIgned agreements prohibited changing what was shown without the manufacturers consent.

Tests of newer cleaning equipment do show the productivity rates or how many square feet per hour could be cleaned using the test method. Thsi has discouraged any new products from requiring 42 wand passes like one did in the past.

It is hoped that as more products are shown with productivity rates, products tested before this was rerquired will feel pressure to show theirs as well. But it can't be mandated. The old agreements can't be changed according to the lawyers.

I have seen the information on productivity rates. I am not sure what can be publicly shared. I did have to sign confidentiality agreemtn on some things. I will look into what I can post. But Larry and Brayn are correct that some equipment passed because the manufacturer's stated cleaning process was very slow and repetitive.
 

Latest posts

Top