Browse Client Types

Browse past lab clients by general industry sectors

Trial Number 1

Trial Purpose:

To evaluate supplied product for carpet cleaning as compared to an industry standard product.

Date Run:

01/23/2015

Experiment Procedure:

The procedure followed is a modified version of the Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC) Standard and Reference Guide S100. Much of the testing was modeled after Appendix D, IICRC Carpet Cleaning Methods Testing Protocol. The carpet substrate was donated by Shaw Industries of Dalton, GA.

This carpet type is specifically designated in the IICRC Appendix method. An AATCC (Research Triangle Park, NC) soil was obtained from Textile Innovators, a division of SDL Atlas of Charlotte, NC, as suggested by DuPont Antron of Kennesaw, GA.
Prior to soiling, a BYK spectro-guide color/gloss meter was used to establish a baseline L-value from the surface of the carpet. Each carpet was marked-off into 6 sections measuring 3.5 in wide and 6 in long. (The carpeting was not cut into individual pieces as it would be too difficult to physically soil and clean smaller carpet sections.)
Six readings were taken in each grid area to obtain baseline readings.

Modifications to the above mentioned standard included: (1) omitting the use of milling stones and (2) replacing the Zytel Type 6,6 nylon pellets with Nalgene tubing cut into 1/8 inch pieces, or ‘pellets’. According to the standard, approximately 1000 grams of pellets should be used for every 12 grams of soil or, 83 grams of pellets used per gram of soil. S100 also suggests using 500 grams of pellets for each soil under investigation (in this case, one) for carpet measuring 10.375 inch x 39.375 inch (408.5 sq. in.). This equals 1.22 (500/408.5 = 1.22) grams of pellets per square inch of carpet. Since the Lab had 174 grams of tubing/pellets at its disposal, two grams of the AATCC soil were needed to artificially contaminate the carpet.

The carpet was cut into 7.375 inch x 19.6 inch (144.54 sq. in.) pieces. The carpet pieces were soiled by placing one piece of carpet into a 1-gallon can, making sure the carpet lined the inner wall of the can. The plastic-tubing pieces were poured into the bucket and the soil was distributed along the width of the can. The can was lidded and placed into a harness attached to a crank shaft. The crank was turned at an average rate of 42 rpm by hand for 5 minutes in one direction, followed by 5 minutes of rotation in the opposite direction.

At the end of the 10-minute soiling regime, the carpet was placed onto a carpet template and vacuumed with a vacuum cleaner for 3 strokes in the forward direction followed by 3 strokes in the backward direction. The carpet pieces were evaluated again for L-value levels.

The carpet sections were then cut down the middle, length-wise to allow carpet samples to fit into the Gardner Straight Line Washability Unit. Each piece was marked-off into three sections. Each section was sprayed 15 times with the cleaning product and allowed to soak for 30 seconds. A Kimberly-Clark Wypall reinforced paper towel was attached to the cleaning sled. The towel was also sprayed with the same cleaning product until the towel was saturated (approx. 15 sprays).
After soaking, the towel/sled was placed on one end of the carpet section and the Unit run for 91 cycles (approx. 2.5 minutes). Every 30 cycles, each section of carpet was sprayed 6 times with the cleaning solution. The carpet was removed from the Unit and allowed to dry overnight. A third and final series of color meter readings were recorded for each cleaned section.

ChemistriesEvaluated: Shout Stain and Odor, Shout Urine, Bran Buzz Carpet 0.2%, Brand Buzz Urine 0.4%, Resolve

Trial Results:

To effectively compare the cleaners, we determined the % of the gloss remaining for each carpet. This was done by taking the initial, dirty, and clean readings for the carpet. The difference between the dirty readings and the initial and cleaned readings, which are the Ri and Rc values. Rc/Ri gives a percentage return to the original value, Re %, which can then be compared. These were then ranked in order of cleanest to dirtiest.

Cleaner Tile # Initial L Dirty L  Clean L Ri Rc Re % Ave Re%
Shout Stain and Odor 1 60.81 47.83 53.8 12.98 6.06 46.69 27.45
Shout Stain and Odor 2 65.94 51.5 52.84 14.44 1.34 9.28  
Shout Stain and Odor 3 64.51 51.47 54.91 13.04 3.44 26.38  
Shout Urine 13 65.18 57.64 53.72 7.54 -3.92 -51.99 -5.28
Shout Urine 14 64.08 51.45 55.1 12.63 3.65 28.9  
Shout Urine 15 68.26 52.39 53.5 15.87 1.15 7.25  
Bran Buzz Carpet 0.2% x 65.21 46.63 59.32 18.58 12.69 68.3 58.74
Bran Buzz Carpet 0.2% y 64.61 46.46 54.99 18.15 8.53 47  
Bran Buzz Carpet 0.2% z 60.19 40.3 52.42 19.89 12.12 60.94  
Brand Buzz Urine 0.4%  10 62.12 47.54 56.58 14.58 9.04 62 13.62
Brand Buzz Urine 0.4%  11 67.43 58.18 55.31 9.25 -2.87 -31.03  
Brand Buzz Urine 0.4%  12 64.07 53.44 54.49 10.63 1.05 9.88  
Resolve 16 68.67 54.18 59.39 14.49 5.21 35.96 38.86
Resolve 17 64.14 50.4 58.67 13.74 8.27 60.19  
Resolve 18 68.25 52.39 55.63 15.86 3.24 20.43  

Success Rating:

Results successful using TACT (time, agitation, concentration, and temperature, as well as rinsing and drying) and/or other cleaning chemistries examined.

Conclusion:

The Brand Buzz Carpet formulation outperformed the other products by a large margin. The Brand Buzz Urine formulation did demonstrate results that were close to the Carpet formulation. Both products performed more efficiently than their Shout counterparts.

Save Report as a PDF