Trial #7
To evaluate carpet cleaners for resoiling resistance.
Carpet pieces that were previously soiled and cleaned with DFC 105 (client product) and Liquid Formula 90 (industry standard product) were resoiled by placing the carpet sections into the 1-gallon can, making sure the carpet lined the inner wall of the can. Nalgene® tubing cut into 1/8" pieces were poured into the bucket and 2 grams of the AATCC 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 Eureka SuperBroom (Brush-Up, Motor-Driven/Brush-Roll) vacuum for 5 strokes in the forward direction followed by the same number of strokes in the backward direction. The carpet pieces were evaluated again using a SPER Scientific Light Meter 840021 used to measure Foot Candles from the surface of the carpet. Visual comparison was also preformed to determine which product looked cleaner.
The industry standard product resulted in higher post vacuuming light meter readings. Visually, there was no difference between the two carpet sections after resoiling and vacuuming. The table lists the readings for each cleaner.
| PC 120 64:1
|
|
|
|
|
| Post Clean
|
Resoil
|
Vacuumed
|
Difference
|
|
| 10.2
|
8.1
|
8.9
|
0.8
|
|
| 11.6
|
9.1
|
9.5
|
0.4
|
|
| 14.2
|
8.5
|
10.4
|
1.9
|
|
| 20.9
|
10.2
|
11.7
|
1.5
|
|
| 18.7
|
10.6
|
12.3
|
1.7
|
|
| 17.3
|
11
|
12.8
|
1.8
|
|
| 15.5
|
9.6
|
10.9
|
1.4
|
Ave 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18.8
|
9.5
|
12.3
|
2.8
|
|
| 22.6
|
10
|
11.7
|
1.7
|
|
| 21.7
|
8.8
|
9.5
|
0.7
|
|
| 20.7
|
17.7
|
18.5
|
0.8
|
|
| 23.2
|
16
|
17.5
|
1.5
|
|
| 22.4
|
17.2
|
18.7
|
1.5
|
|
| 21.6
|
13.2
|
14.7
|
1.5
|
Ave 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14.3
|
6.5
|
7.1
|
0.6
|
|
| 13.1
|
8.8
|
10
|
1.2
|
|
| 11
|
9.1
|
9.9
|
0.8
|
|
| 13.2
|
16.4
|
17.6
|
1.2
|
|
| 15.8
|
12
|
12.9
|
0.9
|
|
| 21.2
|
8.4
|
9.2
|
0.8
|
|
| 14.8
|
10.2
|
11.1
|
0.9
|
Ave 3
|
Total Resoil Ave for PC 120 @1:64: 1.26
| PC 120 128:1
|
|
|
|
|
| Post Clean
|
Resoil
|
Vacuumed
|
Difference
|
|
| 23.4
|
7.7
|
8.5
|
0.8
|
|
| 19.6
|
10.7
|
11.4
|
0.7
|
|
| 16.1
|
12
|
12.6
|
0.6
|
|
| 19.5
|
14.9
|
15.8
|
0.9
|
|
| 23.9
|
15.9
|
16.4
|
0.5
|
|
| 26
|
13.1
|
14
|
0.9
|
|
| 21.4
|
12.4
|
13.1
|
0.73
|
Ave 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 25.9
|
5
|
5.7
|
0.7
|
|
| 26.9
|
5.8
|
6.4
|
0.6
|
|
| 26.7
|
6.8
|
7.4
|
0.6
|
|
| 34.2
|
12.3
|
12.8
|
0.5
|
|
| 31
|
9.9
|
10.6
|
0.7
|
|
| 39.4
|
8.1
|
9
|
0.9
|
|
| 30.7
|
8
|
8.7
|
0.7
|
Ave 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 18.2
|
4.9
|
5.7
|
0.8
|
|
| 30
|
5
|
5.9
|
0.9
|
|
| 29.1
|
5.1
|
5.8
|
0.7
|
|
| 28.1
|
7.6
|
8.6
|
1
|
|
| 28.9
|
7.1
|
8.2
|
1.1
|
|
| 24.2
|
8.2
|
9.1
|
0.9
|
|
| 26.4
|
6.3
|
7.2
|
0.9
|
Ave 3
|
Total Resoil Ave for PC 120 @ 1:128: 0.77
| Liquid 90
|
|
|
|
|
| Post Clean
|
Resoil
|
Vacuumed Difference
|
|
|
| 8.8
|
7.6
|
8
|
0.4
|
|
| 11.6
|
8.1
|
8.4
|
0.3
|
|
| 14.2
|
9.2
|
9.8
|
0.6
|
|
| 20.9
|
17.4
|
18
|
0.6
|
|
| 18.7
|
15
|
15.3
|
0.3
|
|
| 17.3
|
13.2
|
13.6
|
0.4
|
|
| 15.3
|
11.8
|
12.2
|
0.4
|
Ave 1
|
| 18.8
|
4.7
|
5.1
|
0.4
|
|
| 22.6
|
4.5
|
4.6
|
0.1
|
|
| 21.7
|
5.9
|
6.2
|
0.3
|
|
| 20.7
|
11.5
|
12
|
0.5
|
|
| 23.2
|
7.5
|
8
|
0.5
|
|
| 22.4
|
8.1
|
8.4
|
0.3
|
|
| 21.6
|
7
|
7.4
|
0.4
|
Ave 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14.3
|
6
|
6.6
|
0.6
|
|
| 13.1
|
5.8
|
6.1
|
0.3
|
|
| 11
|
5.2
|
5.6
|
0.4
|
|
| 13.2
|
7.1
|
7.3
|
0.2
|
|
| 15.8
|
8.4
|
8.8
|
0.4
|
|
| 21.2
|
10.2
|
11.1
|
0.9
|
|
| 14.8
|
7.1
|
7.6
|
0.5
|
Ave 3
|
Total Resoil Ave for Liquid 90: 0.42
The two dilutions resulted in a greater resoiling resistance than the industry standard. The higher concentration of PC120 worked better than the lower concentration.
No relation