Carpet Cleaning Issues - Carpet construction, upholstery cleaning, stain removal, equipment, events, etc.
Posted by Drytech (Steve_B), 8 February 2004Does anyone use Ultimate master from Alltec?
If so any good?
Posted by SteveTruman (SteveTruman), 8 February 2004Used it for yrs. But as far as i know the company who makes it have ceased trading. Please inform me if they haven't. And the other answer is that it works very well on my bonnett cleaning system. I dont put it into the extractor machines so i dont know how it performs with them, but my portable is 20 times less powerful than the tm alledgedly, so i dont think it would work very well in the portable ( according to the tm people )
Posted by Drytech (Steve_B), 8 February 2004Just reading about it on allec website.
Posted by Drytech (Steve_B), 8 February 2004shame i can't type meant alltec website
Posted by lee_gundry (lee_gundry), 8 February 2004steve
the reason that most tm operators, dont run ultimate master through their units is that the self neutralizing properties don,t work at temps above 40 oC so as you imagine it is impossible for a truckmount user to clean at such low temps.
Posted by Fintan_Coll (Fintan_Coll), 8 February 2004I use Ultimate Master quite a lot, have used it for years and always considered it to be an excellent powder.
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 8 February 2004Lee,
You are being eleteist again !!!
Of course all portables have 60psi pumps and clean with cold water. Right?
One reason I did not use this product in my TM days is that the enzemic action declines after mixing with water, becoming non-existant after about 18 hrs. This means that any stock solution mixed up and not used today will not work nearly as well tomorrow, so was wasted.
(Whos portable will work @ 0-110oC)
Posted by ALEXDH (ALEXDH), 8 February 2004Its good stuff and if you are new to chemicals like me its a nice safe method to get into cleaning the results are good but have still found a chemspec one clean powder and traffic lane cleaner has the edge for me. on standard soiling cleans.
Lots of agitation same for any chem though i believe even these micro splitters everyone talking about nowdays.
Posted by Drytech (Steve_B), 9 February 2004what are micro splitters?
Posted by Robert_O (Robert_O), 9 February 2004I wasn't aware that Ultimate Master had any form of enzymatic action (but stand to be corrected)
I also do not understand the other comment about Ultimate Master not self neutralising when used at temperatures higher than 40'o. As I understood it, it is supposed to have a pH of about 9-10 'in use', and upon drying it is claimed to do the self neutralising.
Personally, I could never get my head around these claims of self nuetralising properties, but would like to hear any further info to clarify this better for me.
It may be worth bearing in mind that the very nature of most soils that we generally have to deal with are on the acidic side. We are usually cleaning fibres that have been dyed, set, and manufactured under acidic conditions and processes. Additionally many fibres natural state is also acidic, therefore isn't it safe to presume that the fibres and soiling would to a certain degree have neutralising properties on alkaline cleaning products in the duration of drying?
Ever the sceptic, but always stand to be better informed.
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 9 February 2004Hi Robert
Self neutralising or not...I can't get my head round leaving detergents in carpets and upholstery... full stop!
l saw a Lever Bros video (I am sure it was theirs) some years ago where at the end the final comment was....'the cleaning is incomplete until the rinse process has been carried out'... makes sense to me.
Posted by Robert_O (Robert_O), 9 February 2004I agree Derek
This is where many carpet cleaners misunderstand the chemistry of cleaning. I recall In the past carpet cleaners saying to me, well I use XYZcleansit and it is ok not to rinse because it is a neutral pH.
Well yes it might be a relatively safe pH cleaning agent but pH and detergent residue are totally separate issues.
Eg. Washing up liquid is generally promoted as being kind to hands having a safe neutral pH. So does this mean because it is neutral you can pour this over your carpet and have no resoiling problems, NO!!! You would be left with a sticky soil attracting residue that foams up on cleaning and is very difficult to fully rinse out.
You can often discuss this with your client by likening it to washing your hair. You apply the detergent/shampoo, and then you rinse it out, common sense!!!
In my opinion the same applies to other professional carpet cleaning detergents, and the final process should be a rinse.
Just so long as you remember pH and detergent residues are totally separate!!!
I'll shut up now and get off my high horse!!!
Posted by mike_halliday (mike_halliday), 9 February 2004So Derek & Robert, as you concider Rinsing to be So important you would never, ever concider bonnet cleaning a carpet, because the carpet is'nt 'rinsed'
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 9 February 2004Mike
There are horses for courses... There are instances when I would use a bonnet system and times when I would use a dry compound system.
I very often use a combination technique for cleaning either very dirty carpets or carpets which have weak seams (24" width ones)
I am 'old fashioned' Mike and Yes, I do like to rinse any residues from the carpet... almost all the time.
I realise that customers today are looking for a very quick dry job hence the rise in popularity of the bonnet systems and Dry Compound systems.... with me its a case of 'old dog and new tricks'.
I realise, 'allegedly' that modern bonnet systems and Dry Compound systems can achieve the same results in appearance but on the majority of carpets I clean I, personally, would still be unhappy using a bonnet system alone.... its a 'me thing'....put it down to my age.
I KNOW 'my' carpets are as clean as I can get them AND residue free.
I have probably upset a few folks with these comments but at the end of the day its down to the individual operator... in this case ME.
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 9 February 2004Hi Mike
You make your own choice mate, .
If people think other forum members are talking out of their hats then they should put their own thoughts forward, and ignore the gobbledegook .
Me I'm just full of codswallop!!!
Bonnet de duesh
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 9 February 2004This is also where a basic understanding of the cleaning agents and their properties comes in to its own.
If technicians understand the basics of how the different chemical products work, then they can make the appropriate choice in their selection.
For bonnet cleaning you would clearly use bonnet cleaning chemicals, chemicals that are designed specifically for that purpose. You wouldn't use say an extraction detergent to bonnet, you would use either an encapsulation/chrystalising solution, or perhaps a micro splitter that will not be detrimental in terms of resoiling residues left behind.
Neither would you use a chrystalising shampoo solution in an extraction machine.
It just happens that I think it is logical to pre-spray the cleaning product, agitate if required, and rinse with an acidic rinsing agent or fresh water (when extraction cleaning) .
Now that's how to suck eggs!!!
Posted by mike_halliday (mike_halliday), 9 February 2004Robert, i've put my own thoughts forword on the residue-detergent-rince topic so many times i can't be bothered to do it again.
as for gobbledegook, I speak it fluently
its just sometimes I can't help commenting when I see contradictory posts
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 9 February 2004Hmmm!
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 10 February 2004Mike
I am not sure where you are coming from on the 'contradictory' comment... was it my comment a couple of posts ago?
If it was then I will clarify.... pH balance is one thing... There are suppliers who have chemicals that they say 'self neutralise'... that's one issue.
Whether chemicals self neutralise or not there is still the residual element of what is left behind... that's the bit I was referring to....as I said ...it's a 'ME thing'
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 10 February 2004I think Mikes on the wind up!!!
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 10 February 2004Thanks Robert
He's pretty good at it isn't he...I fell for it that time.
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 10 February 2004He is either on the wind up, or the light ain't shining to brightly!!!
Posted by Dave_Lee (Dave_Lee), 11 February 2004I cant see many portable operators, who put a detergent through their machine (self neutralising or not) then once finished - refilling with water and rinsing the 'Whole carpet ' just purely on the impracticality of it, (moving furniture back & forwards etc). Another point, arent those that pre-spray the detergent onto the carpet then acidic rinse off, still leaving some residue behind - most acidic rinsing solutions still contain some detergents.
Not that I am disagreeing with the idea of pure rinsing, and obviously would be easier for a TM operator. However, pratical wise?
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 11 February 2004Hi Dave
Why not plain water rinse?
If you use the right presprays then that's the best option with current thinking.
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 11 February 2004Hi Dave
If that was how the work was carried out then I would agree on the impracticality of basically cleaning the carpet twice.
I use a separate 10 litre stainless steel sprayer to apply the cleaning agent, agitating in, and then followed up with usually a fresh water rinse. If colours are a concern then I may use and acidic rinse or Prochem's Fibre Buff to neutralise and bring the pH down.
You are right in saying that the B109 FFR contains a detergent also, but I often use of Fibre buff which will dry to a powder and not any form of soil attracting residue.
I have to conceed that by rinsing you may not be able to get every bit of the cleaning agent/detergent out of the carpet, but personally I feel more comfortable pre spraying and rinsing out as much out as I am able.
Again as mentioned previously, people on this forum can listen to other cleaners veiws and opinions and make up their own mind what they are comfortable with.
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 11 February 2004Hi Robert
The old cliches are the best...
The last cycle on the washing machine is the rinse cycle.. unless you have a dryer that is
You always rinse the shampoo out of your hair... I hope!
Posted by Shaun_Ashmore (Shaun_Ashmore), 11 February 2004Not Mike I wouldn't believe it
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 11 February 2004What Hair?
Posted by Ian_G. (Ian_Gourlay), 11 February 2004Are we saying that manufacturers do not research their product.
That research carried out by carpet cleaners is supperior and that buy pubblishing it on cleanitup or cleantalk is the pear review to justify this scientific research.
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 11 February 2004If you are happy with the way you are doing things then that is absolutely fine, no problem at all.
I have an alternative way that 'works for me' and get excellent results.
Advantages of Pre-spraying followed by extraction:
1. More dwell time for the cleaning agent to work.
2. Less chemical useage (Better for environment).
3. More cost effective.
4. Piece of mind in rinsing out Chemicals used within cleaning process.
5. Fresh water rinse is a good marketing and sales tool to address chemical concerns of wary clients.
I certainly do not claim to know more than the manufacturers of these chemicals, but what I do have is a different way which works for me, and I am simply sharing my views.
Posted by mike_halliday (mike_halliday), 11 February 2004Ian,you've hit the nail right on the head, thats why I've not commented anymore on this thread.
Some people think they know more about the chemicals than the companies that make them.
I can't wait for someone to make a claim on their liability insurance and are asked if they followed the the manufactuers instruction and they reply " no I followed the advice of some bloke of Clean-it-up"
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 11 February 2004I would like to think there is some method in my madness, I hope anyway!!!
Some bloke of the Cleanitup site!!!
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 11 February 2004Mike and Ian
So how many carpets/ bit of upholstery have the chemical manufacturers cleaned then?
Most of their cleaning is carried out on test samples in a laboratory... not a true indication of the problems we have to contend with
From a 'technical' point of view I concede that they are more qualified to assess the chemical ...there's a BUT
I certainly don't profess to 'know it all'... no more than you do Mike.... I wish I did!
Posted by Ian_G. (Ian_Gourlay), 11 February 2004Derek,
I just think manufactures instructions are their to get the best use of their product.
When I first started I was told to Pre Sray entire carpet.
Then use cleaning chemical.
then acid rinse or acid spray.
With Ulitimate Master I now have a Chemical that does it all and was Woosafe tested.
Whats more Ive just bought a big tub .
Posted by John_Flynn (John_Flynn), 11 February 2004Should keep you going for next week
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 11 February 2004on 02/11/04 at 21:48:04, mike_halliday wrote:
Ian,you've hit the nail right on the head, thats why I've not commented anymore on this thread.
Some people think they know more about the chemicals than the companies that make them.
I am sure the manufacturers of 'Vanish' '1001' etc. know more about their products than any one here - I am equally sure that we all know more about the consequences of their use than we would wish.
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 12 February 2004Ian
If you read all the blurb put out by the chemical suppliers you will find contradictions galore.
Like yourself I went on training courses in my early days and came away taking all I had learned as gospel.
I found that if I had a problem the supplier could usually (not always) come up with the answer..... after the event.
The trick of being a 'true' professional (as against those ' pseudo professionals' who just don't care) is to try to identify the problems BEFORE they occur.
Ultimate master is an excellent product (may you enjoy using it) I have my own way of using it though.
Whatever machine or chemical we buy it is up to 'us' to use it in the correct situation and obtain it's full potential
Posted by Dave_Lee (Dave_Lee), 12 February 2004Derek,
Re: Your reply. Nothing wrong with fresh water rinse, I use it a lot with One Step and Spitfire, but not exclusively as some jobs I feel respond better to products like Ulltimate Master, Crystal Geen, Hydradry etc. My comments were to do with rinsing off following cleaning with one of these or other detergents using a portable. If it was possible to Always get the right result with a free rinsing pre spray - GREAT - but I dont believe it is, yet (I havnt tried 'Solutions' yet.)
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 12 February 2004Hi Dave
For many years now the only chemical I have used through the tank is an acidic rinse...with very odd exceptions when I use a particular chemical for a specific purpose.
With the emergence of the micro-splitters then I find that a plain water rinse is sufficient.
Be careful... I know of damage being caused recently by one of the chemicals you mentioned being used as a rinse agent although it is excellent as a pretreatment.
Posted by Ian_G. (Ian_Gourlay), 13 February 2004IT does make sense to use a plain water rince if it works just spraying and agitatating a product such as ultimate master and is a good selling point to customers.
I do not want to damage customers suite or carpets .
However if I do and have followed manufacturers instructions the insurance company should back me against any claim for neglegence.
If I have adopted my own system not sure.
However Dereck ,John, Robert Dave Mike you are all experienced cleaners who enjoy experimenting
I do agree there are lots of contridictions in both manufacturers instructions and on this and other boards,
that is what makes it interesting.
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 13 February 2004I personally think that you are bound to get numerous contradictions in technicalities of this business, because it is such an inexact science.
I believe also that even if you follow the manufacturers instructions to the letter and you get a problem, you will have no claim against the chemical or machinery manufacturer, as it is down to the cleaner to determine ultimately the suitability.
The only thing I would assume would make the Manufacturer liable is if they incorrectly labelled a chemical, or it could be proven that the cleaning product was not mixed correctly at the point of manufacture.
I would have thought any thing else is down to us to ensure that the products we use are compatable with what we are about to clean.
Basically the buck stops with the cleaner.
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 14 February 2004Quite right, Robert.
Might this not be the reason for the "For profesional use only" notation on just about every product we use ?
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 14 February 2004Hi Guys
We are debating chemicals and chemical manufacturers here.....what about the carpet/upholstery manufacturers?
With the best will in the world the cleaning chemical manufacturers are going to 'try' to make a safe product that can be used on 'most' items of soft furnishings.
I would like to bet that cleaning by professional cleaners is way down the list of priorities to the manufacturers of the items we are working on. Any tests that are carried out will be within a very narrow pH range using a generic chemical.
I could give you a long list of chemicals and chemical procedures that for example, that fabrics go through before they end up on a piece of furniture and they are changing all of the time.
Each one of those chemicals could react with one of ours in some way...how to you allow for that?
All you can do is make an on-site evaluation (risk assessment) and work as safe as you can.
Posted by Lee (Lee), 14 February 2004You guys are again debaiting what u know nothing about, as in, only your own experience and what the chemical manufacturers decide to tell you,you know as well is I do that we all do a great job. The customers are 99.9 % of the time really happy, so why bitch between your selves as to whos got it right and wrong.
This sort of issue is getting so boring, time and time you address it. I know that what I do is what is best for both me and my customers, so quite fraknly who gives a stuff about the "Detalis", clean your carpets well and do whats right for your business!
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 14 February 2004Lee,
If you find the "details" so boreing it is probably because you have a closed mind.
What I know about my profession is the result of 38 years of exploreing "details".
If I do a good job, it is due to attention to "details".
People like Derek devote a lot of their time instructing the, as yet, uninformed in the acumulated "details" that make up their craft.
If you feel we are so ignorant, that we ".... are again debaiting what u know nothing about", then spare yourself the boredom of partisipating - or are you here simply to make offensive comments?
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 14 February 2004Hi Lee
I take it that you took the time to read the details of the previous postings.
Please don't take this as me being funny with you but, If so, Why?
The beauty of forums is that it is up to you to read the subject matters you are interested in, and simply leave the ones that are of no interest. Where's is the Problem!
I know I bore the hell out of people at the best of times, but please don't feel obliged to listen or respond, as I assure you I won't take any offence, honestly.
Another way of looking at it is that You have got to have some boring posts so that you can appreciate the interesting ones more!!!
Robert ZZZZZ Olifent
These smileys lighten things up nicely though don't you think!!!
Posted by ALEXDH (ALEXDH), 14 February 2004I follow you chaps with interest, i know little so keep my mouth shut most of the time , but i do find all the posts interesting, you never know when something you read becomes relevant when you are stuck for an answer the other day is good example.
I removed a totally soaked through drink stain by lifting the carpet up and using a bit of nappy on the backing, worked great it would not have occurred to me to do this if one of the more experienced chaps had not said so on the forum.
Its not knowing everything that leads to success on a problem, its knowing where to go for help when you need it.
You old pro's keep on sharing your pearls of wisdom please. I for one appreciate it.
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 15 February 2004Lee
I am sorry sunshine but in this instance I know exactly what I am talking about.
All the information given here by a lot of knowledgable people in the business is invaluable...none of us know it all and situations are changing all the time...it's called progression.
Your comment 'stuff the details' quite frankly makes me shudder... I would like to share one of my favourite quotes with you...
"There are none as blind as those who don't 'want' to see"
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 15 February 2004In the first instance when you see a negative, bordering on insulting post I have to admit it make me feel angry.
However, I feel that to respond in an equally negative way only serves to degrade things in to a slanging match which is of no use to anyone, especially myself.
There are a lot of people on this forum, and I am sure that they can, and will make up there own minds as to people and any poor attitiudes expressed. Unfortunately, at the end of the day they are doing themselves no favours at all.
There you have your surmon for the day.
I recall a common saying given to me quite frequently as a child: "If you can't say anything nice about someone, then don't say anything at all"!!!
PS Keep smiling;D
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 15 February 2004Robert,
Clearly I am not as nice as you!
I have several times bitten my typing finger rather than respond in an argumentative manner but Lees' post started by insulting people for whome I have respect -
"You guys are again debaiting what u know nothing about"
The rest of the post did not improve matters.
I may be a grumpy old g*t at times but I stand by my post.
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 15 February 2004Hi John
I think that you were quite right in what you had to say, whilst being unabusive.
My comments were aimed to explain the reason for my own softly softly response, and in re-reading my post it comes across wrongly that I am having a pop at other peoples responses to lees poor attitude.
I am going to shutup now before I dig myself a deeper hole!!!
I hope that put's things into better perspective though.
Don't worry, I won't give up the day job and go in to a carreer of diplomacy.
Posted by Lee (Lee), 15 February 2004I would like to appologies for last nights comments, I did not mean to insult anyone as I said we Know we all do a good job, I just took a little to far. Im sorry.
Posted by MB (Mark Betts), 15 February 2004Bringing this thread back on track,
As i think it is titled ULTIMATE MASTER!!!! hahaha
Yesterday i dah a very large office to clean.
Earlier in the thread Steve mentioned he used Ultimate Master to bonnet with. Anyway, i tried it and it worked absolutely great!!!
Better then any of the other "bonnet" chemicals i have tried ....... so.........
come on then , lets start a heated debate as to the pros and cons of bonneting with U/M
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 15 February 2004Lee,
Live long and prosper
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 15 February 2004Mark,
Whilst the results may have been impressive, since UM is designed as an enzyme-boosted extraction detergent, I would be concerned about the re-soil characteristics.
With products such as Bonnet Buff and the newer micro-splitters the residue does not contribute to rapid resoil.
Since I have never used an extraction detergent for this method of cleaning I could be wrong in my assumption.
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 15 February 2004CORRECTION:
My previous post should end "I could be wrong in my assumption"
Where the 'dissagreeumption' came from I know not, but all attempts to edit fail.
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 15 February 2004Hi Lee
I think your apology will be accepted by all concerened.
Please.. I can only feel that you posted possibly out of frustration... I would be only too happy to explain my reasoning privately at any time
General comment... regarding residues..
I would like to share a true story with you which happened a year or so ago.
I was, at the time, carrying out a series of specialised training courses at a venue which had an adjoining labratory. During the time I carried out this work I got to know the laboratory staff very well
One morning I was talking to one of the laboratory techinians in the lab and she was checking some of the results of experiments which had been carried out the previous day. Putting her fingers (no gloves) into a powder on on a carpet sample she noticed that her fingers had been bleached.
"That shouldn't have happened", she said... a supposedly inactive residue was in fact active much to her obvious surprise.
It is this instance and several others that I have come across over the years that makes me extremely wary about residues.
Another instance was at a manufacturing plant I was being shown around where five well known carpet cleaning/stain removal products were being made.
The plant manager, who was resposible for the blending, told me that two of the products contained oxidising agents.
The chemists, on the other hand, assured me that NO oxidising agents were present in any of their products.
I have seen many times, as some of you will have, (I said that they were well known) that their particular products do have a bleaching effect on certain substrates.
I hope that this explains just where I am coming from and why I am sceptical at times.
Posted by MB (Mark Betts), 15 February 2004John
I understand where you are coming from with ref to residues etc etc.
But, ok U/M is an extraction detergent, sprayed onto the carpet at say 100 psi and then extracted off.
So, when you feel the carpet ALL the damp contains U/M and this is left in the carpet to dry.
So , now when i bonneted i misted the U/M onto the carpet direct from my extraction machine. I then bonneted over with a damp bonnet removing the soiling.
My thinking is there is far less chemical left in the carpet after the bonnet has passed than there is when use normally ie. Using Hot Water Extraction so if there was going to be a re soiling/residue problem with U/M then the problem would be greater using it as HWE.
I am going back tomorrow to finish the job off so it will be interesting to see what it looks like.
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 15 February 2004Hi Mark,
I take your point regarding the amount of product left on the carpet.
I have for some time aimed at minimum residue cleaning, wherever posible useing a plain water rinse even before the availability of Spitfire, Onestep etc., which explains my comment.
Posted by Lee (Lee), 15 February 2004Are they claims of the manufactures correct when they say "its self neutralizing " when dry.
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 15 February 2004Hi Lee
I do believe they do.... when dry!
I am not sure what happens though when they are rewet.
My point is that it doesn't necessarily have to be the chemicals that are at fault but that the chemicals already contained within the substrates (i.e. Dyes/fixers/finishes etc.) during the manufacturing process are constantly changing and therefore have the potential to react with cleaning chemicals
Posted by Lee (Lee), 15 February 2004Thankyou Derek, its something I guess I have very little knowlege of as I dont think its really every caused me any problems. Perhaps the truth is that I never get to hear of the problems! I really only use what i call trial and error, and so far have not been able to better the overall performance of a chemical I have used for over 5 years now.
Posted by Derek (Derek Bolton), 15 February 2004Hi again Lee
Likewise....then suddenly one day something unexpected happens... you have used what you have always used before with no problem.
It's happened to me several times and each time I have subsequently discovered that the problem has been the result of some change in the manufacturing process.
I take calls quite frequently from cleaners who have had this sort of problem... I try to help whenever I can
Posted by Lee (Lee), 16 February 2004I think I could really do with your number!!!
Posted by Dave_Lee (Dave_Lee), 18 February 2004Dont, get me wrong on this one - I agree with change and progression. As I have said I do use fresh water rinse with micro splitters etc. I have used acidic rinse as the only cleaning agent on many a job. Lets face it new ideas machinery, gadgets and solutions crop up, at, it seems, an ever increasing rate.
But can anyone especially those who have had past experience really say that these new ideas are now THE way to clean - abandon high PH detergents (which manufacturers are STILL improving and supplying). I for one cant see that as an argument. I have used medium to high PH products since I started in 1980 - apart from a couple of mistakes in my first year - using these products even without any other rinsing - I have never had any problems just repeat business and recommends which is still the mainstay of my business.
Furthermore, over the years I have been to clean many a suite and carpet on their last legs - resurected it - and been cleaning it years after the owners thought it beyond saving. Concerning resoiling, my repeat cleans of the same carpet averaged every 2-3 years and clients often express how well they stay clean - especially since using a self neutralising product. What I am really getting at, is - that on the evidence of what I have personally experienced, the business about the slight residue that is left with these med to high PH products - as the manufacturers claim themselves, do little to enhance any resoiling of an unacceptable degree (If at all). Like the saying goes "If it aint broke -why fix it."
Posted by Christal_Clean (Bryan H), 18 February 2004Reference the issue of chemical residues left in carpets & (apparent danger of). I sometimes feel it a little strange that a now large number of cleaners frown on this practice, but will happily use a rotary or contra-rotating brush machine (on domestic carpets) for agitation, particularly when using a micro-splitter.
I have owned a rotary machine in the past & do now have a couple of Host type machines. I use these often for agitation on commercial carpets, or sometimes go the whole hog. and use a Stimvak power brush followed by a wand.
But I would never use these type of machines on my carpets, or allow anyone else to do so, ( not refering to bonnet pads by the way). Consequently I would not feel inclined to use them on my clients domestic carpets either.
I believe , rightly, or as I will no doubt be told, wrongly, that the use of this type of machine is far more injurious to the carpet in the long term than the tiny amount of alkaline residue left after using conventional tank additives.
Anything which causes unnecessary fraying or blowing out of the tips of the pile, will cause roughening of the surface and speed up the re-soiling process. Perhaps even more importantly, it can also mar the appearance of the carpets.
As I know many of you guys use this system of agitation, I may have stirred up a Hornets nest ! I am not setting out to be controversial, but just stating it as I see it from experience of using these machines & examining the results.
Looking forward to viewing the responses: and hoping to find some lone soul who agrees with me.
Posted by nick.solution (nick.solution), 18 February 2004Hi Bryan
I would definately advocate the host machine with soft brushes on a domestic carpet,there are also light weight agitation machines available fro the likes of Sebo, if used correctly there is not a risk of damaging a carpet with either of these machines.
You can of course use a pile rake on domestic if you are looking to stay fit and trim!!!
Best regards Nick
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 18 February 2004Hi Bryan
When I first started out in this business quite a few years ago, I recall being told on an NCCA training course that if you rub and scrub at a carpet particularly under wet conditions, then you may often cause distortion to the pile fibres of a carpet.
Even in stain removal we are taught by the professional trainers and on any spotting reference guide 'Blot, do not rub or scrub'!
I look at things like this
No seriously, I personally have reservations about useing rotary shampoo scrubbing systems on carpet fibres, due to the aggressive nature and tork placed on the fibres. This can and often does distort fibres leaving swirl marks in its wake, which can be difficult sometimes impossible to brush out completely.
Now there are always exceptions to the rule, and in some situations having this system on the right type of carpet when dealing with heavy soiling can be an excellent way to break up soiling prior to extraction (duel process clean).
I personally like the use of the Host type contra rotating brushes because there is little or no tork on the fibres. The fibres are being agitated reasonably uniformly, and are being brushed in an upward motion, not swirling around. This upward agitation will effectively lift the fibres whilst not serving to break them up by twist action under a heavy weight.
My personal view is that the dry carpet cleaning brush systems are an essential piece of kit for aggitation of main traffic areas, to work in prespray, and of course their original purpose to dry clean carpets that are problematic to wet cleaning.
Thats my thoughts on the matter any way.
Posted by Christal_Clean (Bryan H), 18 February 2004Yes Nick, I do use a standard carpet brush & it can be b****y hard work I agree, but I usually find it preferable to humping an extra piece of metal into a confined space, especially a third floor flat!
I agree with Robert about the possible effects of using a rotary, which is why I sold mine. Unfortunately this means I don't have the option of using bonnets.
I also accept what both of you are saying, that a host m/c with soft brushes appears to do negligible damage, and is certainly very effective for agitation. I didn't say I never did it, and in fact used it on a very grotty carpet in a rented property recently. Saved a lot of sweat !
But another problem that does occur with these machines on soft wool carpets, is the production of large amounts of fluff: far more than is produced by a normal carpet brush. If this is not carefully removed it blocks up the wand. I have spent many an hour struggling to prise wads from the vacuum slot.
I value your comments, and maybe it is time for me to have a re-think on this issue & see if I can squeeze a permanent space on my already full van for the host m/c .
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 18 February 2004Bryan,
Whilst I applaud your caution, I fully endorse Roberts comments and would add thet since the Host machine works in the vertical rather than the horizontal plane, in addition to lifting the pile it avoids most of the abrasive action of grit within the pile.
Provided the correct brushes are fitted to the machine - the gold is very soft - I am comfortable with its' use.
Posted by SteveTruman (SteveTruman), 18 February 2004Sorry guys have to disagree. I have used a rotary (Numatic) for 15 yrs never a problem. So unless they have decided to make carpets differently ...no problem ...
Always rake afterwards and you will be fine.
Posted by Petersullivan (Petersullivan), 18 February 2004Hi guys so are you saying that the correct cleaning method for hwe would be to pre spray , agitate , then with a product in your tank like crystal green to bring the ph value back to neutral, and then re rinse with just water to ensure that the detergent that youve just applied is removed?
Posted by Dave_Lee (Dave_Lee), 18 February 2004Peter,
What I was saying, is that for years I had/have had no problems including premature resoiling, using aprocess like you described, only without the fresh water rinse to finish. Incidently Crystal Green and the like do not bring the PH back to neutral. The small amount of alkaline residue that is left, dries to non resoiling fine granules. I sometimes think some people are thinking this type of residue is the smae as a Crystalising Shampoo - where there is significant residue left in the carpet which DOES greatly lead to RAPID resoiling.
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 18 February 2004It might be an idea to conduct some sourcer tests, as I thought that it was the other way around with the Crystal Green and crystalising shampoo solutions.
Crystal green as a rinse solution to neutralise?
Crystalising shampoo as I understand it is designed to dry to a crystalised form encapsulating the emulsified soil. When dried this encapsulated soil is simply dry vacuumed out of the carpet. The residue left by this product if used at correctly should not encourage rapid resoiling (check with sourcer test).
If I am wrong then please forgive my ramblings.
But if anyone else can put this into better perspective then I would very much appreciate being corrected or even endorsed.
At the end of the day we can all benefit by learning from eachother.
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 18 February 2004Robert,
Perhaps I am wrong too, but I am of the same oppinion as you.
Whilst Crystal green can crystalise when dry, the crystals are anhydrous and become noticeably sticky.
Crystalising shampoos, wether of the older embritalising variety or the more recent encapsulants, are claimed not to produce rapid resoil.
PS What happened to Ultimate master?
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 19 February 2004I believe also that Crystal Green is a cationic compatible detergent. This means that it can be used in conjunction with sanitising bactericides.
I feel sure though that it can leave soil attracting residues, and is certainly not any form of rinseing or neutralising agent.
I hope that helps people from steering clear of any potential problems.
Posted by Dave_Lee (Dave_Lee), 19 February 2004I am going off personal experience. You are both correct about the crystalisation of shampoo, however vacuums only seem to picked a small percentage, and high percentage of the crystals are left. I remember when a lot of shampooing went on and when the optical brighteners had faded they always looked dull and very quickly soiled. Also a pre shampooed carpet was/is a nightmare to clean with all that foam reactivation, especially in the recovery tank.
Anyway, what got me going along this thread in the first place was - Micro Splitters are very good in hwe and may be the safer alternative to traditional Alkaline rinse solutions in many cases. Does this mean a move away from the traditional methods or will there always be room for them. It just seemed to me that these well tried and tested methods are being critisised as dangerous, resoilers and after years of success with them I for one never had these so called problems.
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 19 February 2004Robert,
Crystal Green, unless they have completely changed the formulation very recently is non-ionic and contains no cationes.
It is its' non-ionic nature that make it suitable for use with residual sanitisers such as B125.
The presence of cationes would amorphise the B125 crystals, leading them to be surrendered by normal vacuum cleaning.
Posted by Robert_O (Robert Olifent), 19 February 2004Hi John
Just to clarify my point, I mentioned that Crystal Green was 'Cationic compatable', not that it was its self cationic in nature.
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 19 February 2004Dave,
I agree that crystalising shampoos are not completely removed by 'normal' dry vacuuming.
The dulling of carpets is another downside - which is even worse when the optical brighteners 'yellow' with age.
As to the more traditional chemicals, yes, many of them will continue to have a place as specific problem solvers.
The example Robert gave regarding crystal green, in association with B125 being one such case.
Despite being a convert to micro splitters, which I use on 90% of jobs, I still have over 30 other products on the van...............Just in case.
Posted by Dynafoam (Dynafoam), 19 February 2004Sorry Robert,
I missread your post - should have known that you would not have made that mistake.
Posted by Ian_G. (Ian_Gourlay), 20 February 2004Dave,
I hope there is not a move away from products such as Ultimate Master as I obtained some on your reccomendation, even though I had pleanty of other cleaning products.
Posted by Dave_Lee (Dave_Lee), 20 February 2004Ian,
Ive just got another 20kg tub - Im not moving away from it, its an excellent safe product in my opinion and I know many that would agree. The good news is - in the near future the 'NEW' Ultimate Master will be available which has had impressive results during trials and in use testing. Check with Alltec for more details.
Posted by Ian_G. (Ian_Gourlay), 20 February 2004Hey Dave.
Do you mean I got a discontinued Line
However Im pleased with it.
If Carpets are cleaned regulary and hovered as we tell them I cannot see why there is a problem with residue.
Machines are a lot more powerful.
Sales should rocket as there have been over 1000 hits on this topic.
Posted by Dave_Lee (Dave_Lee), 20 February 2004Ian,
Exactly, and just what Ive been saying. As a matter of fact, toight I wnet to give a quote to a client I had not worked for for 5 years. This time it was for their suite, 5 years ago I cleaned their lounge carpet, I used either Ultimate Master or Crystal Green, it has not been cleaned since and still looked in excellent condition.
This page is a thread posted to the cleanitup forum at www.cleanitup.co.uk and archived here for reference. To jump to the archive index please follow this link.