General Carpet Cleaning

[SeboU1]

What method do you prefer for general maintenance cleaning? I previously preferred the Kirby shampoo, but it can be time consuming for large rooms. My preferred method is the Sebo duo powder, it seems to remove anything I want removed. I also appreciate that Sebo claims that the Duo powder eliminates dust mites for 6 months, as I am severely allergic. I really hate using an extractor, also why I would not like a Rainbow.

 

[centralsweeper63]

I think dry powder would be good for some cases, others need extraction. If it is used every 3 or 6 months to keep dirt off and keep it fresh that is where dry powder is good. The extraction method in my opinion is good for old or heavily stained carpets. E.G. getting a few more years out of a 20 year old carpet that hasn't been cleaned beyond vacuuming before.

 

[SeboU1]

I think dry powder would be good for some cases, others need extraction. If it is used every 3 or 6 months to keep dirt off and keep it fresh that is where dry powder is good. The extraction method in my opinion is good for old or heavily stained carpets. E.G. getting a few more years out of a 20 year old carpet that hasn't been cleaned beyond vacuuming before.

I agree. The people that usually have never cleaned their carpets believe that “cleaning carpets makes them attract dirt.”

 

[herbicide]

To me the answer is self evident; it is extraction. If the dry powder method was superior, that is what you’d see the professionals use. (The professionals that drive around in vans with specialized equipment)

 

[SeboU1]

To me the answer is self evident; it is extraction. If the dry powder method was superior, that is what you’d see the professionals use. (The professionals that drive around in vans with specialized equipment)

I do prefer the truck mounted extraction, their machine removes much more liquid than a portable unit such as a Rug Doctor.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Each to their own. Plenty of evidence of professionals using a wide range of techniques out there, including microsponges (which are not dry powder, incidentally). It's very easy to demonstrate the superiority of microsponges over other techniques for real-world domestic usage.

I agree. The people that usually have never cleaned their carpets believe that “cleaning carpets makes them attract dirt.”

Resoiling is a known phenomenon with multiple causes. These include wick back to sticky chemical residue that results in faster resoiling. So, there is some truth to their claim, although that's not an excuse to correctly clean a carpet in need.

For service-providing or commercial usage, microsponges with appropriate equipment for larger scale delivery is superior, according to data available in the literature. Some extreme soiling may benefit from pre-clean with steam extraction, prior to microsponge final cleaning for best results (microbiologically and resoiling). In general, water should be avoided on fitted carpets for many reasons covered in the links above, but carpets that are extremely abused and neglected will not particularly suffer if it's used initially, or if a wet stain has already occurred.

Many will disagree with this but I guarantee they will present absolutely no convincing objective evidence to support their position, distinct from that provided above and further correctly conducted fact-checks. That's how you know you can safely discard such subjective sources.

 

[herbicide]

Each to their own. Plenty of evidence of professionals using a wide range of techniques out there, including microsponges (which are not dry powder, incidentally). It's very easy to demonstrate the superiority of microsponges over other techniques for real-world domestic usage.


Resoiling is a known phenomenon with multiple causes. These include wick back to sticky chemical residue that results in faster resoiling. So, there is some truth to their claim, although that's not an excuse to correctly clean a carpet in need.

For service-providing or commercial usage, microsponges with appropriate equipment for larger scale delivery is superior, according to data available in the literature. Some extreme soiling may benefit from pre-clean with steam extraction, prior to microsponge final cleaning for best results (microbiologically and resoiling). In general, water should be avoided on fitted carpets for many reasons covered in the links above, but carpets that are extremely abused and neglected will not particularly suffer if it's used initially, or if a wet stain has already occurred.

Many will disagree with this but I guarantee they will present absolutely no convincing objective evidence to support their position, distinct from that provided above and further correctly conducted fact-checks. That's how you know you can safely discard such subjective sources.

Once again, where is your "objective evidence" for your claims? Links to your own materials is the exact opposite of "objective evidence."

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Once again, where is your "objective evidence" for your claims? Links to your own materials is the exact opposite of "objective evidence."

It's referenced in the material I present. You can't claim I present no objective evidence then auto-dismiss links to my work that references the very thing you ask for that you can then go and fact check. You wilfully and wrongly brand evidence as non-evidence and thereby disregard it unfairly. This is slot machine trolling behaviour. It's compounded by your negative, dismissive, contrarian demeanor that hypocritically provides absolutely no evidence at all, rings hollow, and shows you to be exclusively a source of valueless smear. It's for this reason why you get very little attention from me and those who care about constructive discussion and what's true reading here, going forward. Responding to your hollow hypocrisy generally isn't worth the time and we can make our own minds up without your empty, negative responses. I'm sure you'll claim the same from me, but the difference is the evidence I provide that you knee-jerk dismiss and don't even see that sustains your hypocritical ignorance. We will make our own minds up. Your response to this comment isn't required or desired by the best of us. Run along.

 

[herbicide]

It's referenced in the material I present. You can't claim I present no objective evidence then auto-dismiss links to my work that references the very thing you ask for that you can then go and fact check. You wilfully and wrongly brand evidence as non-evidence and thereby disregard it unfairly. This is slot machine trolling behaviour. It's compounded by your negative, dismissive, contrarian demeanor that hypocritically provides absolutely no evidence at all, rings hollow, and shows you to be exclusively a source of valueless smear. It's for this reason why you get very little attention from me and those who care about constructive discussion and what's true reading here, going forward. Responding to your hollow hypocrisy generally isn't worth the time and we can make our own minds up without your empty, negative responses. I'm sure you'll claim the same from me, but the difference is the evidence I provide that you knee-jerk dismiss and don't even see that sustains your hypocritical ignorance. We will make our own minds up. Your response to this comment isn't required or desired by the best of us. Run along.

I do not dismiss your links, nor the 'evidence' they provide.

What I do dismiss and bring attention to is the FACT that the evidence you provide is no different than much of the other evidence you claim as "vague subjective anecdotes."

Also, quote yourself when trying to convey evidence: "Be very specific." and point to me where this "objective evidence" lies instead of posting a link containing many videos of apparent demonstrations. You have demanded this very thing from me, which I have provided.

 

[royalfan103]

I always like hitting my carpets with my Steamvac using both a wash and rinse cycle. I don't trust dry powder one bit with my vacuums or carpets.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

I always like hitting my carpets with my Steamvac using both a wash and rinse cycle. I don't trust dry powder one bit with my vacuums or carpets.

I'm not interested in dry powder either. Microsponges are where it's at.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Well, the way I see it is if you need to get lots of dirt of you need to wash it, though the extractor must actually do a good jobat getting the water out. However, if you just need to refresh carpets, microsponges, Kirby foam method, etc works well for less effort.

 

[cheesewonton]

I'm not interested in dry powder either. Microsponges are where it's at.

I rent homes, a duplex and some townhouses. That is one of my businesses. Nothing short of a deep steam cleaning cleans carpets adequately for the turnover after a tenant leaves. Microsponges might be ok for little messes but if you are sanitizing a place for a new tenant nothing short of a deep steam cleaning is adequate. I am tearing out carpets from my rentals as I turn them over because carpet is too difficult to maintain for my tenants and after six or seven years of a tenant living in one of my units ( I try very hard to keep my tenants ) the carpet has to be replaced because it is generally too dirty and worn out to waste money on cleaning. At a certain point the carpet is beyond cleaning. The portable vacuums most tenants use ( or maybe don't use ) don't keep my carpets clean. Now I just rip most of the carpet out and replace it with vinyl plank or laminate flooring. If the tenant wants to buy some area rugs they are their problem to clean, not mine.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Good advice. Carpet is nice until it wears out. This is one example I was mentioning earlier about not properly being clean with water or microsponges for a long period of time.

 

[panasonicvac]

Definitely extraction for me, preferably from a truck mount professional. I wouldn't mind using a Kirby to scrub the carpets first and then use hot water extraction but it'd be extra work that I don't think is necessary on my carpets. I never had good experience with Capture before but if I really had to go with the dry method, I'd use either SEBO DUO-P or Lindhaus Pure Power Dry.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

Problem with wet extraction, despite its appearance of greatness is that there's plenty of scientific evidence in the literature that I've presented historically here that clearly highlights the known issues that YT videos that the gullible auto-buy don't mention. Wet extraction can clean visible soil well, but isn’t reliably superior for deep allergen removal and adds a moisture-related microbial risk unless drying is very rapid.

 

[herbicide]

Problem with wet extraction, despite its appearance of greatness is that there's plenty of scientific evidence in the literature that I've presented historically here that clearly highlights the known issues that YT videos that the gullible auto-buy don't mention. Wet extraction can clean visible soil well, but isn’t reliably superior for deep allergen removal and adds a moisture-related microbial risk unless drying is very rapid.

What scientific literature? That’s a link to your own posts and videos.

Please give us direct links to the specific scientific “evidence” to review.

 

[blackheart]

Between the options definitely water extraction. The cycle of spraying down fresh solution agitating and extracting I think is going to give the best result overall. I guess I think of it like this, how do we wash other cloth/fabrics? We wash, rinse and dry.
Re-soiling can be an issue which is why it's best to use a non residue formula or to do like the pros do and apply the soap as a prespray and run either water or a rinse solution in your machine.

 

[Vacuum Facts]

What scientific literature? That’s a link to your own posts and videos.

Please give us direct links to the specific scientific “evidence” to review.

I'd like everyone reading to go and look at the link this guy auto-dismissed, read it and the links within. Then re-read what this guy said and you'll understand my criticisms of his historical troll posts. You'll also understand why this guy should never be perceived with any credibility going forward.

 

[herbicide]

I'd like everyone reading to go and look at the link this guy auto-dismissed, read it and the links within. Then re-read what this guy said and you'll understand my criticisms of his historical troll posts. You'll also understand why this guy should never be perceived with any credibility going forward.

You didn’t link those previously. Your previous links was to a playlist of your videos.

Maybe, just maybe, if you’d respond with information versus insults you’d be taken a lot more seriously and a whole lot less combative.

It’s also funny that you are whining about name calling in that very post.

But I digress. I am genuinely interested in learning more about this method. I do question its overall effectiveness in my general use case for an extractor; which is pet urine. The benefit of extractors in in this very specific use case is extractors physically remove the urine by vacuum action. Blotting and toweling can do so as well of course, but not to the degree a decent extractor can, at least in my experience. Plus blotting/toweling tends to push the liquid further down, versus pulling it up. The extractor can also do a trick called dilution in this use case.

Those links you post I’ll have to digest more, but they seem to be focused on allergen removal. There are other cases like the N.E. mentioned above.

 

[cheesewonton]

So a direct quote from your link to the JACI study on the effectiveness of hot water extraction.

"Post-hot water extraction cleaning, surface levels of Derp1/Derf1, Feld1 and Canf1 were reduced by 83%, 96% and 90% on soft furnishings (p=0.04) and 91%, 95% and 97% on carpets (p=0.01), respectively. Airborne Feld1 was reduced by 67% (p=0.01). Reductions were also seen for airborne mold (55%, p=0.01) and surface bacteria (90%, p=0.05). Test chamber airborne particle counts during room disturbances in the presence of three different carpets were reduced post-hot water extraction cleaning by 78%, 37% and 65%. Allergen was predominantly found in the carpet base (≥71% of Feld1/Canf1). Hot water extraction cleaning had a greater effect on allergen levels in the upper layers (74-100% reduction), than on base layer levels (15-91% reduction).
Conclusions
Incorporation of a hot water extraction cleaning procedure in a home allergen avoidance strategy, at yet to be determined intervals, significantly reduces the levels of bio-contaminants to which occupants are exposed."

Your link seems to support the efficacy of hot water extraction.

 

[cheesewonton]

Here is the unconvincing abstract from the 1988 study you link to "Effectiveness of vacuum cleaning and wet cleaning in reducing house-dust mites, fungi and mite allergen in a cotton carpet: A case study"
Published: February 1988

"Abstract
In order to evaluate the effect of continuous, thorough vacuuming on house dust organisms and mite allergen, a cotton carpet was vacuumed every other day, six times in total. Seven weeks later, the carpet was cleaned by means of spray extraction. Samples were taken before and after this wet cleaning.

In total 1150 g of dust was collected, containing approximately 174 000 arthropods (dead and alive) and 9000×106 fungal spores. In the course of the experiment, the amount of dust collected at each vacuuming decreased. The number of extracted house dust mites did not decrease significantly, but that of the predator miteCheyletus did. The number of extracted fungal spores showed a significant decrease (from 142 to 16×106 spores/m2 per minute vacuuming), as did the extracted mite allergen per m2. After 7 weeks the number of mite eggs and complete house dust mites had increased enormously. After cleaning by spray extraction another increase in the number of complete mites and mite eggs was found, while the amount of mite allergen was diminished.

The population growth of the house dust mite between the 6th and the 7th vacuuming is probably due to the decrease of their most important predator,Cheyletus. After the wet cleaning a number of extra eggs hatched, probably due to the high humidity in the carpet. The procedures used in this study to combat house dust mites may have an adverse effect in the long run."

Looks more like an indictment of 1988 vintage vacuum cleaners. So carpet was vacuumed every other day six times in total meaning it was vacuumed six times in 12 days, less than two weeks, then wet cleaned seven weeks later. What happened in the intervening five weeks between the last vacuuming and the wet cleaning? Sloppy methodology. Says nothing about microsponges.

 

[cheesewonton]

Your link to a study you claim proves the effectiveness of microsponges only tested against other dry chemical carpet cleaners and not against wet extraction. The claimed reductions for Der p1 and Der f1 were still below those for wet extraction and required weeks of application to reach those levels.

Here is the paragraph with the results:
"Four different chemical treatments were applied to 30 carpets (Table I). Dust samples were collected every 2 weeks. Results show the percentage change in both mite allergen concentration and the total quantity of allergen recovered from carpets at 2 and 8 weeks after the initial treatment. In accordance with previous reports, benzyl benzoate applied for 12 hours significantly reduced group I mite allergen.24 Carpets treated with TA showed a more marked decrease in allergen. However, these dust samples were extracted in BBS, and subsequent work showed that values obtained by such an extraction method may not reflect true allergen levels. Interestingly, both Host and Capture cleaners also caused a decrease in allergen concentration. A surprising effect of treatment with Capture cleaner was the significant increase in total allergen recovered. In a second series of experiments airborne measurements were conducted in eight of the houses. All airborne samples were extracted in the presence of 1% BSA. Results showed a marked decrease (>64%) in airborne mite allergen during disturbance after treatment with either benzyl benzoate or TA (Table II). Airborne mite allergen was undetectable in undisturbed conditions and was unmeasurable in two uncarpeted rooms even during disturbance. Treatment with TA caused mean percentage reductions of 64% for Der p 1 and 85% for Der f 1 when sampling during disturbance (data not shown). TA appeared to cause a greater decrease in group 1 allergen levels when pretreatment levels were highest. The data is also shown for single houses treated with Host and Capture cleaners where moderate changes in airborne mite allergen levels occurred in parallel with changes in carpet dust. These results suggest that treatment of carpets with TA or benzyl benzoate can decrease the quantity of mite allergen that becomes airborne during vacuum cleaning."

 

[centralsweeper63]

Is that still whining.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Oh, and smearing.

 

[cheesewonton]

A major consideration for me when turning a unit around after a vacancy is time. I am losing rental income every day that unit sits empty so whatever method I use to clean the carpets has to be something that can be accomplished in less than a day. I cannot count on my tenant to use carpet cleaners routinely. I'm lucky if the tenant runs a little stick vac around once a week. Most don't have decent vacuums. They're renters, not home owners. I was the same when I rented. Not my carpet ! So counting on something that takes weeks to be effective is not happening.

 

[centralsweeper63]

Please stop smearing! I agree in reality though.