Removing urine correctly, why does the spot still fluoresce?

[1900 North]

I need to go before a judge on Friday to answer questions about a cleaning job two years ago. Many companies and individuals were involved. The judge may ask, "if all the urine is removed, why does the spot still fluoresce under a black light?" In 35 years I've never known the correct answer, other than telling customers that if they check with a black light after I'm finished, a lighter spot will still appear, but the odor is gone. Can someone tell me the reason, even the chemical compounds that are involved, in the spots that still fluoresce?

 

[Sierra Clean Care]

@scottw or @Larry Cobb @Mikey P ????? Staining the dye sites with alkaline deposits????? I've been told 8 different answers by 8 different people.....

 

[hydracat]

When blood is cleaned up why can CSI still find it?

 

[J Scott W]

Maybe this will be answer #9 on your list.

The fact is that cleaning carpet never removes 100% of everything. That is an impossible goal. A few decades ago, Dr Eric Brown's research showed that different cleaning methods removed anywhere form 20% to 48% of the soil in the carpet. (Going from memory. I have not reread his book recently.) The 48% removal was considered excellent.

Vacuuming increased the percentage of dry soil removal but not the percentage of other types of soil that were removed.

Modern equipment likely does a lot better than the equipment tested in the 1980s. I know CRI testting says some equipment removes over 90% of soils, but that includes a lot of dry soil.

When soil must be dissolved, emulsified or suspended in the water. 100% removal is simply not practical. Whatever urine and other contamination has been loosened from the carpet fibers in dispersed throughout the volume of water that was used. If you can remove 80% of the water by extraction (which I would consider a very good goal), then you have removed 80% of the contamination. Whatever water is left behind is not pure water. It still holds some of that contamination.

If that water then dries by evaporation (fans, air movers, etc.) the soil that was in the water is left behind.

It takes very little of the salt from urine decomposition (and also proteins) to create a visible flouorescence. You have reduced the level of stain and odor to the point it is no loonger detectable by most humans. But even 99% removed is not 100%. There may still be a glow.

 

[FredC]

http://mikeysboard.com/threads/for-those-home-owners-who-have-black-lights.279615/#post-4375659

edit: looks like the pdf link on cleanwiki is broken. He are two other sourses for it in case you want outside documentation

http://www.cleanfax.com/carpet-care/locating-sources-of-urine-odor/

https://claimsparency.com/learning/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Decontamination-of-Urine.pdf

The portion of urine that glows is the salts. It takes only a very small amount of salt to produce a noticeable glow under a quality black light. Cleaning procedures will dissolve the salt. When the water is extracted most of the salt is removed. However, the salt will be evenly dispersed throughout the water. Thus, if 80% or 90% of the water is removed by extraction, 10% or 20% of the water is left behind along with 10% or 20% of the salt. Water that dries by evaporation rather than extraction leaves its salt behind. So while the components of urine that cause the stain and odor may be removed, the small percentage of salt left behind may still be enough to produce a glow under UV light. There are products that will temporarily hide this florescence but they will wash away or wear away. The effect is only temporary. We do not recommend their use in most circumstances.

 

[J Scott W]

@scottw or @Larry Cobb @Mikey P ????? Staining the dye sites with alkaline deposits????? I've been told 8 different answers by 8 different people.....

Dye sites have been explained to carpet cleaners in a deciodely non-scientific way. We think of a dye site as a hole or opening for dye. A more accurate description would be a positively point on the molecular structure of nylon or wool that will bond to the opposite electric charge on the dye. Dyes ites can attract alkaline salts. But in my opinion, I think the explanation above is a greater reason for the glow we see after urine has been cleaned.

BTW - Olefin and polyester are dyed by different methods. The expalnation of dye sites in the paragrpah above does not apply to those fibers.

 

[Mikey P]

I'd like to see all those tests redone using a rotary BrushHead extractor

I'd also like to see all iicrc instructors AND Pemberton go out and clean twenty or so beach side apartments with one and a paint filter..

 

[J Scott W]

With Fred's links, you now have my explanation from 3 different sources. Pick any one you like.

 

[Onfire_02_01]

Maybe this will be answer #9 on your list.

The fact is that cleaning carpet never removes 100% of everything. That is an impossible goal. A few decades ago, Dr Eric Brown's research showed that different cleaning methods removed anywhere form 20% to 48% of the soil in the carpet. (Going from memory. I have not reread his book recently.) The 48% removal was considered excellent.

Vacuuming increased the percentage of dry soil removal but not the percentage of other types of soil that were removed.

Modern equipment likely does a lot better than the equipment tested in the 1980s. I know CRI testting says some equipment removes over 90% of soils, but that includes a lot of dry soil.

When soil must be dissolved, emulsified or suspended in the water. 100% removal is simply not practical. Whatever urine and other contamination has been loosened from the carpet fibers in dispersed throughout the volume of water that was used. If you can remove 80% of the water by extraction (which I would consider a very good goal), then you have removed 80% of the contamination. Whatever water is left behind is not pure water. It still holds some of that contamination.

If that water then dries by evaporation (fans, air movers, etc.) the soil that was in the water is left behind.

It takes very little of the salt from urine decomposition (and also proteins) to create a visible flouorescence. You have reduced the level of stain and odor to the point it is no loonger detectable by most humans. But even 99% removed is not 100%. There may still be a glow.

Not to derail the original question but,
Does this mean that we are also not removing 100% of our prespray when we clean? Is that why we need an acid rinse to neutralize the remaining? If this is the case why do bottles say free rinsing/ rinses completely out etc.? Do we need to change our prespray to eliminate any form of detergents to only allow phosphates and carbonates?
If you cannot tell I am not a chemist, causing a lot of questions for me.

 

[dgardner]

Does this mean that we are also not removing 100% of our prespray when we clean?

Yes, exactly. What Scott said in post #4 applies to everything in the carpet, including prespray. Like he said, 100% removal is simply not possible using the methods we employ.

If this is the case why do bottles say free rinsing/ rinses completely out etc.?

You are referring to stuff that marketing writes? Do you even have to ask?

 

[Old Coastie]

Fred, I have printed out the 20-page document. Thanks!

 

[hogjowl]

I am amazed Saiger doesn't have a video!

 

[Old Coastie]

Remember, green for cats, yellow for dogs.

Then there's Prattville Pink.

 

[Cleanworks]

We only clean carpets. We hope they are some what cleaner when we are done. We don't sanitize, purify, sterilize or make them new again. In urine cases, you sometimes need to remind the customer that is wasn't you who peed on the carpets. Unless you did.

 

[PTMatt]

Maybe this will be answer #9 on your list.

The fact is that cleaning carpet never removes 100% of everything. That is an impossible goal. A few decades ago, Dr Eric Brown's research showed that different cleaning methods removed anywhere form 20% to 48% of the soil in the carpet. (Going from memory. I have not reread his book recently.) The 48% removal was considered excellent.

Vacuuming increased the percentage of dry soil removal but not the percentage of other types of soil that were removed.

Modern equipment likely does a lot better than the equipment tested in the 1980s. I know CRI testting says some equipment removes over 90% of soils, but that includes a lot of dry soil.

When soil must be dissolved, emulsified or suspended in the water. 100% removal is simply not practical. Whatever urine and other contamination has been loosened from the carpet fibers in dispersed throughout the volume of water that was used. If you can remove 80% of the water by extraction (which I would consider a very good goal), then you have removed 80% of the contamination. Whatever water is left behind is not pure water. It still holds some of that contamination.

If that water then dries by evaporation (fans, air movers, etc.) the soil that was in the water is left behind.

It takes very little of the salt from urine decomposition (and also proteins) to create a visible flouorescence. You have reduced the level of stain and odor to the point it is no loonger detectable by most humans. But even 99% removed is not 100%. There may still be a glow.

Best explanation ive heard yet.

 

[Spurlington]

I dont underestand why this is even going to court .. unless your ad says guaranteed removal !!

I always tell customers that urine removal process is just a dilution process .. 100% may be acheived by replacing carpet, pad, possible tack strips, possible baseboard and partial drywall - along with a sealer for the sub floor etc.. so I can dilute what you have going on better than doing it yourself .. and NEVER with any type of guarantee .. if they want to call back for another attempt - it will be a billable visit since we do not guarantee odor removal !!

 

[Spurlington]

And Im thinking a urine contaminated carpet is considered damaged goods .. so dont tell me anything if the carpet looks discolored after Im done !! Pre-existing !! Keep your animals off the carpet.

 

[Old Coastie]

Actually, that is a valid point that I am getting bolder about making.
Cigarette smoke and pet urine are severe damage to a home and what I offer is an improvement. Not a promise of total removal.
Customers seem to respond well to directness.

 

[1900 North]

I never guarantee urine removal.
As I mentioned, many businesses and people are involved. Much too convoluted to explain in any detail, other than to say I am not on trial. My sincere thanks to all who have responded.

 

[Cleanworks]

I never guarantee urine removal.
As I mentioned, many businesses and people are involved. Much too convoluted to explain in any detail, other than to say I am not on trial. My sincere thanks to all who have responded.

When you are able can you give more details as well as the outcome of the case?

 

[Spurlington]

Optical Brighteners are fluorescent dyes (chemical ingredients) that appear fluoresce blue/white under ultraviolet light and tend to make light colors appear brighter. They show up in sunlight or fluorescent lighting in particular. Be careful in using any product which contains them as a spotter. Each spot, after drying, may appear lighter than the surrounding carpet, looking like color loss. Also, various carpet manufacturers have expressed serious concern about yellowing of optical brighteners over time.

Brighteners are commonly added to laundry detergents to replace whitening agents removed during washing and to make the clothes appear cleaner. Optical brighteners have replaced bluing which was formerly used to produce the same effect. Some brighteners can cause allergic reactions when in contact with skin, depending on the individual



So Im guessing some spot remover residue/damage may fluorese under the black light .. if so .. wha lah .. who knows which detergent was used blah blah blah etc..

 

[Larry Cobb]

There are some techniques to remove the fluorescence from pet urine & other stains.
These are photos after removal I did with a strong oxidizer combined with our UV light.
In natural light:

In UV illumination:

This stain required DC Brightener + about 5 min of UV light exposure.

I am also testing a new method which uses "hydroxyl ions" generated by an electrolysis process,
which should allow removal with a 12" carpet cleaning wand.

Two new processes will be demoed @ the ARCS annual convention in San Antonio April 19-20.

P.S. I have some clear hard polystyrene storage drawers that were sprayed with cat urine.
I thought a quick scrubbing with a strong oxidizer would eliminate the fluorescence.
I was quite wrong, and the "greenish-yellow" UV glow remained just as strong.

 

[Able 1]

I have given up on piss jobs..

I had a job that this cat was pissing in the corner of one room.. I pulled the pad sealed the floor, treated the carpet with every deodorizer that is mentioned here and the carpet still smelled like piss!! This job was the one I pulled out everything and all I found out is you all (well, not Jimmy)are FOS..

All I have found in all my years of searching is BS masking the stink! To me Prochem duo is the most awful scent ever invented!!

We use "pet stain out" now.. Thing is I like peroxide and they don't go together.. I get Sally's volume 40 for around $2.25 a quart when I put my order in..

 

[Able 1]

It kind of reminds me of a job when I was just starting up.. This lady's furniture was stuck to the carpet because there was so much piss! She said to me, "well he's a good cat but he has some accidents"..

I currently have 3 cats and a dog (and a snake), and if any of them piss in the house they are dead!! No way in hell I will let a animal ruin my house!

 

[BIG WOOD]

I don't know if this was stated in the articles that were attached, but the simplest way I've concluded to the question is:

Urine is Permanent damage to the carpet that shows only in a black light or urine light. Urine itself can be guaranteed to be removed, but the visual damage will always be there under a urine light.

There's three different reflections under a urine light that will show whether it's been removed or still there
-Yellow tint reflection shows that the urine of a dog is still there
-Greenish Yellow tint shows that the urine of a cat is still there
-Whitish reflection shows the permanent damage that has been already treated and the odor should not be there. IF there is still an odor or a sign of moisture on the moisture meter, then it's just covered up from whatever treatment the homeowner has done. Normally, it should be a simple removal from normal prespray and HWE.

That's the simplest way I've been able to explain to the customer and fix the problem

 

[Jim Pemberton]

I'd also like to see all iicrc instructors AND Pemberton go out and clean twenty or so beach side apartments with one and a paint filter..

You confuse me with someone who is willing to work for a living at my advanced age.

Thank you though for making the distinction between me and IICRC instructors. Most of them are great people, and believe in what they are doing.

I, however, am an unrepentant apostate from their church.

 

[Rick J]

Optical Brighteners are fluorescent dyes (chemical ingredients) that appear fluoresce blue/white under ultraviolet light and tend to make light colors appear brighter. They show up in sunlight or fluorescent lighting in particular. Be careful in using any product which contains them as a spotter. Each spot, after drying, may appear lighter than the surrounding carpet, looking like color loss. Also, various carpet manufacturers have expressed serious concern about yellowing of optical brighteners over time.

Brighteners are commonly added to laundry detergents to replace whitening agents removed during washing and to make the clothes appear cleaner. Optical brighteners have replaced bluing which was formerly used to produce the same effect. Some brighteners can cause allergic reactions when in contact with skin, depending on the individual



So Im guessing some spot remover residue/damage may fluorese under the black light .. if so .. wha lah .. who knows which detergent was used blah blah blah etc..

Again off the ORIGNAL subject,
but I have often seen the pink/purplish spots, even on olefin and poly. fibers that are not supposed to stain .
Pretty darn sure it is from the customer's PCEs (prior cleaning efforts lol) using over counter stufff with optical brighteners.
For my own amusement, never with any success, I have attemped removal. Both reducers, and oxidizers, bathtub, and labeled. !

 

[Jim Pemberton]

PCEs (prior cleaning efforts lol)

Great term! I'm stealing that one from you Rick!

 

[Rick J]

There are some techniques to remove the fluorescence from pet urine & other stains.
These are photos after removal I did with a strong oxidizer combined with our UV light.
In natural light:

In UV illumination:

This stain required DC Brightener + about 5 min of UV light exposure.

I am also testing a new method which uses "hydroxyl ions" generated by an electrolysis process,
which should allow removal with a 12" carpet cleaning wand.

Two new processes will be demoed @ the ARCS annual convention in San Antonio April 19-20.

P.S. I have some clear hard polystyrene storage drawers that were sprayed with cat urine.
I thought a quick scrubbing with a strong oxidizer would eliminate the fluorescence.
I was quite wrong, and the "greenish-yellow" UV glow remained just as strong.

Succeed in getting the spaghetti sauce stain out of tupperware and you REALLY have something./!!!b

 

[Rick J]

Great term! I'm stealing that one from you Rick!

It is copyrighted, !!! But
You have my permission. lol