September Newsletter

The first patent for an elec­tri­cal­ly-dri­ven “car­pet sweep­er and
dust gath­er” was grant­ed to Corinne Dufour of Savan­nah, Geor­gia
in Decem­ber 1900.  The first pow­ered clean­er employ­ing a vac­u­um
was patent­ed and pro­duced by Hubert Cecil Booth in 1901.
Arti­cle released Feb 10, 2017 by Clean­care Aus­tralia
Car­pet clean­ing has come a long way, CFR have dis­cussed the his­to­ry and how far we have come.
How would you like to clean your rugs by drag­ging them out­side and beat­ing them with a stick? Mix­ing a sham­poo out of water and beef gall, per­haps? Or, even bet­ter, attempt­ing to remove stains by soak­ing with water and lemon juice and then scrub­bing the spot with a hot loaf of bread?
It may sound sur­pris­ing, but the lemon and bread method was the rec­om­mend­ed prac­tice back in 1827, at least accord­ing to The House Servant’s Direc­to­ry by Robert Roberts, But­ler to The Hon. Christo­pher Gore, Gov­er­nor of Mass­a­chu­setts, 1809 (ref­er­ence).
Back then, wall to wall car­pet­ing was both expen­sive and hard to clean. High traf­fic areas were often cov­ered with heavy woollen spreads called druggets, can­vas cloth, or oth­er car­pet run­ners, in order to pro­tect the car­pet itself. Car­pets were often cov­ered com­plete­ly for major events to be host­ed in the home.
While car­pet pro­duc­tion expand­ed in the mid-1800’s with the intro­duc­tion of Eras­tus Bigelow’s pow­er loom, wall to wall car­pet did not become as com­mon as it is today until some­time in the 1950’s when mass pro­duc­tion, and new mate­ri­als devel­oped dur­ing WWII, turned what was a lux­u­ry item into some­thing that was gen­er­al­ly afford­able.
Still, car­pet­ing includ­ing small­er car­pets or rugs was com­mon in homes and busi­ness­es across Europe and North Amer­i­ca – and all of them had to be cleaned some­how. Sweep­ing car­pets was a fair­ly com­mon prac­tice, and by the 1860’s sev­er­al inven­tors were work­ing on sweep­ing devices to improve the process. Melville Bis­sell is gen­er­al­ly cred­it­ed with the inven­tion of what would become the mod­ern sweep­er, which he first patent­ed in 1876.
Until the inven­tion of onsite clean­ing tools, the busi­ness of pro­fes­sion­al­ly clean­ing car­pets gen­er­al­ly involved remov­ing them and trans­port­ing them to a cen­tral­ized clean­ing facil­i­ty. While prob­a­bly more effec­tive than the onsite clean­ing options avail­able at the time, this was rather incon­ve­nient for car­pet own­ers. That incon­ve­nience proved to be a major oppor­tu­ni­ty for enter­pris­ing souls in the clean­ing busi­ness.
In 1898, John S. Thur­man of St. Louis, Mis­souri, sub­mit­ted the patent for a “pneu­mat­ic car­pet ren­o­va­tor” which used com­pressed air to blow dust into a recep­ta­cle. Three years lat­er in 1901, Hubert Cecil Booth invent­ed the first motor­ized vac­u­um clean­er (using suc­tion) in Eng­land. Both machines used a gas-pow­ered engine and oper­at­ed from a horse-drawn car­riage. Rem­i­nis­cent of today’s truck mount­ed sys­tems, both con­trap­tions were dri­ven to cus­tomers’ homes and the oper­a­tors would then run tubes from the cart to the inside of the house in order to clean it. This appears to be the start of on-loca­tion pro­fes­sion­al car­pet clean­ing.
At that time, some plants would sham­poo and “steam clean” car­pets in much the same way hot water extrac­tion is done today. In 1876 for exam­ple, Howard’s Steam Car­pet Clean­ing Works in Indi­anapo­lis heat­ed water from a canal, added deter­gent, and sprayed down car­pets, remov­ing the solu­tion with a vac­u­um pump once they had been cleaned.
As the on-site clean­ing busi­ness­es began to pro­lif­er­ate, their oper­a­tors devel­oped new equip­ment to com­pete with the car­pet clean­ing plants. Ear­ly entries includ­ed rotary machines and bon­nets, which scrubbed or scoured car­pets using a cir­cu­lar motion. Some added water and sham­poo, some did not. There are some ear­ly exam­ples of sys­tems that used a rotary scrub­ber with sham­poo in con­junc­tion with a wet/dry vac­u­um to remove the solu­tion after wash­ing.
It is dif­fi­cult to deter­mine exact­ly when, or who, invent­ed mod­ern hot water extrac­tion. In the 1920’s, Hamil­ton Beach start­ed sell­ing a car­pet wash­er machine that washed and dried car­pets in one pass. But that machine was not quite there – it used water and a clean­ing solu­tion (sham­poo) to clean but did not employ pres­sur­ized hot water. It appears that it wasn’t until the ear­ly 1960’s that true hot water extrac­tion machines came into being.
The first units all oper­at­ed on the same gen­er­al prin­ci­ples: Apply pres­sur­ized clean­ing solu­tion, stored in a tank, into the car­pet and then use a pump to siphon the solu­tion back out along with all the soil. Some units had two tanks (clean/soiled) and some had only one. Some of these designs also employed the dual-pur­pose wand that is now com­mon today. A few ear­ly exam­ples include the Jud­son company’s Deep­Clean DC3 from 1959, Deep Steam Extrac­tors’ (now DSC Chem­i­cals) Deep Steam Machine, and a patent filed by Fred Hays on a “Steam-Vac­u­um Gen­er­a­tor for Rug and Uphol­stery Clean­ing” in 1966 (there is lit­tle infor­ma­tion on any com­mer­cial­iza­tion of that machine).
The essen­tial method of hot water extrac­tion has not changed all that much in the decades since its intro­duc­tion. Extrac­tion, it turned out, was a very effec­tive way to clean car­pet (with min­i­mal dam­age to the fibers) and so the focus turned toward refin­ing and per­fect­ing the method rather than devel­op­ing new ones. Since the ‘60’s, machines have become more reli­able, less bulky, more manoeu­vrable, and over­all, bet­ter at the job of extrac­tion. The devel­op­ment of truck-mount­ed sys­tems in the ‘70’s allowed for more pow­er, high­er pres­sure and water tem­per­a­tures, and larg­er tanks. Advances in chem­i­cal treat­ments result­ed in less residue (ear­ly treat­ments often includ­ed coconut oils which tend­ed to stick around and attract soil after clean­ing), greater clean­ing pow­er, and reduced health and envi­ron­men­tal impact.
Hot water extrac­tion remains the most com­mon­ly rec­om­mend­ed deep car­pet clean­ing method. Com­bined with reg­u­lar vac­u­um­ing, extrac­tion keeps car­pets look­ing new and extends their use­ful life. And the process of inno­va­tion in extrac­tion tech­nol­o­gy con­tin­ues. Extrac­tion has always been a water, time, and ener­gy inten­sive process. The Con­tin­u­ous Flow Recy­cling sys­tem address­es those issues, build­ing on today’s high­ly effec­tive extrac­tion tech­nol­o­gy and mak­ing it many times more effi­cient. By fil­ter­ing and recy­cling the water and chem­i­cals used in extrac­tion, along with oth­er inno­va­tions, CFR rep­re­sents anoth­er major step for­ward in an indus­try with a long his­to­ry of inven­tion.

INCLEAN Mag­a­zine arti­cle – 3 Sep­tem­ber 2020 release date:    www.incleanmag.com

The Ther­a­peu­tic Goods Admin­is­tra­tion (TGA) has issued three infringe­ment notices for $39,960 to Mel­bourne-based com­pa­ny Yarra Val­ley Clean­ing Co Pty Ltd for the alleged unlaw­ful adver­tis­ing of a dis­in­fec­tant prod­uct in rela­tion to COVID-19.
Accord­ing to the TGA, Yarra Val­ley Clean­ing Co alleged­ly adver­tised, on its web­site, a dis­in­fec­tant prod­uct that was not includ­ed in the Aus­tralian Reg­is­ter of Ther­a­peu­tic Goods (ARTG), and was nei­ther an exempt good nor a good exclud­ed from the oper­a­tion of the Ther­a­peu­tic Goods Act 1989 (the Act).
Unless a spe­cif­ic exemp­tion, approval or author­i­ty applies, ther­a­peu­tic goods must be entered in the ARTG before they can be law­ful­ly adver­tised in Aus­tralia. Yarra Val­ley Clean­ing Co alleged­ly claimed that ‘Sani­tise IT’ is 99.9999% effec­tive against virus­es, includ­ing COVID-19.
Under the Act, claims or ref­er­ences that a dis­in­fec­tant prod­uct has an effect against virus­es, includ­ing COVID-19, are pro­hib­it­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tions. The use of pro­hib­it­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tions in adver­tise­ments for ther­a­peu­tic goods is unlaw­ful with­out pri­or per­mis­sion from the TGA.
Accord­ing to the TGA, the adver­tis­ing on the company’s web­site was alleged­ly mis­lead­ing and implied the dis­in­fec­tant prod­uct was entered in the ARTG, when it was not. Adver­tis­ing for ther­a­peu­tic goods must be truth­ful, bal­anced and not mis­lead­ing. This includes any implied claims.
The TGA has informed Yarra Val­ley Clean­ing Co the rel­e­vant adver­tis­ing must be imme­di­ate­ly removed from the company’s web­site.
The TGA has also pub­lished a warn­ing to adver­tis­ers and con­sumers about ille­gal adver­tis­ing relat­ing to COVID-19. It has also pro­vid­ed reg­u­la­to­ry infor­ma­tion for spon­sors and man­u­fac­tur­ers of clean­ers and dis­in­fec­tants and a warn­ing about prod­ucts claim­ing to treat or pre­vent COVID-19.
The TGA is inves­ti­gat­ing oth­er enti­ties that have been the sub­ject of com­plaints about alleged unlaw­ful adver­tis­ing in rela­tion to COVID-19. Any per­son, includ­ing busi­ness­es, adver­tis­ing ther­a­peu­tic goods to con­sumers must com­ply with the require­ments for adver­tis­ing.
The TGA encour­ages peo­ple to report sus­pect­ed non-com­pli­ant adver­tis­ing via its adver­tis­ing com­plaints form. 

INCLEAN con­tact­ed Yarra Val­ley Clean­ing Co but did not respond pri­or to pub­li­ca­tion

Too afraid to say R U OK? There is such pow­er of feel­ing con­nect­ed and under­stood, and this is why R U OK? Day, today, was estab­lished more than 10 years ago.
When you reach out to some­one who appears to be strug­gling, are you ready for them to tell us they are not OK?
We have grown up in a cul­ture where peo­ple auto­mat­i­cal­ly respond with “I’m fine”, so it can be daunt­ing if peo­ple tell us they’re not.
The first thing to do is to lis­ten and be real­ly present.  They are show­ing incred­i­ble vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty.
Your job is to not to be their coun­sel­lor, or ther­a­pist, it’s to lis­ten, encour­age action and then to check in lat­er.
Say things like “I would real­ly like to hear more about what’s hap­pen­ing in your life” and “how does this make you feel?”
Encour­age some kind of action, minor step.  Ask things like “would you like to see a pro­fes­sion­al, a GP or a fam­i­ly doc­tor?  Is there some­one else who can be part of this jour­ney with you?”
“Seek their per­mis­sion to check in with them down the track.  It says I may not under­stand how you feel but you are not alone, I am reach­ing out to be with you as anoth­er human being”

Learn what to say after R U OK? At ruok.org.au

⦁    In 1804 the first brew­ery in Aus­tralia begins to pro­duce beer. 
⦁    In 1854 the first game of crick­et is played at the Mel­bourne Crick­et Ground.
⦁    In 1855 Queen Vic­to­ria signs an Order-in-Coun­cil to change the name of Van Diemen’s        Land to Tas­ma­nia.
⦁    In 1897 Essendon wins the first VFL/AFL pre­mier­ship.
⦁    In 1904 the first Aus­tralian Open golf tour­na­ment is held.
⦁    In 1912 the Gold­en Wat­tle is declared as Australia’s nation­al flower but only declared          as Australia’s offi­cial flo­ral emblem in 1988.
⦁    In 1918 first direct radio mes­sage between Lon­don and Syd­ney.
⦁    In 1946 Trans Aus­tralia Air­lines (TAA) makes its first flight.
⦁    In 1956 Aus­tralian tele­vi­sion begins.
⦁    In 1982 the 1982 Com­mon­wealth Games begin in Bris­bane
⦁    In 1983 Aus­tralia II wins the America’s Cup end­ing the New York Yacht Club’s 132–              year dom­i­na­tion of the race.
⦁    In 1988 Con­vic­tions against Lindy and Michael Cham­ber­lain are quashed. 
⦁    In 2000 the Open­ing Cer­e­mo­ny of the Syd­ney Olympics.
⦁    In 2001 Ansett air­line col­laps­es.
⦁    In 2005 Eng­land wins the Ash­es back from Aus­tralia for the first time since 1987.
⦁    In 2006 Steve Irwin, the croc­o­dile hunter, dies after being stung by a stingray.

Mis­ters use very high-water pres­sure (600 to 1200 psi) to squeeze the water through ori­fices as small as .006 of an inch. Our Dry Fog sys­tem essen­tial­ly pro­duces droplets in the 1–10-micron size range (dry fog is defined as 1–10-micron droplets). See Droplet Size Chart The dust that becomes air­borne and is of con­cern to health and envi­ron­men­tal offi­cials is called PM-10 or par­tic­u­late mat­ter 10 microns or small­er. A like size droplet to dust par­ti­cle size (PM-10) is essen­tial as it is this like size that dra­mat­i­cal­ly increas­es the oppor­tu­ni­ty for the dry fog/water droplet to impact the air­borne dust. Larg­er droplets (mist 20 to 100 microns) have proven to be inef­fec­tive in treat­ing air­borne par­tic­u­late due to the slip stream effect cre­at­ed by the droplet being larg­er than the dust. This con­cept was first explored by the Col­orado School of Mines in in the 1970s with the results being pub­lished in a 1976 Issue of Coal Age Mag­a­zine

DSI – Dust Solu­tions, Inc.