As Rick mentioned below, there are plenty of naysayers about encapsulation, but what I find unquestionable is its ability to improve appearance beyond the shadow (or shall I say, "smoke and mirrors" - lol) of a doubt.

Like most everyone, I want to know how stuff works so I can better explain it. The mfrs say it looks like tiny peanut brittle when dried, and I've seen DSC's samples that confirm that yes, indeed, in that plastic ziplock bag there is soil, and there is chunks of dried encapsulant. The mfr's explain the "peanut brittle" is broken up into vacuumable chunks as the beater bar hits the encapuslant. No brainer, right? But I keep coming back to the basic question:

SO WHY DOES IT SHOW IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS EVEN BEFORE POST-VACUUMING?

My theory goes like this, and I've run this past a mfr. or two who sorta wink and nod. (although they're remaining tight-lipped for the most part)

When the particles are scrubbed by enough force, the encapsulation product displaces the soil into the small scratches and fissures to reflect light back to our eyes better, whereas the imbedded soils create a dulling effect. This makes the most sense to me, yet I have absolutely zero proof to or against the contrary.

My understanding is that encapsulation products are little more than a mild detergent with a polymer/fluorocarbon built in. Steam Way's Mist & Brush is a mixture of 4 main ingredients which can be found right on the side of the bottle - ammonia, water, isopropyl alcohol, and a polymer/fluorocarbon. All of the ingredients listed, except for the polymer/fluorocarbon, are volatile, meaning they completely evaporate when dry.

So the 'cleaning' (technically speaking, emuslification/suspension) is achieved by the ammonia and water, penetration and accelerated drying are accomplished by the alcohol, which leaves the polymer/fluorocarbon solution and little for the soil to stick to. Since the soil is now residing between/on-top of, at the base, or wherever, it's NOT residing in the microscopic scratches and fissures of the fibers. These pits where soil was hiding have been replaced by the residual polymer/fluorocarbon and allow the soil to be vacuumed up, when dry, since it's loosened.

I may be way off with my theory, but it makes the most sense to me. I talked with Rick Gelinas the other day while driving through Tampa. Unfortunately our schedules clashed and we didn't get a chance to get together, but we both agreed that solid testing ought to be on the onus of the manufacturers and NOT on us cleaners! They're the ones telling us how it works, and we're the ones defending it - that's just CRAZY!

We know it works. Anyone who's seen the night and day difference knows it works, but we need the means to better explain WHY it works to our customers. Until I get an official answer (with industry-accepted and hopefully peer-reviewed evidence), I will continue to explain my theory because it makes the most sense to me. My theory is just my most educated guess and I've not been "shooed" by some noted encapsulation mfr's about my theory which means I may be right - or they're just winking and nodding because perhaps THEY don't even know how it works!?

The truth is out there and I think those in the know don't want to upset the apple cart. Who knows why they've been so silent on this important issue, but I sure hope someone steps up to the plate. I've made some phone calls and Rick's made some too. The more we demand a better answer, the more likely the mfr's will speak up. In the meantime...

Happy Encapsulating!

 

$c00tEr

To improve appearance, the question of whether post-vacuuming is needed has been raised often, and in my opinion it certainly CAN help, but not always.

On two jobs we've applied too much product. Both times were on a mid/light blue olefin commercial looped glue-down. You know, the stuff most businesses use. In these two cases the over-application of the encapsulant resulted in an opaque/dingy film that is NOT easily vacuumed. Both times we post-vac'd with a standard commercial upright and both times they showed little improvement.

What did work, however, was the use of a Certified Pile Lifter. One could literally see HUGE improvements with the pile lifter vs the standard vacuumed side. If it happens again I will take photos, but I think we've figured it out - use less product!

In going along with my theory above, this makes total sense. The overapplication of the product (Steam Way's Mist & Brush) did a fine job of suspending the soils, but unfortunately the polymer/fluorocarbon was so thick it would not allow the standard commercial vacuum to break it up. The results were immediate and large, on the pile lifted side, furthering the confirmation of my theory that the soils did not re-cling to the fiber fissures, but instead were agglomerated in the heavily encapsulated areas.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled board.

 

$c00tEr

Maybe it also takes some foot traffic to break up the "peanut brittle" in order for it to vacuum up. That would take a little time over the course of a week or two which is then extracted with regular vacuuming.

Yea, What Scoot said!

more or less that is my threory, and NO I don't try to explain it, I just tell em' my guarantee, if they aren't happy they don't pay, not a taker yet.

I'll do a freebie once in awhile to boast confidently and make sales.

Greenie

That's an interesting post Scott!
Your explanation sounds plausible to me...
” So the 'cleaning' (technically speaking, emulsification/suspension) is achieved by the ammonia and water, penetration and accelerated drying are accomplished by the alcohol, which leaves the polymer/fluorocarbon solution and little for the soil to stick to. Since the soil is now residing between/on-top of, at the base, or wherever, it's NOT residing in the microscopic scratches and fissures of the fibers. These pits where soil was hiding have been replaced by the residual polymer/fluorocarbon and allow the soil to be vacuumed up, when dry, since it's loosened.”

Thanks for the good input. Hopefully we'll get more data from the industry about the technology behind encapsulation. Until that time I'll be happy to just continue watching it doing it's job.





Rick Gelinas

Pretty smart Scott! Everything you said sounds in order. I can see you were not happy with just looking with the microscope. You have to have answers.
Gary

Scott R has a good concept of how encapsulation works. Actually each manufacturers product is going to be somewhat different. I can explain what was told to me from the manufacturer about CTI's Brush & Bonnet.
The polymer is similar to florocarbon protectants but not the same. The polymer coats the fiber and displaces much of the soil. The soil is now loose and tends to fall off the face of the fiber and to the bottom of the tuft. Agitation greatly increases the rate at which the soil leaves the fiber and falls to the bottom.
The polymer absorbs oils as it cures. When fully cured there will be less oil on the fibers. Since it is the oil that holds much of the dirt in place, more soil is being loosened during the polymer curing process.
There are some trade-offs in designing the polymer. One is the Soil Loading Equilibrium Point or (SLEP). There is a limit to how much oil a polymer can absorb. If too much oil is present the polymer will not cure to a friable crystal. Instead it tends to stick to the fiber instead of drying to a form that breaks off easily. A higher SLEP requires more of the expensive ingredients in the product thus rasing the price.
Understanding SLEP also helps you understand why encapsulation is not right for very greasy carpets such as found in some resturants. Also why it works on moderate amounts of oil and grease such as removing recently tracked in asphalt and sealer.
Scott W

The whole question about where the dirt goes or doesn’t go is a good one. I sincerely hope that more manufacturers will reply to the question because I’d also like a solid answer to the question. And like Scott Rendall said it’s “CRAZY” that it’s falling on us carpet cleaners to identify and explain the science of their product. I agree!

For now I can only believe what they’re telling us is true – that the residue vacuums out after it's dry. I believe their explanation is reasonable. I’ll explain why...

The companies who are producing the best encapsulation products have put forth a good deal of effort to develop products that produce a crystal (companies such as DSC, Steamway, CTI, Whittaker, and a few others) They all went to a lot of trouble to build detergents that form a good crystal. This wasn’t a cakewalk for them – I understand that DSC tried over 60 polymer formulations before they got it right. And Doyle Bloss told me that they worked on Mist & Brush for over a year before it was ready for market. My point is this; if the products weren’t going to vacuum out of the carpet – there would have been no reason for these companies to search long and hard to find a good crystal.

There has been some really good input from a handful of bright carpet cleaners during the last couple of days regarding this question.

Scott Rendall
Scott Warrington
Steve Smith
Jeff Lydon

I also have a hunch about this too. I’m not a scientist, but this is how I understand the scientific theory of how crystallizing encapsulators work:

Soil is held to the surface of the fiber through attractions referred to as Van Der Wals forces. The mechanism for soil removal is intrinsically designed into the encapsulation products, which allows it to be easily removed from the fiber. There is a small amount of fluoro chemical in the leading encapsulating products. This lowers the surface tension.

Mass attracts mass, thus agglomeration of the soil particles occurs. The agglomerated soil particles that are freed from the fiber during the cleaning process are now suspended in the cleaning solution. Wherever an agglomerated dirt mass is located on the fiber, this area will dry last because it will hold more solution.

During the drying process the agglomerated soil particles are pulled into the hardening capsule. The solution naturally dries from the outside towards its core inward. As it dries, it draws the soil substance to its middle, which reduces the surface area that’s being held to the fiber. As the polymer/soil package dries from the outside first, it curls back and away from the fiber. In this way the capsule is released from the fiber as it is hardening.

This leaves us with a dried polymer/soil package. The polymer/soil package has no other option but to fall away from the fiber. There’s no reason to conclude that this polymer/soil package wouldn’t be extracted through normal interim post vacuuming. Now it would seem reasonable that possibly a few vacuum cleanings might be needed to vacuum out the bulk of the encapsulated soil. Will all of the encapsulated soil come out of the carpet? I don’t know for sure. But I’d say that it’s highly improbable that all of the polymer/soil packages will be recovered. No method can recover all of the dirt. However, since the encapsulated shell is a hard polymer it’s not likely to attract more soil either. Any polymer package that remains will get resolublized with the next cleaning and then the encapsulation process begins again.

In my cleaning business I’ve closely monitored carpets that we’ve been cleaning on a monthly basis with encapsulation and they are NOT showing any signs of a “build-up”. So I’m inclined to think that the statements that the chemical companies have told us are truthful – the polymer/soil package vacuums out of the carpet.

Hopefully more information will come to us from the chemical manufacturers regarding the science behind what’s being accomplished. The results tell us that clearly something IS being accomplished. It would just be nice to better understand HOW it’s being accomplished.

In the meantime it’s great to see all of the good ideas that are being brought forth by you cleaners. Maybe we’ll unlock the “mystery” before the chemical dudes get around to it.


Rick Gelinas

Great explanation, very helpful.

btw: My General Manager Scot Lycan really appreciated your spotting class in HI, he told me to tell you thanks and hello.

Jeff Lydon aka Greenhorn
Kama'aina Windows & Carpets

Great posts. All I care about is our accounts are looking better than ever,no evidence of any resoiling problem, and considering the winter we just had this is great news.
The only problem we have encountered is hwe after several encap cleanings, we have encounter some foaming on the first cleaning pass, on the good side we did not get that much dirty water, this was with a steamin demon so we could see what we where extracting.
I would like a explanation from the manufacturer why I would have a foaming action with hwe after several encap cleanings.

If you're encountering foaming you could simply sprinkle down some Crystal Defoamer. Most chemical companies have a Crystal Defoamer. A little of it should correct the foaming for you.




Rick Gelinas