FEATURE
GOODBYE MOP – HELLO FUTURE
As more and more people are coming to the conclusion that mops are inefficient when it comes to floor cleaning, Nilfisk look at what they believe to be the ‘future’ of floor cleaning.
Since humans first considered cleaning the rooms they lived in the mop has existed in some form or another. The mop in fact was first attested in English as early as 1496 and was initially spelled ‘Mappe.’ The American inventor Jacob Howe submitted the first US patent #241 for a mop holder in 1837. Longstanding it may be, but as we all know, the mop has its limitations:
THE PROBLEM WITH THE MOP Dry, moist or wet the loyal old mop has its limitations. The dry mop can of course replace the broom but has a finite limit on the amount of dirt it will retain. The moist mop does reduce the transport of heavy water but be it moist or wet, this second stage of cleaning results in significant labour and performance issues.
BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION The first study that confirmed the widespread contamination of bacteria via the mop was conducted in the US in 1971 by JC Westwood. Conducted in a hospital environment it concluded that mops stored wet support bacteria growth to very high levels that cannot be adequately decontaminated by chemical disinfection. Laundering and drying is effective, providing disinfectant is included in the washing water. In other words if moist or wet mops are not washed and dried daily you have a problem.
Further details on the 1971 study can be found here with further food related information detailed on this site.
Another study in 2006 by Professor Paul La Dawson concluded that food left in contact with the floor for only 60 seconds had 10 times the level of bacteria present on its surface. Certainly worrying when you factor in that salmonella can still be present on surfaces 28 days after initial
60 | Tomorrow’s Cleaning contamination.
Despite all that we know the mop is still prevalent in millions of food, educational and business facilities across the UK. Staff monitoring and procedural controls need to be daily if risk to the public is to be reduced. So why, considering the knowledge available to us, has the mop remained king?
MICRO SCRUBBER DRYERS –
THE FUTURE? Primarily the answer is technological development. Scrubber Dryers were first invented in 1956 but these were large, heavy pieces of equipment with no consideration given to water, power consumption, speed and ergonomics.
Today advances in technology have resulted in a plethora of micro scrubber dryers in the market place – scrubber dryers that minimise water and chemical consumption, and revolutionise productivity. The spread of bacteria is minimised as the machine is cleaning constantly with clean water and after use the brush dries quickly. A detergent dosing facility on the solution tank also ensures that the right percentage of chemical is used every time.
Lightweight machines like the Nilfisk SC100 have a scrubbing width as small as 31cm, cleaning in both forward and reverse mode, the upright model is perfect for cleaning both carpet and hard floors in narrow spaces and underneath furniture.
Its slightly bigger big brother, the Nilfisk SC250, has the option of a 34cm cylindrical brush or microfibre roll. The battery-operated machine cleans forwards and back, sweeping, scrubbing and drying in a single pass. Certainly no second stage cleaning here and no slip risk.
Larger machines again, like the Nilfisk SC351, have an impressive brush pressure of 27kg and can be turned in an aisle as small as 85cm.
Has the mop therefore had its day? The answer remains to be seen but all things considered, the infection risk to the public remains high and therefore unacceptable. Possibly one day we will all look back and conclude; ‘what were we thinking?’
www.nilfisk.co.uk twitter.com/TomoCleaning
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88