Need to get the pulse of the group here.  On the ethics of  choosing the methods of the bacteria study in particular.

Say we have limited means for future testing, want to do it in depth and properly done, so have to limit the number of samples used in said test.  We will have knowledge of several types of granite, quartz but only one solid surface by then.  Do we pick stones and quartzes that do poorly and pit them against our "best", or do we pick the strongest to pit against our strongest.

Here are some arguements for either way.

Weakest stone  and quartz against strongest solid surface. 

     The stainless steel guys left solid surfac out of their testing.

      The stone guys did the same when they  copied the stainless steel test.

      We are paying for the test, and putting out the effort.

     We are a small group and have fewer resources to bring to the fray.

     Life ain't fair, neither is love or war, why should a marketing effort be so?

     They will not extend the courtesy in return, to do so would be foolish.

      We know this test will be attacked, with far more resources than we have, why make it easy for them?

     Fight fire with fire.  We have lost market share.

     No matter what we do, we won't prevent their attempting to discredit.

     We have been given few fair shakes in independent testing, by some that were completely clueless.

    Someone might reproduce the test using the best quality stone available and the poorest quality solid surface.

    Machivelle would never forgive us.

 

Now on the other side.

     We should take the high road.

     Our test will be harder to dispute by keeping it on a level playing feild.

         Give them as few weak points to take advantage of.

         Some of us sell all types of materials.

        We are better than they are.

    Our product will stand up regardless.

 

So what do we do should this issue rear it's ugly head?

 

AL,

I think we need to take the highest road possible. If we can generate results that hit them with us using their better products then the better for SS and then they will need to fight back with tougher stuff. I have always said there is a reason they left out Solid Surface from their testing or just summorizing the same tudies to benifit themselves.

I feel for us to truly gain credibility and gain back and surpass the market share we need to have higher standards.

 I feel we can use a range of granite say Uba Tuba(one most common) to I beleive it is Absolute Black (being one of the "better) and then find one of the cheaper China imports. In Solid surface we can run a 100% acrylic. a blended material and then a Polyester. I am not real familar with all the ins and outs in Qaurtz at this point but I feel 2 brands should be sufficient. This will give us a good range to get a fair assessment og what we are looking at. It may be the sceintist in me coming out in preparing for this study this fall, but if the results come up indifferent so be it and at least then we know the truth and understand that we have accurate information to inform our customers with and not make it seem like a sales pitch. At least that is what I am looking for is good non bias information to give my customers.

Reuben

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reuben, Shane took care of us on the choice of stones so far.  I have some pics to post tonight of what we are actually using.

Assumptions:

• Maybe the test did include solid surface, they just chose not to include the results.
• Private study - they are not required to share what they don't want
• The test will be disputed no matter what we do
• Who's to say what good, better, best granite is?
• A non-porous product will out-perform other types of material.
• If the granite and stainless steel industries could have tested better than solid surface, it would have been included.

The testing should be done to show the facts, not to convict or discredit a certain product.  Let's test multiple samples within each product category (Granite, Quartz, and SS).  We take the average results of each category.  Then the exact samples we use will not be disputed.

Let the critics attack our testing methods.  We can just sit back and force them to prove it with a test of their own.  When that comes back with the same results, we will then have the TRUTH.

I agree with andy,

Paul

I'm mostly with Reuben on this.
It sounds like Shane's got you covered on the stone, but a fair study should include the following:

 Six granite samples:
High porosity/fissures, medium, and tight (like the absolute black). Sealed and unsealed (3+3=6).

Six solid surface samples:
Acrylic, polished poly, and 1/4" actylic (wall sheets for shower, etc.)
The same three, but with some scratches and wear.

Six estone samples:
Silestone w/microban, Zodfiaq, and Caesarstone.
Same three after some wear.

Always have a counter to any debatable point they are bound to make. Leave stainless steel out, as well as tile and any other material that does not constitute decent sales volume.

My opinion only.

Tom

Well put Tom.  I think though the results should be an average because we don't know what the consumer will purchase.  You may end up with great results for one specific color granite, but the other 99% of them are not so good.

I guess we can determine after the study how the information will be presented.

Agreed.
More to the point, it will probably be mined for whatever data is the most useful for whoever wants to use it.
It will sort of take care of itself.

So on this round of testing, we have six granite with half sealed, but no wear on them.  The quartz has three, and the solid surface is two C-1s and four  K-3s.  I will make some acrylics samples tomorrow to add to the mix, say two of each type, K-3, C-1 and F-1.

Andy has suggested before that we run the first round of tests without wear, then re run just those granites samples with some wear and tear.

I agree on the steel and tile, leave them out, but it might open a crack for critics to say we were afraid steel would win.  Maybe one sample since most of it is the same alloy for the most part.

We can average the conclusion, but set out the individual results by type of material. 

So can you guys give me some ideas for simulating wear and tear, some idea of the number of sanitizing  procedures between testing.  Maybe once, five times, then ten times?

Al,

I would pick from this method of wear and tear and decide on how many test times you can or want to run at this point. Simply wash with soap and water as most recomend five or six times then test, if want to go further just increase washings to 20 then maybe thirty. Also I would say maybe you do it with wash down of vinegar solution, some have used this to cleaan and try disinfect do this once test then say after five times or use any normal sanitizer might be found in the home say Lysol or such. THis would give good indcaton of sealer breakdown effects. Like I said just need decide where to start and stop can get real carried away that is what really makes creating a laboratoty test procedure so much fun and difficult at the same time.

Oh, might try soap and water wash down using the famous green scotchbrite pad.

Reuben

So then we use soap and water on this test, as recomended by the MIA.   Later we will retest using the multiple methods, but would need multiple samples of the same granites, right?  I can get some granite tile since that is all these samples seem to be.

One thing is for certain, we are going to need more test kits.  AK David is sending us two sets of the type recomended by the PhD guy on the test kit mfg, lets wait and try them out, then we need some guys to help out if possible.

We need to ask these questions and get the answers to them to  get the best possible tests this fall.

Does anyone know of a  way to measure the amount of sealer washed off, that is can we filter and measure somehow?  Weight?  Some kind of chemical reagent we can add to detect the stuff?

My view is that although they used the vinegar solution in the test, it is fair game for the real test, which will strip the seale quite well and voila, bug hotel.  Hoist them with their own petard as they say.  Or just use their recomended method of soap and water and leaving  the bacteria high.

AL,

In the MIA study the vinegar didn't touch the bacteria on the uba tuba top.  Researcher did not seem to know why.  I think something to that affect is a legitimate, noteworthy incluusion in this discussion.  Would be interesting to see if other tests showed the same.

Chris

Hi All,

Just weighing in here with a few opinions. As for the moral high road vs. the low road, why not take both, a two pronged attack or classic pincer movement as they call it military strategy. This was first employed by the ancient Chaldeans, the scourge of the Middle East, who would divide their army into 3 columns to attack a larger force from multiple directions.

I would recommend doing 1 tier of testing - cleaning all samples with the procedure used by granite.

I would do a second tier test using the bleaching recommended by most SS manufacturers on all samples. If granite is cleaned of pathogens but stains from such cleaning, that’s still a victory.

This would give you contingencies. Always a nice thing to have. In China I like to have 8 levels of contingency for every project. Sometimes that isn’t enough hahahahaha.

As for methods of removing/degrading the sealer on granite, the acetone appeals to the chemist in me (cheap effective and quick) however a more real world simulation may be the scotch-brite cleaning- soap and water may suffice although comet should do nicely as a destructive abrasive (although most likely not recommended by granite manufacturers).

Or another test found in the ANSI Z124 could be employed. (ANSI Z124-5.3-wear test)) which employs an abrasive slurry (quartz) in a trisodium phosphate solution (detergent) and some carboxy-methyl cellulose and scrub brushes on weighted sleds drug mechanically across thee sample in a testing jig.. It’s an old arcane solid surface test. But very wearing and should be the death of a sealer. I think my old buddy Chuck Arnold still does this test at NAHB research center in Upper Marlboro MD.

Anyway, that’s my few thoughts form afar.

Best Regards,

Lenny