Using the right method gets more mileage out of mops - rationell reinigen Gebäudedienste

There are as many possibilities for manual mopping as there are special cleaning requirements in buildings. Traditional all-round solutions have their merits, but they entail trade-offs that can be costly, too. And where cleaning quality is concerned, the ‘mop-of-all-trades’ is reaching its limits. Modern architecture and different materials are prompting a rethink of cleaning systems.The traditional all-rounder takes the form of the double bucket trolley with a flat mop. A look at cleaning system sales would undoubtedly place the double bucket trolley at the top of the list, far above everything else. Considered as a cleaning system, the double bucket trolley certainly has its advantages. But it also has its limitations. Let’s first look at the advantages: The acquisition cost is relatively modest and the system can be purchased and used as a single unit or in combination with cleaning carts. For cleaning requirements that involve a lot of water, the double bucket trolley is virtually unbeatable, particularly in combination with the string mop, also known as the Kentucky mop – or as it is affectionately called by the trade in Germany, the ‘Dreckschleuder’ (dirt sling) . The latter definitely doesn’t do justice to this mop. When used skillfully, it is hard to beat for fast and effective cleaning. On the other hand, it has clear drawbacks. Wielding the mop to maximum effect requires lots of practice, and is really only suitable for experts. The training requirements are therefore high, and water consumption is quite impressive. But back to the double bucket trolley: it can in fact deliver good cleaning results when clean water and dirty water are scrupulously kept separate. This, however, requires extensive training and regular inspections. In practice, cleaning staff rarely know how the principle works, especially in maintenance cleaning. And if the knowledge is there, it is often ignored because it takes too much time. A question of timeTake a look around in modern buildings and you might wonder whether the days of the traditional mop are numbered. There is a fundamental problem with the double bucket trolley and it has to do with the way cleaning chemicals are handled. If the building to be cleaned has floors that can easily be cleaned with the same chemicals, no problem of course. The problems start when you have different types of floors, each made of a different material requiring a different kind of cleaner. The washrooms, for instance, may have a stoneware tile flooring, the function rooms a hard floor covering, and the corridors and staircases could be laid out in with natural stone. And, architect’s orders, the conference room features a beautiful wooden parquet floor. Anybody wanting to do the floor cleaning with a double bucket trolley and a universal flat mop on these premises will be facing a number of challenges. The right way to handle the situation is keep changing the cleaning water. But that costs time and effort. And so the question becomes: Can you count on the right thing to be done? And there it is again: the keyword ‘time.’ And here lies the second problem with the double bucket trolley: changeover time. It is relatively long, not only because you first have to go get the water and ensure the right chemical is in it at the right dosage, but also because the mop has to be rinsed and wrung out after every use. The mop is squeezed out in a flat or vertical press. The flat press works best, as it spreads the water more evenly throughout the mop. However, when the area to clean is large or there are many rooms to mop, working the press becomes exhausting and can even lead to injury. Usually only one mop is used with a double bucket trolley. Although some systems use multiple mops, we won’t delve deeper into the subject here because they involve different cleaning methods. When a washed-out mop is used for multiple areas, the most common is the bucket trolley (single or double). Switching mops has its advantagesMultiple mop systems are gradually gaining ground. Initially, the requirements from the RKI (Robert Koch Institute) for hospitals specified that a fresh mop must be used for each room as a measure to mitigate germ transmission. In the meantime, these requirements now also apply to nursing homes. Yet in other buildings too, like offices and schools, the multiple mop approach offers significant benefits. The main, obvious advantage lies in the quality of cleaning. Not only does the system prevent germs from spreading from one area to another; it also keeps dust and dirt from being tracked across floors by mop. From a cost perspective, too, changing mops can be very appealing. Still, getting the most out of this system depends on the building’s flooring and the method used to wet the mop. As described earlier, the mop change can be practiced with the double or the single bucket trolley. Theoretically, you would have two different chemicals in the double buckets. This, however, means that the press would have to be rotated, which is not conducive to chemical mixture. How to wet the mop?The multiple mop method offers a number of options for wetting the mop textiles. The most common methods are direct surface application, spray cleaning, using a colander, direct mop application, or pre-treatment in the washing machine. Directly applying the cleaner to the floor surface was initially very popular, not least because it yielded good results. The quality advantages are obvious: only one fresh cleaning solution can be used at any given time and the water quantity adjusted more easily to the size of the area to be cleaned. There are some serious drawbacks, though, and that is why the method is only rarely applied nowadays. The need to use different chemicals means more products on the cart. Each cleaning solution needs to be made up with a dosing system. The cleaning staff must also be very careful not to soak the floors, which often happens on porous surfaces. The risk of accidents where product is applied is not to be underestimated, either. At this point, spray cleaning cuts a better figure. Yet this method is really useful only when very little water is needed, and in practice it is quite awkward. Spray cleaning comes in two variants. One involves an additional pressure sprayer, but this system eventually proved unwieldy and could not establish itself on the market. The other involves squirting the liquid out of the handle. This system, pioneered by Taski, was initially very popular in hospitals. For ergonomic reasons, however, this system is scarcely used today. Subsequent models by other manufacturers proved unsuccessful. Today, there are still a number of systems where the liquid is introduced via the handle or a container on the handle. These systems are ideal for small surfaces, e.g. tea kitchens and/or washrooms in otherwise carpeted office spaces. In these scenarios, changeover time is no longer a concern and the ‘spray handle’ can actually prove an excellent complement to a wet cleaning system. When, for instance, the whole floor has to be cleaned with one or two different cleaning agents, and there is one room with a parquet floor, the ‘spray handle” is a handy solution. The colander is the more commonly used option. Here, the fresh mop (clamped to the holder) is dipped into the cleaning solution and placed on the colander. This is done immediately after the floor of a room has been cleaned. In the next room, the surfaces are first swept clean so that the mop can ‘drip dry’ in the meantime. The advantage here is that the cleaner no longer has to be pressed out the mop – this saves costs as well as time. The drawback lies in the relatively imprecise dosing. Moreover, only the one cleaning solution can generally be used. In the meantime, many manufacturers now propose mop boxes, which can be integrated into the cleaning cart. Here, fresh mop pads are stacked in a box. The requisite quantity of cleaning solution is poured into the box through a screen to ensure even distribution. The advantage is obvious: The solution can be dosed from systems that can regulate the concentration and quantity (liters), virtually ruling out dosing and application errors. Moreover, different the boxes can be color-coded for different mop types and chemicals. Mop boxes can also be prepped manually with the appropriate cleaning agent on-site by cleaning staff, which diminishes dosage reliability but adds flexibility. Besides consistent cleaning quality and greater flexibility with regard to chemicals and mop types, mop boxes also eliminate the changeover time requirement. This is not an insignificant savings as the time needed to wash and press out a mop for a different room every time can add up to several hours. Prepping mops for the cleaning job at hand is done even faster and more reliably – and in less time – right in the washing machine. Besides being the most time-efficient and affording the greatest dosage reliability, the system also consumes the least amount of water and chemicals. This system would be the ideal solution if it weren’t for a few kinks, though. For instance, if the mop must be hygienically clean before it is used, then it may not be prepped with cleaning chemicals at some arbitrary point beforehand but must be treated with disinfectant. However, a number of solutions have appeared on the market to address this shortcoming, assuring a standby time of 36 hours and more. Then there is the issue that you must use different cleaning agents on different floorings. Those who don’t nevertheless are usually in for a gray surprise. A fine stoneware tile, for example, will inevitably turn gray after daily mopping with a disinfectant containing quaternary ammonium cations (QACs). Another enthusiasm curbing aspect is that constant exposure to highly alkaline disinfectants considerably shortens the mop’s useful life. Also, if the application requires not only a mop to be hygienically clean but also to be used for disinfection, then the disinfectant concentration must be scrupulously controlled throughout the entire cleaning job – a difficult task after lengthy standby times. Despite these drawbacks, washing machine-treated mops are gaining in popularity. In school buildings, for instance, the system dramatically cuts down on changeover times while delivering better cleaning results. There are also other wiping methods besides the string mop and the flat mop. The double mop as a wet-dry or wet-wet system, for one. As a wet-dry system, the mop is used on one side to wet wipe the floor and then dry wipe it on the other. Most wetting methods are impractical with this system, which would otherwise wet both mop sides. The mop can then only be dipped in special tubs. This double wiping method saves the time needed to attach a fresh mop, enhancing its efficiency. The wet-wet method works with all wetting types. The advantage of this mop type is that it practically doubles the ‘moppable’ area and reduces both the number of mops and mop changes required No ‘one size fits all’ solutionThis last option works well for spot cleaning because you can use the ‘fresh’ side of the mop without having to change mops or spread the dirt. Then again, there is always the trusted scrub brush and floor cloth combo. The advantages of cleaning with a cloth: smaller volume, easier transport and lower costs. Also, the cloths can be pre-treated and laundered. They can be color-coded as well, depending on the chemical used, and stacked in compact containers (which can be carried on a belt). These aspects make cleaning cloths a particularly attractive option for buildings with diverse but small floor areas. It is hopeless, for obvious reasons, when larger areas need to be cleaned. Unfortunately, there is no ideal solution for all environments, but the ideal solution can be found for a particular environment. Those insisting on using the same system everywhere will surely miss out on great opportunities for achieving optimum cleaning results, easing the burden on the environment, and saving costs. Andreas Carl | peter.hartmann@holzmann-medien.de

Manual mopping Using the right method gets more mileage out of mops

Bleiben Sie auf dem aktuellen Stand

Sie wollen schon gehen? Das ist schade.