Major Benefits of Microfibre Products

This article will cover some of the observations and conclusions that our firm has found in testing both microfibre cloths and mops over the past few years. When considering the use of these products, we focused on the two components we felt were areas of major benefits in their use: potential labour savings and bacteria reduction in cleaning fixtures, floors and walls. 

LABOUR SAVINGS

A major area of savings for these products in office buildings is the cleaning of washrooms. They can be used by both heavy and light duty cleaners without the necessity of a heavy string mop. There is less fatigue for the operator and, because the mop is flat, it does not ride up the wall or baseboard and leave unsightly marks.

One of the ways time saving is achieved is by use of the improved mop head which holds more liquid. This allows cleaners to finish a washroom without returning to their pail, located in the corridor, to refresh their mop. The mop itself is also more aggressive and does a better job of cleaning, particularly in the grout. In addition, as the heads are changed more frequently, often every couple of floors, the floor itself remains cleaner. These heads are also easier to wash and clean, and thus cleaners will be more inclined to clean them.

We found that there is little or no time saving when cleaning mirrors or counters in the use of the microfibre cloths when compared to regular cloths. We did note, however, that there is less effort and chemical used with the microfibre. Both types of cloth cleaned better than paper towels which are normally found in the washroom dispensers.

Our tests were conducted in a shopping centre and two large office buildings. Quite simply, we cleaned alternate washrooms with regular mops and buckets, and alternate washrooms with microfibre flat mops and cloths.

The average savings for floor washing were 10.05 per cent in time required to clean. Significant savings in labour were found when these tools were used for wall washing at 28.57 per cent using a flat mop, and most importantly a foam squeegee instead of a regular rubber squeegee. The foam squeegee did a better job of cleaning the grout and removing the water.

 

BACTERIA REDUCTION

An area not often considered in the use of these products is their advantages in reduction of bacteria counts.

In performing our testing we used a portable tester designed for use in food service areas to measure before and after bacteria counts on both counters and floors. Although not conducted under laboratory conditions, we felt that we performed enough testing to feel very comfortable with our results.

Initially there were wide variations in the bacteria counts between the two systems on both floors and counters but, with the advantage going to the microfibre system, after several cleanings, the after counts were much closer. We believe this is because the cleaners were focused on using the products and paid more attention to cleaning the surfaces. Both the mechanical and chemical action of the cleaning is highly effective in bacteria reductions. We did experiment with using less chemical and not using germicides. The results found that the microfibres without germicides were almost as effective as the microfibre with germicide.

As noted earlier, there was little difference using the microfibre cloths on smooth surfaces compared to conventional cloths, but we found that on porous or uneven surfaces, and floors with tile and grout, the microfibre products were more effective in applying chemicals to the grout areas with a better reduction in bacteria count. The initial results were wider apart but after several weeks of testing, the bacteria counts reduction with existing cleaning systems was 76.32 per cent while the microfibre system reduced bacteria 92.28 per cent.

Based on our comparative testing in several facilities of conventional and microfibre equipment, there are significant improvements in both productivity and infection control using these tools. The maximum improvements in productivity are obtained when both wall washing and floor cleaning tasks are included.

Our tests found 21.9 per cent greater reduction in bacteria using the microfibre system on floors and only a minor variance between the microfibre system and existing systems on the counters.

These results can be particularly important in health care environments as more frequent changing of the mop will result in less possibility of cross contamination. There is also the benefit of using less germicide of which overuse is becoming a concern in many facilities.

If anyone has any information to share, I would be pleased to receive it.