National Clothesline

An International Fabricare Institute Research Fellowship to be released this month says that the GreenEarth Cleaning process is a “viable alternative” and overall is comparable to perc for drycleaning.

The IFI Fellowship involved more than 1,000 hours of work over 18 months, evaluating GreenEarth’s cleaning performance, ability to handle garments typically processed by cleaners, operating and capital costs and health and environmental issues.

IFI was contracted by GreenEarth to test and evaluate the cleaning system in comparison to a well-run perc drycleaning system.

“This is probably the most extensive evaluation we have ever conducted on a solvent or machine system in terms of the factors we looked at,” said Bill Fisher, IFI’s CEO. “IFI’s researchers tested a wider range of fabrics than we have ever looked at in terms of how they will hold up to the cleaning process and how the process will impact stain removal effectiveness on the fabrics. The results of that rigorous testing led to the favorable evaluation the GreenEarth process received.”

The full 12-page report will be included in the September issue of IFI’s member publication, Fabricare.

The final report shows notable improvement for Green-Earth over a preliminary report issued at last year’s Clean Show. In the preliminary findings, GreenEarth fell short of perc in several areas of cleaning performance. At the time, Jim Barry, chairman of GreenEarth cleaning, said he was expecting that improvements in detergents would bring better results for GreenEarth in the final analysis.

Late last year, GreenEarth announced a partnership with Procter & Gamble to develop an improved detergent formula. The J101 detergent jointly developed by GreenEarth Cleaning and Procter & Gamble was used for process testing in the IFI fellowship. A Union HL850 cleaning machine was used for the testing. IFI noted that “performance could be better, the same or worse with another detergent or if used in a different cleaning machine.

IFI’s research and testing evaluated GreenEarth in the following six areas:

• Cleaning performance.

• Will handle garments you currently dryclean.

• Has realistic/affordable labor and operating costs.

• Has realistic capital costs.

• Has no known or expected health issues.

• Will not create water or soil contamination.

IFI used a star rating system to summarize each of those six areas and compared GreenEarth to perc in each area. IFI also calculated an overall score comparing GreenEarth and perc in which GreenEarth totaled 4.2 stars compared to 3.9 for perc. GreenEarth’s main advantages were in areas of health issue and contamination; perc had the advantage in cleaning performance, operating costs and capital costs. IFI noted that GreenEarth’s ratings on operating costs and health and environmental issues could be higher depending on specific circumstances as noted in IFI’s summary of each category.

That summary is as follows:

Cleaning Performance. The GreenEarth process with detergent J101 consistently received excellent or good ratings on IFI’s Cleaning Performance Test (CPT), which is designed to measure the degree of cleaning accomplished in a specific drycleaning system. (The CPT consists of five different swatches run in light colored loads and evaluated against a rating scale developed by IFI based on more than 2,000 results from various drycleaning plants.)

In terms of stain removal, the GreenEarth process is not quite as effective as perchloroethylene, but it is comparable, particularly in terms of water-soluble stain removal. For stains completely removed in the cleaning cycle, GreenEarth and perc systems were directly comparable in terms of those stains where 100 percent removal was found, except for ballpoint ink and shoe polish stains, on which perc performed better.

Will handle garments you currently dryclean. GreenEarth can handle a wide variety of specialty items such as beads, sequins, metallics, etc., without causing damage, and that is the reason it received a higher rating than perchloroethylene drycleaning.

Has realistic and affordable labor and operating costs. On the basis of solvent costs, detergent costs, and a licensing fee, the GreenEarth process has a higher operating cost than perc, but it is still within a realistic range. At the same time, costs related to regulatory compliance will be lower. Other operating costs would be comparable to that of a perc operation since they are independent of the solvent used.

IFI was able to do a side-by-side comparison and concluded that labor costs should be comparable between perc and GreenEarth processing. Labor components that would be affected by the solvent used are those involved in stain removal and finishing. Since the overall stain removal results are comparable, the labor should not increase in this area. In regards to finishing, there was a slight increase in finishing times, but again it was not significant and probably due to the garment type requiring a “hard” finish since the test was performed during the summer season.

Has realistic capital costs. In testing GreenEarth, IFI used a higher-end Union dry-to-dry Class IIIA machine, which is normally higher in cost than dry-to-dry refrigerated perchloroethylene machines. Less expensive Class IIIA machines are available.

Has no known or expected health issues. Because of the negative “perception” associated with perc on health issues, not whether IFI agrees with that perception, perc only receives a rating of 2. The data, studies, and current information on GreenEarth solvent do not indicate any potential health issues. GreenEarth and GE expect a favorable EPA review of a two-year cancer study in rats late this year. If this occurs as expected, then the rating would rise to a 5.

Will not create water or soil contamination. Perchloroethylene drycleaning could and has resulted in soil and water contamination. If handled with today’s safeguards, contamination may be greatly minimized, possibly even eliminated, but in some cases there is still some potential. GreenEarth and GE also expect that EPA will classify GreenEarth solvent as a benign contaminant that would not normally need to be cleaned up if it is found in soil or groundwater. If this occurs, the rating here would also rise to a 5.

IFI said the decision to assign equal value to each criterion in the star rating system was a subjective one. Based on business needs, some cleaners may feel that some criteria are more important and therefore may wish to weight the criteria differently.

“While some may quibble with some of the ratings we assigned,” Fisher said, “the fact is this Fellowship is as detailed as it is because we felt it was our obligation to provide the most comprehensive evaluation we could on — as it turned out —this viable solvent and detergent system.”

IFI’s Fellowship Testing, which is paid for by the manufacturer contracting the testing, comprises IFI’s most comprehensive, time-intensive research. Numerous equipment, garment, and chemical manufacturers have funded Fellowships for evaluations of product performance.

GreenEarth’s Barry commented: “We are pleased to have participated with IFI in conducting this extensive research. We believe that it’s important for our industry that any and all solvents being considered as an alternative to perchloroethylene be tested in a similar way so our industry can have the full facts in order to make informed business decisions.”

Obviously we’re delighted that GreenEarth is recognized as a comparable alternative solvent to perc.”