LETTER TO THE EDITOR
CSPA Chairman Backs James Machine
Iread with interest the article you published in September 2004 Housekeeping Solutions on the disagreement between the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) and the National Floor Safety Institute (NFSI) on measuring slip resistance. The disagreement, as it has been called, is roughly analogous to the NFSI saying it doesn’t get dark when the sun goes down. The CSPA says it does, and we have history and data to prove it.
I am chairman of the CSPA Walkway Safety Committee. Some of my colleagues and I performed the wet slip-resistance evaluations in support of the CSPA’s statement regarding NFSI. I have formulated floor-care products for companies for 35 years, including some of the world’s largest. I have been an expert witness in slip-and-fall claims for 27 years and go to court in support of my company or its customers. I lecture on floor safety and the myths associated with it.
The study made of wet slip-resistance testers did not just include the Universal Walkway Tester (UWT) from NFSI. We included four others. There exists no numerical standard for wet-surface safety. That includes the now-proven-bogus UWT standard of 0.6 promulgated by the NFSI. We were not just picking on the NFSI or its test method when we embarked on this comparison. We had been actively seeking ways to help customers evaluate and better predict wet slip-resistance performance on wet flooring. Most indoor walking surfaces are not designed to be walked on when wet. They are to be considered hazardous in a wet condition. A measuring device of any kind is not required for most of these determinations. Yet, contrary to common knowledge and scientific proof, the NFSI continues to defend its position of claiming that a 0.6 measurement on wet surfaces which have historically proved to be dangerous to pedestrians are, in fact, “high-traction.” Test after test showed UWT to give false passing results on wet floor surfaces. The NFSI was now promoting potential danger rather than safety with its machine and standard and had to be challenged.
There are physical technicalities as to why the UWT is unacceptable for wet testing. The major one is that it is a static testing device. Static testing devices do not work on wet or contaminated surfaces because they are unable to mimic hydroplaning, which lowers friction on wet surfaces. The result is false high readings. One other static tester in our evaluation suffered from the same malady. The pitfalls of static testers are well-known. The “warm and fuzzy” feeling they leave from testing a potentially hazardous wet walking surface can be dangerous. That is why the James Machine (also a static tester) is only used for measuring dry surfaces. I am chairman of the ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials) subcommittee, which oversees this test standard (ASTM D-2047). It states right in the method that it is “not suitable for ... wet or contaminated surfaces.”
The NFSI, somewhat wounded by this recent and soon-to-be-published study, has since been offering inaccurate and off-point inflammatory quotes for articles like yours. Examples: “The James Machine is designed to be used under exclusively dry conditions and the UWT is designed to be used under wet conditions.” This is false. The UWT would only be suited for dry conditions, but NFSI refuses to spend the time establishing a meaningful dry standard for it. Another quote, “If the James Machine were really working, we wouldn’t have 8 million people slipping and falling every year.” The fact is that the James Machine standard has been a real beacon amidst all the self-serving, money-making shenanigans that are associated with the whole area of slip-and-fall accidents. It is a rarity that a slip-and-fall accident occurs because the uncontaminated floor surface does not provide adequate traction.
ASTM D-2047 remains the one lighthouse in a sea of misinformation. We are all better off as pedestrians because of its existence. On the other hand, I would submit to you that, if the UWT becomes as popular as the NFSI would like it to be, it will likely have the dubious distinction of adding to that figure of 8 million slip-and-fall accident victims. Fortunately, the list of takers seeking the NFSI’s “high traction” label is a relatively small one. The hope is that it will stay that way for the sake of true pedestrian safety.
James F. Hermann
Global Development & Customer Solutions
JohnsonDiversey, Inc.
|
The Down and Dirty on Cleaning in Virus Season
Industry Report Reveals Burnout Prevalence Among Cleaning Professionals
How Surfactant Use is Expanding in Commercial Cleaning
Clean Buildings Conference
