Carpet Staining: Past And Present

So why was it that carpet staining problems received so much attention in the 1980s? In the author’s opinion, the main reason is that the cost of carpet replacements and the premiums for liability insurance skyrocketed and consequently put pressure on PCOs to reduce claims against them. There were two ways of reducing carpet staining claims against PCOs: They could try to reduce the number of staining incidents or they could try to shift the liability for carpet staining to somebody else.

The first option reducing actual staining incidents, required alterations in application methods or frequency, and the exercise of more care in the choice of pesticides applied to carpets. For some PCOs, including some large companies, the required changes in treatment procedures and the higher cost of pesticides which ere known to be safer to carpets caused difficulties in trying to reduce staining incidents.

Shifting the liability to somebody else was perhaps considered an easier option. This option perhaps became more attractive as a result of two other factors. First, some new carpet dyes had been introduced that were vulnerable to color changes when exposed to some pesticide treatments. Second, two new organophosphate insecticides were introduced in the 980s that quickly gained a reputation for staining carpets. These insecticides, Sumithion and Orthene, carried no label warnings about staining carpets.

Carpet industry response. The carpet and dye industry was very responsive and very concerned when carpet staining by pesticides was brought to its attention. Though chemical reactions between pesticides and dyes had been known in the pest control industry for many years, it appears that nobody had ever discussed the matter with the carpet and dye industry.

However, in this respect, the carpet and dye industry was in the same position as all other manufacturers of fabrics, furnishings and materials used in buildings which could be adversely affected by pesticides. For instance, there had been no dialogue with the markers of drapes or asphalt flooring products that can be damaged by pesticides nor with al the suppliers of plastics used in appliances or windows that can be severely damaged by pesticides. Whenever such items were stained or otherwise damaged by a pesticide treatment, nobody ever suggested those items were intrinsically flawed and hence unduly vulnerable to pesticide effects. However, some PCOs suggested the carpet and dye manufacturers should bear the responsibility for their products being vulnerable to adverse effects from pesticide treatments.

Understandably, this suggestion met little sympathy from the carpet and dye manufacturers. After all, carpets were not designed to be resistant to pesticide treatments. Nor were floor tile, drapes, wallpapers, television sets and a host of other items found in buildings.

The carpet and dye manufacturers argued that if the pest control industry chose to treat carpets with pesticides, the applicators and the pesticide manufacturers should ensue that such treatments would not harm the carpets. However, their concern was such that the Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI) established an Ad Hoc Committee on Pesticides in September, 1981 to examine the issue of color changes by pesticides and to report their findings to the carpet and pesticide industries. Their final report was issued in November, 1982, and it covered tests on 18 red dyestuffs and 12 pesticides.

The degree of color change varied with they type of dye and the type of pesticide. The CRI report identified malathion, DDVP, Orthene and Sumithion as causing unacceptable color changes with high humidity or high light exposures on some carpets. Some formulations of diazinon and chlorpyrifos caused slight or moderate color changes to some carpets under high light exposure, while Baygon, Safarotin and Ficam caused no significant color changes under any of the CRI test conditions.

The CRI Ad Hoc Committee on Pesticides concluded that "since no rapid definitive test method for recognizing sensitive carpets in the field exists, control of this situation must lie with proper pesticide selection."

Pest control industry response. Pesticide manufacturers showed a mixture of responses to the carpet staining issue. Sumithion was withdrawn from the United States PCO market. In the case of Orthene, the following label precaution was added following publication of the CRI report: "Caution. Do not apply directly to carpets as staining may occur." This was later changed to "Do not apply directly to carpet as discoloration may occur." Precautionary statements were also added to DDVP labels, warning about risks to fabrics. In the case of malathion, despite proof of it causing many cases of carpet staining, there were no label changes. However, the use of malathion on carpets declined so rapidly because of problems of odor or ineffectiveness, as well as because of staining problems, that staining incidents with malathion are now rarely reported.

In the case of most other pesticides used on carpets, there were no label changes and no apparent changes in manufacturers’ policies on dealing with staining incidents. Staining incidents continued to be handled on a case-by-case basis, with the pesticide manufacturers sometimes sharing the cost of replacing carpets with the PCO who applied their pesticide. Other manufacturers simply told PCOs to call their insurance companies when they stained a carpet.

A key benefit of the increased focus on carpet staining was the recognition by the industry that there were still a lot of poor application practices being performed by PCOs throughout the country. Most reported cases of carpet discoloration involved unnecessary and sometimes illegal treatments along the carpet perimeter. The National Pest Control Association was quick to point out that PCOs could avoid carpet staining problems by stopping this practice of routine "baseboard spraying." Many PCOs responded by modifying their training programs to eliminate this practice and to focus more on crack and crevice treatments where pests lived in the baseboard area.

Another benefit of the staining debate was the decision by the pest control industry to fund research aimed at exploring the question of carpet staining by pesticides in greater depth than the CRI tests. The NPCA and a carpet staining committee established by the United Product Formulators and Distributors Association were leaders in this effort to obtain more scientific data. Research was sponsored at Georgia State University and with the Kansas Termite and Pest Control Association at the Department of clothing, Textiles and Interior Design of Kansas State University (KSU).

The KSU research, lead by Dr. Barbara Reagan, yielded particularly useful results and involved many more pesticides and dyestuffs than the CRI tests. Where the CRI study involved only red dyes, the KSU tests involved a variety of colors in addition to red. The KSU tests involved procedures for obtaining accelerated results, including high does of pesticide, high temperature, high humidity and high light exposure. (In practice, carpet staining from pesticides may not show up until after 12 month or more of repeated treatment.)

The KSU tests confirmed the CRI findings but added much new information. In addition to problems with organophosphates, pyrethrum and several synthetic pyrethroids also caused color changes, especially on the blue dyes. Also, not only the new dyes were affected, but many long-established dyes as well.

The KSU tests perhaps had greater credibility because the researchers were not advocates for either the carpet and dye manufacturers or the pest control industry.

Threatening moves by some PCOs aimed at shifting the blame for carpet staining to carpet and dye manufacturers strained relations between the industries. In 1985, the first backlash from the carpet industry appeared in the form of warnings on carpet labels about risks from pesticides. For instance, Monsanto Wear-dated Carpet carried the following warning: This carpet specifically when treated with Malathion, which is sometimes used by pest control operators for flea control, may cause fading of some dyestuffs. This warning also is made to include Diazinon and Vapona."

In 1988, carpets that claimed stain resistance qualities carried warranties that were essentially voided when pesticides and some other chemicals were applied to the carpet.

Landmark lawsuit. While research established the facts of what caused pesticide staining, the question of who should pay for damaged carpets remained in dispute. An article by Tim Weidner in PCT (January, 1983) summarized the legal situation thus: "In some cases, pest control companies have been denying blame in instances were they know for a fact that their pesticide treatment caused the discoloration. After that, they sit back and wait to see if the customer will sue them."

In that same article, Charlie Clement of Dettelbach Pesticide Corp. (the distribution company of the Orkin group) said: "If they (the PCOs) are sued, they try to bring in the next person in line, which is the distributor or formulator the pesticide was purchased from." The article continued: "They , in turn, try to enjoin e carpet manufacturer and the dye manufacturer." Since Dettelbach is a player in this game of ‘pass the buck,’ Clement said his company is prepared to take the field. "This next year, we have got all our bags packed and we are ready to jump around the country fighting lawsuits," he said. "As soon as the first big one really hits, that will set the precedent." In this prediction, Clement proved correct.

The test case which set the precedent was Miller V. Orkin Exterminating Co. Inc. v Eastman Chemical Products Inc. The case was considered fairly representative in that it involved a distinct color change around the perimeter of a carpet following monthly applications of an insecticide. The homeowner had used Orkin, and Orkin in turn sued Eastman, which was the manufacturer of the carpet dye. The particular dye was one of several which were shown in the CRI study and other studies to be affected by some pesticides. The cost of replacing the stained carpet was about $4,000, but Orkin spent an estimated $200,000 in preparation for this test case, knowing that if they won they could bring hundreds of additional cases against dye manufacturers. For Eastman, the stakes ere even higher because they had voluntarily ceased selling some of their dyes once they knew they could be damaged by some pesticides, with a consequent annual loss in revenue of millions of dollars.

After weighing evidence about the extent of knowledge of the problem by the parties involved at the time of the staining incident and the standard of treatment carried out by Orkin, the jury found in favor of Eastman, Some of the evidence which weighted against Orkin included evidence that Orkin had prior knowledge of the problem and had been very responsive as soon as the facts came to light. Orkin’s loss established the precedent that when a PCO chooses the pesticide, the site of application, the method of application and the frequency of application, he carries the prime responsibility if anything goes wrong.

Spirit of cooperation. Now that it is clear the burden of responsibility for carpet staining rests mainly on PCOs, there has been increasing cooperation between all the interested parties. It is now standard practice for pesticide manufacturers to have new products screened for adverse effects on carpets before marketing them. In addition to the work conducted at KSU, tests have recently been conducted at Purdue University o synthetic pyrethroids, and Du Pont is actively researching the effects of consumer pesticides on carpets.

It is important to recognize that the substantial resolution of the issue of pesticide effects on stain resistance warranties is only a small part of the whole carpet staining subject. Just because a pesticide does not impair stain resistance does not mean it will not itself cause a color change in the carpet. The Du Pont tests showed that some of the pesticides slightly changed the color or lightfastness of the carpet.

Reports of carpet staining by professionally applied pesticides appear to have declined rapidly since the mid-1980s. However, it is clear that PCOs must continue to exercise extreme care in their choice of products and application procedures when treating carpets. Absence of label precautions about carpet staining does not mean a product will always be safe to use. What the pest control industry really needs is a fast field test for checking the safety of a product on a particular carpet. Until that time, the name of the game is risk reduction, not risk elimination, because there are millions of yards of carpets already installed which are still vulnerable to pesticide damage.

___ Keith Story

The author, president of Winchester consultants, Winchester, England, is a frequent contributor to PCT magazine.