CLEANING METHOD
|
USE
|
BENEFITS
|
PROBLEMS
|
|
Biocide fog
|
Bacterial colonisation
|
Kitchen extractLow cost method of controlling bacterial contamination with
little access required. Where little or no debris are found this can achieve
TM26 standards
|
Does not remove debris/ food sources. If used in isolation bacteria colonisation
may return (not recommended by TR/19)
|
|
Medium pressure compressed air
|
General purpose clean for loose contaminants
|
Relatively low cost with moderate access required when performed correctly.
Capable of achieving TR/19 standards
|
Cannot remove adhered debris or heavy contamination. Struggles with large
ductwork due to lack of power.
|
|
High pressure compressed air
|
Low grade clean
|
Low cost with minimal access points required
|
This clean is prone to misses. The use of minimal access points prevents an
adequate verification process and therefore certification is often difficult. A
roadside compressor is used to power the equipment making noise and access
restrictions often prohibitive.
|
|
Rotating brush with negative pressure
|
General purpose clean for adhered debris
|
Tried and tested method of cleaning providing regular compliance with TR/19
|
Moderate access required
|
|
Manual vac and brush
|
High standard clean
|
Ensures all debris is removed regardless of category. Capable of meeting the
most stringent of specifications
|
Labour intensive with a high requirement for access, making this an expensive
choice
|
|
Detergent clean
|
Kitchen extract
|
Not designed to give a perfectly clean duct but more a level of protection
against fire. This clean is often specified as a requirement by insurance
companies
|
The use of strong chemicals, with a high demand for access and labour make this
clean expensive. Often targeted by unscrupulous/unqualified contractors where
poor standards are not identified until an incident has occurred.
|