Acid-based hard water removers- long term glass damage?

I read recently on a window washer’s website that acid free removal of hard water is the best way to get the minerals off of glass because acid will have long term affects to the glass. This is his selling point. He says that most window washers use an acid-based hard water spot remover that damages glass, but is very quick. They thus choose speed over value.

Is there [I]any[/I] good basis for this claim.

He says that half the pros out there do it intentionally, while the other half is ignorant. I’m sure he didn’t take a poll…

As someone who has done acid-based hard water spot removal for years and has seen nothing but great affects on glass, I see this as an untruth. Perhaps he has been misinformed. Chemical manufacturers would not be allowed to brand and sell their products like they do if their product damages glass with proper use, glass being the surface it is intended for. At the very least, their product would be called out by many users, lawsuits would occur, and products would be taken off shelves or reformulated.

Of course, these statements of his aren’t necessarily malicious. It is likely just ignorance that has allowed it.

Perhaps he had a bad experience in which he misused a product. Perhaps there is a bad product out there that I haven’t used. Of course, making a sweeping generalization based on one product, or worse, based on the misuse of a product is like saying that a baseball bat can’t hit a thrown baseball effectively after the bat was pushed like a pool stick toward the ball.

Note that he didn’t expound upon what the damaging affects were or how he received his information.

[I]His[/I] stated method of choice involves spraying pure water on the window, then buffing a rubbing compound. He say’s it takes up to ten times as long to do than the acid way, but because he keeps the “interest of the customers” first, he is willing to do this. He also states that his method helps prevent future hard water spotting.

I am not necessarily against other methods, and I know other wc guys buff our spots. I just wanna get some feedback on this guy’s claims.

You have my curiosity up about this guys website. I think its his way of trying to separate himself from the pack.

I have used acid and non-acid products when removing hard water build up and it does not make a difference and no long term damage if done correctly. The customer wants the build up gone and its gone when I leave and thats what every customer wants. That window cleaner just wants to make his customer feel better about his products and manner of cleaning glass.

If that works for him great but I doubt a customer will choose him based solely that he massages the glass for an extra 10 minutes

We may use one of multiple methods based on several factors. Our observations have been when using CC550 to do any scraping work on the glass before using the CC550 as you can see the effects of scraping on some glass after the acid is used. I don’t know if others have made this observation. With that said, CC550 is a good product and we use it when it is a good match to the need.
I prefer the buffing paste to address hard water stains where that method is appropriate. It does an excellent job without being aggressive. I think it is often faster than CC550 because it doesn’t ‘weep’ on the edges and often requires very little rubbing. If it was 10 times longer I wouldn’t use it! Sounds to me like he’s making a weak sales pitch.

Lies, all lies! ha ha, at least it sounds like lies from my experience. Good job calling him out Aaron. Now post who it is so we can all make fun of them. :slight_smile: Just joking. I hope it’s actually ignorance on this other wc’ers part. But it sounds like he’s really trying to make his potential customers believe it, so he looks better. If in fact there is some scientific fact to this guy’s claims I retract my jokes, but not my experience. It is what it is.

Thanks guys for your comments!

Interesting thing about that scraper/cc550 thing. I’ve never used the product, but I will see if that happens with my remover.

If you use a hydrofluoric acid on the tin side of glass it can etch it. Any acid can weaken or damage the IG seal of a window which can eventually cause a blown seal.

Good points, but both would be misuse of acid.

IG seal isn’t glass damage.

Tin side etching is a reach if that is his basis for the argument. That will almost never happen.

The window cleaner didn’t claim that it CAN damage glass, but that it WILL. Not in those words…

Tin side etching is immediate. He claimed that the damage is not know by many window cleaners cuz it is not immediate.

Playing devils advocate - once the seal is blown it eventually damages the inside glass surface. It’s called corrosion. Acids are very likely to damage the IG seal and you won’t realize it for a while. If he says glass and means window it’s a case of semantics. Again not siding w/ this guy just saying he might be using the wrong words to convey his thoughts.

I doubt a potential customer is going to take the time to read his long explanation.
JMO

Nice. You almost had me:) But misuse is the important factor. He didn’t say anything about misuse, just use. And that that use would necessitate a bad result.

He is saying that using acid is inherently bad and window cleaners that use it do not care enough about their customers. If that sentiment is based on IG seal breaks, that’s a little more than an exaggeration.

But like another poster said, it’s unlikely to take any money out of pockets, just interesting…

What is it that you use, Tony?

I will use an acid (never CC550) but I educate the customer that it could void the IG warranty on their window. Of course I highlight the fact that since it’s stained it needs to be restored not just cleaned and that means more aggressive methods. As w/ all things understanding what can happen and educating the customer are key.

So do you tell them that it’s not your fault that you don’t use another method that won’t void the warranty?:slight_smile:

That’s like saying that it’s not your fault you scratched up a window that you knew has FD on it. Of course that is another issue.

I guess on both issues, if you tell them the risks, all that matters is if they approve. As long as you don’t make it sound as if your methods are the only methods.

Of course, I don’t agree with the level of danger you may feel is present when using acid. I’ve never come back to a blown seal and I’m quite careful with my use of acid.

As for the scratched window you probably know I don’t believe any cleaner can know if FD is present before cleaning and once you think you “feel” it the damage is done and you better have a waiver in place.
As for the acid - I said it could lead to a blown seal. There are variables of course - strength of acid, how much sits at the bottom of the frame, how long it sits there, etc.
The reality is that whatever method you use there are possible risks. As long as you educate your customer as to what they are and that each method carries it’s own risks you’re doing everything you can for that client.

Good points for sure! This is motivating me to be extra careful with seals.

What would u say to someone who says: If you know that there is a safer method, why not use that?

Side question: Have you ever seen FD that was visible? A couple of times I saw splotches of brown dots that were surely not paint, felt like FD, and could not come off with anything. It was almost like iron welding overspray that melted into the glass or something, but there was no metal around.

What you saw definitely sounds like welding splatter. Just because there was no metal around doesn’t mean they didn’t grind some railing or other metals near those windows at some point. I have a customer who has several windows like that and they are 10ft off the ground at the bottom of the pane. There are railings nearby so who knows how it got on there but it’s definitely welding/grinding splatter.
The only time I saw visible FD was on a interior french door (Old Castle glass from the stamp) and I could see it from across the room (20ft).
As for the safer method (if you mean safer to the glass) - it’s a myth. Any method you use carries it’s own risks to the glass or seal.

I did finally see this guys site and I agree it’s a joke. He’s got some fancy buffing stone and is micro-abrading the glass. He could do the same w/ some cerium oxide and high speed buffer much quicker. I agree from the way he word’s it he’s trying to convince the client that all acids damage the glass itself. The reality is that acids are at best doing what he is w/ his buffing system - removing a thin top layer of glass to remove the mineral that have bounded to the glass. His claims about preventing redepositing of hard water stains is false though as you would need to seal the glass to do this and he said nothing about sealing it.

Wow. Good to know. I guess I can’t count out welding splatter!

Great point about methods and risks.

What seal do you use Tony? I use invis-shield. Not sure how affective it is. I know it works to some degree cuz I tested it only a monthly commercial building that got hit by sprinklers.

At that particular job I did monthly acid treatment for $100 each month. I would hit some of the same windows. I guess now with the IG seal warning, I would not recommend that. Monthly acid cleaning increases the chances of breaks I guess.

I’ve used NanoPhase which I like. Whatever you use the only way to find a permanent fix is to make sure sprinklers aren’t hitting the glass. Outside of that removing the stains and sealing the glass will work for a few months depending on the sealer you use. let the customer know that using a sealer and resealing every few months is only necessary if they can’t get the sprinklers moved so they don’t hit the windows.