tised as such and encouraged for use in bathrooms, wet areas, and to combat spills and leaks. The study found, however, that warranties routinely exclude all water damage resulting from water passing through and around floor covering to the subfloor and other structural elements of the building. The testing showed that, according to two international standardized tests for waterproof- ing, all the samples tested leaked through the seams to the subfloor below. What is ACTUALLY being warranted is that the plastic floor itself is unaffected by water. It does not take into consideration leaking through seams and dam- age to subfloors. In addition, the study found that 90% of PBM floors tested sup- ported the growth of mold, due to water leakage through seams into the subfloor, and the organic materials in the plastic provided nourishment for mold spores to grow. Mold spores in the seams can also be pushed into the breath- able space, which can contribute to respiratory and allergic effects. Slip resistance; hardness in question PBM flooring is also believed to be slip resistant, though there is no standard for slip resistance testing in LVT flooring used by the resilient industry on wet sur- faces. Using the ANSI standard A326.3 with a reference value of .42 DCOF, 16 samples – 82% – measured below .42 DCOF in all or some directions. Finally, the study tested hardness of plastic flooring relative to ceramic tile and other substances. PBM floor- ing rated #3 on the Mohs scale, just above talc and gypsum and equivalent to calcite, which is scrapeable with a copper coin. Ceramic tile, on the other hand, rates #7-#8, equivalent to quartz – which scratches window glass – and topaz, which scratches quartz. Testing results shine a light on the differences between actual performance, advertised claims, and warranty exclusions by the PBM flooring industry. For more information, contact TCNA at 864-646-8453. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– TECH TALK TileLetter | June 2019 79