After remediation work — whether anti-slip treatment, surface replacement, mechanical re-finishing, or cleaning regime changes — independent re-testing under UKAS accreditation verifies that the remediation has actually achieved the target PTV. Without verification, the remediation is undocumented; with verification, the file shows what was done and what was achieved.
Remediation work is usually commissioned because a previous test identified a non-compliant floor. The remediation contractor will quote an expected uplift, but actual uplift depends on the substrate, the application, the curing conditions and the cleaning regime that follows. Re-testing converts 'expected' into 'verified'.
For risk-management and claim-defence purposes, the file should contain: the original test showing non-compliance; the remediation work order and certificates of treatment; and the post-remediation test showing compliance has been restored. This three-document chain is the documentary evidence that the operator both identified and resolved the issue.
Re-testing is most useful where the methodology matches the original baseline test — same locations, same slider, same wet/dry approach, same standard reference. This produces directly comparable PTV deltas at each test point. Where the original was UKAS-accredited and the re-test is UKAS-accredited, the comparison is robust to challenge.
Most treatments require a curing period before they reach final performance. Typical guidance:
| Treatment type | Minimum cure before re-test |
|---|---|
| Chemical etching (acid-based) | 7 days, with thorough rinsing |
| Chemical etching (fluoride-based) | 7–14 days |
| Applied coatings (water-based) | 14 days minimum |
| Applied coatings (solvent-based) | 7 days; longer for full chemical resistance |
| Mechanical re-finishing | Immediate (no cure period) |
| Surface replacement | Per the new floor's normal commissioning timeline |
Re-testing too early gives a misleadingly low result; the surface has not yet stabilised.
For high-traffic environments, the post-treatment PTV is one piece of evidence; durability of the uplift is another. Follow-up testing at 6 and 12 months captures whether the treatment is holding or whether traffic and cleaning have eroded the gain. The 12-month durability data is often more useful than the day-14 result for risk management.
Where the remediation includes a change to the cleaning regime (different products, different frequency, different rinsing protocol), the re-test should be conducted under the new regime — toward the end of the cleaning cycle, not immediately after a deep clean. This captures whether the new regime supports the achieved PTV in service.
Tell us about the situation and we'll come back with a quote within one working day.
Request a Quote