Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
A THESIS
IN
Approved
Accepted
August, 1974
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
dop. ?
It is difficult to express adequately my deep appreciation to the
man, for providing guidance, interest, and the prodding challenge that
lent moral support and advice and whose unfailing energy and profes-
bilities.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS "
LIST OF TABLES vi
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Objectives 4
Hypotheses 5
Definition of Terms 6
Basic Assumptions 9
111
Effect of Fabric Softener on Other Properties 24
Future Developments 26
III. PROCEDURE 28
Selection of Fabrics 29
Washing Procedure 30
Drying Procedure 33
Pilot Study 34
Test Procedures 34
Analyses of Data 36
IV
Whiteness Test Results , . . . . 71
LIST OF REFERENCES 93
APPENDIX 97
Absorbency of Nylon 52
Cotton 59
VI
17. Analysis of Variance: Stiffness (Bending Length) 64
Cotton 68
Terry Cloth 76
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
is reported that the average housewife with family of four will wash
in a 10-year period (19). Aside from removing soil and stains from
all this laundry, the consumer is concerned with the appearance re-
tention and feel or hand of the items (7). Textile finishing is ac-
softening agents in the manufacturing process (15), many wash out after
Technology generates new products each year, and more new pro-
ducts have appeared in the past five years than ever before (18).
are available for household use (11). Theoretically, the years see
improving hand, reducing soiling, repelling water and oily stains, re-
along with the detergent at the start of the wash cycle. The other,
formance criteria (16). Keiser and Saneholtz (18) state that laundry
research needs to focus on consumer buying practices, as substantiated
view of the many new products in recent years. Stavrakas and Fortess
needed to investigate consumer needs and wants; and second, home econo-
mists are best suited by education and orientation for this consumer-
educative role.
will meet home laundry needs efficiently. Fabric softeners are popular
no product guidelines for choice and proper use seem to exist. While
dissatisfactions have been voiced. Perhaps they are due to the nature
of the product, the use of the wrong type product for a particular need,
fiber type and structure, fabric construction, water hardness and the
Objectives
Hypotheses
follows:
a) increasing absorbency
c) preventing stiffness
e) improving whiteness.
used.
a) fabric softeners
static agents.
published.
Definition of Terms
length of time.
2. Aerosol softenera fabric softener which is sprayed on the
"water-hating".
7. Levels of Significance
*p<.05 - significant
manufacturer.
manufacturer.
ing.
Basic Assumptions
wash load.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
nearly all knitted and woven goods during manufacture to add body, some
fabrics appear, and new laundry aids are made available to consumers.
keted in order that consumers can "refinish" their own textile products
times with the use of fats and oils to condition skins and hides (3,
10
11
tive than the ones manufactured today, were not suitable for home use
one's textile products. The company claimed "a pile of towels treated
a negative factor in convincing the consumer from the beginning and con-
the rinse cycle opposed the simple task of starting the modern washer
(19, 54). Armstrong also suggested the majority of consumers were not
aware of the benefits which could be gained from using a fabric soft-
at the $30 million dollar mark and projected to rise above one billion
dollars in the 1970's (38, 47). Despite regional factors, market growth
segment. Chemical Week (38) reported that "the baby's the bait."
eners provided for diapers and infants' wear. Thus, while some claims
conscience.
softener.
Among the 34 percent users, 90 percent were content with the re-
sults obtained from use of a particular product (59). But, not all
consumers used the same softener for the identical purpose with the
softener was vital only for specialty items such as baby clothes (59).
vertisements imply something special has been added for more improvement
two promised many benefits. S. C. Johnson & Co. stated (24) that two-
thirds of all users of fabric softener preferred Rain Barrel, the new
substituted radical groups which goes beyond the scope of the study (14).
are anionic and non-ionic. Their ionic charge repels the negative
affinity with protein, nylon, and polyester fibers, they are most readi-
explain why cotton and rayon are used more widely for testing purposes
each other and the fabric much like the poles on a magnet (16, 39).
(3). More likely, they are amphoteric because the recommended dosage
but the manufacturer suggests one use double the amount of the product
are ionizable salts. Like table salt, they dissolve (or ionize)
15
plains their efficiency in the wash process. They are economical and
easy to use, since most fabric surfaces possess a negative charge (49).
It was theorized (3) that the attraction of a cationic agent for the
The fatty base of the cationic softener imparts the soft, waxy, texture
softness and feel which consumers like (7, 23). DuBrow et al. (8)
oxides, and none are polar compounds like the anionic and cationic
fabric softeners. Non-ionic and anionic softeners are the types used
knitted goods.
group attached to one or more long chain hydrocarbons (CH molecule) (12,
CH.
+
R N- CH. CI
I. DADMAC
CH
^18^37 ^ CH^ CI
^18^7
The alkyl groups derive from tallow (R * alkyl group). From this, Ginn
the best softening effect (12, 13, 16). The 18-carbon acid as repre-
The chains are known as hydrophobes and have a water repellent property.
loving." Water and alcohol comprise the other portion of the softening
agent. Chemical Week (43) reported that 75 percent of the fabric soft-
5 to 15 percent was active agent while Levitt (25) found that the active
that Downy was 95% water (25:155). To make the softeners more agree-
blueing, and tints. Such additives conceal the ammonia odor and furnish
17
are viscous liquids, though some powder and tablet forms exist (25, 38).
Levitt confirms (25). However, he states softeners are not very effec-
The study suggested that the consumer would not find desirable the ef-
detergents which have contributed much to the need for fabric softeners
are anionic, the cationic softener must be added to the final rinse
when most of the detergent has disappeared (50). Otherwise, the soft-
ener and detergent combine, complex out, and inactivate each other.
detergents gained popularity after World War II, and now more than 90
chemical nature (41). They are efficient in both hard and soft water.
acidic water. It was the soap residue which gave fabrics their softness,
The synthetic detergents remove all the natural fats and oils from
fibers and leave one's wash feeling stiff and harsh (14).
18
Goodman (13) as a substance having the ability to make the fabric sur-
face slippery and reduce its friction. It was theorized (3) that a
possess less interfiber and interyarn tensions which would permit them
to move more readily against each other (29, 46). The freedom of move-
McCord (30) warned that excess lubrication might cause increased fiber
fiber surface (24, 32, 50). A too thick coating created an unwanted
Fabric softeners have been called a Jekyll and Hyde product (10).
While the advantages are numerous, some disadvantages may result. What
facilitate ironing (7, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 31, 43, 50, 52). On
the negative side, they have been found to cause yellowing, staining,
and reduce absorbency (7, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 39, 52). While re-
capacity are measurements of the time required for a (1) sample to sink
wicking tests on cotton terry cloth, nylon and plain cotton cloth.
Their study found absorbency was reduced after six launderings (11:420).
Further tests recorded the time required for a drop of water to be com-
absorb when pressure was applied to the water drop. Consumer Reports
Levitt (25) also determined via sinking time tests that softened towel-
ling took longer to sink. Linfield et al. (26) claimed that the total
softened with 0.1 percent of softener of the dry weight of the fabric.
Smith and Mack (41) as cited by Coldwell stated that all softeners
will build-up and reduce absorbency to some extent. Whether the de-
measures. Their data suggest variance among the test methods but no
studies above. Kortland and Muijs found (22) that certain sulfonium
lent .
has been suggested (44, 53) that two or three washings without a soft-
ener will eliminate the excess. For optimum results, it has been
suggested that one omit fabric softener every fifth washing (10).
Less moisture uptake may shorten drying time for fabrics (39, 47)
ture uptake.
static agents (10, 23, 31, 49, 50, 53). The bonding of the softening
value (23, 31), The hydrophobic portion of the cation attaches to the
of the softener then forms a thin layer of moisture from the atmosphere
on the fabrics, entraps the charged particles and provides a path for
their dissipation (24, 29, 31, 50), Thus, the softener functions as a
fibers to help overcome their naturally harsh, wiry feel and static
problem.
spinning, Moncrieff (31) reports that nylon was the most difficult to
TABLE 1
Relative Resistance in
Humidity % 10^2 ohms
20 40
26 30
28 10
32 2,0
34 1.5
38 0.7
40 0.5
The tests used 0.01 percent of softener to the dry weight of the fabric
Moncrieff also cited work that indicated the following practical im-
plications (31:448):
22
parations, depending on the ionic content of the wash water and the de-
sary to prevent static charge on yarns and textiles varies with the
cotton fabrics, the softened white fabrics became more yellow than
apparent with the brands of softener that softened most in a study re-
that the yellowness present in a white fabric would vary with the fiber,
concentration of softener, light under which the fabric was viewed and
most often by visual comparisons (7, 12, 17, 25, 52, 57). Owen (35)
(7) found that softness improved after two washings and continued to
increase until the tenth wash when it levelled off through 18 multiple
AATCC. Both studies used white, cotton terry cloth towels. The more
The blended fabric was found to be softened less than the all-cotton.
washer. Wash loads weigh 8-lbs. and consist primarily of white cotton
used as the detergent and the softener used as a standard control re-
active ingredient per 8-lbs of wash. The softener is added to the final
judges.
fined (35) as the ability to recover from gentle bending and crumpling.
ered with and without softener were both less stiff after multiple
ric softener, showed mild increase in laboratory tests but remained un-
(40). Test results indicated that flex and edge abrasion resistance are
wrinkling and ironing (10, 23). By wrinkling less, the need for ironing
strength (23) confirmed Murry. He found that strength was better for
with his findings which indicated that tear strength was increased for
all fibers treated with softener except rayon. Fibers used were
acrylic, cotton, nylon and rayon. He also claimed that the lubricant
be expected.
ness and anti-static benefits (10). The amount used should be propor-
tional to the amount of fabric and not the amount of water in the
wash load (25). Staining may result if the fabric softener is not
diluted before adding to the wash load (19). Chlorine bleach will de-
only when the fabric softener is added first (7, 19, 20, 21). While
the type, temperature, and amount of water will influence to some ex-
tent the effects of a fabric softener, correct usage per the manufac-
Future Developments
been developed in the short period since her speculations. Since the
beginning of this study, two more fabric softeners have been announced
writing, both are of the type used in the drum of the dryer. One prod-
uct is a non-woven rayon sheet, pre-sized and rolled much like wax
PROCEDURE
and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Specimens tested
Standard conditions were not necessary for the absorbency test procedure.
28
29
The exact chemical content could not be ascertained for any of the
Selection of Fabrics
were chosen for the study. All fabrics were obtained from TestFabrics,
Inc. of Middlesex, New Jersey. Each fabric was white with no patterned
testing:
sample size for each fabric depended upon the original width
of the fabric.
treatment.
laundry pen.
Washing Procedure
The fabric samples were washed in four equal groups. Twenty wash-
ings were completed for each softener treatment group. Samples were
before spinning and two rinse cycles followed. The mean rinse tempera-
ture was 50.9 C. for all wash cycles with a range of only three degrees
31
A water level selector was set on "Hi." The agitator speed was placed
withdrawn samples to maintain the weight of the wash load. All non-test
fabrics were white and pre-washed with Tide detergent and Calgon water
For those samples softened with the wash-cycle softener, the washing
machine was partially filled with water and the softener added via an
were placed in the machine and the water allowed to fill to the normal
water level. For the other three softener treatment groups, the samples
were placed in the washing machine first, Then, the water was permitted
to fill to the normal water level. The detergent was added after the
fabrics in all wash cycles. Upon filling to the desired water level,
the washing machine was agitated for 30 seconds and stopped. The water
Detergent;
amount was used since all fabrics were white and no soil was being
removed.
32
Fabric Softener:
second rinse.
follows.
Water Conditioner:
cup) at the start of the first rinse cycle for every wash load because
Ca C O3 2Na P O3
40 + 12 -f 48 * 2(23 -f 35 -^ 48) *
lOOg 212g
Calgon = 500
X 17 X 8.3 lb. water/gallon
1,000,000
= .070 lb.
= 1.128 ounces
= 32g
Drvlne
- <ai.
Procedure
sensor dryer (Model y/8800). A dryness control was set at "3" on a scale
from "1" to "7" with "1" denoting the greatest degree of dryness. The
Fabrics were removed when all were dry, and the entire washing and
drying procedure was repeated until the required number of cycles had
been completed. Samples were then removed for cutting into specimens
and testing.
The symbols interpreted below were used throughout the study for
simplification.
Fabrics:
CBcotton broadcloth
P/Cpolyester/cotton
NYnylon
PEpolyester
34
Fabric Softeners:
SIRain Barrel
S2Downy
S3Cling Free
TT*n O f^ *t T^ r> *-
LInot washed
L21 washing
L310 washings
L420 washings
Pilot Study
tives :
study.
Test Procedures
for the purposes of the study and 2) reproducibility. With the exception
of the static cling test, each physical test was conducted on specimens
35
specimens.
wicking test (36:62) which measured the height of liquid uptake during
a timed interval. The three specimens from each fabric direction for
every treatment level were cut apart, randomized and tested separately
synthetic fiber fabric specimens and control specimens for the cotton
was compared on the basis of the stiffness test stated in the ASTM
standard procedure was cutting four specimens from each fabric direction
instead of three. The instrument used to measure the bending length was
ard method D 1777-64 (6:384). A pressure of .125 lbs per square inch
was used. Ten readings were taken at random for every treatment level
One specimen twenty inches square was cut to determine the general
standard method D 1925-63T (6:639). The test procedure did not indicate
cased in plastic was produced. The circle was placed behind each test
ments could be read. A "Y" filter and source "C" were used. Reflect-
ance measurements x, y, z, and x' only were read from the machine for
both face and back of each specimen. A Yellowness Index (YI) value was
calculated for the face and back of each specimen by electronic computer.
Analyses of Data
Data for each of the six physical tests were analyzed by electronic
for:
Ratios; and
37
CI = t s2
\i n
Where t = Student I s
-, llx.ll
t value corresponding to 95% confidence,
s = Standard deviation
n = Number of replicates
specimens. The number of specimens for each group varied from one to
The figures are the means of three readings in millimeters for each
treatment cell. Analysis of the data shows that the non-softened speci-
mens for each fabric after 20 washings were more absorbent than the
trend. The specimens treated with the dryer spray-softener were more
does not appear to be as great for the nylon specimens (see Table 5 ) ,
38
39
6). However, the non-softened specimens for nylon and polyester were
slightly more absorbent than the filling specimens for all treatment
groups and washings levels (see Tables 2 through 6). The conventional
cate that absorbency loss was least for specimens treated with the dryer
spray-softener.
softening treatments for all fabrics (see Table 7). The data indicated
and the effect of the conventional softener occurred for all fabrics at
which occurred must necessarily be dealt with for each fabric individ-
ually.
between the two newer types of fabric after one washing in their effects
TABLE 2
Warp Filling
CONTROL
SOO 36 SOO 29
AFTER 1 WASH
S2 16 1 S2 11 0
SI 30 1 S3I 26 2
S3 32 1 sil 27 4
SO 38 2 SO 35 1
F = 157.67*** F = 66.23***
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
S2 15 2 S2 12 1
SI 23 3 SI 19 2
S3I 36 3 S3I 29 2
sol 40 3 sol 32 4
F = 62.21*** F = 53.82***
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
S2 23 3 SI 18 2
SI 1 25 4 S2 19 1
S3 1 30 4 S3 27 3
SO 41 3 SO 32 0
F = 17.70*** F = 44 ^ 32***
n = 3
= no significant difference
41
ficant (p < .001) difference between all three types of fabric softener
but no significant (p< .001) difference between the effect of the spray
consumer.
The data in Table 3 report that the spray softener did not reduce
difference between the effect of no softener and the effect of the spray
and the wash-cycle softener reduced absorbency by about the same amount
highly significant (p < .001) difference existed among all three types of
TABLE 3
Warp Filling
CONTROL
SOO 33 SOO 37
AFTER 1 WASH
S2] 24 4 S2 22 3
SI 28 2 S3 30 1
S3 37 1 SI 33 4
SO 41 3 SO 34 7
F = 25.51*** F = 5 .62*
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
SI 1 15 4 SI 16 1
S2 1 24 4 S2 24 5
SO 49 2 S3 46 9
S3 51 4 SO 47 2
F == 87.33*** F = 30.88***
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
SI 17 3 SI 26 3
S2 29 2 S2 28 3
S3 41 1 S3 39 5
SO 47 2 SO 41 5
F = 98.11*** F = 9.86**
n = 3
I = no significant difference
43
in reducing absorbency after one wash. The figures in Table 4 show that
(P ('05) different in the warp direction after one wash. As the wash-
ings continued through 20, a clear pattern emerged. There was no signi-
ficant (p< .001) difference between the spray softener and no softener
and no softener were very highly significantly (p< .001) different from
height of water taken-up after any wash level was 4 mm (see Table 5).
no softener had about the same effect on absorbency after 1 and 10 wash-
(p <.001) both from each other and from the other two types of softener
(see Table 5 ) .
spray softener and the other two types of fabric softener. Specimens
TABLE 4
Warp Filling
CONTROL
SOO SOO
AFTER 1 WASH
S2 8 2 S2 9 1
S3 13 3 SI 10 2
SI 15 3 S3 13 5
SO 18 3 SO 17 1
F = 6.51* F = 5,94*
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
SI
S2
10
13
2
2
S2
SI
1
1
10
10
5
1
S3 29 3 S3 24 2
SO 31 1 SO 27 2
F = 123.01*** F = 28.62***
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
S2 12 2 SI j 10 2
SI 12 2 S2l 12 1
S3 33 2 S3 27 2
SO 39 10 SO 36 10
F = 22.43*** F = 18 .88***
n =3
1 = no significant difference
45
TABLE 5
Warp Filling
CONTROL
SOO 12 SOO
AFTER 1 WASH
S2 2 2 S2 1 3 3
SI 10 5 SI 1 6 2
SO 11 2 SO 1 10 1
S3 17 10 S3 1 11 2
F - 3.26 NS F * 11.70**
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
S2 4 3 S2 3 2
SI 7 4 SI 6 1
S3 19 3 SO 18 4
SO 20 4 S3 21 2
F * 18.11*** F - 43.87***
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
S2 1 1 S2 1 1
SI 7 1 SI 8 1
SO 15 3 SO 18 2
S3 27 5 S3 24 5
F * 39.31*** F * 43.39***
n
I = no significant difference
46
Table 6). In general, there was no significant (p> .05) difference be-
absorbent (p< .001) than those specimens treated with the spray soften-
er. The erratic results suggest the difficulty in applying the spray
ence in absorbency occurred after 1 wash for cotton terry cloth. Non-
significantly (p < .001) different from either of the other two wash
TABLE 6
Warp Filling
CONTROL
SOO 22 SOO 20
AFTER 1 WASH
S2 2 1 S2 4 2
SI 7 1 SI 9 7
SO 24 4 SO 42 6
S3 51 1 S3 47 6
F = 387.39*** F = 50.17***
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
S2 5 2 S2 1 4 3
SI 9 1 sil 12 7
S3 24 14 S3 28 14
SO 44 11 SO 49 3
]F == 11.83** F == 17.78***
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
S2 2 1 S2 1 1
SI 7 1 SI 10 1
SO 37 7 SO 35 7
S3 55 6 S3 52 7
F = 97.02*** F == 62 .15***
n = 3
I = no significant difference
48
* K * K K K K * a * K a
4C * a K a K }< * * K K K K * K
o * a a
CM VD <t
* K
CM ( ^
a K
00
K
LO
*
St
K JC
S t C^
K
in
* K
0 0 CO
*:
f^
K
H
O
r^
00 CO o
VO
U r^ r^ r^ O o O r-^ o CM o CO cr>
CO
CM O uo sr 00 o vD in vO vO CO o in VO 00 CO 1
erf vO
cr. T-i St CM sr O T-i rH cy> as rH
I CN rH
i-H
0)
to VO CM CTN CO r- r^ a^ St CO S t Ch r^ r>. f^ f^ CO
cr
00 rH vO C3> CM 00 CO O CN CO CTi i-l CM 00 in o
CO CM i n O f^ r^ CN CN m vo CM ON CO CO r^ in cTv
Sf vO 00 in o 00 00 00 00 00 vo iH r^ vo r^ rH
c CO S t O CN m CO r-\ rH O CO m
eg
o
M
a
o CO CM vO CM CO vD CO eg CO iH vo CM CO vO CO vO 00
CO St
M
H
)-i M U U >-i
W 0) 0) Qi Qi Qi
> C C C C C
w Qi CO Q) CO Qi CO (U CU
t-i CO U CJO 40 00 CO 4J oo 4J 4J
C iw IW c <4-l 1+-I IH
PE3
o o
c
H o
c
H o o
c
H o o
U H CO CO H CO X CO
4-
.c
CO
.c
CO 4J CO
CO
tJ X CO X -4 CO O X CO X X
M c Qi 5 CJ ^ (U 13
U CO CO }-i CO CO CO
O
H Cfl H bO U-\ CO 00 0) c 14-1 CO H 00 U-l CO 00 CO 00 CO
u TJ c o U p o V^ ' O C o u C u c (U
4-t
Qi H c
Qi H H-l (U H Q) H Qi H 4J
nj }-l O .C
C a XCO M C x: o C u C .C a x: CO
o H
U
Q) H (U <U
4J
CO CO cu 0) H CO
4-1 U
Qi (U CO
4-)
Qi CO
4-t CO H
U
M CO .Q CO X CO X CO
CO CO HH ^ 15 B 4-( ^ X B t4-J X & B IW 5 4-1 :5 i H
M
o cd 0 o D o CO 3 O o CX
>
CO CO 1+-I iw CO CO iw C CO <4-l CO IW
>^ O o c o o c o o o
C C C H a C C
<u Qi <L) U <U c u
Qi 4J c
Qi Qi Qi u 0) a
cu v^
c
Qi u C
o Qi QJ Qi cu Qi Qi
a Qi Qi Qi Qi 0) Qi cu Qi Qi H
> & X 13 ^ X Qi :2 5 ^ X :3 ^ X [5 X X!
4J u B +J 4J B u 4-1 4J 4-1 B 4-) M B 4J 6 4J
o Qi Qi 0 <u <u p H Qi CU <u 3 <U (U D CU 3 H
PQ PQ S PQ PQ PQ PQ PQ Z PQ PQ 25 pq Z 12
CO
z o
^
X 4J
4-1
o io
H o
rH u Ul
a p
-o
CO
>N O
o
H
u a
o u
Qi
U u u 0)
X PQ H +J
CO Qi
Pt. d CO
c
o o
+J
CO c (U CO
p 4J Qi o
4-J 4J >s rH rH II
o o r-\
o o
o o PL,
p-l
49
TABLE 8
Warp Filling
No. of No. of
Washings Mean S.D Washings Mean S.D,
CONTROL
0 33 0 37
NO S0F1CENER
1 41 3 1 34 7
20 47 2 20 41 5
10 49 2 10 47 2
F = 9.42* F = 5.23*
WASH-CYCLE SOFTENER
10 15 4 10 16 1
20 18 3 20 26 3
1 28 2 1 33 4
F = 14.84** F = 27.68***
SPRAY--SOFTENER
1 37 1 1 30 1
20 41 1 20 39 5
10 51 4 10 46 9
F = 31.20*** F = 5.85*
n = 3
1 = no signi ficant difference
TEXAS TECH
50
The number of washings was significant at the level p< .001 for
specimens were significantly (p< .05) less absorbent except for the
creased their capacity to take up liquid when treated with the spray
TABLE 9
Warp Filling
No. of No. of
Washings Mean S.D, Washings Mean S.D,
NON-LAUNDERED
0 0 0 0
NO SOFTENER
1 18 3 1 17 1
10 1
20 1
31
39
1
10
10
20
1
1
^'
^
36
2
10
F = 9.01* F = 8.38*
WASH-CYCLE SOFTENER
10 10 2 1 10 2
20 12 2 10 10 5
11 15 3 20 10 2
F = 4.46 NS F = 0.(D3 NS
1 1 8 2 1 9 2
20 1 12 2 10 10 1
10 13 2 20 12 1
F = 4.21 NS F = 11 .63**
SPRAY--SOFTENER
1 13 3 1 13 5
10 1 29 3 10 24 2
20 1 33 2 20 27 2
F = 61.00*** F = 15 .77**
n = 3
I = no significant difference
52
TABLE 10
Warp Filling
No. of No. of
Washing Mean S.D. Washing Mean S.D.
CONTROL
0 12 8 0
NO SOFTENER
1 11 2 1 10 1
20
10 1
1 ^^
20
3
4
10 1
20 1
18
18
4
2
F = 7.64* F = 9.57*
SPRAY SOFTENER
1 17 10 1 11 2
10 19 3 10 21 2
20 27 5 20 24 5
F = 1.95 NS F = 14.27**
n = 3
I = no significant difference
creased (see Tables 5, 6). Nylon specimens softened with the convention-
(see Table 7 ) . The results are attributed to the extra set of warp
conditions.
was less than that for the non-softened specimens. There was no
significant (p> .05) difference between the effect of the spray softener
and no softener at all wash levels. Specimens treated with the conven-
tional softener did not cling at any wash level while wash-cycle soft-
ened specimens did cling slightly after 1 wash. A significant (p< .01)
difference did occur between the wash-cycle softener and other two
11).
articles.
ings were recorded from each of the face and back side of four specimens
stiff after 20 washings. Except for cotton broadcloth and cotton terry
level for all wash levels. While there was a significant (p< .05)
55
TABLE 11
RANK-ORDER OF SOFTENER
EFFECT ON STATIC CLING OF NYLON
(From least cling to most cling)
Warp Filling
CONTROL
AFTER 1 WASH
F = 12.72*** F = 4.73**
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
F = 3.89* F = 10.28***
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
F = 15.22*** F == 3 .69*
n = 3
= no significant difference
56
TABLE 12
RANK-ORDER OF SOFTENER
EFFECT ON STIFFNESS OF COTTON BROADCLOTH
(From most stiff to least stiff)
CONTROL
AFTER 1 WASH
SO 1 .93
SI 1 .92
0.12
S3 1 .84
S2 1 .82
3.20*
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
SO 1.87
S3 1.85 0.10
S2 1.80
SI 1.78
2.69*
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
SO 2.00
S3 1.90 0.14
S2 1.78
SI 1.77
Y * 9.37***
n 16
I = no significant difference
57
(p > .05) difference between the effects of the wash-cycle softener and
ence between the effects of the foregoing softeners was found. All
three types of fabric softener were found to render the specimens simi-
wash-cycle softened specimens were much limper (p < .01) than specimens
stiffer (p < .001) than the effect of either the conventional softener
significant (p < .05) difference was found between the effect of the
stiffer.
ficant difference at the .05 level between the spray softener and other
TABLE 13
Warp Filling
Pooled Pooled
Softener Mean S.D. Softener Mean S.D.
CONTROL
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
SO 2.18 SO 1.99
82 2.11 S2 1.97
0.16 0.12
S3 2.09 S3 1.88
SI 1.94 SI 1.86
F = 6.10** F = 4.37**
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
SO 2.19 S3 2.02
S3 2.17 SO 2.01 0.14
0.13 82 1.96
82 2.10
81 1.94 81 1.92
F = 12.12*** F = 1.85 NS
n = 16
= no significant difference
59
TABLE 14
Warp Filling
Pooled Pooled
Softener Mean S.D. Softener Mean S.D.
CONTROL
AFTER 1 WASH
SO 1.92 80 1.78
82 1.91 1.75
0.10 11 1.74
0.08
83 1.90 81
81 I 1.89 1.70
83
F = 0.33 NS F = 2.90*
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
81 1.94 S3 1.75
80 1.92 1.74 0.12
82 1.85 1.72
83 1.77 81 1.72
V = 4-71** F = 0 .29 NS
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
SO 1.91 83 1.80
81 1.91 81 1.79 0.10
0.14 1.75
83 1.89 80
82 1.84 82 1.71
F = 1.10 NS F = 2.62*
n = 16
= no significant difference
60
were significantly less stiff than non-softened specimens at the ,05 and
were significantly limper than those treated with the wash-cycle soften-
tional softener and spray softener were similarly stiff (p < .01). How-
stiffer at the .05 level than specimans washed with the conventional
softener.
softening treatments did occur but only after 10 and 20 washings. After
10 washings, there was no difference at the .001 level between the three
imens were very highly significantly (p < ,001) stiffer than the softened
were stiffer than specimens subjected to treatment with either the con-
cance as reported in Table 16. Specimens not softened were also very
highly significantly (p <.001) stiffer than those treated with the con-
TABLE 15
RANK-ORDER OF SOFTENER
EFFECT ON STIFFNESS OF NYLON
(From most stiff to least stiff)
Warp Filling
Pooled Pooled
Softener Mean S.D. Softener Mean S.D.
CONTROL
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
81 1.65 SO 1.58
SO 1.61 0.09 81 1.37 0.18
S3 1.61 S3 1.28
S2 1.60 82 1.28
F * 0-71 NS F * 9.94***
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
81 1.54 81 1.43
83 1.48 0.20 83 1.34 0.18
SO 1.46 SO 1.33
82 1.36 82 1.24
F - 2.16 NS 2.95*
n 16
I = no significant difference
(p < .01) in contributing to softness than the other two types of fabric
terry cloth, and nylon specimens as stated in Table 17. Cotton broad-
cloth specimens were stiffer after 1 wash but became limper with more
overcome.
sis in Table 17. The relationship between softening and laundering was
the conventional softener (see Table 13). Tables 15 and 16 show that as
TABLE 16
RANK-ORDER OF SOFTENER
EFFECT ON STIFFNESS OF POLYESTER
(From most stiff to least stiff)
Warp Filling
Pooled Pooled
Softener Mean S.D. Softener Mean S.D.
CONTROL
AFTER 1 WASH
S3 2.72 S3 2.14
SO 2.55 0.18 SO 2.11 0.13
82 2.33 81 2.09
81 2.24 S2 2.08
F - 22.93*** F = 0.77 NS
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
81 2.48 81 2.16
SO 2.35 S3 2.10 0.12
0.18
S3 2.31 SO 2.08
82 2.22 82 2.05
5.83** F 2.19 NS
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
SO 2.43 81 1 2.16
81 2.42 SO 1 2.11 0.11
0.13 2.04
S3 2.35 82
82 2.10 S3 2.04
F 23.50*** 4.18**
n = 16
I * no significant difference
64
K * K * K K K a
* * * * K * K * * * * * K a a
o * sc * * *
a r^ K * K K * * * a *
CJ> O in eg CO 00 00 O St
H o
CO CM O CM o
CO T-i o
vo CO o O o r^
4- o o o o o
187.
990.
244,
CO
pc;
in VO vO CO o CO CM in CO CO O St
I vO T-\
PM
(1)
V4
00 O in T-i St O St St r>. f^ 00 rts
CO rH S t CN rH St
vo vO vo vo CO rH CO 00 r-{ on
r-^ T-\ < r T-i rH O ON O
cr o o 00 o rH in o
CO
o o in CO
c
CO
CU
X
s
w
M 14-1 vo St eg vO CM CN CN vo eg CM vo eg CM O
vo
13
PQ
CO
CO
w U u M
Qi Qi <U
C C C
P4 CO CO CU CO Qi (1)
Pt3 M CO OO CO 4J CO 00 CO
t-i H oo cw C3
4J 4J
14^
c c c C U-i
CO H o H o O 0 c
H c
0 0 0
X H .c H CO vH H CO CO
CO 40 CO 4J 4J x:
CO 4-1
CO O CO O X 0 CO 0 X X
w C IS CU
:s <u <U [2 (U
o O M M CO M U CO CO CO
H CO MH H CO VH H oo H CO 14-1 H 00 CO 00 CO
4J >-l
o X3 J-( o 13 TJ u 0 -o C M c
0 cu
CO Qi CU c
H Qi .H <U H c
H 4J
s H
^<
CO
C
Qi
U
u
Q)
X
O
H
>-i
C
<U
4J
>-t
X
<U
U
H
U
4:
CO
CO
U
H
>-i
c u
cu Qi
4J X
0
H
^4
.C
CO
CO
CJ
CU
+J
+J
0
CU
.G
CO
CO
CO
O
H
> 14H B rO U-i B X ^ Xi <4H B .0 ;5 MH M & T-i
o 3 CO O 3 CO CO 0 z> CO 0 H a
O CO CO ^ <4H 14H CO IS 4H IW CO X) (U
z m l+H
0 0
l+H
0 p:5
CO C C C C C C C C C
M Qi c
cu <U cu (U (U <U u CU c
cu <U CU u
c
(U CU M C
CO O
cu (U cu Qi CU <u Qi (U Qi <U (U Qi (U CU OJ H
[5 ^ ^ ^ & ^ X ^ ^ ^ :s X 13 13 X .C
4-1 4J 4-J 4-1 4J 4J B 4J 4J u +j B p 4J B 4-1
o CU <U CU CU Qi CU 3 CU CU (U CU D <u CU P H
CO PQ PQ PQ PQ PQ PQ S PQ PQ PQ PQ 5S PQ PQ S &
X
4J
4J O c
o rH o
rH CJ 4J
o 4J
T) O
o CO
o
H O
M 0) M
. 0 PQ H cu 0)
CO 4J *J
Pt4 d C CO CO
O O Qi CU
+J 4-t >. o
4J 4-) rH rH T-i
O O O o
O 53
65
of softener used. All softened specimens were thicker than the non-
between the spray softener, which was ineffective, and the other two
TABLE 18
RANK-ORDER OF SOFTENER
EFFECT ON THICKNESS OF COTTON BROADCLOTH
(From least thick to most thick)
CONTROL
AFTER 1 WASH
SO 0.014 .001
S3 0,015 ,001
81 1 0.015 .001
82 1 0.015 ,001
3,51*
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
S3 .014 ,002
SO .016 .001
81 1 .018 .001
S2 1 ,018 .005
F * 20.60***
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
S3 .015 .002
SO .016 .001
82 .017 .001
SI .017 .001
4.58**
n 10
I = no significant difference
67
(p <-05) thinner than those treated with either the conventional soften-
between the effect of no softener and the spray softener after 1 and 20
washings.
thicker at the .01 level than specimens that underwent any of the other
evidence that specimens treated with the wash-cycle softener were sig-
nificantly (p< .05) less thick than specimens treated with the spray
TABLE 19
RANK-ORDER OF SOFTENER
EFFECT ON THICKNESS OF POLYESTER/COTTON
(From least thick to most thick)
CONTROL
AFTER 1 WASH
82 .011
SI .011
.012 .001
SO
S3 .012
4.68**
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
80 .012
S3 .012
.001
81 .013
82 .014
8.42***
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
80 .012
S3 .013
.013 .001
82
81 .014 .
F = 9.68***
n = 10
I = no significant difference
69
TABLE 20
RANK-ORDER OF SOFTENER
EFFECT ON THICKNESS OF POLYESTER
(From least thick to most thick)
CONTROL
AFTER 1 WASH
81 .041
82 .042 .001
S3 .043
SO .043
2.90*
n * 10
I = no significant difference
ficance was found between the variables of fabric softener and number of
o * * * a K * K
* * * K * K K
H
4-1 * K a K a
* * * IC
O 00 VO O
i5 o m o o
I o O CO m St r>. o> r^
Pt4 CO St eg CO
CO
CO <r o vo T-i St *^ in
cr rH
CO o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o
C o o o o o o o o
CO o o o o o o o o
CU
CO
CO CO CM vo vO CO eg vo CM 00
M
Z o
fc^:
CJ
M
ffl
H
U M V4
Qi CU CU
T-i
CM a C C
O CO Qi (U CO CU CO
U 4J 00
M
J
M
oo
c m MH
c
u
U-l
00
c
.H o o H o vH
9
H
S
>
X
CO
to
CO
X
CO
X
.d
CO
CO
CO
X
43
CO
CO
C ^ IS ^
P^ o CO CO CO
O .H
CO 4-1 00 00 CO l+H 00 MH CO
CO
M
4J
CO
u
Qi
C
o
u
c
X
H a
H
.c:
M
<u
o
V4
.s o
U
cu
4-1
CO H CU Qi CO CO c
(U Qi
X!
CO Qi
CO
a
{H M 4-1 CO CO 4J CO
CO X X Xi H
14H B ;? & 4H B 13 ^ rH
^ >
o 0 o 3 P cu
4H
o
CO
c o
4H
o
CO
C
C
C
s c Qi
Pi
CU c
cu
c
cu M V4 (U CU )-l c
cu
o CU Qi cu CU (U (U Qi (U c
.H
u 13 15 ^ ^ & :? X ^ X
4J 4J 6 B 40 4-) B 4J 4J
o CU CU 3 P (U Qi 3 Qi H
CO PQ PQ S pq PQ PQ :2
a s
X
X! u
P o C
o O
4J
T-i rH 4J
o o o
H T3 >s CJ
M CO
O u u u
CO U Qi
U Qi
P4 PQ U
Qi 40
C CO CO
O H CU
C Qi
40 >% >s
4J O T-{
O 4J T-i
U M o O
O PA
O
71
softener caused less thick specimens. Table 19 shows that thickness in-
ing weight occurred only for the variable number of washings as reported
thesized to have caused the trend in greater weight per unit area after
20 washings. Thus, it was concluded within the scope of this study that
o
H
4-1
SI
C^
CM 00
vO
Pt4
(U
M
CO
3 00 O rH
O^ CM 00
CO 00 CN
r^
St
o o vO
c o o o
CO
Qi
MH eg CM CM vO
pc]
CM o
CM
Pt3
M
CO CO
00
CO
00
oo
VAR
ABL
c
H c
MH c
H
X x: x:
EH CO CO CO
Pi4 CO CO CO
O c IS IS IS
o
CO vH MH MH M-4 CO
M cu
CO
4->
CO
o o o
4J
H U M U CO
>t V4 Qi Qi Qi a
^ CO X X X .H
> B B B T-i
3 3 3 cu
C C Qi
c Pi
c c C
CU cu (U C
O CU cu Qi H
^ IS IS X
4J 40 +J 4J
o cu Qi (U H
CO PQ PQ PQ ts
X
O
T-i
O
a T3
CO
H O
XI U U
CO PQ Qi
4->
C CO
o c <U
o >s
rH
rH
o o
CD
73
launderings. The data can be analyzed from two standpoints. The Yellow-
laundering 20 times for every fiber fabric except polyester. Only poly-
four of the five fabrics. The difference between the softener's effects
TABLE 23
RANK-ORDER OF SOFTENER
EFFECT ON WHITENESS OF COTTON BROADCLOTH
(From least white to most white)
CONTROL
AFTER 1 WASH
82 -8.81 0.16
S3 -8.67 0.45
81 -8.25 0.18
SO -5.96 0.01
F - 55.09***
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
81 -17.00 0.32
S3 -16.88 0.06
82 -16.71 0.12
SO -15.52 0.40
13.48*
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
81 -17.18 0.30
S2 -16.94 0.14
S3 -16.77 0.45
SO -16.56 0.17
F 1.59 NS
n
{ = no significant difference
75
specimens were highly significantly (p< .01) different than those speci-
Nylon was found to be more blue after treatment with the conven-
tional softener at all wash levels. Very highly significant (p < .001)
to "0" at the .001 level than specimens treated with a fabric softener.
The very highly significant (p< .001) difference between softeners maxi-
TABLE 24
RANK-ORDER OF SOFTENER
EFFECT ON WHITENESS OF COTTON TERRY CLOTH
(From least white to most white)
CONTROL
AFTER 1 WASH
S3 1 -12.10 0.52
81 11 -11.62 0.08
82 1 -11.26 0.05
SO - 8.09 0.12
F == 88.82***
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
. 0.31
S3 -17.26
82 1 -16.98 0.36
SI 1 -16.34 0.11
SO 1 -16.01 0.07
F = 10.69***
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
82 -16.86 0.71
S3 -16.83 0.43
SO -16.50 0.39
81 -16.18 0.03
0.97 NS
n
( = no significant difference
77
TABLE 25
RANK-ORDER OF SOFTENER
EFFECT OF WHITENESS ON NYLON
(From least white to most white)
CONTROL
AFTER 1 WASH
SO -1-4.79 0.01
81 1 -f-3.28 0.01
83 I -1-2.97 0.05
82 -1-2.66 0.31
F 71.45***
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
82 -7.65 0.48
S3 -4.64 0.49
Sil -3.33 0.01
sol -2.42 0.04
F 87.48***
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
82 -10.91 0.52
83 - 5.71 0.36
81 - 5.27 0.11
SO - 4.19 0.06
F 165.72***
n
no significant difference
78
was found between the spray softener and wash-cycle softener after 1 and
20 washings.
than those treated with the other two types of softener or no softener
the two newer softeners. Wash-cycle softened specimens were very highly
after 10 washings.
sistent.
.001 level from the other two levels of washing for all three types of
TABLE 26
RANK-ORDER OF SOFTENER
EFFECT ON WHITENESS OF POLYESTER
(From least white to most white)
CONTROL
AFTER 1 WASH
S3 -HO. 07 0.00
SO + 9.94 0.05
81 + 9.79 0.20
82 + 9.06 0.08
F - 35.02**
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
81 -1-10.21 0.29
S3 + 9.93 0.08
SO + 9.52 0.10
82 + 8.46 0.04
F =c 4 5 . 9 9 * * *
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
S3 + 9.70 0.28
SO + 9.70 0.26
81 + 9.19 0.35
82 + 8.34 0.11
11.73*
n
I - no significant difference
80
* * K * a K * * K )C K
K * * K * a 4C *
K K a
4< K a 4<
*O * * * * a a 4C a
o O
o O O
o O o o o o
H CO
o 00
o O vo O o o CM o o
rH
4J
CO CO o as >d- 00 in 1-i St o CO
2621
Pil St CO rH 00
o as m 00 CO m rH
I CN
P4 00 rH
CM
CO
3 vo eg O o 00 o o m CO
cr vO as CO o CJN O rH o St
CO CO m
o CO CN CO CO CM
CTi CM CM CM
C eg CN
CO
cu
CO
CO
MH
w CO CM vo CO eg vo CM CO CM vO CO CM CM
Pt3 Ti
H
r*. pq
M
CU
U u
CM
Qi Qi
CJ
C C c
m
t-i
3
M
CO
00
<U
40
MH
CO
00
(U
u
MH
CO
00
CO
00 40
Qi CO
00
C C c c M-i
c
PQ prJ H
o H
o .H H
o v^
< < X CO X CO XJ x: CO .c
H > CO CO CO CO CO
CO X CO X CO CO X CO
ft. C IS ^ ^ ^ IS
O O CO CO CO
.H CO MH 00 CO M-4 00 M,4 CO MH OO CO M-l CO
CO 4->
M CO u
Qi
o c
H
u
Qi
o c
H
o M
Qi
o .c
H
M
(U
o Qi
4J
CO >-i
C X a U
x: u C M X c M CO
>* CU CU CO Qi Qi CO Qi (U CU CO cu (U O
tA CO 40 X CO 4J CO 40 40
fH > M-l B IS +H '9
B ^
X
B MH
X
B
CO
IS M-l
.O
^
H
rH
O 3 3 3 3
MH CO MH
o o o S a
cu
C CO C MH C CO C MH CO
c
O
o o o Pi
c a c C C C a c c
Qi Qi Qi Qi M Qi
O Qi Qi
u
Qi Qi
<u
Qi CU
CU
CU
CU
<U Qi
U
Qi
(U cu
Qi c
U
<u 3
> IS X IS ^ X IS IS ^ X IS ^ JC
3 M 40 B 40 4J B 4J 40 4-> B 4J 4J 4J
O CU Qi 3 (U 3 Qi 3 Qi
CO
CU
PQ
CU cu PQ
CU .H
PQ PQ S PQ PQ Z PQ PQ Z PQ :2
U3
4J
p O
o rH o
T-i 40
CJ 40
CJ 73 >^ O
H CO U CJ
-l O U
X U Qi u U
CO PQ H Qi Qi
P^ U U
C (3 CO CO
O O CU (U
U U >. O
P iJ rH rH 1-i
O O O
O O PA J3 o
PA
81
TABLE 28
Number
of Washings Mean S.D.
CONTROL
0 +5.94 0.28
NO SOFTENER
1 - 5.96 0.01
10 -15.52 0.17
20 -16.56 0.40
F * 1098.34***
WASH-CYCLE SOFTENER
1 - 8.25 0.18
10 -16.99 0.36
20 -17.18 0.30
F - 702.67***
RINSE-CYCLE SOFTENER
1 - 8.81 0.16
10 -16.71 0.12
20 -16.94 0.14
F - 2057.67***
SPRAY-SOFTENER
1 - 8.67 0.45
10 -16.77 0.45
20 -16.88 0.06
F * 327.61***
n
no significant difference
82
TABLE 29
Number
of Washings Mean S.D.
CONTROL
0 +7.59 0.19
NO SOFTENER
1 - 8.09 0.12
10 -16.01 0.07
20 -16.50 0.39
F * 786.09***
WASH-CYCLE SOFTENER
1 -11.62 0.08
20 -16.18 0.03
10 -16.34 0.11
F 2215.86***
RINSE-CYCLE SOFTENER
1 -11.26 0.05
20 -16.86 0.71
10 -16.98 0.36
F 101.67**
SPRAY-SOFTENER
1 -12.10 0.52
20 1 -16.83 0.43
10 1 -17.26 0.31
F - 88.75**
n
I * no significant difference
83
very highly significantly (p < ,001) different at all wash levels as in-
dicated by the data in Table 30. Specimens after 1 wash were nearer to
absolute white while those which underwent 20 washings had the "bluest"
"0".
ized in Table 31. All wash levels were significantly different for all
softening treatments except the spray softener at the .001 level. All
and 20 launderings all had negative YI values and the most washed speci-
mens were ranked the "bluest". Specimens that underwent 10 and 20 wash-
ings and were treated with the spray softener were ranked homogeneous in
As indicated in Table 32, only the specimens treated with the con-
ings. However, specimens washed once were yellower at the .01 level of
significance.
between the variables fabric softener and number of washings for all
TABLE 30
Number
of Washings Mean S.D.
CONTROL
0 -8.60 0.12
NO SOFTENER
1 -10.13 0.11
10 -13.01 0.16
20 -13.52 0.10
F * 411.12***
WASH-CYCLE SOFTENER
1 -11.02 0.11
10 -13.39 0.02
20 -13.56 .0.30
F * 120.85**
RINSE-CYCLE SOFTENER
1 -10.93 0.50
10 -13.41 0.76
20 -14.31 0.43
18.15*
SPRAY SOFTENER
1 -10.81 0.27
20 -13.66 0.35
10 -13.77 0.63
28.92*
n
I * no significant difference
85
TABLE 31
Number
of Washings Mean S.D.
CONTROL
0 +7.57 0.06
NO SOFTENER
1 + 4.79 0.01
10 - 2.42 0.04
20 - 4.19 0.16
F - 5206.80***
WASH-CYCLE SOFTENER
1 + 3.28 0.01
10 - 3.33 0.01
20 - 5.27 0.11
F * 10395.62***
RINSE-CYCLE SOFTENER
1 + 2.66 0.31
10 - 7.65 0.48
20 -10.91 0.52
F - 507.97***
SPRAY-SOFTENER
1 + 2.97 0.05
10 - 4.64 0.49
20 - 5.71 0.36
F ' 353.93***
n * 2
I * no significant difference
86
TABLE 32
Number
of Washings Mean S.D.
CONTROL
0 +9.75 0.05
NO SOFTENER
1 + 9.94 0.05
20 + 9.70 0.26
10 + 9.52 0.10
3.35 NS
WASH-CYCLE SOFTENER
6 .46 NS
RINSE-CYCLE SOFTENER
1 + 9 .06 0.08
10 + 8 .46 0.04
20 + 8.34 0.11
47.19**
SPRAY-SOFTENER
1 +10.07 0.00
10 + 9.93 0.08
20 + 9.70 0.28
F - 2.31 NS
n
I no significant difference
87
a) increasing absorbency
c) preventing stiffness
d) improving whiteness
a) fabric softener
cling test indicated that the use of the spray-softener were not effec-
tive in ridding nylon of static cling within the limits of the study.
terry cloth specimens significantly softer while the same treatment pro-
cloth from the effect of the other three types of softening treatments.
the more absorbent fabric would exhibit less static cling as the capa-
city to hold moisture would provide a conducting path for the charged
fation.
rejected.
CHAPTER V
cent years in all phases of life. Laundry aids are no exception to the
whether or not many products fail to serve the purpose(s) for which they
the study was two-fold; first, the three types of fabric softener avail-
able to the consumer for home use were evaluated and compared. Second,
washings and yarn direction of fabric. Five fabrics were selected for
89
90
were non-softened.
softener.
in reducing stiffness.
ed.
apparent blueness.
Within the scope of the study, the following conclusions have been
drawn:
tests.
92
ometer.
the dryer.
aids.
LIST OF REFERENCES
2. "A New Abrasion Method for Evaulating the Effect of Cationic Fabric
Softeners," Paper by the Midwest Section, Textile Chemist
and Colorist, 5(2):31-37, 1973.
93
94
15. Harper, R. j., Balanchard, E. J., Lofton, J. T., and Gautreaux,
Gloria A., "Stiffness, An Important Factor in Abrasion Perfor-
mance of Durable-Press Cottons," Textile Research Journal,
17:233-241, 1967. '
16. Harries, Nancy, "An Active Role for Home Economists in Consumer
Affairs," Journal of Home Economics, ^:24-29, 1971.
.21. Koehler, Naomi, "Cationic Softeners for Home Laundry," Home Laundry
Conference Report, pp. 58-62, 1966.
^ 25.'
. Levitt, Benjamin, Oils, Detergents and Maintenance Specialties,
Vols, land 2, Chemical Publishing Co., New York, 1967, pp. 61,
148-156.
26. Linfield, Werner M., et al., "Fabric Treatment with Cationic Soften-
ers," The Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society, 35:590-
593, 1958.
35. Owen, J. D., "The Handle and Drape of Fabrics," The Shirley Link,
Winter 1970/71, pp. 18-21.
37. Pinault, Robert W., "Textile World 1965 Textile Finishes Chart,"
Textile World, jJJi:222-223, 1965.
38. "Sales Spurt Puts New Zip into Fabric Softeners," Chemical Week,
89:36-37, 1961.
40. Schlater, J. D., National Goals and Guidelines for Research in Home
Economics, Association of Administrators of Home Economics,
Michigan State University, 1970, p. 24.
41. Smith, P. Eugene and Mack, Pauline B., What You Should Know About
Laundering and Textiles, Linen Supply Association of America,
Chicago, 1962, as cited by Coldwell (Ref. 7).
48. Taylor, Emily, "New Fabric Softeners That Work in the Dryer,"
Good Housekeeping, April, 1973, p. 158.
58. White, Rose V., "It's the Finish that Counts with Washables," 10th
National Home Laundry Conference-Home Laundry Science and
Progress, American Home Laundry Manufacturers' Association,
Chicago, 1956.
59. "Who Uses What?" Chemical Week, 89^:84, 1961.
97
98
APPENDIX A
Fabric One
100% Cotton
Broadcloth
Fabric Two
100% Cotton
Fabric Three
Fabric Four
100% Nylon
Jersey
Fabric Five
100% Polyester
Doubleknit
APPENDIX B
pH 8.47 7.71
Carbonates 5 0
Calcium 64 59
Magnesium 24 26
TABLE 33
0-5 Soft
10 - 15 Hard
APPENDIX D
TABLE 34
Number
of Washings Softener Treatment
80 81 82 S3
Cotton Broadcloth
Confidence Interval ==+ 1
0 122
1 130 129 126 126
10 133 135 137 135
20 134 132 133 131
0 318
1 336 325 327 340
10 335 357 347 354
20 337 375 341 346
Polyester/Cotton
Confidence Interval * + 7
0 89
1 94 92 93 90
10 94 101 93 95
20 96 96 99 96
Nylon
Confidence Interval = + 1
0 89
1 95 96 96 96
10 97 99 99 101
20 99 102 99 100
106
Table 34 continued
Number
of Washings Softener Treatment
SO 81 82 S3
Polyester
Confidence Interval = 3
0 220
1 232 236 237 231
10 239 258 249 244
20 248 272 247 248