gnaw» 25a ' Effecitiveness and Serviceability i‘ of Four Home - applictdi ' Cotton Fabric Finishes Mud» 1957 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION “ R. D. LEWIS, D | R E c T OR, C LLLL GE S TTTTT N, TEXAS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. The effect 0f four types 0f home-applied finishes on the serviceability 0f 100 white cotton br cloth sport shirts was determined. The finishes were ordinary laundry starch, plastic starch, a lo‘ lasting resin starch and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC). The choice among these finishes depends primarily on the property which seems of greatest ' portance. Each offers slight protection against loss in strength. CMC is the mpst difficult to ap but the easiest to get clean. With home laundering without bleach, starch, plastic and CMC-trea shirts became whiter as laundering increased. The fabric with no finish changed little. The res’ finished shirts becamenoticeably more yellow. Shirts with no finish were most comfortable, but ff ishes improved the appearance. f Shirts were worn 1 day and laundered in the laboratory with an automatic washer and rot ironer. All finishes except resin were renewed at each laundering. Resin was applied before ~- ing and at the 15th and 30th launderings. Swatches of the fabric were given the same finishes and laundered with the shirts to determ'_ the effect of 30 launderings. Additional swatches were laundered and analyzed at intervals of f’ launderings for strength, resistance to abrasion, stiffness, recovery from creasing, color and ease I removing soil. Each of the finishes gave protection against loss of strength by flat abrasion. The average l in the control with no finish was approximately twice as great as for the resin and starch finish Protection by CMC was slightly less than by resin or starch. Of the four finishes, plastic gave the le protection. A An artificial soil was applied to the control and each fabric containing a finish. Based on whit ness of fabric, the most soil was removed in one laundering from the fabric with CMC. The fab with the plastic finish containing CMC had slightly less removed. The fabrics with starch and t control had approximately the same amount removed. Much less soil was removed from the res‘ finished fabric than from any other. a It was difficult to dissolve the CMC and the shirts with CMC stuck to the dryer. The C I treated shirts were the easiest and the control and resin-treated shirts were the most difficult to g clean. The shirts with no finish and with plastic finish were the easiest to iron. " With the exception of the shirts with no finish and with resin, which were the most difficult get clean, all worn shirts were whiter than originally. The resin-finished shirts were the yellow _y and the plastic the whitest after wear. The differences between finishes in yellowness were usu great. The finishes were given an overall rating on the basis of laboratory tests and opinions of the w ers. ' GENERAL RATINGS OF HOME-APPLIED COTTON FABRIC FINISHES Finish and rating Property 1 z 3 4 I 5 i a —-— -- — — — — — — Laboratory — — — — — —- —‘ — Strength added Resin CMC Starch None and plastic Strength retention Resin I Plastic Starch and CMC None Recovery from creasing None Plastic Resin CMC Starch Stiffness Resin Starch CMC Plastic None Cellulose deterioration Plastic None CMC and starch Resin Whiteness Plastic CMC Starch None Resin Soil removed CMC Plastic None ' Starch Resin Ease of application None Plastic Resin Starch CMC Ease of ironing None Plastic Starch CMC Resin Visible wear CMC Plastic Starch None Resin — — — — — — — Wearers’ preference -'— —— -— -- -— — — Overall Plastic CMC None ' Starch Resin Comfort Plastic None CMC Starch Resin Appearance CMC Starch and resin Plastic None Clean longest CMC Starch Resin Plastic None EFFORT TO IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE, CRISP- s, soil resistance or other desirable qualities i. 0n garments, the homemaker often applies _ 'sh during the laundryprocess. ntil recently, the only finish available was fry starch. Now every grocery also stocks a per of other finishes. The homemaker needs ” ation as to the relative value of various _f_ es, ease of application, ease of soil removal, u‘ of ironing, comfort, appearance and effect .1 life of the garment. , é‘ o obtain information that would be helpful y; homemaker, the effects on the serviceability rments by four types of finish which can pplied in home laundering have been de- ined. PLAN OF STUDY w laboratory evaluation was made of cotton dcloth treated with home-applied finishes. l. physical characteristics of the fabric were [rmined before and after treatment with hes and after the finished fabric had been dered a specified number of times. The sical characteristics measured were breaking ngth, color, resistance to abrasion, stiffness, kle recovery and cellulose degradation. "Since there is no laboratory test method that z simulate actual Wear, the fabric was made 1 e-applied finishes was determined by a p listic wear test. Men’s shirts are particularly sfactory for serviceability studies. They are ong the garments the homemaker often _ rches.” They undergo hard wear and frequent ndering. Sizes and styles are standardized. ,e choice of sport shirts in a medium size made sible the rotation of shirts among men who re this size, thus minimizing the effects of differences such as body build, quantity quality of perspiration and activity of the rers. 5 One hundred. White broadcloth shirts of dium size were ,o!rn by 15 men. The shirts re divided into .;0"sets of five shirts each. ch set of five shirts contained a control with I finish, and four shirts, each with a different ish. The sets were rotated among the men, spectively, professor and former technician, Depart- nt of Home Economics. i» sport shirts and the serviceability of the" "Effectii/eneifs and Sem/icea bility of Four Home-app lied Cotton Fa brie Final/oer MARY ANNA GRIMES and CAROLYN A. WERMAN’? worn 1 day between launderings and Were laundered in the laboratory. Before the shirts were worn and at the close of the wearing period the shirts were subjected to physical and chemical tests to determine the effect of each finish on strength, color, cellulose degradation and other properties. At intervals throughout the study, the men who Wore the shirts recorded their opinions of each finish as to appearance, comfort, wrinkling and their overall preference. Analyses were made of ‘the effect of finishes on swatches before laundering and after selected intervals of laundering, and the effect of finishes CONTENTS Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Plan of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Materials Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Finishes and Their Application . . . . . . . . . 4 Resin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Starch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Plastic Starch . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Carboxymethyl Cellulose . . . . . . . . . . . . , 4 Laundry Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Effect of Finishes on Swatches . . . . . . . . . . 5 Breaking Strength . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Flat Abrasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Flex Abrasion . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Drape Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . 7 Crease Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Soil Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Wearers of Shirts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 8 Preferences of Wearers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Ease of Laundering Shirts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Effect of Finish on Shirts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Visible Wear . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Breaking Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Yellowness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Cellulose Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l0 Weight of Shirts . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ll Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .. ll Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll on shirts which underwent both laundering and wear. Two sets of swatches were included. One set was laundered alone, with some swatches removed at intervals of 5 launderings through 30 launderings, Tables 1 to 6. The other set of swatches was laundered with the shirts, Table 7. MATERIALS USED Sufficient yardage of white broadcloth to make more than 100 sport shirts for men was available from a previous study (4). The use of this broadcloth, which had been analyzed pre- viously, eliminated many analyses which other- wise would have been necessary. The broadcloth was made of carded 36s yarns for warp and filling. The yarns per inch were 122 in the warp and 58 in the filling. The broadcloth weighed 3.6 ounces per square yard. By the raveled-strip method, the strength of the warp was 60 pounds and the filling 24 pounds. By the grab method, the warp strength was 72 pounds and the filling was 28 pounds. The sport shirts were made by a Texas shirt manufacturer. Each shirt had short sleeves, a convertible collar and one pocket with a pencil division. a Ordinary laundry starch, a plastic starch con- taining carboxymethyl cellulose, a “resin long- lasting starch” and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) were the finishes used. A con- trol with no finish was included. These finishes are listed hereafter as starch, plastic, resin, CMC and none or control. FINISHES AND THEIR APPLICATION Eight finishes were ordered from manu- facturers or purchased locally and tested at various concentrations before a selection was made of the finishes to be used in the study. Three of the four finishes chosen, starch, plastic and resin, were representative of the finishes available to the housewife. Carboxy- methyl cellulose usually is not available as such in grocery stores, but it is found in combination with other finishes. CMC was included because it aids in soil removal and adds stiffness to fabrics, and it seemed advisable to determine its value when used alone in home laundering. All swatches and shirts were washed and spun dry in an automatic washer; each finish was applied to the wet fabric immediately after spin drying. Since the housewife usually follows the in- structions given on the container, the concentra- tion of. the finish, where found suitable, was that recommended by each manufacturer for medium stiffness. Recommendations for light starching were followed for starch as the concentration re- commended for medium stiffness made the fabric too stiff in preliminary tests. Approximately 6 quarts of a finish solution were used for five shirts which were treated 4 of laundering. The finish was applied before t simultaneously in the solution. The shirts we immersed in the solution, were turned and t { solution squeezed through the fabric for 5 minu =_ to obtain uniform saturation. The shirts an the finish solution were then put in the automat washer set at spin dry and spun through th cycle. They were dried in an electric dryer set .- a temperature for cotton and; dried to the prop dampness for ironing, approximately 20 minute If the shirts were not ironed immediately, th were put in plastic bags and stored in t a refrigerator until ironed. Swatches were di tributed among the shirts according to finish a -. were laundered and finished with the shirts. » g Resin The “long-lasting resin starch” was boug in pint glass bottles. It is a milky fluid with Whi solids settled to the bottom of the bottle. Instru tions are given to shake well. It has a slight b not disagreeable odor which disappeared Wh ironed. Instructions advised renewal of the fini, after 3 to 6 months, depending on the frequen shirts were put into service and after 15 and '1 launderings. . The proportions used were one part finish four parts of cold water. For five shirts, 5 cu of the finish were.mixed with 20 cups of co water. . Starch The starch was purchased in cardboard pac ages each weighing 1%, pounds. > The manufacture’s recommendation of 1 tabl spoon of starch to 1 quart of water for lig starching was followed. The starch solution co tained 48 grams, approximately 6 tablespoo -_ of starch and 6 quarts of water. The starch mixed with 1 pint of cold water, then added 2 quarts of boiling water. This solution W diluted with 31/2 quarts of cold water. The fini was applied to the swatches and shirts after ea laundering. Plastic Starch The plastic starch is a thick, gelatinous liqui The large quantity used was purchased in a drut but it is sold retail in bottles. A The proportion of plastic starch to water W 1 to 6. For this solution, 31/2 cups of the fini were added to 12 cups of hot water and th diluted and cooled for handling by the addition 9 cups of cold water. ‘ The plastic finish has a slight but not did agreeable odor which disappeared when iron The finish was renewed at each laundering. Carboxymethyl Cellulose The CMC was medium in viscosity. The fini was prepared by dissolving 57 grams of t powder in 6 quarts of hot water. It is difficult i get, this finish into solution. It _ first -forms I s mass. After preliminary trials, a satis- isolution was obtained by adding the Vot Water, stirring for a few minutes and e mixture stand overnight before ap- " finish to the shirts. ‘When time did not e overnight treatment, more stirring was Uolution of CMC is faintly‘ yellow, odorless fa sticky, gelatinous feel. The shirts and = were finished each laundering with LAUNDRY METHODS in five sets of soiled shirts had been re- g 1 the laboratory, they were sorted accord- 1111811. ‘l! shirt Was examined for signs of wear, and badly soiled spots. Stains were identi- yen possible and the stain remover for that Applied. Materials used in removing stains potassium permanganate, oxalic acid, i, carbon tetrachloride and turpentine. soiled spots were soaped and rubbed be- ‘the hands or scrubbed with a soft brush. 31g was done as needed. shirts of the same finish with three f nding swatches were washed at one time iutomatic washer of the agitator type. The ature of the water was 160° Fi2°. Bleach uing were not used. Fifty grams, approxi- one-fourth cup, of All, a low sudsing built dent were added per load. No water softener i sed since the water was soft. The full _ cycle, approximately 25 minutes, was I en the shirt and swatches were spun dry, propriate finish was applied and they were _~ previously described. To prevent mildew- e damp shirts were put in plastic bags and 1 in the refrigerator until ironed which usu- the following day. 1e shirts and swatches were ironed with a y, ironer, placed on hangers and arranged its for easy distribution. ‘EFFECT 01-" FINISHES ON SWATCHES atches of broadcloth were laundered and "ed 30 times. The starch, plastic and CMC es were applied at each laundering, but the was applied initially and at the 15th and h launderings. g Strength etermination of strength of the swatches was ~ when the finish was applied and after _' als of 5 laundgerings through 30 launderings. ‘iravelled-strip method was used. An average t breaks was considered the strength of that C. ’ he warp breaking strength of the swatches the various finishes at intervals of five werings are given in Table 1. O IO 2O TABLE l. WARP BREAKING STRENGTH OF SWATCHES IN POUNDS PER INCH Finishes No. of No laundermgs finish Resin Starch Plastic CMC Average Initial‘ 62 66 63 62 65 64 5 63 65 64 6U 65 63 1U 67 63 62 63 65 64 1s s2 ea s1 s4 s5 2U 6U 68 63 62 6U I 63 25 6U 64 64 62 6U 62 3U 64 63 61 61 57 61 Average 62 66 64 62 62 ‘Laundered and finish first applied. iBefore finish was renewed. “Finish renewed. The effect of the application of each finish on the strength of the warp is shown in Figure 1. The application of the resin and CMC finishes increased the strength of the warp over the con- trol. The starch and plastic finishes did not differ significantly from the control. Resin and starch increased the filling strength above the control, plastic and CMC finishes. After 30 launderings, the fabric with no finish was the strongest in the warp direction; but resin was nearly as strong. Plastic and starch were slightly weaker and the CMC was the weakest. Although initially the filling strength of the resin- treated fabric was slightly stronger than for the AFTER 3O LAUNDERINGS WITH WEAR AFTER 3O LAUNDERINGS WITHOUT WEAR AFTER APPLICATION OF FINISH ORIGINAL 5O 6O 7O 3O 4O POUNDS Figure 1. Effect of finish, laundering and wear on breaking strength of warp. 5 TABLE 2. STRENGTH LOST BY FLAT ABRASION WITH TABER ABRASER. 150 CYCLES. ABRADED FAB- RIC COMPARED WITH UNABRADED FABRIC LAUNDERED THE SAME NUMBER OF TIMES N°- °_i Percentage of strength lost launderings before No abrasion finish Initial‘ 33.0 20.6 22.2 27.2 35.7 27.7 5 26.4 17.8 15.5 27.2 21.8 21.7 10 33.2 17.0 10.5 25.4 17.4 20.7 Resin Starch Plastic CMC Average 21 62 15 28.0 9 43 . 18.6 8.6 6.0 16.6 20 7.9 7.8 4.0 10.3 8.3 7.7 25 12.9 3.8 11.4 11.4 5.0 8.9 30 15.5 3.7 .9 12.1 2.7 7.0 Average 22.4 12.7 11.9 17.4 13.8 ‘Laundered and finish first applied. “Before finish was renewed. “Finish renewed. fabrics with other finishes, there was little dif- ference among the finishes after 30 launderings. Thirty launderings (without wear) did not change the breaking strength of the fabric an appreciable amount. A comparison of the strength of the original fabric with the control shows that there Was considerable increase in strength which undoubtedly was caused by shrinkage. The average strength for all launderings was the greatest for the resin and starch finishes, and was the same for the control, plastic and CMC finishes. In some cases, there was an increase in strength through the 10th and 15th launderings which probably was caused by shrinkage. Shrink- age of the broadcloth was not complete at the first laundering (4). Comparison among th e various finishes showed that with the exception of the plastic fin- ish there was a slight increase in strength at the first laundering over that of the control. Each application of the resin finish increased the strength which then decreased as launderings increased. Thus, the strength at the 1st and 15th launderings was greater than at other intervals. After the 30th laundering, before renewal of the finish, the strength of the resin-finished fabric differed little from that of the control. TABLE 3. STRENGTH LOST BY FLEX ABRASION-STOLL. 30 CYCLES. ABRADED FABRIC COMPARED WITH UNABRADED FABRIC LAUNDERED THE SAME NUMBER OF TIMES » N°- °_l Percentage of strength lost launderings before No abrasion finish Initial‘ 15.2 35.6 35.2 15.7 19.9 24.3 5 47.6 42.6 39.7 49.1 37.8 43.4 Resin Starch Plastic CMC Average 10 40.1 24.6 42.5 41.5 56.6 42.4 2 15 66.2 46.2 46.6 40.6 42.5 20 66.0 45.6 65.2 40.6 46.4 41.6 25 45.0 40.6 46.6 65.4 46.6 46.5 60 46.2 66.1 66.6 66.1 66.4 66.6 Average 38.0 38.9 40.8 43.9 41.0 lLaundered and finish first applied. ’Before renewal of finish. “Finish renewed. 6 " Paired comparisons made between finishes i the swatches showed that the resin finish W significantly stronger than all but the stare The starch was significantly stronger than th plastic finish. Analysis of the average strengt (Table 1) showed that differences were signifi cant at the .05 level between resin and contr and between starch andgpiastic finishes. Th differences were significanflat the .01 level -i tween resin and plastic and between. resin an CMC. I Flat Abrasion Flat abrasion determinations were made o a Taber Abraser using calibrated CS-10 whee with 500 grams of pressure, and the powerst regulator controlling vacuum pickup set at 3 The same two wheels were used throughout an were resurfaced after each sample was abrade A 6-inch square of fabric was abraded 150 cycl From each of five abraded squares, two strip each three-fourths of an inch wide, were cut fro i the abraded portion in the warp direction an . raveled to one-half inch. The strips were brok on a Scott tester with jaws set 3 inches apa The loss in strength is the difference in stren . between the unabraded and abraded portions u‘ the same samples expressed as percentage of t strength of the unabraded portion of the fab for each laundry period. The losses in stren are given for the various laundry periods i Table 2. There was greater loss in strength in the ear laundry periods from the 1st through the h or 15th, than in later periods. Apparently, each i the finishes gave protection from flat abrasio since the fabrics with finishes lost less stren I than the control. Renewal of the resin fini apparently increased the resistance to abrasio Less protection was given by the plastic th by the other finishes. 3 Analysis of variance showed significant did ferences at the .01 level among finishes and al among laundry periods. . Flex Abrasion The effect of flex abrasion on the fabrics y determined with the Stoll Weartester. The p‘ on the flexing bar was 3 pounds, and the load __o the pressure plate was 11/2 pounds. The sampl were flexed 30 times. Tests were made in t, warp direction. Strips 15 inches long and 1 inches wide were raveled to a width of 1 in Q This length of fabric permitted determination ‘ the strength of an unflexed and flexed portion the same specimen. The abraded portion placed midway between the jaws of the breaki strength instrument. The difference between ._ strength of the unabraded and abraded portio of the fabric was expressed as a percentage a the unabraded portion. The loss in strength given in Table 3. a Analysis of variance showed no significant d' ference among finishes but a highly significa i‘ 4. DRAPE STIFFNESS EXPRESSED IN INCHES Finishes itgs 5123b Resin Starch Plastic CMC Average .999 2.005 1.292 .945 1.495 1.915 i .970 1.459 1.725. 1.025 1.990 1.942 .990 1.912 1.990 _ 1.190 2.012 1.445 .2 .950 1.955 1.200 1.790 1.995 .999 2.002 1.952 1.240 1.775 1.591 .992 1.990 1.992 1.245 1.700 1.594 , .910 1.795 1.702 1.190 »1.910 1.499 .904 1.921 1.749 1.199 1.744 ‘,1 5a and 111.191. first applied. newal ot finish. newed. ‘ce among laundry periods in loss in h caused by flex abrasion. The renewal of V'n finish increased the loss in strength by . The finishes apparently gave no protec- ‘ainst loss in strength by flex abrasion. ..~*Stillness~ _- stiffness given to the fabric by each l, was measured by the cantilever bending '1 Peirce formula (2). Ten warp specimen . inch wide and 6 inches long were used 1 h finish. The bending length was the of the specimen which extended beyond Ftform when the free end of the specimen to the 43° slope when viewed parallel to 1' rface of the slope. Half of the bending ; is called drape stiffness. The higher the r, the stiffer the fabric. Drape stiffness rted in Table 4. f resin finish gave the greatest stiffness i rch and CMC nearly as stiff. The plastic .Was somewhat less stiff and the control ipproximately half the stiffness of the s. The difference among the finishes in stiffness was highly significant. The dif- among launderings was not significant. I Recovery "c. crease or wrinkle recovery of the fabrics easured with the Monsanto Wrinkle Re- g. tester (2). A weight of 11/; pounds was on the platform of the specimen holder g the creased fabric and was allowed to 5. PERCENTAGE OF RECOVERY FROM CREASING . Finishes i No _ ' . . Resin Starch Plastic CMC Average finish 95 90 27 99 29 92 99 99 25 91 91 91 95 99 24 90 29 90 94 29 92 29 29 99 2922' *' 29 29 29 29 99 27 ’ 19 92 25 27 94 92 . 25 91 27 90 age 94 90 24 92 29 remain for 5 minutes. The extent to which the fabric recovered from the crease when placed in the tester disk was measured in degrees. The crease recovery was calculated as follows: scale reading (°) Crease recovery, % I >< 100 180° The averages of 10 warp specimen, cut 1.5 by 4 centimeters, were used for the control and each finished fabric, Table 5. In general, the recovery from the crease was slightly greater at the earlier than at the later launderings. The control with no finish had the greatest crease recovery, doubtless because it was the least stiff of the fabrics. Ranked in order of greatest crease recovery are none, plastic, resin, CMC and starch. In general, the less stiff the fabric, the better the crease recovery. Variance analysis showed highly significant differences, both among finishes and among laundry periods. Color The whiteness or light reflectance of the swatches before and after the finishes were applied and at intervals of five launderings was measured with a Hunter Multipurpose Reflecto- meter using a green filter and white enamel standard with reflectance of 82.9 (3). The re- flectance for each finish is given in Table 6. In general, the fabric became whiter as the launderings increased. The differences in white- ness among launderings were significant at the .01 level. Although the differences between averages for the finishes appear small, there were significant differences at the .01 level in reflect- ance attributable to finish. When the finishes were applied, the swatch with the plastic finish was slightly whiter and the control was slightly darker than the other swatches, but after the 30th laundering, the control and the swatch with the plastic finish were the whitest. Soil Removal Two strips of fabric, 6 by 18 inches, were cut from each finished swatch for each 5th laundry period, beginning with the first appli- cation of the finish and continuing through the TABLE 6. REFLECTANCE OF FINISHED SWATCHES‘ Finishes No. of launderings fillligh Resin Starch Plastic CMC Average Initial” 81.3 81.6 81.5 81.8 81.4 81.5 5 82.6 82.5 81.4 82.6 82.7 82.4 10 82.8 82.8 82.0 83.1 82.5 82.6 15 82.8 82.43 82.2 83.0 82.4 82.6 20 83.2 82.5 81.5 83.1 82.7 82.6 25* 82.7 82.4 82.0 82.6 82.5 82.4 30 83.5 82.5 82.2 83.3 82.7 82.8 Average 82.7 82.4 81.8 82.8 82.4 I red and finish first applied. ~ "renewal ot finish. newal o1 finish. ‘Green filter. white enamel reflectance standard 82.9. zLaundered and finish first applied. “Finish renewed. 30th laundering. Each 0f these strips was soiled in a mixture of 25 grams of Oildag, 40_grams of Crisco and 2 liters of carbon tetrachloride. The effect of the finish on soil removal was determined by comparing the light reflectance of the fabric before soiling, after soiling and the soiled fabric after laundering. Light reflectance was measured with a Hunter Multipurpose Re- flectometer (3). A green filter was used and a white enamel standard with reflectance of 82.9. Five readings were taken for each strip, a total of 1O readings for each sample. The soiled samples were washed in the auto- matic washer run through the full cycle. Hot water and 50 grams of detergent were used. Load cloths were added to bring the load to 5 pounds. I The samples were ironed with the rotary ironer. Reflectometer readings were made of the un- soiled fabric, the soiled fabric and the soiled fabric after laundering. The percentage of soil removed was calculated as follows: W—U O — U Where W is reflectance of washed soiled sample, U is reflectance of unwashed soiled sample and O is reflectance of original fabric. 9/0 soil removed I >< 100 The percentages of soil removed for fabrics with each finish at the various laundry periods are shown in Figure 2. There were wide differences among finishes in the average amount of soil removed. An average o1’ 55 percent of the soil was removed from the fabric with CMC, but only 22 percent from the fabric with the resin finish. There Was approxi- mately the same percentage of soil removed from the starched fabric and the control, 36 and 37 ~- percent, respectively. 70" CMC PLASTIC ' NO FiNlSH STARCH ‘ SOIL REMOVED, PERCENT J5 U! O O 3O ‘ RESIN 2O ' l5 ' ¢? 6‘ | | l l I l (I O 5 l0 l5 2O 25 3Q NUMBER OF LAUNDERINGS BEFORE SOILING Figure 2. Percentage oi soil removed from each finished fabric. 8 "The, plastic finish had a higher percenta of soil removed than all but the CMC finish. F ease of removing soil, CMC ranks first, followed order by plastic, no finish, starch and resin. q differences among finishes were highly signi cant. The least difference was between the co? trol and starch. As launderings of the swatch increased, more soil was remqwed from the CM finished fabric and less from the resin; but the was little difference in the other fabrics- ’ WEARERS OF SHIRTS Most of the men wearing the shirts agronomists who, during the summer in additl to office work, carried on more strenuo activities in the field such as driving trucks r harvesting test plots. Therefore, the shirts we subjected to hard service. Most of the 15 men who began wearing t shirts the first summer continued to Wear th the second and third summers. However, so of the men moved away and a few substitutio. were necessary. ‘» The men were 29 to 62 years of age, 136 184 pounds in weight and 5 feet 3 inches to 6 fl 3 inches in height. The average age was 38 yea average height 5 feet 10 inches and avera weight 162 pounds. A medium-size shirt W satisfactory for these men. PREFERENCES OF WEARERS The shirts were distributed among the m May 1, 1953 and the last ones were returned A August 1955. Because they were sport shirts, th were worn only during the summer. ‘A When the men were given the shirts, and intervals thereafter, they were given check she to report their preferences, opinions and co ments. For example, they were asked which, any, shirts stayed fresh longer, if any shirt W uncomfortable and why, which shirt looked b‘ wilted soonest, wrinkled most and was most c0 i fortable. They also were asked to give th overall preference, taking into account all p perties. A system was devised whereby the shi received a score in relation to the overall n ference rating. Scores for each shirt were add and the total for all shirts was considered 1f percent. The percentage of the total for - p shirt was calculated. On this basis, the men ga. the shirts with the plastic finish the highest sco, 26 percent. Those with CMC and the cont L received approximately equal ratings, 21 and f percent. The shirts with the starch and res finishes were liked the least, with scores of _ and 16 percent. -» The wearers thought the shirts with C i stayed clean and fresh longest. The starch fini was second and the resin third. The shirts wi the resin finish were the least comfortable, f lowed by starch. The wearers said the shi- ‘sin and starch were stiffer and sometimes i: the wearer’s neck. The resin was least able the first few wearings after the EWas applied, but as the finish was removed ndering, the shirts became more com- e. _' shirts with the plastic finish were the gomfortable, with the control second. The '-~with a CMC finish had the best appearance. and resin-finished shirts were approxi- equal in appearance, but were judged much ~ ractive than the CMC-finished shirts. The {ls with no added finish wilted quicker and __ ed more than the shirts with finishes. summary of the desirable and undesirable ;. es given individually for each property ;= finish showed that the men preferred nishes in the following order: CMC, plastic, h, starch and no finish. For appearance, they 3 red a finish added to the shirt, although I irts with no finish or a finish that added jistiffness were thought more comfortable. of the men were inconsistent in their rat- -. Some wearers gave more importance to prt and others to appearance. EASE OF LAUNDERING SHIRTS e three people who did the laundering w on the ease of preparing and applying es, and on the relative ease of soil removal _ oning of the shirts with the various finishes. it solutions of plastic and resin were most ' prepared, followed by starch. The CMC required the most time to prepare since ,1 difficult to get the powder into a solution lumps remained to stick to the fabric. MC-treated shirts were the easiest and the a treated the most difficult to get clean. The _ finish, which contains some CMC, was to the CMC in ease of cleaning. The shirts , ed with starch were only slightly easier to i‘ clean than the controls. f ll shirts were dried without difficulty in Wryer except the CMC-treated shirts. These _: stuck badly in the first part of the drying e and had to be pulled away from the lining 1e dryer to prevent sticking and scorching. Strength, pounds The controls and the plastic-finished shirts were the easiest to iron, followed by starch, CMC and resin-finished shirts in that order. EFFECT OF FINISH ON SHIRTS After 30 wear and laundry periods, the shirts were removed from service and analyzed for the effect of each finish on visible wear, strength, color and degradation of cellulose. Visible Wear . Two observers examined each shirt for signs of wear at the end of the wearing period. Each set of five shirts was ranked in order of wear and a summary was made of the 20 sets. The points of greatest wear were the fold. of the collar and the hem in the sleeve. The shirts finished with CMC were judged the least worn, followed in order by plastic, starch, tlte control and the resin-finished shirts. The differences were slight between the shirts with no finish and those with the resin finish. Breaking Strength Strips for determining the breaking strength of each shirt were taken from the back of the shirt just below the yoke. An average of 10 breaks each for the warp and for the filling was considered the strength of that shirt. Table 7 gives the average strength of the warp and of the filling for the worn shirts and for the corresponding swatches which were laundered with the shirts, and the percentage losses in strength caused by wear and by wear and launder- ing. The t values for the warp of the worn shirts show that the differences in strength between the control and resin finish, and between the control and plastic are significant at the .10 level. In each of these cases, the control was weaker than the finished shirt after 30 wear and laundry periods. The t values for the f ‘lling of the worn shirts show differences significant at the .01 level be- tween 4 of the 10 possible paired comparisons. The resin-finished fabrics were stronger than the control, starch, plastic and CMC-finished TABLE 7. LOSS IN STRENGTH CAUSED BY WEAR AND LOSS CAUSED BY WEAR AND LAUNDERING Loss. percent - _hes Initial After 30 launderings C d b 1 Caused by wear i’ Swatches Shirts Swatches “use Y wear and launderings“ Warp Filling Warp Filling Warp Filling Warp Filling Warp Filling 62.2 25.6 36.9 17.1 57.2 31.9 35.5 46.4 40.7 33.2 64.9 31.0 39.3 19.6 59.3 34.1 33.7 42.5 39.4 36.8 62.5 27.3 38.6 17.8 59.9 32.0 35.6 44.4 38.2 34.8 58.3 ‘25.2 38.7 17.6 56.2 31.0 31.1 43.2 33.6 30.2 60.3 *1 24.9 38.2 17.6 g 58.3 32.1 34.5 45.2 36.6 29.3 it es. 30 launderings — shirts. 30 launderings Swatches. 30 launderings >< 100 r es. initial — shirts, 30 launderings V m0 1 Swatches. initial A shirts. In comparisons, where resin was not in- cluded, the differences were not significant. On the basis of the strength of the swatches when the finish was first applied and before wear, the loss in strength of the warp after 30 wear and laundry periods was approximately 41 percent for the control, 39 percent for resin, 38 percent for starch, 34 percent for plastic and 37 percent for the CMC finish. The effect of wear on strength and the com- bined effect of wear and laundering were cal- culated. The resin and plastic-finished fabrics lost slightly less strength than the other finishes and the control. The loss in strength caused by wear was greater in the filling than in the warp. However, the loss caused by wear and laundering was greater in the warp than in the filling. This difference was evidently caused by shrinkage be- cause the initial strength of the filling of the swatches was from 25 to 31 pounds but after 30 launderings the strength was from 31 to 34 pounds. Such a gain in strength during launder- ing was reported in a previous study (4). Much greater loss in strength was caused by wear than by home laundering, Figure 1. Yellowness After 30 wear and laundering periods, each shirt was analyzed for changes in yellowness from the original. Amber, green and blue filters provided with the Hunter Reflectometer, were used and the yellowness calculated by subtracting the reflectance with the blue filter from that with the amber filter and dividing by the reflectance with the green filter and multiplying by 100 (3). The yellowness of the swatches after 30 launder- ings was determined in the same way. The data for the worn shirts and laundered swatches are given in Figure 3. ____QM€?_____ PLASTiQ T RESIN NO FINISH ORIGINAL SWATCHES 3 4 5 6 7 INDEX 0 I 2 Figure 3. Yellowness of swatches and shirts after 3O launderings. IO * shirts whiter than the swatches. " The yellowness of the original fabric witho finish was 4.84. All fabrics with numbers abo 4.84 were more yellow and those below we, whiter than the original. After 30 wear and laundry periods for * shirts, the “control was slightly more yellow t w: the original fabric. The retention of whiten was 98 percent. The shirtsfirwith starch, plas, and CMC finishes were less yellow and the res more yellow than the original. The t Values f each pair of finishes are highly significant wi two exceptions-between the control and star where the t value is significant at the .10 and between the plastic and CMC where t difference is significant at the .05 level. Ranked in order from the least to the ~- yellow, for both the shirts and the swatches, a plastic, CMC, starch, control and resin. The swatches were more yellow than é shirts with the same finish. It may be that i’ use of additional soap for badly soiled shirts Q bleaching by sunlight during wear made t Cellulose Degradation The extent to which the cellulose of t, swatches and shirts underwent degradation w measured by fluidity determinations. T, cupriethylene diamine method was used (1). The fluidity for the original fabric, the finis ed fabric, the swatches laundered 30 times c_ the shirts for 30 wear and laundry periods a, given in Table 8. * The addition of the finishes made only slig differences in the fluidity from that of the fab which had no finish. The greatest change occu red in the resin-finished fabric. ‘ There were only slight differences betW the fluidities of the swatches before launderi and after 30 launderings, with one exceptio The fabric with CMC had a higher fluidity af . 30 launderings then before laundering. . The worn shirts had fluidities approximate four times as high as the swatches which we laundered only. The highest fluidity was for t resin-finished shirts and the lowest for the plasti finished shirts. - 1 All but the plastic-finished shirts we significantly more degraded than the cont i TABLE 8. FLUIDITY OF SWATCHES AND SHIRTS No Item finish Resin Starch Plastic CM, Rhes New, original fabric 3.80 ’ Finish applied _ l and ironed 3.68 3.92 3.72 3.57 3. Swatches laundered a 3O times i - 3.58 3.99 3.66 3.73 4.1. Shirts worn and laundered 3O times 15.07 16.51 16.06 13.82 16 '- control was significantly more de- ;- n the plastic. The differences were significant for 7 of the 10 possible parisons. The shirts with the CMC f» e more degraded than those with the dish. There were no significant differ- _een the resin and starch, resin and w rch and CMC. i'dity data in Table s ShOW that launder- fFhad little effect on the cellulose and that s e degradation of the worn shirts was __ ywear. i Shirts \_ eight of broadcloth in ounces per square determined pefore and after the first n of each’ finish. The addition of the h‘. CMC finishes did not change signifi- fe weight of the fabric. Both starch and it eased the weight. ieffect of added finishes on changes in ‘_ ter 30 wear and laundry periods was ied by comparing the original weight of f without finish and of the shirts after controls lost an average of 6.4 percent f. during wear. The worn shirts with l ishes weighed more than the worn con- s! 1*.’ trols. The differences between the worn con- trols and worn shirts with finishes was 6.5 per- cent for the shirts with the resin finish, 5.4 percent for the starch, 1.6 percent for the plastic and 2.5 percent for the CMC. Thus, when the shirts were worn out, those with resin finish were the heaviest, followed in order by starch, CMC, plastic and no finish. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are grateful to Ivy Lee Beene, Sue M. Newman and Helen F. Darling who assisted in the laboratory work and to the men who Wore the shirts and kept records. LITERATURE CITED ' 1. American Society for Testing Materials. A.S.T.M. Standards on Textile Materials, Oct. 1951. A.S.T.M. Philadelphia, Pa. 2. Federal Specification. Textile Test Methods. CCC-T- 191b May 1951. General Services Administration. Washington 25, D.C. 3. Gardner Laboratory Inc. Description and Instructions. The Gardner Multipurpose Reflectometer. Gardner Laboratory Inc. 4723 Elm St., Bethesda 14, Md. 4. Grimes, Mary Anna and Werman, Carolyn A. Service- " ' ability of Shirts Made from Cotton of Two Varieties, Regions and Seasons of Growth. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Bulletin 804. April 1955. ll > i" " v . a , State-wide Research The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station , is the public agricultural research agency oi the State oi Texas. and is one oi nine Location oi iield research units in Texas main- i'db'lhT 14-1112": = siiiiion aliad foopzirigtsing “£21522 xperlmen parts oi the Texas AtSM College System t IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 subject-matter departments, 2 se departments, 3 regulatory services and the administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural ar of Texas are 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are -14 cooperating stations ow J by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the Texas Forest Service, Game and Fish Commission g Texas, Texas Prison System, U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technological Q lege and the King Ranch. Some experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural homes. ,> RESEARCH BY THE TEXAS STATION is organized by programs and projects. A program of research rep sents a coordinated effort to solve the many problems relating to a common objective or situation. A search project represents the procedures for attacking a specific problem within a program. THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 550 active research projects, grouped in 25 programs which clude all phases of agriculture in Texas. Among these are: conservation and improvement of soils; cf servation and use of water in agriculture; grasses and legumes for pastures, ranges, hay, conservation - improvement of soils; grain crops; cotton and other fiber crops; vegetable crops; citrus and other subtro cal fruits, fruits and nuts; oil, seed crops—other than cotton; ornamental plants—including turf; brush f‘ weeds; insects; plant diseases; beef cattle; dairy cattle; sheep and goats; swine; chickens and turkeys; A mal disease and parasites; fish and game on farms and ranches; farm and ranch engineering; farm .» ranch business; marketing agricultural products; rural home economics; and rural agricultural econo |_ Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central services. RESEARCH RESULTS arepcarried to Texas farm and ranch owners and homemakers by specialists and co t agents of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service. ‘l