The Evaluation of Three Types of Fabric Softener PDF

THE EVALUATION OF THREE TYPES OF FABRIC SOFTENER
by
ANNE REIDA TICKEL, B.S.
A THESIS
IN
CLOTHING AND TEXTILES
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN HOME ECONOMICS
Approved
Accepted
/D*an of thê/Graduatyfe School
August, 1974
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
dop. ?
It is difficult to express adequately my deep appreciation to the
many individuals whose assistance made the study an accomplishment.
Foremost, I wish to thank my committee: Dr. Robert G. Steadman, Chair-
man, for providing guidance, interest, and the prodding challenge that
prompted my pursuing the study; Dr. Norma E. Walker who consistently
lent moral support and advice and whose unfailing energy and profes-
sionalism served as an inspiration; and Mrs. Martha Logan who contri-
buted richly with her enthusiasm, research materials, and suggestions.
To the committee as a whole, I convey my gratitude for their continued
encouragement, optimism, infinite patience and confidence in my capa-
bilities.
I am indebted to the personnel at the Textile Research Center
Texas Tech University, for their aid and willingness to permit me to
use their laboratory facilities. I particularly wish to thank Mr. Bob
Wyatt who gave so generously of his time. Last, the statistical
counselling rendered by Mr. Jack Tubbs is gratefully acknowledged.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS "
LIST OF TABLES vi
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study 4
Objectives 4
Hypotheses 5
Justification for the Study 5
Definition of Terms 6
Scope and Limitations 8
Basic Assumptions 9
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10
Development of Fabric Softeners 10
V Types of Fabric Softeners 13
Composition of Fabric Softeners 15
V The Function of Fabric Softeners 18
/Effects of Using a Fabric Softener 18
Fabric Softener and Absorbency 19
Fabric Softener and Static Cling 20
Effect of Fabric Softener on Whiteness 22
Stiffness and Softness as Affected by Fabric Softener . . . 23
111
Effect of Fabric Softener on Other Properties 24
V Proper Use of Fabric Softeners 25
Future Developments 26
III. PROCEDURE 28
Description of Fabric Softeners 28
Selection of Fabrics 29
Preparation of the Samples 29
Washing Procedure 30
Drying Procedure 33
Symbols Employed in the Study 33
Pilot Study 34
Test Procedures 34
Analyses of Data 36
IV. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 38
Vertical Absorption Test Results 38
Effects of Variables on Vertical Absorption 39
Interaction Between Variables Affecting Absorbency 50
Static Cling Test Results 53
Effects of Variables on Static Cling 53
Stiffness Test Results 54
Effects of Variables on Stiffness 54
Interaction Between Variables in Stiffness Test 62
Thickness Test Results 65
Effects of Variables on Thickness 65
Interaction Between Variables Affecting Thickness 69
Effect of Fabric Softener on Weight 71
IV
Whiteness Test Results , . . . . 71
Effects of Variables on Whiteness , , . . , 73
Interaction Between Variables Affecting Whiteness 83
Findings Related to the Hypotheses 87
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 89
Recommendations for Further Study , 92
LIST OF REFERENCES 93
APPENDIX 97
A. Fabrics Tested in the Study 98
B. Lubbock Water Analysis 103
C. Water Hardness Scale 104
D. Effect of Fabric Softener on Weight 105

TABLES
1. Variation of Resistance with R.H. of Nylon Fabric

Impregnated with a Cationic Surfactant 21
i.. ivanix-order of Softener EffecL on Absorbency of

Cotton Broadcloth 40
3. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Absorbency of

Cotton Terry Cloth 42

Polyester/Cotton 44

Nylon 45

Polyester 47
7. Analysis of Variance: Vertical Absorption 48
8. Rank-order of the Effect of Number of Washings on

Absorbency of Cotton Terry Cloth 49

Absorbency of Polyester/Cotton 51
Absorbency of Nylon 52
11. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Static Cling of Nylon . . . . 55
12. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Stiffness of Cotton

Broadcloth 56
13. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Stiffness of Cotton
Terry Cloth 58
14. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Stiffness of Polyester/
Cotton 59
15. Rank-order of Softener Effect of Stiffness of Nylon 61
16. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Stiffness of Polyester. . . . 63
VI
17. Analysis of Variance: Stiffness (Bending Length) 64
18. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Thickness of Cotton

Broadcloth 66
19. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Thickness of Polyester/
Cotton 68
20. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Thickness of Polyester. . . . 69
21. Analysis of Variance: Thickness 70
22. Analysis of Variance: Weight , 72
23. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Whiteness of Cotton

Broadcloth 74
24. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Whiteness of Cotton
Terry Cloth 76
25. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Whiteness of Nylon 77
26. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Whiteness of Polyester. . . . 79
27. Analysis of Variance: Whiteness ..... 80

Whiteness of Cotton Broadcloth 81
Whiteness of Cotton Terry Cloth 82

Whiteness of Polyester/Cotton 84

Whiteness of Nylon 85

Whiteness of Polyester 86
33. Number of Grains in Relation to Degree of Hardness of

Water in the United States 104
34. Effect of Fabric Softener on Weight 105
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Laundering is an important household task performed by many. It
is reported that the average housewife with family of four will wash
approximately 3700 pounds of clothes a year (24) or 20 tons of clothes
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-
complished in home laundering with the above goals in mind as evidenced
by many available laundry aids. A fabric softener is one such product
designed to increase the consumer's satisfaction with the wash.
While most fabrics today receive certain resin finishes and
softening agents in the manufacturing process (15), many wash out after
one or more launderings. However, fabric softeners provide a remedy
for this problem. Fabric stiffness, harshness, and other unwanted
laundering effects can be overcome by regular use of a fabric softener
in the washing process (58).
Technology generates new products each year, and more new pro-
ducts have appeared in the past five years than ever before (18).
Recent figures indicate that over 27 retail brands of fabric softener
are available for household use (11). Theoretically, the years see
improvement in products used as fabric finishes. Today, manufacturers
claim that fabric softeners provide such benefits as improving the
softness and fluffiness of fabrics, decreasing static electricity build-

up, facilitating ironing, eliminating ironing of permanent-press fabrics,
improving hand, reducing soiling, repelling water and oily stains, re-
ducing drying time, reducing wrinkling, improving flammability resis-
tance, imparting a pleasant smell, decreasing pilling on man-made
fibers, decreasing absorbency, and acting as a bacteriostat. Never-
theless, the performance of all types of fabric softeners may not be
commensurate with such claims. Some claims appear contradictory.
However, should the claims be accurate, are consumers aware of fabric
softenersthe potential advantages and possible disadvantages?
Advertisements for two recently introduced fabric softeners
emphasize work simplification and thus suggest both consumer conven-
ience and time management value. One, a detergent-compatible formula-
tion, eliminates the inconvenience of either "catching" the rinse
cycle or having to repeat it (42). This type of softener can be added
along with the detergent at the start of the wash cycle. The other,
an aerosol product, is sprayed in the drum of an electric dryer prior
to the beginning of the drying cycle. With either type of product,
the consumer need not be concerned with adding fabric softener at
some point during the laundering cycle. Addition of either softener
coincides with a time when the consumer would normally be attending
the laundry-. While data are available regarding various aspects of
conventional cationic softeners, little appears to be published as yet
on the new types of softeners.
Consumers should share in developing product standards and per-
formance criteria (16). Keiser and Saneholtz (18) state that laundry
research needs to focus on consumer buying practices, as substantiated
in Goal IV of the National Goals and Guidelines for Research in Home
Economics (40). Competency in consumer choice-making must be gained in
view of the many new products in recent years. Stavrakas and Fortess
(16) concur on two related points. First, home economics research is
needed to investigate consumer needs and wants; and second, home econo-
mists are best suited by education and orientation for this consumer-
educative role.
Statement of the Problem
Improving man's environment and manner of living, goals of home
economics research, must necessarily include product improvement in all
aspects of life. With the introduction of new laundry aids at an ever-
increasing rate, it is difficult for consumers to choose products which
will meet home laundry needs efficiently. Fabric softeners are popular
home laundry aids; but despite a wide selection of products available,
no product guidelines for choice and proper use seem to exist. While
studies indicate the performance which can be expected from a rinse-
cycle softener, they have become outdated in light of new types of
home softeners and increased use of synthetic fibers.
Many benefits are accredited to home softeners, although several
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,
or incorrect usage of the product. In assessing the performance of
a fabric softener, the following factors should be taken into account:
fiber type and structure, fabric construction, water hardness and the
use of a water conditioner, type of fabric softener, intended time of

application, the recommended amount to be used, number of times used in
succession, and the fabric property being affected. More accessible
consumer information is needed concerning types of fabric softeners and
their effects upon laundered fabrics.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose underlying the study was to compare the performance of
both â wash-cycle softener and an aerosol softener used in the drying
process with a conventional rinse-cycle softener to determine which
type of fabric softener if any was most effective in reducing static
electricity generated, increasing absorbency, and maintaining the
fluffiness, whiteness and hand of selected fabrics laundered according
to simulated home conditions and practices. The effectiveness of each
type of softener was assessed by comparing treated specimens with un-
softened control specimens.
Objectives
1. Compare the performance of different types of fabric softener
upon fabrics of both natural and synthetic fibers.
2. Determine the effect of each type of softener on the electro-
static clinging properties of specific laundered fabrics.
3. Determine the effect of each type of softener on the rate of
absorption of selected fabrics through multiple launderings.
4. Ascertain if a relationship exists between the rate of ab-
sorbency and static electricity generated on softened fabrics
through multiple launderings.
5. Determine any change in whiteness and hand following repeated
use of softening agents on fabric surfaces.

6. Make recommendations to consumers regarding proper selection
and application of softening agents to maximize consumer
satisfaction with laundered fabrics.
Hypotheses
The hypotheses formulated for purposes of the study were as
follows:
1. There is no significant difference among types of fabric
softener as to their effectiveness in
a) increasing absorbency
b) reducing static cling
c) preventing stiffness
d) maintaining thickness or fluffiness
e) improving whiteness.
2. There is no significant relationship between static cling
and absorbency as a result of the type of fabric softener
used.
3. There are no significant interactions between or among
a) fabric softeners
b) number of launderings (0, 1, 10, 20)
c) direction of fabric (warp or filling)
in their effects on any of the above properties.
Justification for the Study
The study was justified on the basis of the following:
1. There are many fabric softeners on the market from which to
choose. However, no apparent guidelines exist to aid the

consumer in making a wise selection and properly using a chosen
type to assure continued satisfaction with softened fabrics.
2. Manufacturers advertise fabric softeners as effective anti-
static agents.
3. Static electricity is a problem in arid and semi-arid cli-
mates and has a direct influence ou the comfort and appear-
ance of wearing apparel of people living in such areas. Also,
static electricity presents a problem with hydrophobic syn-
thetic fibers in all climates. The results of the study
would be value in any area of the country.
4. Two new types of fabric softeners have been introduced on the
market recently, but, little data concerning these have been
published.
5. The nature of the laundry task is changing concurrent with
technological advances and contemporary trends in society.
The use of fabric softeners must necessarily reflect certain
values. The study is relevant in light of new detergents,
new fibers and fabrics, new finishes, the concept of easy
care, increased leisure time, the ecology movement, and
changing women's roles.
Definition of Terms
Terms were defined according to the study as follows:
1. Absorbencythe ability of a fabric, yarn, or fiber to take-up
on its surface ameasureable quantity of liquid in a specified
length of time.
2. Aerosol softenera fabric softener which is sprayed on the
drum of an electric dryer prior to the drying cycle and used
separately from the washing process.
3. Electrostatic clingingtendency of a fabric to be attracted
to the human body due to static electricity.
4. Fabric softenerany substance used at some point during the
laundering process that is designed to impart or restore
softness to a fabric and which may alter other physical
properties at the same time.
5. Handall tactile sensations of a fabric felt by the fingers,
6. Hydrophobicdoes not absorb water to a significant extent;
"water-hating".
7. Levels of Significance
*p<.05 - significant
**p<.01 - very significant
***p<.001 - very highly significant
8. Rinse-cycle softenera conventional cationic type of soften-
er which acts more efficiently in the absence of detergent
and should be used in the deep rinse cycle.
9. Synthetic fibersmanufactured entirely from elemental sub-
stances of which constituents bear no resemblance to the
final fiber product.
10. Wash-cycle softenera detergent-compatible, amphoteric sub-
stance which will act less efficiently usually in the wash
cycle in combination with other laundry additives.

8
11. Water conditionera laundry product added to the washing
solution or final rinse which acts to eliminate hardness ions
found in the water.
12. Water hardnessthe effective weight of calcium ions or equi-
valent anions per unit weight of water usually expressed in
parts per million (ppm).
13. Whitenesspercentage reflectance of a fabric measured
against a standard of white northern skylight.
Scope and Limitations
1. Fabric softeners were limited to the three types available on
the market in Lubbock, Texas in the summer of 1973. All
softeners were widely advertised, commercial brands.
2. Two of the fabric softeners used in the study were supplied
by their respective manufacturers.
3. Tide detergent selected for the study was donated by its
manufacturer.
4. A water conditioner was used in the deep rinse cycle since
the water in Lubbock is considered to be hard. The water
conditioner was limited to an ion-suspension type.
5. Calgon water conditioner used in the study was donated by its
manufacturer.
6\ All fabrics chosen for the investigation were white.
7. Fabrics were washed up to 20 times, and samples were with-
drawn for testing after 0, 1, 10, and 20 washings.
8. Six physical tests were conducted on the samples for all
combinations of softening and laundering treatment.

9. Physical testing of the samples was conducted in both the
summers of 1973 and 1974. Specimens tested for absorbency
and static cling were allowed to remain in brown envelopes
in sealed boxes for nine months between treatments and test-
ing.
Basic Assumptions
1. Fabric softener is a popular home laundry aid.
2. The fabric softener most convenient in application would be
chosen most frequently by the consumer.
3. Fabric softener is evenly distributed on the fabric surfaces
among fabrics in the wash load.
4. Softening effect obtained from use of a household fabric
softener does not deteriorate with the aging of a fabric.
5. The consumer combines two or more fiber fabrics in the same
wash load.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Finishing is a comprehensive term referring to the processes which
fabrics undergo after production (9). While resins are applied to
nearly all knitted and woven goods during manufacture to add body, some
resins and surface-active agents serve to soften fabrics. Textile
softeners, a result of chemical technology, have been used industrially
for almost 40 years (28).
In a constantly changing market, new fibers are developed, new
fabrics appear, and new laundry aids are made available to consumers.
However, softening achieved industrially is only a temporary finish.
For approximately 25 years, household softening agents have been mar-
keted in order that consumers can "refinish" their own textile products
in an attempt to capture the elusive but desirable property of soft-
ness (16, 21, 49).
Development of Fabric Softeners
It is believed that softening agents date back to prehistoric
times with the use of fats and oils to condition skins and hides (3,
17, 49). Today's products of hydrocarbons and di-hydrogenated tallow
bear some resemblance to their early predecessors.
The earliest synthesized softener remained unuseable until its
refinement over 30 years later. Then, the softener was employed
10
11
industrially for its germicidal properties and chemical make-up which
precipitated anionic dyestuffs (19). The early softeners, less effec-
tive than the ones manufactured today, were not suitable for home use
and thus limited to industrial and commercial purposes only.
Marketing and advertising strategies were instrumental in the suc-
cess of the first household softeners. The objective was to persuade
the consumer to try a fabric softener. In the mid-1950's, one company
marketed a "fluffiness creator" emphasizing hand and appearance in
one's textile products. The company claimed "a pile of towels treated
with its product is twice as high as those without" (54:42).
For the manufacturer, the problem in selling the consumer on a
fabric softener was the product's big draw-backit required an extra
step in the worry-free, automatic wash process despite the existence of
some washing machines with dispensers for the automatic release of
softener. According to Dr. W. R. Armstrong in 1967, the extra step was
a negative factor in convincing the consumer from the beginning and con-
tinued to be so (5). The chemical composition rendered softeners
beneficial only when added to the rinse cycle. Returning to "catch"
the rinse cycle opposed the simple task of starting the modern washer
and forgetting about it until the completion of the washing process
(19, 54). Armstrong also suggested the majority of consumers were not
aware of the benefits which could be gained from using a fabric soft-
enerbenefits which might outweigh the inconvenience idea implanted
in their minds. He implied it was the job of the manufacturers to
more actively promote the advantages of their products.
Today's leading sales contenders entered the fiercely competitive
market in 1961. At the turn of that decade, sales of softeners were

12
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
was rapid. The growth was advanced by several influences.
First, television advertising expanded product exposure and in-
troduced more consumers to the "benefits" of using a fabric softener.
Second, product strategies such as easy-to-use containers helped boost
sales (54). Third, germicidal claims influenced at least one market
segment. Chemical Week (38) reported that "the baby's the bait."
Mothers liked the bacteria-inhibiting properties and comfort some soft-
eners provided for diapers and infants' wear. Thus, while some claims
played up to the consumer's sense of aesthetics, others appealed to his
conscience.
Use of fabric softeners showed approximately a 50 percent increase
within a decade. In 1961, 25 percent of all households used a fabric
softener (59:84). By the end of the 1960's, 34 percent of 58.5 million
households were reportedly using one (7). Last, in 1973, the S. C.
Johnson, Co. stated (24) 41 percent of all homemakers used a fabric
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
same type of textile articles. Almost half of a group contacted in one
study softened only towels, mats, and non-apparel items. One-third
added fabric softener for all washable articles. Others believed a
softener was vital only for specialty items such as baby clothes (59).
The manufacturers' problem of educating more consumers and overcoming
the procedural obstacle still remained.

13
By 1972, two new types of fabric softener were nationally market-
ed. A wash-cycle softener began competing with a spray-in-the-dryer
variety. A barrier had been overcomedifficulty in use. One type is
advertised as a "unique" formulation and fabric "conditioner" (42). Ad-
vertisements imply something special has been added for more improvement
and increased satisfaction with one's laundry than an ordinary, cationic
softener might provide. Like other types of fabric softeners, these
two promised many benefits. S. C. Johnson & Co. stated (24) that two-
thirds of all users of fabric softener preferred Rain Barrel, the new
wash-cycle softener because of its "time-and-foot-saver" qualities.
Unfortunately, there appears to be at present a lack of literature re-
garding the composition, chemical content, and operational mechanism of
either type of new softener.
Types of Fabric Softeners
Technically, there are three types of fabric softeners. They are
classified according to the electrical charge possessed by the hydro-
phobic portion of the softener molecule. The softeners are referred to
as anionic, cationic, or nonionic (14). Hallows further details the
three classifications according to the length of the hydrocarbon and
substituted radical groups which goes beyond the scope of the study (14).
On the consumer-level, fabric softeners are labeled by when used in the
laundering processwash-cycle, rinse-cycle, or drying phase.
Sollenberger (46) classified the agents as substantive or non-
substantive depending upon their reactions to fiber molecules. He con-
sidered the cationic softeners as substantive, meaning they are strongly
attracted to and held by the fiber molecule. The non-substantive agents

14
are anionic and non-ionic. Their ionic charge repels the negative
charge of most common fabrics. While substantive agents have some
affinity with protein, nylon, and polyester fibers, they are most readi-
ly complexed with the cellulosics. The complexing behavior might
explain why cotton and rayon are used more widely for testing purposes
with softeners. The literature reveals few studies utilizing synthetic
fibers (8, 21, 31, 37) in consumer end-use investigations.
The anionic softeners have a negative charge in common with most
fabric surfaces and synthetic detergents. Consequently, they repel
each other and the fabric much like the poles on a magnet (16, 39).
Application of the anionic softeners is rather difficult. They must be
laid-on or bound to the surface physically which is not conducive to
home laundering techniques. Also, high concentrations are required for
small percent add-on and significant effectiveness (14).
The wash-cycle softeners are compatible with detergents and must
contain a catalyst or compound which needs to be cationic to make them
readily accepted by the fabric as well as compatible with other laundry
additives. At first, these softening agents were thought to be anionic
(3). More likely, they are amphoteric because the recommended dosage
of the wash-cycle softener exceeds that of the rinse-cycle type. More-
over, the wash-cycle softener is effective if used in the rinse-cycle
but the manufacturer suggests one use double the amount of the product
when used in the wash-cycle.
Cationic softeners represent the principal type of home softener
the rinse-cycle type. They are characterized by a positive charge and
are ionizable salts. Like table salt, they dissolve (or ionize)
15
completely in dilute aqueous solutions; and, the ionic particles migrate
under the influence of an imposed electric force (8). Ionization ex-
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
cellulose fiber involved an ion exchange mechanism between the positive
surfactant and negative ionizable carboxyl (-CO.OH) group in the fiber.
The fatty base of the cationic softener imparts the soft, waxy, texture
to the fabric. The waxy texture is responsible for the "like-new"
softness and feel which consumers like (7, 23). DuBrow et al. (8)
described the cationic softeners as wetting agents that concentrated at
the fiber interfaces and reduced surface and interfacial tensions.
Bearing no electrical charge, the non-ionics like anionic soften-
ers must be laid-on the fabric mechanically since ionization cannot
occur. They, too, require high concentrations for effectiveness. None
is on the market for household use. Non-ionic softeners are amine
oxides, and none are polar compounds like the anionic and cationic
fabric softeners. Non-ionic and anionic softeners are the types used
industrially during the manufacture and finishing of most woven and
knitted goods.
Composition of Fabric Softeners
Most household fabric softeners are characterized by an ammonium
group attached to one or more long chain hydrocarbons (CH molecule) (12,
16 17). They are frequently quaternary ammonium compoundschlorides
or sulfates such as dialkyldimethylammonium chloride (DADMAC) I or
distearyl dimethyl ammonium chloride II as pictured below:

16
CH.
+
R N- CH. CI
I. DADMAC
CH
^18^37 ^ CH^ CI
^18^7
II. distearyl dimethyl ammonium chloride
The alkyl groups derive from tallow (R * alkyl group). From this, Ginn
et al. theorized that fatty acids of 16 to 18 carbons are required for
the best softening effect (12, 13, 16). The 18-carbon acid as repre-
sented in II is stearic acid. The difference between the two represen-
tations above is that the long-chain hydrocarbon has been specified.
The chains are known as hydrophobes and have a water repellent property.
The shorter portion of the softening compound is hydrophilic or "water-
loving." Water and alcohol comprise the other portion of the softening
agent. Chemical Week (43) reported that 75 percent of the fabric soft-
ener is surface-active agent or functional. Saville (39) stated that
5 to 15 percent was active agent while Levitt (25) found that the active
softening ingredient was' only 3 to 8 percent. Levitt also reported
that Downy was 95% water (25:155). To make the softeners more agree-
able to the consumer, perfumes are combined with optical brighteners,
blueing, and tints. Such additives conceal the ammonia odor and furnish
17
a pleasant color to the softener. The majority of fabric softeners
are viscous liquids, though some powder and tablet forms exist (25, 38).
Some softeners are advertised as containing germicides which
Levitt confirms (25). However, he states softeners are not very effec-
tive in a bacteria-inhibiting capacity. The United States Department of
Agriculture reported (10, 11) that benzalkonium chloride, the disinfec-
tant found in a leading softener, would be needed at four times the
strength found in a recommended dosage of softener to be beneficial.
The study suggested that the consumer would not find desirable the ef-
fects of such strong dosage but declined to comment on the types of
effects which might occur.
The composition of cationic softeners is responsible for the extra
step required in the laundry process. It is ironic that synthetic
detergents which have contributed much to the need for fabric softeners
also cause the difficulty in using them. Since synthetic detergents
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.
Thus, neither softening nor cleaning is accomplished (56). Synthetic
detergents gained popularity after World War II, and now more than 90
percent of the products designed for general laundering are of such
chemical nature (41). They are efficient in both hard and soft water.
They do not leave a scum or deposit on fabrics as soap does in hard or
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
The Function of Fabric Softeners
Fabric softeners act as lubricants. A lubricant is defined by
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
reduction of friction between the fabric components by the softener
would increase fabric pliability. The strands of the fiber v/ould
possess less interfiber and interyarn tensions which would permit them
to move more readily against each other (29, 46). The freedom of move-
ment would account for less wrinkling, more smoothness, softness,
greater fluffiness, and easier ironing (11). However, McNally and
McCord (30) warned that excess lubrication might cause increased fiber
slippage. A good softener was thought to form a thin monolayer on the
fiber surface (24, 32, 50). A too thick coating created an unwanted
waxy build-up (57).
Effects of Using a Fabric Softener
Fabric softeners have been called a Jekyll and Hyde product (10).
While the advantages are numerous, some disadvantages may result. What
may be satisfactory to one consumer, may prove objectionable to another.
On the positive side, fabric softeners have been shown to reduce
static cling, impart softness and fluffiness, reduce wrinkling, and
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-
peated studies have evaluated the above properties, Sollenberger (46)
believed secondary properties such as seam strength, tear strength,
reaction to heat, and aging ought to be considered more closely.

19
Fabric Softener and Absorbency
Absorbency and ensuing ramifications for comfort and utility have
been investigated. The consensus of the studies discussed below sug-
gests that regular use of a fabric softener results in loss of absor-
bency. The two procedures used most widely in testing absorbency
capacity are measurements of the time required for a (1) sample to sink
in a container of water, and (2) liquid to travel up a fabric surface.
It is thought (53) that waxy, softener build-up on a fabric sur-
face occurs impairing absorbency. Consumer Reports (11) conducted
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-
pletely absorbed by a fabric and showed softened fabrics took ten
times longer to absorb than did untreated specimens. However, softened
and unsoftened fabrics showed little difference in their capacity to
absorb when pressure was applied to the water drop. Consumer Reports
concluded that the practical effect of absorbency loss depended on the
specific end-use of the textile involved (11).
Coldwell (7) studied the effect of fabric softener on terry cloth
towels through 20 launderings. She found marked water repellency with
the sinking time method on terry towelling through multiple launderings.
Levitt (25) also determined via sinking time tests that softened towel-
ling took longer to sink. Linfield et al. (26) claimed that the total
absorptive capacity of a fabric remained unchanged. Rather, it was the
rate of moisture uptake on the surface that was a function of softener
build-up. Linfield's research was carried out with Birdseye diapers

20
softened with 0.1 percent of softener of the dry weight of the fabric.
His sinking time test results also indicated loss of absorbency.
Smith and Mack (41) as cited by Coldwell stated that all softeners
will build-up and reduce absorbency to some extent. Whether the de-
crease in moisture has practical significance is difficult to ascertain.
i\B.x\^\j b ixOi-uiicra i j.eaimjnt_ t>cCtj.on \J^J cuiiuucutiu cmee ausoroency test
measures. Their data suggest variance among the test methods but no
tendency toward lessened absorption contrary to the findings in the
studies above. Kortland and Muijs found (22) that certain sulfonium
compounds will impart softness without rendering a textile water repel-
lent .
Valko as cited by Coldwell (7) contends that radiometric evalua-
tions indicated softener was not readily removed after laundering. It
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)
which could be an advantage for some consumers. However, studies do not
appear to indicate the effect of spin drying in relation to less mois-
ture uptake.
Fabric Softener and Static Cling
Fabric softeners have been reported to serve as effective anti-
static agents (10, 23, 31, 49, 50, 53). The bonding of the softening
agent to the fabric is thought to be responsible for the anti-static
value (23, 31), The hydrophobic portion of the cation attaches to the
fiber molecules exposing the water-loving end. The hydrophilic part

21
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
conductor. Softeners should be especially beneficial for synthetic
fibers to help overcome their naturally harsh, wiry feel and static
problem.
In testing for industrial use to remedy electrification during
spinning, Moncrieff (31) reports that nylon was the most difficult to
reduce in electrical resistance by application of softening surfactants
as shown in Table 1. (31:449)
TABLE 1
Variation of Resistance with R.H. of

Nylon Fabric Impregnated with a
Cationic Surfactant
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 data clearly indicate that static is a problem at low humidities.
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
"1) That rinsing and drying techniques can affect the
static propensity of textiles treated with "durable" anti-static pre-
parations, depending on the ionic content of the wash water and the de-
gree of water expression from the textile by heat.
2) The anti-static agent must have a high moisture regain
even at low humidities.
3) The agent must be evenly distributed on the fiber sur-

face.
4) That the amount of non-ionic anti-static agent neces-
sary to prevent static charge on yarns and textiles varies with the
content of the water in which they have been dissolved."
While the investigation performed on polyester yarns was for industrial
purposes, the findings are applicable to home softeners.
Effect of Fabric Softener on Whiteness
Fabric softeners tend to produce color change in fabrics. In a
study conducted at the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station on two
cotton fabrics, the softened white fabrics became more yellow than
identical specimens washed without softener (39). Yellowing was more
apparent with the brands of softener that softened most in a study re-
ported in Consumer Reports (10). However, both studies pointed out
that any color difference would be unsatisfactory in a white item but
more acceptable in a colored one. Moreover, Saville (39) indicated
that the yellowness present in a white fabric would vary with the fiber,
concentration of softener, light under which the fabric was viewed and
what it was being compared with. No samples in the Consumer Reports
(10) study were judged "whiter whites" as advertised.

23
Stiffness and Softness as Affected by Fabric Softener
Softness is the most sought property in fabrics (14). At the same
time measurement remains subjective-oriented. Softness is assessed
most often by visual comparisons (7, 12, 17, 25, 52, 57). Owen (35)
described fabric hand as all tactile sensations felt by the fingers.
îe êco. OJ. a j.auric may be altered by a coating of softener. Coldwell
(7) found that softness improved after two washings and continued to
increase until the tenth wash when it levelled off through 18 multiple
launderings. The effect of softener as reported in Coldwell's study was
confirmed in a recent study (52) by the Northern Piedmont Section of
AATCC. Both studies used white, cotton terry cloth towels. The more
recent study also analyzed softening effect on a cotton/rayon blend.
The blended fabric was found to be softened less than the all-cotton.
After repeated usage, fabrics in both projects became objectionably
greasy. Comparisons in both studies had been made by a panel of raters.
Unfortunately detecting softener build-up is very difficult. A method
for comparing softening effect related to build-up of fabric softener
does not exist (47).
Levitt maintains (25) that the best way to evaluate softness is
visually. The procedure involves laundering fabrics in a top-loading
washer. Wash loads weigh 8-lbs. and consist primarily of white cotton
sheeting and 12 x 12-inch test pieces of cotton terry cloth. Tide is
used as the detergent and the softener used as a standard control re-
ference (dioctadecyldimethylammonium) is added at a level of 36g of
active ingredient per 8-lbs of wash. The softener is added to the final
rinse. Softeners that are tested are laundered in groups at various

24
concentrations and compared to specimens laundered an equal number of
times with the standard softener to determine which concentration is
equal in performance to the control softener as rated by a panel of
judges.
Related to softness is stiffness. Surface coating decreases
frictional stiffness. This increases liveliness which had been de-
fined (35) as the ability to recover from gentle bending and crumpling.
In evaluating stiffness, Saville determined that cotton fabrics laund-
ered with and without softener were both less stiff after multiple
washings. She attributed the decrease in stiffness through the first
five launderings to the removal of sizing and stabilization of dimen-
sions of the fabrics. No attempt was made to determine if a signifi-
cant difference existed nor to determine if the decrease in stiffness
were of practical importance (39:7).
Effect of Fabric Softener on Other Properties
Abrasion resistance hypothesized to improve with the use of a fab-
ric softener, showed mild increase in laboratory tests but remained un-
changed in actual wear tests conducted by the Army Quartermaster Corps
(40). Test results indicated that flex and edge abrasion resistance are
improved by less stress imposed on the fibers in a fabric when a soft-
ener is applied (7, 13, 28, 34).
The researchers of an AATCC study in 1972 believed existing labora-
tory tests for abrasion resistance were not an accurate prediction of
the actual wear-life of a textile in a specific end-use. While inves-
tigating the relationship between softening power and softening effect
on durability, on abrasion method was developed to simulate conditions

25
encountered by textiles during use. Abrasion was accomplished after
washing in a 20-minute Launder-ometer cycle. The investigators con-
cluded (2) that all softeners failed to provide abrasion resistance to
cotton fabrics. Based on bursting strength data, the abrasion resis-
tance of polyester doubleknit increased. However, fabric softener
reduced the abrasion resistance of nylon tricot.
Two other properties believed to be minimized by softeners are
wrinkling and ironing (10, 23). By wrinkling less, the need for ironing
is lessened or becomes unnecessary. Consumer Reports indicated (10)
that the lubricating effect of a softener can reduce the pull of an
iron up to 40 percent but not less than 25 percent. S. C. Johnson and
Co. advertises its wash-cycle softener as providing such benefits (24).
Cationic softeners increase fiber elongation and improve tear
strength (23) confirmed Murry. He found that strength was better for
a resin-treated viscose rayon fabric. Sollenberger (46) disputed this
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
coating protected acrylic and nylon against heat. More recently,
Taylor (48) reported contradictory findings that fabric softened syn-
thetics yellowed with heat.
Proper Use of Fabric Softeners
A fabric softener can enhance the appearance and utility of one's
textile articles. Dissatisfaction is often the result of ignorance or
carelessness. No matter which type one uses or for what purpose,
manufacturer's directions should be observed. Over 100 chemicals are

26
classed as softeners (49) and at least 27 known household softeners
were recently tested (11). Naturally, variation in their effects would
be expected.
The least amount possible should be used to obtain desired soft-
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-
stroy the softeners' molecular structure (7). Blueing may be dispersed
unevenly on a fabric if used simultaneously with a softening agent.
Lastly, starch will be effective when combined with a fabric softener
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-
turer is the first step in assuring success and satisfaction with
fabric softeners (21, 23, 53).
Future Developments
Technology will produce change in laundry aids as in other facets
of life. Coldwell predicted (7) wash-cycle softeners which are now
available on the market. In addition, an aerosol fabric softener has
been developed in the short period since her speculations. Since the
beginning of this study, two more fabric softeners have been announced
to the consumer. While not distributed nationally at the time of this
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
paper. The other softener is a condensed packet that attaches to a

27
dryer drum fin by means of a Velcro fastener. It remains permanently
affixed in the drum for 40 to 50 loads of wash to be dried (48).

CHAPTER III
PROCEDURE
Unless otherwise stated, testing procedures adhered to the methods
of the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC)
and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Specimens tested
were subjected to standard conditions of 70 t 2 F. and a constant
humidity of 65 2 percent for at least twenty-four hours before test-
ing. Conditioning ensured that all specimens were in a like state of
moisture equilibrium as designated by ASTM test method D 1776-67. All
testing was conducted under standard conditions with one exception.
Standard conditions were not necessary for the absorbency test procedure.
Description of Fabric Softeners
Three types of fabric softener nationally distributed for home use
were chosen for the investigation. They were as follows:
1) Wash-cycle softener - Rain Barrel
2) Rinse-cycle softener - Downy
3) Spray softener - Cling Free
The introduction of Rain Barrel and Cling Free on the market
prompted the study. Downy was selected as a representative, convention-
al, cationic softener for comparison on the basis of the author's
familiarity with the product.
28
29
The exact chemical content could not be ascertained for any of the
softeners. However, Cling Free is advertised by its manufacturer to be
"non-flammable," and a "clear, off-white liquid similar to those prod-
ucts used in the washer" (60).
Selection of Fabrics
Five fabrics considered representative of those found in the
average load of home laundry in terms of fiber content and construction
were chosen for the study. All fabrics were obtained from TestFabrics,
Inc. of Middlesex, New Jersey. Each fabric was white with no patterned
texture (see Appendix A ) .
Fabrics tested in the study were:
Fabric Fiber Content Construction
Broadcloth 100% cotton woven
Terry Cloth 100% cotton looped pile
Batiste 65% polyester/35% cotton woven
Jersey 100% nylon tricot knit
Doubleknit 100% polyester doubleknit
Preparation of the Samples
The following steps were completed in preparing the samples for
testing:
1) Thirteen samples were cut from each fabric ordered. The
sample size for each fabric depended upon the original width
of the fabric.
2) Samples were hemmed to prevent ravelling and facilitate identi-
fication during the course of the multiple launderings.

30
3) The hems were color-coded with colored thread stitching to
indicate the number of washings the sample underwent; and,
the colored hems aided in determining the samples for with-
drawal during the 20 total washings for each softening
treatment.
4) A one-inch square of unbleached muslin was sewn in the corn-
er of each sample. The softener treatment designated for
the sample was marked on the muslin square with an indelible
laundry pen.
5) After each sample was withdrawn from washing and a softening
treatment, specimens were cut at random according to diagrams
prepared for that purpose.
6) Specimens for testing were randomized with respect to softener
treatment and number of washings for each fabric; and, speci-
mens were randomized with respect to direction in those
physical tests where specimens were tested in both the warp
and filling directions.
Washing Procedure
The fabric samples were washed in four equal groups. Twenty wash-
ings were completed for each softener treatment group. Samples were
washed in a Kenmore agitator-type, automatic, home washer (Model #8480).
The wash cycle consisted of a twelve-minute hot wash. Wash temperatures
for the total eighty washings ranged from a low of 51 C. to a high of
66 C. The mean wash temperature was 62.9 C. A cool down period
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
on "Hi" and the spin selector was set on "Slo."
Wash loads weighed an average 8-lbs. As samples were removed
after 1 and 10 launderings, additional "dummy" fabrics replaced the
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
conditioner but no fabric softener.
The sequence of steps taken in placing the fabrics in the washing
machine varied slightly according to the type of softener treatment.
For those samples softened with the wash-cycle softener, the washing
machine was partially filled with water and the softener added via an
automatic dispenser. Then, after agitating several seconds, the fabrics
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
temperature was recorded at that time for every wash load.
Laundry ingredients were as follows:
Detergent;
Tide50g (approximately 3/4 cup) was added to all treatment
groups prior to agitation. Less than the manufacturer's recommended
amount was used since all fabrics were white and no soil was being
removed.
32
Fabric Softener:
Treatment SOno softener (control group).
Treatment S I 2 capfuls Rain Barrel were diluted and added
before the fabrics were placed in the washing machine.
Treatment S 2 1 capful Downy was added at the start of the
second rinse.
Treatment S3Cling Free spray was injected into the dryer
drum for exactly five seconds.
Fabric softeners were not scientifically measured. Rather, the
softeners were added according to the manufacturer's recommended amount
in an effort to simulate the practice which it is assumed the consumer
follows.
Water Conditioner:
Calgon water conditioner was added in the amount of 32g (2/5-
cup) at the start of the first rinse cycle for every wash load because
the water in Lubbock was considered to be hard (27) (see Appendix B ) .
The amount of Calgon used was calculated to neutralize the water
hardness and derived in the following manner:
Water Hardness Calgon
(expressed as calcium ions)
Ca C O3 2Na P O3
40 + 12 -f 48 * 2(23 -f 35 -^ 48) *
lOOg 212g
236 ppm 500 ppm (approx.)
* denotes molecular weights of the elements
Rinse cycle comprised 17 gallons of water, thus:

33
Calgon = 500
X 17 X 8.3 lb. water/gallon
1,000,000
= .070 lb.
= 1.128 ounces
= 32g
Drvlne
- <ai.
Procedure
Fabrics were dried in a Kenm-ore automatic, home-type, electronic
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
selected setting allowed the heavier towelling to dry completely. Dry-
ing time was determined by the fabrics' reactions against an automatic
sensing device in the drum of the dryer.
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.
Symbols Employed in the Study
The symbols interpreted below were used throughout the study for
simplification.
Fabrics:
CBcotton broadcloth
CTcotton terry cloth towelling
P/Cpolyester/cotton
NYnylon
PEpolyester
34
Fabric Softeners:
SONo softener was used
SIRain Barrel
S2Downy
S3Cling Free
TT*n O f^ *t T^ r> *-
LInot washed
L21 washing
L310 washings
L420 washings
Pilot Study
A pilot study was undertaken with the following underlying objec-
tives :
1) To select those fabrics suitable for the study-
2) To determine the feasibility of investigating the effect of
fabric softener on six physical properties under consideration for
study.
3) To determine the number of readings necessary in each physical
test for statistical accuracy-
4) To perfect skill in testing techniques and evaluation.
5) To gain experience in planning and organizing a study.
Test Procedures
Six physical tests were chosen on the basis of their 1) suitability
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
of all fiber fabrics for every treatment group including control
specimens.
The effect of fabric softener on absorbency was evaluated by a
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
contrary to the test procedure.
AATCC test method 115-1969 (1:200) was followed to determine the
clinging tendency of the specimens under use conditions. Only a woven,
polyester taffeta rubbing fabric was used to induce friction. Testing
was conducted at 65 2 percent relative humidity rather than the lower
humidities suggested in the standard test method. Moreover, only the
synthetic fiber fabric specimens and control specimens for the cotton
broadcloth and polyester/cotton fabrics underwent testing.
The softening effect of each of the three types of fabric softener
was compared on the basis of the stiffness test stated in the ASTM
standard method D 1388-64 (6:305). The only change effected in the
standard procedure was cutting four specimens from each fabric direction
instead of three. The instrument used to measure the bending length was
the Shirley Stiffness Tester.
The fluffiness of all specimens was evaluated as the treatments
progressed according to the thickness test designated by ASTM as stand-
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
from one specimen twenty-five inches square.

36
One specimen twenty inches square was cut to determine the general
characteristic of weight following all softening and laundering treat-
ments. ASTM standard method D 1910-24 (6:426) served as the procedural
guide. The weight in grams of twenty square inches was converted to
weight per square meter by a factor of 78.
A Color Eye produced by Instrument Development Laboratories was
used to evaluate the yellowness of specimens compared with a standard
reference of white northern skylight following the procedure in ASTM
standard method D 1925-63T (6:639). The test procedure did not indicate
specimen preparation techniques. One specimen was cut 1-^ inches in
diameter. A test circle of several thicknesses of cotton percale en-
cased in plastic was produced. The circle was placed behind each test
specimen to render it opaque in the machine before reflectance measure-
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
computer with the aid of a statistical consultant. Data were analyzed
for:
1) analysis of variance by a full factorial design to ascertain
differences among the softener treatments, laundering treatments, direc-
tion of the physical test and the interaction of variables using F-
Ratios; and
37
2) direction of significant differences by applying Duncan's new
multiple range test.
Confidence Intervals given in certain tables were computed using
the equation below:
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
The computations were made on a desk calculator.

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
The objective of the study was to determine if two recently in-
troduced types of fabric softener differed significantly from a con-
ventional cationic softener in their effects on five fabrics through
20 launderings. Softener effects on six physical properties were
evaluated. There were 13 groups for each fabric including control
specimens. The number of specimens for each group varied from one to
ten according to the test specification for each property. Discussion
will be limited to statistically significant effects.
Vertical Absorption Test Results
The absorbency of five fabrics as measured by the rate of travel
of distilled water up a specimen is summarized in Tables 2 through 6.
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
original non-laundered specimens. Tables 2 through 4 indicate that
fabrics containing natural fibers were more absorbent when untreated
with fabric softener. The synthetic-fiber fabrics revealed a different
trend. The specimens treated with the dryer spray-softener were more
absorbent than the non-softened control group. While the difference
does not appear to be as great for the nylon specimens (see Table 5 ) ,
38
39
the difference in absorptive capacity between the non-softened and
spray-softened polyester specimens was as much as 50 percent (see Table
6). However, the non-softened specimens for nylon and polyester were
more absorbent than the specimens treated with either a wash-cycle or
conventional rinse-cycle softener. In general, the warp specimens were
slightly more absorbent than the filling specimens for all treatment
groups and washings levels (see Tables 2 through 6). The conventional
rinse-cycle softener rendered the specimens the least absorbent. In
comparing the three types of fabric softener. Tables 2 through 6 indi-
cate that absorbency loss was least for specimens treated with the dryer
spray-softener.
Effects of Variables on Vertical Absorption
A very highly significant (p<.001) difference was found between
softening treatments for all fabrics (see Table 7). The data indicated
that a significant (p< .01) difference between the effect of no softener
and the effect of the conventional softener occurred for all fabrics at
all wash levels. Other significant differences between the softeners
which occurred must necessarily be dealt with for each fabric individ-
ually.
The statements following concerning the effects of the softening
treatments on the absorbency of cotton broadcloth are substantiated by
the data in Table 2. There was no significant (p < .001) difference
between the two newer types of fabric after one washing in their effects
on the rate of liquid uptake on the surface of cotton broadcloth. How-
ever, the conventional softener rendered the specimens significantly
less absorbent while no softener produced significantly more absorbent

40
TABLE 2
RANK-ORDER OF SOFTENER EFFECT

ON ABSORBENCY OF COTTON BROADCLOTH
(From least absorbent to most absorbent)
Warp Filling
Softener nean S.D. Softener Mean S.D.
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
specimens (p <.001). After 10 washings, there was a very highly signi-
ficant (p < .001) difference between all three types of fabric softener
but no significant (p< .001) difference between the effect of the spray
softener and no softener. After 20 washings, the conventional softener
and wash-cycle softener acted similarly in decreasing the rate of
liquid uptake. However, in the warp direction, specimens treated with
spray softener were significantly (p <.001) more absorbent than those
treated with the conventional softener. The results indicated that in
using the three types of softener, absorbency decreased after 1 wash
but with continued launderings the capacity of the specimens to absorb
gradually increaseda point that would probably be of interest to the
consumer.
The data in Table 3 report that the spray softener did not reduce
the absorbency of cotton terry cloth. There was no significant (p^.05)
difference between the effect of no softener and the effect of the spray
softener at all wash levels. Specimens subjected to those treatments
were approximately 40 percent more absorbent. The conventional softener
and the wash-cycle softener reduced absorbency by about the same amount
after 10 and 20 washings in the filling direction. However, a very
highly significant (p < .001) difference existed among all three types of
fabric softener in their effect on the warp specimens after 20 consecu-
tive launderings. The difference in the effects of the softening treat-
ments appeared to maximize after 10 washings.
The results of the fabric softener treatments on polyester/cotton
specimens were similar to those of the terry cloth. In general, there
was little significant difference between the three types of softener

42
TABLE 3

ON ABSORBENCY OF COTTON TERRY CLOTH
Warp Filling
Softener Mean S.D Softener Mean S.D,
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
the wash-cycle softener and conventional softener were significantly
(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
in their effect on absorbency; and, the other two types of softener
reduced absorbency by similar amounts. However, both the spray softener
and no softener were very highly significantly (p< .001) different from
the wash-cycle softener and conventional softener.
Nylon resisted absorption. The conventional softener clearly im-
paired the specimens' absorptive capacity the most, as the maximum
height of water taken-up after any wash level was 4 mm (see Table 5).
Yet, the conventional softener and wash-cycle softener were found to
differ significantly (p< .001) in their effect on absorbency only after
20 washings in the filling direction. The spray softener and use of
no softener had about the same effect on absorbency after 1 and 10 wash-
ings, but after 20 washings, the two treatments differed significantly
(p <.001) both from each other and from the other two types of softener
(see Table 5 ) .
The polyester specimens displayed the most unusual reactions to
fabric softener upon measurement of liquid taken up on the surface. A
significant (p < .001) difference occurred between the effect of the
spray softener and the other two types of fabric softener. Specimens
treated with the spray softener absorbed as much as 50 mm of liquid,
while specimens softened with either the wash-cycle agent or rinse-cycle
softener absorbed on the average of 4 mm and 10 mm respectively (see

44
TABLE 4

ON ABSORBENCY OF POLYESTER/COTTON
Warp Filling
Sortener Mean S.D. bortener Mean S.u,
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

ON ABSORBENCY OF NYLON
Warp Filling
Softener Mean S.D. Softener Mean S.D,
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
46
Table 6). In general, there was no significant (p> .05) difference be-
tween the wash-cycle softener and conventional softener. Specimens
washed without fabric softener were found to be significantly less
absorbent (p< .001) than those specimens treated with the spray soften-
er. The erratic results suggest the difficulty in applying the spray
softener evenly, even under laboratory conditions.
The variable fabric direction significantly affected the rate of
absorbency of two fabrics. The warp direction specimens for cotton
broadcloth were significantly (p <.001) more absorbentabsorbing an
average of 5 mm more liquid (see Tables 2, 7). Polyester/cotton speci-
mens tested in the warp direction absorbed approximately 3 mm more
liquid which was significant at p ^.01 (see Tables 4, 7).
The number of washings significantly (p< -05) affected the absorb-
ency of the polyester/cotton, cotton terry cloth, and nylon specimens.
The variable of laundering was not significant in the absorbency of the
cotton broadcloth or polyester specimens (see Table 7).
Table 8 indicates that the greatest significant (p< .05) differ-
ence in absorbency occurred after 1 wash for cotton terry cloth. Non-
softened specimens after 1 wash were less absorbent. However, those
specimens treated with the wash-cycle softener were 50 percent more
absorbent after 1 wash. The absorbency of spray-softened specimens
maximized at approximately 44 mm after 10 washings which was very highly
significantly (p < .001) different from either of the other two wash
levels. Laundering did not influence the absorbency of specimens
subjected to the conventional softener (see Table 8 ) ,

47
TABLE 6

ON ABSORBENCY OF POLYESTER
Warp Filling
Softener lie dll S.D. Softener jyiean S.D,
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
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 
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
 & 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 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
RANK-ORDER OF THE EFFECT OF

NUMBER OF WASHINGS ON
ABSORBENCY OF COTTON TERRY CLOTH
(from least absorbent to most absorbent)
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
polyester/cotton specimens (see Table 7 ) . It is evident from the data
in Table 9 that in general there was no significant difference between
10 and 20 washings for any type of softener. However, after 1 washing,
specimens were significantly (p< .05) less absorbent except for the
wash-cycle softener. Warp specimens treated with the wash-cycle soften-
er were slightly more absorbent (p <.05). Overall, as the number of
launderings increased, absorbency increased.
The most significant difference in the absorbency of nylon speci-
mens related to the number of washings occurred between 1 and 10 wash-
ings. After 1 wash, specimens were significantly (p< .05) less
absorbent. As washing progressed through 20 times, the specimens in-
creased their capacity to take up liquid when treated with the spray
softener or no softener. The washing variable was not a factor
influencing the absorbency of nylon specimens treated with either the
conventional softener of new wash-cycle fabric softener (see Table 10).
Interaction Between Variables

Affecting Absorbency
A laundry-softener interaction (p < .001) was found for all fabrics
(see Table 7). Non-softened specimens became increasingly absorbent
with continued launderings for cotton broadcloth, cotton terry cloth,
and polyester/cotton. Softened specimens of the above fabrics were less
absorbent at all wash levels (see Tables 2 through 4). In general,
fabric softeners decreased the amount of liquid absorbed through 10
launderings, then, after 20 launderings, the absorbency of the specimens
slightly increased. Non-softened nylon specimens became more absorbent

51
TABLE 9

NUMBER OF WASHINGS ON ABSORBENCY OF
POLYESTER/COTTON
(from least absorbent to most absorbent)
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
RINSE-- CYCLE SOFTENEII
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
52
TABLE 10

NUMBER OF WASHINGS ON ABSORBENCY
OF NYLON
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
through 10 washings. However, after 20 washings their absorbency de-
creased (see Tables 5, 6). Nylon specimens softened with the convention-
al softener and wash-cycle softener decreased in absorbency at all wash
levels. Spray-softened specimens became more absorbent after 20 launder-
ings (see Tables 5, 6).
Fabric direction and fabric softener exhibited a very highly
significant (p ( .001) relationship for cotton terry cloth specimens

53
(see Table 7 ) . The results are attributed to the extra set of warp
yarns of the looped pile construction enabling the specimens to take up
liquid at a greater rate and quantity.
Static Cling Test Results
The results of the static cling tests are recorded in minutes.
None of the cotton broadcloth control specimens exhibited clinging
tendency nor did any of the polyester/cotton specimens cling at standard
conditions.
Effects of Variables on Static Cling
The only variable which was found to be significant in affecting
static cling of nylon was fabric softener. At 3 and 48 degrees of free-
dom, an F-Ratio of 29.93 was computed, indicating a very highly
significant (p < .001) difference between the softening treatments. Non-
softened specimens clung at all wash levels. Specimens softened with
the dryer spray-softener also exhibited clinging tendency at all wash
levels in both fabric directions; however, the length of clinging time
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
types of fabric softener after 1 wash in the warp direction. At all
other wash levels, the wash-cycle softener and conventional softener
acted similarly in reducing static cling and appeared to be effective

54
anti-static agents as no specimen displayed clinging tendency (see Table
11).
There were no significant differences for any main or interaction
effect on the clinging tendency of polyester. This suggests that all
three types of household softener evaluated were effective anti-static
agents at u-f + 2 percent relative humidity for polyester doubleknit
articles.
Stiffness Test Results
Softness of the specimens after treatment with each of the 12
softening-laundering combinations was evaluated in terms of stiffness.
Stiffness was measured as the bending length of a specimen in cm. The
figures in Table 12 through 16 are the means of 16 readings. Two read-
ings were recorded from each of the face and back side of four specimens
for both fabric directions. In general, softened specimens were less
stiff after 20 washings. Except for cotton broadcloth and cotton terry
cloth, specimens laundered without a fabric softener were also slightly
limper after 20 washings.
Effects of Variables on Stiffness
Use of a fabric softener did not significantly affect the stiff-
ness of polyester/cotton. The statistical analysis presented in Table
17 shows that a significant difference between softener effects did
occur for all other fabric specimens.
Data in Table 12 indicate that cotton broadcloth specimens laund-
ered without a fabric softener were significantly stiffer at the .05
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
Softener Mean S.D. Softener Mean S.D.
CONTROL
SOO 1.0 1.0 SOO 1.0 1.0
AFTER 1 WASH
S2 0.0 0.0 S2 0.0 0.0

S3 1.0 0.1 SI 0.8 0.9
SO 2.0 0.4 S3 2.4 1.2
SI 2.6 0.8 SO 3.5 1.4
F = 12.72*** F = 4.73**
AFTER 10 WASHINGS
SI 0.0 0.0 SI 0.0 0.0

S2 0.0 0.0 S2 0.0 0.0
SO 2.5 1.2 S3 1.5 0.7
S3 3.3 2.9 SO 4.4 1.7
F = 3.89* F = 10.28***
AFTER 20 WASHINGS
SI 0.0 0.0 SI 0.0 0.0

S2 0.0 0.0 S2 0.0 0.0
S3| 3.6 1.4 S3 1.5 0.0
SOI 4.5 1.1 SO 3.0 2.1
F = 15.22*** F == 3 .69*
n = 3
56
TABLE 12
EFFECT ON STIFFNESS OF COTTON BROADCLOTH
(From most stiff to least stiff)
Softener Mean Pooled S.D,
CONTROL
SOO 1.70 0.16
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
57
difference after 1 wash between the conventional softener and wash-cycle
softener, as washing progressed, both softeners increased the stiffness
of cotton broadcloth by a similar amount. There was no significant
(p > .05) difference between the effects of the wash-cycle softener and
use of no softener after 1 wash. However, as the specimens were washed
a greater number of times, a very highly significant (p< .001) differ-
ence between the effects of the foregoing softeners was found. All
three types of fabric softener were found to render the specimens simi-
larly stiffer after 10 washings. The spray softener appeared less
effective than the other two types of softener in improving softness.
The statistics in Table 17 indicate that a very highly significant
(p < .001) difference was found between softening treatments relevant to
the stiffness of cotton terry cloth. In general, as shown in Table 13,
wash-cycle softened specimens were much limper (p < .01) than specimens
either not softened or treated with the spray softener. Non-use of a
fabric softener rendered specimens stiffervery highly significantly
stiffer (p < .001) than the effect of either the conventional softener
or wash-cycle softener after 20 launderings in the warp direction. A
significant (p < .05) difference was found between the effect of the
spray-softener and wash-cycle softener. Spray-softened specimens were
stiffer.
Analysis of variance did not indicate any difference in softener
effect on the stiffness of polyester/cotton. However, results of
Duncan's new multiple range test as presented in Table 14 show a signi-
ficant difference at the .05 level between the spray softener and other
softening treatments. After 1 and 10 washings, spray-softened specimens

58
TABLE 13

ON STIFFNESS OF COTTON TERRY CLOTH
Warp Filling
Pooled Pooled
CONTROL
SOO 2.13 0.16 SOO 1.79 0.08
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
59
TABLE 14

ON STIFFNESS OF POLYESTER/COTTON
Warp Filling
Pooled Pooled
CONTROL
800 2.05 0.06 SOO 1.76 0.05
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
60
were significantly less stiff than non-softened specimens at the ,05 and
.01 levels respectively. After 10 washings, spray-softened specimens
were significantly limper than those treated with the wash-cycle soften-
er (p <.01). Also after 10 washings, specimens treated with the conven-
tional softener and spray softener were similarly stiff (p < .01). How-
ever, after 20 launderings, spray-softened specimens were significantly
stiffer at the .05 level than specimans washed with the conventional
softener.
Table 15 presents data concerning softener effects on the stiff-
ness of nylon. Highly significant (p < .01) differences between the
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
types of fabric softener. As evidenced in Table 15, non-softened spec-
imens were very highly significantly (p < ,001) stiffer than the softened
specimens. After 20 washings, conventional softened specimens were
significantly limper than wash-cycle softened specimens at the .05 level.
The statistical analysis in Table 17 indicates that very highly
significant (p (.001) differences occurred in stiffness of polyester as
a result of softener treatment. Spray-softened specimens after 1 wash
were stiffer than specimens subjected to treatment with either the con-
ventional softener or wash-cycle softener at the .001 level of signifi-
cance as reported in Table 16. Specimens not softened were also very
highly significantly (p <.001) stiffer than those treated with the con-
ventional softener or wash-cycle softener but were found to be less
stiff at the .001 level of significance than spray-softened specimens.
After 10 washings, the wash-cycle softener was much less effective

61
TABLE 15
EFFECT ON STIFFNESS OF NYLON
Warp Filling
Pooled Pooled
CONTROL
SOO 1.45 0.14 SOO 1.36 0.10
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
(p < .01) in contributing to softness than the other two types of fabric
softener. The highly significant (p < .01) difference between no soften-
er effects and the conventional softener effects occurred at all wash
levels. Specimens laundered with the conventional softener were much
softer. Specimens treated with the rinse-cycle softener were very

62
highly significantly (p < .001) limper than spray-softened specimens
after 20 washings (see Table 16).
The variable number of washings was found to have a significant
effect at the .01 level on the stiffness of cotton broadcloth, cotton
terry cloth, and nylon specimens as stated in Table 17. Cotton broad-
cloth specimens were stiffer after 1 wash but became limper with more
washings as indicated in Table 12. Table 13 reveals that cotton terry
cloth became slightly stiffer as laundering progressed through 20 times.
After 1 wash, nylon specimens displayed no significant changes in
stiffness. However, with increased laundering, the stiffness of nylon
decreased (see Table 15).
Tables 12 through 16 support the fact that use of fabric softener
results in less stiff specimens. The continued stiffness of some speci-
mens indicated after repeated washings may be attributed to build-up of
residual synthetic detergent which fabric softener cannot completely
overcome.
Interaction Between Variables in Stiffness Test
An interaction between laundry and softener was noted for cotton
terry cloth, nylon, and polyester as indicated in the statistical analy-
sis in Table 17. The relationship between softening and laundering was
highly significant (p <.01) for cotton terry cloth. As the number of
washings increased, the stiffness increased for all treatments except
the conventional softener (see Table 13). Tables 15 and 16 show that as
nylon and polyester specimens respectively are laundered a greater
number of times, the significant difference between the effects of the

63
TABLE 16
EFFECT ON STIFFNESS OF POLYESTER
Warp Filling
Pooled Pooled
CONTROL
SOO 2.53 0.13 SOO 2.14 0.14
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 -l
o X3 J-( o 13 TJ u 0 -o C M c
0 cu
CO Qi CU c
H Qi .H -i
C
-t
X
-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 . o
4J 4-) rH rH T-i
O O O o
O 53
65
types of fabric softener decreased. There was a very highly significant
(p <.001) interaction for the variables of laundering and softening on
the synthetic fiber fabrics.
Thickness Test Results
Fluffiness as measured by thickness was evaluated for all treat-
ment groups after 0, 1, 10, and 20 launderings. Ironically, the terry
towelling, expected to become fluffier upon softener treatment, did not
show any significant reaction to the fabric softeners. Softener effects
on thickness, found to be significant for cotton broadcloth, polyester/
cotton and polyester, are summarized in Tables 18 through 20. Analysis
of the figures indicates that thickness increased for those specimens
laundered with fabric softener as opposed to treatment without softener.
Thickness either increased or remained the same regardless of the type
of softener used. All softened specimens were thicker than the non-
softened, non-laundered, original specimens. There were no significant
differences for variables affecting nylon suggesting that the test
procedure was not sensitive enough for very thin fabrics.
Effects of Variables on Thickness
The data in Table 21 show that differences at the .001 level of
significance occurred between softening treatment effects on the thick-
ness of cotton broadcloth. Examination of Table 18 indicates that use
of the wash-cycle softener and conventional softener resulted in similar
increases in thickness. A significant (p< .05) difference was found
between the spray softener, which was ineffective, and the other two
types of fabric softener, both of which tended to make the specimens

66
TABLE 18
EFFECT ON THICKNESS OF COTTON BROADCLOTH
(From least thick to most thick)
Softener Mean S.D.
CONTROL
SOO .012 .001
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
67
thicker. Specimens not subjected to fabric softener were significantly
(p <-05) thinner than those treated with either the conventional soften-
er or wash-cycle softener. No significant difference was discerned
between the effect of no softener and the spray softener after 1 and 20
washings.
Polyester/cotton specimens showed a highly significant (p <.01)
difference between softening treatments on thickness as stated in Table
21. Data summarized in Table 19 suggest however, that in general no
difference between the three types of fabric softener occurred. After 1
wash, at the .05 level of significance, spray-softened specimens were
thicker than specimens treated with the conventional softener. After 10
washings, the wash-cycle softened specimens were highly significantly
thicker at the .01 level than specimens that underwent any of the other
three softening treatments. After 20 washings, the only significant
difference exhibited was between the effect of no softener and the
effect of softening. At the .01 level of significance, non-softened
specimens were less thick.
Analysis of variance indicated no softener differences affecting
the thickness of polyester. Duncan's new multiple range test presented
evidence that specimens treated with the wash-cycle softener were sig-
nificantly (p< .05) less thick than specimens treated with the spray
softener or no softener as supported by the data in Table 20.

68
TABLE 19
EFFECT ON THICKNESS OF POLYESTER/COTTON
Softener Mean Pooled S.D,
CONTROL
SOO .010 .001
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
69
TABLE 20
EFFECT ON THICKNESS OF POLYESTER
Softener Mean Pooled S.D.
CONTROL
SOO .042 001
AFTER 1 WASH
81 .041
82 .042 .001
S3 .043
SO .043
2.90*
n * 10
The statistical analysis presented in Table 21 indicates that very
highly significant differences occurred between number of washings for
cotton broadcloth, polyester/cotton, and polyester. However, further
tests of significant difference using Duncan's new multiple range test
did not detect any significant difference among 1, 10 and 20 washings
for any of the fabrics.
Interaction Between Variables Affecting Thickness
A very highly significant interaction at the .001 level of signi-
ficance was found between the variables of fabric softener and number of
washings for polyester/cotton and cotton terry cloth specimens. The
thickness of cotton terry cloth became greater after 20 multiple

70
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

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
launderings with use of no softener or treatment with the two recently
introduced types of fabric softener. Repeated use of the conventional
softener caused less thick specimens. Table 19 shows that thickness in-
creased as the number of washings increased for all softening treatments
except the spray-softener on polyester/cotton specimens. The thickness
of tliat group of specimens remained unchanged. The relationship between
fabric softener and number of washings was highly significant (p <.01)
for cotton broadcloth as stated in Table 21. Thickness of cotton broad-
cloth increased after 10 washings when either the conventional softener
or wash-cycle softener was used. After 20 washings, both treatments
caused a decrease in thickness. Spray-softened specimens exhibited the
opposite effect (see Table 18).
Effect of Fabric Softener on Weight
Analysis of variance revealed that significant differences involv-
ing weight occurred only for the variable number of washings as reported
in Table 22. Differences between the levels of washing were highly
significant (p < .01) for three fabricscotton broadcloth, nylon, and
polyester. Increased laundering caused area shrinkage which is hypo-
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
fabric softener has no effect on weight of specimens. Data indicating
weight change are located in Appendix D.
Whiteness Test Results
The figures in Tables 23 through 26, mean values for Yellowness
Index (YI), describe the difference in softening and laundering

72
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 s
rH
rH
o o
CD
73
treatments on the whiteness of each fabric, A survey of the tables in-
dicates that generally all specimens became whiter after multiple
launderings. The data can be analyzed from two standpoints. The Yellow-
ness Index measures a specimen's deviation from white in directions of
yellowness (+ values) and blueness (- values). One could consider
either absolute white as the optimum level of whiteness desired or one
could regard increasing blueness as being more desirable.
The following generalizations observed are supported by the data
in Tables 23 through 26. All specimens became increasingly blue after
laundering 20 times for every fiber fabric except polyester. Only poly-
ester specimens possessed a positive YI value over the duration of all
launderings. Non-softened specimens indicated a YI value nearer to "0"
(denoting absolute white) for the majority of the fabrics. Specimens
treated with the conventional softener were consistently bluer after 20
launderings. No softener effect was significant with respect to white-
ness for polyester/cotton as seen in Table 27.
Effects of Variables on Whiteness
According to the analysis of variance data in Table 27, softening
treatments were significantly different with respect to whiteness for
four of the five fabrics. The difference between the softener's effects
were at the .001 level of significance for all fabrics.
Data in Table 23 indicate that there was no significant difference
between the three types of fabric softener on cotton broadcloth at all
wash levels. However, non-softened specimens were very highly signifi-
cantly (p< .001) different from softened specimens in terms of either

74
TABLE 23
EFFECT ON WHITENESS OF COTTON BROADCLOTH
(From least white to most white)
Softener Mean S.D.
CONTROL
SOO -1-5.94 0.28
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
absolute distance from "0" or in terms of blueness. Specimens washed
without softener were closer to "0".
Cotton terry cloth exhibited a marked decrease in yellowness in
the first wash as shown by the YI values in Table 24. Almost a 50
percent change toward blueness was observed. The conventional soften-
er and wash-cycle softener produced similar YI values at all wash
levels. A very highly significant (p< .001) difference resulted between
the effects of the spray softener and conventional softener after 1
wash. Spray-softened specimens were bluer. In addition, non-softened
specimens were highly significantly (p< .01) different than those speci-
mens subjected to the conventional softener and spray softener. After
10 washings, there was no significant difference between the non-soften-
ed and wash-cycle softened specimens at the .05 level of significance.
Both groups of specimens were less blue.
Nylon was found to be more blue after treatment with the conven-
tional softener at all wash levels. Very highly significant (p < .001)
differences existed between the effects of the conventional softener and
wash-cycle as the data in Table 25 indicates. Nylon, like cotton terry
cloth, displayed a marked decrease in yellowness in one wash, as the YI
values went from positive to negative. The whitening effect could be a
result of optical brightener and bleach present in the detergent as well
as in the softeners. Non-softened specimens were significantly closer
to "0" at the .001 level than specimens treated with a fabric softener.
The very highly significant (p< .001) difference between softeners maxi-
mized after 10 washings as all types of softener were significantly
different from each other in their effects on whiteness. No difference

76
TABLE 24
EFFECT ON WHITENESS OF COTTON TERRY CLOTH
Softener Mean S.D.
CONTROL
SOO -f7.59 0.19
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
EFFECT OF WHITENESS ON NYLON
Softener Mean S.D.
CONTROL
800 -1-7.57 0.06
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.
The figures summarized in Table 26 show that all YI values for
polyester were positive; and, at no time was "0" approached. Specimens
washed with the rinse-cycle softener were significantly (p <.05) whiter
than those treated with the other two types of softener or no softener
the whiteness due presumably in part to optical brightener present in
the softener. No significant difference occurred between the effects of
the two newer softeners. Wash-cycle softened specimens were very highly
significantly (p < .001) yellower than non-softened specimens but only
after 10 washings.
Laundering effect was very highly significant (p <.001) for all
fabrics as shown in Table 27. The significant differences indicated for
cotton broadcloth, cotton terry cloth, and polyester/cotton were con-
sistent.
Table 28 shows that after 1 wash, cotton broadcloth specimens had
a mean YI value closer to "0" which was significantly different at the
.001 level from the other two levels of washing for all three types of
softener. However yellowness of unsoftened specimens diminished signi-
ficantly (p < .001) at each stage of laundering.
According to the data in Table 29, there was no significant change
in yellowness after 10 and 20 launderings regardless of softening treat-
ment. Again, specimens after 1 wash were significantly "whiter." The
levels of significance varied for the softening treatments as noted by
the F-ratios in Table 29.

79
TABLE 26
EFFECT ON WHITENESS OF POLYESTER
Softener Mean S.D.
CONTROL
800 -f9.75 0.05
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
 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
 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
RANK-ORDER OF THE EFFECT OF NUMBER OF WASHINGS

ON WHITENESS OF COTTON BROADCLOTH
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

ON WHITENESS OF COTTON TERRY CLOTH
Number
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***
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
83
Polyester/cotton specimens not treated with fabric softener were
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"
YI value. Like the preceding two fabrics, there was no significant
difference between the effect of 10 and 20 launderings on softened
specimens. Specimens after 1 wash were significantly (p < .05) closer to
"0".
The effect of number of washings on whiteness of nylon is summar-
ized in Table 31. All wash levels were significantly different for all
softening treatments except the spray softener at the .001 level. All
specimens after 1 wash recorded positive YI values. Specimens after 10
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
deviation from "0" with YI values of approximately -5.00.
As indicated in Table 32, only the specimens treated with the con-
ventional softener exhibited differences in whiteness due to laundering.
Once more, there was no significant difference between 10 and 20 wash-
ings. However, specimens washed once were yellower at the .01 level of
significance.
Interaction Between Variables

Affecting Whiteness
There was a very highly significant interaction at the .001 level
between the variables fabric softener and number of washings for all
fabrics except polyester/cotton (see Table 27). In general, maximum

84
TABLE 30

ON WHITENESS OF POLYESTER/COTTON
Number
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**
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
85
TABLE 31

ON WHITENSS OF NYLON
Number
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***
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
86
TABLE 32

ON WHITENESS OF POLYESTER
Number
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
10 +10 .21 0.29

1 + 9 .79 0.20
20 + 9 .19 0.35
6 .46 NS
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
blueness or whiteness was attained after 10 washings. With continued
use of fabric softener and continued laundering, YI values moved closer
to "0". Tables 28 through 32 make evident the effect of increased wash-
ing on tendency toward blueness.
Findings Related to the Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were formulated for the study:
. 1) There is no significant difference among types of fabric
softener as to their effectiveness in
a) increasing absorbency
b) reducing static cling
c) preventing stiffness
d) improving whiteness
e) maintaining thickness and fluffliness
2) There is no significant relationship between static cling
and absorbency as a result of the type of softener used.
3) There are no significant interactions between or among
a) fabric softener
b) number of launderings (0, 1, 10, 20)
c) direction of fabric (warp or filling)
in their effects of any of the above properties.
The results of five physical tests conducted indicated very highly
significant (p < .001) differences for the effect of fabric softening
treatments on all of the above properties for at least one fabric.
The newer wash-cycle type of softener and the conventional soften-
er rendered all fabrics less absorbent. The synthetic-fiber fabrics were
more absorbent after treatment with the newer type spray-softener.

88
Softeners generally had a significant effect. The results of the static
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.
The wash-cycle softener and conventional rinse-cycle softener acted as
effective anti-static agents. The wash cycle softener rendered cotton
terry cloth specimens significantly softer while the same treatment pro-
duced stiffer polyester specimens. The conventional rinse-cycle soft-
ener indicated a significant difference on thickness of cotton broad-
cloth from the effect of the other three types of softening treatments.
While all fabrics improved in whiteness, there was a significant dif-
ference in the blueness produced by the conventional softener overall.
Thus, all parts of Hypothesis 1 were rejected.
Compared with non-softening, only the spray-softener in the dryer
failed to reduce static cling. The amount of moisture on the surface of
the fabric influences the presence of electrical charges. Theoretically,
the more absorbent fabric would exhibit less static cling as the capa-
city to hold moisture would provide a conducting path for the charged
particles. However, the spray-softener reduced absorbency less than the
other two types of fabric softener. Hypothesis 2 cannot be wholly ac-
cepted nor rejected without further statistical evidence and investi-
fation.
There were significant interactions indicated between fabric soft-
ener and number of washings, and fabric softener and direction of
fabric. However, at the levels of significance selected for the study,
there were no interactions between number of washings and directions of
fabric nor any second-order interactions. Hypothesis 3 is partially
rejected.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The consumer market is constantly changing as a direct result of
both technological advancements and consumer demand. Product evaluation
is a logical outgrowth of the increasing number of new products in re-
cent years in all phases of life. Laundry aids are no exception to the
rate at which new products appear. It is the query of the writer
whether or not many products fail to serve the purpose(s) for which they
are advertised and marketed.
The study was undertaken to detenrine if two recently introduced
fabric softeners functioned efficently or even adequately concerning
several advertising claims made by their manufacturers. The purpose of
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,
the effects of washing with or without softeners was assessed. Vari-
ables of the study in addition to fabric softener included number of
washings and yarn direction of fabric. Five fabrics were selected for
testing. Six fabric characteristics were investigated for 13 softener-
laundering combinations including control specimens.
The following observations resulted:
1) Absorbency was impaired with regular usage of both a wash-
cycle fabric softener and a conventional fabric softener for
the majority of fabrics tested.
89
90
2) Overall, absorbency was affected less when the specimens
were non-softened.
3) Comparison of the three types of fabric softener showed that
absorbency was least affected by repeated usage of the spray-
softener in the dryer.
4) T h e STirav snft'^'neT TT-I the /-I--TO-I- ^ A A -r.^*- -f.,^-:^^,-^ ^J~.Ax.
effectiveness in improving or maintaining absorptive capa-
city of all fabrics.
5) The greatest loss in absorptive capacity when specimens were
treated with fabric softener occurred after 1 wash; with
continued laundering absorbency gradually improved but failed
to reach the original level of absorbency for those fabrics
which were impaired the most by use of a particular fabric
softener.
6) The spray-softener failed to reduce or eliminate static cling
in nylon tricot specimens at 65 + 2 percent relative humidity.
7) The wash-cycle softener and conventional softener both of
which caused the greatest absorbency loss, effectively elimi-
nated static cling within the limits of the study.
8) Except for cotton terry cloth, fabric softeners were effective
in reducing stiffness.
9) The spray-softener was less effective in reducing stiffness.
10) The conventional rinse-cycle softener appeared to increase the
thickness of certain specimens to a greater degree than did
the other two types of softeener.

91
11) None of the softeners improved the thickness or fluffiness of
cotton terry cloth.
12) If blueness is desirable as a measure of whiteness, all types
of softener improved the whiteness of the specimens evaluat-
ed.
13) The conventional rinse-cycle softener produced the most
apparent blueness.
14) Use of no fabric softener indicated YI values closer to abso-
lute white for most fabrics.
15) Fabric softener had no significant effect on fabric weight
per unit area of a specimen.
Within the scope of the study, the following conclusions have been
drawn:
1) The three types of fabric softener do not affect specific
fabric characteristics in the same way.
2) A particular type of softener may be desirable as well as
beneficial for correcting one or two laundry problems but the
consumer should not expect any one type of product to serve
efficiently in all capacities.
3) Regular and prolonged use of fabric softener will not signi-
ficantly improve a particular fabric characteristica limit
of effectiveness or ineffectiveness is attained.
4) From the data, no one type of softener evaluated could be
labeled as best or worst in terms of overall performance;
however, the spray softener appeared least effective in most
tests.
92
Recommendations for Further Study
Recommendations for further investigation ensuing from the results
of the study include:
1) investigating additional properties or fabric characteristics
affected by the use of a fabric softener.
2) conducting a study varying the concentrations of softeners per
weight of fabric being tested.
3) conducting a similar study testing static cling at two or more
levels of lower humidity.
4) conducting a similar study washing specimens in the Launder-
ometer.
5) evaluating the most recently developed fabric softeners not
yet nationally distributed for home use.
6) developing more sensitive test procedures for ascertaining
fabric softener build-up.
7) investigating the effect of spray-softener build-up on the
dryer drum and the implications for proper functioning of
the dryer.
8) an inter-disciplinary study concerning equipment and laundry
aids.
LIST OF REFERENCES
1- AATCC Technical Manual. The American Association of Textile Chem-

ists and Colorists, New York, Howe's Publishing Co., Inc.
1973.
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.
3. "An Inquiry into the Influence of Application Conditions of Soft-

ener Efficiency." Paper by the New England Section, AATCC,
American Dyestuff Reporter, 55(2):43-48, 1966.
4. "Appliance Shorts," Woman's Talk, Edited by Sears Home Management

Specialists, No. 1, June, 1974.
5. Armstrong, W. R., Fabric Softeners. Paper read before meeting of

the Home Laundry Division of the Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers. 1967, as cited by Coldwell, (Ref. 7).
6. Book of ASTM Standards with Related Material, Part 24, American

Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1964.
7. Coldwell, Carol A., Effect of Fabric Softener on Terry Cloth. Un-

published Master's Thesis, Texas Tech University, 1968.
8. DuBrow, Paul L. and Linfield, Werner M., "Cationic Fabric Soften-

ers." Soap and Chemical Specialties, 33:89-97, 1957.
9. Editors of the American Fabrics Magazine, Encyclopedia of Textiles,
New York, Prentice-Hall, 1960, pp. 436, 442.
10. "Fabric Softeners," Consumer Reports, 34:254-257, 1969-
11. "Fabric Softeners," Consumer Reports, 39:419-421, 1974.

12. Ginn, M. E. , Schenach, T. A., and Jungermann, Eric. "Performance
Evaluation of Selected Fabric Softeners," The Journal of the
American Oil Chemists Society, 42:1084-1088, 1965.
13. Goodman, William Q. and Malone, Henry B., "Fiber Lubricants,"

American Dyestuff Reporter, 56:143-144, 1967.
14. Hallows, H. B., "Softening Agents," Textile Manufacturer, 91:73-

75, 1965.
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.
17. Hughes, G. K. and Koch, S. D., "Evaluation of Fabric Softeners,"

Soap and Chemical Specialties. 4^:109-112, 1965.
18. Keiser, Marjorie B, and Saneholtz, B. J,, "New Emphasis Needed in

Home Laundry Research," Journal of Home Economics, 63:277-278,
1971. ~~
19. Koehler, Naomi, "Softeners, Brighteners, and Starches, Waltz

Through the Washday," American Home Laundry Manufacturers'
Association Report, Chicago, 1963.
20.V Koehler, Naomi, "Starches and Softeners. Fabrics, Fashions, and

Facilities," American Home Laundry Manufacturers' Report,
Chicago, 1965.
.21. Koehler, Naomi, "Cationic Softeners for Home Laundry," Home Laundry
Conference Report, pp. 58-62, 1966.
22. Kortland, C. and Muijs, H. M., "Softening Agents for Washing,"

Textile Technology Digest, Abstract No. 9324, _28(9), 1971.
23. "Laundry Bleaches and Fabric Softeners," Consumers Bulletin,

4^:20-21, 1959.
24. Letter from James J. Herringer, 8. C. Johnson and Son, Inc. to

Dr. R. G. Steadman, Texas Tech University, May 26, 1972.
^ 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.
27. Lubbock Water Analysis, Personal communication from the Lubbock

Water Treatment Laboratory, Lubbock, Texas, 1973.
28. Markezich, A. R., and Smith, M. M., "Softeners Applied in Home

Laundering," American Dyestuff Reporter, _52:992-995, 1966.
29. Maytag Encyclopedia of Home Laundry, 4th Edition, Newton, Western

Publishing Co., pp. 52, 182-183, 1973.
95
30 McNally, John P. and McCord, Frank A., "Cotton Quality Study V:
Resistance to Abrasion," Textile Research Journal, 30:715-751,
1960.
31. Moncrieff, R. w. , "Anti-Statics: Recent Advances in Knowledge,"

Textile Manufacturer, 9^:448-449, 1965.
32. Morton, W. E. and Hearle, J. W. 8., Physical Properties of Textile

Fibers, Butterworths, Inc., Washington, D. C , 1962.
33. Murry, Edward A., "The Effect of Various Softeners on a Resin

Treated Viscose Rayon Fabric," American Dyestuff Reporter,
44:141-149, 1955.
34. Neder, Jean T. , Effect of a Cationic Fabric Softener on Soiling and

Abrasion Resistance of a Durable Press Fabric. Unpublished
Master's Thesis, University of California, 1967.
35. Owen, J. D., "The Handle and Drape of Fabrics," The Shirley Link,
Winter 1970/71, pp. 18-21.
36. Padgett, Rose W. , Textile Chemistry and Testing in the Laboratory,

Minneapolis, Burgess Publishing Co., pg. 62.
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.
39. Saville, Dorothy, Effect of Laundering with Fabric Softener on

Selected Properties of Two Cotton Fabrics. Oklahoma Agricul-
tural Experiment Station Bulletin No. B-584, 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).
42. Soap, Cosmetic, and Chemical Specialties, AdvertisementNew Pro-
ducts Section, 47:87, 1971.
43. "Soft Touch to Sell," Chemical Week, 77:61-62, 1955.
44. "Softener Build-up Harmful," Dallas Times, August 5, 1973.
45. "Softener Spurt," Chemical Week, 80:100, 1957.

96
46. Sollenberger, William, "Cationic SoftenersTheir Secondary Effects

on Textile Fabrics," American Dyestuff Reporter, 46:41-57,
1957. ^
47. Stensby, P, s., "Optical Brighteners in Fabric Softeners," Soap

and Chemical Specialties, ^:85-88, 1965.
48. Taylor, Emily, "New Fabric Softeners That Work in the Dryer,"
Good Housekeeping, April, 1973, p. 158.
49. "Textile Chemistry," McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Tech-

nology, 12, New York, 1973, pp. 551-554.
50' Textile Handbook, American Home Economics Association, 3rd Edition,

Washington, D. C., 1966, pp. 82-83.
51. "The Difference at Miracle White," Soap, Cosmetic, and Chemical

Specialties, 60:26, 1972.
52. "The Effect of Repeated Application of Home Softeners upon Absor-

bency and Other Properties of Terry Towels," Textile Chemist
and Colorist, 4.:16-21, 1972.
53. The Laundry Book, Calgon Corporation, 1964, pp. 9, 22.
54. "Trial Balloon," Chemical Week, 26:42, 1955.
55. U. 8. Bureau of the Census, Inhabitants 1970, Government Printing

Office, Washington, 1972.
56. Van Riper, Jacqueline, The Effect of Fabric Softeners on the Tumble
and Edge Abrasion Resistance of Fabrics with and without Resin
Finishes. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Illinois,
1968.
57. Weirich, E. G., "Fabric Softeners," Detergent Age, 318:82-84, 1964.
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.
60. "Why Cling Free?" Flyer published by Calgon Consumer Products

Company, Inc.
APPENDIX
A. Fabrics Tested in the Study
B. Lubbock Water Analysis
C. Water Hardness Scale
D. Effect of Fabric Softener on Weight
97
98
APPENDIX A
Fabric One
100% Cotton
Broadcloth
Manufacturer's Description: Bleached, mercerized, combed
Weight: 122 grams per square meter
No. of ends and picks per inch: 120 x 60

99
Fabric Two
100% Cotton
Terry Cloth Towelling
Manufacturer's Description: Bleached

100
Fabric Three
65% Polyester/35% Cotton

Batiste
Manufacturer's Description: Dacron 54; Shirting

101
Fabric Four
100% Nylon
Jersey
Manufacturer's Description: Dull
No. of courses and wales per inch: 30 x 45

102
Fabric Five
100% Polyester
Doubleknit
Manufacturer's Description: Dacron Type 56; Texturized
No. of courses and wales per inch: 40 x 30

103
APPENDIX B
LUBBOCK WATER TREATMENT LABORATORY (WTL)

CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF CANADIAN RIVER WATERS
Date Collected: 7-24-73

Date Received: 7-24-73
Raw Plant Effluent
pH 8.47 7.71
Total Hardness as CaCO^ 260 256
Carbonates 5 0
Bicarbonates 200 195
Calcium 64 59
Magnesium 24 26
Sulfates 256 253
Chloride 266 270
Iron .06 .06
Total Phosphates .04 .05
NOTE: All figures in PPM (mg/1) except pH.
Chemist: Ralph Rogers
Technician: Claudia Miller
*Values extracted from original analysis

104
APPENDIX C
TABLE 33
NUMBER OF GRAINS IN RELATION TO DEGREE OF

HARDNESS OF WATER IN THE UNITED STATES
*Grains per United States Gallon Degree of Hardness
0-5 Soft
5-10 Medium Hard
10 - 15 Hard
15+ Very Hard

' " ' " I I ' III I I I I I I I ill! M ! I ! I I I I . ^ I M ^ l | ' ^ . l
Source: The Laundry Book, Calgon Corporation, pg. 9.
*Conversion factor: 17.1 PPM * 1 grain per U.S. gallon.

105
APPENDIX D
TABLE 34
EFFECT OF FABRIC SOFTENER ON WEIGHT

(expressed in grams per square meter)
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
Cotton Terry Cloth

Confidence Interval * + 2
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

The Evaluation of Three Types of Fabric Softener PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Evaluation of Three Types of Fabric Softener PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

THE EVALUATION OF THREE TYPES OF FABRIC SOFTENER

ANNE REIDA TICKEL, B.S.

CLOTHING AND TEXTILES

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN HOME ECONOMICS

/D*an of th^e/Graduatyfe School

many individuals whose assistance made the study an accomplishment.

Foremost, I wish to thank my committee: Dr. Robert G. Steadman, Chair-

prompted my pursuing the study; Dr. Norma E. Walker who consistently

sionalism served as an inspiration; and Mrs. Martha Logan who contri-

buted richly with her enthusiasm, research materials, and suggestions.

To the committee as a whole, I convey my gratitude for their continued

encouragement, optimism, infinite patience and confidence in my capa-

I am indebted to the personnel at the Textile Research Center

Texas Tech University, for their aid and willingness to permit me to

use their laboratory facilities. I particularly wish to thank Mr. Bob

Wyatt who gave so generously of his time. Last, the statistical

counselling rendered by Mr. Jack Tubbs is gratefully acknowledged.

Statement of the Problem 3

Purpose of the Study 4

Justification for the Study 5

Scope and Limitations 8

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10

Development of Fabric Softeners 10

V Types of Fabric Softeners 13

Composition of Fabric Softeners 15

V The Function of Fabric Softeners 18

/Effects of Using a Fabric Softener 18

Fabric Softener and Absorbency 19

Fabric Softener and Static Cling 20

Effect of Fabric Softener on Whiteness 22

Stiffness and Softness as Affected by Fabric Softener . . . 23

V Proper Use of Fabric Softeners 25

Description of Fabric Softeners 28

Preparation of the Samples 29

Symbols Employed in the Study 33

IV. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 38

Vertical Absorption Test Results 38

Effects of Variables on Vertical Absorption 39

Interaction Between Variables Affecting Absorbency 50

Static Cling Test Results 53

Effects of Variables on Static Cling 53

Stiffness Test Results 54

Effects of Variables on Stiffness 54

Interaction Between Variables in Stiffness Test 62

Thickness Test Results 65

Effects of Variables on Thickness 65

Interaction Between Variables Affecting Thickness 69

Effect of Fabric Softener on Weight 71

Effects of Variables on Whiteness , , . . , 73

Interaction Between Variables Affecting Whiteness 83

Findings Related to the Hypotheses 87

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 89

Recommendations for Further Study , 92

A. Fabrics Tested in the Study 98

B. Lubbock Water Analysis 103

C. Water Hardness Scale 104

D. Effect of Fabric Softener on Weight 105

1. Variation of Resistance with R.H. of Nylon Fabric

i.. ivanix-order of Softener EffecL on Absorbency of

3. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Absorbency of

4. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Absorbency of

5. Rank-order of Softener Effect on Absorbency of