PROBLEMS probed

7 April 1999



Richard Neale presents a selection of drycleaning headaches.


What went wrong?

Leg length disparity

Problem: The legs of a pair of women's bi-stretch trousers were different lengths after cleaning and pressing. Cause: These bi-stretch trousers were made from cotton yarns containing an elastomer. Usually the legs would stay the same length, but if they are finished on a trouser topper in a steam air cabinet, the weight of the clamps could stretch each leg differentially up to eight inches. Finishing on a free steam press is preferred but use only sufficient tension to bring both legs back to the correct dimensions. Responsibility: The garment manufacturer is responsible for excessive relaxation shrinkage-quality varies considerably from supplier to supplier. The cleaner is responsible for setting the leg length correctly with a properly shaped hemline, without stretching or shrinking.


Not so bright

Problem: Drycleaning turned a knitted cotton cardigan grey. Cause: There is nothing wrong with the level of optical brightener as examination under ultraviolet light made the cardigan glow-the greying has been caused by re-deposition of soiling from the cleaning fluid. Responsibility: The cleaner is responsible in this case. Rectification: Greying can be avoided by: pre-drying cotton and woollen goods prior to cleaning; ensuring that there is no free moisture in the cleaning fluid; using distilled solvent for whites and pastels; and by ensuring that every bath has the correct detergent charge because one of its functions is to prevent soil re-deposition.


Brushing action to blame

Problem: A halo of fading appeared in a pair of cotton jeans following stain removal treatment. Cause: The fabric is quite sensitive to abrasion, it is very important to use the tamping brush in stain removal, and to ensure that a vertical reciprocating motion is applied. Never use a brushing action-this is what caused the problem here. Responsibility: The cleaner. Rectification: Considerable improvement was obtained by lightly misting the treated area with a very fine water spray. It helped lift the surface fibres and enhance the colour.


Jacket ripples

Problem: Drycleaning brought out rippling in the fronts of a man's suit jacket. Cause: There were two problems here. First, the interlining was underfused on the manufacturer's fusing press resulting in a very low peel bond strength. Second, the rippling was intensified because the interlining relaxed by more than the outer cloth in cleaning. The differential shrinkage sheared the already weak bond to produce the fault. Responsibility: The manufacturer is responsible in this instance. Rectification: It is very tempting to try firm pressing but there is a risk of damaging the cloth surface and the cure itself usually survives only until the next drycleaning when it reappears worse than ever. In a case such as this it far better to advise the customer to return the garment to the place of purchase.


Another length problem

Problem: Severe mismatch between the lengths of the two fronts of a natural fleece coat following drycleaning in perchloroethylene. Cause: When a hide is tanned the tanner has to apply differential stretch to create flat garment leather from a 3D barrel shape, and getting rid of natural wrinkling. This stretch is released in drycleaning. Here the right front has shrunk and the left front is relaxed in the other direction. Responsibility: The cleaned skins here were soft, supple and elastic indicating expert handling on the part of the cleaner. Hence, in this instance the responsibility lies with the garment manufacturer and, ultimately, with the leather tanner.


Migration darkening

Problem: Darkening around the buttonholes and other areas where glue was used in the construction of a leather coat. Cause: The adhesive was not resistant to drycleaning. This contravenes the British Standard for the cleaning quality of a leather garment which specifically calls for adhesive able to resist perchloroethylene without showing migration darkening of the type seen here. Responsibility: The garment maker. Rectification: None. The customer was advised to return it to the place of purchase.




Privacy Policy
We have updated our privacy policy. In the latest update it explains what cookies are and how we use them on our site. To learn more about cookies and their benefits, please view our privacy policy. Please be aware that parts of this site will not function correctly if you disable cookies. By continuing to use this site, you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.