Case Studies: Stain removal and developed stains

5 September 2016



DTC’s Stacey King looks at problems drycleaners may face with stain removal


Stain removal can require a lot of skill and expertise from the cleaner. Although issues regarding incorrect pre-treatment or unremoved staining are not the most common fault the DTC sees, it certainly accounts for a large number of customer complaints.

A large contributor to these complaints is where stains are not visible at counter inspection but develop during processing. Developed stains can occur where, for example, a drink splash has dried to leave no visible residue. When drycleaned, solvent alone is not sufficient to remove any sugars present as these are water soluble. The remaining sugars, when tumble dried or exposed to dry heat in finishing, begin to caramelise and leave a brown mark, which would not have been foreseen. It is useful for a cleaner to have access to an ultraviolet lamp as, more often than not, these “invisible” stains will fluoresce. For example, sugar stains fluoresce towards lemon yellow and protein stains fluoresce towards pink. This can guide the cleaner in which pre-treatment to use and help reduce the potential for developed stains.

Other stains that are visible prior to cleaning are sometimes mistreated. A common example of this is coffee stains, which contain milk/cream. It is advisable for this type of staining to always use a protein remover before a tannin remover. The proteins present in milk/cream are able to wrap around the tannin; if these are not removed first, it can lead to unsuccessful removal of the entirety of the brown discolouration. Any water present in the pre-treatment should be sufficient to remove any sugars. If unsure of the nature of a stain, always try to ask the owner to identify the root cause of any visible stains to assist you in choosing the correct treatment.

Where using spotting treatments it is always recommended that an inconspicuous area, such as hem fold, is tested for its resistance to the treatment. Always flush the area with water and feather dry prior to machine cleaning. The manufacturer is only responsible for ensuring any dyes used are fast to drycleaning solvents and water, therefore, the responsibility for any colour loss as a result of pre-treatment always lies with the cleaner.

If unsure of how to use a particular treatment, always refer to the manufacture or supplier instructions. These should include information on dilution, the pH of the product and its suitability for various fabrics; this can considerably help prevent avoidable damage to delicate fabrics. Avoid use of standard household/machine detergents as these are not designed for localised, concentrated treatment and might contain chemicals, which can adversely affect the garment.

Developed stain

Fault: After having a suit jacket drycleaned the owner returned the jacket to his cleaner six months later complaining of a brown stain which had not been visible before.

Cause: The original stain was not visible before cleaning but the contaminant had been sugar based. Sugars are water soluble and would not be removed by drycleaning alone. In this instance the brown mark was not visible immediately after cleaning as a low temperature drying stage was used – this was not hot enough to caramelise the sugars. In storage, the stain has developed as the sugars have set into the fabric.

Responsibility: The owner should take responsibility. It would be unfair for the cleaner to share the blame as there was no visible mark on the jacket at counter inspection. For this reason the cleaner would have had no indication that any pre-treatment would have been required.

Rectification: Post-treatment with a suitable spotter followed by re-cleaning might improve the appearance of this stain. The cleaner might carry this out as a good will gesture.

Unsightly spillage

Fault: Severe colour loss was revealed on both the back and front of this vest after drycleaning. The item was silk in composition and had lost blue dye in a pattern consistent with pre-treatment.

Cause: The vest was submitted with a small stain to the front. The cleaner pre-treated the stain in an unnecessarily heavy handed, haphazard way.  The majority of the front of the garment was covered in pre-treatment detergent, this soaked through into the back panel as the cleaner failed to separate the layers. The blue dyes on this garment were not fast to the pre-treatment detergent used and the solvency power of the cleaning process stripped the weakened dyes from both the front and back leaving the unsightly yellow marks seen here.

Responsibility: The cleaner should take responsibility here for negligent pre-treatment. It is always recommended that all pre-treatments are tested on an inconspicuous area before use. This is of even more importance on delicate fabrics such as silk. Treatments should be used sparingly and with caution with efforts made to keep other unaffected areas protected.

Rectification: None is possible.

Treatment trouble

Fault: Pink discolouration appeared randomly on the reverse of a dress, which had been submitted with a red wine stain to the front.

Cause: The red wine stain on the front of the dress was spot treated and successfully removed. Residual pre-treatment detergent was flushed from the front of the dress. Unbeknown to the cleaner a very small amount of pre-treatment detergent had come in to contact with the reverse of the dress. This was not flushed off and the contact time was enough to weaken the dyes in the exposed areas. The weakened dyes were flushed off during cleaning leaving pale pink areas behind.

Responsibility: Unfortunately the cleaner is responsible here. Although accidental, the colour loss is a direct result of pre-treatment.

Rectification: None is possible

Dirt disaster

Fault: Unremoved dirt from the hem of a wedding dress displeased the owner.

Cause: Wedding dresses are notorious for picking up all kinds of dirt and grime on the big day. This dress had been worn outside and picked up a large amount of soiling around the train. The cleaner drycleaned the dress without particular attention to this.

Responsibility: The cleaner should take responsibility here. Drycleaning does not remove water soluble soiling such as general floor dirt. Effective pre-treatment can be carried out to ensure very little dirt and grime is left unremoved.

Rectification: Treatment with natural bar soap and gentle tamping should remove the majority of this dirt. This might be time consuming but will give successful results if time and patience is employed.

Hey! Sugar, sugar

Fault: A cleaner was faced with very faint water-mark type staining on a dress.

Cause: The cleaner had access to an ultraviolet lamp and was able to identify the stains as sugar stains due to the yellow fluorescence they produced. The likeliest cause is a drink spill whilst in wear.

Responsibility: The owner is responsible for the original spill however the marks should easily be removable by the cleaner now they know what they are dealing with.

Rectification: Gentle treatment with warm water followed by feathering dry before cleaning should remove any sugars and prevent them from setting/caramelising during the process.

Now you see them,  now you don’t

Fault: The customer submitted a white jumper with a coffee staining for cleaning but complained that when the jumper was collected, the stain remained.

Cause: There was no evidence of any residual staining under natural light. Under ultraviolet light a small area of blue/white fluorescence indicated where pre-treatment detergent had been used to remove the stain. This could give the area in question a slightly whiter appearance due to the presence of optical brighteners (these give the blue/white fluorescence and an illusion of increased whiteness) however in natural light the fabric was even in colour.

Responsibility: None. The cleaner successfully removed the coffee stain therefore the complaint was found to be unjustified.

Rectification: None is needed.

Developing discolouration

Fault: A large ring of colour loss was observed on the knee of these trousers after cleaning.

Cause: No staining was visible on this pair of trousers before cleaning but when removed from the machine a large ring of colour loss was apparent. The owner had knelt in a liquid, which had dried to leave no mark. As liquids dry they evaporate from the edges, this causes any central liquid and any suspended solids to move from the centre to the edges. This is why liquids often dry with a concentrated ring. Where the contamination was more concentrated (at the edges) dye to fibre bonds were weakened and the loose dyes were flushed out during cleaning.

Responsibility: The owner should take responsibility here for introducing the original contaminant. The cleaner could not have foreseen or prevented this discolouration as no mark was present at counter inspection.

Rectification: None is possible.

TREATMENT TROUBLE
WHITE JUMPER
UNSIGHTLY SPILLAGE
SUGAR STAINS
DISCOLOURATION
DIRT DISASTER
DEVELOPED STAIN


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.