Classifying and sorting pieces

For those cleaners lucky enough to have a fairly heavy and consistent workload, classification is generally quite straightforward, provided the operator is well trained and has a good knowledge of textile properties. As the workload decreases, classification becomes increasingly problematic. It all boils down to the fact that, with only a few garments, to clean it may be impossible to classify them correctly and safely, while at the same time operating the cleaning machine efficiently.

When the workload falls off during slack periods, the best option is to extend service times to allow a viable amount of cleaning to accumulate. If insufficient work is allowed to dictate poor classification it will inevitably lead to problems such as colour transfer, greying and fabric damage, all of which are the cleaner’s responsibility.

To minimise risks, the cleaner should aim, as a minimum, to sort items into the following categories:

• Darks
• Mediums
• Lights
• Whites
• Silks
• Specials

‘Specials’ should include: raincoats, fur fabrics, household, leathers or other items that cannot be included in the above groups. They each need to be accumulated until you have enough of a ‘special’ to make an economic load, or subcontracted to an appropriate specialist. It is not recommended that boiler suits are cleaned in a unit shop environment.

In addition to the colour of textiles, due consideration should be given to:

• Type of material and fibre content
  For example: garments that shed lint should be cleaned with items that will not be adversely affected or cleaned in a woven bag. Ideally, heavyweight and lightweight items should be cleaned in separate loads.Delicate items should be folded into a correctly sized net bag and classified separately.
• Accessories 
  Delicate accessories should be protected or removed, or (at the operator’s discretion) cleaned in an appropriate bag on a reduced cycle.
• Silks
  Natural silk is particularly sensitive to abrasion, mechanical action and water in the machine and should always form a separate classification group or be cleaned with other very lightweight, delicate items (with due regard to the colour).

This month we take a look at some of the problems that can lie in wait for the unwary operator.

Beware of glitter effects

Fault: this acetate velvet dress was covered with a multi-colour glitter pattern which had been secured to the pile using an adhesive. When the garment was removed from the drycleaning machine the glitter had been stripped off and redistributed throughout the load of dark suits.

Technical cause: the garment manufacturer used a solvent soluble adhesive to secure the glitter. The adhesive dissolved during drycleaning in perc, releasing the glitter which then contaminated all the other items in the load!

Responsibility: the manufacturer should take the blame for the dress, because the adhesive is solvent-soluble, and the care label is incorrect. As a delicate item, the symbol should have been underlined and a suitable solvent specified. However, the cleaner may have to take responsibility for five suits in the load, where the glitter was deeply embedded and could not be removed. This merits a substantial counterclaim by the cleaner against the dress manufacturer for consequential damage, but good luck with that one. A well-trained operator would have tested the glitter pattern and rejected the dress for anything other than perhaps localised spot cleaning. In any case, items of this type should be classified as a silk/ delicate item and cleaned in a woven bag (see February 2022 LCN), which might have avoided paying compensation for the suits.

Rectification (of the suits): as much glitter as possible should be removed, using a strong hand-held vacuum, before re-cleaning using only the filter circuit.

How was this allowed to happen?

Fault: the finishers were unable to finish this red polyester sunray-pleated skirt to a standard acceptable to the customer. Some of the pleats had been incorrectly positioned and were out of line, leaving a double crease that the staff could not remove.

Technical cause: many fine press pleats and sunray pleats require a high a high level of hands-on skill and very precise control of the iron to create a good standard of finish. It takes time, aptitude and training to develop the necessary skills across a range of fabric and garment types, before staff should be allowed to finish garments that demand skill, care and close attention to detail.

Responsibility: the cleaner should accept the responsibility here. This kind of situation is not uncommon when finishing staff are unexpectedly faced with a difficult finishing issue beyond their capabilities. This problem started at the counter where the staff should have approached the operator or finishers to confirm the item could be accepted. The operator should have recognised this item was a potential problem when sorting the garments prior to cleaning and returned it to the counter staff.

Rectification: a high-end, specialist cleaner may be able to produce a standard of finish acceptable to the customer. For a skilled finisher this was a time-consuming

Trim damaged in cleaning

Fault: the delicate trim covering the bodice area of this cocktail dress was badly damaged by mechanical action during drycleaning in perc.

Technical cause: the operator wrongly included the dress in a ‘medium’ load and placed it in a net bag, thinking this would protect it. Cleaners using perc solvent should be aware of its density - a litre of perc weighs 60% more than a litre of water! During cleaning, this imposes very high levels of mechanical action. Even though it was in a net bag, the very delicate trim comprising beads and sequins did not withstand the high level of mechanical action imposed during a ‘normal’ cleaning cycle with robust items.

Responsibility: the cleaner should accept responsibility here. Common sense and the  care label dictated that this was a delicate item that should be included in a silk classification and cleaned (in a net bag) using a reduced cycle.

Rectification: Compensation should be negotiated with the customer, because the time and cost implications of obtaining replacement beads and sequins (if available) and the tailoring work involved would probably far exceed the value of the dress.

Poor classification led to a dingy result

Fault: this once-white cotton dress went grey in drycleaning. The dress was drycleaned in perchloroethylene on a normal cycle in a load of medium to light garments. The operator and staff were not aware of any colour change following drycleaning and the dress was handed to the customer without comment. The dress was then returned by the customer together with the belt which she had not sent for cleaning (and was still the original white). Re-cleaning did not improve the result!

Technical cause: this dress should have been included in a 'white' classification group. White items and particularly cellulosic textiles are particularly susceptible to greying. ‘Normal’ cleaning programs start with a circulating dip (from the working tank) to still, which is less than ideal for white items, because discoloured dirty solvent remains in contact with the garments for up to four minutes. Many cleaners process whites in a single dip of distilled solvent – which is just as bad! Ideally ‘whites’ should be accumulated into a single load and cleaned over the filter (to remove particulates), followed by a rinse in distilled solvent.

Responsibility: Greying is a common problem and in this case the cleaner should accept the blame because of failure to classify correctly and the use of an inappropriate process structure.

Rectification: this dress has picked up a lot of particulate soil and it is most unlikely that the greying could be removed; but it is just possible that a water-based process using a good detergent might be successful.

• If you have problems you would like the authors to examine please send with a good quality, high resolution (300dpi/1MB at least) pic of the item to
  kathy.bowry@laundryandcleannnews.com