How to avoid chemical damage

You do not need to have a degree in chemistry to be a successful cleaner, but you certainly need to have your wits about you to avoid unnecessary claims. This month we look at some of the common problems with unexpected chemical reactions and some simple tips which minimise the risks of spoiling an expensive garment. A cleaner encounters many different types of chemical every day, as staining on the item itself, in the stain treatments, in the cleaning fluid and in the detergents used. The problems described occur every day in retail cleaning units and the degree of damage caused varies with the skill and foresight of the cleaning team.

• If you have problems you would like the authors to examine please send with a good quality, high resolution (3 00dpi/1MB at least) pic of the item to kathy.bowry@laundryandcleaningnews.com

‘Like a faded limp dish rag!’

Fault: After this grey silk dress was drycleaned in perchloroethylene solvent, the fabric had lost its sheen, it looked faded and washed out and the handle resembled that of, in the customer’s own words, ‘a limp dish rag’.

Technical cause: The power of perchloroethylene has been sufficient to strip the yarn oils off the silk so that it has lost its sheen and resilient ‘scrunchy’ handle. It looks and feels thin and faded, even though it has probably lost little, if any, colour.

Responsibility: This is often an inevitable feature of this fabric when it is drycleaned in perchloroethylene. It is labelled with P in a circle with a line underneath  so the cleaner was quite right to assume it could be drycleaned in perchloroethylene. The key precautions for silk implied by the line under the symbol are reduced moisture and reduced mechanical action, so cleaning on a short, high dip cycle will minimise the risk. However, the effects can be progressive, leaving garments looking and feeling dry, limp and faded. Using a detergent incorporating a softening agent may help to counter this.

Rectification: Irrespective of the care label the garment would probably have cleaned well in hydrocarbon or cyclosiloxane solvent. To improve the result in perc, include a little suede oil in a distilled rinse followed by a short spin – tumble for 30 seconds before turning on the fan. The optimum dosage of suede oil is about one third of the manufacturer’s recommended dosage for a suede. Silk re-oiling products are available for application from an aqueous bath.

Sensitive dye makes stain removal impossible

Fault: Application of a tannin remover took out the colour immediately from this tan jacket when the cleaner attempted to pretreat a heavy beer stain (without having tested a hidden area first). Addition of a few drops of protein remover did not reverse the colour change.

Technical cause: Tannin removers are designed to de-colour vegetable dyes by mild chemical oxidation, which works well with beer, red wine, tea, coffee and beetroot. However, if the dyes used by the maker are not resistant to this pretreatment, then the tannin remover can decolour these as well, ruining the garment. Unfortunately, there are many garment ranges in circulation at present which are at risk, especially those made from lightweight cotton, viscose or linen blends.

Responsibility: It is solely the cleaner’s responsibility to ensure that the chemicals that are used to remove a stain are safe in terms of both the fabric and the dye/ colour. Textile manufactures cannot be expected to rigorously test for dye fastness and fabric safety against the multiplicity of spotting chemicals used throughout the cleaning industry.

Rectification: Sometimes, (with dark navy and dark shades in particular) it is possible to re-colour the damaged area using textile felt pens. However, the size of the damage seen here on a light colour makes success most unlikely. The chances are the garment is ruined.

Chemicals in the stain destroy the fabric

Fault: After stain pre-treatment and drycleaning, the stains to this wedding gown had darkened, more stains had appeared and the fabric at the under-arms was disintegrating.

Technical cause: Old stains are much more difficult to soften with pre-treatment prior to drycleaning, which is why fewer old stains will come out completely. Also, any staining containing sugars (such as beer, wine or children’s drinks) or proteins (such as ice cream, custard or gravy) could dry to leave no visible mark. Neither type of stain is completely removed by drycleaning and the residues from both will darken during tumble drying in warm air. Untreated perspiration at the under-arms tends to become either acidic or alkaline with time, causing steady rotting of the yarns if these contain either cotton or silk. The material starts to disintegrate with the mechanical action of the cleaning machine process to produce the result now seen here.

Responsibility: For both, the residual staining and the fabric damage lies with the user on this occasion, because both stem from staining in use and the delay in getting the garment cleaned. However, a conscientious cleaner would suggest realistic expectations at reception and should always ask the date of the wedding and then lower the customers’ expectations appropriately.

Rectification: It may be possible to improve aged stains using a good proprietary post-spotting kit, but this may require considerable time and skill. Protein components should be softened first and then flushed off, before the tannin stains are tackled. The fabric damage cannot be improved and may get worse if the garment needs recleaning after retreatment. The customer should be warned of this beforehand.

Washing proves a disaster

Fault: This dress came in with plenty of food and drink staining from a wedding reception. It had no aftercare, fibre content or manufacturer label. The cleaner decided to wash it without further investigation. After washing, the ivory colour had turned to grey, the fabric displayed tight creasing which the cleaner could not press out and in some lights the fabric looked speckled.

Technical cause: This garment is made from silk and was not designed for washing. The fabric has ‘cracked’ with the effect of water and mechanical action, to produce very tight creasing and an ‘orange-peel’ appearance in some areas. The cleaner has also used the wrong washing detergent for an ivory-coloured item selecting one with an optical brightening agent, which is now making the ivory look grey. The detergent (a powder) has not been completely dissolved in the wash process and it is this which is producing pinpoint areas of high brightness, giving the speckled appearance.

Responsibility: in the absence of any fibre content or aftercare information, at the very least, the cleaner should have conducted a careful assessment of the item and established its likely fibre content. A simple burning test could have been used - see The Guild of Cleaners and Launderers Spotting Manual, before deciding to accept the garment, possibly at ‘Owners Risk’. In view of the fibre content the decision to wash the item was the wrong one and the cleaner must accept responsibility.

Rectification: None is possible.

Solvent damage to coloured trim

Fault: The mauve trim lost its colour when drycleaned in accordance with the care label in perchloroethylene solvent. The original colour is apparent on an uncleaned sample from the maker.

Technical cause: The dye used for the trim has not been designed to withstand perchloroethylene. On further investigation it was found that the maker had actually had the garment tested for its drycleanability by a local cleaner. Checks with this cleaner revealed that they used hydrocarbon solvent, which did not damage the trim.

Responsibility: The blame here should be taken by the garment maker, because the correct label for hydrocarbon cleaning is F in a circle . Perchloroethylene has a solvency power of 90 on the kauri-butanol scale, whereas hydrocarbon has a power of only 29 - 31.

Rectification: Sadly, none is possible.