You are on page 1of 8

FEBRUARY 2005 157

Comparison of the Performance Properties of Carpets
Containing Nylon 6 and Nylon 66 Face Yarns
P. RADHAKRISHNAIAH
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, 30032, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT
A parametric analysis of the performance properties of a group of twenty-four well
balanced carpet samples, half of which represent nylon 6 and the other half nylon 66 face
yarns, shows that nylon 66 carpets offer superior performance in terms of texture retention
and color fastness to ozone. There are no significant differences in measured performance
properties between nylon 6 and 66 carpets in terms of soil repellency, oil repellency, water
repellency, color fastness to light, color fastness to nitrous oxides, and thickness recovery
from prolonged application of a static load. A nonparametric evaluation of an expert
grader’s assessment through a paired comparison of nylon 6 and 66 carpets subjected to
wear on a Vettermann drum tester shows that the grader overwhelmingly prefers nylon 66
over nylon 6 (fifty times out of fifty-four). The comparison, however, is between
identically constructed carpets and not between carpets whose construction has been
optimized for the specific fiber type. Since the texture of the finished carpet is believed to
be influenced by a host of construction parameters such as fiber denier, fiber modulus,
fiber cross-sectional shape, yarn denier, yarn twist, heat setting conditions, pile height, pile
weight, etc., it would be interesting to see how a fiber-specific carpet construction and
design optimization would influence the texture comparison. Both pile type and pile yarn
weight exert an influence on texture retention properties as measured on the Vettermann
tester. In addition, pile type influences soil repellency. Fluoropolymer treatment has a
significant positive influence on color fastness to ozone, soil repellency, oil repellency,
and water repellency properties.

Historically, studies of nylon 66 and nylon 6 polymers When it comes to carpet performance, it is well un-
have focused on structure development, physical and derstood by the trade that in most constructions, nylon
mechanical properties, structure-property relationships, significantly outperforms the less resilient polypropylene
and morphology. Thus, many fiber and polymer proper- and polyester fibers. However, the differences in perfor-
ties such as melt behavior, tensile properties, thermal and mance properties of carpets made from nylon 66 and
oxidative stability, crystallinity, and orientation have nylon 6 fibers have been viewed more or less as subtle
been extensively investigated [2, 5–7, 9, 13]. While differences. Interestingly, there are no significant pub-
differences in some of these properties appear to be lished data available describing performance differences,
significant, nylon 66 and nylon 6 continue to be used if any, between nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpets. In 1995,
more or less interchangeably for many of the same end Werny [16] judged nylon 66 to have a slight texture
uses, perhaps due to the similarity of many of their recovery advantage over nylon 6 in carpets, but his claim
properties. has not been supported by data collected from a group of
According to Prevorsek et al. [12], while it is possible identically constructed carpets. Yet another unpublished
to impart widely differing properties to both nylon 6 and report by Beyerlein [1] concluded that no discernable
66 fibers through process changes and small chemical differences in performance exist between carpets repre-
modifications, the performance of nylon 6 has seldom senting nylon 66 and nylon 6 fibers. Unfortunately, this
been equivalent to nylon 66 for the same application. work also suffered from the same weaknesses as
This, however, does not mean that nylon 66 is automat- Werny’s, in that it did not fully match constructions
ically preferable to nylon 6, because certain end uses between the fibers; instead, it compared the performance
may not require the special characteristics of nylon 66, or of solution dyed carpets with that of regular dyed carpets.
specific circumstances associated with product design In contrast, our study is a statistically designed, full
and application may mask any polymer differences. factorial study to facilitate a scientifically valid and com-

Textile Res. J. 75(2), 157–164 (2005) 0040-5175/$15.00
158 TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL

mercially relevant comparison of the important perfor- Following are some additional construction particulars
mance properties of carpets made from nylon 6 and of the carpet samples that are not listed in Table II:
nylon 66 face yarns. The main goal of the study is to Sample production: the carpets were specially made to
identify statistically significant carpet performance pa- the specifications of the study, and the two fibers used the
rameters attributable to the inherent properties of the same production equipment. Yarn type: eighteen of the
polymer and to quantify the differences where possible. twenty-four carpets used continuous filament yarn and
We believe that the work fills an important gap in un- the remaining six carpets used staple fiber yarn; 50% of
derstanding the performance differences exhibited by the filament yarn carpets represented nylon 6 and the
nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpets. other 50% nylon 66; similarly, three of the six staple yarn
carpets represented nylon 6 and the other three repre-
Materials and Methods sented nylon 66. Particulars of filament yarn: the filament
yarn was made of 20 dpf trilobal filaments, yarn denier
TEST MATERIALS was 1300 with 4.75 turns of twist. Particulars of staple
This study covered twenty-four different carpet sam- fiber yarn: the staple yarn was made of 18 dpf trilobal
ples, half of which represented nylon 66 yarns and the fibers, yarn count was 3.4 Ne, singles twist was 5.3 tpi,
other half nylon 6 yarns. The yarns were perfectly and ply twist was 5.1 tpi, needle gauge: 1/10⬙, amount of
matched for cross section, filament denier, and yarn stain blocker on nylon 6 and 66 carpets: zero (no stain
denier. Also, to ensure that the results of this study could blocker), heat setting equipment: the filament yarns used
be applied to a wide range of residential and industrial the Superba heat setting equipment and the staple yarns
carpets, we included pile type, pile weight, and pile used the Sussen heat setting equipment; yarns were heat
height as the construction variables and fluoropolymer set following the commercial practice for nylon 6 and 66
treatment as a finishing variable. We also kept the levels yarns. Coloring method: wet dyeing.
of these variables similar for the two fiber types, thus
providing for a matched pair comparison of the perfor-
mance properties of the two fiber types across a range of TEST METHODS
construction variables. Table I, shows that the test ma-
The following performance properties were evaluated
terials represent a full factorial design [11] with four
for all test materials: Light fastness: Color fastness to
different factors, each factor being represented by at least
light was measured according to the standard ATTCC
two different levels.
test method (method 16), which uses a water-cooled
xenon arc lamp that emits continuous light. Higher mea-
TABLE I. Description of variable factors.
sured values of fastness indicate better performance.
Static loading test: We measured 1 hour and 24 hour
Factor Levels thickness recovery values by placing on the surface of
Polymer nylon 6, nylon 66 the carpet weights close to the average body weight and
Pile type cut, loop then measuring the percent thickness recovered exactly 1
Pile weight low, medium, high hour and 24 hours after the weight was removed. There
Fluorochemical treatment treated, not treated
is no standard ASTM test procedure available for this
test, so we used a procedure similar to that of the carpet
manufacturers of Dalton, GA. The results of this test are
The complete set of test materials representing these useful in predicting and understanding the indentations
variable parameters is shown in Table II. All necessary made by furniture and help to estimate the recovery time
precautions were taken during the fabrication of the test span required for the indented spot to return to the
materials to keep the physical parameters of the two sets original state. The results of this test bear no relationship
of carpets as close to each other as possible. Pile weights to surface texture measurements. Vettermann drum test:
chosen for cut and loop pile carpets were different (30, We used the standard ASTM test (D 5417-99) for char-
36, and 42 ounces for cut pile and 24, 28, and 32 ounces acterizing the texture retention property of carpets, with
for loop pile). These differences reflect industry practice. three replicates for each carpet sample, and ran the test
There was no statistically significant difference between for 5000 cycles. Higher measured values suggest better
the average pile weights of the nylon 6 and nylon 66 texture retention. Ozone fastness: We measured color-
carpets, and this was true for the average pile heights as fastness to atmospheric ozone at high humidities as per
well, thus providing for a fully balanced design of nylon method 129 of the AATCC. Higher measured values
6 and nylon 66 carpets. indicate better fastness properties. NOx fastness: We
FEBRUARY 2005 159

TABLE II. Construction particulars of the experimental carpet samples.

Sample Fiber Pile Pile weight, Weight Pile height,
S. no. ID type type Fluoropolymer oz/sq.yd rank inches

1 15 6 cut none 30.3 low 0.219
2 16 6 cut none 36.1 medium 0.25
3 19 6 cut none 41.7 high 0.281
4 32 6 cut treated 30.3 low 0.219
5 34 6 cut treated 36.1 medium 0.25
6 35 6 cut treated 41.7 high 0.281
7 20 6 loop treated 28.5 medium 0.156
8 21 6 loop none 28.5 medium 0.156
9 24 6 loop none 31.7 high 0.188
10 26 6 loop none 23.8 low 0.125
11 30 6 loop treated 31.7 high 0.188
12 36 6 loop treated 23.8 low 0.1
13 14 66 cut none 29.8 low 0.219
14 17 66 cut none 35.7 medium 0.25
15 18 66 cut none 42.1 high 0.281
16 28 66 cut treated 36.1 medium 0.25
17 29 66 cut treated 29.8 low 0.219
18 33 66 cut treated 42.1 high 0.281
19 22 66 loop none 32.2 high 0.188
20 23 66 loop treated 32.2 high 0.188
21 25 66 loop none 24.9 low 0.125
22 27 66 loop none 27.6 medium 0.156
23 31 66 loop treated 27.6 medium 0.156
24 37 66 loop treated 24.9 low 0.1

measured color fastness to nitrous oxides at high humid- Results and Discussion
ities as per method 164 of the standard AATCC. Higher
measured values indicate better fastness. Resistance to PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF MEASURED PROPERTIES
oil stains: Resistance to oil stains or oil repellency fol-
lowed AATCC method 118. Higher measured values Table III gives the measured performance properties
indicate better repellency. Water repellency: Resistance of the experimental carpets for light fastness, ozone
to wetting or water repellency followed AATCC method fastness, NOx fastness, oil repellency, water repellency,
118. Higher measured values imply better repellency or soil repellency, thickness recovery, and surface texture
greater resistance to wetting. Soil repellency: We mea- rating as measured by the Vettermann drum method.
sured soil repellency following a method developed by Table IV indicates which of the carpet construction vari-
Solutia Inc., in which a water-based slurry is sprayed on ables exert a statistically significant influence (95 %
cut samples in a precisely controlled manner using an confidence) on the measured performance properties and
apparatus designed and built by Solutia. The soil is the which variables have no influence on the measured prop-
standard soil supplied by 3M as per the requirements of erties.
the AATCC soiling method 123. After wet soil applica- In addition to the statistical significance results given
tion, the samples are allowed to dry and then trafficked in in Table IV, we used a series of box plots to illustrate the
the Vettermann drum for 600 cycles. We then measured influence of different construction variables on perfor-
color on both soiled and unsoiled carpets with a Minolta mance properties. Box plots display the entire distribu-
chroma meter CR-210. The color difference between tion of each measured property parameter side by side
soiled and unsoiled carpets is reported as delta E, which for different levels of the variable, as opposed to display-
is calculated as follows: ing only the mean or median values. The height of the
rectangle of each box plot represents the inter-quartile
range (mid 50% values) of the measured property pa-
Delta E ⫽ 关共DL*兲2 ⫹ 共Da*兲2 ⫹ 共Db*兲2 兴1/ 2 , rameter, while the vertical line above and below the
rectangle represents the fourth and first quartiles. The
where DL* ⫽ L* soiled ⫺ L* unsoiled, Da* ⫽ a* soiled horizontal line inside the rectangle represents the median
⫺ a* unsoiled, and Db* ⫽ b* soiled ⫺ b* unsoiled. value of the measured parameter. The absence of a
Lower measured values of delta E imply better soil horizontal line inside the rectangle suggests that the
resistance. median coincides with the lines representing either the
160 TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL

TABLE III. Measured performance properties of the carpet samples.

Fiber Light Ozone NOx- Oil Water Soil 1-Hour 24-Hour V-drum
S. No. type fastness fastness fastness repellency repellency repellency recovery, % recovery, % reading

1 6 4 2 3 1 1 14.6 92.5 97.7 3.5
2 6 4 1.5 3 1 1 14.8 91.9 96.6 3.5
3 6 4 1.5 3 1 1 14.9 94 97.5 3.5
4 6 4 2.5 3 3 3 9.9 88.6 95.3 3.5
5 6 3.4 2.5 3.5 3 4 10.4 88.8 95.1 3.5
6 6 3.5 2.5 3 2 3 10.3 92.5 95.8 3.5
7 6 4 3 4 5 4 8 98.2 98.9 4
8 6 4 2 3.5 1 1 11.3 98.5 98.9 4
9 6 4 2.5 3 1 1 11.4 96.6 98.5 4
10 6 4 2 3.5 1 1 11 96.7 98.5 4
11 6 3.5 2.5 3.5 3 3 9.5 89.8 91.6 4
12 6 4 2.5 2.5 3 3 7.5 86.3 92.9 3.5
13 66 4 3 3.5 1 1 15.3 93.1 96 3.5
14 66 4 2 2 1 1 15.5 93.7 97.1 3.5
15 66 3.5 2 3 1 1 15.8 96 96 3.5
16 66 3 4 4.5 3 4 10.8 92.7 96.4 4
17 66 3 3 4 3 4 10.8 88.6 94.4 3.5
18 66 4 3 2.5 2 3 10.9 88.6 96 4
19 66 4 2.5 3 5 4 8.9 92.3 98.7 4.5
20 66 4 3 3 1 1 11.5 93.1 98.1 4.5
21 66 3.5 3 3.5 1 1 10.7 92 97.9 4
22 66 4 2.5 3.5 1 1 9.9 93 98.3 4.5
23 66 3.5 3.5 4 4 4 8.5 87.4 93.1 4.5
24 66 4 4 4 5 4 7.3 91.1 93.4 4

third or first quartiles. The printed numerical value inside it is clear that the ozone fastness property of nylon 66
the rectangular box represents the mean. The asterisks carpets is superior to that of nylon 6 carpets. The behav-
represent the outliers (values falling above and below ior is similar to observations made in a previous work
⫾ 3 ␴ limits). [8]. Figure 5 suggests that carpets treated with a flu-
Influence of fiber type on surface texture properties as oropolymer exhibit better ozone fastness compared to
measured by Vettermann drum: From Figure 1, we see untreated carpets.
that nylon 66 has a better texture retention property Influence of fiber type on oil repellency: Table IV
compared to nylon 6 after 5000 cycles of loading in the shows that the observed difference in the measured val-
Vettermann drum tester. Table IV suggests that the ob- ues of oil repellency for nylon 66 and nylon 6 carpets is
served difference in the Vettermann drum reading be- not statistically significant. However, Table IV and Fig-
tween nylon 6 and nylon 66 fibers is statistically signif- ure 6 suggest that oil repellency is positively influenced
icant. Figure 2 suggests that pile type influences the by fluoropolymer treatment, with the treated carpets giv-
measured surface texture and that loop pile construction,
ing a mean repellency rating of 3.08 compared to a rating
as expected, retains texture better than cut pile construc-
of 1.33 for untreated carpets.
tion. From Figure 3, we see that pile weight also influ-
Influence of fiber type on water repellency: Table IV
ences carpet texture and that the measured texture values
suggests that water repellency is not influenced by fiber
of the low pile weight carpets are significantly lower than
those of the medium and heavy pile weight carpets. type. However, the table also shows that water repel-
However, the measured texture values of the medium lency is significantly influenced by fluoropolymer treat-
and heavy pile weight carpets are identical, suggesting ment, and this observation agrees with expectations.
that there may be a critical face weight beyond which Influence of fiber type on soil repellency: Soil repel-
pile weight may not influence texture as measured by the lency is not influenced by fiber type. However, the two-
Vettermann drum. A separate analysis of the texture data way ANOVA tests clearly reveal that soil repellency is
of cut and loop pile carpets shows that low pile weight influenced by both pile type and fluoropolymer treat-
adversely affects the measured texture of both cut and ment. With lower values for soil repellency, loop pile
loop pile carpets, and the texture of the loop pile carpet carpets show better soil repellency compared to cut pile
is more sensitive to low pile weights. carpets. Also carpets treated with fluorocarbon polymer
Influence of fiber type on ozone fastness: From Figure show better soil repellency compared to untreated car-
4 and the corresponding significance value in Table IV, pets.
FEBRUARY 2005 161

TABLE IV. Table of statistical significance for 2-way ANOVA test
on measured properties.

P-value of Significance
Description of 2-way influencing at 95%
ANOVA test variables confidence

V-drum reading versus fiber fiber type-0.043 yes
type and pile weight pile weight-0.049 yes
interaction-0.908 no
V-drum reading versus fiber fiber type-0.063 no
type and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.781 no
interaction-0.408 no
V-drum reading versus fiber fiber type-0.003 yes
type and pile type pile type-0.000 yes
interaction-0.159 no
Ozone fastness versus fiber type fiber type-0.006 yes
and pile type pile type-0.223 no FIGURE 1. Influence fiber type on measured
interaction-0.859 no texture retention property.
Ozone fastness versus fiber type fiber type-0.000 yes
and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.000 yes
interaction-0.448 no
Soil repellency versus fiber type fiber type-0.828 no
and pile type pile type-0.001 yes
interaction-0.567 no
Soil repellency versus fiber type fiber type-0.828 no
and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.001 yes
interaction-0.565 no
Oil repellency versus fiber type fiber type-0.684 no
and pile type pile type-0.229 no
interaction-0.684 no
Oil repellency versus fiber type fiber type-0.612 no
and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.002 yes
interaction-0.400 no
Water repellency versus fiber fiber type-0.679 no
type and pile type pile type-0.890 no
interaction-0.890 no
Water repellency versus fiber fiber type-0.504 no
type and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.000 yes
FIGURE 2. Influence of pile type on measured
interaction-0.504 no
texture retention property.
NOx fastness versus fiber type fiber type-0.496 no
and pile type pile type-0.310 no
interaction-1.00 no
NOx fastness versus fiber type fiber type-0.475 no
and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.160 no
interaction-0.280 no
1-Hour recovery versus fiber fiber type-0.438 no
type and pile type pile type-0.397 no
interaction-0.197 no
1-Hour recovery versus fiber fiber type-0.368 no
type and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.004 yes
interaction-0.600 no
24-Hour recovery versus fiber fiber type-0.864 no
type and pile type pile type-0.660 no
interaction-0.836 no
24-Hour recovery versus fiber fiber type-0.827 no
type and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.002 yes
interaction-0.528 no
Light fastness versus fiber type fiber type-0.252 no
and pile type pile type-0.207 no
interaction-0.582 no FIGURE 3. Influence of pile weight on measured
Light fastness versus fiber type fiber type-0.231 no texture retention property.
and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.058 no
interaction-0.949 no
However, in dealing with colorfastness, it is important to
remember that what applies to one dye need not be true
Influence of fiber type on color fastness to nitrous for other dyes. The results are therefore applicable only
oxides: Table IV suggests that the differences between for the acid dye system used in this study (Telon Blue
nylon 6 and 66 carpets are not statistically significant. BRL 200 and Telon Red 2BN 200).
162 TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL

on thickness recovery, but it is significantly lower for
fluoropolymer treated carpets, and this is true for both
1-hour and 24-hour thickness recoveries. Therefore, flu-
oropolymer treatment has a significant negative influence
on thickness recovery from an applied static load. As
stated earlier, the scope of this study is limited to iden-
tifying and quantifying the performance differences, and
we did not attempt to explore the underlying reasons for
the observed differences. New studies focusing on the
factors contributing to the reduced thickness recovery of
fluoropolymer treated carpets may be needed.

FIGURE 4. Influence of fiber type on ozone fastness. PREDICTIVE MODELS FOR SURFACE TEXTURE PROPERTY
AND OZONE FASTNESS PROPERTY

Since we noticed major differences in performance
properties between nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpets in terms
of texture retention and ozone fastness properties, we
attempted to develop predictive models for these two
properties. The two models and their respective param-
eters are as follows:

V-Drum Reading ⫽ 3.73 ⫺ 0.29 ⫻ Fiber Type ⫹ 0.54
⫻ Pile Type ⫹ 0.13 ⫻ Pile Weight . (1)
This model produced an R2 value of 0.78, with the
variable Fiber Type being significant at a p-value of
FIGURE 5. Influence of fluoropolymer treatment on ozone fastness.
0.0012, Pile Type at 0.0001, and Pile Weight at 0.0158.
For the purpose of developing the models, we consid-
ered all three independent variables as categorical vari-
ables and coded them as follows: Fiber Type ⫽ 0 (nylon
66), Fiber Type ⫽ 1 (nylon 6), Pile Type ⫽ 0 (cut pile),
Pile Type ⫽ 1 (loop pile), Pile Weight ⫽ ⫺1 (low
weight), Pile Weight ⫽ 0 (mid weight), and Pile Weight
⫽ ⫹1 (high weight). Model 1 predicts a better surface
texture (higher Vettermann drum reading) for nylon 66
fiber type, for loop pile type, and for higher pile weights.

Ozone Fastness ⫽ 2.42 ⫺ 0.71 ⫻ Fiber Type ⫹ 0.79
⫻ Fluorocarbon ⫹ 0.29 ⫻ Pile Type ⫺ 0.16

FIGURE 6. Influence of fluoropolymer treatment on oil repellency. ⫻ Pile Weight . (2)
2
This model produced an R value of 0.77, and the vari-
Influence of fiber type on light fastness: Table IV able Fiber Type was significant at a p-value of 0.0001,
shows that light fastness is not influenced by fiber type. while Fluorocarbon was significant at 0.0001, Pile Type
Table IV also suggests that pile type has no influence on at 0.0549, and Pile Weight at 0.0895.
the measured value of light fastness. Here again, it is The variable Fluorocarbon was coded as follows:
important to remember that the observed light fastness
behavior applies only to the dyes used in this study. No Treatment ⫽ 0 ,
Influence of fiber type on thickness recovery from Treated ⫽ 1 .
applied static load: Table IV shows that neither 1-hour
recovery nor 24-hour recovery is influenced by fiber This model, similar to the texture property model, ac-
type. The table also shows that pile type has no influence counts for the advantages offered by nylon 66 carpets.
FEBRUARY 2005 163

NONPARAMETRIC EVALUATION OF TEXTURE the nine comparisons were made, another nine items
were judged for the next pair. All pairs of cut pile were
One of the major limitations to texture evaluation by judged before proceeding to the loop pile pairs. The
the CRI texture rating scale is that it represents an ordinal comparison schemes for the cut and loop pile carpets and
system, where carpet texture changes are compared to a the grader’s preferences for each comparison pair are
standard “best match” photograph. In addition, since this shown in Tables V and VI:
is an ordinal scale, a rating difference of x at the lower
end of the scale cannot be assumed to have the same
practical significance as the rating difference of x at the TABLE V. Paired comparison scheme for cut pile carpets.
higher end of the scale. Thus, even though the numerical Nylon (1–3) & nylon 66
difference between ratings 4 and 5 and ratings 2 and 3 is Cut pile comparisons (A–C)
the same, the practical significance of the two rating N6 v N66, Pair: Pair: Pair:
differences could be very different. For this reason, item #s preference preference preference
quantitative treatment (parametric evaluation) of ordinal
32 v 29 1vA: same 1vB: B 1vC: same 6/9 for N66
data can be somewhat misleading because they do not 2vA: same 2vB: B 2vC: C
fully reflect the actual quality differences. In addition, 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
there are situations where nonparametric evaluations 34 v 28 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
may serve the purpose better than parametric evaluations 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
[3– 4, 14 –15]. The superiority of human judges over 35 v 33 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
measuring instruments for picking up fabric streakiness 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
is described by Davis [4], “The most amazing fact about 15 v 14 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
streakiness is the small absolute lightness variation that 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
people perceive as objectionable in fabrics. People object 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
16 v 17 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
to streaks that are hardly detectable with instruments.” 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
Human judges often manage to pick up even minute 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
differences in texture between samples, thus making the 19 v 18 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
CRI texture rating less effective at resolving differences 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
between samples. Also, in the real world, consumers
make purchase decisions based on their own senses, and
so capturing what a human perceives is critical to com- TABLE VI. Paired comparison scheme for the loop pile carpets.
mercial development. Therefore, in this work, we chose
Nylon 6 (1–3) & nylon
to use the more discriminating characterization of paired Loop pile comparisons 66 (A-C)
comparison [3] of each nylon 66 carpet against its nylon
6 counterpart. We used the paired comparison approach N6 v N66, Pair: Pair: Pair:
item #s preference preference preference
to answer the question: Are there significant differences
in wear between matched nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpets? 36 v 37 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
We believe the method of paired comparisons is a pow- 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
erful statistical technique [3] to characterize head-to- 20 v 31 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
head contrasts, and it is superior to the CRI texture rating 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
scale in terms of relevance and usefulness. 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
30 v 23 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
Three replicate samples of each of the twenty-four 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
carpets that were subjected to 5000 wear cycles on the 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
Vettermann drum tester were used in the paired compar- 26 v 25 1vA: same 1vB: B 1vC: C 5/9 for N66
2vA: same 2vB: same 2vC: C
ison tests. Samples representing the same construction 3vA: A 3vB: same 3vC: C
parameters were chosen as a pair for the paired compar- 24 v 22 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
ison. Each nylon 6 replicate was labeled 1, 2, or 3, and 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
each nylon 66 replicate A, B, C. All nine possible com- 21 v 27 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
binations of the nylon 6 versus 66 contrasts (1 versus A, 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
2 versus A, . . . 3 versus C, etc.) were presented to the 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
grader (a person skilled in the art of judging wear) to
judge the extent of wear (or the texture grade), following
a blind procedure. Within a particular pair being tested, Table V shows that in the blind comparison involving
the nine comparisons were selected randomly, and after matched pairs, the expert grader preferred nylon 66 car-
164 TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL

pets 50 out of 54 times in the case of cut pile carpets and Literature Cited
showed equal preference for both nylon 6 and 66 carpets
4 out of 54 times. Table VI shows that the expert grader 1. Beyerlein, A., Nylon Fiber Facts, Clemson University,
preferred nylon 66 carpets 50 out of 54 times in the case Clemson, SC, unpublished report.
of loop pile carpets and showed equal preference for both 2. Danford, M. D., Spruiell, J. E., and White, J. L., Structure
nylon 6 and 66 carpets 4 out of 54 times. Thus, the grader Development in the Melt Spinning of Nylon 66 Fibers and
overwhelmingly preferred nylon 66 carpets compared to Comparison to Nylon 6, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 22, 3351
(1978).
nylon 6 carpets, and the preferences were identical for
3. David, H. A., “The Method of Paired Comparisons,” 2nd
the cut pile and loop pile carpets.
ed., Oxford University Press, NY, 1988.
4. Davis, H., McGregor, R., Pastore, C., and Timble, N.,
Conclusions Human Perception and Fabric Streakiness, Textile Res. J.
66, 533–544 (1996).
A full factorial evaluation of the performance proper-
5. Dumbleton, J. H., and Buchanan, D. R., A Comment on the
ties of nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpets involving the most
Crystal Moduli of Nylon 6 and Nylon 66, Polymer 9, 61
common construction variables has revealed that nylon (1968).
66 carpets provide better texture retention and better 6. Han, L., Wakida, T., and Takagishi, T., Changes in Fine
colorfastness to ozone compared to nylon 6 carpets. Structure and Dyeing Behavior of Nylon 6, Nylon 66, and
In a blind comparison test involving matched pairs, an PET Fibers Treated with Superheated Steam, Textile Res.
expert grader overwhelmingly prefers nylon 66 carpets J. 57, 519 –522 (1987).
(50 times out of 54) over nylon 6 carpets. However, we 7. Horsfall, G. A., Factors Influencing the Daylight Photo-
must remember that the texture comparisons are not degradation of Nylon 66, Nylon 6, and Polyester in Com-
between optimally designed nylon 6 and 66 carpets, and mercial Fabrics, Textile Res. J. 52, 197–205 (1982).
preferences can differ substantially when two sets of 8. Jellinik, H. H. G., and Choudhury, A. K., Inhibited Deg-
optimally designed carpets are compared. It is also im- radation of Nylon 66 in the Presence of Nitrogen Dioxide,
Ozone, Air, and Near Ultraviolet Radiation, J. Polym. Sci.
portant to remember that nylon 66 fibers generally cost
Part A-1 Polym. Chem. 10, 1773–1788 (1972).
more than nylon 6 fibers, and the possibility exists for
9. Leung, W. P., Ho, K. H., and Choy, C. L., Mechanical
nylon 6 carpets to match the texture preference of nylon Relaxations and Moduli of Oriented Nylon 66 and Nylon
66 carpets on the basis of fiber cost parity. 6, J. Polym. Sci. 22, 1173 (1984).
There are no significant differences in performance 10. Makansi, M., Perception and Control of Fabric Streaks,
properties between nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpets in terms Textile Res. J. 57, 495–502 (1987).
of colorfastness to nitrous oxides, thickness recovery 11. Montgomery, D. C., “Design and Analysis of Experi-
from prolonged static load application, oil repellency, ments,” 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1991.
water repellency, and soil repellency. 12. Prevorsek, D. C., and Chin, H. B., Intrinsic Differences
As expected, fluoropolymer treatment of nylon signif- Between Nylon 6 and Nylon 66 Industrial Fibers: Micro-
icantly improves water repellency, oil repellency, and mechanical and Molecular Analysis, Int. J. Polym. Mater.
soil repellency properties. However, fluoropolymer treat- 25, 161 (1994).
13. Schmitz, F. P., Mroszewski, K. D., and Rossbach, V., On
ment also accounts for reduced thickness recovery from
The Thermal Mobility of the Amino End Groups of Poly-
prolonged static load application. This work does not amides 6 and 66, Makromol. Chem. 184, 184 (1983).
focus on understanding the reasons for the reduced thick- 14. Slater, K., Subjective Textile Testing, J. Textile Inst. 88,
ness recovery shown by the fluoroploymer treated car- 79 –91 (1997).
pets, and further work may be necessary to understand 15. Wang, J., and Wood, E. J., A New Method for Measuring
this behavior. Carpet Texture Change, Textile Res. J. 64, 215–224
(1994).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 16. Werny, F., The Floor Performance of Synthetic Polymers
Currently Used in Carpet Fibers, Carpet Rug Ind. 6, 38
I wish to gratefully acknowledge the help of Invista娂 (1995).
nylon commercial flooring in providing test materials
and partial financial support for this work. Manuscript received January 16, 2004; accepted March 12, 2004.