How They Function
Acrylic Soil Release Polymers
By C. E. WARBURTON JR. and F. J. PARKHILL, Rohm and Haas Co., Spring House, Pa.
ABSTRACT
Polyester/cotton fabrics treated with
acrylic soil release finishes, such as
70% methacrylio acid/30% ethyl
acrylate copolymer, were laundered in
basic and acidic wash solutions, with
and without anionic, nonionic, and
cationic surfactants. Soil-releasing
effectiveness correlated with increased
swelling of polynier film samples in
these wash solutions. It is proposed
that soil is mechanically swept from
fiber surfaces and interstices by the
force of the swelling polymer finish.
Other mechanisms by which acrylic
soil release polymers may influence
soil removal are discussed. While
operative to varying degrees, they are
concluded to be of secondary impor-
tance relative to mechanical force
exerted by the extending polyelec-
trolyte, which is of paramount impor-
tance,
KEY TERMS
Acrylic Copolymers
Laundering
Polyester/Cotton Fabrics
Soil Release Finishes
June 1973 CCO
A CRYLIC copolymers consisting of
•il- an appreciable proportion of car-
boxylic acid, such as 70% methacrylic
acid/30% ethyl acrylate, are very ef-
fective soil release finishes for textile
fabrics. In this article, such polymers
are referred to as "acrylic soil release
polymers." In the past few years, they
have been used extensively to improve
soil release of various textile fabrics,
particularly 50/50 and 65/35 poly-
ester/cotton blend durable press fab-
rics. Their effectiveness can be attrib-
uted to a number of physiochemical
properties, and the objective of this
work is to determine which property
is most responsible for excellent soil
release.
Acrylic soil release polymers are hy-
drophilic, and consequently coated fib-
ers should have less affinity for hy-
drophobic oils. In wash solution, the
contact angle of oily soil should be
higher than on untreated or durable
press-treated fabric, and therefore soil
should be more easily removed by the
roll-up mechanism of Adam (7).
A polymer coating fills in crevices
and surface rugosities on fibers where
particulate soil can become occluded
(micro-occlusion). This is of more
consequence with natural fibers than
synthetics, whose surfaces are smooth-
er. Also, polymer coating fills in in-
terstitial spaces between fibers in the
yarn bundle where soil can become oc-
cluded (macro-occlusion).
Acrylic soil release polymers are
anionic in basic wash solution and
therefore increase the zeta potential of
the fabric surface. Particulate soil is
negatively charged in aqueous solu-
tion because the dielectric constant of
water is high (2). Negatively charged
polymer should therefore repel par-
ticulate soil from the fabric surface.
Also, an electrical potential difference
across an oil-water interface can re-
duce interfacial tension (3), thereby
inducing roll-up of oily soil.
Acrylic soil release polymers possess
a degree of hydrophilic-lipophilic
character and could function in a de-
tersive manner. Their degree of sur-
face activity depends on the degree of
neutralization and monomers copo-
lymerized with carboxylic acid mono-
mer; e.g., ethyl acrylate, butyl acry-
late (4). Even polyf acrylic acid)
(pAA) and poly(methacrylic acid)
(pMAA) are somewhat surface active
because of the lipophilic backbone
chain (5-7); pMAA is somewhat more
so because of the added methyl group
and greater chain rigidity (6, 7). Their
surface activities are of practical util-
ity. For example, partially neutral-
ized pAA and pMAA have been used
as emulsifiers for polyvinyl acetate
emulsion polymerization (8, 9); par-
tially neutralized pAA has been used
as a detergent synergist (10). Acrylic
soil release polymers may also function
in the manner detergents are believed
to function in penetration theories of
detergency (11, 12). For example,
polymer could penetrate glycerides
and polar liquid soils to instigate or,
with detergent, to abet formation of
an eventually mechanically unstable,
mesomorphic phase.
In summary, the effectiveness of
acrylic soil release polymers can be
attributed to hydrophilicity, prevention
of micro- and macro-occlusion of
soil, electrostatic charge, and surface
activity. There has been a tendency to
presume that hydrophilicity is the most
critical property in that it alters the
interfacial free energies at the fabric--
soil and fabric-washing solution inter-
faces in a manner favoring the roll-up
process. This presumption is in no
small part a consequence of the suc-
cessful use of the surface free energy
approach to account for good water re-
sistance and poor oil release of sili-
cone finishes ( 7 i ) ; good oil resistance,
good water resistance, and poor oil re-
lease of fluorocarbon finishes {13);
and good water resistance, good oil
resistance, and good oil release of fluo-
rocarbon finishes with hydrophilic
functionality (14-16). In this regard,
Sherman and Smith's analysis {16) is
particularly elegant. Nevertheless, it
will be demonstrated that hydrophili-
city is not the property most respon-
sible for the effectiveness of acr>'lic
soil release polymers. Rather, the exist-
ence of an electric charge on the poly-
113/41
Acrylic Soil Release Polymers
mer during laundering is of paramount
importance, hut not for reasons men-
tioned in this introduction.
Materials And Methods
Fabric
The fabric used was 65% polyes-
ter/35 cotton shirting fabric, Test-
fabrics 7406.
Chemicals
Polymers used were: 70% metha-
crylic acid/30% ethyl acrylate (weight
ratio) emulsion copolymer (70%
MAA/30% EA), IO''-16^ estimated
molecular weight; poly(methacrylic
acid) solution polymer, about 5000
molecular weight, neutralized to pH 5
with KOH; 70% /er^-butylaminoethyl
methacrylate [CH.,-C(CH.5)COOCH.>-
CH.NHC(CH.t),,l/30% methyl metha-
crylate emulsion copolymer (70%
NBAEMA/30% MMA) lO^^-lOC esti-
mated molecular weight; polyvinyl al-
cohol, Elvanol series. The DuPont Co.;
polyethylene oxide, Polyox series,
Union Carbide Corp.
A water soluble bisepoxide, average
of 2.2 epoxy and 1.8 hydroxyl groups
per molecule, 110-119 epoxide equi-
valent weight was used.
Dimethyloldihydroxyethylene urea
(DMDHEU) durable press reagent
was Permafresh 183, Sun Chemical
Corp.
Also used were zinc nitrate. Catalyst
X-4, Sun Chemical Corp.; magnesium
chloride hexahydrate, reagent grade;
Triton X-400, cationic surfactant,
stearyldimethylbenzylammonium chlo-
ride; Triton X-100, nonionic surfac-
tant, reaction product of ethylene
oxide and tert-octy\ phenol, average of
9-10 EO units per molecule, 13.5
HLB.
Table I—Soil Release Ratings of Fabrics Treated with 70% Methacrylic Acid/30% Ethyl Acrylate Copolymer Alone and
Solution
Vl/ash Solution
0.13% Tide
1.00% Sodium Lauryl Sulfate
0.13% Triton X-100 + 0.28% N
0.33% NaHCOa
0.01% NajCOa
0.28% NazCOa
2.00% NaOH
0.13% Triton X-100
0.13% Triton X-400
5.00% Triton X-400
0.13% Triton X-400 + 0.013% H2SO4
0.13% Triton X-100 + 0.013% HjSOa
0.13% Tide -f- 0.013% HzS04
0.13% Triton X-100 -|- 0.28%
"6.0^0.5% copolymer add-on. ''8.0±0.5% DMDHEU add-on. = 5.0±0.5% copolymer add-on.
42/114
Fabric Treatment
Fabrics were chemically treated by a
pad-dry-cure process described previ-
ously (17). For one-bath application,
all reagents were mixed and applied in
a single step; zinc nitrate was used to
accelerate cure of durable press re-
agent. For two-bath application,
DMDHEU and magnesium chloride
accelerator were applied initially, soil
release polymer being applied alone in
a second separate step. After each step
fabrics were framed, dried I lOC/5
min, and cured 160C/3 min in forced-
draft ovens. To estimate total weight
of finish, fabrics were conditioned at
70F, 65% RH before and after treat-
ment and subsequent soil release
evaluations.
Soil Release Test Method
AATCC Test Method 130-1969, Soil
Release: Oily Stain Release Method,
was used with the exceptions noted in
an earlier article (17). The stains were
Nujol mineral oil, used automobile
crankcase oil, Ragu spaghetti sauce
and Tabasco sauce. The average of the
four ratings by use of the AATCC
photographic standards was reported.
For work in which the bisepoxide
crosslinking agent was used, only rat-
ings for dirty motor oil are reported,
because this stain provided the most
differentiation. Ratings were generally
higher with the other three stains.
For the study of the effectiveness of
different laundering solutions, an Atlas
Launder-Ometer was used in order to
maintain accurate control of concen-
tration and pH. Two 6 X 7-in fabric
samples, 900 ml wash solution made
up with the use of distilled, deionized
water, and ten 0.375-in diameter rub-
ber balls were charged to a 3.5- X 8-in
cylindrical stainless steel can. Cans
were rotated in the Launder-Ometer
for 14 min in 140F water. Tide deter-
gent was used at the 0.13% level,
which is comparable to 1 cup of Tide
in a Two-Bath Process with DMDHEU
Wash
No 70% MAA/30% EA
pH Treatment Copolymer*
Basic Wash Solution
9.6 2.5
8.8 2.5
11.0 2.0
8.1 2.0
9.5 2.0
11,0 2.0
13.1 2.0
Slightly Acidic Wash Solutions
5.7 2.5
6.1 2.0
Acidic Wash Solutions
4.0 1.0
3.7 1.5
3.0 1.0
3.0 2.0
3.7 2.0
3.0 1.5
in 16 gal of water in a home auto-
matic washer. After washing, samples
were rinsed for 2 min in 900 ml water
and dried in a Kenmore tumble dryer
for 15 min at the "hot" setting^
For work in which the bisepoxide
was applied to fabric, a Maytag auto-
matic washing machine with tap water
and fabric ballast was used.
Film Formation And
Swelling Measurements
Polymer films were cast at 80C,
which is above the minimum film for-
mation temperature of the latices, to
maximize coalescence of dispersion
particles and overall film continuity.
After drying, films were cured I60C/
30 min. Samples 1 in-, approximately
30 mil thick, and weighing about 0.5
g were used for swelling measure-
ments.
Results
70% MAA/30% EA Copolymer
Soil release ratings of fabrics treated
with 70% MAA/30% EA copolymer
alone and in a two-bath process with
DMDHEU are listed in Table I. Vari-
ous acidic and basic wash solutions
were used, with and without anionic,
nonionic, and cationic surfactants.
Soil release is appreciably improved
only in basic wash solution, where rat-
ings improve with increasing pH up to
about 11, and then decrease. At pH
9.5-9.6, results are better with Tide de-
tergent than sodium carbonate. Deter-
gent is not strictly necessary for ex-
cellent soil release. For example, rat-
ings are better with the use of sodium
carbonate at pH 11 than with Tide at
pH 9.6.
The degree of swelling of 70 %
MAA/30% EA copolymer film sam-
ples in wash solutions was measured.
Higher soil release ratings correlated
with increased film swelling. Polymer
swelling in basic wash solution was
drastic. For example, a film sample
tripled in volume after 15 min in pH
DMDHEU'> -1-
70% MAA/30% EA
DMDHEU •> Copolymer<^
4.0 2.5 4.0
— 2.5 4.0
4.0 2.0 5.0
— 2.0 3.0
— 2.0 3.0
3.5 2.0 4.5
3.0 2.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
— 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.5
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
2.0 2.5
1.5 1.5
OX) Vol. 5, No. 6
 cial tension and bring about roll-up of 70% MAA/30% EA copolymer is of-
oil (20). In the present work, the ef- ten poor. Unlike spun polyester fabric,
fect of lower wash solution tempera- yarn surfaces are smooth, and there
ture, 75F instead of 140F, was investi- are few places where finish can be-
gated for fabric treated with 70 % come occluded. Since adhesion to
MAA/30% EA copolymer. Soil re- polyester is poor, swollen polymer is
lease ratings, including that for dirty readily transferred into wash solution,
motor oil, were equivalent at each often before it can significantly in-
temperature. In this case, the results fluence soil removal. Consistent with
suggest that something other than a this hypothesis, treated continuous-
change in fiber surface free energy re- filament polyester fabric lost hand and
sulting from polymer coating is pri- soil-releasing effectiveness more rap-
marily responsible for excellent soil re- idly on repeated laundering than spun
lease. The results are consistent, polyester fabric.
Fig. 1. Swollen 70% MAA/30% EA though, with swelling being most im-
copolymer and rolied-up dirty motor oil portant, because film samples swelled
on yarn after immersion in wash solu- drastically at both 75F and 140F. 70% MAA/30% EA Copolymer
tion for 45 min; arrow indicates boundary Crosslinked With A Bisepoxide
of swollen finish. If excellent soil release results prin-
cipally from coating fibers with poly- Soil release ratings of 70% MAA/
mer to alter their surface free energy, 30% EA copolymer crosslinked to
11 sodium carbonate solution; after 15 then soil release of treated polyester varying degrees with a bisepoxide are
hr, volume had increased fifteenfold. fabrics should be worse than that of shown in Table II. Introduction of
Swelling was less and dissolution more treated polyester/cotton blend fabrics only 10% bisepoxide on polymer sol-
rapid in pH 13 sodium hydroxide so- because the hydrophilic polymer ids eliminates soil-releasing effective-
lution. should not wet and adhere to poly- ness. It is very unlikely that this small
Polymer swelling in basic solution ester fibers as well as to cotton fibers. amount of bisepoxide has a critical
results from coulombic repulsion be- Nevertheless, soil release was excellent, effect on hydrophilicity and surface
tween negatively charged carhoxylate i.e.. 4.0 ratings, with 70% MAA/30% free energy of the coating. Swelling of
groups. This repulsion transforms the EA copolymer applied to 100% poly- polymer film samples decreased with
polymer chain from a compact, globu- ester fabric (spun Dacron, Testfabrics increased bisepoxide crosslinking, so
lar conformation to a solvated, elon- 754A) and washed in 0.13% Tide or it is again evident that excellent soil
gated conformation. Increase in end- 0.01-0.28% sodium carbonate solution. release is associated with polymer
to-end distance is drastic. For example, These results are again consistent with swelling.
based on light scattering and viscosity swelling being of critical importance, Soil release ratings for a much lower
data, Miller calculated that the root- because, for all practical purposes, the molecular weight polyf methacrylic
mean-square end-to-end distance of degree of polymer swelling is indepen- acid) crosslinked with the same bise-
poly(methacrylic acid) increases from dent of the chemical composition of poxide are shown in Table III. In this
about 200 A at 1 % neutralization with the fibers. case, ratings pass through a maximum
NaOH to about 1200 A at 45% neu- Oily soil release of continuous-fila- with increasing degree of crosslinking
tralization (18). The force exerted by ment polyester fabrics treated with because low molecular weight polymer
such an extending polyion can be cal-
culated theoretically (19). There is an
optimum pH for maximum swelling;
at too high pH—e.g., 13—electrostatic
repulsion is less because of the high Table II—Soil Release Ratings of Fabrics Treated with 70% Methacrylic
Acid/30% Ethyl Acrylate Copolymer Crosslinked with a Bisepoxide
concentration of polyions and coun-
terions in solution. Epoxide Resin/Copolymer^ Soil Release Rating—Dirty Motor
(wt/wt) Initial 1 Wash-" 5 Washes''
Raveled yarn samples were treated
with 70% MAA/30% EA copoly- 0.0 4.0 3.5 3.0
0.1 1.8 1.8 1.9
mer, dried and cured, stained with 0.2 1.8 1.8 1.9
dirty motor oil, immersed in wash so- 0.4 1.8 1.3 1.7
lution, and examined under a micro- Untreated Fabric 1.8 1.8 1.8
scope. The polymer finish could be
3.5±0.5% copolymer add-on. '' Laundered in 0.13% Tide solution. "^ Washes before stain-
seen expanding drastically, with oil de- ing.
posits rolling up into spherical drop-
lets. A representative photomicrograph
is shown in Fig. 1. In this case, pH
11 sodium carbonate solution and a
higher concentration of polymer than Table III—Soil Release Ratings of Fabrics Treated with Low Molecular
usual, 15%, were used to accentuate Weight Poly(methacrylic Acid) Crossiinked with a Blsepoxide
the effect. Some droplets were en- Epoxide 5oir Release Rating—Dirty Motor Oll^
trapped for a time within the swollen, Resin/Polymer 1pMAA" DMDHEU1plus pMAA 1(One-Bath Process)"^
gelatinous finish, but they eventually (wt/wt) initial 1 Wash Initial 1 Wash'! 5 Washes'!
migrated into wash solution. Mechani- 0.000 2.0 1.9 3.5 1.6 1.6
cal agitation in a washing machine 0.007 — — 4.0 3.9 1.6
would undoubtedly promote their 0.014 — — 4.0 4.0 2.1
transfer through the gel. 0.029 — — 2.5 3.0 2.1
0.036 2.8 2.1 — — __
Kissa has shown that dirty motor 0.072 3.0 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.0
oil release from untreated polyester/ 0.143 3.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 —
cotton fabric is better at higher tem- 0.214 2.3 1.5 — — —
peratures because the viscosity of the 0.286 1.8 1.4 — — —
oil/wash solution emulsion that is 0.715 2.0 1.4 2.0 1.4 —
formed is lower. Consequently, the " Laundered in 0.13% Tide solution; rating of untreated fabric = 1.8, durable press
emulsion is less stable, and wash solu- treated fabric = 1.6. " 6.0±0.5% polymer" add-on. <• 8.0±0.5% DMDHEU add-on, 5.0±
tion can diffuse more readily to the 0.5% polymer add-on. •• Washes before staining.
fiber-soil interface to increase interfa-

June 1973 OCO 115/43


Acrylic Soil Release Polymers
dissolves too readily; a small degree of
crosslinking prevents this and produces
the desirable swelling. The effect of
DMDHEU in the one-bath process is
analogous to that of the bisepoxide;
polyiner is crosslinked by DMDHEU
to a small degree and also physically
trapped in a surrounding matrix of
self-condensed DMDHEU (17, 21,
22). Consequently, maximum soil re-
lease rating occurs at a lower bis-
epoxide level when both DMDHEU
and bisepoxide are used.
It is unlikely that polymer surface
activity (hydrophilic - lipophilic bal-
ance) is of critical importance. If it
were, then it would follow from the
data in Table III that a low degree of
crosslinking improves retention on
fabric of low molecular weight pMAA
without a detrimental effect on sur-
face activity, whereas a somewhat fur-
ther degree of crosslinking is detrimen-
tal to surface activity.
This is possible but unlikely.
70% f-BAEMA/30% MMA Copolymer
Soil release ratings of fabrics treated
with 70% /-BAEMA/30% MMA co-
polymer alone and with DMDHEU
in a two-bath process are listed in
Table IV. Soil release is poor in basic
wash solution but excellent in acidic
wash solution with cationic detergent.
Soil release ratings are as good as those
obtained with anionic soil release poly-
mer and anionic detergent in basic
wash solution. In acidic solution, the
ammonium salt is formed, and the
polymer is a positively charged poly-
ion. A polymer film sample swells
drastically in the same manner as a
sample of 70% MAA/30% EA copol-
ymer in basic solution.
Particulate soil is negatively charged
in aqueous solution. It should be re-
pelled by anionic soil release polymers
and attracted to cationic soil release
polymers. Since excellent dirty motor
oil release can be obtained with both
polymer types, it seems unlikely that
coulombic repulsion of soil is a major
factor in their effectiveness.
More cationic surfactant is neces-
sary for excellent soil release with cat-
ionic soil release polymer than anionic
surfactant is necessary with anionic
soil release polymer. For example,
0.13% Triton X-400 is insufficient,
while 5% Triton X-400 is sufficient
with 70% /-BAEMA/30% MMA co-
polymer; only 0.13% Tide is sufficient
with 70% MAA/30% EA copolymer.
Cationic detergents are generally not
effective at low concentrations because
they are adsorbed onto negatively
charged fabric and particulate soils
(2, 23). At higher concentrations,
enough is adsorbed to impart a posi-
tive charge to the fabric surface. This
minimizes further adsorption, and the
remainder is free to function as a de-
tergent.
Polyvinyl Alcohol And Polyethylene
Oxide
If a hydrophilic fabric coating were
sufficient for excellent soil release,
then polyvinyl alcohol and polyethy-
lene oxide shoud be effective. Three
grades of polyvinyl alcohol from the
Eivanol series were evaluated (Table
V). They are produced by alcoholysis
from polyvinyl acetate, and water solu-
bility is maximum at about 89% con-
version. At higher conversions, hydro-
gen bonding reduces solubility. No
improvement in soil release was ob-
tained with any of the three polymers.
Two were removed completely in laun-
dering and may not have remained on
the fabric long enough to be able to in-
fluence soil removal. However, 71%
of the third was retained. Film sam-
ples absorbed water rapidly, but
tended to dissolve rather than swell.
Swelling was considerably less than
that of polyelectrolytes.
Several polyethylene oxide molecu-
lar weight fractions were evaluated.
All failed to improve soil release, and
all were removed from fabric in soil
release evaluation. Even Polyox WSR-
301. purportedly well over 10** in
molecular weight, was removed. Film
samples dissolved rapidly without ex-
tensive swelling. Sherman and Smith
found that even when polyethylene
oxide is modified chemically so that
it is retained on fabric, soil release is
poor(16).

Table IV—Soil Release Ratings of Fabrics Treated with 70% (erf-Butyl-

aminoethyl Methacrylate/30% Methyl Methacrylate Copolymer Alone and in a A Proposed Mechanism
Two-Bath Process with DMDHEU
The results demonstrate unequivo-
Wash Average Soil Release Rating" cally that excellent soil release is as-
Solution 70% f-BAEMA/30% MMA 70% t-BAEMA '30% MMA sociated with drastic swelling of acry-
Wash Solution pH Copolymer'' Copolymer''
lic polymer finish in wash solution.
Basic Wash Solutions
9.6 2.0 2,0
PolyelectTolytes are most likely the
0.13% Tide
0.28% NazCOa 11.0 1.5 1.5 only materials capable of swelling
sufficiently to be effective by this me-
Acidic Wash Solutions chanism. Workers at Burlington In-
0.13% Triton X-400 4.0 2.0 dustries have also recognized the im-
5.00% Triton X-400 3.7 4.5
0.13% Triton X-400 + 3.0 3.5 4.0
portance of swelling. They have used
0.013% HzSO^ a criterion of 50Cf-550% swelling (in
0.13% Triton X-100 + 3.0 3.0 aqueous detergent solution for 2 min
0.013% H2SO4 at 140F) to define acrylic soil release
0.013% Tide 4- 3.0 1.5
0.013% HzS04
polymer compositions in patent
0.013% H2S04 3.0 3.5 2.5 claims (24-26).
0.018% HCI 3.0 4.0 Why does drastic polymer swelling
"See Table I for ratings of untreated and durable press treated fabrics. •• 14.0±0.5% produce excellent soil release? The ex-
copolymer add-on. « 4.0±0.5% copolymer add-on. perimental data are consistent with a
simple mechanism: soil is mechani-
cally swept from fiber surfaces and in-
terstices by the force of the expanding
Table V—Soil Release Ratings of Fabrics Treated with Polyvinyi Alcohol
polymer finish. Other polymer physico-
chemical properties, such as hydrophi-
Polymer Wt Average licity and surface activity, are most
DeRree of Approximate Polymer Loss in Soil
Elvanol Hydrolysis Molecular Add-on Laundering Release likely advantageous to varying de-
Grade Wt Rating" grees, as described in the introduction.
51-05 88-89 35,000 3.2 100 2.5 For example, hydrophilicity undoubt-
50-42 87-89 170,000 3.4 100 2.5 edly abets the concomitant rolling up
72-60 99-100 220,000 1.5 29 2.5 of oily soil, but soil release is excellent
Untreated Fabric 0.0 1 2.5 only if the polymer is also a polyelec-
" Laundered in 0.13% Tide solution. trolyte in wash solution.
Acrylic soil release polymers pene-

44/116 COO Vol. 5, No. 6

trate deeply into yarns when applied (14) Pittman. A. G.. J. N. Roitman. and
D. Sharp, Textile Chemist and Colorist, Vol. 3.
(22) Warburton, C. E. Jr., Journal of Applied
Polymer Science. Vol. 16, 1972, p2859.
to fabric {27). This is especially ad- 1971, pl75. (23) Durham, K., in Proceedings of the Sec-
vgatageous, because the expanding (15) Smith. S. and P. O. Sherman. Textile ond International Congress of Surface Activity,
Chemist and Colorist. Vol. 1, 1969, plO5. Vol. l y , J. H. Schulman. E d . Butterworths
polymer finish in the interior of the (16) Sherman, P. O., S. Smith, and B. Johan- Scientific Publications, London, 1957, p60.
yarn bundle forces soil outwards to- nessen. Textile Research Journal, Vol. 39. 1969. (24) Swidler, R., R. S, Smith and H. A.
wards wash solution. Also, expansion p449. Miller. U.S. Pat. 3,521,993, July 28, 1970; U.S.
(17) Warburton, C. E. Jr. and L. T. Flynn, Pat. 3.592,786, July 13, 1971.
of the finish results in greater contact Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 16, (25) Barber. R. P. and G. R. Moses, U.S.
with soil, and consequently there are 1972, pl235. Pat. 3,592.686, July 13. 1971.
(18) Miller, M. L., The Structure of Polymers, (26) Hinton, E. H. Si. and L. E. Avery, U.S.
more opportunities for other mechan- Reinhold PubUshing Corp.. New York. 1960, Pat. 3,650,801, March 21, 1972.
isms, such as roll-up, to be operative. p588. (27) Schindler, F. J. and C. E. Warbunon Jr.,
(19) Oosawa. F., Polyelectrolytes, Marcel Textiie Chemist and Colorist, Vol. 1. No. 9. 1969,
Mechanical force has long been rec- Dekker Inc.. New York, 1971. pl27. Cover Photograph.
ognized as important in soil removal. (20) Kissa, E.. Textile Research Journal, Vol. (28) Loeb, L. and R. O. Shuck, Journal of the
41. 1971, p760. American Oil Chemists' Society, Vol. 46. i969.
Using essentially an adiabatic calo- (21) Warburton. C. E. Jr. and A. T. p299.
rimeter with agitation, Loeb and Schindler. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, (29) Bacon, O. C. and J. E. Smith, Industrial
Vol. 15, 1971. p2749. and Engineering Chemistry, Vol, 40, 1968, p2361.
Shuck found that soil removal in-
creased with increased energy input at
constant detergent concentration (25).
Also, Bacon and Smith found that de-
tergency data could be correlated by
using the relationship, S = K ( C F D " ,
where S = soil removal, C = .de-
tergent concentration, F ^ force, and
close!
T = time, K and n are constants.
0 < n < 1 (29). Thus, it should not
to serve you quicker
be surprising that a finish which exerts
mechanical force during laundering and better
should be effective in removing soil
from fabric.
In this article, an effective soil re-
lease finish has been considered to be
one capable of producing ratings in the
3.5-5.0 range of the AATCC photo-
graphic standards for stains among the
most difficult to remove on polyes-
ter/cotton fabric. This is a restrictive
definition, but this degree of per-
formance is usually required by com-
mercial finishers and their customers.
It is quite likely that nonionic hydro-
philic polymers, such as polyvinyl al-
cohol or polyethylene oxide, may be
effective for certain soils more easily
removed, but such a level of soil re-
lease is of a much lower order of util-
ity than that obtained with polyelec-
trolytes.

Acknowledgment
Miss E. R. Hopkins assisted in the
treatment and evaluation of fabrics. CCO

References I
(1) Adam, N. K., Journal of the Society of
Dyers and Colourists, Vol. 53, 1937, pl2I. Specialty chemicais
(2) Goette, E. K., Journal of Colloid and In-
terface Science. Vol. 4, 1949. p459.
(3) Watanabe, A., M. Matsumoto, H. Tamai
and R. Gotoh. Kolloid-Zeitschrift und Zeit-
ana technical sfervice
schrift fiir Polymere, Vol. 220. 1967. pl52.
(4) Graham. N. B. and H. W. Holden,
Polymer. Vol. 10. 1969. p633; ibid.. Vol. 11.
for the textile industry
1970, pl98.
(5) Eliassaf, J.. Journal of Polymer Science.
Part B. Vol. 3, 1965, p767.
(6) Friedman, S., A. Caille and H. Daoust.
Macromolecules. Vol. 3, 1970, p700.
(7) Cumper, C.W.N. and A. E. Alexander.
Transactions of the Faraday Society, Vol. 46.
1950, p235.
(8) Priest. W. J., Journal of Physical Chemis-
try, Vol. 56, 1952, plO77.
(9) Evans, R., J. B. Davison and D. H. Nap-
per, Journal of Polymer Science, Part B, Vol.
10, 1972. p449.
(10) Schwartz, A. M. and J. W. Perry, Sur-
chemtronics
face Active Agents, Vol. 1. Interscicnce Pub-
lishers, New York. 1949, p379.
(11) Lawrence. A.S.C.. in Surface Activity A division of Airtronics, Incorporated
and Detergency. K. Durham. Ed., MacMillan
and Co., Ltd., London, 1961, pl58. Old Bee Tree Road • Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778
(12) Stevenson, D. G.. Journal of the Textile
Institute. Vol. 44, 1953, pT12. Telephone (704) 298-7941
(13) Berch. J., H. Peper and G. L. Drake Jr..
Textile Research Journal, Vol. 35, 1965. p252.

June 1973 OX) 117/45