See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274382080

Cationic Cotton, Reservations to Reality

Article  in  Aatcc Review · September 2013

CITATIONS READS

6 1,928

2 authors:

Matt Farrell Peter Hauser

Cotton Incorporated North Carolina State University
18 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS    134 PUBLICATIONS   3,001 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fabrication of Textiles with Asymmetric Wetting and Wettability Gradient Properties by Plasma-Induce Graft Polymerization and Plasma Polymerization View project

Peroxide Bleaching of Cationic Cotton View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Matt Farrell on 29 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Peer Reviewed Research

Cationic Cotton, Reservations to Reality

By Matthew J. Farrell and Peter J. Hauser, North Carolina State University
Note: This paper was a Herman and Myrtle Goldstein Student Paper Competition Winner presented at the
AATCC International Conference, March 21-23, 2012, Charlotte, N.C., USA.
Key Terms
Cationic Cotton, 3-Chloro-2-hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride, CHPTAC,
Epoxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride, EPTAC
Abstract
Traditional dyeing of cotton goods is notorious for copious use of raw materials and the discharge
of salinated and colored effluent. Cationic cotton has been researched for decades and touted for
the ability to color cotton fabrics in more environmentally sustainable ways. However, a discernible
industry shift toward use of cationic cotton has not been observed. There are three basic reservations
concerning cationic cotton that are responsible. First, the human and ecological safety of 3-chloro-
2-hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride (CHPTAC) is in question. Secondly, no large scale
cationization demonstrations (and resultant dyeings) have been performed that quantify environmental
savings. Finally, there have been no reported cost studies regarding cationization and subsequent dyeing.
These reservations about cationic cotton have been explored in this paper using 55 pound sample lots.

Introduction
In the traditional dyeing of cotton goods, reactive
dyes are the colorant of choice because of overall
fastness properties as well as the wide range of
achievable colors. The use of reactive dyes on cotton
requires salt to force exhaustion of the soluble dyes.
Furthermore, because of competing hydrolysis reac-
tion against dye fixation on cellulose, there is always
unfixed or hydrolyzed dye that must be removed
by rinsing. To remove the salt and hydrolyzed dye
in conventional reactive dyed cotton, abundant
amounts of water are required to dilute and remove
the salt and hydrolyzed dye to obtain acceptable
final fastness properties.1-3 As a result, the dyeing
of cotton goods has become notorious for the gross
consumption of raw materials and natural resources.
Many diverse technologies, including low liquor
ratio dyeing machines, smart rinsing technologies,1,2
and high efficiency reactive dyes,4-10 as well as other
innovative approaches such as neutral pH dyeing
of cotton,10 cationic reactive dyes,12,13 and real-time
dyebath monitoring14 can address the issues found
with conventional fiber reactive cotton dyeing. The
caveat with these types of innovations and technolo-
gies is the capital required to use them. In a highly
competitive global market, many textile dyers are
not equipped to spend precious capital on new dye-
ing equipment when they are already operational
with (albeit, inefficient) existing equipment. Fur-
thermore, because of the additional and different
synthetic steps required for more efficient reactive
dyes, the cost to the mill or dye house will be greater
than conventional reactive dyes. Finally, outside
of improvements in processing equipment, many
innovations in cotton coloration have not, or cannot,
easily translate into industrially realistic processes
or applications.
In contrast, cationic cotton presents itself to be a
truly sustainable alternative to traditional reactive
cotton dyeing. Once cotton is cationized, it possesses
permanent cationic sites giving positively charged
cotton. This is independent of the cationization
reagent used to cationize the cotton. The positive
charges allow cotton to be dyed with anionic dyes
and without salt with up to 100% of the dye used.
Therefore, significant raw material and consumable
savings are possible using cationic cotton in the
textile industry for producing dyed cotton goods.15-17
However, even with the promised sustainable ben-
efits, cationized cotton has not seen ready industrial
acceptance. For example, Rupin showed as far back
as 1976 that cationized cotton improved the dye
uptake for both reactive and direct dyes.18
In a landmark paper in 2000, Hauser showed signifi-
cant ecological improvements for direct and reactive
dyeings when dyeing cationic cotton as compared
to unmodified cotton.19 However, this paper only
addressed the dyeing of cationized cotton, inde-
pendent of the overall cost and pretreatment
requirements when using cationic cotton.
There are three fundamental reservations against
using cationic cotton: safety fears of the predomi-

56 | AATCC Review September/October 2013 www.aatcc.org

 Peer Reviewed Research

nant cationization reagent CHPTAC, lack of large The dermal lethal dose of CHPTAC has been found
scale cationization demonstrations, and captured repeatedly to be greater than 2,000 mg/kg. CHPTAC
ecological savings. Also important are concerns over may be slightly irritating at maximum concentrations,
cost increases from using cationic cotton and the lack but CHPTAC has not been shown to be a sensitizer.
of any demonstrated costing examples. These three Prolonged skin contact with CHPTAC is not likely to
issues are broken down, explored, and addressed in cause significant irritation or result in the absorption
the following sections. of harmful amounts of CHPTAC. It should be noted
that in most commercial uses, CHPTAC is converted
Safety of CHPTAC20-23 to EPTAC, which is a potent skin sensitizer.
CHPTAC is formed from the reaction of epichlorohy- Eye contact with CHPTAC may cause moderate irrita-
drin and trimethylamine hydrochloride as shown in tion, although corneal injury is unlikely. According
Fig 1. to FDA standards, CHPTAC is not considered an eye
irritant. Generally speaking, CHPTAC has low toxicity
CHPTAC itself is not readily reactive with cellulose.
if swallowed. Small amounts of CHPTAC swallowed
For CHPTAC to be reacted with cellulose, CHPTAC
must be converted into epoxypropyltrimethylammo-
nium chloride (EPTAC) as shown in Fig. 2. CHPTAC
is converted to EPTAC by a 1:1 mole equivalent addi-
tion of sodium hydroxide.
The desired cationization reaction of cellulose is
shown in Fig. 3. There is a competing hydrolysis Fig. 1. Synthesis of CHPTAC.
reaction that renders an unreactive diol (Fig. 3).
Fig. 4 shows the intermediate EPTAC product and
diol byproduct that arise from the parent CHPTAC
molecule. A complete assessment of the synthesis,
health and safety, storage, and use of CHPTAC and
its intermediate EPTAC product and diol byproduct
has been reviewed elsewhere.24 In short, the confusion Fig. 2. Formation of EPTAC from CHPTAC.
and ambiguity as to the safety and/or danger of cel-
lulose cationization using CHPTAC can be directly
attributed to the lack of knowledge of the different
resultant toxicological and ecological effects of
each product. Details of these effects are given in
the references.20-23
Acutely, CHPTAC is very slightly toxic to fish
(LC50 is 4,128 mg/L for Brachydanio rerio)
and only slightly toxic to microorganisms (for
Daphnia magna, the EC50 has been found to be
between 164 mg/L to 240 mg/L, corresponding to
near pure CHPTAC, and a typical 65% solution
of CHPTAC).
Concerning human health, it is important to note
that the pH of most in vitro tests is 7.4, condi-
tions under which considerable EPTAC will be
formed. In other words, the complex human body
and pH variations and subsequent conversion or Fig. 3. Competing reactions of EPTAC with cellulose.
non-conversion of CHPTAC in respect to
pH and temperature dictates that special
consideration and interpretation be given
to test and experimental results regard-
ing toxicity and human health effects of
CHPTAC exposure. Fig. 4. CHPTAC conversion to EPTAC and diol.

AATCC Review September/October 2013 www.aatcc.org | 57

 Peer Reviewed Research
incidental to normal handling operations are not
likely to cause injury. Swallowing larger amounts
of CHPTAC may cause injury or significant bodily
harm. The oral toxicity of CHPTAC is low, with an
LD50 of 2,800 mg/kg or greater. For repeated doses,
the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of
1,085 mg/kg/day orally has been reported. Gener-
ally speaking, the oral toxicity of EPTAC is moderate
with an LD50 of 400-800 mg/kg. EPTAC is irritating
to eyes (corneal damage is likely), skin and mucous
membranes, and toxic to the kidneys. CHPTAC
current classification is Carcinogen Category 3. All
in-vitro mutagenicity tests conducted with CHPTAC
have given a positive result; however, these results
can be complicated due to the purity (or percent
solids of CHPTAC in the test) and the pH of the tests.
Consequently, even if CHPTAC is not a mutagen,
in accommodating test conditions, CHPTAC can
convert to EPTAC, a known carcinogen.
Concerning in-vivo mutagenicity, one study has given
negative in-vivo mutagenicity, but because of the lack
of further experimental data, there remains some
uncertainty about in-vivo mutagenicity, and no defi-
nite conclusions can be warranted without additional
testing. CHPTAC did not produce skin tumors in a
two-year skin painting study. CHPTAC is not a local
carcinogen in mice when administered via skin but
there is a possibility that it is a systemic carcinogen
based on increased incidence of bronchiolo-alveolar
tumors. However, when carefully scrutinized, the
strength of these incidences seems relatively weak.
Therefore, CHPTAC is currently classified as a
Carcinogen Category 3 compared to EPTAC, which
is classified as a Carcinogen Category 2. In addition,
in all CHPTAC use scenarios, the principal concern
is the conversion of CHPTAC to EPTAC. EPTAC
is a genotoxic carcinogen and powerful skin sensi-
tizer. There is very little information on reproductive
toxicity regarding CHPTAC exposure. In the absence
of reproductive toxicity studies, the only effect of
CHPTAC observed in reproductive organs was the
decreased testicular weight after long-term dermal
exposure in mice with a no observed adverse effect
level (NOAEL) of 24 mg/kg/day.20
The intended take away from this section is twofold.
First, it is important to understand that the interme-
diate EPTAC product and a diol byproduct can be
formed from CHPTAC cationization reagent, each
with their own toxicological and ecological effects.
Secondly, it is important to clarify that CHPTAC is
a fairly nontoxic chemical reagent, but to be made
reactive with cellulose, it must be converted into
EPTAC, a known carcinogen. To prevent occu-
58 | AATCC Review September/October 2013 www.aatcc.org
pational exposure to EPTAC, the cationization
processes should be designed to introduce CHPTAC
and the alkali required for EPTAC conversion and its
subsequent reaction with cellulose independently. To
minimize occupational exposure, EPTAC solutions
should never be handled or transported. Finally, the
cellulose cationization should be designed so that
the EPTAC is consumed by fixation with cotton or
hydrolyzed to the diol so that EPTAC release to the
environment is minimized. Models are available that
predict the half life of EPTAC solutions with respect
to temperature and pH.25 The CHPTAC provider
should be able to provide the appropriate reaction
conditions to promote EPTAC use. Using these
guidelines,25 large scale demonstrations of cotton
cationizations and dyeings were undertaken with 55
pound sample lots.
Large Scale Cationization
Demonstrations
Sample lots (55 pounds ) of a traditional fiber reac-
tive cotton dyeing (STD), and an exhaust (EXH)
cationized and cold pad batch (CPB) cationized
cotton were prepared and dyed to the same depth
of shade and color, a medium depth green, using
conventional fiber reactive dyes. Dyeings were car-
ried out in a Fongs sample jet dyer at an 8:1 liquor
ratio (LR). The EXH-treated cationic sample was
treated in the same jet dyer at the same LR. The
CPB-treated sample was padded at 120% wet pickup
and batched 24 h before loading into the jet dyer. The
cationized samples were neutralized in the jet dyer
prior to dyeing. Complete procedures for bleaching,
neutralization, cationization, dyeing, and rinsing are
shown in the Appendix. The fabric used was a light-
weight tubular cotton knit (5.5 oz interlock) that was
bleached before cationization and slit in the case for
the CPB cationization. The bleach process used was
the same for all trials. Table I shows the consumables
used during the processes with information obtained
using adaptive controls monitoring of the sample
jet dyer. To avoid redundancy, the formulas used for
each process are shown in the cost section with the
costing information.
Table I.
Consumables Used During 55 Pound Processes
Time Water Used Steam Used Power Used
(min) (L) (lb) (kW-h)
Standard 193 5,111 102 12
CPB Treated 1,595 3,831 48 9
EXH Treated 240 3,432 132 14
Bleach 174 3,481 211 3
 Peer Reviewed Research

Excluding the bleaching, the EXH and CPB applica- Table II.
tions, dyeings, and rinsings used roughly 75% of Color Properties of 55 Pound Lots
the amount of water as the STD dyeing and rinsing L* a* b*
process, including the neutralization baths required STD 46.91 -13.82 24.17
after cationization. Furthermore, steam requirements ΔL* Δa* Δb* ΔEcmc % Strength
were cut by more than half for the CPB total applica- EXH 0.64 -0.23 1.10 0.67 97.4
tion process, but required about 30% more steam
CPB -1.37 -0.43 1.64 1.11 114
for the EXH total process. Power savings were also
observed for the CPB process, using only ~75% of
Table III.
the amount as the STD dyeing while the full EXH 55 Pound Lots QC Data
process required ~15% more power than the stan-
CPB EXH STD
dard. To validate the environmental and raw material
Levelness (ΔEcmc) 0.27 0.21 0.12
savings found, quality control (QC) tests for dyed
Wet Crock 4.5 4.5 4
cationized cotton must perform as well as STD fiber
reactive dyed cotton. Dry Crock 5 5 4.5
20 h Lightfastness 5 5 4.5
Typical color assessment QC tests were conducted
40 h Lightfastness 4.5 4.5 4.5
on the three 55 pound sample lots including AATCC
IIA Cotton 3.5 3 3.5
Test Method (TM) 16-2004, Colorfastness to Light;
AATCC TM 8-2007, Colorfastness to Crocking: IIA Nylon 3.5 3 3

Crockmeter Method; AATCC TM 61-2009, Test IIA Polyester 3.5 3.5 3

No. 2A, Colorfastness to Laundering: Accelerated; Cold Water Bleed Cotton 4 4.5 4.5
AATCC TM 124-2009, Smoothness Appearance Cold Water Bleed Nylon 4.5 4 4
of Fabrics after Repeated Home Laundering (only
Cold Water Bleed Polyester 4.5 4.5 4.5
laundering conditions were used); and AATCC TM
Color Change IIA 4 3.5 4.5
107-2009, Colorfastness to Water.
Color Change 5× Wash 4 3.5 5
AATCC methods use the visual color change method
as ranked on a scale from 1 to 5 where 5 equates to
no color change or staining in the test method. The
assessed levelness of a fabric is determined by record-
ing the ΔEcmc of a fabric in a single spot 10 times.
Next, 10 ΔEcmc readings are taken at different spots on
the fabric. Finally, the standard deviation is found for
the instrument and the fabric. The square root of the
difference of the squares of the standard deviation in
the fabric minus the instrument is the final assessed
levelness in ΔEcmc [σ = (σsample2 – σinstrument2)1/2].24
The results of these QC tests are shown in Tables II
and III. In general, for every QC test, except change
of color, the dyed cationic cotton showed equivalent
or increased performance. After further experimen-
tation, the inclusion of soda ash in cationic cotton Fig. 5. Absorbance spectra of 55 pound end dye baths.
dyeing was found to facilitate covalent fixation of
the dyes, which further improved the colorfastness,
especially the change of color after laundering.24 Figs.
5 and 6 show the absorbance spectra of the ending
dye baths and a picture of the corresponding final
dye baths. The cationic dyeings show a remarkable
decrease in colored effluent at the end of the dye-
ing. Hydrolyzed dyes must still be removed from the
traditional dyeing with significant further rinsing
resulting in additional colored effluent discharge. In
contrast, there is very little remaining dye left to be Fig. 6. Picture of final ending dye baths of 55 pound lots (l-r)
removed from the cationic dyeings. CPB, EXH, and STD.

AATCC Review September/October 2013 www.aatcc.org | 59

 Peer Reviewed Research

Large Scale Cationization Cost Table IV.

Bleach Cost
From the 55 pound cationizations and dyeing study, g/L Weight (g) Cost (US$)
a complete and thorough cost analysis was under- Surfactant 2 400 2.0264
taken to determine the real costs of using cationic
Lubricant 1 200 0.3656
cotton. Cost numbers shown are per pound of
Dispersant 1 200 0.5815
fabric. Trade names have been replaced with generic
Chelate 1 200 0.4626
names. Table IV shows the chemical costs for
bleaching. The bleaching cost is the same for each 50% NaOH 4 800 1.7741

lot. Table V shows the cationization treatment costs 35% H202 4 800 1.6308

for CPB and EXH applications. Table VI shows the 56% Acetic 1 100 0.1872
STD dyeing cost. Table VII shows the cationic dye- Bleach/lb US$0.1278/lb
ing cost. Table VIII shows the estimated consumable
costs. Table IX shows the process consumable costs
per pound of fabric. Table X shows the total cost of Table V.
Cationization Treatment Costs
each lot from bleaching to dyeing.
Conc. Weight (g) Cost (US$)
The cationic dyeings cost less than half the amount CPB-Treat 40L (g)
of the STD dyeing, used no salt, and saved nearly CHPTAC soln. 36 g/L 1,440 3.9648
1/3 the amount of dye. Excluding the consumables 50% NaOH 19.9 g/L 776 1.7209
used in the bleaching process, the cost for STD
EXH-Treat 200L (g)
dyeing consumables was US$0.1724/lb, CPB dyeing
CHPTAC soln. 16.5% 4,125 11.3574
consumables was US$0.1076/lb, and EXH dyeing
50% NaOH 2:1 mole 2,281 5.0577
consumables was US$0.1806/lb, only slightly more
than the STD dyeing cost. Including the bleach Neutralization

costs, the total cost for STD dyeing from prepara- EXH 56% Acetic 1 g/L 200 0.3745

tion to dyeing was US$0.9312/lb. Similarly, for the CPB 56% Acetic 0.75 g/L 150 0.2809
EXH treatment process, the cost was US$1.0238/lb, CPB treat/lb US$0.1085/lb
an increase of approximately 10%. For the CPB total EXH treat/lb US$0.3053/lb
process, the cost was US$0.7541/lb, decreasing the
cost to roughly 75% the cost of STD dyeing while
Table VI.
cutting all consumables of the dyeing process— STD Dyeing Cost
water, steam, and power. Although EXH treatment Conc. Weight (g) Cost (US$)
increased the total cost of dyed goods production,
CI Reactive Yellow 206 0.94% 235 4.5551
if bleaching and EXH processes can be combined,
CI Reactive Red 238 0.05% 13 0.2327
consumables costs for the separate cationiza-
CI Reactive Br. Blue 268 0.52% 130 6.7491
tion process can be excluded. If a similar fixation
efficiency can be obtained with optimization of this Sodium Sulfate 40 g/L 8,000 7.8537

type of combined process, then the US$0.1806/lb Soda Ash 12 g/L 2,400 2.4026

cost for the separate EXH cationization step can be Dispersant 1.5 g/L 300 0.8722
subtracted from the US$1.0238/lb to give a new cost Lubricant 1 g/L 200 0.3656
of US$0.8432/lb saving consumables and money. STD dyeing/lb US$0.4187/lb
Furthermore, when increasing the LR of the EXH
application, cationization efficiency decreases.24 If Table VII.
the EXH application can be made in a low LR jet Cationic Dyeing Cost
dyer such as an air jet at 5:1 LR or lower, then signif- Conc. Weight (g) Cost (US$)
icant reductions in CHPTAC used can be expected, CI Reactive Yellow 206 0.708% 177.0 3.4308
in turn decreasing the cost of EXH applications. CI Reactive Red 238 0.018% 4.5 0.0838

Conclusions CI Reactive Br. Blue 268

Dispersant
0.286%
1.5 g/L
71.5
300
3.7120
0.8722
CHPTAC, the most common cellulose cationiza- Lubricant 1 g/L 200 0.3656
tion reagent, is a high volume chemical (in excess of CMCa 1% 250 2.4229
one million pounds produced per year in the US)26 CAT dyeing/lb US$0.1980/lb
that is only slightly toxic to freshwater organisms
Carboxymethylcellulose
a

60 | AATCC Review September/October 2013 www.aatcc.org


Table VIII.
Estimated Consumable Costs (US$)
Steam 0.0418 /lb
Water 0.00027 /L
Waste Water 0.0004 /L
Electricity 0.15 /kW-h
Table IX. Table X.
Consumable Costs Per 55 Total Processing Cost
Pound Process
Total Cost US$/lb
US$/lb
CPB Treated 0.7541
CPB Treated 0.1076
EXH Treated 0.1806 EXH Treated 1.0238
Standard 0.1724
Bleach 0.2123
Standard 0.9312
and has low levels of oral and dermal toxicity for
humans. CHPTAC is not a skin or eye sensitizer.
Due to the unique transitioning chemical structures
of CHPTAC to EPTAC and/or diol from CHPTAC,
it is important to understand and specify test condi-
tions (pH, temperature, purity, CHPTAC purity
in test) for toxicological and ecological reports.
However, EPTAC, one of the conversion products of
CHPTAC, is a potent skin sensitizer and Carcino-
gen Class 2. Care and proper personal protective
equipment (PPE) should be used in the direct
handling and/or processing of both CHPTAC and
EPTAC. The half life, degradability, and toxicity to
the environment are all dependent on the pH and
temperature of the surroundings (water or soil) and
the corresponding formation of EPTAC and/or diol.
It has been shown for the first time that large scale
cationizations (55 pounds) are possible and that
significant savings can be obtained while maintain-
ing and/or improving fastness properties compared
to conventional fiber reactive dyeing. Finally, from
a complete cost analysis, it was shown that, for CPB
cationization and subsequent dyeing, significant
savings in all process consumables are achievable
as well as nearly 25% savings in cost compared to
the conventional STD fiber reactive dyed product.
While EXH cationization and subsequent dyeing
increased the overall processing cost ~10%, there
was extensive savings in water (~30%) compared
to the conventional STD fiber reactive dyed prod-
uct. The other purpose of this article is to show the
relatively low toxicity of CHPTAC and clarify the
unique products encountered when using CHPTAC.
The author hopes that this article serves to influence
the sustainable dyeing of cotton through CHPTAC
cationization of cellulose.
Peer Reviewed Research
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express sincere thanks to
Cotton Incorporated for providing the financial and
logistical means to make these studies possible. Also,
the author would like to acknowledge and express
thanks to the Dow Chemical Company for their help,
support, and information on CHPTAC. The author
would also like to thank Dr. Dean Ethridge of the
Fiber and Biopolymer Research Institute at Texas
Tech University for pointing out an ambiguity in the
original presentation of this data that has been cor-
rected in this manuscript. Finally, the author would
like to acknowledge an invaluable resource, the Euro-
pean Union Risk Assessment Report on CHPTAC
with over 75 references relating to CHPTAC usage,
toxicity, exposure, and specific experimental results.
The critical and interested reader is encouraged to
review the full EU CHPTAC RAR.
References
1. Bradbury, Mike, et al., Journal of the Society of Dyers and
Colourists, Vol. 116, 2000, pp144-147.
2. Rekouniotis, C., Melliand International, Vol. 3, 1998,
pp189-191.
3. Hoffmann, F., et al., Melliand International, Vol. 4, 1998,
pp223-226.
4. Broadbent, P. J., D. M. Lewis, and W. D. We,
WO 02/096995, 2001.
5. Farrell, M. J., Master’s Thesis, North Carolina State
University, 2007.
6. Morris, K. F., et al., Coloration Technology, Vol. 124, 2008,
pp186-194.
7. Cibacron LS high conc Brochure, Ciba Specialty Chemicals,
March 1998.
8. Berger, R., Master’s Thesis, North Carolina State
University, 2005.
9. Carrig, R. J., Master’s Thesis, North Carolina State
University, 2006.
10. Smith, Brent, et al., Coloration Technology, Vol. 122, 2006,
pp187-193.
11. Lewis, David M., et al., AATCC Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, January
2008, p35.
12. Hinks, David, et al., AATCC Review, Vol. 1, No. 5, May
2001, p43.
13. Lewis, D. M. and L. J. Sun, Coloration Technology, Vol. 119,
2003, pp286-291.
14. Farrell, M., et al., AATCC Review, Vol. 11, No. 5
September/October 2011, p44.
15. Hauser, Peter J. and Adham H. Tabba, Coloration Technology,
Vol. 117, No. 5, September 2001, pp282-288.
16. Leonard, Tony M., Cationized Cotton – ‘Fact or Fiction?
17. Thiry, Maria, AATCC Review, Vol. 10, No. 3,
May/June 2010, p34.
18. Rupin, Michel, Textile Chemist and Colorist, Vol. 8, No. 9,
September 1976, p139.
19. Hauser, Peter J., Textile Chemist and Colorist & American
Dyestuff Reporter, Vol. 32, No. 6, June 2000, pp44-48.
20. European Union Risk Assessment Report, (3-Chloro-2-
hydroxypropyl)trimethylammonium chloride, 2008.
AATCC Review September/October 2013 www.aatcc.org | 61
 Peer Reviewed Research

21. Product Safety Assessment, DOW Quat 188 Cationic Reagent.

Table A.2.
22. The Safe Handling of CR-2000, Dow Chemical Co. 55 Pound Conventional Reactive Dyeing Jet Procedure
23. Risk Assessment Report on (3-Chloro-2-hydroxypropyl)
Command Parameters
trimethylammonium chloride, Scientific Committee on Health
Insert Program 600 - Batch Weight
and Environmental Risks (SCHER).
Fill at 080F to 100%
24. Farrell, M. J., PhD Thesis, North Carolina State University, 2012.
Temperature 9.9 TO 100F
25. Quat 188 Epoxide Stability & Half-Life, dow-answer.custhelp.
Add Fill Lev:20% From:1
com/app/answers/detail/a_id/9837/, accessed June 2013.
Add Prepare Prompt:01
26. Chemical Profile for (3-Chloro-2-hydroxypropyl)
Load Fabric —
trimethylammonium chloride, (CAS Number: 3327-22-8),
Add Dose 00m C:0
http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_
Run 05 min
substance_id=3327-22-8, accessed June 2013.
Heat 4.0 TO 140F
Add Recirculate —
Author Add Heat to 140F
Add Prepare Prompt:00
Matthew J. Farrell currently works for Cotton Incorpo- Run 15 min
rated in Cary, N.C., USA. His research interests include Add Dose 00m C:0
reactive dyes, sustainable dyeing and finishing initia- Add Fill Lev:10% From:0
Add Prepare Prompt:10
tives, and solvent free coatings such as polyurethane
Run 10 min
and epoxy dispersions for the textile industry. Add Dose 20m C:0
Add Fill Lev:25% From:0
Matthew J. Farrell, Cotton Incorporated,
Add Prepare Prompt:07
6399 Weston Parkway, Cary, NC 27513, USA; Run 15 min
mattwasfarrell@gmail.com Add Dose 20m C:0
Run 45 min

Appendix Drain
Fill
to 000%
at 080F to 075%
Table A.1. Rinse 120F 70% 10 min
55 Pound Bleach Jet Procedure Drain to 000%
Command Parameters Fill at 160F to 075%
Insert Program 600 - Batch Weight Temperature 9.9 TO 160F
Fill at 080F to 100% Heat 9.9 TO 200F
Add Fill Lev:10% From:1 Run 10 min
Add Prepare Prompt:00 Cool 9.9 TO 160F
Add Dose 00m C:0 Drain to 000%
Load Fabric — Fill at 080F to 075%
Add Prepare Prompt:00 Rinse 100F 25% 10 min
Add Fill Lev:10% From:1
Find Seams —
Add Dose 00m C:0
Drain to 000%
Add Prepare Prompt:00
Unload Machine Drain? 0/1:0
Add Fill Lev:10% From:1
Add Dose 00m C:0
Heat 9.9 TO 225F
Run 35 min
Cool 5.0 TO 160F
Drain to 000%
Fill at 120F to 100%
Table A.3.
55 Pound Cationic Exhaust Treatment Jet Procedure
Rinse 160F 70% 10 min
Drain to 000% Command Parameters Notes
Fill at 120F to 100% Insert Program 600 - Batch Weight —
Rinse 160F 70% 10mins Fill at 000F to 100% —
Drain to 000% Add Prepare Prompt:00 —
Fill at 120F to 100% Add Fill Lev:15% From:1 —
Add Fill Lev:10% From:0 Add Dose 00m C:0 NaOH
Add Prepare Prompt:00
Add Prepare Prompt:00 —
Add Dose 00m C:0
Add Fill Lev:15% From:1 —
Temperature 9.9 TO 140F
Heat 5.0 TO 112F —
Run 10 min
Drain to 000% Add Dose 10m C:0 CR2000
Fill at 160F to 100% Run 20 min —
Rinse 100F 70% 10 min Heat 5.0 TO 185F —
pH Check Low:06.0 High:07.0 B:0 Run 50 min —
Unload Machine Drain? 0/1:0 Cool 5.0 TO 160F —
Drain to 000% Drain to 000% —

62 | AATCC Review September/October 2013 www.aatcc.org

 Peer Reviewed Research

Table A.4. Table A.5.

55 Pound Cationic Neutralization Jet Procedure 55 Pound Cationic Dyeing Jet Procedure
Command Parameters Notes Command Parameters Note
Insert Program 600 - Batch Weight — Insert Program 600 - Batch Weight —
Fill at 000F to 100% —
Batch Weight 040 Lbs — Add Fill Lev:10% From:1 —
Liquor Ratio 08.0:1 — Add Prepare Prompt:00 —
Add Dose 00m C:0 CMC and aux.’s
Flow Rate 100% —
Add Fill Lev:10% From:1 —
Reel Speed 100YPM — Add Prepare Prompt:00 —
Fill at 100F to 100% — Heat 2.0 TO 135F —
Add Dose 20m C:7 Dye
Run 06 min —
Run 30 min —
Drain to 000% — Drain to 000% —
Fill at 000F to 100% — Unload Machine Drain? 0/1:0 —

Add Fill Lev:00% From:1 —

Add Prepare Prompt:00 — Table A.6.
55 Pound Cationic Dyeing After Rinse Jet Procedure
Add Dose 00m C:0 Acetic Acid
Command Parameters
Run 06 min —
Insert Program 600 - Batch Weight
pH Check Low:05.0 High:07.0 B:1 — Fill at 000F to 100%
Drain to 000% — Rinse 115F 70% 10mins
Drain to 000%
Unload Machine Drain? 0/1:0 — Unload Machine Drain? 0/1:0

CALL FOR
PAPERS
New AATCC Journal of Research Online Journal
(Dr. Martin Bide, University of Rhode Island, Editor-in-Chief)

Publish with a respected name you know and trust!

Submit your scientific manuscripts to our new online journal, the AATCC Journal of
Research, scheduled to begin publishing in January 2014. AATCC publications have
published over 1,000 pertinent peer reviewed scientific textile research articles since
Textile Chemist and Colorist was first published in 1969.

For more information, visit www.aatcc.org/media/Publish/

 Copyright of AATCC Review is the property of American Association of Textile Chemists &
Colorists and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats