Pad Dack Valerie 1977

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
EFFECTIVENESS OF
•'
COMMERCIAL STAIN REMOVERS
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Home Economics
by
Valerie Jean P~ddack
l.
;
January, 1977
.
-------;--------------l
/
The Thesis of Valerie Jean Paddack is approved: I

I
,I
!
i
I
California State University, Northridge
i
i '
L-----------·-----------·----------------------------~------------------------------_j
ii
Dedicated
with love
)f
to my parents
I
I
I
I
I
I i
L --------------·---·-·-------------------_j
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express sincere appreciation
to Dr. Nancy Owens for her patience, guidance, and assis-
tance in the completion of this thesis; to Dr. Marjory
Joseph for her continued support and assistance; and to
Gail Fonosch for her contributions and suggestions.
Special thanks also go to Dorothy Blackman and Patty
Carland for their assistance in evaluating the specimens.
i
i
I
i
I!
i
I
-----------------------------~-----------------------~--...J
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION . . . iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT X
Chapter
. I. INTRODUCTION . . . 1
Justification . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 2
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Research Hypotheses . . 4
Null Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Assumptions . . . . • . . . . . . . . 4
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . 5
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . 5
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . 7
Staining Mechanisms 7
Research Studies . . 10
Stain Removal Agents 13
III. PROCEDURE 15
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . 21
Influence of Time Prior to Treatment

on Stain Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Effectiveness of Removers on Stain
Removal . . . . • . . . . . . . 23
Evaluation of Stain Removal for Each
Staining Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
and Removers on Stain Removal 27
Influence of Time Pribr to Tre~tment
on Removal of Selected Stains . . . 27
Influence of Stain Removal Products on
Removal of Selected Stains, Fresh and
.Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
The Staining Agents . . . . . . . . . . . 39
L_____.-------------·-----------------------------------'---~-----------·-_____ !
t.
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS 56 :
. . . . . . . . . . .. . . ...
LIST OF REFERENCES 60
Appendix
A. QUESTIONNAIRE 63
B. STAIN REMOVAL RATINGS . . . 70 .
II . .
------·------·--~----~· -·---------------~-------
vi
LIST OF TABLES
1. Time Prior to Treatment as a Factor Affecting

Stain Removal Rating of Specimens . . . . . . 24
2. Stain Removal Agents as a Factor Affecting
Stain Removal Rating of Specimens . . . . 25
3. Stain Removal Rating of Specimeris for
Stains Used . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Time Prior to Treatment and Remover Used as
Factors Affecting Stain Removal Rating of
Specimens . . . . . . . ~, . . . . . . . . 28
5. Time Prior to Treatment as a Faotor Affecting
Stain Removal Rating of Specimens for
Stains Used . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 29
6. Biz: Time Prior to Treatment as a Factor

Affecting Stain Removal Rating of Specimens 31
7. Clorox: Time Prior to Treatment as a Factor
Affecting Stain Removal Rating of Speci~ens . 33
l. 8. Easy Wash: Time Prior to Treatment as a
I Factor Affecting Stain Removal Rating of
Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
9. Spray 'n' Wash: Time Prior to Treatment as ~

Factor Affecting Stain Removal Rating of
Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
i
110. Stain Erase: Time Prior to Treatment as a
i
! Factor Affecting Stain Removal Rating of
f Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . ·. . . . 38 ;
I
j 11. Wisk: Time Prior to Treatment as a Factor
l Affecting Stain Removal Rating of Specimens 40
I
!12.
I
Blood Stained Specimens: Time Pricrr to
I
Treatment as a Factor Affecting Stain
Remo~al Rating of Specimens . . . . . 41
I
l _____ · - - - - - - - - - . - - · - - - - - - - - - · - .·---~--·-····--------·-j
vii
44
1
15. Spaghetti Sauce Stained Specimens: Time
Prior to Tr~atment as a Factor Affecting
Stain Removal Rating of Specimens . . 46
Ink Stained Specimens: Time Prior to

Removal Rating of Specimens . . . . . 47
17. Crankcase Oil Stained Specimens: Time Prior

to Treatment as a Factor Affecting Stain
Removal Rating of Specimens . . . . . . . 49
18. Chocolate Stained Specimens: Time Prior to
Treatment as a Factor Affectirrg Stain ·
19. Grape Jui~e Stained Specimens: Time Prior

1
20. Margarine Stained Specimens: Time Prior to
21. Household Oil Stained Specimens: Time Prior

Removal Rating of Specimens . . . . . . . . . 54
22. Biz:· Stain Removal Ratings for Stains on

Specimens Treated with Biz . . . . . . 71
23. Clorox: Stain Removal Ratings for Stains on
Specimens Treated with Clorox ~ . . . . . 72
24. Easy Wash: Stain Removal Ratings for Stains

on Specimens Treated with Easy Wash . . . . . 73
25. Spray 'n' Wash: Stain Removal Ratings for
Stains on Specimens Treated with
Spray 'n' Wash . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . 74
viii
------- ---~----------------- ..- - -----~--· --- ~-------~·----··-
i
Stain Erase: Stain Removal Ratings for Stains
126. on Specimens Treated with Stain Erase
12 7. Wisk: Stain Removal Ratings for Stains on

Specimens Treated with Wisk . . . . . 76
I
128. Stain Removal Ratings for Blood Stains on
Specimens Treated with Stain Removal Agents . 77
I
I
!29.
I
Stain Removal Ratings for Grass Stains on
I
I Specimens Treated with Stain Removal Agents 78
I
!
130. Stain Removal Ratings for Cooking Oil Stains
I on Specimens Treated with Stain Removal
I Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
I
131. Stain Removal Ratings for Spaghetti Sauce
Stains on Specimens Treated with Stain
Removal Agents . . . . . . . . . 80
I
I
j32. Stain Removal Ratings for Ink Stains on
I Specimens Treated with Stain Removal Agents . 81
133. Stain Removal Ratings for Crankcase Oil Stains

on Specimens Treated with Stain Removal
Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
!34. Stain Removal Ratings for Chocolate Stains on

I135. Stain Removal Ratings for Grape Juice Stains
Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
I
36. Stain Removal Ratings for Margarine Stains on
37. Stain Removal Ratings for Household Oil Stains

Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
ix
! --------------·---------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------1
I
Ii
I
ABSTRACT I
I
EFFECTIVENESS OF
I
COMMERCIAL STAIN REMOVERS
by
I
Valerie Jean Paddack
I
Master of Science in Home Economics
January, 1977 i
This study evaluated the effectiveness of selected

:stain removal agents on cotton broadcloth, 65% polyester/
!'
!35% cotton blend broadcloth, and polyester double knit
I
i fabrics.
I
i
i A preliminary study identified ten stains that
/occur frequently and are difficult to re~ove: blood, grass
!cooking oil, tomato-based products, felt tip pen ink, auto-
'
[motive oil, chocolate, fruit juices, margarine, and house-
ihold oil. The most widely used (based on the preliminary
j
jstudy) stain removal agent from each of the following
i -
!classifications was selected: pre-soaks, bleaches, liquids~
i
!aerosols, stick removers, and detergents. Manufacturers'
1
i
I ________ __]
X
.-··--··---~--~-----------------··---··---------------------- -··-·--···- ------· --·---·---· ·--·-··------·-------·--------··------~
instructions were followed in removing fresh and set l

I
stains. I
I
There were significant dif{erences in the effective~
I
ness of the removers, based on the chemical composition of '
ii
the products and of the stains. The pre-soak was most I
I
effective in removing blood, the bleach in removing colored]
stains, and the aerosol in treating oil stains. The deter- /
gent was the least effective remover.
Stain removal was more effective on fresh stains
than on set stains. The most difficult stain to remove was
the automotive oil. Cooking oil and .household oil were the
i
easiest to remove. I
It was concluded that consumers would need a variety
I
of products for effective stain removal.
i
I
l
I
i
I
I I
I
I ii
i I
I
!
I II
I I
I
i I
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The problems of staining and stain removal have

been apparent for generations. Techniques for removal of
spots and stains have been published as far back as the
sixteenth century. Allerley Matkel, one of the first pub-
lications on stain removal, dates back to 1532 and was
written for the homemaker or non-professional worker
(28:179}~
In June 1959 the U.S. Department of Agriculture

;published its first booklet on stain removal. This booklet
was revised in 1965 when staining and stain removal created
serious problems. At that time, hydrophqbic fibers, par-
iticularly polyesters, were blended with cotton and the
I
'
!resulting fabrics were treated to impart durable press
:properties. A new revision is currently available (21}.
uuntreated cottons," hydrophilic in nature, once
described as the ultimate in stain release properties, had
;
:been placed aside in favor of newly developed fibers and

finishes (14:132). One of these newer fibers was polyester,
which was found not only to be hydrophobic in nature but
;also to be oleophilic or oil attracting. The addition of
1
2
resin finishing (for durable press) was also found not only
to promote staining but also ~o render stains more difficult
to re~ove dtiring laundering. Polyester and cotton blends,
when treated for durable press performance, have a tendency
to create problems in stain removal.
Recent studies (12, 14, 22) have also indicated that
polyester and polyester/cotton blend fabrics are more sus-
ceptible to oily soiling and are more difficult to clean
effectively than cotton fabric.
Most fabrics soil and many have some kind of soil or
stain release problems. Research has shown that such prob-
.lems become more complex during finishing with certain
:chemicals commonly used to prepare the fiber or fabric for
~arket. With s~ many variables involved in the processes
'
'
1
of staining and stain removal, the need for experimental
research in this area was evident.
Justification
In the fall of 1975 a preliminary study on stain
:removal was conducted with a sample of 102 Southern Cali-
''
!fornia consumers. The results of this study indicated that
:many stains do occur on clothing and that consumers find
j
[that a. number of stains are difficult to remove.
Manufacturers of laundry products are also concerned
iabout removal of stains. New stain removal products are
I
I
· icont·inually being developed and. used by consumers. The
I .
~----------~-------~-------·---·------··- -----·--------·------·
3
question then arises as to which.stain remover can one
expect to produce the most satisfactory results on various
types of stains. Consumers are also interested in using a
limited number of stain removal products out of those
available on the market.
Much of the research done on stain removal has
involved the potential removal of stains from fabrics with
different types of finishes, particularly soil or stain
release finishes. These finishes, however, are not widely
:used at the present time. This leads, again, to the problem
of removing stains from those fabrics most commonly used by
the consumer (5), specifically those fabrics selected for
use in this study.
Objectives
The objectives for this study were:
1. to compare the effectiveness of commerical stain removal
products on a selected group of stains on three types
of fabric which were popular in 1976.
2. to determine which type of commercial stain removal

. .
product would provide the most satisfactory results on
the selected stains which had been allowed to set for
one week.
3. to determine which type of commercial stain removal
i
product would provide the most satisfactory results on
I
l
I
'-------- - - - - - - - - ·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - - - - - - . ___ j
4
the removal of selected stains which were treated within
30 minutes (fresh).
Research Hypotheses
'1. There is a significant difference in the effectiveness
of commercial stain removal products in treating differ-
ent stains.
,2. Stain removal procedures will be more effective in the
removal of fresh stains than in the removal of set
stains.
3. Effectiveness of stain removal products and procedures
will vary depending upon the fiber content of the
stained fabric.
Null Hypotheses
1. There is no significant difference in the effectiveness
of commercial stain removal products in treating certain
stains.
2. There is no significant difference between ease of
removal of fresh stains and set stains~
3. There is no significant difference in effectiveness of
stain removal products on stained fabrics of different
fiber content.
Assumptions
In the cbntext of the current study, it has been

f
!assumed that: .
l______.-·--·-------·-·------,---------------------·-----------~
5
1. soiled clothing is laundered once a week.

2, consumers are interested -in purchasing a minimum
number of products for general use in stain removal.
3. st-ores selling commercial stain removal products
provide a wide selection from which the consumer can
choose.
Limitations
The study will be limited to three fabrics to meet
restrictions of finances and time. The fabrics selected
represent those categories of fabrics with the highest
production by U.S. mills: flat woven cotton fabrics, blends
of polyester and cotton, and polyester circular knits
(6:56). The specific stains and commercial products used
:were selected on the basis of information obtained from the
preliminary study.
Definition bf Terms
:Hydrophilic: water loving; the ability- of a fabric to
attract water (10:386).
'Hydrophobic: water repelling; the resistance a fabric
has to the attraction of water (10:386).
:o1eophilic: -oil attracting; the ability of a fabric to
attract and ~etain oil (10:3~8).
Stain: locally concentrated, visible soils (28:179).
i"---~---- --·-·~---·-·-----------------~~-------.,.---·----------. ·---~------··-·--------

6
·stains during spot cleaning, washing, or

dry cleaning (16:11).
'
:wicking: the longitudinal flow of a liquid due to
capillary action (4:1119).
i
I . ,
L_------------------------------·-------------------~
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The processes of staining and stain removal involve
many complex interrelationships: the nature of the fiber
surface, fiber-fabric structure, soil, chemical finishes,
and detergents. While basic chemical principles are
involved in many methods of stain removal, the mechanisms of
,staining and stain release are not well understood (28:179).
Staining Mechanisms
Stains, described as locally concentrated, visible
;soils, involve the process of wetting and absorption, in
which a contacting fluid flows out to form a film over the

1
Surface of the fabric. Stain release, on the other hand,
involves adsorution, in which the staining fluid is dis-

! "
iplaced from the fabric surface by an aqueous fluid, usually
,a detergent solution in water (22:105).
Surface energy is one mechanism involved in the
staining of textile fabrics. This energy arises from an
intE!rfacial attraction such as Van der Waals . forces,
electrostatic attraction, mechanical forces, and hydro-
phobicity on the surface of the fabric or just below the
(20:1053). ·Forces resulting from this attraction
7
8
act strongly to compress the surface and minimize its area

and so create the surface energy or tension.
Penetration of stains is determined by the degree of
surface energy. A fabric having low surface energy will not
be wet by the stain medium. The stain is not likely to
adhere or penetrate. Penetration can result, however, if
,"some outside force [such as rubbing] is applied to overcome
.this low surface energy" (20: 1053).
Water-based staining media generally have a high
surface tension and are usually ~onfined to the surface of
a fiber. Oil-based stains generally have a low surface
tension and therefore can penetrate the fibers more readily
(Z8:179). This penetration of the stain involves progres-
sive displacement of air from the fabric surface by means
~f capillary action in the interfiber and interyarn struc-
ture c:af the fabric. There may also be diffusion of the

stain into the fiber matrix, depending ·on the textile poly-
'I
mer, its morphology, and the chemical composition of the
stain (28:179).
The release of stains, especially oily stains, from
a fabric involves a retraction of the staining medium in
stage.:S'~ Surface energy again is involved in this retraction.
I
I
[T'h.e higher the energy between the oil and the fiber and the
1
1awer the energy between the oil/water and water/fiber
i
:interfaces, the more successful will be the stain release
!
!
!czz: HIS).
i i
L..............-·-------'----~-------------:----------~---- -~-------------:---·---------~---------~----~~
9
The detergent and the detergent concentration in
water are responsible for the oil/water interfacial energy,
which is usually very small. Polarity is responsible for
'much of the inte~facial energy; when matched, interfacial
energies are lower. In other words, polar/polar and non-
polar/non-polar matches of solid and liquid result in low
energies. Hence, a match of polar/non-polar forces would
result in higher interfacial energies. Oil-based stains,
non-polar in nature, can therefore be expected to extract
·readily from untreated cotton which is a high energy, very
polar substrate. In contrast, oil release from polyesters,
.which have a low energy and are non-polar, is not as likely
(22: 107).
When the energy of an aque6us detergent solution is
'of such a nature that relatively low energy arises at the
fiber/water interface and relatively high energy is manifest
·at the fiber/oil interface, more effective oily ~tain
release will be accomplished. In other words, best oil
'release results are obtained when the fabric demonstrates

I
I
!both good hydrophilicity and good oleophobicity under laun-
:dering conditions. Recent studies (22) have indicated that
~ore rapid oily stain release is accomplished at higher

i
;laundering temperatures. This occurs because the internal
viscosity of the oil is lowered, allowing greater desorption
of the oil (22:107).
-- ----·--~-~
11
measurement (8:202). Different laboratory techniques of

staining, evaluation of the degree of staining, artd dif-
ferent experimental techniques for characterizing the
. .
~arameters responsible are used.

Procedures used generally consist of two types:
actual wear trials and laboratory evaluation methods
(27:355). Wear trials are time consuming and cumbersome.
Because of the high variability associated with them, a
large number of samples have to be evaluated in order to
get statistically significant results (27:355). Therefore,
:the preference is for laboratory methods of investigation.
There have been a number of laboratory techniques
for soiling and methods of evaluation developed. Direct
means of staining and visual observation for evaluation are
'two of the more common methods used (28:181).
Evaluation, when made visually, consists of a panel
'of observers, usually a minimum of three, who rate stain
!removal according to a predetermined scale.
I
The American
~ssociation of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) has
~ade available a stain release replica used f6r evaluation
!of oily stains. Here again, evaluation is made by observers
i .
and, as with other test methods, is subject to human varia-
1
~ions and behavior (12:122).

1,----
;
(i Much of the current research that has been done on
i'\
I I
! ./ •
fita1n
_,c\ removal has been concerned with the problem of
:; i
J~ e~o ~.~~~ __S.-==-~-~~~-f.r o! treated. f ~~~i c s ___S._l ch__ ~=-~~ r ~~-1-~-~ r ~-~·~-~·
9.
12
treated fabrics and with the development of soil release
finishes.· Durable press finished fabrics have created a
problem of stain removal, and researchers have directed
their attention in that direction (8, 14, 27). Wf:H:-le there
has been little done on basic stain removal from today's
fabrics, irregardless of the finish, based upon ~tain
removal products available to the consumer, ·6ne of the more
current projects does deal with the problem.
The study was designed to develop simple methods
of stain removal that could be used in the home and was
:conducted at the International Fabricare Institute at
Silver Spring, Maryland (28). Fifteen fabrics of different
composition were stained with a total of 153 different
~otential staining materials and treated with 1& stain
~removal c.r~emicals readily ayatlable to the consu:.r1er.
Evaluation was made by a panei of five observers using a
three point rating scale.· The success of stain removal
~as established according to previously defined groups of
istains (based upon the composition of the stains). Com-
~leteness
I .
of stain removal was high~st for. polyester, lowest
:for wool and nylon, and intermediate for cotton. It was
~ecided that removal of stains is more complete wh~n pro-

!
I
:cessed as soon as possible after staining occurs than after
:stains have been allowed to set.
L·----------·-·----·------· --·---·~·-·----:--·--.--~--.-------.-.------~
.13
Stain Removal Agents
There are a number of stain removal products
available to consumers. These stain removal agents are
specific to various stains on most types of fabrics and
finishes.
Pre-soaks are enzyme based products, especially
effective on protein based stains. Enzymes are proteins,
catalysts which speed up some particular actions (3). They
are capable of breaking down soils and stains into less
complex forms. The hydrolysis reaction by which enzymes
.work is very specific; certain enzym~s break down proteins,
others work on starches (3) .
Liquid chlorine bleach, the most widely used of the
'three types of bleaches on the market, is effective at
whitening, brightening, cleaning, removing stains, disin-
fecting, and deodorizing. Bleach was once thought to render
'stains colorless, but research has now shown that it
actually aids in the removal of certain components of
natural soil (9). Bleach works through pxidation and it
'is believed in some cases to produce mor~ soluble forms of
:soils which can then be removed more easily by the detergent.
and.washing action. Bleaches work in conjunction with
'detergents and soap and are especially effective on oily
body dirt (9) .
Most of the aerosol stain removers are d~y~cleaning
:based solvents, especially effective on grea§y, oily stains.

14
'.They are not effective in removing "set" protein stains

such as blood, because the denatured protein of the set
stains becomes intimately bound to the fibers of the cloth
and the solvents cannot reverse this process (25). Solvents,
when sprayed on a greasy, oily spot, soften and/or dissolve
the oily soil so that they can penetrate the fibers. The
.aerosol stain removers are effective because many stains
contain some grease or oil although they are composed as
well, of other types of substances (25).
Liquid detergents used as stain removers work on
the assumption that as a liquid they can penetrate deep
into the fibers and remove grease, grime, and stains.
Liquid stain removers and stick stain removers are
!also available on the market, but information on their
composition or their effectiveness is not available.
There are many variables involved in the staining
,of textiles and their subsequent removal. One should keep
,
!in mind that staining comes from close contact with the
\
fabric ana that forces of impingement and forces of reten-

~ion are involved in this process.
i
L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - -
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURE
A preliminary study relating to stains on clothing

and commercial stain removers was undertaken in the fall of
1975. The study consisted of a questionnaire asking a
sample of Southern California consumers to rate a compre-
,hensive list of stains with regard to frequency of occur-
'rence and then in relation to their difficulty of removal.
The list. of stains was obtained by combining two published
'lists of nstubborn stains, " one by the manufacturers of
Clorox bleach (23) and the other by the manufacturers of
Spray ,.n' Wash c2 4) • Recipients of the questionnaire were
also asked to indicate the commercial stain removers present
in th.e home and their frequency of use. (See Appendix A.)
Most of the questionnaires were distributed and
.collected by the researcher; others were returned by mail .
.The response was excellent; 102 questionnaires were dis-
:tributed and 102 questionnaires were returned.
Using the restilts of the preliminary study, this
'experimental study was designed to evaluate the .effective-
.ness of commercial stain removal agents in removing stains
·on a selected group of fabrics. These fabrics, which were
........... __ ____ .................._____________________________________ ________________
.. .. -------·- .. -
~
-
-
-
-
15
16
chosen by the researcher as representative of those commonly

found in the home, were as follows~
1. One hundred percent cotton, white broadcloth, 2.99 oz.

per sq. yard (101.38 g/m 2 ), average yarn count--warp:
78; filling: 68.
2. Sixty-five percent polyester/thirty-five percent cotton

blend, white broadcloth, durable press finish, 3.06 oz.
per sq. yard (103.75 g/m 2 ), average yarn count--warp:
100; filling: 57.
3. One hundred percent polyester, white double knit,

6.69 oz. per sq. yard (226.83 g/m 2 ), average wale and
course count--wale: 16; course: 28.
Ten stains were applied to the fabrics. These

:stains were selected from the results of the preliminary
study. The ranking given each stain on frequency of occur-
renee was multiplied by the ranking given each stain on
difficulty of removal to provide a combined ranking con-
I
isidering both factors. The staining agents, in order of

I
.comhined ranking, were:

o:lood.
grass
cooking oil
spaghetti sauce
:fei.t· t.ip pen ink
crankcase o.il
c:hocolate
\_________ ----·:--------·-----· --------------.-··-·-----------------------·----·----·--------------_j
17
grape juice
margarine
h0usehoJd oil
Also selected from the questionnaire as the commer-
cial stain removers used most frequeritly in each class were
Biz Pre-Soak (pre-soaks), Clorox Liquid Bleach (bleaches)~
Easy Wash (liquids), Spray 'n' Wash (aerosols), Stain Erase
from Drive Detergent (stick removers), and Wisk (detergents
used for spot and stain removal). (Use of these product
'names does not imply approval or recommendation of the
product to the exclusion of other products.) These products
were used to treat the stains following manufacturers'
directions as follows:
1. Biz Pre-Soak: use 1/4 cup in a bucket (2-3T per gallon)
for best removal of stubborn stains. Use warm water.
Many stains will come out in half hour.
2. Clorox: add 1 cup per regular top-loading machines to
warm water before laundry is put in .
3.
.
Easy Wash: dampen stained or soiled_areas with Easy
Wash. Let the Easy Wash liquid soak into the fabric for
a few minutes or until dry. Then launder as usual with
your regular soap or detergent.

i
:4. Spray 'n' Wash: hold spray can upright, 6-8" from the
fabric and saturate area thoroughly. Wait one minute.
Place in washer with other washables and run through

lI
L
1
normal cycle with other washables.
------·--···- ---------------~~-------------------·----------- ---------------··
18
5. Stain Erase: wet the stained area thoroughly and hold

the garment firmly on a flat surface. Firmly rub the
erd of the Stain Eraser back anri forth across the stain.
Wash as usual.
6. Wisk: pre-treat by pouring some Wisk directly on
heavily soiled places. Rub into soiled area.
The test fabrics were cut into 6" X 6" (15.24 em x
15.24 em) specimens. Each stain was applied to seven speci-
mens of each fabric, chosen at random using a table of
random numbers (7). All of the fluid staining agents with
the exception of the spaghetti sauce ~ere applied to the
fabric specimens by means of a pipette. A 0.2 ml quantity
of the agent was rubbed into an area one-inch (2.54 em)
,square by hand, as evenly as possible. The high viscosity
of the spaghetti sauce required the use of an eyedropper.
Five drops were applied to a one-inch square on each speci-
,men and rubbed in as evenly as possible. A 0.2 gm sample
iof margarine was applied and also rubbed into a one-inch
square. Grass and felt tip pen ink were.applied by stroking
,each across the fabric in one direction and covering a one-
inch square. A template was prepared, consisting of a piece
:of plastic, 6" (15.24 em) square, with a one-inch square cut
:from the center so that the size of the original stains
~ould be uniform. Each specimen was coded by number to
iindicate type of stain applied, type of remover used, and
i
itime prior to treatment. Of the sev~n specimens of each
L ____________________________________ -·------~----------~~--~-------·--------------------~--~--------~~---___:___ __1
19
fabric for each stain, one remained untreated and was used
for comparison with treated stains, three were stored in
covered containers for a period of one week prior to treat-
ment, and the remaining three were treated and washed within
30 minutes (1:225).
Test specimens were laundered in a Maytag home
laundry washing machine, with 200 gm of AATCC standard WOB
detergent, on the regular cycle for 10 minutes in warm
water at normal water level (16 gallons). The specimens
were dried on the regular cycle of a Maytag home dryer
until dry (at which time the dryer automatically stopped).
The cotton specimens required a dry pressing to make them
lie flat for evaluation. All of the specimens were then
evaluated.
The specimens were evaluated from a horizontal
position on a white surface by north light. No artificial
·light was used in evaluating the specimens. Evaluation of
stain removal was made by a panel of three judges: Dr.
Nancy Owens, assistant professor of Textiles and Clothing;
,Mrs. Dorothy Blackman, assistant professor of Textiles and
Clothing; and Patty Carland, Home Economics graduate. A
,panel of three judges is required for AATCC Test Method
130-1975, Soil Release: Oily Stain Release Method (1:225),
and such panels have been used in many studies on.staining
:and stain removal (8, 12~ 28). Using a five point rating
I
L----------·----------------------·----------------·-----~------------· __j
20
-------------------·-----------:---·---~--- -------- -------·------ . -·---· ------~----------- ------- -------·------------"--·- --------- --------------- -- ·--------- ----·----------~
'
scale, analysis of stain removal was recorded by type of
I
stain. Ratings were made according to the following:
5 --Effectiveness of stain removal; excellent.
4 --Effectiveness of stain removal; very good.
3-- Effectiveness of stain removal; good.
2 -- Effectiveness of stain removal; fair.
1 -- Effectiveness of stain removal; poor.
Analysis of the results was processed by a CDC 3170
computer using the Statistical Package for the Social
'Scienc~s, second edition (15). Chi squares of frequency of

-
,responses for each rating were calculated. Ratings of 4 and
5 were combined to indicate the rating of "effective," 3 was
;identified as "fairly effective," and 1 and 2 were combined
ito indicate the rating of "not effective."

I
The dependent variable in, this study was the rating
of effectiveness of stain removal. The independent vari-
ables were the commercial stain removers, the three differ-
~nt fabrics, and the time prior to removal (fresh or set).

j
l___
·-···-~---- ------ .,~.- -------- ----·--·------ -------- --·-~---------·--- --·--·-- -----·- . ----- . ·-·· ------- ·-----· .. -
----··-~-------- -----· -·-- ---------·- --·---------1
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A preliminary study undertaken in the fall of 1975

involved a questionnaire designed to examine the frequency
of occurrence of stains on fabrics and the difficulty of
removal of these stains. A total of 102 Southern California
consumers was asked to rate a comprehensive list of stains
·according to frequency of occurrence and difficulty of
removal. They were also questioned concerning the commer-
,cial stain removal products most frequently used.
From the results of this preliminary study, a list
was compiled of ten stains which occurred most often and
were the most difficult to remove. The ten stains selected
-
were blood, grass, cooking oil, spaghetti sauce, felt tip
:pen ink, crankcase oil, chocolate, grape juice, margarine,
\and household oil. The most widely used ·commercial stain
:removal products of each general type were also selected
:from the findings of the questionnaire. The products used
:most frequently by those consumers surveyed were: "Biz
i
ICpre-soaks), Clorox (bleaches)j Easy Wash (liquids), Spray
i'n' Wash (aerosols), Stain Erase from Driye Detergent (stick
i
!removers), and Wisk (detergents used for spot and stain
I .
I
\
- - - -----------------
21
22
The primary purpose of the study was to analyze the
effectiveness of the most widely used commercial stain
removers in relation to the selected stains when they were
treated immediately and when they were treated after a
period of one week. The study was also designed to deter-
mine the effectiveness of the commercial products in
removing stains from different fabrics.
An analysis of the results was obtained through the
use of a computer, and chi square tables of number of
responses for each rating were calculated. A significant
chi square value indicated that there was a difference in
the frequency of responses in the ratings of stain removal
and thus a difference in the effectiveness of the removal
agent(s) under the conditions d~scribed. Levels of signifi-
cance were set as .OS and .01.

on Stain Removal
Stains which were treated fresh were rated consis-
tently hi~her in removal than those which were treated after
one week. Combining the results for all three fabrics, for
:1620 specimens, the number of "effective" ratings scored by
fresh stains was 1141, compared to 911 on set stains. The
blend, by comparison, scored 357 "effective" ratings out of
540 specimens tested on fresh stains and only 207 on set
·,ones, indicating more influence of time on the blend fabric
!than on the cotton_ or polyester. The time pri6r to

L _______ ; ___ ·------------------~----------------~-------~-~-------------------------------------•
23
,. --·------·-··~---··--·-·-·-------·---·- -----··------------------------------·-·-------------------·------ ----1

)treatment was a significant factor in determining effective~
ness of removers for the three fabrics combined and for the
cotta~ and the blend fabric when they were considered
separately. (See Table 1.)
Effe~tiveness of Removers
on Stain Removal
i The results of this study indicated that the effec-
I
!tiveness of each remover varied with regard to the chemical
/composition of the stains and the fiber content of the
I
lfabrics. In general, Clorox attained the largest number of 1
I I
\Heffective" ratings of all removers, while Wisk received the
I I'
jlargest number of "not effective" ratings. Spray 'n' Wash
/resulted in higher all around scores when compared to the
I
!other products. (See Table 2.)
I
I Evaluation of Stain Removal
' for Each Staining Agent
I
I Cooking oil and household oil wicked throughout the·
I
I
!entire specimens, making it virtually impossible to observe I
!any residual stain as both oils were colorless. The scores
I
1
for removal of the two oils were consistently higher· than
1
I
jfor the other stains based on visual inspection. However,
I
lin many specimens the oil, although not appearing to be a
/stai~~ was still present and could be felt and smelled by
/the ju~ges. Crankcase oil, by far, created the most diffi-:
I)cult problem
. . for removal. (See Table 3.) ·I'
l _j
24
TABLE 1
TIME PRIOR TO TREATMENT AS A FACTOR AFFECTING
STAIN REMOVAL RATING OF SPECIMENS
Stain Removal Ratings Fresh Set
All fabrics** not effective 234 379

(n = 1620)
fairly effective 245 330
effective 1141 911
:cotton** not effective 75 108

(n· = 540)
effective 392 294

i
fBlend** not effective 68 190

(n = 540)
effective 357 207
:Polyester*** not effective 91 81

· (n = 54 0)
effective 392 410
** Significant at .01 level.
***N ot s1gn1
. . f"1cant.
r·---------- ----·-·- .-·--- --·- ·----- -- ---·-
TABLE 2
1
STAIN REMOVAL AGENTS AS A FACTOR AFFECTING
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : := =;: : :; ;=:~; ; ;: : : : : : : : :=: :~: ,:~-:~: :,: : : : ~ ~: : :,:,: : :,: : : : : : : : : : : : : : ,: : : : :o:c

I
1 STAIN REMOVAL RATING OF SPECIMENS
I
j
i
I
i
I Stain Removal Easy Spray "n" Stain Wisk
i Biz Clorox Wash Erase
! Ratings Wash
All fabrics** not effective 120 93 98 52 108 143

(n = 540) fairly effective 84 77 88 134 100 92
effective 336 370 354 354 332 305
Cotton** not effective 30 15 26 19 26 67

(n = 180) . fairly effective 38 28 25 so 35 35 .
effective 112 137 129 111 119 78
Blend** not effective 42 39 42 25 56 55

effective 97 111 87 100 81 87
Polyester** not effective 48 39 30 8 26 21

effective 127 122 138 143 132 140
N
U1
--------- ---------------------------------- ---------- i
~
TABLE 3
STAIN REMOVAL RATING OF SPECIMENS FOR STAINS USED
Stain Removal Blood Grass Cooking Spaghetti Ink Crankcase Choc- Grape Marga- Household
Ratings Oil Sauce Oil olate Juice rine Oil
-
All fabrics~~ not effeciive 27 69 1 64 47 269 16 51 62 a
(n • 324) fa{rly effective 39 .59 3 107 92 50 95 sa 63 9
effective 258 196 320 153 185 5 213 215 199 307
Cotton""" not effective 10 28 0 6 23 83 10 17 6 0

(n • 108) fairly effective 13 18 1 39 26 21 49 25 19 0
effective 85 62 107 63 59 4 49 66 83 108
·i
Blend** not effective 17 41 0 34

I
44 24 93 6 0 0
(n • 108) fairly effective 26 34 0 38 66 15 46 31 2 0 I
eff;ective 65 33 108 26 18 0 56 43 106 108
Polyester"'* not effective 0 0 1 14 0 93 0 0 56 8 i·

I
(n • 108) fairly effective 0 7 2 30 0 14 0 2 42 9 i
effective 108 101 105 64 108 1 108 106 10 91
·~ Significant at .01 level.
:
I
_j
N
0\
27
Influence of Tim~ Prior to Treatment

and Removers on Stain Removal
Very little change resulted when the two variables
of remover and time prior to removal were considered
:together from when they were examined individually. Clorox
retained the highest number of "effective" ratings of all
agents on the cotton and the blend but not on the polyester
for fresh stains and for set stains. The significance that
time had upon the blend can be seen as Clorox, with 72
!"effective" ratings out of 90 specimens tested for removal
of stains treated fresh, dropped to 40 "effective" ratings
on set stains. Wisk retained the largest number of "not
effective" ratings for both fresh and set stains on the
blend. (See Table 4.)

i
Influ~nc~ of Time Prior to Treatment

on Removal of Select~d Stains
Time prior to treatment remained a significant
\factor in stain removal for most stains. Time was espe-

!
!cially significant in the removal of blood stains. This
:can be clearly seen on the blend, where the removal of fresh
;blood stains scored 54 "effective" ratings out of 54 speci-,
.mens versus only 11 "effective" ratings on the set blood
'stains. Crankcase oil, without question, rated lowest
!egardless of time prior to treatment. (See Table 5.}
I' - - - · - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
-· -----------------------,
I
i
I
l
i
TABLE 4
i
i
TIME PRIOR TO TREATMENT AND REMOVER USED AS FACTORS AFFECTING
STAIN REMOVAL ~~TING OF SPECIMENS
Biz Clorox Easy Wash Spray 'u' Stain Erase Wisk

Stain Removal Wash
Ratings Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set
All fab-rics not effective so 70 40 52 41 57 20 32 37 71 46 97

(n • 270) fairly effective 29 55 22 55 38 50 57 77 45 55 54 38
fresh**/set** effective 191 14 5 208 163 191 163 193 161 188 144 170 135
Cotton not effective 16 14 7 8 13 13 9 10 9 17 21 46

(n • 90) fairly effective 10 28 11 17 6 19 14 36 9 26 23 i. 2
fresh"'*/set** effective 64 48 72 65 71 58 67 44 72 47 46 32
Blend not effective 12 30 12 26 12 30 5 20 14 42 13 42

(n .. 90) fairly effective 17 24 6 24 24 27 24 31 25 18 19 19
fresh**/set* effective 61 36 72 40 54 33 61 39 51 30 58 29
Polyester not effec.t:i ve 22 . 26 21 18 16 14 6 2 14 12 12 9

(n " 90) fai!lY effective 2 3 5 14 8 4 19 10 11 11 12 7
fresh**/set** effective 66 61 64 58 66 72 65 78 65 67 66 74
-
·*Significant at .OS level.
** Significant at .01 level,
"" \
Ii
___________!
['-.)
cc
------ ··--------------------· -·-· -·---·- .. -·--------··------------
~
-------·-···--
I .
TABLE S
TIMP. PRIOR TO TRf:AntF.NT AS A PAC1'0R AFFECTING STAIN RmlOVAL RATING
OP SPf:CntnNS FOR S~rAINS US[()
Spaghetti Crankw:ase
-
Blood Grass Cooking Oil Ink Chocolate Crape Juloe MArga1' ine Household
Sauce Oil Oil
Stain Removal
Ratings .Fresh Set Frost, Set Presh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Frosh
-
Set
----
Fre'h s.,t
-----
Fresh ~. t
All fabrics not effective 1 26 22 47 1 0 13 so 135 41 6 41 3 13

-· g 42 :;9 23
-- -
(n • 162) fairly effective 4 35 33 26 2 1 46 61 2( 53 H s~ 40 ss 15 33 27 ~6
frcsll••jset•• effect lvc . 157 101 107 89 159 161 103 51 3 68 117 68 119 94 na 87 Y6 !03 I SZ ISS
Cotton not effective 1 9 16 12 0 0 0 6 42 41 2 21 3 7 5 12 6 0 0 0

(n • ~4) fairly e-ffective 4 9 11 7 0 l 0 39 9 lZ 6 20 2G 21 7 18 s ll n 0
·rrosh••tset•• effoct.ive 49 36 27 35 54 53 54 9 3 1 46 13 B 26 42 24 41) 43 54 54
Blend not eff~ct ive 0 17 6 35 0 0 9 34 45 48 4 20 0 6 4 30 0 0 0 0

(n • 54) fairly effective 0 26 17 17 0 0 29 10 9 6 33 n 12 34 16 15 0 2 0 0
fresh"'" /set •• effective 54 11 31 2 54 54 16 10 0 0 17 1 42 14 34 9 54 52 54 54
Polyester not effectIve 0 0 c 0 1 0 4 10 4! 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 23

(n • 54) fairly effective 0 0 s 2 z 0 18 12 6 8 0 0 0 0 2 0 19 23
fresh*•tset•• effective 54 54 49 52 51 54 32 32 0 1 54 54 54 54 52 54 2 8 4'. 47
•• Significant at .01 level.
iI
I
i
--- ----·----·-. ____________________ _____] ,
t-.J
'-0
30
Influence of Stain Removal Products on Removal

of Selected Stains, Fresh and Set
·Biz
The results obtained from using Biz as a stain
,remover indicated that it yielded superior results in
removing blood. from stained specimens, both from those
which were treated fresh and from tho~e which were treated
after being set. Biz's capacity for removal of crankcase
oil stains, however, was minimal; all the automotive oil
stains were rated "not effective" on all three fabrics.
~For the remaining stains, results were less consist~nt.
:(See Table 22, Appendix B.) Margarine attained low ratings
on cotton and polyester but superior ones on the blend.
I
Removal of household oil resulted in all "effective" ratings
on the cotton and blend, but scores varied on its removal
from the polyester. The polyester fabric also had all
"effective'' ratings for the removal of ink and grape juice,
;regardless of time. Time prior to treatment was observed

• !
i
las being highly significant to the removal of stains from
!the blend and from the cotton and not significant to their
lremoval from the polyester. (See Table 6.)
i
!clorox
\
!
The addition of Clorox to the wash water for tr~at-
;
ling stains resulted in higher ratings on the polyest~r

I
!fabric than on the cotton and blend fabrics. "Effective"
I
lratings were achieved for all blood, grass, ink, chocolate~
3]
TABLE 6
BIZ: TIME PRIOR TO TREATMENT AS A FACTOR AFFECTING
All fabrics** not effective so 70

Cn = 270)
effective 191 145
Cotton** not effective 16 14

C:n = 90)
effective 64 48
Blend** not effective 12 30

(n =· 90)
effective 61 36
Poiye's~ter*** not effective 22 26

(n = 90)
effective 66 61
**· Significant at .01 level.

**'* Not significant.
~--------~------··--·----···--·--·-------------------- - - --------··--··-·--·--···
3Z
and grape juice stains on the polyester specimens, regard-
less of time prior to treatment. Time was only significant
for the blend, where "effective" ratings were recorded on
72 of the 90 specimens with fresh stains versus only on 40
of the 90 specimens with set stains. (See Table 7.) Clorox
also showed effective ratings for the removal of ink and
fruit juice from the cotton and the blend. Crankcase oil
and margarine proved to be the most difficult problems for
Clorox, consistently rating low. The removal of tomato
based stains by Clorox was satisfactory when they were
treated fresh. (See Table 23, Appendix B.)
Easy Wash
The importance of time before treatment was slightly
less significant for removal of stains treated with Easy
Wash than for the other removers. "Effective" ratings were
recorded on 191 out of 270 specimens for fresh stains as
~ompared to 163 of 270 on set stains. Time was not signifi-
~ant to the removal of stains from the polyester. (See
.Table 8.) Removal of cooking oil and household oil had high
ratings without regard to time or fabric. Scores obtained
for the removal of margarine were higher on the cotton and
th~ blend than on the polyester. The removal of blood from
the fabrics was successful following treatment with Easy
Wash. The removal of the remaining stains was not consis-
,tent and varied with time and fabric. However, a large

'
33
TABLE 7
CLOROX: TIME PRIOR TO TREATMENT AS A FACTOR AFFECTING

(n = 270)
effective 208 163
Cotton*** not effective 7 s·

(n = 90)
effective 72 65
:Blend** not effective 12 26

(n = 90)
effective 72 40
i
!Polyester*** not effective 21 18'

(n = 90)
effective 64 58
*** Not significant.
·---·---J
34
TABLE 8
EASY WASH: TIME PRIOR TO TREATMENT AS A FACTOR
AFFECTING STAIN REMOVAL RATING OF SPECIMENS
All fabrics* not effective 41 57

(n == 270)
effective 191 163

(n = 90)
effective 71 58
;Blend** not effective 12 30.

(n = 90)
effective 54 33
,Polyester*** not effective 16 14'

(n = 90)
fairly effective 8 4,
effective 66 72
*Significant at .05 level.

L ---------~---~-·------·----------------~---------------~------~-----~-----·-----------~
35
number of "fairly effective'' and "effective" ratings were
obtained in removing stains from the polyester. (See
Table 24, Appendix B.)
Spray 'n' Wash
Spray 'n' Wash proved to be the only remover able
to provide satisfactory results on the removal of crankcase
oil from the cotton and the blend. While the crankcase oil
:specimens did not attain a large number of "effective"
;ratings, the percentage of "fairly effective" ratings

I
!greatly exceeded any that had been obtained from the other
removers. It was, however, rated "not effective" on all
1
the polyester specimens. Treatment of cooking oil and
;
I
:household oil attained "effective" ratings on all three

I
;fabrics. Spray 'n' Wash resulted in higher ratings in
removing stains from the polyester fabric than from the
·other fabrics. "Effective" ratings were recorded on all
!the
I
polyester specimens for the removal of blood, grass,
I
I
iink, chocolate, and grape juice. The removal of grass and

!
i
iink from the cotton and blend fabrics was poor by compari-
j
:son. (See Table 2 5, Appendix B.) Time before treatment was
:highly significant to the removal of stains from the cotton

I
(and the blend. "Effective" ratings were recorded for fresh
!
I
istains on cotton on 67 of the 90 specimens tested and on 61

i
I
iof the 90 blend specimens treated fresh. Time was also

I
---------------------~·_j
36
significant to the removal of the stains from the polyester.
'(See Table 9.)
Stain Erase
Time became a highly significant factor in removing
stains from the cotton and the blend when treated with Stain
Erase. Of 90 specimens tested, "effective" ratings were
scored on 72 of the fresh stains on the cotton and on 51 of
the fresh stains on the blend. By comparison, "effective"
~atings were recorded on 47 of 90 specimens treated set on
~he cotton and on 30 of the set stains on the blend. A much
better success rate for the removal was obtained by Stain
Erase when the stains were treated fresh. (See Table 10.)
Blood, gras~, and cooking oil were rated consistently
,"effective" in removal on all three fabrics when treated
fresh. More successful removal of household oil and marga-
rine from the cotton and the blend was achieved when the
specimens were treated immediately than when these stains

'i
were allowed to set. Crankcase oil remained the major
'removal· problem. (See Table 26, Appendix B.)
!
Wisk
Wisk proved to be the least effective remover of the.

l
agents tested in this study. Ratings obtained for the
i
removal of stains were consistently lower for Wisk than were
i
i
~hose achieved bj the other removers. However, removal of

r
~et stains was often more successful than the removal of
'~' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
37
TABLE 9
SPRAY 'N' WASH: TIME PRIOR TO TREATMENT AS A FACTOR

(n = 270)
:
effective 193 161
:Cotton** not effective 9 10

(n = 90)
effective 67 44
iBlend**
:
not effective 5 20
i (n = 90)
effective 61 39
Polyester* not effective 6 2

(n = 90)
effective 65 78
*Significant at .OS level.

** Significant at . 01 level .
'
L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _
38
TABLE 10
STAIN ERASE: TIME PRIOR TO TREATMENT AS A FACTOR

(n -- 270)
effective 188 144
; Cott-on** not effective 9 17

(n = 90)
effective 72 47
. Blend** not effective 14 42

(n = 90)
effective 51 30
• Polyester*** not effective 14 12

(n = 90)
effective 65 67

*** Not significant
i
I
L.__ _ _ _ , __ ~----·--·
----------------~
39
fresh stains. The removal of household oil resulted in
·"effective" ratings on all three fabrics regardless of time ..
Specimens stained with spaghetti sauce scored higher when
treated by Wisk than they did with many of the other remov-
ers. Crankcase oil, grape juice, and grass stiins resulted
in the lowest scores of the stains treated with Wisk. (See
Table 27, Appendix B.) Time prior to treatment was a sig-
nificant factor in the removal of stains from the cotton and
the blend but was not significant in the removal of stains
from the polyester. (See Table 11.)
The Staining Agents
Blood
Time prior to treatment was observed to be the most
crucial factor in the removal of blood stains from the
fabrics. In general, "effective" ratings were recorded for
the removal of fresh blood stains on 157 of the 162 speci-
:mens tested compared to the 102 treffective" ratings scored
:bY the set stains . (See Table 12.) All the removers except
.Wisk scored "effective" ratings when the stains were treated
!fresh. Neither time nor remover made a significant differ-

!
.ence in the ratings for removal of blood ftom the polyester.

i
i
!Biz proved to be the most successful remover in its ability
II
:to remove blood from the stained specimens. Easy Wash was
isuccessful in removing blood from the cotton fabric. Wisk
'-------·----------------------------~------·- ---~--------------·
40
TABLE 11
WISK: TIME PRIOR TO TREATMENT AS A FACTOR AFFECTING
l
L--~------------------~------------------'------------------------------------~------------------j
' 41
TABLE 12
BLOOD STAINED SPECIMENS: TIME PRIOR TO TREATMENT
AS A FACTOR AFFECTING STAIN
REMOVAL RATING OF SPECIMENS

(n == 162)
effective 157 101
·Cotton** not effective 1 9

(n == 54)
:
effective 49 36
'Blend** not effective 0 17

(n = 54)
effective 54 11
'.i
'
: Polyester*** not effective 0 Ol
(n = 54)
fairly effective 0 a·
effective 54 54

.
L__ ______________________________________________________________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
42
attained the lowest ratings in its ability to remove blood
from the three fabrics. (See Table 28, Appendix B.)
Grass
Time prior to treatment was not a significant factor
in the removal of grass stains from the cotton and polyester
specimens. It was, however, significant to the removal of
grass stains from the blend. Fresh stains recorded 11

effec-
tive" ratings on 31 of the 54 specimens tested compared to
only 2 receiving "effective" ratings on set stains. (See
Table 13.) Wisk was the least effective remover in removing
grass stains from all three fabrics. Spray 'n' Wash was
,unsuccessful in removing grass from the cotton and the blend
:but was highly effective in removing it from the polyester.

!
'
•Clorox, Biz, and Stain Erase were more successful than the
;
other agents in treating grass stains on all three fabrics.
, (See Table 29, Appendix B.)
·:Cooking Oil
Neither time prior to treatment (see table 14) nor
!the remover used for treatment (see Table 30, Appendix B)
was significant to the removal of cooking oil from the

;
!fabrics. Ratings were consistently high throughout the

study due to circumstances noted on page 23.
L_------------~------···-------------------------------------------_j
43
TABLE 13
GRASS STAINED SPECIMENS: TIME PRIOR TO TREATMENT
i
!----~-----~------------~---'-----------------------·------~---·------------·------
44
TABLE 14
COOKING OIL STAINED SPECIMENS: TIME PRIOR TO
TREATMENT AS A FACTOR AFFECTING STAIN
All fabrics*** not effective 1 0

(n = 162)
effective 159 161
Cotton*** not effective 0 0

(n = 54)
effective 54 53
Blend*** not effective 0 0

(n = 54)
effective 54 54
; Polyester*** not effective 1 Q!

(n = 543
effective 51 54
' .
l-------·-------·------------··-----·--------------~--------~..,.---------· -·-----~-
45
§paghetti Sauce
The type of remover in general was not significant
to th~ release of the spaghetti sauce stain. When agents
were considered separately, Spray 'n' Wash was highly effec-
tive in the removal of the sauce from tha blend and the
polyester fabrics. Wisk was effective in removing sauce
from the polyester. Biz was the least effective remover
used in treating tomato based stains. (See Table 31,
Appendix B.) Time was highly significant to the removal of
the stains from the cotton. Of the 54 specimens treated,
54 "effective" ratings were obtained when the stains were
,treated fresh compared to only 9 "effective" ratings on the
:s4 set specimens. (See Table 15.)
Felt Tip Pen Ink
Neither time prior to treatment nor remover was
significant in removing the ink from the ·polyester. Time
!was more significant in removing ink from the cotton than

!
!
from the blend. Forty-six "effective" ratings were scored
on the removal of 54 fresh ink stains from cotton ver~us
;13 "effective" ratings on set ink stains. By comparison,
"effective" ratings were recorded on only 17 of the 54 fresh

!
ink stains on the blend. (See Table 16.) Clorox proved to
be the most effective product in removing ink from the
,fabrics~ Wisk the least effective. (See Table 32, Appendix

B.)
46
TABLE 15
SPAGHETTI SAUCE STAINED SPECIMENS: TIME PRIOR
TO TREATMENT AS A FACTOR AFFECTING STAIN
·All fabrics** not effective 13 50

(n 162)
effective 103 51
:Cotton** not effective 0 6

(n = 54)
effective 54 9
! Blend** not effective 9 34

(n = 54)
effective 16 10
Polyester*** not effective 4 ioi

(n = 54)
effective 32 32:
**
Significant at .01 level.
***
Not significant.
I
'-----------~
47
TABLE 16
INK STAINED SPECIMENS: ·TIME PRIOR TO TREATMENT

(n = 162)
effective 117 68

(n = 54)
effective 46 13:
:Blend** not effective 4 20 :

(n = 54)
effective. 17 1
i
!Polyester*** not effective 0 "a!
· (n = 54)
effective 54 54i

--~-----~~-------------------- ------~------- --~-------- ~-- ~

48
Crankcase Oil
Time before treatment was not a significant factor
in the removal of the oil from any of the three fabric
specimens. (See Table 17.) With the exception of Spray 'n'
Wash, the majority of ratings for the removers were "not
effective." Spray 'n' Wash was the most effective agent in
removing the crankcase oil from all fabrics. However, most
of the ratings obtained by the specimens treated with Spray
'n' Wash were "fairly effective." (See Table 33, Appendix
B.)
Chocolate
The removal of chocolate from the polyester speci-
mens was not significant by time before treatment or
remover. Time was not significant in removing chocolate
from the cotton. "Effective" ratings were obtained on 42
of the 54 blend fabric specimens when treated fresh and on
:only 14 of the 54 blend specimens when treated set. (See
,Table 18.) The type of remover used for treatment was not
a significant factor in the removal of chocolate stains
from the blend. Clorox and Easy Wash were the most effec-
tive removers in treating chocolate stains. "Fairly effec-
;ti ve" scores were obtained by the other removers used. (See
Table 34, Appendix B.)
L------~-------~~-·----~-----·-·
49
TABLE 17
CRANKCASE OIL STAINED SPECIMENS: TIME PRIOR TO
All fabrics*** not effective 135 134

(n = 162)
fairly effective 24 26'
effective 3 2
·cotton*** not effective 42 41

(n = 54)
effective 3 1.
·Blend*** not effective 45 48

(n = 54)
effective 0 0
;Polyester*** not effective 48 45:

(n = 54)
effective 0 1

50
TABLE 18
CHOCOLATE STAINED SPECIMENS: TIME PRIOR TO

(n = 162)
effective 119 94
·cotton*** not effective 3 7

(n = 54)
effective 23 26
:Blend** not effective 0 6

(n = 54)
effective 42 14
Polyester*** not effective 0 ·a

(n = 54)
effective 54 54

i
L-------·------·-------------------------·-·--------·-----------~----.~---------._ __l
51
Grape Juice
The time prior to treatment and the type of remover
used were not significant in removing grape juice from the
polyester. Time, however, was highly significant in remov-
ing the juice from the blend and the cotton. "Effective"
ratings for the removal of the juice from the blend were
scored on 34 of the 54 fresh specimens te~ted and on only 9
of the set specimens. (See Table 19.) Clorox achieved the
best success rate in removing the juice from the fabrics;
,Wisk was least effective. (See Table 35, Appendix B.)
Margarine
Neither time prior to treatment nor remover caused
'a significant difference in the ratings for the removal of
,margarine from the blend. The influence that time had upon
the removal of margarine from the cotton and the polyester
was the removal of other stains. (See Table 20.) Margarine
iWas removed from the cotton and the blend more successfully '
I
[than fro~ the polyester. Spray 'n' Wash was observed to be
.the most effective remover in removing the margarine from

'
ithe fabrics. The most unsatisfactory results were scored
by Biz in treating margarine-stained specimens. (See Table
'36, Appendix B.)
Household Oil
Neither time prior to treatment (see Table 21) nor
jtype of remover used was significant in removing household

!_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -
52
TABLE 19
GRAPE JUICE STAINED SPECIMENS: TIME PRIOR TO

(n = 162)
effective 128 87
·Cotton** not effective 5 12

(n = 54)
effective 42 24'
!
'Blend** not effective 4 30

(n = 54)
fairly effective l6 15
effective 34 9:
i
Polyester*** not effective 0 o·
(n = 54)
fairly effective 2 o:
effective 52 54
** Significant at . 01 level .
***Not significant.
\
L------··----~---·--
53
TABLE 20
MARGARINE STAINED SPECIMENS: TIME PRIOR TO
All fabrics* not effective 39 23

(n = 162)
effective 96 103
Cotton* not effective 6 0

(n = 54)
effective 40 43.
·Blend*** not effective 0 0

(n = 54)
effective 54 52:
I
Polyester* not effective 33 23

(n = 54)
fairly effective . 19 23·
effective 2 8!
*Significant at .05 level.

***
Not significant.
-!
I
i-.~------------------~-------------------------------------------------------~~----------------------~---------_j
54
TABLE 21
HOUSEHOLD OIL STAINED SPECIMENS: TIME PRIOR TO
All fabrics*** not effective 5 •3

(n = 162)
effective 152 155
Cotton*** not effective 0 0

(n = 54)
effective 54 54;
!Blend*** not effective 0 0·

(n = 54)
effective 54 54
Polyester*** not effective 5 3'

(n = 54)
fairly effective 5 4'
effective 44 47
iL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - c - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;
55
oil from the fabrics. (See Table 37, Appendix B.) Near
perfect ratings were attained throughout the study due to
wicking of the oil through ma~y of the specimens, which
made it more difficult to observe the stain, as discussed
earlier. In general, Clorox was least effective in removing
the oil based stains, obtaining "effective" ratings on only
44 of the 54 specimens tested.
Influence of Fiber Conteht on E£fe~tiV~ness

cf Stain Removal
Fiber content ~as also significant to the effective-
ness of the commercial stain removers. The polyester fabric
achieved the best success rate in the removal of a number of
.stains. The hydrophobic nature of the polyester created a

1
resistance for the attraction of many water-based stains.
Oil posed somewhat more o£ a problem, based on the oleo~
philic nature of the polyester fibers. The removal of
stains from the cotton fabric was successful. Fabrics
-treated for durable press exhibit additional problems of
:stain removal. This was apparent in the.blend, where time

i
'was the most significant factor in the removal of stains.
Allowing the stain to set caused increased penetration, and
:the hydrophobic nature of the treated blend resulted in less
!effective stain removal,
i . .
l-·-··--------···--·-------------------·-·----·--··--------·-----
CHAPTER V
SU~:!MARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMrvfENDATIONS
The number of commercial stain removers on the

market continues to grow. New products are continually
,being introduced, in new forms and of new compositions.
Yet all are designed with the same purpose--to remove the
:laundry stains which plague most homemakers. Consumers
Mant to obtain the widest advantage from a limited number
of products.
Six widely used commercial products--Biz, Clorox,
Easy Wash, Spray 'n' Wash, Stain Erase from Drive Detergent,
and Wisk--were used to treat ten frequently occurring,
troublesome stains in this research study. These removers
,
:were tested for effectiveness in treating the selected
i
!stains--blood, grass, cooking oil, spaghetti sauce, felt
!tip pen ink, crankcase oil, chocolate, fruit juice, marga-
\ri~e~ and household oil--with two time variables involved:
treatment on fresh stains and treatment on set stains. The

'removers were tested for their effectiveness on the removal
of the selected stains from three different fabrics--a 100%
,
:cotton~ white broadcloth; a 65% polyester/35% cotton blend,
,white broadcloth; and a 100% polyester, white double knit.
L--··-··~----· ------·--·------- -··----· .. -·--·-···-·-·----·------· --·--·--- -------·--·------------------·-------j
56
57
Analysis of the data was performed by a computer.
,Chi squares were computed based on the number of responses
for each rating. Levels of .05 and .01 were used in citing
the significance for the effectiveness of the removers.
The results of this study showed that the effective-
ness of the commercial stain removers was specific to the
composition of the stairi and to the fiber content of the
fabric. No one stain remover tested was found to be ade-
quate in removing all stains.
Biz, an enzyme pre-soak, was most effective in
:removing blood, a protein substance which is broken dow~ by
enzymes. Clorox, an oxidizing bleach or color remover, was
•ost effective in removing stains whose very nature is based
~n color as the staining agent, such as ink and fruit juice.

i
:spray 'n' Wash, a perchloroethylene-based solvent, was
highly successful in removing oil.
Fiber content played a significant role in deter-

!
~ining the effectiveness of the agents. Stain removal was·

i
i
~ost successful on·the polyester fabric, followed by the

!
icoiton, and most unsuccessful on the blend. This was due

l
'ito the resin finish on the blend which rendered it more
i
[susceptible to staining and made stain removal more diffi-

1
1cul t.
!
i Time wa~ also a crucial factor in determining th~

1
I
~ffectiveness of the removers. St~ins treated fresh scored
:many more "effective" ratings. than those treated set. In

L---------------------------------·-----------·--------- - - - -
58
other words, the effectiveness of the stain removers was

better when the stains were treated fresh.
The results of this study were evaluated in terms
of the previously formulated research hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1. There is a signific~nt difference in
the effectiveness of commercial stain removal products in
'treating certain stains_.
The results of this study indicated that a number
of removers were specific to certain stains. Therefore,
[the research hypothesis is accepted, since the null hypoth-
:esis of no difference is rejected.
Hypothesis 2. Stain removal pro~edtires ~ill be more
effective in the removal of recent stains than in the
i
'removal of set stains.
Time was definitely a significant factor in the
'removal of most stains. Findings showed that the percentage
i
'of "effective" ratings was consistently higher when the

'stains were treated fresh. Therefore, the research hypoth-
1esis is accepted and the null hypothesis.is rejected.
I
i
Hypothesis 3. Effectiveness of stain removal

·[products will Vary depending tipon the fiber content of the
i
·!stained fabric.
'
Fiber content was important to the removal of stains
i
I
and the effectiveness of the removers but was not as sig-
I
lnificant as the other factors involved in the study. The
!degree of removal was also based somewhat on factors other
L_---------·-----·--~----·-·-------------------··- ------·-----'
59
than fiber content, such as texture and finishes. On the
basis of the data obtained, this research hypothesis can be
accepted, since the null hypothesis of no difference is
rejected.
Recommendations for Furthe~ Study
1. An experimental study on stain removal using
other types of commercial stain removers.
2. A study on the effectiveness of the removers
with other types of fabrics.
3. A study to determine the effect that fabric
characteristics such as texture or thickness have upon the
removal of stains.
v4. Studies on the removal of other types o'f stains.
5. A study to determine the effect that heat has
upon stain removal; e.g. ' sun drying versus dryer drying.
.\
'•-~----- -- -~---~-------~-----------~-------------------------------------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists.

AATCG Technical Manual, VoJ.. 51. New York: Howes,
1975. .
2. "As You Like It: An Up-Dated A,'llerican Fabrics Report

on the Breakthrough in Textile Chemistry Known as
Soil Release." American Fabrics 81 (Winter 1968):
91-98.
3. AXION. "Enzyme Action: 25 Questions and Answers about

the New Laundry Discovery," a Service for Teachers
and Administrators in Horne Economics, n.d.
4. Bennett, H. Concise Chemical and Technical Dictionary.
New York: Chemical, 1974.
s. Blake, Jules. "How a Detergent Is Evaluated," paper
presented at Detergents in Depth: A Symposium,
Washington, D.C., 28-29 March 1974.
6. "Broad Woven Goods and Tire Cord Production." Textile
Orga~ 47 (May 1976) :56-58.
7. Brunk, H. D. An Introduction to MathemAtical Statis-

tics. Boston: G1nn, 196
8. "Capillary Rise Related to Soil Release Performance of
Durable Press Fabrics." Textile Chemist and
Colorist 1 (April 1969):202-07.
9. Clorox Company. "Facts about Bleach for Today's Home-
rna·ker," Consumer Services Department, 1972.
;10. Joseph, Marjory. Introductory Textile Science. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972.
Joseph, Marjory, and Joseph, William. Essentials ~f
Research Met-hodology and Evaluation for Horne
Economists. Fullerton: Plycon, 1975.
Kelly, Lewis T. "AATCC Develops Soil Release Test."
T~xtile Chemist and Colorist 1 (February 1968):
121-23.
--------------·------------···---------------------
60
61
13. Lever Brothers Company. "Wisk throughout the Wash,"

Technical Bulletin, January 1971.
G Lewis, Howard M. "A Comparison of the Stain Release

Characteristics of Fabrics Made with Polyester,
Cotton, and Polyester/Cotton." American Dyestuff
Reporter 57 (February 1968):132-39.
15. Nie, Norman H.; Hull, C. Hadlai; Jenkins, Jean G.;

Steinbrenner, Karin; and Bent, Dale H. Statistical
Package for the Social Scien~es. 2nd ed. New York:
McGraw~-r;-1~75.
16 Nolan, D. 11
Stain Removal on Durable Press Fabric,"
Master's thesis, Colorado State University, 1970.
17. "Out Damned Spot." American Fabrics 76 (Summer 1967):

51-58.
18. Procter and Gamble Company. "Biz Fact Sheet," Procter

and Gamble Service Bulletin, n.d.
19. Procter and Gamble Company. "New Developments in

Laundry Aids," Annual Live Better Electrically
Women's Conference, January 1969.
Reeves, Wilson A.; Beninate, John V.; Perkins, R.; and

Drake, George L. "Soiling and Soil Removal Studies
on Cotton and Polyester Fabrics." American Dye- S
5tuff Rep6rter 57 (September 1968):1053-1056.
21. "Removing Stains from Fabrics." A Pacific Northwest

Extension Publication, 1976.
'(2 2~ Smith, Samuel, and Sherman, Patsy 0. "The Physical

Chemistry of Stain Release.'' Textile Chemist and
Colorist 1 (February 1969) :105-09 .
.2.3. 11
Stain Removal Test-Revision of Stains." Cited by
Marilyn Nachtrieb, U.S. Borax Research, Anaheim,
California, July 1975.
24. Texize Chemicals Company. "Spray 'n' Wash Stain

Removal Chart." Cited by Marilyn Nachtrieb,
U.S. Borax Research, Anaheim, California, n.d.
--------------------------·---------------------------
62
25. Texize Chemicals Company. "The New Laundry Concept

Spray 'n' Wash," Technical Bulletin, June 1975.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Removing Stains from )J/1

Fab~ics: Home Methods. Home and Garden Bulletin
No. 62. Wash1ngton, D.C.: 1965.
Venkatesh, G. M.; Dweltz, N. E.; Madan, G. L.; and

Alurkar, R. H. "A Study of the Soiling of Textiles
and Development of Anti-Soiling and Soil Release
Finishes: A Review. 11 Textile Research Journal 44
(May 1974):352-62.
Wentz, Manfred; Lloyd, A. C.; and Watt, Andrew.

"Experimental Removal of Stains." Textile Chemist
and Colorist 7 (October 1975) :179-83.
l
.__ _________ -·------------~-----·------~--~-------------------------------------'------'
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE
L _ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ c
63
64
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire is designed to determine the

types of laundry stains common to households and how they
are removed. Your help will be most appreciated. Please
check the appropriate space or write in the requested
information.
PERSONAL DATA:
1. Sex:
male 5
female 97
2. Marital status:
single . 18
married 65
divorced 12
widowed 5
separated 2
3~ Number and ages of children in the family,

living at home:
no children
71 have children; ages:
Family gross income per year:

less than $5,000 8
$5,000 - $10,000 14
$10,001 - $15,000 18
$15,001 - $20,000 22
$20,001 and over 35
Declined to state 5
i
L---------------~-------·---------------------~-------------------~--------~-----------
65
5. Residence:
home 73
apartment or condominium Z9
other (explain)
6. Community of residence:
Please rate the following stains according to 1) frequency

of occurrence and 2) ease of removal; (#1 being the easiest
to remove to #5 being the most difficult to remove).
E H
A A
s R
y D
STAIN FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE EASE OF REMOVAL
Never Some- Fre-

times quently 1-2-3-4-5
cola 53 43 6 22 13 9 2 1
tea 48 so 4 6 17 17 8 4
coffee 39 53 10 9 21 18 8 6
alcoholic
62 36 4 5 16 8 5 3
beverages -
fru1ts or
19 64 19 13 14 23 22 6
ifrui t juices
fruit Jams 9 18 22 11 1
:or jellies 39 57 6
,baby foods 92 7 3 0 0 1 5 3
;
:gravies
j .
31 67 4 3 21 24 14 4
_honey 61 40 1 17 15 4 2 1
!
;chocolate 23 62 ' 17 7 11 20 22 15
'
I
:peanut butter 58 .. AI 3 14 12 9 9 1
I
imi1k 33 '52 17 24 24 9 8 2
!
!butter or margarine ' 22 66 14 8 17 17 26 9

I
[~--~--------------------------------------------------·-----"--~
66
E H
A A
s R
y D
Never Some- Fre-
-
cheese II 77 20 5 6 14 1 4 0
sour cream 73 26 3 11 13 3 1 0
cooking oil 9 59 34 8 7 14 30 32
or grease
meat juice 28 67 7 8 23 19 15 4
steak sauce 62 38 2 4 16 12 4 2
'soy sauce 63 38 1 5 12 12 6 3
-
'
salad dressings 25 67 10 7 15 27 24 7
mayonnaise 50 46 6 4 11 21 15 3
chili powder 92 9 1 1 3 6 0 0
i
paprika 89 12 1 2 5 5 1 0
curry powder 94 8 0 1 3 3 0 0
ground tumeric 97 5 0 0 2 1 0 0
extracts 77 24 1 3 10 10 1 0
·.-----
:food coloring 56 44 2 2 8 9 7 14
tomato based 22
products 14 66 7 15 32 26 8
'
:egg 37 57 8 10 23 23 10 1
I .
mustard 36 57 9 3 17 11 21 18
blood 4 74 24 10 8 18 28 33
'
.urine 61 28 13 13 7 9 9 8
hair spray 93 8 1 4 2 3 1 0
i
'
make-up bases 63 . 30 9 6 '7 12 7 8
[eye liner - ~~-~- ----- -----··--· ---

77
--·---~------------
21
------------
4
---------------~-------
2 6
- - - - - l . - - - - ---
8 5 6
----~ - - --·-----.,.- - - -
67
E H
A A
s R
y
- - -D-
Never Some- Fre-
mascara 58 I 36 8 2 10 9 13 11
lipstick 46 49 7 4 11 14 12 10
hair rinse 86 15 1 4 3 3 3 6
deodorants or 38 38 26 9 6 17 10 29
anti -per spirants
shoe polish 64 34 4 0 4 9 10 17
:
candle wax 47 53 2 0 7 7 15 24
'
silver polish 91 11 0 1 3 31 6 0
!furniture pol ish 77 22 3 0 6 5 7 7

i
'grass stains 14 64 24 0 6 21 25 36
charcoal 69 32 1 7 .7 13 5 1
crayon 56 39 7 1 4 16 13 10
pencil marks 33 54 15 11 22 23 13 6
lcarbon paper 57 38 7 3 9 11 11 9
i
mud, dry <

35 48 19 18 24 8 12 3
:cough syrup 81 19 2 4 4 8 2 4
'milk of magnesia 98 4 0 1 1 3 0 0
isuntan oil or lotion 55 45 2 4 5 14 15 9

'
!
:rust 46 52 4 ·1 2 7 17 28
:household oil 32 58 12 2 5 12 24 28
;or grease
68
E H
A A
s R
y D
STAIN fREQUENCY 01: OCCURRENCE EASE OF RE1viOVAL
Some- Fre-
Never times quently
1-2-3-4-5
automotive oil 6,-21 48

or grease 29 48
I 25 0 4
OTHER: (explain)
ball point pen 3
I
ditto 1
tempura 1
-
others · 1 2
How many loads of clothes do you usually wash per week?

15 1 - 2
22 3 - 4
22 5 - 6
16 7 - 8
27 over 8
Please check off the following stain removal products you

have on your laundry shelf, and how often they are used.
! .
' PRODUCT HAVE USE
Seldom Sometimes Frequently
'Ax ion Pre-soak 15 7 4 1
Bleach, liquid 85 11 41 28 !
Bleach, powdered 45 10 21 17
i
!
Biz Pre-soak 16 5 7 6
...__~-~~---·--------~------~------ --·-----------------·---~------- - -·-----------------------------.-------

69 ' '
PRODUCT HAVE USE

Seldom Sometimes Frequently
Borate em 23 7 9 7
-
Easy Wash 19 5 3 10
ERA 20 5 6 9
Faultless Pre-Wash 2 0 1 1
-----
Grease Relief 13 7 5 1
Magic Pre-Wash 5 0 4 1
Miracle White laundry 15 1 2 9
soil & stain remover
Perform 4 2 1 0
Poly-Stik 7 5 0 2
Shout 21 8 6 8
Spray 'n' Wash 58 12 11 32

Stain Erase 6 2 3 1
(from Drive detergent)
Terrific 1 0 0 0
Wisk 31 4 16 12
OTHER: (explain)
numerous others
L._ __ ~~-----------~---~-----~-----~------ _______ :.....___ __ ~-------------------------------------~--~-· .:

APPENDIX B
STAIN REMOVAL RATINGS
!L---~----·----~--------------·-------------------·--------------------------
70
i --------·--·---·----·-·· -----------·------------------···-------------------------------------------------------,
TABLP. Z2
BIZ: STAIN REMOVAL RATINGS FOR STAINS ON SPECIMENS TREATED WITH BIZ
-- ·--
Blood Grass Cooking Oil Spaghetti Crankcase Ink Chocolate Grape Juice Mnrgorine llousehold
~auce Oil Oil
Stain Removal
Ratinis Fre•h Sot Fresh Set
-----
PTcsh Set
-----
Freoh S~t
----
Set
Fr~sh Prosh Set
-Fresh Set fre:sh Set Fresh Sot Fresh Set
---- ·------··
All fabrics not effective 0 0 1 6 0 0 4 J8 27 27 0 4 l 3 0 4 15 6
(n .• 27) fnirly effective 0 3 2 J 0 0 8 ? 0 0 7 14 7 l? 1 ? J 9 1 0
fresh**/•et•• effective 27 24 24 18 27 21 15 2 0 0 20 9 19 12 26 16 9. 12 24 zs
Cotton not effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 ~ 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0
(11 • 9) fairly offective 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 5 6 0 3 ~ 6 0
fre5h•*/set" 1 1 1 effective 9 9 1 9 9 9 9 2 0 o· 9 0 3 1 9 6 0 3 9 9
Blend not effective 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 .9 9 s 0 1 0 1 0 4 !I 0

(n • 9) fairly effective 0 3 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 B 2 6 1 4 0 0 0 0
fresh */set.-•
1111
effect lve 9 6 B 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 8 1 9 9 9 9
Polyester not effective 0 0. 0 0 0 0 2 9 9 9 0 0 0

(n • 9) fal rly effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
fresh"*/set•• effective 9 9 9 9 q 9 6 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 6 7
•• Significant at .01 level,
I
i
··------------·-__j
'-..]
~ ...
TABLE 23
CLOROX: STAIN REMOVAL RATINGS FOR STAINS ON SPECIMENS TREATED WITH CLOROX
-------
Spaghetti Crankca.se
Blood Grass Cookinr, Oil Ink Chocolate Grape Juice Margarine Houoehold
Stain Removal Sauce Oil Oil
Ratings -----
Fresh Set r:resh Set
-----
Fresh Set Fresh Set
-----
Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set
-----
Fresh Set
All fabrics not effective 0 7 0 3 1 0 2 6 25 25 0 2 0

(n • 27) fairly effective 0 3 2 6 1 1 6 16 z 2 0 6 3 7 0 4 4 6 4 4
fresh**/ set•• effective 27 17 25 18 25 26 19 5 0 0 27 19 24 19 26 23 . 14 14 21 22
Cotton not effective 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(n • 9) fairly effective 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 5 2 2 0 0 J 2 0 1 4 4 0
fresh 111 "/sctAt effective 9 8 7 7 9 8 9 4 0 0 9 9 6 1 9 8 5 5 9
Blend not effective 0 7 0 2 0 0 2 5 9 9 0

(n • ~) fai.rly effective 0 z 0 5 0 0 6 J 0 0 0 6 0 5 0 J 0 0 0 0
!resh**/set•• effective 9 0 9 2 9 9 1 1 0 0 9 1 9 3 8 6 9 9
Polyester not effective 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 0·

(n • 9) fulrly effective 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 4 4
frcsh 1111 /set** effective 9 .9 9 9 1 9 9 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 3 4
•• Significant at .01 level,
i
I
I
·----···---------·---------------..------------------ ··-------.J
-.....]
N
TADLP. 24
EASY WASH: STAIN REMOVAL RATINGS FOR STAINS ON SPECIMENS TREATED WITH EASY WASH
Blood Grass Cooking Oil Spaghetti Crankcase Grape Juice Margarine Household
Sauce Oil Ink Chocolate Oil
Stain Removal
Ratings Fresh Set Fresh Fresh Fresh Set Fresh Set Prcsh Set Fresh Set
Set Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set
All fabrics not effecfive 0 1 5 7 0 0 3 8 25 26 1 6 0 0 1 4 6 s 0 0

(n • 27) fairly effective 0 7 8 2 0 0 10 6 2 1 8 10 4 10 3 10 3 4 0 0
frcsh**/set•• effect lve 27 19 14 18 27 27 14 13 0 0 18 11 23 17 23 13 18 18 27 27
Cotton not ·effective 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

(n • 9) falrlr effective 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 2 4 5 0 s 0 0
fresh**/set•• effectIve 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 3 0 0 9
Blend not effective 0 1 0 1 0 0 2. 8 8 9 1 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0

fresh*•/set 611 effect lve 9 1 2 0 9 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 4' 7 0 9 9 9 9
Polyester not effective 0 0- 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0

fresh**/sot•• effective 9 9 9 9 9 9 5 9 0 0 9 9 9 9 1 9 0 0 9 9
-••
Significant at .01 level,
''-~
~.N
TABLI! 2 5
SPRAY 1 N1 WASH: STAIN Rr:MOVAL RATINGS FOR STAINS ON SPECHlENS TREATED WITH SPRAY 1 N1 WAS!!
- - Spnghetti Crankcase Household
Blood Gross Cookl ng (l\1 Sauce Oil Ink Chocolate Grape Juice Margarine Oil
Stain Removal
RAtlngo Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fre•h Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set
All fabrics not effective 0 0 8 11 0 0 1 0 9 6 0 8 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 0

(n • 27) fairly effective 0 lZ 9 6 0 0 8 11 15 19 11 10 8 7 1 6 5 6 0 0
fresh**/sct** effective 27 15 10 10 27 27 18 16 3 2 16 9 19 19 26 15 20 2l 27 27
Cot ton not effective 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

(n • 9) fairly effective 0 6 3 3 0 0 0 9 3 7 2 6 6 2 o· 3 0 0 0 0
fresh*•/:~~;et•• ~ffective 9 3 0 1 9 9 9 0 3 1 7 0 3 6 9 6 9 9 9 9
Bl<nd not effective 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 G 0

(n • 9) fairly effective 0 6 6 3 0 0 0 2 6 6 9 4 2 s 1 3 0 2 0
fresh**/set** crr~ctlvc 9 J 1 0 9 9 9 7 0 0 0 0 7 4 8 0 9
Polyester not effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 3 z 0 0 0 0 0 0 z .o

(r. • 9) fairly effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0
. fresh**/set** effective 9 9 9 9 9 9 0. 9 0 1 9 9 9 g 9 9 2 5 9 9
•• Significant at ,01 level.
i
I
I
I
!
·-···- -·-··------·------------ ----------· -----·----------'
'-.J
.1::.
~---.-------------------·----------·
---- --------.----------------------·----·-- -----------------------------------------,
TABLE 26
STAIN ERASE: STAlN REMOVAL RATINGS FOR STAINS ON SPECIMENS TREATED WITH STAIN ERASE
-
Blood Grnss Cooking Oil SpaRhetti Crankcase Ink. Chocolate Grape Juice ~lar~nrine
Household
Sauce Oil Oll
Stain Removal
Ratings Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set
.All fabric• not effective 0 1 0 9 0 0 3 9 26 25 3 9 0 z 0 11 4 5 1 0

(n • 27) fairly effective 0 10 0 2 0 0 12 12 1 2 6 7 12 ll 9 6
fresh"'/set•• effective 27 16 27 16 27 27 12 6 0 0 18 11 15 14 18 1') 18 17 26 27
Cotton not effective 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 9 9 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 o·

(n • 9) fair1y effective 0. 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 6 5 3 6 0 l 0 0
frcsh"*/set•• effective 9 7 9 8 9 9 9 0 0 0 9 2 3 4 6 0 9 8 9 9
iI
Blend not effective 0 1 o. 8 0 0 3 6 8 9 3 ~ 0 z 0 8 0 0 0
(n • 9) fairly effective 0 8 0 1 0 0 6 z 1 0 6 1 6 6 6 0 0 0 0
fn•sll*"/set•• offcctlvo 9 0 9 0 ~ 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 1 9
Polyester not effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 s 1 0

(n • 9) fairly effective 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 4 0 0
fresh 111 */set•• effective 9 9 9 8 9 9 3 5 0 0 9
-••
Significant at ,01 level.
"--!
(..11
------------··--·--·----------·--------------
TADLP. 27
WISK: STAIN RnMOVAL RATINGS FOR STAINS ON SPECIMENS TREATED WITH WISK
Blood Grass Cooking Oil srn~hetti Crnnl<cnse Ink Chocolate Grape Juice Margarl ne Household
StaIn Removal
Snuce Oil Oil
R>t lngs Fresh Sot Fresh Set
- ---
Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fr .. h Set
-----
Fr~sh
Sot
All fabrics not effective 1 16 8 11 0 0 0 9 2J 25 2 12 2 6 7 17

(n • 27) fairly effective 4 0 12 7 1 0 2 9 4 2 7 6 6 ~ 11 0
fresh**/sct•• effective 22 11 7 9· 26 27 25 9 0 0 18 9 19 13 9 10 17 Zl 27 27
Cotton not effect lve l 9 5 5 0 0 0 3 6 7 2 9 2 4 5 9 0

(n ~ 9) f11irly effective 4 0 3 3 0 0 0 6 3 2 4
fresh•*fsct•• cfCective 4 0 1 l 9 9 9 0 0 0 3
Blend no1 effective 0 8 3 6 0 0 0 6 8 9 0 3 0 2 2 8 0 0 0

(n • 9) fairly effective 0 0 4 3 0 0 2 3 1 0 3 6 2 7 7 0 0 0
frc.sh"'*/!>ct.,• effective 9 1 2 0 9 9 7 0 0 0 6 0 7 o·
Polyester not effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 c

(n • 9) fa!~ly effective 0 0 s 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0
fresh**/set•• effective 9 9 4 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 9 g 9 9 9 9 0 3 9 9
-
•• Significant at .01 level.
·--------------·--------·----------------- ·---------------J
-....]
0\
'"'-··-------------------~ -----.-·---·--~---
I
I
I TABLE 28
I STAIN REMOVAL RATINGS FOR BLOOD STAINS ON SPECIMENS
TREATED WITH STAIN REMOVAL AGENTS
r
Biz Clorox Easy Wash Spray 'n' .Stain Erase Wisk
Stain Removal Wash
All fabrics not effective 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 16

fresh"'*/set""' effective 27 24 27 17 27 19 27 15 27 16 22 11

(II • 9) fairly effective 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 2 4 0
freshUjset"'"' effective 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 3 9 7 4 0

fresh 11 *"'/set*"' effective 9 6 9 0 9 1 9 3 9. 0 9 1
Polyester not ·effect.ive 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(n • 9) fairly effective· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
fresh"'"'"'/set*** effective 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
-
"'"'significant at .01 level.
"'*"' Not significant.
i
i
i
I
______________________ j
'-.1
'.I
~-----------------------------
----------------c----------- -----,
\
I
I
I
!
TABLE 29
STAIN REMOVAL RATINGS FOR GRASS STAINS ON SPECIMENS
i
I
TREATED WITH STAIN REMOVAL AGENTS I
Biz Clorox Easy Wash Spray 'n' Stain Erase Wisk

Stain Removal Wash

fresh"""/setlll effective 24 18 25 18 14 18 10 10 27 16 7 9
Cotton not effective 0 0 0 1 5 0 6 5, 0 1 5 5

(n = 9) fairly effective 2 0 2 1 1 0 3 3 0 0 3 3
freshu/set 11111 effective 7 9 7 7 3 9 0 1 9 8 1 1

(n " 9) fairly effective 0 3 0 5 7 2 6 3 0 1 4 3
fresh"*/setiiiU effective 8 0 9 2 2 0 1 0 9 ,0 2 0
Polyester not effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

freshu/setA** effective 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 4 8
-
"' Significant at .OS level,
till
Significant at ·.01 level.
till >I
Not significant.
-....]
00
'!'ABLE 30
STAIN REMOVAL RATI1~GS FOR CCOKING OIL STAINS ON SPECIMENS
TREATED WITH STAIN ReMOVAL AGENTS
!Hz Clorox Easy Wash Spray 'n' Stain Erase Wisk

Stain Removal Wash

fresh***/set*A* effective 27 27 25 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 26 27

freshA**/set*** effective 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

fresh**A/set*** effective 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

fresh***/set*** effective 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 . 9 9
.....--.Not significant.
------------------·----------------------------------
_j
-...]
IC
TABLE 31
STAIN REMOVAL RATINGS FOR SPAGHETTI SAUCE STAINS ON SPECIMENS

Stain Removal Wash
All fabrics not effective 4 18 2 6· 3 8 1 0 3 9 0 9

(n .. 27) · fairly effective 8 7 6 16 10 6 8 11 12 12 2 9
fresh*/set~~* effective 15 2 19 s 14 13 18 16 12 6 25 9

(n = 9) fairly effective 0 7 0 5 0 6 0 9 0 6 0 6
fresh*"*/set** effective 9 2 9 4 9 3 9 0 9 0 9 0

fresh**/set*" effective 0 0 0 1 0 1 9 7 0 1 7 0
Polyester not effective· 2 9 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

(n • 9) fairly effective 1" 0 0 8 3 0 8 0 6 4 0 0
freshUjset** effective 6 0 9 0 5 9 0 9 3 5 9 9
-
"' Significant at ,OS level,
"'"'significant at .01 level.
"'"'"'Not significant.
i
_____________________j
(X)
0
----------------------------------------------··--!
i
__________________________j
-----------------·
00
f-1
~--------. -----·---·----·-·--------
.I
TABLE 33
STAIN REMO VAL RATINGS FOR CRANKCASE OIL STAINS ON SPECIMENS
TREP .TED WITH STAIN REMOVAL AGENTS

Stain Removal Wash
Ratings Fresh Set
--- -
Fresh Set
-
Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set

~n • 27) fairly effective 0 0 2 2 2 1 15 19 1 2 4 2
Cotton not effective 9 9 7 7 8 8 3 l. 9 9 6 7

Blend not effective 9 . 9 9 9 8 9 3 3 8 9 8 9

(n • 9) fairly effective 0 0 0 0 1. 0 6 6 1 0 1 0

fresh**/set** effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
o I!
•• Significant at .01 level. II
I
I
!
i
i
i
!
L._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ·--- ·---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - - - -· ------
I
_ _ _J
00
t--.:J
TABLE 34
STAIN REMOVAL RATINGS FOR CHOCOLATE STAINS ON SPECIMENS

Stain Removal Wash
All fabrics not effective 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 .0 2 2 6

!resh***/set*** effective 19 12 24 19 23 17 19 19 1S 14 19 13

fresh**"'/set"'* effective 3 1 6 7 5 4 3 6 3 4 3 4

fresh"'*/set"'*"' effective 7 2 9 3 9 4 7 4 3 1 7 0
Polyester not effect~ve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

fresh***/set"'"'* effective 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
-
"'"' Significant at .01 level,
**"'Not significant
I
i!
------·----·-·---------------·~-------l
co
w
~------------ -------·-;
TABLE 35
STAIN REMOVAL RATINGS FOR GRAPE JUICE STAINS ON SPECIMENS
Biz. Clorox Easy Wash Spray 'n' Stain Erase Wisk

Stain Removal Wash
Ratings Fresh Set
- ---
Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set Presh Set Fresh Set
All fabriCs not effective 0 4 1 0 1 4 0 6 0 11 7 17

fresh"'*/setu effective 26 16 26 23 23 13 26 15 18 10 9 10
Cotton not effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 s 9

freshu/set""" effective 9 6 9 8 9 4 9 6 6 0 0 0

freshu/set"'* effective 8 1 8 6 7 0 8 0 3 1 0 1

fresh***/set*** effective 9 9 9 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
** Significant at .01 level •

....... Not significant.
I
I!
f
!
I
I __________________!
co
.):::.
,--·------------------------ -·---·-----------,
!
1
TABLE 36
STAIN REMOVAL RATINGS FOR MARGARINE STAINS ON SPECIMENS
lliz Clorox Easy Wash Spray 'n' Sttdn Erase Wisk

Wash
Stain Removal
Ratings --·---
Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set
--·---
Fresh Set Fresh Set Fresh Set

freshu/set• effective 9 12 14 14 18 18 20 21 18 17 17 21 -I
!
fresh*"'/set*• effective o· 3 5 5 9 9 9 9 9 8. 8 9

(n ,. 9) fairly effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
fresh**~/set*•* effective 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 9 9 9

(n • 9) fairly effective 0 3 0 2 3 4 s· 4 5 4 6 6
fresh"'*/setu effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 3
-
*Significant
. at .OS level,
**significant at .01 level.
lrRR
Not significant.
'I
i
'--------------··---~------------------------··-·---··-- --------------------- ------------------------------ J
00
t.n
I
TABLE 37
STAIN REMOVAL RATINGS FOR HOUSEHOLD OIL STAINS ON SPECIMENS

Stain Removal Wash

freshU/set"'* effective 24 25 21 22 27 27 27 27 26 27 27 27 .!
fresh*A~/set*** effective 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

(n • 9} fairly effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
fresh***/set*** effective 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

freshu/set"'* effective 6 7 3 4 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9
-
"'* Significant at .01 level.
"'"'"Not significant
!
L_________________________ -------- -------·-----------'------ ____________________j
00
0'

Pad Dack Valerie 1977

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pad Dack Valerie 1977

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the

Valerie Jean P~ddack

The Thesis of Valerie Jean Paddack is approved: I

California State University, Northridge

The author wishes to express sincere appreciation

to Dr. Nancy Owens for her patience, guidance, and assis-

tance in the completion of this thesis; to Dr. Marjory

Joseph for her continued support and assistance; and to

Gail Fonosch for her contributions and suggestions.

Special thanks also go to Dorothy Blackman and Patty

Carland for their assistance in evaluating the specimens.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . 21

Influence of Time Prior to Treatment

B. STAIN REMOVAL RATINGS . . . 70 .

1. Time Prior to Treatment as a Factor Affecting

6. Biz: Time Prior to Treatment as a Factor

9. Spray 'n' Wash: Time Prior to Treatment as ~

Ink Stained Specimens: Time Prior to

17. Crankcase Oil Stained Specimens: Time Prior

19. Grape Jui~e Stained Specimens: Time Prior

21. Household Oil Stained Specimens: Time Prior

22. Biz:· Stain Removal Ratings for Stains on

24. Easy Wash: Stain Removal Ratings for Stains

12 7. Wisk: Stain Removal Ratings for Stains on

133. Stain Removal Ratings for Crankcase Oil Stains

!34. Stain Removal Ratings for Chocolate Stains on

37. Stain Removal Ratings for Household Oil Stains

This study evaluated the effectiveness of selected

instructions were followed in removing fresh and set l

stains, and the aerosol in treating oil stains. The deter- /

gent was the least effective remover.

Stain removal was more effective on fresh stains

than on set stains. The most difficult stain to remove was

The problems of staining and stain removal have

In June 1959 the U.S. Department of Agriculture

:been placed aside in favor of newly developed fibers and

question then arises as to which.stain remover can one

expect to produce the most satisfactory results on various

types of stains. Consumers are also interested in using a

limited number of stain removal products out of those

available on the market.

Much of the research done on stain removal has

involved the potential removal of stains from fabrics with

different types of finishes, particularly soil or stain

release finishes. These finishes, however, are not widely

:used at the present time. This leads, again, to the problem

of removing stains from those fabrics most commonly used by

the consumer (5), specifically those fabrics selected for

use in this study.

The objectives for this study were:

1. to compare the effectiveness of commerical stain removal

products on a selected group of stains on three types

of fabric which were popular in 1976.

2. to determine which type of commercial stain removal

the selected stains which had been allowed to set for

3. to determine which type of commercial stain removal

the removal of selected stains which were treated within

'1. There is a significant difference in the effectiveness

of commercial stain removal products in treating differ-

,2. Stain removal procedures will be more effective in the

removal of fresh stains than in the removal of set

3. Effectiveness of stain removal products and procedures

will vary depending upon the fiber content of the