, .. 2 . an»... an ...? 3.5%.... fin...“ .~.u....a ... >.b.. .~ . 1. c .0 . . . . u I ”AM“ ...».....J.. ..u... .....44 . . .. . #1.??? _ ...”... .m...»_.o.o.a~....:c.i. c: . ...... . ..n. . main... Lx.;..u..c...l...a. w. . .. ..v u. .... . . . . . . T !. .. o ...n..- to. o a . . .. uh. . o u .x.. . ... . 5...... c . .... .«... .....:.+.x....v... i. .33).; a. Hawk? .3. .. firs... ... . :3. .. T. ._ ..ln‘ ‘ l a... . . ....._..~.n..,~. ,. . ~ 5 r. rd»? “Arrilb an... . Swat! . J. . I . t . r7»... I.." ..... rm. ‘6... +V~Jw3~ a} “...... NV . 34...”... mg... L. . . .p .... 3-. I ( . T , . w...“ . “G...“ iafivm In A.“ ¢ 1... - .13 3 . 51.2%“ 2.“. .Imimchhflg ”away... «.1. ..r. ...»s ..q ‘...‘...A!.\...n. L. {.1 . to .31. v .... . Agilz . h. . ... i... 1; «sun. a... .u Amylrr.‘ . , v; . c ...... .fi 5.. : "5&59.” .¢3.S:.13n- .... 1.3... . .. 6!... o. ....P. . o s .s .. . Y... .LN ~o, dfi . Q.¥ Lug“... .Hlu v.1“.u.wu..n... ......u.‘ {b 1.. r.... «NW... r...!|.. t. .. . . fid..h’.% 0......r4-o 7.0 M. <‘O|C..HHQJJ.M” r.aus.-w.~.n. o...l' .L ... ,6... u.“ 1‘. .. _ ...... wkfifimm .... .. ..-... i. x... Am... 55% u : . . ~ {4%. 3.. w... .1... .fimwm. rd”- 2.x. Qua-i... . t .. . _ a»... . M. u I. :— .~ 33.2.} . . s... .3. .... ...a“;'&.\. v. . n .0. g I “no—.10 no... ..rvfl . n ofih I . Q. . . . _ {Baxmuv .. . . n . ...... .F. ' u . . . . 7. .W6- 3-“ "b . .9 E: .u .u OJ. . . .10.;- ‘ O . . , r. . \. n c... “A... fifisa; r. w. as”: ...wsum .1. S?! n... ... $4. 2- .24, .....r..,....:..,.. . . ; ... E .... .....4.‘ . . 3.. ......“ .vi . . 31...... -. {... A 3... I: ..‘ux. .. .. . .... gal... 2 .. . ..:.«..nu_...u. ._... 1.. ...i 22...: _. u . .. .. . .. . .. 613.}. .r.-u.H.¢u.p n.1n3’r . . . . .00.} ~ - z 9 P... It .. Inoocm I ..‘ . . . .. . . ... J.Sv . a.!¢vn...ou1.. .1 00.... . . f a . O . .n . I .. . . . . Ai‘v. . ..4 A... n}: a“... .‘Q ulna . r . . . a... . r ~00: to. ‘ . O‘O‘I. as ...... . ... ... A ..‘ahh .n » IIQQ~.\ JO. 1 Q Clix 0 33H 1.13.1..130L o . . L... 'r u’uqo?“ . s . ... I... 39" . . o . U 3 91.1. a; (....- . . .o. 5.0.3" Otoosn 5.?W‘3. ... a o . n 3. ...... ...... .52.? . .. . . . 9.0-. a; . ..t 0'. .7... .' A. o . I. \5‘ . ..u at -‘ $0.173 . q .0 .07.? - .I...'lv.ov . cl. 1.1.... A. . . ”3.4.1:! ‘3.llol.~ns...o. 'Wio U. . u. .,a. 1.. . .o~ £01 ...}. u. . . . q i 4‘. t‘. .‘I u . . o 0. v.61 Yeflufiu .. .I. , . .... .. . v . g. .0. . . v. a. ... oh .40. c. ... u C. .. W. .0 1 ... .~§ u... ... . :nq . . .. 4?. .9. ...»...e as ....uhirn .. . f. ‘ . z, 2.... .1. . A... .. o . r a» o I... .. .o ... . .n . .. . . . .‘ \.-‘.. a! ...m..v‘u4‘w.u...lu ...~ ... ..... .... .H .. “.... an}..- .... . .5 u‘. .0. ... 4“. o v .... I... 3:...0'“ . ...U 1 . . u... ...? .“33‘lno. lyl. ...... “23...: . .. ,G . I ~ .09... - '9 . ...-:0 fl. . . 9. V v}. . I‘M) .... . utu... . I... ro.‘“.«..."9 . Nah—.1“.- In. v . . . A . . ..‘CoLcQfl , ..I1.O.o .H. . , . . A...» . . . . a ' . . . . a .0 ‘ . .. . . . ... . . . . . 0.. . . ¢ . ...... .. x h ... . .. o..’.di.>«..nvl . ...-.{‘.~..l‘ 5|.u ..Qa-.J‘-. t . ... .39..J.v...v‘\I: .. Ens. o . {1.9.1. 0! ’11 .u*’. if . . . c ~u...... .‘Q. on. I . u “ w o..1..o. .‘ .0 . . .. . . [z w... . ... .. a)‘ y. OI.-:a~‘fl‘.. . a. . .‘W.’ H...‘O|.‘O*.AI “-T.< “fl“... h‘a nonwv . . ....‘uo.. 'NO X“ 03.0.")..flnafl. n... ...: .1. 9.9..» 0.} .‘.. I. o.-.-9&a¢ ¥.. .- ... o .. ~‘ 1‘..- .u... u.. . 0 $7.“. ...“. O. “4.... ...(U -..l- ...n. r040. ...-o . 3 . . _‘ L. ......‘I, {0 ... G13. . . . ..‘IUIO-L‘ . o ‘. .6.» H. . t . .‘ .1. A. u 1... ..¢ .q. . _ ... . ..4 . . .. , .. .. 2.... . .n ... ..fi. .... . :.H._......,...u.: u . . . . ......»00 1 .04 Qt! . . v . v. .7 p.- .. -. IL.‘ ‘ . . p .. tbs. (..u'... to ......O. . g c 1.. Into... ...4.. 1....v1 0.. .. 1.. HRH... .... £62.. ... slid ...» . ‘5... ‘l\ 3. it. . . . Otfl'.u . . cor . 9’9 .04 .‘n. A ... . .3131.- ......l . 5‘ '0. p . 3n... . .... . .. uh! t. l .....dcovl. ... ... ... , .. . . . its; .. .. . .. . ... .Clcv . {.4}! . . ....Q’...\. T ..-_l<.” (- .u . Q. l. . ,... . .l. . . val; . n : 1‘... .. vubxuu... 1““. . ...mu. 3”. 0-..... ..v u . \ct . o..|Hu.... _. . ....u‘» . J: . ...... 4.. . . o . . .. ....) 0.. ...~,..-.. 5).. . .. .3... :3. .3 m.» J. . mo! . v .\ ...... .A.Jtn.nu...:u.. ... ...I0 3. “J." ... .1 a... .\ u. 1- L ‘:3¢ . . ohm. .4 o.~ .1 o . . o.- I ”In. 5 . ~ I. . In. . u . . .fi 2 «.916 .0! lflvvov‘t' ...u . a \c u. in. . t... u .. .. -....n...u.~. :2.N . 7. ‘1 .‘ac . ‘lul-D.o.’v.v.vu . 2.7 «at... ...! oAlP‘tS fvv ‘0‘... ...‘1...)o§ Ill-Cu . ... . . ‘0 . . ytows. .... ‘t. vffifloy. ... . . ...! ..I4 .3. ... {I o .. ......oo. .. M...- .2 cl,“ .. .c ..¢n.4 . . . . .. . .. , . . . . o0... .. . . . . . .V . .. . ‘t~ .. 1",! .. ~ . ... . . . . .0... 3- out . . . . 90.. ....4 .....u.... 1.... .. 2 . ‘5. ‘6 .9 . .. ... .. ... 03...: .03)! .C‘ . 3Q . é . >5 ...-0. . . . . u .w . .. ., A a .. 13!...5 ..‘r . I ‘ .43..t¢$?n:1.h Q.- .- ' . ‘. .I ‘C‘.4 . . \ . u . 9... . 5 .. \.._l-un- .I...D. . . ..§o .. ..s. . . ...‘n ‘l. I k .. '-\v~vl.av 4.5.9‘.Q.3to . .00.... to. .03. I... .\4 I. 31%| .4105. «'I . .Im.v.)‘.‘hvo.‘.fi4.ll1 . 63.4.. ...-.x.s.\o . ‘Q..w Jar. ... ......‘35‘: k . v .. r... n. 43“ . .Q.‘..O¢<.~. . nu '\\ .u 0. . v n . l .. u . . ¥ "WM v . 0 2mm! 0... ... .. . . ..-... o . ‘l ' '0 i .v.. .. ,. ..... o .. . .. . .. .. y. .0. . V . .14. ,L....:.. . .. . . . .. . . ...::.. . . .o . Q ..n . . ... A. d v p . a. .... o . . . . t .' O c v o ._ 7.- . O ... . . . . . .. 0- . . . p. . I? ... .. . . . o .n . . . . 1 .. . . . o n . _~ . . I . . C 90". . -. :9an 4-5 ' ' ‘2: '1 .‘1 ’1 ~ :\ .. \V a. \ I C U .. .. . \ .... ... .w. ...: a. .I .1 .. . . I. . I A ¢ . . o . a. ... ...... t .0 .o . 0v. . . 5 u " V . u ‘ u .I . I C .0 I . .. I. r . . . . y u . . . . u ~ . .. .. o o . . I 1 . . .- .4‘! V c H ... .llI ‘W‘ . . . ‘4' . .- :I 1. . \ O. ‘9 . . . . .;.. . . .. 3 t‘ . V. . . . t o 3 . . . . . C I c C i . . . . I i! . ‘0 {not ‘4‘. ‘.A . . . .I...... ‘5”: Md ..0.. .. ”(.13 I! 0-... carat! IP41 0‘85 5. ... .- . . . . . ... .- u. .-.)...o. 1%.“... ...h.‘2JN\V .«.sI.L\4QYI u I. . if. z _ . . 4 9.11 o u‘bfir. 1A.. ...... Aft: v . . . . o. . . 783:} ..‘xfi*~g§ti...yi . \vtn; . . r . .. . 2...! J13..- ...uvfiufiu. .. ....- . 1. u. l '6 o n .1 Q . o . v . .! ‘QO‘I‘OQ‘O 6|! , ,0! A I ‘vvl O .9...l\...$ .JI.§¢ ...O_~l n1] . £0 . . ‘11., .IW..' ?0\. ... a ........... \:. Z .. . . w ... ...t..a....umvrv....h $11.. .u............ .-. . . ... 0... . 5.... .. .1 v. 2... .. ~ . . ...)fl 2. . . v .— ... . ‘ ..~ {LY-...LJ-L ....x /33 354 THS PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 6/07 p1/CIRC/DaIeDue.indd-p.1 r? MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY DISH TOWELING STUDY INCLUDING COTTON, COTTON AND RAYON BLENDS, LINEN AND RAMIE Michigan State University Department of Textiles, Clothing and Related Arts Eleanor lullikin 1958 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Purpose and Scope of Study . . . . . . . . . . 1 Procedures to be Followed . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Test Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Evaluation of Test Data Table l - Cost and Original Physical Properties of Test Fabrics . . . . 7 Table 2 - Original Breaking Strength Compared to Breaking Strength after Fifteen Laund- erings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table i - Shrinkage in Laundering . . . . . . Table - Original Weight per Square Yard Com- pared to Weight per Square Yard After Five and Fifteen Launderings. . l . . 10 Table 5 - Original Absorbency Rate Compared to Absorbency Rates After Five and Fif- teen Launderings . . . . 11 Sample - Toweling C-l, Original and After Fif- teen Launderings . . . . . . . . . 12 Cost, Physical Properties and Test Data - Fab- Pic C‘l e e e e o o e 13 Evaluation of Test Data and Conclusions - Fab- Pic 0- 1 e e e o e o e e e e o e 0 1“ Sample - Toweling 0-2, Original and After Fif- teen Launderings . . . . . . 18 Cost, Physical Properties and Test Data - Fab- ric c- 2 O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 19 EValuation of Test Data and Conclusions - Fab- r10 C-Z e e e e e e e e 20 Sample - Toweling C- 3, Original and After Fif- teen Launderings . . . . . 25 Cost, Physical Properties and Test Data - Fab- r10 0’3 0 o e o o e o e e o e o 26 Evaluation of Test Data and Conclusions - Fab- Pic 0-3 e e e o e o e 27 Sample - Toweling CR-l, Original and After Fif- teen Launderings . . . . . 30 Cost, Physical Properties and Test Data - Fab- r10 CR-l e e e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e 31 Evaluation of Test Data and Conclusions Fab- r16 CR‘l e o e e eee 32 Sample - Toweling CR-2, Original and After Fif- teen Launderings . . . . .. . . . . . .3c3 Page Cost, Physical Properties and Test Data - Fab- 38 ricCR’Zeeoeeoeeeoeee eeee Evaluation of Test Data and Conclusions - Fab- PicCR-Z... eoeeo e e 39 Sample - Toweling CR-3, Original and After Fifte- en Launderings . . . . . . . . #3 Cost, Physical Properties and Test Data - Fab- r1¢CR-3.... ee eooeeooeeuJ-L Evaluation of Test Data and Conclusions - Fab- ric CR- 3 . . . . . . AS Sample - Toweling CR-u, Original and After Fif- teen Launderings . . . . . . . . AB Cost, Physical Properties and Test Data - Fab- r1CCR‘ueeeeeeoo eoeeeeeeeohg Evaluation of Test Data and Conclusions — Fab- ricCR-h.. e e e e 0050 Sample - Toweling F-l, Original and After Fif- teen Launderings . . . . . . Sh Cost, Physical Properties and Test Data - Fab- ricF-l..... eeeeeeeeeoeo 55 Evaluation of Test Data and Conclusions - Fab- r10F-1..... ee 56 Sample --Toweling F—2, Original and After. Fif- teen Launderings . . . . . 60 Cost, Physical Properties and Test Data - Fab- ricF-Z....o..............61 Evaluation of Test Data and Conclusions - Fab- r13F-2.... e ee62 Sample - Toweling R, Original and After Fif— teen Laundorings . , . . . . 65 Cost, Physical Properties and Test Data - Fab- ric R . . . . . . . . . 66 Evaluation of Test Data and Conclusions - Fab- ricROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 67 Conclusions Summary and General Conclusions . . . . . 71 Graph - Breaking Strength After Fifteen Laund- erings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Graph " Shrinkage e o e e e e o o 0 e e o e o e 77 Related Literature Review of Related Literature . . . . . . . . . 78 Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY The three groups, by fiber classification, of dish towolings selected for this study were representat- ive of dish towelings Ibund on the market in April of 1958. The study was initiated with the average homemakor's point of view on cost and serviceability in mind. Group Price per Price Brand Code No. & towel or per type linear yd. sq.yd. Cotton 1 Printed S . yd. S .29 J.C. Penney C-1 2 Crash .25 . 5 Cannon Kitchen C-2 3 Crash .15 .h8 Cannon Dryfast C-3 Cotton & Rayon 1 Momie weave .59 1.06 Kendall (Cnnity) CR-l 2 Momie weave .39 .70 Cannon Magic-Dry CR-2 3 Plain weave .33 .AS Excello Rayten CR- h Basket var. .10 . 3 Japan-made CR- Bast Fiber 1 Linen (glass) .h9 1.10 Stevens F-l 2 Linen crash .39 .83 Stevens F-2 3 Rmnie .33 .88 Ne infer. R This study was designed to compare the initial spec- ifications of towelings in the three groups as well as their performance after 5 and 15 launderings, for changes in breaking strength, absorbency and dimen- sional stability. Conclusions are based upon changes that occur as a resilt of laundering under controlled laboratory conditions. They do not pro-suppose chan- ges which might occur in actual wear usage. In the final analysis, the towels will be evaluated in terms of cost and performance. The emphasis placed upon certain properties consid- ered desirable in dish toweling might vary with in- dividuals. The property commonly considered most important is the ability of the toweling to absorb moisture. Durability, indicated by breaking stren- gth and launderability properties are also consid- ered important. Desirable, but of less importance, are resistance to shrinkage, low linting and a good "hand", that is softness or pliability. w? PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED The evaluation of the towelings used in this study is to be predicated upon the initial properties of the fabrics and upon performance characteristics determined by laboratory testing. The initial pro- perties to be evaluated include fiber content, yarn size, twist, yarns per inch and weight per square yard. Performance characteristics to be determined initially and after laundering are breaking streng- th, both wet and dry, rate of absorbency and dimen- sional change. Rate of absorbency is to be determined both init— ially and after 5 and 15 launderings. Breaking strength both dry and wet, for warp and filling is to be determined initially and after 15 launderings. Dimensional change is to be caculated after 5, 10, and 15 launderings. Weight per square yard is to be determined initially, after 5 and 15 launderings. There will be no attempt to determine amount of lint- ing, staining or drying time in this study. Evaluation of the data will include a comparison of the towelings on initial specifications and perfor- mance characteristics. To aid this evaluation, each toweling will be given a rating of above aver- age, average or below average on each of the perfor- mance characteristics including rate of absorbency, breaking strength and dimensional stability. The ratings will be based on a comparison of the towel- ings used in this study only. Data for a given characteristic will be tabulated for all towelings. Those towelings that group themselves in the middle range will be considered average. Those that are above this middle group will be designated above average and those below will be considered below average. In the final analysis, an attempt will be made to compare the advantages and disadvantages of one toweling against the others and to make a recommen- dation relating this information to the cost of the particular toweling. U TEST METHODS Methods for specification testing are in accord- ance with A.S.T.M. Standards.1 Tests are to be carried out under standard conditions of 70 de- gree Fahrenheit temperature, plus or minus two degrees, and 65 percent relative humidity, plus or minus two percent. Test methods for perfor- mance characteristics including breaking strength and dimensional stability are to be in accordance with A.S.T.M. Standards. Rate of absorbency is to be determined by a modification of the Weireck test method, as described. Fiber contant - A.S.T.M. Designation D 276-37T PP. 73-82 Yarn size - Universal Yarn Numbering Balance Inst- ructions for use Twist direction and amount - A.S.T.M. Designation D39-h9 Sec. 17, p. 175 Direction - A.S.T.M. Designation D123 Direct counting method A.S.T.M. Designation D1k23-56T Yarns per inch - A.S.T.M. Designation D39ch0, Sec. 7 pp. 171-172 Weight per square yard - A.S.T.M. Designation D39-h9 Sec. 6b, p. 171 Breaking Strength (reveled—strip method) - A.S.T.M. Designation D39—h0, sec. 11 and 13, p. 173 1A.S.T.M. Standards on Textile Materials, AmeriCan Society for Testing MaterIals, PhIladelphia, Pa. 1957 Shrinkage - A.S.T.M. Designation Dh37-36. Modified in that a domestic, tumble-type washing machine was used. Rate of Absorbency - Strips of fabric one inch in Width and ten inches in length were cut, both warp and filling directions. Each strip was suspended alongside a ruler with one inch immersed in the liquid. A water solution containing Calco iden- tification stain was used so that the water level might be seen more readily. Measurement of the rise of the water was made from the level of the liquid. The heights to which the liquid rose in one and five minutes were recorded. An av- erage of five specimens warp and filling was computed. «a EVALUATION OF TEST DATA mooacp +>flpoaooog :a mom: co¢p00 He paoonoa age 5%. e33 a no eves maozoe ** a .3 uses 303% * NHH be mad baa Nma and pm 04 mm no m.4 mm. as m HJH mm and HNH NNH Nm 0 HA Hm om >.m mm. swim 54H mm and am NHH NHH ca ma cm on ¢.o 0H.H *Hum poem ma mm em on Nma Nam mm ma mm on o.m mo. armu em mm em on wa New SH ea on em m.4 «4. min: mm mm mm we NNN NNN om mm mo Hma m.o on. mime Hm we mm do Nmm NNN ma mN mo mma H.o oo.H Hume e83 coaamaeofion 04 m4 HS we NOH Nm w NH um mm m.4 me. mso on .3 mm 13 N0 N3” m 3 am am m.m mm. «no mm 00 on em med Nmm m am we we v.4 am. a are coupon an; - mg .,+ Idea 4? Sum; we» won --i.-..m. 3 m -3 Eco 3250 J company :owuooafi .ph .vm nonadz cannon m .3 Megan: mesa . .wm you you one w, nu nouumiwdalduuafiliiTIIIIIIALISHIaude and» non annex pnwfios pooo nonpeofimwmmoao msoem monmwpmnooon CH poms coupoo mo pcoohoa Hanan np%3 hogan ndam mo coma mHo3oa * mo. 3- 8. m. 2‘ we a q: a: m3 . E E i. m a- NH- mi am. one men on em Hes W «on L we HNH tare ea- an- an- ma- ems ems me as sea mod M me am sane L poem 3. 0. em. 2. a a S j S S L S R is o 0 mm + 3+ em on m m mm on em mm mm mime om. mu so. a u we so we nae mm ee mm so mums mm+ mo om + man me on R t. am on 3 em .38 pcoam cohemIGOSvoo an mm: can m mu we .3 pm .3 3 Q. 3 mo mic a I am- NH. ea- em no es mm oe mm as so are an- m. on. em. mm mm on mm we 04 00 an arc coeeoo a 3 a 3 a 31:; ;rm :4 wm-gir igw,- {eligz: a 3 pox iwea e03 ago no: men eoeasz chance eweoaoeesuq ma emceeoeasaq ma aoem< Haeamneo one uopua omqano pcooaom ooze»: anaemia Ho>am I condom :H summonpmiwdaxduumL cowpeofiufimmmdo macho mmam< mHOZAde UZdemmm OB ammdmzoo :HOZMMHm OZszumm AH¢mnpoop ca me5 convey mo pacemaoa Hanan spa: hogan Noam we once maozoa * . m m me 5 mm 3 Cm we ” Sm __ me Tm M Sm 13 S S N em as and “ me a 3: me it So «NA om mm pm on m6 _ H6 3 4.3 “ m6 3.4 m 06 than _ M u L poem n L _ em E R 2. SS 3 is 92 i so 3 we is mm on 3 S e. m on 0 dm 0 .Qm TE we owe me am.“ 0.3 _ on 0.3 on do Sm wumo 2. a? me an an _ as H was es and me is _ ocoam :ozomI20ppoo fl . Hm on R 3 a; 3:: _ m4 _ find o. and To mm mm mm on 0. Tue 0 CS 0 do «no «4 m: N3 0; o.m 9m 3.4 o.m 4.3 m.m .70 838 m 3 a min: ----.M!fiim.-i T- m 3 .3 3 833:3 3333 e5 $5823 3 anaemic 853053 3 _ emfieeesaa on $58393 m noaseeflaeefio 3395 nonH mom mane» iilreaiuyLI- ..... I omoxqwunm anooaom ozmaazofi 3H Megan .m canes IO ca new: so» you no pcoonoa Hausa :pflz “on“ ofiEdu mo onwa_maozoe ** vaonnp o>apmuooou m Ndam mo owma mam3oa * NA in 9.4 tam b.0H m.a >.w ** Nth Mom. H05 .400 8. HI.“ pawn mlq mom ©.m #lfio ”04‘ No.4 no; M'MB 0.0 m.o m.o mime o.m 4.5 H.o Hume vcoam nohdmICOppoo Mom Hom 00.4 3 E 2 muw H.m o.m 5.4 duo coupon umcauovnsaq wwcwnoucsdq m o noouMfim nopu< o>Hm noph< Hana who nonauz finnum moonzo «was» chanvm you pnmagn f and coapaowmwmmmao Q5090 mafimd add» mmHm ¢\N:N q\m-N N\Hua N\N-N q\mnN 4\muN 4\mua q\mna {TN N\TN N\N..N N}; ¢\Num 4\H.4 -N N\N:N 4\mum N\Num N N ¢\Nnm 4 ¢\mua ¢\N-N N\N.N ¢\Num N\H-H q\mua N\Nnm 4\mum N N N\Hsm N\Num N N N\Num. ¢\m.N N 4\mna r1! m 3 N, i;z : .nuunmmmmqwalw:zezlz,--zmmsqwa a nmcwpovcsmq ma nomw¢ IIL uoum< mopmm hocwnn0mg< op commgaoo opmm hoccnponn< quamwuo % o h we ovms maozoe ** smonnp o>fipmnooov H vows cappoo mo fcuonoa A&d&u nag: hang“ Hdfiu MG 0613 ofiyzaa * N\N-N 4\N-N N\N.N Nxaua N\N.N 4\m ¢\m N ¢\muN q\mrH 4\mna N\H N\H N\H o **N-N N\N.N N\H-N N\N-H o o o 0 *Hum pmam N {mum {RN {m .3 .3 o 4-5 4\Num N q\mra N\H N\H o o mrmo {and {NA +{TN {mud {TN N N}; Nnmo q\mum N N N\N.N 4\Hum N\H-N N anmo acoam cohNMIcoppoo N\Num N N ¢\H-N N\mrN ¢\HIN a mro N\Num N N m ¢\Num 4\mua N Nuo ¢\mrN ¢\mra N\H-H o o o o Hro scape” lL- :mz..l T|:-m- , ‘3; m 2‘ m 3 mauscfie,m \‘,:a:1:-omdmm& H::lr. -- mmwmmwamw: ..... .1 opsnfla H ‘ - :1-.lp:i: :I m nonasz owunam mmcfipovczmq m hopm4 Hdcfl H90 can 1 +.a;|.,-l mmnmmH NMoconhomna Ho ovum cowpuofimfimmdao msoum mmnauovcdaq snowman cam opwm .m canaa 1.1 iv In . . . . - ll‘. ‘ . . I. b .‘ . ‘ ' r\ o .I I. . I I“ b» c 5 ...... u o 4 . . . .. .\ 4h u. ,- a i I . J . I w h t... I 4 ‘; c: b V Towoling C-l Original Towoling 0-1 15 Launderings V (3 COST, PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND TEST DATA - FABRIC C-l Cost per square yard 99¢ Yarns per inch Warp Filling Original A6 2 After 15 launderings h8 MS Yarn number Warp Filling 21+ 9 Yarn twist and direction Warp Filling 252 luz Weight per square yard (ounces) Original 1.7 After 5 launderings 5.0 After 15 launderings 5.1 Shrinkage in Laundering (percent) Warp Filling After 5 launderings 3.8 h.h After 10 launderings h.0 h.h After 15 launderings 5.6 5.0 Breaking Strength (pounds) Warp Filling ' Original Dry 2h 60 Wet no 92 After 15 launderings Dry 35 70 Wet 38 82 1 Change after 15 launderings Dry 26 17 Wet - 5 -1l Absorbency (rate in inches) Warp Filling Original one minute test 0 0 five ninute test 0 0 After 5 launderings ene minute test 1-1/2 1-3/h fibe minute test 2- 3/1; 3 After 15 launderings one minute test l-B/h 2 five minute test 2-3/h 3-1/2 Ir EVALUATION OF TEST DATA AND CDNCLUSIONS - FABRIC C-l Original Physical Properties Toweling 0-1, a coton crash was flaund to be nearly balanced in construction with M6 yarns per inch in the warp and A2 in the filling. This number is ab- ove the minimum Federal Specification for cotton crash of 39 yarns per inch in the warp and 29 in the filling directions. The number is slightly under the Federal Specification for cotton towel- ing to be used for glassware of 5A in the warp and 38 in the filling directions. Toweling 0-1 was fairly expensive and is printed with a pattern. It might be considered a toweling intended for glass- ware. The original weight of h.7 ounces per square yard approaches the Federal standard of 5.1 minimum for cotton toweling intended for use on glassware. A very fine yarn was used in the warp, number 2M, and a heavy yarn, number 9 in the filling. This was the finest yarn used in the seven toweling fab- rics of cotton or a cotton blend. The warp had a twist of 252 compared to iuz in the filling. This is a relatively high warp twist, the range for the towelings tested being from 3 to 29. The high twist in the warp was used perhaps to give added strength to the fine yarn. ’5 Dimensional Stability Toweling C-l showed a shrinkage of 3.8% in the warp and h.h% in the filling after five launderings. This is well below the American Standard Minimum Performan- ce Requirements for Institutional Textiles L2h.2.2 which allows a maximun shrinkage of 1&5 in the warp and 5% in the filling after five launderings. When the shrinkage was compared with the other fabrics after 15 launderings, the shrinxage of 5.6% in the warp and 5.0 in the filling placed the toweling third for minimum warp shrinxage and fifth for filling sh- rinkage. Breaking Strength Federal specifications for breaking strength are based on the grab method rather than the raveled- strip method used in this study. Therefore, a dir- ect comparison cannot be made. The standard for the grab method requires a minimum breaKing streng- th dry and wet of 50 pounds in the warp and ho puu- nds in the filling for cotton crash. Cotton towel- ing for glassware has a standard of 50 pounds both warp and filling. The original dry strength of toweling C-1, 27 pounds in the warp, was the lowest of the ten towels. The filling strength of 60 pounds was average. The 4% original wet strength of MO pounds in the warp also placed it in the below average group. An original filling wet strength of 92 pounds placed the towel- ing fourth in filling wet strength. Toweling 0-1 was 26% higher in drv breaking stren- gth in the warp direfition after 15 launderings and 17% higher in the filling direction. However, the warp strength of 35 pounds was still below average being next to the lowest of the towelings. The dry filling strength of 70 pounds was average. After 15 launderings, the wet breaking strength in the warp direction was 5% lower and the filling stren- gth 11% lower. Thus, the toweling remained in the below average group for warp strength, but because of the original high wet breaking strength in the filling and slight loss,it placed above average for filling set wtrength. Rate of Absorbency In the test for rate of absorbency, toweling C-l recorded a rise of 2-3/h inches in the warp and 3-1/2 inches in the filling after 5 minutes compared with the Federal Specification minimum standard of 2-3/8 inches. Compared with the other 9 towelinfis, C-l placed in the average group warpwise and above aver- age group fillingwise. The one minute test showed similar results with the rise in the warp considered average and the rise in the filling direction above average. ’7 Conclusions - Fabric C-l Toweling C-l, a fine cotton would be in the high price group of the towels tested, being third from the highest in price. Rate of absorbency,in the ten towelings tested, ranged fairly close. None fell in the below aver- age group. Compared with the other 9 towelings tested, 0-1 was average in absorbency in the warp and above average in the filling after 15 launder- ings in both the one and five minute tests. After 15 launderings, the dry breaking strength was below average in the warp and average in the filling when compared with the other towelings tested. The wet breaking strength of the warp was also below average and the filling wet streng- th above average. Dimensional stability was above average in the warp and at the top of the average group for the filling. Rhsorbency and breaking strength being the perfor- mance characteristics of primary consideration in toweling, it would appear that the breaking stren- gth of toweling C-l is unsatisfactory. In relation to the other towelings, this makes it a particularly poor buy as it was in the high price range. ’1’ .? .. . " . ' . I. .' ' c. I . . | ' ‘.l '0 ' ‘.._l. ‘ ‘ . u . |. ' .5 o. I '. O . ‘ n . . ' -¢c — n! n . I. l ' . . . I ‘ . a . g - ‘ . a ‘ fl . .V ‘ . . .0 ‘ o ' . I O 0 . ~ ' a g u ‘ 4 . . r -- ', ) ....“ i ‘ III a ‘ q .- ... I , O I O l' a o--- .v o '9 “ow“ .9. i... .4 ' 90v ... 0 VI ovi'tv‘Io ' Tewoling 0-2 Original I . 0%. we " - .01.... ‘, b - .... . . '-'o‘r~-.¢. v v 01‘ vs. . - v .p -. — ... . , ,3...” M: o-, own-'u‘vwmuo‘d. . a .u . 0.9- n ”"”‘on: on u- "‘ n ’4. ' o v Tovoling 0-2 15 Launderings . . . . . .. . . , o. . . . 1 . . . . _ . . ‘ . 0' ' . . .. .. . . . . . 1 . . ' . ' . l O ' ' ‘ ‘ - ' . O 4 . ' l . . '1 _ ‘ ' n .. ‘ o . ' ‘ I. . ' - ' n ‘ .... ..- ‘ . ' . o. ' . . . . . ‘ . v ' q . t .- 0 ‘ " . a n v - ~ ‘. ‘ ,._ . .. . . . ' . ~ I . ' I e .. . ‘ . .. . . . ' I u . , _ ... . ~ _'. . . . . ‘ ‘- . . ,. .. , . . r . - |‘ . . ,. .. . . _ . . _ . , . . g . .. , a , . . . ' I . ‘ - . - ‘ ' If v ' ' . - n I ,,' .- .- - 0 0 ' < ./ I .. I . I ., "' . , - .. . l ' ll ' . . . . - .. v‘ I - . ‘ 4 . ' - i .u ‘ V - . . - . _ . u.~.k-. . _‘.. II_-__.-o-»" fl-“d_-n .0"-.. --u--.- .- ,. .. ---- --.. A---uo..-o--~ A7 COST, PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND TEST DATA - FABRIC C-Z Cost per square yard 65¢ Yarns per inch Warp Filling Original 39 29 After 15 launderings 39 33 Yarn number Warp Filling 11 8 thn twist and dirictien Warp Filling 162 92 Weight per square yard (ounces) Original .2 After 5 leunderings 5.7 After 15 launderings 6.1 Shrinkage in Laundering (percent) War Filling After 5 hunderings (LE 0 After 10 launderings 12.5 0 After 15 launderings , 12.5 .6 Breaking Strength (pounds) Warp Filling Original ' Dry . 6h %1 Wet ' ’ 82 0 After 15 launderings Dry SS #6 Wet 65 56 % Change after 15 launderings Dry -1h 12 Wet . -21 -7 Absorbency (rate in inches) Warp Filling Original One minute test 2 1-3/h Five minute test 3-1/h 3 After 5 launderings One minute test 2 2 Five minute test 3-1/2 3-3/h After 15 laundering: One minute test 2 2 Five minute test 3-1/2 3-1/2 EVaLuxTron or TEST DATA A”D CONCLUSIONS — FiaaTc 0-2 Original Physical Properties Fabric 0-2, a cotton crash, was found to be a nearly balanced fabric with 39 yarns per inch in the warp and 29 yarns per inch in the filling. This yarn count is comparable to the minimum standards for cotton crash set in Federal Specification DDD—T-Slla of 3H yarns per inch in the warp and 30 in the filling. The original weight per square yard of 5.2 ounces nearly meets the Federal Specification of 5.8 oun- ces for cotton crash. A number 11 yarn was used in the warp and a slight- ly heavier yarn, a number 9 in the filling. Num- ber 8 and 9 yarns were the heaviest used in the towelings tested and were used for the filling in four of the ten towelings. The twist of 162 in the warp and 92 in the filling is a relationship often found in toweling. Greater twist is used in the warp for strength and a lewer twist in the filling for increased absorbency. Dimensional Stability Toweling C-2 showed a shrinkage of 9.h percent in the warp after five launderings. This is within the American Standard Minimum Performance Require- ments for Institutional Textiles L2h.2.2 which al- 12/ lows a maximim shrinkage of lh% in the warp and 5% in the filling after five launderings. Shrinkage in this fabric was nominal filling direction. How- ever, shrinkage was progressive in the warp and af- ter 15 launderings, totaled 12.5%. Although this amount of shrinkage is within the above mentioned standard, only one other toweling in the ten test- ed had a greater warp shrinkage after 15 launder- ings. Filling shrinkage after 15 lunderings was.63 making this toweling one of the two lowest in fill- ing shrinkage. BreakingfiStrength Federal specifications for breaking strength are based on the grab method rather than the raveled- strip method used. Therefore, a direct comparison cannot be made. The standard for the grab method requires a minimnm breaking strength dry and vet of 50 pounds in the warp and to pounds in the fill- ing for cotton crash. The original dry strength of toweling 0-2, on in the warp and Al in the filling put it in the middle range of the ten fowelings tested both for warp and filling., The original wet warp strength of 62 and filling strength of 60 again put this toweling in the middle range for wet strength. Breaking stren- .ZJL gth was slightly higher in the direction of the warp than in the filling, placing it fourth out of ten. Toweling 0-2 was lhi lower in dry warp strength af- ter 15 launderings but the filling dry strength was 123 higher. This reflects the high wirp shrinkage and consequent increase in number of yarns per inch in the filling. In wet strength, this toweling was 21% lower in the warp and 7% lower in the filling. The lower loss in the filling again reflects the in- crease in number of yarns per inch. When the dry strength after 15 launderings of 55 pounds warp and A6 pounds filling is compared with the other nine towelings, it ranks only sixth, but the wet stren- gth after 15 launderings places it fourth warp dir- ection and fifth filling direction. Rate of Absorbency Fabric C-2 would be considered above average in rate of absorbency when the rise of 3-1/2 inches both warp and fi_1ling directions is compared with the Fed- eral Specification minimum standard of 2-3/5 inches in five minutes. Only one of the ten fabrics tested had a slightly greater rate of absorbency in the fill- ing and three of the ten a greater.rate in the warp. The one minute test resulted in a rise of 2 inches both warp and {illing.This is also above average. Absorbency during the first few minutes is import- ant in a dish toweling fabric. Five of the ten towelings tested reached this same level in the warp direction and only two of the ten, reached a slightly higher level in the warp direction in one minute. Conclusions - Fabric 0—2 Toweling 0-2, a cotton crash falls in the medium price range of the towelings tested. It was above average in absorbency, both warp and filling in one and five minute tests. This rating is based on performance after the 15 launderings. Breaking strength after 15 launderings compared with the other nine towelings tested, was average both dry and wet in warp and filling. Dimensional stability would be considered only fair. Although shrinkage was above average in the filling direction, it was below average in the warp direct- ion when compared with the other towelings. This toweling might be acceptable in yardage since it has above average absorbency and average stren- gth. A disadvantage in buying readymade towels of this fabric is the 12.5% shrinkage in the warp. The towels originally measured 30 inches in length. Some feel 25-30 inches is a minimum for dish towels. After laundering 15 times, these towels would be ap- proximately 26 inches in length. 437 4.5 Ipweling 0-3 Original .Teweling C-3 15 Launderings ’5 v w ..ll‘ CV |U .- ... ..-‘~-.. he .. i) ’.. F COST, PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND TEST Cost per square yard Yarns per inch Original After 15 launderings Yarn number Yarn twist and direction Weight per square yard (ounces) Original After 5 launderings After 15 launderings Shrinkage in Laundering (percent) After 5 launderings After 10 launderings After 15 launderings Breaking Strength (pounds) Original Dry Wet After 15 launderings Dry Wet % Change after 15 launderings Dry Wet Absorbency (rate in inches) Original One minute test Five minute test After 5 launderings One minute test Five minute test After 15 launderings One minute test Five minute test JLL DATA - FABRIC 0-3 Warp Filling 38 27 39 31 Warp Filling 12 8 Warp Filling 3Z 102 4.9 5.1 5.3 Warp Filling 11.9 .6 13.1 1.3 iu.u 1.9 Warp Filling 62 us 71 A6 A1 7 w :32 -35 -16 -38 - 9 Warp Filling 1 1-1/h 2-3/h 2-1/h 2 2 3-1/2 3-3/u 2 2 3-3/h 3-1/2 ~21 EVALUATION OF TEST DATA AND CWWCLUSIONS - FABRIC C-3 Original Physical Properties Fabric 0-}, a cotton crash was found to be a near- ly balanced fabric with 38 yarns per inch in the warp and 27 yarns per inch in the filling. This yarn count is nearly comparable to the minimum st- andard for cotton crash set in Federal Specificat- ion DDD-T-Slla of 38 yarns per inch in the warp and 30 in the filling. The original weight per square yard of 4.9 is near- ly one ounce under the above standard of 5.8 for cotton crash. The yarn number of 12 for the warp and 8 for the filling places this toweling with the two heaviest of the seven cotton and cotton and rayon blends tested. The warp twist of 32 is extremely low, the filling wist of 102 average. Dimensional Stability Toweling 0-} showed a shrinkage of 11.9% in the warp after five launderings and a very nominal shrinxage in the filling. This amount of shrinkage is with- in the American Standard Minimun Performance Require- ments for Institutional Textiles, L2h.2.2, which al- lows a maximum shrinkage of IA? in the warn and 5% 18/ in the filling after five launderings. However, the toweling shrank progressively in the warp dir- ection and after 15 launderings had a total shrink- age of 1h.h% in the warp direction. Toweling C-3 had the highest shrinkage in the warp of the ten towelings tested. Shrinkage in the filling after 15 launderings was only .95 which is lower than the average of the towelings tested. Breaking Strength Federal specifications for breaking strength are based on the grab method rather than the raveled- strip method used. Therefore, a direct comparison cannot be made. The standard for the grab method requires a minimum breaking strength dry and wet of 50 pounds in the warp and no pounds in the fill- ingfor cotton crash. The original dry strength of toweling C-3, 52 pou- nds in the warp and h5 pounds in the filling, was average in comparison with the other nine towelings. The original wet warp strength of 71 and filling strength of ho was also average. Toweling 0-3 was lower in strength both dry and wet after 15 launderings as follows - dry warp 35%, dry filling 16%, wet warp 3 5 and wet filling 9%. The relatively high loss in strength put this fabric in 17 the below average group in wet and dry warp stren- gth and dry filling strength when compared with the other nine towelings. Only in wet filling strength, did it fall in the lowest portion of the average group. In three instances, it was third from the bottom of the towelings in breaking strength. Rate of Absorbency Fabric C-3 had an above average rate of absorbency with a rise of 3-3/4 inches in the warp and 3-1/2 inches in the filling in five minutes. The Feder- al Specification minimum standard is 2-3/8 inches in five minutes. Only two of the towelings tested had a greater rate of absorbency in the warp and only one in the filling direction. During the one minute test, a rise of 2 inches both warp and fill- ing was recorded. This is also above the average of the towelings tested. Conclusions - Fabric 3-3 Toweling C-3, a cotton crash, would be in the low price group of the towelinqs tested. It was a col- ored towel and retained its color after the 15 laun- derings. This toweling was above average in absorbency both warp and filling in both one and five minute tests after 15 launderings. 43 Breaking strength after 15 launderings, was below the average of the other nine towels tested in wet and dry warp strength and dry filling strength. This toweling fell at the bottom of the average group in wet filling strength. Toweling C-3 had the highest shrinkage in the warp of the ten towelings tested. Filling shrinkage was nominal. This fabric was purchased in ready- made towels which were only 26 inches in length when purchased. After 15 launderings, they would be approximately 22 inches in length. This is con- siderably under the 28-30 inch length considered satisfactory for dish towels. Although toweling 0-3 was in the low price group and was above average in absorbency, the unsatis- factory breaking strength and excessive shrinkage in the warp direction make it a poor value. 39 ' Towoling CR—l Original Tcwoling CR-l 15 Launderings 31 COST, PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND TEST DATA - FABRIC CR-l Cost per square yard Yarns per inch Original After 15 launderings Yarn number Yarn twist and direction Weight per square yard (ounces) Original After 5 launderings After 15 launderings Shrinkage in Laundering (percent) After 5 launderings After 10 launderings After 15 launderings Breaking strength (pounds) Original Dry Wet After 15 launderings Dry Wet % Change after 15 launderings Dry Wet Absorbency (rate in inches) Original One minute test Five minute test After 5 launderings One minute test Five minute test After 15 launderings One minute test Five minute test $1.06 Warp Filling 125 65 139 76 Warp Filling 23 19 Warp Filling 222 232 6.1 7.h 8.0 Warp Filling 6'8 13.8 5. 13.8 6.9 15.6 Warp Filling 9h AB 59 31 7 8 Z0 is -18 20 2 39 Warp Filling 2 1-1/2 3-1/u 2-1/2 2 2 3-3/u 3-3/h 1-3/h 1-1/2 3-1/u 2-1/2 EVALUATION OF TEST DATA AND CONCLUSIONS - FABRIC CR-l Original Physical Properties Fabric CR-l, a cotton and rayon blend was found to have approximately twice as many yarns per inch in the warp, 125, as in the filling, 65. This was due to the weave construction which was a type of momie weave. The original weight per square yard was 6.1 ounces which is heavier than any of the cotton crash tow- olings. The yarns used were light in weight with a number 23 in the warp and a number 19 in the filling. The yarns were given a high twist of 222 in the warp and 232 in the filling. Dimensional Stability Toweling CR-l showed a shrinkage of 6.3% in the warp and 13.8% in the filling after 5 launderings. The warp shrinkage is just within the American Standard Minimum Performance Requirements for Institutional Textiles, LZh.2.2, which allows lh¢ in the warp but is considerably over the 5% minimum perforance al- lowed for the filling. This toweling shrank progress- ively and after 15 launderings, had the highest shr- inkage fillingwiso of the ten towels tested with 15.6%. This places it definitely below average in filling 33 dimensional stability. The warp shrinkage at this interval, 6.9, was average for the ten towels tested. Broakinngtrongth The presence of rayon was apparent in the differ- ence between dry and wet breaking strength. The original dry breaking strength in the warp was 9h compared with a wet strength in the warp of 59. The filling dry strength of MB compared with 31 pounds wot. Breaking strength after 15 launderings was higher in the filling, both dry 20% and wet 39%, with a slightly higher warp wot strength. The warp dry strength was lower than the original strength. The higher breaking strength is due to the excess- ive shrinkage that oecured in this toweling. The number of warp yarns had increased after the 15 launderings by 1h over the original number and the number of filling yarns had increased by 11. In comparison with the other nine towelings, CR-l was in the middle group for breaking strength, both warp and filling wet and dry, giving it an average rating. Rate of Absorbengy Toweling CR-l was above the Federal Specification minimum standard of 2-3/8 inches with a rise of 3} 3-l/h inches in the warp direction and 2-1/2 inches in the filling in five minutes. In comparison with the other towelings tested, this toweling rated aver- age in the warp and average in the filling. Toweling CR-l recorded a greater rate of absorbency after the fifth than after the fifteenth laundering. In the one ‘minute test, a rise of 1-3/h inches was recorded for the warp and 1-1/2 inches for the filling. This was average in comparison with the other towelings. Conclusions - Fabric CR-l Toweling CR-l, a cotton and rayon blend, was next to the highest in price of the ten towelings tested. After 15 launderings, CR-l rated above average in the warp and average in the filling when rate of ab- sorbency was compared with the other nine fabrics in the five minute test. This toweling rated aver- age both warp and filling in the one minute test. The fact that it was more absorbent after five than after fifteen launderings, indicates that as high shrinkage secured in the filling, the fabric became more compact and less absorbent. When compared with the other towelings for breaking strength after 15 launderings, CR-l fell in the mid- dle group, dry and wet warp and filling. Therefore it received an average rating. 36 Toweling CR-l had the highest shrinkage in the fill- ing of the towelings tested. The warp shrinkage was average. Although this towel was adequate in size after shrinkage occured, the excessive shrinkage seemed to affect absorbency adversely. Considering all factors, with breaking strength only average, it appears the cost of this towel in not justifiable. do 3? " -' . " I i, h,“ . ‘ v V n} “haikirl'f ' ' . yap :1 f. I 'I .‘ .-"— Toweling CR-Z Original 7‘ '§ .' ' l 4‘ as. Jim, '. ’, ( Toweling CR-Z 15 Launderings “Ln-1.1.4.3.“ x“ ...» o Q/ COST, PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND TEST DATA - FABRIC CR-2 Cost per square yard 70¢ Yarns per inch Warp Filling Original 121 63 After 15 launderings 126 72 Yarn number Warp Filling 22 20 Yarn twist and direction Warp Filling 222 222 Weight per square yard (ounces) Original 6.3 After 5 launderings 6.2 After 15 launderings 6.6 Shrinkage in Laundering (percent) Warp Filling After 5 launderings .3;B ’8.1w; After 10 launderings 5.0 10.0 After 15 launderings 5.0 10.6 Breaking strength (pounds) Warp Filling Original ' Dry 6? 32 Wet 66 35 After 15 launderings Dry 61 h6 Wet 6h ha % Change after 15 launderings Dry - 9 an Wet 1h 32 Absorbency (rate in inches) w‘rp Filling Original One minute test 1-1/2 1 ive minute test 2-1/h l-3/h Af er 5 launderings One minute test 2-l/h l-3/h Five minute test h-l/h 3-1/2 After 15 launderings One minute test 2-1/4 1-3/h Five minute test A 3-1/4 EVALUATION OF TEST DATA AND CONCLUSIONS - FABRIC CR-2 Original Physical Prgperties Fabric CR-2, a cotton and rayon blend, was found to have approximately twice as many yarns per inch in the warp as in the filling with 121 and 63 respect- ively. The weave construction was a type of momio weave similar to that of CR-l. The original weight per square yard was 6.3 ounces, which was similar to CR-l and heavier than any of the cotton crash towelings. The yarns used were light in weight as were those used in CR-l with a number 22 warp and number 20 filling. The yarns were given a high twist as was true of CR-l with 222 both warp and filling. 'Dimensional Stability» Toweling CR-2 showed a shrinkage of 3.8% in the warp and 8.1% in the filling after 5 hunderingsl The warp shrinkage was within the American Stand- ard Minimym Performance Requirements for Instit- utional Textiles, L2h.2.2 which allows lh% in the warp. Filling shrinkage is considerably over the 5% standard. Shrinkage was progressive and after 15 launderings, 5.0% had occured in the warp and 10.6% in the filling. Compared with the other nine this toweling ranked with one other in having the lowest shrinkage in the warp but it had the third highest filling shrinkage. It was below the aver- age of the other towelings tested in shrinkage in the direction of the filling and only slightly bet- ter than toweling CR-l a similar fabric. Breaking38trength Wet breaking strength was not appreciably lower in toweling CR-2 as it was in toweling CR-l. The ori- ginal dry breaking strength in the warp was 67 pou- nds, compared to 66 pounds wet, and in the filling, the dry strength of 32 compared with 35 wet. There was an increase in breaking strength after 15 launderings, in the direction of the filling both dry and wet of hh% and 32%, respectively. The wet warp strength was 1h% higher but the dry strength was 9% lower. The increased strength is due to the comparatively high shrinkge in this toweling. The number of warp yarns had increased after the 15 launderings by 5 and the filling yarns by 9 over the original number. Comparing breaking strength with the other nine towelings tested, CR-2 fell in the middle group, wet and dry warp and filling, giving it an average rating. fl Rite of Absorbongy Toweling CR-2 was well above the Federal Specifi- cation minimum standard of 2-3/8 inches, with a rise of h inches in the warp direction and 3-1/h in the filling in five minutes. In comparison with the other towelings tested, it was next to the top one in absorbency in the warp and rated above aver- age in the filling. Records of the one minute test again showed this toweling next to the top in warp absorbency but five of the ten towelings had a sli- ghtly greater absorbency in the filling. Conclusions - Fabric CR-2 Toweling CR-2, a cotton and rayon blend, falls in the middle price group of the towelings tested. After 15 launderings, it was next to the top in warp absorbency and also in the above average group for the filling. In the endminuto test, it also rated next to the top in warp absorbency but aver— age in filling absorbency. When breaking strength was compared with the other nine towelings tested after the 15 launderings, CR-2 fell in the middle group dry and wet, warp and filling giving it an average rating. This toweling ranked with one other in having the lowest warp shrinkage, but it had the third high- est filling shrinkage. This was below average in comparison with the other toweling. Because 03-2, a readymade towel, was large in size originally, this would not be disastercus. Toweling CR-2 would be a better value than CR-l, a similar toweling. For a medium price, it offer- ed above average absorbency and average strength. This toweling appears to be a fairly good buy. It would be interesting to see how it rated on other properties not tested, such as absence of linting, claimed for rayon blends, and lrying time. 7.! In” 7.3. I es: .. u 1 a an . L * . . a .e.. . O . a a, o ....e h o '0. o ' . ‘ -.(eh 0 ex 5 v e' 00 .‘Oe. I. ’Q ’ O\‘ b t D. s . .....A .’ I O .. .‘. .ee. D O ' o I now he . "“0 ‘13.}. v .D o“ o . o ‘ u U I e.. . as . ‘Ofi’do... .. on? a“. o ”r. ‘s o’.. .‘n. a Y. .ta’h.‘ 0.. . 1e" r Y Toweling CR-3 Original Tgwoling CR-3 15 Launderings COST, PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND TEST DATA - FABRIC CR-3 Cost per square yard Yarns per inch Original After 15 launderings Yarn number Yarn twist and direction Weight per square yard (ounces) Original After 5 launderings After 15 launderings Shrinkage in Laundering (percent) After 5 launderings After 10 hunderings , After 15 launderings - Breaking strength (pounds) ' Original .Dry . Wet After 15 launderings Dry Wet % Change after 15 launderings Dry - Wot Absorbency (rate in inches) Original One minute test Five minute test After 5 launderings One minute test Five minute test After 15 launderings One minute test Five minute test ‘0 h5¢ Warp Filling 5 9 S 53 Warp Filling 19 17 Warp Filling 292 232 h-B ho3 k.8 Warp Filling 3.1 O 3.1 O 5.0 .6 Warp Filling 29 fi 23 3t 3t 33 35 3t 3t 1h 52 0 O Warp Filling 0 O 1/2 1/2 l-3/h 2 3-3/h 3-1/2 2 3-1/2 3-3/h EVALUATION OF TEST DATA AND CONCLUSIONS - FABRIC CR-3 Original Physical Properties Fabric CR-B, a blend of two-thirds cotton and one- third rayon, was found to be nearly balanced with SA yarns per inch in the warp and A9 yarns per in- ch in the filling. It was a light weight fabric with h.3 ounces per squaro yard. A fairly lightweight yarn was used both warp and filling, with a number 19 in the warp and 17 in the filling. Tho yarns were given a vory high twist of 292 in the warp and 232 in the filling. Dimensional Stability Toweling CR-3 had the lowest shrinkage of any tow- eling, with 5.0% in the warp and .6% in the filling. Breaking,$trength CR-3 was below average in original dry breaking strength, both warp and filling, with 29 and 32 pounds respoctivoly. This toweling was also below average in original wet strength both warp and fill- ing with 3h pounds in each direction. Wet stren- gthafter 15 launderings remained exactly the same, but tho dry strength was lh% higher in the warp and 52% higher in the filling. However, in con- 76 parssen with the other nine towelings tested, Cr-3 was still well below average. It was the lowest of the ten, in dry warp strength and next to tho lowest in dry filling strength. Wet strength aft- er 15 launderings, was also next to the lowest, both warp and filling directions. Rate of Abserbenqy Toweling CR-3 was above average in absorbency, with a rise of 3-1/2 inches in the warp and 3-3/h in the filling in five minutes. This amount is well over the Federal Specification minimum standard of 2-3/8 inches in five minutes. CR-B had the greatest ab- sorbency in the filling and ranked third from the top in warp absorbency. This toweling ranked with several others at the top in both warp and filling absorbency in the one minute test. Conclusions - Fabric CR-3 Toweling CR-B, a cotton and rayon blend, fell in the low price group of the towelings tested. After 15 launderings, it was above average in ab- sorbency for warp and filling in both the one and five minute tests. This toweling was the lowest of the ten in dry warp strength and next to the lowest in dry fill- ing strength after 15 launderings. It was also ..., . . w L ,. i I I . O 7 .1 O -. 1 o . I {Ca next to the lowest in wet strength both warp and filling. Thus it fell in the below average group. Toweling CR-3 had the lowest shrinkage of any of the towelings tested and was of generous size when purchased as a readymade towel. Price, absorbency and dimensional stability of this toweling were very favorable. However, sin- ce breaking strength is such an important perfor- mance factor, a toweling that rates below average would not be a good value. o5 It LL'Iq-v‘ ' ' FUN“ . ...-- ---.C..-'- _-_-__.-. .-.-c A Toweling CR- Original . . ... ...-.... Toweling CR-h 15 Launderings .-.... w- ‘ ...- i i COST, PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND TEST DATA - FABRIC CR-h 00 t per square yard Yarns per inch Original After 15 launderings Yarn number Yarn twist and direction Weight per square yard (ounces) Original After 5 launderings After 15 launderings Shrinkage in laundering (percent) After 5 launderings After 10 launderings After 15 launderings Breaking strength (pounds) Original Dry Wet After 15 launderings Dry Wet % Change after 15 launderings Dry Wet Absorbency (rate in inches) Original One minute test Five minute test After 5 launderings One minute test Five minute test After 15 launderings One minute test Five minute test u3¢ Warp Filling 70 33 77 36 Warp Filling 19 22 Warp Filling 252 182 3.6 3.8 h.5 Warp Filling 6.9 7.5 8.1 10.6 9.u 12.5 Warp Filling 50 28 2k 18 AA 17 2h 7 -12 -36 0 -61 Warp Filling 0 1m 1/u 3/h 2-1/u 1-3/h A 3 2-1/2 2 h-l/h 3-1/h EVALUATION OF TEST DATA AND CONCLUSIONS - FABRIC CR-u Original Physical Properties Toweling CR-h, a cotton and rayon blend in the warp with a rayon filling, was an unbalanced toweling with 70 yarns per inch in the warp and 33 yarns per inch in the filling. This yarn count is above the Federal Specification of cotton crash of 38 yarns per inch in the warp and 30 in the filling. The original weight per square yard of 3.6 ounces is over 2 ounces under the above standard for cot- ton crash ef 5,8 ounces. A yarn number of 19 for the warp and 22 for the till- ing makes this toweling one of the three with the lightest weight yarns. Yarn twist of 252 in the warp and 182 in the filling is relatively high, the range being fron 3 to 29 twists per inch. Dimensional Stability Toweling CR-h showed a shrinkage of 6.9% in the warp and 7.5% in the filling after 5 launderings. This is below the American Standard Minimum Per- formance Requirements for Institutional Textiles, L2h.2.2, for the warp as lh% is allowed but is over the standard of 5% allowed for the filling. 5! After 15 launderings, the warp shrinkage of 9.h% wgs still with in this standard, but the filling shrinkage of 12.5% was over twice the amount al- lowed in the standard. In comparison with the other towelings tested, CR-u had next to the high- est shrinkage in the filling and fourth from the highest shrinkage in the warp direction. Broaking,$trength Federal Specifications for breaking strength are based on the grab rather than thb raveled-strip method used. Therefore, a direct comparison can- not be made. The standard for the grab method re- quires a minimum breaking strength, dry and wet, of 50 pounds in the warp and no pounds in the fill- ing for cotton crash. The original dry strength of toweling CR-h, 28 pounds in the filling, was below average and the warp strength of 50 pounds placed it in the low average group. In original wet breaking strength, this toweling was very much below average and had the lowest wot breaking strength of the ten towel- ings tested. The filling wet strength being only 18. After 15 launderings, therdry warp strength was 12% lower and the dry filling strength 36% lower. The wet filling strength was 61% lower but there was no 51 loss in wet warp strength. This placed toweling CR-h the lowest of the ten tested with a dry warp strength of 2h, dry filling strength of 18 and a wet filling strength of 7pounds. The toweling was in the below average group for wet warp stren- gth with uh.pounds. Rate of Absorbency Fabric CR-h'had the highest warp absorbency with h-l/h inches in five minutes. The Federal Spec- ification minimum standard is 2-3/8 inches in five minutes. The toweling was also above average in absorbency in the filling with a rise of 3-l/h inch- es. CR-h also had the highest warp absorbency af- ter one minute with a h inch rise and rated above average in the fl.lling with four other towelings recording a 2 inch rise. Conclusions - Fabric CR4£ Toweling CR-h, a cotton and rayon foreign made toweling fellin the low price group of towelings tested. After 15 launderings, it rated above average in absorbency both warp and filling in both the one and five minute tests. This toweling had the highest warp absorbency of the towelings tested in both one and five minute tests. When compared in breaking strength with the other nine towelings after 15 launderings, CR—h had the lowest dry strength, both warp and filling, and the lowest wet filling strength of only 7 pounds. It was below average in wet warp strength. In comparison with the other towelings tested, CR-h had an average shrinkage in the warp direction but below average shrinkage in the filling. Since this readymade towel was only approximately 23-1/2 by 13-1/2 inches when purchased, this amount of shr- inkage would reduce the size to an ineffective point. Toweling CR—h, although above average in absorben- cy would be very unsatisfactory because of the very low breaking strength. It would be a poor buy at any price. 'I‘..lv ‘ Toweling 3-1 Original Toweling F—l 15 Launderings COST, PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND TEST DATA - FABRIC E31 Cost per square yard Yarns per inch Original After 15 launderings Yarn number Yarn twist and direction Weight per square yard (ounces) Original After 5 launderings After 15 launderings Shrinkage in laundering (percent) After 5 launderings After 10 launderings After 15 launderings Breaking strength (pounds) Original Dry Wot After 15 launderings Dry Wot \ % Change after 15 launderings Dry Wet Absorbency (rate in inches) Original One minute test Five minute test After 5 launderings One minute test Five minute test After 15 launderings One minute test Five minute test $1.10 Warp 30 32 Warp 15 Warp llZ -q-aeo- O..- Uflfl$7 ‘ Warg £29 8.1 Warp 91 175 7 152 -13 ~11 Warp O 0 1-1/2 2-1/2 1-1/2 2-1/2 Filling 26 29 Filling 16 Filling llz Filling 5“ .3 Filling 98 1h? 72 126 -27 -11+ Filling 0 O i: 1%”; 1-1/2 2-3/h 5!? Q} A _ , in. ._ ---—.— #— m-*---~.—r———Tu- --. - .m.».— 56 EVALUATION OF TEST DATA AND CONCLUSIONS - FABRIC F-l Original Physical Properties Fabric F-l, a linen glass toweling, was above the Federal Specification DDD-T-536a for linen glass towels in having 30 yarns per inch in the warp and 26 in the filling. The minimum standard stated was 2A yarns per inch in the warp and 19 in the filling. The original weight per square yard of 6.h ounces is slightly over an ounce lower than the above Fed- eral standard of 7.8 ounces. The weight of the yarn used in the warp and filling was approximately the same with a number 15 in the warp and number 16 in the filling. The amount of twist,both warp and filling was 112, an average amount when compared with the other towelings tested. Dimensional Stability Toweling F-l showed a shrinkage of 5.6% in the warp and h.h% in the filling after 5 launderings. This amount is within the American Standard Minimum Per- formance Requirements for Institutional Textiles, L2h.2.2, which allows a maximum shrinkage of 1h% in the warp and 5% in the filling after 5 launder- ings. There was some additional shrinkage and Cl} 15 laundering, a total of 8.1% in the warp and 6.3% in the filling was recorded. Thus, Toweling F-l fell in the middle group compared with the other nine towelings tested making it average in dimen- sional stability. Breaking,Strength Federal specifications for breaking strength are based on the grab rather than the raveled-strip method used. Therefore, a direct comparison cane not be made. The standard for linen glass towel- ing, grab method requires a minimum breaking stren— gth of 70 pounds in the warp and 60 pounds in the filling. Toweling F-l was well above the standard with a dry warp strength of 9h pounds and a filling stren- gth of 98 pounds. The original wet strength of 175 in the warp and 1A7 in the filling, made it the highest of the ten tested in original strength. Breaking strength after 15 launderings was lower as follows; dry warp 13%, dry filling 27%, wet warp 11% and wet filling lh%. However, this de- crease in strength would not be considered excess- ive and toweling F-l rated third from the top in both warp and filling dry strengths when compared with the others in the test after 15 launderings. '7 e. 53 This toweling was at the top in wet warp strength and second in wet filling strength at this interval. Rate of Absorbency Fabric F-l met the Federal Specification minimum standard of 2-3/8 inches in five minutes for cot- ton crash. None was given for linen glass towel- ing. When compared with the other towelings test- ed, F-l ranked average both for warp and filling. Those in the average group had a variation of only l/h inch in the warp and 1/2 inch in the filling. It also ranked average when compared with the other nine towelings in the one minute test. Conclusions - Fabric F-l Toweling F-l, a linen glass toweling, was the high- est in price of the towelings tested. This toweling rated average in absorbency, both warp and filling directions in the one and five minutes tests when compared with the other towel- ings after 15 launderings. Toweling F-l fell at the top of the average group in dry breaking strength both warp and fl.lling after 15 launderings. Actually, it was third highest of the towelings tested. It ranked first in wet warp strength and second in wet filling strength giving it an above average rating for wet strength. Toweling F-l was average in dimensional stability v...— .._.—.-‘ ._.___._._ . _ '2 a. both warp and filling directions when compared with the other towelings tested. This toweling had no objectionable characteristics unless price is a determining factor. It was aver- age in absorbency and dimensional stability and ab- ove aberage in strength. Since strength is one of the most important performance factors, this would be considered a good toweling. Other factors which might help Justify the cost, such as absence of lint- ing and drying time were not checked. ‘1‘ 'r'w Towaling F-2 Original .r VVVfrv' Toqeling F-2 ' ' I :.:'a4f'ty 15 Launderings j "-*7'5 J I 1| , s e ‘ ' ‘- ': l I. {k .; w ‘ "‘W . . I ‘. . . ' - ‘ L --. ... -j ' I COST, PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND TEST DATA - FABRIC F-Z \ Cost per square yard 83¢ Yarns per inch Warp Filling Original 26 21 After 15 launderings 27 23 Yarn number Warp Filling 11 9 Yarn twist and direction Warp Filling 82 122 Weight per square yard (ounces) Original 8.? After 5 launderings 9.9 After 15 launderings 10.7 Shrinkage in laundering (percent) Wfro Filling After 5 launderings 9.h 6.3 After 10 launderings 11.3 6.3 After 15 launderings 11.9 6.9 Breaking strength (pounds) Warp Filling Original Dry 121 78 Wet 162 lhl After 15 launderings Dry 96 76 Wet 143 luo % Change after 15 launderings Dry -2l -3 Wet -12 -l Absorbency (rate in inches) Warp Filling Original One minute test O 1/8 Five minute test l/2 1/2 After 5 launderings One minute test l-3/h l-3/h Five minute test 2-3/h 2-3/h After 15 launderings One minute test 1-3/k l-3/u Five minute test 2-3/h 2-3/h J 1) EVALUATION OF TEST DATA AND CONCLUSIONS - FABRIC F-2 Qgiginal Physical Properties Fabric F-2, a linen crash, had 20 yarns per inch in the warp and 21 in the filling. It had an in- itial weight per square yard of 8.7 ounces. A heavy yarn, number 11, was used in the warp and number 9 in the filling. The twist was comparat- ively low with 82 in the warp and 122 in the fill- ing. Dimensional Stability Toweling F-2 showed a shrinkage of 9.h in the warp and 6.3 in the filling after five launderings. The filling shrinkage is above the American Standard Minimum Performance Requirements for Institutional Textiles, L2h.2.2 which allows a maximum ef_5% in the filling and 1h% in the warp after five launder- ings. Shrinkage was progressive, particularly in the warp so that after 15 launderings, a total of 11.9% in the warp and 6.9% in the filling was re- corded. When compared with the other nine towel- ings tested, F-2 was average in filling shrinkage but had the third highest warp shrinkage which was below average for this group of towelings. BreakinggStrength Toweling F-2 had the highest dry warp strength of ‘f U A} 121 pounds. The filling dry strength was second high, the other linen toweling being first. F-2 was also second to the other linen toweling in wet strength both warp and filling directions with 162 pounds in the warp and 1&1 in the filling. Breaking strength after 15 launderings was lower as follows: dry warp 21%, dry filling 3%, wet warp 12% and wet filling 1%. However, when com- pared with the other towelings, E-2 was second in dry strength, both warp and filling, first in wet filling strength and second in set warp strength. Rate of Absorbency Fabric F-2 met the Federal Specification minimum standard of 2-3/8 inches in five minutes for cot- ton crash, nono being given for linen. When com» pared with the other towelings tested, F-2 ranked average, both warp and filling in rate of absor- bency. Towelings in the average group varied only 1/h inch in the warp and 1/2 inch in the filling. This toweling also ranked average when compared in the one minute test. Conclusions - Fabric F-2 Toweling F-2, a linen crash, fell in the middle price group of the towelings tested. f )2 "i In comparison with the other nine towelings after 15 launderings, F-2 was average in absorbency both warp and filling in one and five minute tests. After 15 launderings, breaking strength was above average in comparison with the others tested. Tow- eling F-2 was second in dry warp strength as well as dry filling strength. It was also second in wet warp strength and ranked first in wet filling stren- gth. When compared with the other towelings, F-2 was av- erage in filling shrinkage but had the third high- est warp shrinkage. Warp shrinkage was considered below average. Since absorbency and breaking strength are more im- portant in towelings than dimensional stability, it appears this toweling is a good value at a medium price. 11, [I ‘5 ' ' A's-‘8'. ' ".d”"fol:weos . . I n- 3“ng ”'11'11111. Toweling R Origina1 :Y'lt." '1' I'll" 1”,"). 313;: ‘ I 15%!" ""5"" {f' 1‘ 1‘ 1' ‘ {H'h' "1'""‘ Toweling R 15 Launderings was»; ’7'! n 'ffa'? I I I ‘1‘“, '“V‘Y’ 'Isf'm ,1 '1.” II . I ‘ ‘3 ' ' “ . ':‘:":', ': '29}, """'"I'-'I'l'v'.' H. ' .' ' ‘ s ..." g'nz'vfi'Jné l ' "'”""l"’ "1:. l ‘." III" “[2" 'll'v O V t COST, PHYSICAL PROPERTIES AND TEST DATA - FABRIC R Cost per square yard Yarns per inch Original After 15 launderings Yarn number Yarn twist and direction Weight per square yard (ounces) Origina1 After 5 launderings After 15 launderings Shrinkage in laundering (percent) After 5 launderings After 10 launderings After 15 launderings Breaking strength (pounds) Origina1 Dry Wet After 15 launderings Dry Wet % Change after 15 launderings ”.Dry Wet Absorbency (rate in inches) Original One minute test Five minute test After 5 launderings One minute test Five minute test After 15 launderings One minute test Five minute test "\ J! ‘3 88¢ Warp 65 67 Warp he warp 152 "E IE 6.2 Warp 117 153 \.l'l\J'l-lr N-F’O Filling £8 2 Filling 37 Filling 132 Filling 2.5 2.5 2.5 Filling 77 112 97 70 26 -38 Filling 1-3% l-l/h 2 321%: Lt f 1'? L4 EVALUATION OF TEST DATA AND CONCLUSIONS - FABRIC R Origina1 Physical Properties Fabric R, a ramie towel, is a member of the bast fiber group, It was finer than the linen glass toweling. Toweling R was an unbalanced fabric with 65 yarns per inch in the warp and 38 in the filling. The initial weight per square yard of h.9 ounces is 1.5 ounces less than the linen glass tow- eling. A very fine yarn was used in the warp, number h6, and a number 37 in the filling. Twist was average with 152 in the warp and 132 in the filling. Dimensional Stability Shrinkage,after 5 launderings, of 5.6%in the warp and 2.5% in the filling was well under the Americ- an Standard Minimum Porformance Requirements for Institutional Textiles, 1.24.2.2, which allows a maximum of lh% in the warp and 5% in the filling. After 15 launderings the shrinkage of 6.2% in the warp and 2.5% in the filling when compared with the other towelings tested, placed toweling R third from the top in dimensional stability of the filling and fourth from the top in warp dimen- sional stability. Thus the filling was above av- v V v ‘8 erage and the warp might be considered average in comparing dimensional stability with the other tow- elings tested. Breaking Strength Federal specifications for breaking strength are based on the grab rather than the raveled-strip method used in this study. Therefore, a direct comparison cannot be made. The standard for lin- en glass toweling, grab method, requires a mini- mum breaking strength of 70 pounds in the warp and 60 pounds in the filling. Toweling B would be fairly comparable to a linen glass toweling. Toweling R was second to the linen crash and ab- ove the linen glass toweling in initial warp dry strength with 117 pounds. It was third in init- ial filling dry strength but below the linen gl- ass toweling with 77 pounds. Toweling R again placed third in initial wet strength, both warp and filling with 153 and 112 pounds respectively. After 15 launderings, breaking strength was lower as follows: dry strength, warp 3%, warp wet st- rength h6% and filling wet strength, 38%. The filling dry strength was 26% higher. Thus towel- ing R had the highest dry breaking strength, both warp and filling with 11h and 97 pounds respective- ly. However in wet strength, after 15 launderings, toweling R dropped to third place for the warp with 1’ ,s“ 57 82 pounds and fourth in the filling, with 70 pounds breaking strength. Dry strength at this interval would be considered above average and wet strength at the top of the average group, when compared with the other towelings. Rate of Absorbency Toweling R was average in rate of absorbency for the filling. The rise in the warp direction of 2-3/h inch- es was also average when compared with the other tow- elings tested. Those in the average group had a var- iation of only l/h inch in the warp and 1/2 inch in the filling. Toweling R also ranked as average when com- pared with the other nine toweling in the enaminute test. Conclusions - Fabric R Toweling R, of ramie, fell in the middle price group of towelings tested. In comparison with the other towelings tested, it rated average in absorbency, both warp and filling, in one and five minute tests. This comparison is based upon the results obtained after 15 launderings. Toweling R differed from the other bast fiber towel- ings tested, in that after 15 launderings, it rank- ed higher in dry breaking strength, while they ran- ked higher in wet breaking strength. This tow- 3o eling had the highest dry breaking strength, both warp and filling of the towels tested. In wet strength, the two linen towelings rated higher. Toweling R had comparatively good dimensional stability, ranking in the above average group for the filling and in the average group for the warp. However, after 15 launderings, the 6.2% shrinkage in the warp would reduce the towel to approxima- tely 26 inches in length since it was purchased as a readymade towel. Toweling R would be a fairly good value as it is above average in breaking strength and average in absorbency at a medium price. At the present time, this toweling was not found on the market in yard- age, should the size after shrinkage be considered a disadvantage. y; CONCLUSI ONS 705 SUMMARY AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Conclusions and comments regarding the findings of this study take into account the fact that it was a laboratory rather than a serviceability study. Therefore, this study might be considered predicti- ve rather than conclusive. Absorbency, a significant characteristic required in toweling, was very similar in the ten towels tested. No towelingzwas considered below average in rate of absorbency in either one or five minute tests. The towelings tested did not gain apprec- iably in rate of absorbency between the fifth and the fifteenth launderings. Considerable change eccured during the first five launderings. Several of the towelings when tested for absorbency before laundering, did not absorb any moisture due to the finish used on the toweling. It might be noted that rate of absorption is sometimes considered an indication of whether moisture will spread out qu- ickly, making the towel uniformly dry or will not spread out so that it remains wet in Spots and re- latively dry in others.1 1 "Dish Towels" Consumers Research Bulletin, Vol. 31 Mar. 1953. DID-TF3; ~l 'T Contrary to popular belief, the linen towelings did not have a higher rate of absorbency than the other groups. Since laboratory tests showed relatively small differences in absorbency, less emphasis was given in the final rating to absorbency than to durability, as indicated by breaking strength. The bast fiber group consistently rated above av- erage in breaking strength. Although there was some less in strength after 15 launderings, breaking st- rength remained high in comparison with the other towelings tested. The two linen towelings in this group were considerably higher in wet strength than dry. The ramie toweling ranked above the linen in dry breaking strength after 15 launderings, but con- siderably below in wet strength. The towelings in the cotton group rated average to below average in breaking strength after 15 launderings. Two quality grades of toweling were apparent in the cotton and rayon blend group. Two of the towelings, CR-l and SR-2, which were similar in construction rated average in breaking strength, both dry and wet, after 15 launderings. The other two cotton and rayon blends, CR-3 and CR-u, rated below aver- age, both dry and wet. The rayon and cotton group was consistently lower in wet strength. The highest shrinkage occured between the first and fifth launderings. However, shrinkage was progress- ive from the fifth to the fifteenth laundering. Sh- rinkage was excessive in the direction of the warp in two of the cotton towelings. It was excessive in the direction of the filling in two rayon and cotton blends, CR-l and CR-2, and in the linen crash. Sh- rinkage is only a major consideration if it adversely affects absorbency, as was apparently the case in one of the rayon and cotton blends, or if readymade tow- els become too short for efficient use. General agreement seems to indicate a 28-30 inch len- gth as minimum for a dish towel. Seven of the towel- ings used in this study were purchased as readymade towels in order to get a sample of those on the mar- ket. Of those, four were either under the 28-30 indh length when purchased or after 15 launderings. The excessive shrinkage which occured in several of the towels would seem to indicate that it is better to buy yardage if readymade towels cannot be purchased in adequate lengths. An evaluation of the test data showed the following four towelings to be the best values in relation to cest: F-2, Stevens linen crash, R, the ramie, CR-Z, Cannon's rayon and cotton blend and 0-2, the more 73 expensive Cannon cotton crash. Cost of these tow- elings per square yard was 83¢, 88¢, 70¢ and 65¢ respectively. It is interesting to note the above towelings were in the medium price group of towelings tested. All rated average or above average in breaking strength. These towelings rated average or above average in absorbency, as did all of the towelings tested. The ramie and the Cannon cotton crash, purchased as rea- dymade towels, were approximately 26 inches in len- gth after 15 launderings. This indicates the disadv- antage of purchasing readymade towels unless length is sufficient to allow for excessive shrinkage. Although the cost of the Stevens linen glass towel- ing was greater than the other towelings, it's per- formance was excellent. If additional study on lint- ing, rate of drying and ease of stain removal were carried out, it is possible that the cost of the linen glass toweling would be further justified. We might find, however, that in actual use, all home- makers might not place the same value on each indiv- idual characteristic. Additional study needs to be done to validate the laboratory findings recorded here. A serviceability study which would involve additional launderings and wear would yield more complete information. Add- itional tests on drying time, linting and staining would also prove valuable. IUZ. NILr OF mummdxjom 0— 678nm OQN-N— to} .2." 77 102. or; o» oomafioo o. 2 2: ....n C Flag REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 26' REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Linen no longen has a monoply on the dish toweling market. Other fabrics are behgfi‘finished in such a way as to minimize linting and increase absorbency. Mixtures of fibers are being used to gain some of the desirable properties of linens. "Spun rayon, when combined with cotton and linen is claimed to ‘add absorptive and non-linting properties compar- able to all linen, but git much lower cost".1 M.B. Rays and R.E. Rogers reported a study using a toweling of AS% spun rayon, 38% cotton and 17% linen.2 Two laundry procedures were used. Seven of twenty towels laundered by the more strenuous method had to be discarded at 39 out of 50 periods. The conclusions drawn as a result of this study were that rayon in high percentages (”5%) is not suitable for a fabric such as dish toweling, which needs to be laundered frequently and by a method for soiled clothes. 1 Better Buymanship Bulletin No.2, Household Finance Corp. and Subsidiaries, p. 35 2 ~Hays, M.B. and Rogers, R.E. "Serviceability of a Dish Towel Fabric", Rayon Textile Monthly, Vol. 23 19h2. Pp- 289-290 77 Scheithauer has stated that the launderability of such textiles as tablecloths, handkerchiefs and towels made from two-thirds cotton and one-third rayon was satisfactory, although the shrinkage was greater than with all cotton fabrics.1 Ginter reported a study in which rayon absorbed the most moisture after one and fifty launderings. Af- ter fifty launderings, cotton ranked the lowest of four groups.2 A previous study from the University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, included an all cotton, all linen and a group of mixtures of fib- ers.3 Remarks were, that "While linen is generally claimed to be the most absorptive fiber, in this st- udy, cotton was found to be superior to linen in the amount of water absorbed. Mixed fiber towels and toweling ranged widely, being below cotton and linen in most cases". Considered individually, the nest absorptive piece was of novelty construction, having loosely twisted yarns in the filling and tightly twisted yarns in the warp. l Scheithauer, Mischgewebe fur Waschestoffe "Mixed Textile Fabrics for Wash Material", Spinner U Weber 55(20) 1-8, illus. 1937 2 Ginter, Adella, "A Serviceability Study on Kitch- en Towelings of Various Fiber Content", Missouri Agri. Exp. Sta. Research Bul. No. tag, August IQHQ 3 Bennett, N.G. & Keeney P.E., "A Study of Towels and Toweling of Consumer Use", Univ. of Missouri Agri. Exp. Sta. Bul. Ne.t52, Aug. 19u2, pp. 18-32 80 Petzel found that cotton generally took up more moisture than linen during the early part of the absorption period.1 However, when the towel absor- bed to the point of saturation, linen took up more moisture. Linen had the advantage of increased ab- sorbency with increasing laundering up to a point. Later, as the fabric decreased in weight, absorben- cy decreased. Since tests showed absorbency differed little, Con- sumer's Research felt strength was the most import- ant characteristic.2 Breaking strength in their op- inion should not be less than 50 pounds per inch in the warp and to in the filling. They found no re- lationship between the kind of fabric (fiber) and the strength of the towel. Bennett and Keeney also stated that as a whole, there was a wide range in the strength of linen as well as cotton.3 This indicates fiber is not a dependable guarantee of strength and serviceability. Neither can thread count be used as an indication of durab- ility, due to variation in size of yarns. Breaking strength seems to depend upon fiber content, yarn 1 Petzel, Florence E. "Absorption of Water by and Drying of Untreated, Laundored, and Used and Laund- ered Cotton and Linen Toweling", American destuff Reporter, k6:569, 1957 2 "Dish Towels", Consumer Research BulL, 31:27-29 March 1953 3 Bennett & Keeney, loc. cit. 37 size and amount of twist as well as the number of yarns to the inch. Bennett and Keeney further stated that the wide variation in strength in each fiber group indicat- es good and poor materials in all groups.1 They also found that price was no indication of durabil- ity or strength. Potzel reported that after repeated launderings, cotton decreased relatively little in breaking strength.2 Linen towelings in her study had the dis» advantage of decreasing mere markedly in breaking strength than cotton as a result of laundering and use. Cranor and Dorsey also reported that at the end of eight months wear in a home management practice house, the cheaper linen had the most holes and 3 worn places. The more expensive linen was some- what worn, but not so badly. The cotton and lin- en toweling and the all cotton showed almost no signs of broken or thin threads at the end of ei- ght months wear. Students commented that they dis- liked the cotton and cotton and linen towelings. They claimed they did not absorb moisture, left lint 1 Bennett & Keeney, loc. ci . Petzel, loc. cit. 3 Cranor, R.T. & Dorsey, I.B., "Wearing Tests of Kitchen Toweling", Journal of Home Economics, May 1925 pp. 25h-259 5’1. on the dishes, lacked softness, were difficult to launder and looked badly. There was no complaint against the linen except that the less expensive one left lint. In regard to shrinkage, Bennett and Keeney repert- ed that only 8 out of 53 towelings tested shrank appreciably.1 Considered individually, there was very little shrinkage. Materials of linen had less tendency toward shrinkage. In the majority of cases, the small amount of shrinkage would not be detrimen- tal to appearance or service. Standards were not available for all types of tow- elings tested. When applicable standards were fou- nd, they were used as a guide in the evaluation. Standards for fabrics containing more than 50% by weight of rayon or acetate or both, including combination of these fibers with any other fiber natural or man-made to be used for dish toweling, include the following:2 Breaking strength in the ground weave 35 pounds Shrinkage maximum - 3% Federal Specifications for all cotton crash, bleach- ed are as follows:3 l 2 American Standard Minimum Requirements for Rayon and Acetate Fabrics, American American Standard Asse., N.Y. Bennett & Keeney, lec. cit. 3 F‘deral Specification DDD-T-Slla, Aug. 1955 /"h 95 Weight per square yard, minimum - 5.8 ounces Yarns per inch; minimum - Warp 38, filling 30 Breaking strength, minimum (grab method) - warp 50, filling to Rate of absorbency - 6 centimeters in 5 minutes Federal Specifications for cotton toweling to be used for glass wear include the following: Weight per square yard, minimum - 5.1 ounces Yarns per inch, minimum - warp 5h, filling 38 Breaking strength, minimum (grab method) - warp 50, filling 50 Federal Specifications for linen glass toweling include the following:1 Weight per square yard, minimum - 7.8 ounces Width - 16 inches Number of yarns per inch, minimum - Warp 2h, filling 19 Breaking strength minimum (grab meghod) - warp 70, filling 0 American Standard Minimum Performance Requirements for Institutional Textiles include the fellewing:i Dish towels - L24.2.2 Weight per square yard, minimum - 5.63 ounces Breaking strength, minimum (grab method),-Wet and dry, warp 50 filling to Shrinkgge (after 5 launderings)- warp 1h£filling 5% 1 Federal Specification DDD-T1563a,_August 1955 if Glass Towels L24.2.3 Weight per square yard, minimum - 5.02 ounces Breaking strength, minimum (grab method), wet and dry - warp 50, filling to Shrinkage (after 5 launderings) - warp lu%, filling 5% "Ramie, problem.child ef the fiber family, was in- troduced into Europe from the Orient in 1814.5".1 Ramie is one of the eldest textiles used by the human race and had been used for several thousands of years in the Orient. It is not definitely known whether claims that Ramie was used along with linen in ancient Egypt are true. Ramie is also known as Rhea or China Grass.2 China grass is the commercial name used to designate the decorticated material as it is exported from China. Ramie is regarded as the strongest of all the bast fibers (linen, hemp, jute) and in fact the strongest of all vegetable fibers. Ramie's strength is the least affected by moisture and it is stronger wet than dry. The fiber is exceptionally white and has a high luster, excelling linen. Ramie is highly resistant to abrasion, is resistant to mold or mil- l Dall, Wm. B. "Ramie Has Tantalized Textile Men for One Hundred Years" Textile World, Dec. lgus p.93 2 Mauersberger, H.R. Matthew's Textile Fibers. New York (5th ed.) pp. 3h5r35h 5’5 dew, and when properly processed will not shrink er stretch. Brittleness is one of the principal objections to the fiber. It is stiff and low in resiliency, hence wrinkles easily. It also tends to break if 1 folded repeatedly in the same place. In the United States, ramie is grown in the EVer- glades region of Florida. Today, Newport Indust- ries Inc. are the world's largest single producer. One-third of their production is sold to domestic mills in staple form. The rest is exported to mills in Europe and Japan as raw fiber. At present, the Japanese are the largest ramie spinners, Germany ranks second and France third. Beautiful fabrics have been produced by hand con- trolled precesses used in the Orient. However, ma- chine precesses have had difficulty establishing themselves. Ramie is difficult to decorticate or to degum. Rotting has not been successful as it has for flax. The chief reason for limited produ- ction is the need for an efficient mechanical decor- ticater. Ramie fibers are very long. If handled in their 1 Holden, N. and Sadler, J. Textiles. New York (1955) pp. 26-27 5:) .3) original length, flax spinning machinery would be required, of which virtually none exists in the United States. The degummed fiber produced in this country is used in staple form primarily in blends with nylon, cotton, viscose and mohair for furniture and automobile upholstry. The main use of ramie is in fabrics resembling linen, such as suiting, shirting, tablecloths, napkins and hand- kerchiefs. 86 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY American Standard Minimum Performance Requirements for InstitutionalTextiIes, AmeriEan Standards Asso.:Rew York American Stangggd Minimum Requirements for Rayon gndAcgtate FabrICs,‘American Standard Asso. Inc., New York A.S.T.M. Standards on Textile Materials, American Sociegy for Testing Material, Philadelphia, Pa. 19 7 Bennett, N. G. and Keeney P. E., "A Study of Towels and Toweling of Consumer Use", Univ. ef Missouri A‘grie Exp. Stae Bule N.e (4:52, Ange 1914.2, 1313.18-32 Better Buymanship Bulletin Ne. 2, Household Finance Corp. and Subsidiaries, p. 35 Coles, Jessie V., "Consumer Demand in Missouri for Selected Articles of Household Textiles", Miss- ouri Exp. Sta. Bul. 301, 1939, pp. Al-u3 Consumer Research BulletinL_"Dish Towels", 31:27-29 March 1953 Cranor, R. T. and Dorsey, I. E., "Wearing Tests of Kitchen Toweling", Journal of Home EconomicsL May 1925. pp. zSu-ZSQ Dall, Wm. B., "Ramie Has Tantalized Textile Men for One Hundred Years" Tgxtile World, Dec. l9h5 p.93 Federal Specification DDD-T-5lla, "Cotton Crash and Cotton and Linen Mixed crssa Towels", Aug. 1955 Federal Specification DDD-T9536a, "Linen Glass Towel- 15;“, Aug. 1959’ Ginter, Adella, "A Serviceability Study on Kitchen Towelings of Various Fiber Content", Missouri Agri. Exp. Sta. Research Bul. No. RAB, Aug. I9h9 Good Housekeeping, "A Good Dish Towel" 131:175, Oct. 1990 Hays, M. B. and Rogers, R. E. "Serviceability of a Dish Towel Fabric", Rayon Textile Monthly; Vol. 23. 19h2 pp- 289-290 Holden N. and Sadler J., TgxtilesL_MacMillan Co., New York (1955) pp. 26-2 Heye, Hohn Staple Cotton Fabrics. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc. New York 191;.2w Mauersberger, H. R. Matthew's Textile Fibers. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York (5th ed.) pp.3h5-35h Petzel, Elorence E. "Absorption of Water by and Dry- ing of Untreated, Laundered, and Used and Laund- ered Cotton and Linen Toweling", American Dyestuff Reporter h6z569, 1957 'IIIIIIIIIIII‘I‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ’ 31293022113199