Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CHAPTER 10
10.1 INTRODUCTION
10.2.1 Materials
The materials used in this study and treatments to which they were
subjected to are described in sections 3.1.2.3 (single jersey fabric), 3.1.3
(chemicals used for pretreatment), 3.1.5 (dyes) and 3.1.4 (chemicals used for
dyeing). Antioxidants and ultraviolet absorbers used were listed in section
3.1.7 and fastness chemicals in section 3.1.10 of Chapter 3.
10.2.2 Methods
results of vitamin C (ORAC value 12.5) than cafeic acid (ORAC value 9.5)
and gallic acid (ORAC value 11.7).
C.I. Reactive Yellow 84 C.I. Reactive Red 22 C.I. Reactive Blue 198
Treatment
Exhaust Pad-dry- cure Exhaust Pad- dry- cure Exhaust Pad- dry- cure
Without Treatment 2.76 2.76 6.35 6.35 5.32 5.32
Phenyl salicylate + Vitamin C 1.23 1.25 4.14 3.81 2.43 2.45
Benzophenone + Vitamin C 1.41 1.38 3.16 2.73 2.21 2.09
Phenyl salicylate + Gallic acid 1.61 1.72 4.54 4.34 2.97 2.87
Benzophenone + Gallic acid 1.38 1.26 4.12 3.98 3.45 3.23
Phenyl salicylate + Cafeic acid 1.55 1.61 4.65 4.43 3.12 3.19
Benzophenone + Cafeic acid 1.67 1.73 4.49 4.35 2.87 3.24
170
The ANOVA test for the chemical treatments for each three
samples done and found that exhaust and pad-dry-cure shows (p-value 0.07 <
0.05) not significant. The chemical treatments with antioxidant and ultraviolet
-06
absorbers are (p-value 1.46 E > 0.05) significantly different with 95%
confidence level.
Figure 10.1 Light fastness (40 AFU) of C.I. Reactive Yellow 84 with
chemical treatment
Figure 10.1 shows that light fastness results of C.I. Reactive Yellow
84 without treatment and after chemical treatment with exhaust and pad-dry-
cure methods. The light fastness after 40 AFU light exposure is measured as
dE with computer colour matching.
The ANOVA test for the yellow dyed sample helps to confirm the
chemical treatments by exhaust and pad-dry-cure shows (p-value 0.63 > 0.05)
that the difference are not significant. The chemical treatments with
-06
antioxidant and ultraviolet absorbers are (p-value 1.46 E < 0.05)
significantly different with 95% confidence level.
172
Figure 10.2 Light fastness (40 AFU) of C.I. Reactive Red 22 with
chemical treatment
Figure 10.2 shows that light fastness of C.I. Reactive Red 22 after
chemical treatment. The light fastness after 40 AFU light fading is measured
as dE with computer colour matching. The colour difference is measured by
keeping dyed sample as standard and light faded samples as batch. Colour
difference of dyed sample after 40 AFU light fading is found to be dE 6.35,
for phenyl salicylate + vitamin C treated sample dE is 4.14, for benzophenone
+ vitamin C treated sample dE is 3.16, for phenyl salicylate + gallic acid
treated sample dE is 4.54, for benzophenone + gallic acid treated sample dE is
4.12, for phenyl salicylate + cafeic acid treated sample dE is 4.65 and for
benzophenone + cafeic treated sample dE is 4.49.
The ANOVA test for the Red dyed sample helps to confirm the
chemical treatments by exhaust and pad-dry-cure shows (p-value 0.07 > 0.05)
that the difference due to dyeing method are not significant. The chemical
-06
treatments with antioxidant and ultraviolet absorbers are (p-value 1 E <
0.05) significantly different from the sample tested without chemical with
95% confidence level. Figure 10.3 shows that light fastness of C.I. Reactive
Blue 198 after chemical treatment. The light fading after 40 AFU is measured
as dE with computer colour matching. The colour difference is measured by
keeping dyed sample as standard and light faded sample as batch. Colour
difference of dyed sample after 40 AFU light fading is found to be dE 5.32,
for phenyl salicylate + vitamin C treated sample dE is 2.43, for benzophenone
+ vitamin C treated sample dE is 2.21, for phenyl salicylate + gallic acid
treated sample dE is 2.97, for benzophenone + gallic acid treated sample dE
is 3.45, for phenyl salicylate + cafeic acid treated sample dE is 3.12, and for
benzophenone + cafeic treated sample dE is 2.87.
Figure 10.3 Light fastness (40 AFU) of C.I. Reactive Blue 198 with
chemical treatment
174
The ANOVA test for the Blue dyed sample helps to confirm the
chemical treatments by exhaust and pad-dry-cure shows (p-value 0.96 > 0.05)
not significant effect on light fastness. The light fastness results of the
chemical treated fabrics with antioxidant and ultraviolet absorbers are (p-
value 5.9 E -06 < 0.05) significantly different against without chemical treated
fabric with 95% confidence level.
Exhaust Pad-Dry-Cure
Treatment on Reactive Yellow
84 dyed sample Before After Before After
wash wash wash wash
without treatment 2.76 3.12 2.76 3.12
Phenyl salicylate +Vitamin C 1.23 2.21 1.25 1.78
Benzophenone+ Vitamin C 1.41 1.93 1.38 1.61
Phenyl salicylate +Gallic acid 1.61 2.32 1.72 1.89
Benzophenone+Gallic acid 1.38 2.35 1.26 1.92
Phenyl salicylate+Cafeic acid 1.55 2.35 1.61 1.75
Benzophenone +Cafeic acid 1.67 2.15 1.73 2.07
177
Exhaust Pad-Dry-Cure
Treatment on Reactive Red 22
Before After Before After
dyed sample
wash wash wash wash
without treatment 6.35 7.45 6.35 7.45
Phenyl salicylate +Vitamin C 4.34 5.28 4.41 4.87
Benzophenone+ Vitamin C 3.96 4.99 3.73 4.37
Phenyl salicylate +Gallic acid 4.54 5.42 4.34 4.86
Benzophenone+Gallic acid 4.12 5.37 3.98 4.64
Phenyl salicylate+Cafeic acid 4.65 5.12 4.43 4.78
Benzophenone +Cafeic acid 4.49 4.81 4.35 4.98
Exhaust Pad-Dry-Cure
Treatment on Reactive Blue
198 dyed sample Before After Before After
wash wash wash wash
without treatment 5.32 6.43 5.32 6.43
Phenyl salicylate +Vitamin C 2.43 4.12 2.45 2.98
Benzophenone+Vitamin C 2.21 3.98 2.09 2.72
Phenyl salicylate +Gallic acid 2.97 4.42 2.87 3.34
Benzophenone+Gallic acid 3.45 4.34 3.23 3.91
Phenyl salicylate+Cafeic acid 3.12 4.22 3.19 3.82
Benzophenone +Cafeic acid 2.87 4.08 2.65 3.42
178
Figure 10.7 and Table 10.4 show the effect of chemical treatment
on dry rubbing fastness. The chemical treatment does not give any significant
influence on dry rubbing fastness. The dry rubbing fastness is slightly
181
Figure 10.8 and Table 10.5 show the effect of wet rubbing fastness
by chemical treatment. The Exhaust method of chemical treatment does not
improve the wet rubbing. But, the pad-dry-cure method with acrylic binder
gives 0.5 rating improvement in wet rubbing fastness. It is due to the bonding
of surface dyes by binding chemicals.
the colour fading is found similar for grey, brown and olive colour dyed
fabric. The best light fastness improvement in individual chemical application
was observed with Vitamin C treatment.
10.4 CONCLUSION