appendices - inflibnetshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/9068/16/16_appendices.pdf · does...

Appendices

Appendix I

xix

APPENDIX I

PATENTS IN ULTRASONIC WASHING The patents awarded to washing machines using high frequency ultrasonic waves were broadly classified into three types. Some of these Japanese and US patents are very briefly as follows: TYPE I: PATENTS FOR ULTRASONIC WASHING MACHINES WITH NO PULSATOR OR

AGITATOR ONLY SOUND WAVES DO THE CLEANING • Japanese Patent Laid –open Publication No. Sho 62-189089 discloses a washer which

does not incorporate any pulsator but instead comprises a bubble generator and an ultrasonic oscillator. With this washer cleaning operation takes place in a rather static manner by virtue of a combined action of air bubbles and the ultrasound.

• JP Patent No. JP 2003 053084 A and JP 2002 191892- An Ultrasonic washing machine to be operated as a hand held device. It has an opening at the tip section from where ultrasonic beam is emitted. Cleaning liquid may be previously applied to the textile product or could be part of ultrasonic cleaning apparatus. A possible reason for non commercialization of this product could be that in order to produce real effects the sound energy must be generated within the liquid itself. This is because the transfer of sound energy from the air into a liquid is not an efficient process.

• A similar patent, US Patent No. 6,493,289 “Ultrasonic cleaning machine” was awarded for a portable ultrasonic device for domestic use to clean fabric or textile goods, which has power consumption of 8 W or less.

• US patent no: 4,727,734 – “Ultrasonic washing machine” This ultrasonic washing machine has air bubble supply device and ultrasonic generator. It is claimed that stains clinging to the fabric surface are efficiently removed.

• US patent No. 4,907,611 – “Ultrasonic washing machine”. The novelty of this patent is that in ultrasonic washing machine provision is made to remove the dissolved air and other gasses from washing liquid thereby enhancing cavitations in the washing bath when ultrasonic wave is radiated.

Appendix I

xx

• US Patent Nos. 5,119,840 & 5,203,362 – “Ultrasonic oscillating device and ultrasonic washing apparatus using the same”. These patents describe the construction features of the machine.

• US patent no: 5,186,389 – “Spray tube ultrasonic washing apparatus”. The patent claims that cavitation can be formed in the desecrated washing liquid and washing can be performed at an increased efficiency.

• US patent No: 5,432,969: “Washing method using low frequency oscillation”. This patent was awarded to L.G. electronics Inc. This invention eliminates the use of pulsator therefore it is possible to considerably reduce the twisting and entanglement of clothes during washing. It claims to considerably reduce the electric power consumption and recommends use of low frequency waves for washing. Such a product is however not yet commercially available.

• A patent was also awarded to Honda Electronic Company Ltd US Patent 5,656,095 & 5656096 for an ultrasonic washing apparatus using continuous high frequency and intermittent low frequency ultrasonic waves. A combination of the two improves washing performance. Although the apparatus is not for textile/garment cleaning.

• US Patent No. 6,219,871 – “Washing apparatus and method utilizing flexible container to improve cleaning efficiency and minimize space occupancy”. It does not require specified area for laundry facilities. It is achieved by replacing the heavy bulky parts of currently popular washing machines with a light flexible bag. The cleaning ability of water is enhanced by built in ionic processing of water thereby reducing the required amount of detergent. The cavitation produced by multi-frequency washing action further enhances washing ability.

• US Patent No. 6,266,836 “Process and device for continuous ultrasonic washing of textile” A process and apparatus for ultrasonic cleaning of materials in which vibrating plates are used in close contact with a material to be cleaned. The material is placed in a shallow liquid and the vibrator of the plates eliminates dirt or contaminating substances from the material by cavitation of the liquid. (www.freepatentsonline.com).

Appendix I

xxi

• The Fraunhofer Technology Center in Hialeah, Florida a subsidiary of Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, Germany wanted to work for development of a prototype model of a continuous flow washing system for garment cleaning and was looking for a financial partner. No further development has been reported since (National Clothesline, March, 1998, www.natclo.com).

• Department of Energy, Kansas City USA worked in collaboration with Garment Care Inc. and reported development of a device for washing fabric in rolls placed on a conveyor belt Ultrasonic energy was applied through flexible vibrating plates in direct contact with material to be washed (Report No.-DE-ACO4-76-DPOO613 for the United States Department of Energy under the title: Small Business Initiative-Cooperative Research and Development Agreement.KCP-94-1006, An Environmentally Conscious Approach to Clothes Maintenance, and was finalized by the DOE in December, 1995). No further development has been reported (www.p2pays.org).

TYPE II: PATENTS FOR ULTRASONIC ASSISTED WASHING MACHINES • Japanese Patent Laid –open Publication No. Hei 2- 60694 describes a washer

designed to improve the rinsing efficiency by way of feeding air bubbles into the washer tub during rinsing process. This washer does not use the air bubbles during washing process.

• US patent no: 5,253,380 & 5,295,373 – “Washing machine with a bubble generator and method of laundering with use of air bubbles”. In these it is claimed that predetermined air bubbles are supplied into the washer for efficient washing.

• US patent No. 5,272,892 – “Control system for washing machine”. The washing machine is provided with a mechanism to generate acoustic vibrations. With the help of this mechanism it will be possible to regulate the level of wash fluid in the machine depending upon the laundry load.

• US patent No. 5,309,739 – “Ultrasonic clothes washing machine containing a tourmaline ceramic coating”. A tourmaline ceramic coating is applied to the outer

Appendix I

xxii

bottom surface of the washing tub or/ and inner surface of the water container for reacting with wash water to form hydroxyl ions by which surface tension of water is reduced. An ultrasonic vibrator is mounted on the water container across from the coating to generate waves in the water to accelerate the reaction between the coating and wash water.

• US patent Nos. 5,421,174 & 5,211,689 also claim that the use of water activating materials such as tourmaline ceramic coating or tiles or beads help in improving the washing efficiency. In all these machines ultrasonic vibrators are mounted in the machine.

• US patent no: 5,794,290 – “Method and apparatus for improving the washing ability of wash water in a washing machine”. This patent claims that use of ceramic material in water enhances the washing ability of the water and reduces or dispenses with the need for a detergent in the water.

• US patent No: 5,822,819 – “ultrasonic water level detection for use in a washing machine”. This patent describes the use of ultrasonic transceiver in washing machine to assure optimum operating water level for different laundry loads to be washed.

TYPE III: PATENTS FOR WASHING MACHINES WITH BUBBLE TECHNOLOGY FOR

INTRODUCTION OF AIR BUBBLES OR DEGASSING OF THE CLEANING MEDIUM FOR

BETTER CLEANING • Japanese Patent Laid – open Publication No. Sho 63-139597 involves a washer

wherein a small amount of wash fluid is continuously drained from washer tub and then fed back to the washer tub with a volume of air. This air is converted into air bubbles. In this way air bubbles are continuously fed during washing operation.

• Japanese Patent Laid – open Publication No. Hei 2-60693 offers washer wherein the amount of air bubbles varies in proportion to the quantity of laundry articles.

• Japanese Patent Laid – open Publication No. Hei- 2-60692 describes a washer of the type comprising a conventional pulsator rotatable in forward and reverse direction with a fixed pause period and a bubble generator for feeding bulk of air at a moment when the pulsator ceases to rotate.

Appendix I

xxiii

• US patent No. 5,307,649; 5,295,373; 5,253, 380: “Washing machine with bubble generator” & “Washing machine with a bubble generator and method of laundering with use of air bubbles”. These patents describe a horizontal/rotary washing machine which has a bubble generator to supply predetermined amount of air bubbles to a washer tub in a batch wise manner at such time intervals as to allow said amount of air bubbles supplied in a preceding batch to be substantially collapsed before next supply of said air bubbles commences.

Appendix II

xxiv

APPENDIX II

SUMMARY OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS IN ACOUSTICS AND ULTRASONIC (PRIOR TO 1950’S)

1822 Colladen used underwater bell to calculate the speed of sound in waters of Lake Geneva. 1830 Savart developed large, toothed wheel to generate very high frequencies. 1842 Magnetostrictive effect discovered by Joule 1845 Stokes investigated effect of viscosity on attenuation. 1860 Tyndall developed the sensitive flame to detect high frequency waves. 1866 Kundt used dust figures in a tube to measure sound velocity. 1876 Galton invented the ultrasonic whistle. 1877 Rayleigh's "Theory of Sound" laid foundation for modern acoustics. 1880 Curie brothers discovered the piezoelectric effect. 1890 Koenig, studying audibility limits, produced vibrations up to 90,000 Hz. 1903 Lebedev & coworkers developed complete ultrasonic system to study absorption of waves. 1912 Sinking of Titanic led to proposals on use of acoustic waves to detect icebergs. 1912 Richardson files first patent for an underwater echo ranging sonar. 1914 Fessenden built first working sonar system in US which could detect icebergs two miles away. 1915 Langevin originated modern science of ultrasonics through work on the"Hydrophone" for

submarine detection. 1921 Cady discovered the quartz stabilized oscillator. 1922 Hartmann developed the air-jet ultrasonic generator. 1925 Pierce developed the ultrasonic interferometer 1926 Boyle &Lehmann discovered the effect of bubbles and cavitation in liquids by ultrasound. 1927 Wood and Loomis described effects of intense ultrasound. 1928 Pierce developed the magnetostrictive transducer. 1928 Herzfeld &Rice developed molecular theory for dispersion and absorption of sound in gases 1928 Sokolov proposed use of ultrasound for flaw detection 1930 Debye and Sears and Lucas and Biquard discover diffraction of light by ultrasound. 1930 Harvey reported on the physical, chemical, and biological effects of ultrasound in macromolecules,

microorganisms and cells 1931 Mulhauser obtained a patent for using two ultrasonic transducers to detect flaws in solids. 1937 Sokolov invented an ultrasonic image tube. 1938 Pierce and Griffin detect the ultrasonic cries of bats. 1939 Pohlman investigated the therapeutic uses of ultrasonic’s. 1940 Firestone, in the US & Sproule, in Britain, discovered ultrasonic pulse-echo metal-flaw detection. 1940 Sonar extensively developed and used to detect submarines. 1941 "Reflectoscopes" extensively developed for non-destructive metal testing 1942 Dussik brothers made first attempt at medical imaging with ultrasound. 1944 Lynn and Putnam used ultrasound waves to destroy brain tissue of animals. 1945 Newer piezoelectric ceramics such as barium titanate discovered. 1945 Start of the development of power ultrasonic processes. 1948 Start of extensive study of ultrasonic medical imaging in the United States and Japan 1954 Jaffe discovered the new piezoelectric ceramics lead titanate-zirconate

Appendix III

xxv

APPENDIX III

COMPOSITION AND PREPARATION OF STANDARD SOILING MIXTURE AS PER IS: 5785 (PART IV)-2005

Constituents of Standard Soiling Mixture a) Coconut Oil (refined and bleached) 9.0g b) Coconut oil fatty acids (distilled) 4.5g c) Refined mineral oil 1.37g d) Lanolin (anhydrous) .9g e) A homogeneous stable colloidal suspension of graphite(approx.

10% graphite by mass) in refined mineral oil 3.5g f) Carbon tetrachloride (commercial grade) To make 1000ml Preparation of Soiling Mixture Weigh above given ingredients from a to c in a suitable container. A portion of carbon tetrachloride is added to make it into a homogeneous liquid. Rest of the solvent is added to make up the volume to 1 l. Mixture is shaken well and stored in air tight container.

Appendix IV

xxvi

APPENDIX IV

TABLE I: TEST METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF DETERGENT FORMULATIONS S.NO. PROPERTY

TESTED TEST METHOD THEORY AND

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

COMPOSITION 1. pH Method adopted from IS:4955:2001 The alkaline pH improves

loosening of soils; it neutralizes the acidic sebum fatty soils thereby making the detergent more effective.

2 ALKALINITY IS: 4955:2001 [Annex F clause 8.1& Table1 Sl. No. (iv)] 0.5g of detergent powder was weighed and put into 100 mL beaker Distilled water was added to make it 1% solution. The beaker with 1% solution was placed on the plate such that electrode of the pH meter was dipping in it. pHmeter was switched on and drop by drop 0.1N Hydrochloric acid was added from a burette till the reading on pHmeter dropped to 8.While adding HCl the solution was stirred continuously. The amount of 0.1N HCl used to bring down the pH to 8 was noted. Mean of two replicate readings gave active (reserve) alkalinity expressed as amount in ml of 0.1N hydrochloric acid. Total Alkalinity as sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) was also calculated 4g of sample was weighed and dissolved in 1l of water. A50 ml aliquot is titrated with 0.1N HCl, first in presence of phenolphthalein till the pink color was discharged and then in the presence of methyl orange till the orange tint was produced. %Sodium Hydroxide = (x-2y)vol. of acid x 0.40 x aliquot x 100 % Sodium Carbonate =2 y x N of acid x 0.053 x aliquot x 100/Wt. Where x = Total Vol. of 0.1n HCl used y = Vol. of acid used in the second titration

Total Alkalinity gives an idea about the buffering capacity of the detergent so that the pH of the wash liquor remains in optimum detergency range. Buffering capacity is a measure of the ability of the liquid to resist change of pH. ( www.lanfaxlabs.com) Detergents derive their buffering capacity from hydroxide, carbonate and bicarbonate. Sodium carbonate (washing soda), sodium bi-carbonate (baking soda) and sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) are commonly used in detergents to soften the water and increase the pH (grease, fats and oily contaminant dissolve well in highly alkaline liquids). Phosphates, borates and silicates present in laundry detergents can also affect total alkalinity (Smith, 1963).

3 NATURE OF SURFACE ACTIVE AGENT

Ionic nature of various detergents was determined as per i) Anionic – 5ml of the sample solution (4g/l) was taken in a test tube and dil. HCl acid was added to it to adjust pH to 4-5.About 4-5 drops of methylene blue and 5ml of chloroform were added and the contents

To test for active compound the detergent/ Surfactant is treated with a colored reagent of the opposite ionogenic type, the aqueous mixture is

Appendix IV

xxvii

S.NO. PROPERTY TESTED

TEST METHOD THEORY AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

were shaken. A blue coloration of the chloroform layer indicated the presence of an anionic compound. ii) Cationic – 10 ml of the sample solution (4g/l) was taken in a test tube and dil. Soda ash solution was added to it so that the pH was 9. Then, 2-3 drops of bromophenol blue indicator and 5ml of chloroform were added and the contents were shaken. A blue violet coloration of the chloroform layer indicated the presence of a cationic compound. iii) Non -Ionic – 10 ml of the sample solution (4g/l) was taken, to this 5ml of barium chloride reagent was added and the contents were shaken(solution should be filtered, if precipitate forms). A few ml of phosphomolybidic acid solution was added to the liquid and boiled. A greenish yellow precipitate which remains unchanged on boiling indicated presence of non ionic compound. (Rosen & Goldsmith, 1960, cited from Bombay Textile Research Association [BTRA] Chemical Testing Manual, Table 6.1 Ch.6-Testing of dyes, chemicals and auxiliaries: Printing, Ed. Patel, S. K.) Based on BS: 3762(Part 2)- 1989 Analysis of Formulated Detergents, Qualitative Test Methods.

shaken with a non-polar liquid such as chloroform. The reagent should be such that its salts with inorganic ions are not extracted by the solvent, but its salts with surface active agents, containing a hydrophobic group in each molecule will be readily extracted; the appearance of the colored molecule in the organic layer shows the presence of a surface active agent (Smith, 1963; Zoller,2007).

4 TOTAL ACTIVE MATTER (%MASS)

Tested as per IS: 4955:2001[Annex B, Clause8.1, and Table1, Sl No. (i)]. A solution of the anionic detergent with methylene blue was shaken with chloroform, which dissolves the methylene blue salt of the detergent. The mixture was titrated with a cationic active agent which, after it has combined with all the free anionic detergent, begins to displace methylene blue from the salt. The end point was taken when sufficient methylene blue had been displaced into the aqueous layer to produce phases of equal color intensity. Note: As the reaction is not stoichiometric, it is essential to carry out standardization using a known anionic detergent similar to the unknown. Anionic active = matter(%mass)

342 xV2x M2 x5 m2

where 342 = molecular mass of sodium alkyl benzene sulphonate taken for calculation V2 = volume in ml of benzethonium chloride solution added M2 = molarity of benzethonium chloride solution m2 = mass in gm of sample taken Note: Hypochlorites and sulphites, if present interfere with the detection of end point and are destroyed with the addition of ferrous sulphate and hydrogen peroxide.

Total active matter is directly related to cleaning efficiency. Higher % of active ingredient would improve detergency and give good value for money

Appendix IV

xxviii



ADDITIVES 5. PRESENCE OF

OXIDIZING AGENTS

Method adopted from IS: 286-1978 2gm of sample detergent was dissolved in 100 ml of 5%potassium iodide containing 2ml starch solution (3gm starch in 100ml water, boiled for 5minute and cooled). To this 10 ml of dilute sulphuric acid (1:4 by volume) was added and stirred. A blue solution denotes presence of oxidizing agent.

Tests were conducted to check for presence of oxidizers as they assist in cleaning by means of bleaching, disinfectants and help in breaking down organic compounds (Bhattacharya, 2009)

6. PRESENCE OF BORATE

Presence of borate in detergent formulation was checked as per IS-286-1978. The test comprised of a qualitative test, flame test and test with silver nitrate. Qualitative Test In this method, turmeric test paper was wetted by dipping in 0.2% of detergent test solution acidified with dilute Hydrochloric acid (1:4 by volume) and dried at 100°C. Presence of borate or perborate is indicated if the paper turns brick red on drying in air. To determine whether the coloration was due to per borate, test for presence of oxidizing agent described previously was done. A blue solution denotes presence of oxidizing agent which, with a positive turmeric test, confirms the presence of perborate. None of the detergents tested had borate, therefore flame test and silver nitrate tests were not done.

Use of borates and per borates leads to improved hard water detergency of soiled cotton. It inhibits the precipitation of anionic surfactant in solutions containing calcium. Perborate bleaches are less effective in low temperature (Floyd, 2001) and therefore other bleaching agents are often used.

7. PRESENCE OF PEROXY COMPOUNDS

5ml of the test solution (0.5%) of selected brand of detergents were mixed with 1ml of sulphuric acid solution (2.5mol/L) and 1ml of potassium titanium oxalate solution (5g/l). A yellow or orange color indicates the presence of peroxy compound. (BTRA Chemical Testing Manual. Based on BS: 3762(Part 2)- 1989 Analysis of Formulated Detergents, Qualitative Test Methods).

Most common bleaching agents are based on Hydrogen Peroxide which is converted by alkaline medium to the active intermediate H2O2 anion. H2O2 + OH � H2O + HO2 The perdoxyl anion (HO2) oxidizes bleachable soils and stains (Bhattacharya, 2001)

8 PRESENCE OF ACTIVE OXYGEN

5gm of detergent was dissolved in 500 ml of water. A 100ml aliquot of this solution was taken in 300ml conical beaker, 20ml of 20% sulphuric acid was added and immediately titrated with N/10 potassium permanganate

%Available oxygen = A x N x 0.8 x 5 W Where N is the normality of the solution and W is the weight of the original sample (Rosen & Goldsmith, 1960 cf BTRA Chemical Testing Manual, 1985).

Chemical bleaching removes non washable colored soils and stains by oxidative decomposition of the chromophoric systems rendering them colorless. % active oxygen is an indicator of bleaching efficacy of respective detergent

Appendix IV

xxix



9 PRESENCE OF FLORESCENT BRIGHTENING AGENTS

2gm of the detergent sample was dissolved or dispersed in 100 ml of water. Two strips of filter paper of size approximately 5cms x 2cms were taken. One strip was dipped in test solution and other was dipped in distilled water. The strips were compared in a source of ultraviolet light in a dark room. A test strip with brighter/ fluorescent shine compared to control strip indicated presence of fluorescent brightening agents. Based on BS 3762 (Part 2)- 1989 Analysis of Formulated Detergents, Qualitative Test Methods.

Fluorescent whitening agents enhance the whiteness of fabrics and prevent natural yellowing

10 PRESENCE OF ENZYMES

As the preferred stain removing enzyme used in detergents are proteinaceous in nature Biuret test for proteins was performed in the present study (Kalgaokar, BTRA Chemical Testing Manual, Ch8 –Evaluation Of Sizing Ingredient, Table 8.2).

The catalytic nature of enzymes makes them highly efficient as detergent components to digest proteins, fats or carbohydrates in stains or to modify the fabric feel.

PERFORMANCE TESTS 11 RELATIVE

WETTING POWER

This was tested as per IS: 5785(Part V)-2005. 500ml solutions of different concentrations i.e.1%, 0.5%, 0.25% and 0.125% of each detergent were taken in a 100 ml beaker. Sinking time of standard square patch of cloth was measured with a stop watch. The fabric was dropped from a standard height, in this case 8 inches above the level of water. The watch was started when the fabric touched the water surface and was stopped when the last corner sank below the surface

Wetting out is the ability of a liquid to enter a fabric and displace the air from capillary spaces. Surfactants lower surface and interfacial tensions which helps wash liquor to penetrate better, get under the soil and help lift it from substrate.

12 RELATIVE DISPERSING POWER

Dispersing power of various detergents was compared as per IS: 5785(Part I)-2005. A known amount of finely divided carbon black was suspended in different concentrations of the surface active agents’ solutions for different durations of time. After a definite interval of time a known amount of solution was taken from the centre of the solution and the amount of solid dispersed in the liquid was determined. 25 g of different detergents under test were dissolved in 1l water. In a 250ml graduated cylinder 4g of carbon black, 5ml of white oil and 40 ml of 2.5% test solution was added .To this water was added to make the volume 200ml.Similar solutions were prepared for all detergents in separate cylinders. After putting stopper on the cylinder it was tilted to invert with stopper down and then restored upright. This was repeated 10 times and then cylinders were kept stationary without disturbing the contents. After1 hour, 5ml of this solution from center of cylinder was transferred to a petri dish .The solution was evaporated in different dishes on the water bath and the residue was dried at

After the breakdown of soil into fine particles, the detergent helps in maintaining a soil/liquid matrix as dispersion or colloidal solution, preventing agglomeration (Kissa, 1981). Detergents with higher dispersing power therefore would remove soils better.

Appendix IV

xxx



105-110°C to constant weight (i.e. when two consecutive weighing taken at an interval of 30 min do not differ by more than 2 mg.) The entire procedure was repeated where the solution was taken from cylinder after an interval of 2 and 24 hours. The percentage of the solid dispersed of each detergent was calculated by the following formula: C = W - D 4000 where C = % of the solid dispersed W = weight in mg of the residue D = weight in mg of surface active agent present in 5 ml of the solution of surface active agent when dried at 105-110°C to constant weight.

13 RELATIVE FOAMING POWER

It was tested as per IS: 5785(Part III)-2005. In this method the volume of foam obtained after running 500ml of surface active agent, from a standard height on to a liquid surface of same solution is measured. 0.1% solution of detergents was prepared by pasting and then dissolution in distilled water. Mixing was done very gently to prevent foam formation. 50 ml of this solution was introduced onto the measuring cylinder by running it down the inside wall such that no foam was formed. The apparatus for testing was assembled by mounting a funnel on the burette and adjusted, so that axis of measuring cylinder and burette were coincident .Tip of the burette was in the centre of the measuring cylinder. Test solution was then poured into the burette from the side of the funnel very slowly to avoid air bubbles. Solution was filled 2-3 cm above the end of the funnel. End of funnel was touching the interior wall of burette. The volume of foam was measured after the entire solution was transferred to the measuring cylinder. If the foam had a depression in center, arithmetic mean of the reading at center and edges was taken. Measurements were taken ten times. The result was expressed in millimeters of foam formed.

According to IS: 5785(Part III)-1970). Foam is described as a mass of small gas cells, separated by thin films of liquid and formed by juxtaposition of bubbles, giving a gas dispersed in a liquid. Foaming power is the ability to produce foam

14 MINIMUM AMOUNT OF DETERGENT REQUIRED TO ATTAIN LATHER

Tested as per BS:3762(Part2)-1989 The degree of hardness was indicated by the amount of lather remaining after shaking a soapy solution for five minutes. Hardness is seen as the sum of calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) concentrations measured as mg/l or ppm (parts per million) of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Water with different degree of hardness was prepared. The degree of hardness is defined as the number of parts by weight of calcium carbonate hardness per particular number of parts of water, depending upon the unit employed

This is an indicator of amount of softener present in detergent. The lesser the amount of detergent required, higher is the amount of softeners in detergent, that would give good detergency even in hard water Hardness is usually expressed in terms of the

Appendix IV

xxxi



Soft water- when the degree of hardness is < 75ppm. Moderately Hard- when the degree of hardness is between 75-150 ppm. Hard- when the degree of hardness is between 150-300 ppm. Very Hard- when the degree of hardness is > 300 ppm. 1ppm = 1 part CaCO3 equivalent hardness in 106 parts of water. A standard test solution of 0.5% concentration of various detergents was prepared This was added 1 or 2 ml at a time to a 10cc sample of distilled water, after each addition the flask was shaken. This procedure was continued till the lather started persisting. Then the test solution was added drop by drop till it caused a permanent lather i.e. one that persists for 10 sec. This procedure was repeated for moderately hard, hard and very hard water.

equivalent quantity of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in milligrams per liter or parts per million.

15 COLOR

FADING

Assessed as per ISO 105-C10: 2006(E). A specimen of textile was mechanically agitated under specified conditions (Table 2, Test number B) Specimen was washed in a 5g/l detergent solution for 45 minutes in a paramount dg wash, INX Laundrometer preheated to the test temperature of 50±20C at a liquor ratio of 50:1 ml/g. Post treatment the samples were gently agitated and rinsed in water for 1 minute by placing them under running tap water. Excess water was removed and samples were dried. The change in color of the specimen was assessed in reference to the original fabric with grey scale and numerical ratings were given for comparison.

This test specifies five methods intended for determining the resistance of color of textile of all kinds and in all forms to washing, from mild to severe, used for normal household articles. This part focuses only on color fastness & does not reflect the result of the comprehensive laundering procedure.

16 STAIN REMOVAL

To check the validity of the claims by various brands of detergents regarding their stain removing ability, work was also carried out with four common stains- Tea, Coffee, Pickle and Indian Curry. Fabric sample was artificially stained (two conditions were tested 12 hrs. and 24 hrs. stain) and then washed under standard conditions in laundrometer.

The samples were evaluated using grey scales for staining.

17 RELATIVE DETERGENCY

Tested as per IS: 5785(Part IV)-1970. Fabric was artificially soiled and the soil was removed by washing with detergents to be evaluated under standard conditions. The washing was carried out in laundrometer at 50oC .The degree of whiteness of the soiled, unsoiled and washed sample is measured instrumentally. The detergency value expressed as a percentage of soil removal was calculated from following equation:

% Soil Removal � A � BC � B � 100

A =Reflectance of soiled fabric after washing B =Reflectance of soiled fabric before washing C =Reflectance of white fabric before soiling

Relative detergency is affected by all the above mentioned constituents and therefore was of paramount importance in identifying the suitable commercial detergent

Appendix IV

xxxii

APPENDIX V

WET ABRASION SCRUB TESTER FEATURES 1. Twin scrubbing heads, mounted on two different carrier assemblies. Brush with hog bristle plus weight to achieve correct load.

2. Independent loading of each head. 3. Single speed of 37 cpm. 4. Test panel height variable from 0-30mm. 5. Quick release test panel clamping frame. 6. Pump to supply reagent to each head. 7. Scrub rate is 37± 1 cycle per minute. 8. Each brush applies total mass of 500± 15g SPECIFICATIONS

Appendix IV

xxxiii

APPENDIX VI

ENGINEERING DRAWING: TRANSDUCER PLACEMENT IN IMMERSIBLE

(Source: Crest Ultra sonic India Limited, Fabricator of immersible Transducer)

Appendix IV

xxxiv

APPENDIX VII

ENGINEERING DRAWING: TRANSDUCER PLACEMENT IN IMMERSIBLE

WITH POSITION OF SEPARATORS TO MARK ZONES (Source: Crest Ultrasonic India Limited, Fabricator of Immersible Transducer)

Appendix IV

xxxv

APPENDIX VIII

ISO: 6330:2000 (E) TABLE 1-WASHING PROCEDURE FOR HORIZONTAL ROTATING DRUM MACHINE –TYPE AA

Washing Rinse 1 Rinse 2 Rinse 3 Rinse 4

Procedure No.

Agitation during heating

washing & rinsing

Total load (dry Mass) Temp. Liquor

level Wash Time

Cool down

Liquor level

Rinse time

Liquor level

Rinse time

Spin time

Liquor level

Rinse time

Spin time

Liquor level

Rinse time

Spin time

a b c,d e f c e,g c e,g e d e,g e d e,g e Kg ⁰C cm min. cm min. cm. min. min. cm min. min. cm min. min.

1Ab Normal 2 ± 0,1 92 ± 3 10 15 Yes i 13 3 13 3 --- 13 2 --- 13 2 5 2Ab Normal 2 ± 0,1 60 ± 3 10 15 No 13 3 13 3 --- 13 2 --- 13 2 5 3A� Normal 2 ± 0,1 60 ± 3 10 15 No 13 3 13 2 --- 13 2 2j --- --- --- 4A� Normal 2 ± 0,1 50 ± 3 10 15 No 13 3 13 2 --- 13 2 2j --- --- --- 5A Normal 2 ± 0,1 40 ± 3 10 15 No 13 3 13 3 --- 13 2 --- 13 2 5 6A Normal 2 ± 0,1 40 ± 3 10 15 No 13 3 13 2 --- 13 2 2j --- --- --- 7A Gentle k 2 ± 0,1 40 ± 3 13 3 No 13 3 13 3 1 13 2 6 --- --- --- 8A� Gentle k 2 ± 0,1 30 ± 3 13 3 No 13 3 13 3 --- 13 2 2j --- --- --- 9A� Gentle 2 92 ± 3 10 15 Yes i 13 3 13 3 --- 13 2 2j --- --- ---

Simulated hand wash Gentle k 2 40 ± 3 13 1 No 13 2 13 2 2 --- --- --- --- --- ---

a For procedures 1A, 2A and 5A an alternative load of 5 Kg and for procedure 7A an alternative load of 1 kg is recommended where articles are being tested for washing efficiency, possible abrasion sensitivity or similar effects.

b All filling temperature for wash and rinse are (20 ± 5) °C. c Liquor level is measured from the bottom of cage after the machine has been run for 1 min and allowed to stand for 30 s. d The volumes of liquor corresponding to the quoted levels are separate test using a graduated measuring vessel. e The stated times may have a tolerance of ± 20s. f Cool down: top up with cold water to 13 cm level and agitate for a further 2 min. g Rinse is measured when liquor level is reached. h Heat to 40 °C, hold for 15 min before heating to wash temperature. i For safe laboratory practice only. j Short spin or drip dry. k No agitation during heating. l The program is retained because it is part of ISO 3758.

Appendix IV

xxxvi

APPENDIX IX

COMPOSITION OF VARIOUS SOILING SOLUTIONS As per IS: 14155:1994 (reaffirmed 1998)

1. Composition for Carbon Soiling Mixture The soiling mixture was prepared by using 10% (w/w) carbon powder paste in a mineral oil. The requisite paste (16g/l) and mineral oil (4g/l) were diluted to 1 liter using carbon tetrachloride as a solvent. 2. Composition for Red Wine Soiling The red wine (brand name –Riviera) was used for red wine soiling. The wine was diluted with acetone (1:1 ratio) and applied on the fabric. To get even deposition on the fabric even passages were given. 3. Composition for Indian Curry Soiling The mixture was made by mixing the turmeric powder (1g), chilly powder (1g),common salt (1g) and 10 ml of distilled water in an edible oil (refined sun flower oil) (90ml).The stock solution was heated to fuming state (for 5 min.), cooled and used for experiment. The water present in oil was evaporated during cooking at due to high temperature. The requisite amount of stock solution (30g) was diluted to 1 liter using carbon tetrachloride as solvent. 4. Composition for Cocoa Milk Mixture The cocoa powder (32 g) and sugar (15 g) was dispersed in 1 liter hot milk (full cream – Amul Gold) mixed thoroughly and cooled to 40°C and applied on the fabric.

Appendix X

xxxvii

APPENDIX X

POST HOC ANALYSIS TABLE IA: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF DETERGENT CONCENTRATION

WITH STANDARD DETERGENT

DETERGENT CONCENTRATION (I)

DETERGENT CONCENTRATION (J)

MEAN DIFFERENCE (I-J)

STD. ERROR SIG.

95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL LOWER BOUND

UPPER BOUND

3g/l

6g/l -0.169 0.208 0.965 -0.766 0.429 9g/l -0.464 0.208 0.226 -1.062 0.133 12g/l -0.255 0.208 0.822 -0.853 0.342 15g/l -1.239* 0.208 0.000 -1.837 -0.642 18g/l 0.333 0.208 0.597 -0.264 0.930

6g/l

3g/l 0.169 0.208 0.965 -0.429 0.766 9g/l -0.296 0.208 0.713 -0.893 0.302 12g/l -0.086 0.208 0.998 -0.684 0.511 15g/l -1.071* 0.208 0.000 -1.668 -0.473 18g/l 0.502 0.208 0.156 -0.096 1.099

9g/l

3g/l 0.464 0.208 0.226 -0.133 1.062 6g/l 0.296 0.208 0.713 -0.302 0.893 12g/l 0.209 0.208 0.915 -0.388 0.807 15g/l -0.775* 0.208 0.003 -1.373 -0.178 18g/l 0.797* 0.208 0.002 0.200 1.395

12g/l

3g/l 0.255 0.208 0.822 -0.342 0.853 6g/l 0.086 0.208 0.998 -0.511 0.684 9g/l -0.209 0.208 0.915 -0.807 0.388 15g/l -0.984* 0.208 0.000 -1.582 -0.387 18g/l 0.588 0.208 0.056 -0.009 1.186

15g/l

3g/l 1.239* 0.208 0.000 0.642 1.837 6g/l 1.071* 0.208 0.000 0.473 1.668 9g/l 0.775* 0.208 0.003 0.178 1.373 12g/l 0.984* 0.208 0.000 0.387 1.582 18g/l 1.572* 0.208 0.000 0.975 2.170

18g/l

3g/l -0.333 0.208 0.597 -0.930 0.264 6g/l -0.502 0.208 0.156 -1.099 0.096 9g/l -0.797* 0.208 0.002 -1.395 -0.200 12g/l -0.588 0.208 0.056 -1.186 0.009 15g/l -1.572* 0.208 0.000 -2.170 -0.975

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.01 level

Appendix X

xxxviii

TABLE IB: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF DETERGENT CONCENTRATION WITH COMMERCIAL DETERGENT

DETERGENT

CONCENTRATION (I)

DETERGENT CONCENTRATION

(J) MEAN

DIFFERENCE (I-J)

STD. ERROR SIG.

95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL LOWER BOUND UPPER BOUND

3g/l

6g/l 1.683* .300 .000 0.819 2.546 9g/l 1.240* .300 .001 0.376 2.103 12g/l -0.655 .300 .250 -1.519 0.208 15g/l -0.894 .300 .038 -1.757 -0.030 18g/l -0.739 .300 .140 -1.603 0.124

6g/l

3g/l -1.683* .300 .000 -2.546 -0.819 9g/l -0.443 .300 .680 -1.307 0.421 12g/l -2.338* .300 .000 -3.202 -1.475 15g/l -2.576* .300 .000 -3.44 -1.713 18g/l -2.422* .300 .000 -3.286 -1.558

9g/l

3g/l -1.240* .300 .001 -2.103 -0.376 6g/l 0.443 .300 .680 -0.421 1.307 12g/l -1.895* .300 .000 -2.759 -1.032 15g/l -2.133* .300 .000 -2.997 -1.269 18g/l -1.979* .300 .000 -2.843 -1.115

12g/l

3g/l 0.655 .300 .250 -0.208 1.519 6g/l 2.338* .300 .000 1.475 3.202 9g/l 1.895* .300 .000 1.032 2.759 15g/l -0.238 .300 .968 -1.102 0.625 18g/l -.0838 .300 1.000 -.947 .779

15g/l

3g/l 0.894 .300 .038 0.030 1.757 6g/l 2.576* .300 .000 1.713 3.440 9g/l 2.133* .300 .000 1.270 2.997 12g/l 0.238 .300 .968 -0.625 1.102 18g/l 0.154 .300 .996 -0.709 1.018

18g/l

3g/l 0.739 .300 .140 -0.124 1.603 6g/l 2.422* .300 .000 1.558 3.286 9g/l 1.979* .300 .000 1.115 2.843 12g/l 0.084 .300 1.000 -0.779 0.947 15g/l -0.155 .300 0.996 -1.018 0.709


Appendix X

xxxix

TABLE IIA: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISON OF TIME WITH STANDARD DETERGENT

TIME DURATION

(I) TIME

DURATION (J)

MEAN DIFFERENCE

(I-J) STD. ERROR SIG.


1 MINUTE

3MIN -0.043 0.219 1.000 -0.673 0.586 5MIN -0.855* 0.219 0.002 -1.485 -0.226 7MIN -0.919* 0.219 0.001 -1.549 -0.290 9MIN -0.435 0.219 0.352 -1.065 0.194 11MIN -0.068 0.219 1.000 -0.697 0.561

3 MINUTE

1MIN 0.043 0.219 1.000 -0.586 0.673 5MIN -0.812* 0.219 0.004 -1.441 -0.183 7MIN -0.876* 0.219 0.001 -1.506 -0.247 9MIN -0.392 0.219 0.473 -1.022 0.237 11MIN -0.025 0.219 1.000 -0.654 0.605

5 MINUTE

1MIN 0.855* 0.219 0.002 0.226 1.485 3MIN 0.812* 0.219 0.004 0.183 1.441 7MIN -0.064 0.219 1.000 -0.694 0.565 9MIN 0.420 0.219 0.394 -0.210 1.049 11MIN 0.787* 0.219 0.005 0.158 1.417

7 MINUTE

1MIN 0.919* 0.219 0.001 0.290 1.549 3MIN 0.876* 0.219 0.001 0.247 1.506 5MIN 0.064 0.219 1.000 -0.565 0.694 9MIN 0.484 0.219 0.237 -0.146 1.113 11MIN 0.851* 0.219 0.002 0.222 1.481

9 MINUTE

1MIN 0.435 0.219 0.352 -0.194 1.065 3MIN 0.392 0.219 0.473 -0.237 1.022 5MIN -0.420 0.219 0.394 -1.049 0.210 7MIN -0.484 0.219 0.237 -1.113 0.146 11MIN 0.367 0.219 0.547 -0.262 0.997

11MINUTE

1MIN 0.068 0.219 1.000 -0.561 0.697 3MIN 0.025 0.219 1.000 -0.605 0.654 5MIN -0.787* 0.219 0.005 -1.417 -0.158 7MIN -0.851* 0.219 0.002 -1.481 -0.222 9MIN -0.367 0.219 0.547 -0.997 0.262


Appendix X

xl

TABLE IIB: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF TIME WITH COMMERCIAL DETERGENT

TIME DURATION

(I) TIME DURATION

(J) MEAN DIFFERENCE

(I-J) STD. ERROR SIG. 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL

LOWER BOUND UPPER BOUND

1 MINUTE

3MIN -0.901 0.602 0.667 -2.632 0.830 5MIN -4.453* 0.602 0.000 -6.184 -2.723 7MIN -4.841* 0.602 0.000 -6.572 -3.110 9MIN -2.697* 0.602 0.000 -4.428 -0.967 11MIN -0.352 0.602 0.992 -2.082 1.379

3 MINUTE

1MIN 0.901 0.602 0.667 -0.830 2.632 5MIN -3.553* 0.602 0.000 -5.283 -1.822 7MIN -3.940* 0.602 0.000 -5.671 -2.209 9MIN -1.796 0.602 0.037 -3.527 -0.066 11MIN 0.549 0.602 0.943 -1.182 2.280

5 MINUTE

1MIN 4.453* 0.602 0.000 2.723 6.184 3MIN 3.553* 0.602 0.000 1.822 5.283 7MIN -0.387 0.602 0.988 -2.118 1.343 9MIN 1.756 0.602 0.045 0.025 3.487 11MIN 4.102* 0.602 0.000 2.371 5.832

7 MINUTE

1MIN 4.841* 0.602 0.000 3.110 6.572 3MIN 3.940* 0.602 0.000 2.209 5.671 5MIN 0.387 0.602 0.988 -1.343 2.118 9MIN 2.144* 0.602 0.006 0.413 3.874 11MIN 4.489* 0.602 0.000 2.758 6.220

9 MINUTE

1MIN 2.697* 0.602 0.000 0.967 4.428 3MIN 1.796 0.602 0.037 0.066 3.527 5MIN -1.756 0.602 0.045 -3.487 -0.025 7MIN -2.144* 0.602 0.006 -3.874 -0.413 11MIN 2.346* 0.602 0.002 0.615 4.076

11MINUTE

1MIN 0.352 0.602 0.992 -1.379 2.082 3MIN -0.549 0.602 0.943 -2.280 1.182 5MIN -4.102* 0.602 0.000 -5.832 -2.371 7MIN -4.489* 0.602 0.000 -6.220 -2.758 9MIN -2.346* 0.602 0.002 -4.076 -0.615


Appendix X

xli

TABLE IIIA: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF TEMPERATURE WITH STANDARD DETERGENT

TEMPERATURE

(I) TEMPERATURE

(J) MEAN DIFFERENCE

(I-J) STD. ERROR SIG. 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL


30°C 40°C -3.873* 0.420 0.000 -5.032 -2.714 45°C -3.833* 0.420 0.000 -4.992 -2.674 50°C -3.409* 0.420 0.000 -4.569 -2.251 60°C -2.088* 0.420 0.000 -3.246 -0.929

40°C 30°C 3.873* 0.420 0.000 2.714 5.032 45°C 0.040 0.420 1.000 -1.119 1.199 50°C 0.463 0.420 0.805 -0.696 1.622 60°C 1.785* 0.420 0.000 0.626 2.944

45°C 30°C 3.833* 0.420 0.000 2.674 4.992 40°C -0.040 0.420 1.000 -1.199 1.119 50°C 0.423 0.420 0.852 -0.736 1.582 60°C 1.745* 0.420 0.000 0.586 2.904

50°C 30°C 3.409* 0.420 0.000 2.251 4.569 40°C -0.463 0.420 0.805 -1.622 0.696 45°C -0.423 0.420 0.852 -1.582 0.736 60°C 1.322 0.420 0.017 0.163 2.481

60°C 30°C 2.088* 0.420 0.000 0.929 3.246 40°C -1.785* 0.420 0.000 -2.944 -0.626 45°C -1.745* 0.420 0.000 -2.904 -0.586 50°C -1.322 0.420 0.017 -2.481 -0.163

TABLE IIIB: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF TEMPERATURE WITH COMMERCIAL

DETERGENT

TEMPERATURE (I)

TEMPERATURE (J)

MEAN DIFFERENCE (I-J)

STD. ERROR SIG. 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL


30°C 40°C -3.861* 0.524 0.000 -5.306 -2.416 45°C -4.195* 0.524 0.000 -5.640 -2.750 50°C -4.386* 0.524 0.000 -5.831 -2.941 60°C -3.502* 0.524 0.000 -4.947 -2.057

40°C 30°C 3.861* 0.524 0.000 2.416 5.306 45°C -0.334 0.524 0.969 -1.779 1.111 50°C -0.525 0.524 0.855 -1.970 0.920 60°C 0.359 0.524 0.959 -1.086 1.804

45°C 30°C 4.195* 0.524 0.000 2.750 5.640 40°C 0.334 0.524 0.969 -1.111 1.779 50°C -0.191 0.524 0.996 -1.636 1.254 60°C 0.693 0.524 0.678 -0.752 2.138

50°C 30°C 4.386* 0.524 0.000 2.941 5.831 40°C 0.525 0.524 0.855 -0.920 1.970 45°C 0.191 0.524 0.996 -1.254 1.636 60°C 0.884 0.524 0.445 -0.561 2.329

60°C 30°C 3.502* 0.524 0.000 2.057 4.947 40°C -0.359 0.524 0.959 -1.804 1.086 45°C -0.693 0.524 0.678 -2.138 0.752 50°C -0.884 0.524 0.445 -2.329 0.561


Appendix X

xlii

TABLE IVA: TUKEY POST HOC TESTS FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF FREQUENCY WITH STANDARD DETERGENT

FREQUENCY (IN KHZ)

(I) FREQUENCY (IN KHZ)

(J) MEAN

DIFFERENCE (I-J)

STD. ERROR SIG.


25 KHz

40 KHz -3.518* 0.608 0.000 -5.276 -1.760 58 KHz -2.826* 0.608 0.000 -4.584 -1.068 132 KHz -1.267 0.608 0.302 -3.025 0.490 192 KHz -1.211 0.608 0.352 -2.969 0.546 58 +192 KHz -2.180* 0.608 0.006 -3.937 -0.422

40 KHz 58 KHz 0.692 0.608 0.865 -1.066 2.450 132 KHz 2.251* 0.608 0.004 0.493 4.008 192 KHz 2.307* 0.608 0.003 0.549 4.064 58 +192 KHz 1.338 0.608 0.244 -0.419 3.096

58 KHz 132 KHz 1.559 0.608 0.114 -0.199 3.316 192 KHz 1.615 0.608 0.091 -0.143 3.372 58 +192 KHz 0.646 0.608 0.895 -1.111 2.404

132 KHz 192 KHz 0.056 0.608 1.000 -1.702 1.814 58 +192 KHz -0.912 0.608 0.665 -2.670 0.845

192 KHz 58 +192 KHz -0.968 0.608 0.605 -2.726 0.789 Dual Frequency (58 KHz + 192 KHz)

25 KHz 2.180* 0.608 0.006 0.422 3.937 40 KHz -1.338 0.608 0.244 -3.096 0.419 58 KHz -0.646 0.608 0.895 -2.404 1.111 132 KHz 0.912 0.608 0.665 -0.845 2.670 192 KHz 0.968 0.608 0.605 -0.789 2.726

TABLE IVB: TUKEY POST HOC TESTS FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF FREQUENCY WITH COMMERCIAL

DETERGENT

FREQUENCY (IN KHZ)

(I) FREQUENCY (IN KHZ)

(J) MEAN

DIFFERENCE (I-J)

STD. ERROR SIG.


25 KHz

40 KHz -7.416* 0.730 0.000 -9.526 -5.306 58 KHz -6.365* 0.730 0.000 -8.475 -4.255 132 KHz -2.289* 0.730 0.025 -4.399 -0.179 192 KHz -1.042 0.730 0.711 -3.152 1.068 58 +192 KHz -5.768* 0.730 0.000 -7.878 -3.657

40 KHz 58 KHz 1.051 0.730 0.703 -1.059 3.161 132 KHz 5.127* 0.730 0.000 3.017 7.237 192 KHz 6.374* 0.730 0.000 4.264 8.484 58 +192 KHz 1.648 0.730 0.219 -0.462 3.758

58 KHz 132 KHz 4.076* 0.730 0.000 1.966 6.186 192 KHz 5.323* 0.730 0.000 3.213 7.433 58 +192 KHz 0.597 0.730 0.964 -1.513 2.707

132 KHz 192 KHz 1.247 0.730 0.529 -0.863 3.357 58 +192 KHz -3.478* 0.730 0.000 -5.588 -1.368

192 KHz 58 +192 KHz -4.726* 0.730 0.000 -6.836 -2.616 Dual Frequency (58 KHz + 192 KHz)

25 KHz 5.768* 0.730 0.000 3.657 7.878 40 KHz -1.648 0.730 0.219 -3.758 0.462 58 KHz -0.597 0.730 0.964 -2.707 1.513 132 KHz 3.478* 0.730 0.000 1.368 5.588 192 KHz 4.726* 0.730 0.000 2.616 6.836


Appendix X

xliii

TABLE VA: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF POWER WITH STANDARD REFERENCE DETERGENT

POWER

(IN WATTS) (I)

POWER (IN WATTS)

(J) MEAN

DIFFERENCE (I-J)

STD. ERROR SIG.


300 WATT

270W 3.223* 0.533 0.000 1.543 4.903 240W 3.358* 0.533 0.000 1.678 5.038 210W 4.095* 0.533 0.000 2.415 5.775 180W 4.849* 0.533 0.000 3.169 6.529 150W 6.600* 0.533 0.000 4.920 8.280 120W 8.158* 0.533 0.000 6.478 9.838 90W 8.598* 0.533 0.000 6.918 10.278 60W 8.603* 0.533 0.000 6.923 10.283

270 WATT

300W -3.223* 0.533 0.000 -4.903 -1.543 240W 0.135 0.533 1.000 -1.545 1.815 210W 0.872 0.533 0.783 -0.808 2.552 180W 1.626 0.533 0.066 -0.054 3.306 150W 3.378* 0.533 0.000 1.697 5.058 120W 4.936* 0.533 0.000 3.255 6.616 90W 5.376* 0.533 0.000 3.696 7.056 60W 5.380* 0.533 0.000 3.700 7.060

240 WATT

300W -3.358* 0.533 0.000 -5.038 -1.678 270W -0.135 0.533 1.000 -1.815 1.545 210W 0.737 0.533 0.902 -0.943 2.417 180W 1.491 0.533 0.126 -0.189 3.171 150W 3.243* 0.533 0.000 1.563 4.923 120W 4.801* 0.533 0.000 3.121 6.481 90W 5.241* 0.533 0.000 3.561 6.921 60W 5.245* 0.533 0.000 3.565 6.925

210 WATT

300W -4.095* 0.533 0.000 -5.775 -2.415 270W -0.872 0.533 0.783 -2.552 0.808 240W -0.737 0.533 0.902 -2.417 0.943 180W 0.754 0.533 0.890 -0.926 2.434 150W 2.505* 0.533 0.000 0.825 4.185 120W 4.065* 0.533 0.000 2.383 5.744 90W 4.504* 0.533 0.000 2.823 6.184 60W 4.508* 0.533 0.000 2.828 6.188

180 WATT

300W -4.849* 0.533 0.000 -6.529 -3.169 270W -1.626 0.533 0.066 -3.306 0.054 240W -1.491 0.533 0.126 -3.171 0.189 210W -0.754 0.533 0.890 -2.434 0.926 150W 1.751 0.533 0.034 0.071 3.431 120W 3.309* 0.533 0.000 1.629 4.989 90W 3.750* 0.533 0.000 2.069 5.430 60W 3.754* 0.533 0.000 2.074 5.434

150 WATT

300W -6.600* 0.533 0.000 -8.280 -4.920 270W -3.375* 0.533 0.000 -5.058 -1.697 240W -3.243* 0.533 0.000 -4.923 -1.563 210W -2.505* 0.533 0.000 -4.185 -0.825 180W -1.751 0.533 0.034 -3.431 -0.071 120W 1.558 0.533 0.092 -0.122 3.238 90W 1.998* 0.533 0.008 0.318 3.678 60W 2.002* 0.533 0.008 0.322 3.682

Appendix X

xliv

POWER (IN WATTS)

(I) POWER

(IN WATTS) (J)

MEAN DIFFERENCE



120 WATT

300W -8.158* 0.533 0.000 -9.838 -6.478 270W -4.936* 0.533 0.000 -6.616 -3.255 240W -4.801* 0.533 0.000 -6.481 -3.121 210W -4.064* 0.533 0.000 -5.744 -2.383 180W -3.309* 0.533 0.000 -4.989 -1.629 150W -1.558 0.533 0.092 -3.238 0.122 90W 0.440 0.533 0.996 -1.240 2.120 60W 0.444 0.533 0.996 -1.236 2.124

90 WATT

300W -8.598* 0.533 0.000 -10.278 -6.918 270W -5.376* 0.533 0.000 -7.056 -3.696 240W -5.241* 0.533 0.000 -6.921 -3.561 210W -4.504* 0.533 0.000 -6.184 -2.823 180W -3.750* 0.533 0.000 -5.430 -2.069 150W -1.998* 0.533 0.008 -3.678 -0.318 120W -0.440 0.533 0.996 -2.120 1.240 60W 0.004 0.533 1.000 -1.676 1.684

60 WATT

300W -8.603* 0.533 0.000 -10.283 -6.923 270W -5.380* 0.533 0.000 -7.060 -3.700 240W -5.245* 0.533 0.000 -6.925 -3.565 210W -4.508* 0.533 0.000 -6.188 -2.828 180W -3.754* 0.533 0.000 -5.434 -2.074 150W -2.002* 0.533 0.008 -3.682 -0.322 120W -0.444 0.533 0.996 -2.124 1.236 90W -0.004 0.533 1.000 -1.684 1.676

TABLE VB: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF POWER FOR COMMERCIAL DETERGENT

POWER (IN WATTS)

(I) POWER

(IN WATTS) (J)

MEAN DIFFERENCE



300 WATT

270W 0.668 1.279 1.000 -3.365 4.701 240W 2.563 1.279 0.544 -1.471 6.596 210W 3.160 1.279 0.256 -0.873 7.193 180W 4.171 1.279 0.037 0.138 8.204 150W 7.218* 1.279 0.000 3.184 11.251 120W 8.484* 1.279 0.000 4.450 12.517 90W 7.542* 1.279 0.000 3.509 11.575 60W 8.347* 1.279 0.000 4.313 12.380

270 WATT

300W -0.668 1.279 1.000 -4.701 3.365 240W 1.895 1.279 0.863 -2.139 5.928 210W 2.492 1.279 0.582 -1.541 6.525 180W 3.503 1.279 0.145 -0.530 7.536 150W 6.550* 1.279 0.000 2.516 10.583 120W 7.816* 1.279 0.000 3.782 11.849 90W 6.874* 1.279 0.000 2.841 10.907 60W 7.678* 1.279 0.000 3.645 11.712

240 WATT

300W -2.563 1.279 0.544 -6.596 1.471 270W -1.895 1.279 0.863 -5.928 2.139 210W 0.597 1.279 1.000 -3.436 4.631 180W 1.609 1.279 0.942 -2.425 5.642 150W 4.655 1.279 0.011 0.622 8.688 120W 5.921* 1.279 0.000 1.888 9.954 90W 4.979* 1.279 0.005 0.946 9.013 60W 5.784* 1.279 0.000 1.751 9.817

Appendix X

xlv

POWER (IN WATTS)

(I) POWER

(IN WATTS) (J)

MEAN DIFFERENCE



210 WATT

300W -3.160 1.279 0.256 -7.193 0.873 270W -2.492 1.279 0.582 -6.525 1.541 240W -0.597 1.279 1.000 -4.631 3.436 180W 1.011 1.279 0.997 -3.022 5.045 150W 4.058 1.279 0.047 0.024 8.091 120W 5.324* 1.279 0.002 1.290 9.357 90W 4.382 1.279 0.022 0.349 8.415 60W 5.187* 1.279 0.003 1.153 9.220

180 WATT

300W -4.171 1.279 0.037 -8.204 -0.138 270W -3.503 1.279 0.145 -7.536 0.530 240W -1.609 1.279 0.942 -5.642 2.425 210W -1.011 1.279 0.997 -5.045 3.022 150W 3.046 1.279 0.303 -0.987 7.080 120W 4.312 1.279 0.026 0.279 8.346 90W 3.371 1.279 0.182 -0.663 7.404 60W 4.175 1.279 0.036 0.142 8.209

150 WATT

300W -7.218* 1.279 0.000 -11.251 -3.184 270W -6.550* 1.279 0.000 -10.583 -2.516 240W -4.655 1.279 0.011 -8.688 -0.622 210W -4.058 1.279 0.047 -8.091 -0.024 180W -3.046 1.279 0.303 -7.080 0.987 120W 1.266 1.279 0.986 -2.767 5.299 90W 0.324 1.279 1.000 -3.709 4.358 60W 1.129 1.279 0.994 -2.904 5.162

120 WATT

300W -8.484* 1.279 0.000 -12.517 -4.450 270W -7.816* 1.279 0.000 -11.849 -3.782 240W -5.921* 1.279 0.000 -9.954 -1.888 210W -5.324 1.279 0.002 -9.357 -1.290 180W -4.312 1.279 0.026 -8.346 -0.279 150W -1.266 1.279 0.986 -5.299 2.767 90W -0.942 1.279 0.998 -4.975 3.092 60W -0.137 1.279 1.000 -4.170 3.896

90 WATT

300W -7.542* 1.279 0.000 -11.575 -3.509 270W -6.874* 1.279 0.000 -10.907 -2.841 240W -4.980* 1.279 0.005 -9.013 -0.946 210W -4.382 1.279 0.022 -8.415 -0.349 180W -3.371 1.279 0.182 -7.404 0.663 150W -0.324 1.279 1.000 -4.358 3.709 120W 0.942 1.279 0.998 -3.092 4.975 60W 0.805 1.279 0.999 -3.229 4.838

60 WATT

300W -8.347* 1.279 0.000 -12.380 -4.313 270W -7.678* 1.279 0.000 -11.712 -3.645 240W -5.784* 1.279 0.000 -9.817 -1.751 210W -5.187* 1.279 0.003 -9.220 -1.153 180W -4.175 1.279 0.036 -8.209 -0.142 150W -1.129 1.279 0.994 -5.162 2.904 120W 0.137 1.279 1.000 -3.896 4.170 90W -0.805 1.279 0.999 -4.838 3.229

*The mean difference is significant at the 0.01 level

Appendix X

xlvi

TABLE VIA: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF NUMBER OF TRANSDUCERS WITH STANDARD DETERGENT

NO. OF TRANSDUCERS (I)

NO. OF TRANSDUCERS (J)

MEAN DIFFERENCE



CONTROL (C) 1TRANSDUCER -7.929* 0.657 0.000 -9.664 -6.193 3 TRANSDUCER -4.544* 0.657 0.000 -6.279 -2.808 6TRANSDUCER -6.200* 0.657 0.000 -7.936 -4.465

1 TRANSDUCER (1T) CONTROL 7.928* 0.657 0.000 6.193 9.664 3 TRANSDUCER 3.385* 0.657 0.000 1.649 5.120 6TRANSDUCER 1.728 0.657 0.051 -0.007 3.464

3 TRANSDUCER (3T) CONTROL 4.544* 0.657 0.000 2.808 6.279 1TRANSDUCER -3.385* 0.657 0.000 -5.120 -1.649 6TRANSDUCER -1.656 0.657 0.067 -3.392 0.079

6 TRANSDUCER (6T) CONTROL 6.200* 0.657 0.000 4.465 7.936 1 TRANSDUCER -1.728 0.657 0.051 -3.464 0.007 3TRANSDUCER 1.656 0.657 0.067 -0.079 3.392

TABLE VIB: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF NUMBER OF TRANSDUCERS WITH COMMERCIAL DETERGENT

NO. OF TRANSDUCERS (I)

NO. OF TRANSDUCERS (J)

MEAN DIFFERENCE



CONTROL (C) 1TRANSDUCER -19.000* 0.951 0.000 -21.512 -16.488 3 TRANSDUCER -15.811* 0.951 0.000 -18.324 -13.299 6TRANSDUCER -14.333* 0.951 0.000 -16.845 -11.821

1 TRANSDUCER (1T) CONTROL 19.000* 0.951 0.000 16.488 21.512 3 TRANSDUCER 3.189* 0.951 0.007 0.677 5.701 6TRANSDUCER 4.667* 0.951 0.000 2.155 7.179

3 TRANSDUCER (3T) CONTROL 15.811* 0.951 0.000 13.299 18.324 1TRANSDUCER -3.189* 0.951 0.007 -5.701 -0.677 6TRANSDUCER 1.478 0.951 0.412 -1.034 3.990

6 TRANSDUCER (6T) CONTROL 14.333* 0.951 0.000 11.821 16.845 1 TRANSDUCER -4.667* 0.951 0.000 -7.179 -2.155 3TRANSDUCER -1.478 0.951 0.412 -3.990 1.034

*The mean difference is significant at the 0.01 level

Appendix X

xlvii

TABLE VIIA: POST HOC TUKEY TEST OF TRANSDUCER DISTANCE WITH STANDARD DETERGENT DISTANCE FROM TRANSDUCER (I)

DISTANCE FROM TRANSDUCER(J)

MEAN DIFF. (I-J)



D1

D2 -2.480 1.165 0.403 -6.075 1.115 D3 -0.544 1.165 1.000 -4.139 3.051 D4 -2.023 1.165 0.664 -5.618 1.572 D5 -2.101 1.165 0.619 -5.696 1.494 D6 -2.370 1.165 0.464 -5.966 1.225 D7 1.978 1.165 0.689 -1.617 5.574 D8 5.163* 1.165 0.001 1.568 8.758

D2

D1 2.480 1.165 0.403 -1.115 6.075 D3 1.936 1.165 0.712 -1.659 5.531 D4 0.457 1.165 1.000 -3.138 4.053 D5 0.379 1.165 1.000 -3.216 3.975 D6 0.110 1.165 1.000 -3.485 3.705 D7 4.459* 1.165 0.005 0.863 8.054 D8 7.643* 1.165 0.000 4.048 11.239

D3

D1 0.544 1.165 1.000 -3.051 4.139 D2 -1.936 1.165 0.712 -5.531 1.659 D4 -1.479 1.165 0.908 -5.074 2.117 D5 -1.557 1.165 0.883 -5.152 2.039 D6 -1.826 1.165 0.769 -5.422 1.769 D7 2.523 1.165 0.381 -1.073 6.118 D8 5.707* 1.165 0.000 2.112 9.303

D4

D1 2.023 1.165 0.664 -1.572 5.618 D2 -0.457 1.165 1.000 -4.053 3.138 D3 1.479 1.165 0.908 -2.117 5.074 D5 -0.078 1.165 1.000 -3.673 3.517 D6 -0.348 1.165 1.000 -3.943 3.248 D7 4.001 1.165 0.018 0.406 7.597 D8 7.186* 1.165 0.000 3.591 10.781

D5

D1 2.101 1.165 0.619 -1.494 5.696 D2 -0.379 1.165 1.000 -3.975 3.216 D3 1.557 1.165 0.883 -2.039 5.152 D4 0.078 1.165 1.000 -3.517 3.673 D6 -0.270 1.165 1.000 -3.865 3.326 D7 4.079 1.165 0.015 0.484 7.675 D8 7.264* 1.165 0.000 3.669 10.859

D6

D1 2.370 1.165 0.464 -1.225 5.966 D2 -0.110 1.165 1.000 -3.705 3.485 D3 1.826 1.165 0.769 -1.769 5.422 D4 0.348 1.165 1.000 -3.248 3.943 D5 0.270 1.165 1.000 -3.326 3.865 D7 4.349* 1.165 0.007 0.754 7.944 D8 7.534* 1.165 0.000 3.938 11.129

D7

D1 -1.978 1.165 0.689 -5.574 1.617 D2 -4.459* 1.165 0.005 -8.054 -0.863 D3 -2.523 1.165 0.381 -6.118 1.073 D4 -4.001 1.165 0.018 -7.597 -0.406 D5 -4.079 1.165 0.015 -7.675 -0.484 D6 -4.349* 1.165 0.007 -7.944 -0.754 D8 3.185 1.165 0.123 -0.411 6.780

D8

D1 -5.163* 1.165 0.001 -8.758 -1.568 D2 -7.643* 1.165 0.000 -11.239 -4.048 D3 -5.707* 1.165 0.000 -9.303 -2.112 D4 -7.186* 1.165 0.000 -10.781 -3.591 D5 -7.264* 1.165 0.000 -10.859 -3.669 D6 -7.534 * 1.165 0.000 -11.129 -3.938 D7 -3.185 1.165 0.123 -6.780 0.411

Appendix X

xlviii

TABLE VII B: POST HOC TUKEY TEST OF TRANSDUCER DISTANCE WITH COMMERCIAL DETERGENT DISTANCE FROM TRANSDUCER (I)

DISTANCE FROM TRANSDUCER (J)

MEAN DIFF. (I-J)



DT1

DT2 -0.324 0.881 1.000 -3.042 2.394 DT3 0.721 0.881 0.992 -1.997 3.439 DT4 -0.598 0.881 0.997 -3.316 2.120 DT5 -1.960 0.881 0.345 -4.678 0.758 DT6 -2.372 0.881 0.135 -5.090 0.346 DT7 3.311* 0.881 0.006 0.593 6.029 DT8 5.540* 0.881 0.000 2.822 8.258

DT2

DT1 0.324 0.881 1.000 -2.394 3.042 DT3 1.045 0.881 0.934 -1.673 3.763 DT4 -0.274 0.881 1.000 -2.992 2.444 DT5 -1.636 0.881 0.583 -4.354 1.082 DT6 -2.048 0.881 0.289 -4.766 0.670 DT7 3.635* 0.881 0.002 0.917 6.353 DT8 5.863* 0.881 0.000 3.145 8.581

DT3

DT1 -0.721 0.881 0.992 -3.439 1.997 DT2 -1.045 0.881 0.934 -3.763 1.673 DT4 -1.319 0.881 0.808 -4.037 1.399 DT5 -2.681 0.881 0.056 -5.399 0.037 DT6 -3.093 0.881 0.014 -5.811 -0.375 DT7 2.590 0.881 0.074 -0.128 5.308 DT8 4.818* 0.881 0.000 2.100 7.536

DT4

DT1 0.598 0.881 0.997 -2.120 3.316 DT2 0.274 0.881 1.000 -2.444 2.992 DT3 1.319 0.881 0.808 -1.399 4.037 DT5 -1.362 0.881 0.781 -4.080 1.356 DT6 -1.774 0.881 0.477 -4.492 0.944 DT7 3.909* 0.881 0.001 1.191 6.627 DT8 6.138* 0.881 0.000 3.419 8.855

DT5

DT1 1.960 0.881 0.345 -0.758 4.678 DT2 1.636 0.881 0.583 -1.082 4.354 DT3 2.681 0.881 0.056 -0.037 5.399 DT4 1.362 0.881 0.781 -1.356 4.080 DT6 -0.411 0.881 1.000 -3.129 2.307 DT7 5.271* 0.881 0.000 2.553 7.989 DT8 7.500* 0.881 0.000 4.782 10.218

DT6

DT1 2.372 0.881 0.135 -0.346 5.090 DT2 2.048 0.881 0.289 -0.670 4.766 DT3 3.093 0.881 0.014 0.375 5.811 DT4 1.774 0.881 0.477 -0.944 4.492 DT5 0.411 0.881 1.000 -2.307 3.129 DT7 5.683* 0.881 0.000 2.965 8.401 DT8 7.911* 0.881 0.000 5.193 10.629

DT7

DT1 -3.311* 0.881 0.006 -6.029 -0.593 DT2 -3.635* 0.881 0.002 -6.353 -0.917 DT3 -2.590 0.881 0.074 -5.308 0.128 DT4 -3.910* 0.881 0.001 -6.627 -1.191 DT5 -5.271* 0.881 0.000 -7.989 -2.553 DT6 -5.683* 0.881 0.000 -8.401 -2.965 DT8 2.228 0.881 0.193 -0.490 4.946

DT8

DT1 -5.540* 0.881 0.000 -8.258 -2.822 DT2 -5.863* 0.881 0.000 -8.581 -3.145 DT3 -4.818* 0.881 0.000 -7.536 -2.100 DT4 -6.138* 0.881 0.000 -8.855 -3.419 DT5 -7.500* 0.881 0.000 -10.218 -4.782 DT6 -7.911* 0.881 0.000 -10.629 -5.193 DT7 -2.228 0.881 0.193 -4.946 0.490

Appendix X

xlix

TABLE VIII: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF POWER IN THE FABRICATED PROTOTYPE

POWER(IN WATTS) (I)

POWER(IN WATTS) (J)

MEAN DIFF. (I-J)



500 WATT

450 w 3.494 1.038 0.032 0.160 6.828 400 w 3.809 1.038 0.012 0.475 7.143 350 w 8.313* 1.038 0.000 4.979 11.647 300 w 8.454* 1.038 0.000 5.120 11.788 250 w 9.902* 1.038 0.000 6.568 13.236 200 w 10.871* 1.038 0.000 7.537 14.205 150 w 10.821* 1.038 0.000 7.487 14.155 100 w 10.844* 1.038 0.000 7.509 14.177 50w 12.375* 1.038 0.000 9.041 15.709

450 WATT

500 w -3.494 1.038 0.032 -6.828 -0.160 400 w 0.315 1.038 1.000 -3.019 3.649 350 w 4.819* 1.038 0.000 1.485 8.153 300 w 4.960* 1.038 0.000 1.626 8.294 250 w 6.408* 1.038 0.000 3.074 9.742 200 w 7.377* 1.038 0.000 4.043 10.711 150 w 7.327* 1.038 0.000 3.993 10.661 100 w 7.349* 1.038 0.000 4.015 10.683 50w 8.881* 1.038 0.000 5.547 12.215

400 WATT

500 w -3.809 1.038 0.012 -7.143 -0.475 450 w -0.315 1.038 1.000 -3.649 3.019 350 w 4.505* 1.038 0.001 1.171 7.839 300 w 4.645* 1.038 0.001 1.311 7.979 250 w 6.093* 1.038 0.000 2.759 9.427 200 w 7.063* 1.038 0.000 3.729 10.397 150 w 7.013* 1.038 0.000 3.678 10.346 100 w 7.035* 1.038 0.000 3.701 10.369 50w 8.566* 1.038 0.000 5.232 11.900

350 WATT

500 w -8.313* 1.038 0.000 -11.647 -4.979 450 w -4.819* 1.038 0.000 -8.153 -1.485 400 w -4.505* 1.038 0.001 -7.839 -1.171 300 w 0.141 1.038 1.000 -3.193 3.475 250 w 1.589 1.038 0.878 -1.745 4.923 200 w 2.558 1.038 0.297 -0.776 5.892 150 w 2.508 1.038 0.324 -0.826 5.842 100 w 2.530 1.038 0.312 -0.804 5.864 50w 4.062* 1.038 0.005 0.728 7.396

300 WATT

500 w -8.454* 1.038 0.000 -11.788 -5.120 450 w -4.960* 1.038 0.000 -8.294 -1.626 400 w -4.645* 1.038 0.001 -7.979 -1.311 350 w -0.141 1.038 1.000 -3.475 3.193 250 w 1.448 1.038 0.927 -1.886 4.782 200 w 2.417 1.038 0.377 -0.917 5.751 150 w 2.367 1.038 0.408 -0.967 5.701 100 w 2.389 1.038 0.394 -0.945 5.723 50w 3.921* 1.038 0.008 0.587 7.255

250 WATT

500 w -9.902* 1.038 0.000 -13.236 -6.568 450 w -6.408* 1.038 0.000 -9.742 -3.074 400 w -6.093* 1.038 0.000 -9.427 -2.759 350 w -1.589 1.038 0.878 -4.923 1.745 300 w -1.448 1.038 0.927 -4.782 1.886 200 w 0.969 1.038 0.995 -2.365 4.303 150 w 0.919 1.038 0.997 -2.415 4.253 100 w 0.941 1.038 0.996 -2.393 4.275 50 w 2.473 1.038 0.344 -0.861 5.807

Appendix X

l

POWER(IN WATTS) (I)

POWER(IN WATTS) (J)

MEAN DIFF. (I-J)



200 WATT

500 w -10.871* 1.038 0.000 -14.205 -7.537 450 w -7.377* 1.038 0.000 -10.711 -4.043 400 w -7.063* 1.038 0.000 -10.397 -3.729 350 w -2.558 1.038 0.297 -5.892 0.776 300 w -2.417 1.038 0.377 -5.751 0.917 250 w -0.969 1.038 0.995 -4.303 2.365 150 w -0.050 1.038 1.000 -3.384 3.284 100 w -0.028 1.038 1.000 -3.362 3.306 50 w 1.504 1.038 0.909 -1.830 4.838

150 WATT

500 w -10.821* 1.038 0.000 -14.155 -7.487 450 w -7.327* 1.038 0.000 -10.661 -3.993 400 w -7.013* 1.038 0.000 -10.346 -3.678 350 w -2.508 1.038 0.324 -5.842 0.826 300 w -2.367 1.038 0.408 -5.701 0.967 250 w -0.919 1.038 0.997 -4.253 2.415 200 w 0.050 1.038 1.000 -3.284 3.384 100 w 0.022 1.038 1.000 -3.312 3.356 50 w 1.554 1.038 0.892 -1.780 4.888

100 WATT

500 w -10.844* 1.038 0.000 -14.177 -7.509 450 w -7.349* 1.038 0.000 -10.683 -4.015 400 w -7.035* 1.038 0.000 -10.369 -3.701 350 w -2.530 1.038 0.312 -5.864 0.804 300 w -2.389 1.038 0.394 -5.723 0.945 250 w -0.941 1.038 0.996 -4.275 2.393 200 w 0.028 1.038 1.000 -3.306 3.362 150 w -0.022 1.038 1.000 -3.356 3.312 50 w 1.532 1.038 0.900 -1.802 4.866

50 WATT

500 w -12.375* 1.038 0.000 -15.709 -9.041 450 w -8.881* 1.038 0.000 -12.215 -5.547 400 w -8.566* 1.038 0.000 -11.900 -5.232 350 w -4.062* 1.038 0.005 -7.396 -0.728 300 w -3.921* 1.038 0.008 -7.255 -0.587 250 w -2.473 1.038 0.344 -5.807 0.861 200 w -1.504 1.038 0.909 -4.838 1.830 150 w -1.554 1.038 0.892 -4.888 1.780 100 w -1.532 1.038 0.900 -4.866 1.802


Appendix X

li

TABLE IX: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF TRANSDUCER DISTANCE FROM SUBSTRATE IN THE FABRICATED PROTOTYPE

DISTANCE FROM TRANSDUCER

(I) DISTANCE FROM TRANSDUCER

(J) MEAN

DIFFERENCE (I-J)

STD. ERROR SIG.


D1

DT2 -6.779* 1.531 0.001 -11.607 -1.951 DT3 -3.904 1.531 0.218 -8.732 0.924 DT4 -0.623 1.531 1.000 -5.451 4.205 DT5 -1.203 1.531 0.997 -6.031 3.625 DT6 2.092 1.531 0.908 -2.736 6.920 DT7 -3.935 1.531 0.209 -8.763 0.893 DT8 -3.188 1.531 0.490 -8.016 1.640 DT9 6.500* 1.531 0.001 1.672 11.327

D2

DT1 6.779* 1.531 0.001 1.951 11.607 DT3 2.875 1.531 0.630 -1.953 7.703 DT4 6.156* 1.531 0.003 1.328 10.984 D5 5.576 1.531 0.011 0.748 10.404 D6 8.871* 1.531 0.000 4.043 13.699 D7 2.844 1.531 0.644 -1.984 7.672 D8 3.591 1.531 0.323 -1.237 8.419 D9 13.279* 1.531 0.000 8.451 18.106

D3

D1 3.904 1.531 0.218 -0.924 8.732 D2 -2.875 1.531 0.630 -7.703 1.953 D4 3.281 1.531 0.449 -1.547 8.109 D5 2.701 1.531 0.706 -2.127 7.529 D6 5.996* 1.531 0.004 1.168 10.824 D7 -0.031 1.531 1.000 -4.859 4.796 D8 0.716 1.531 1.000 -4.112 5.543 D9 10.403* 1.531 0.000 5.576 15.231

D4

D1 0.623 1.531 1.000 -4.205 5.451 D2 -6.156* 1.531 0.003 -10.984 -1.328 D3 -3.281 1.531 0.449 -8.109 1.547 D5 -0.580 1.531 1.000 -5.408 4.248 D6 2.715 1.531 0.700 -2.113 7.543 D7 -3.313 1.531 0.436 -8.140 1.515 D8 -2.565 1.531 0.760 -7.393 2.262 D9 7.122* 1.531 0.000 2.294 11.950

D5

D1 1.203 1.531 0.997 -3.625 6.031 D2 -5.576 1.531 0.011 -10.404 -0.748 D3 -2.701 1.531 0.706 -7.529 2.127 D4 0.580 1.531 1.000 -4.248 5.408 D6 3.295 1.531 0.443 -1.533 8.123 D7 -2.732 1.531 0.692 -7.560 2.095 D8 -1.985 1.531 0.931 -6.813 2.842 D9 7.702* 1.531 0.000 2.875 12.530

D6

D1 -2.092 1.531 0.908 -6.920 2.736 D2 -8.871* 1.531 0.000 -13.699 -4.043 D3 -5.996* 1.531 0.004 -10.824 -1.168 D4 -2.715 1.531 0.700 -7.543 2.113 D5 -3.295 1.531 0.443 -8.123 1.533 D7 -6.027* 1.531 0.004 -10.855 -1.199 D8 -5.280 1.531 0.021 -10.108 -0.452 D9 4.408 1.531 0.103 -0.420 9.235

Appendix X

lii

DISTANCE FROM TRANSDUCER

(I) DISTANCE FROM TRANSDUCER

(J) MEAN

DIFFERENCE (I-J)

STD. ERROR SIG.


D7

D1 3.935 1.531 0.209 -0.893 8.763 D2 -2.844 1.531 0.644 -7.672 1.984 D3 0.031 1.531 1.000 -4.796 4.859 D4 3.313 1.531 0.436 -1.515 8.140 D5 2.732 1.531 0.692 -2.095 7.560 D6 6.027* 1.531 0.004 1.199 10.855 D8 0.747 1.531 1.000 -4.081 5.575 D9 10.435* 1.531 0.000 5.607 15.263

D8

D1 3.188 1.531 0.490 -1.640 8.016 D2 -3.591 1.531 0.323 -8.419 1.237 D3 -0.716 1.531 1.000 -5.543 4.112 D4 2.565 1.531 0.760 -2.262 7.393 D5 1.985 1.531 0.931 -2.842 6.813 D6 5.280 1.531 0.021 0.452 10.108 D7 -0.747 1.531 1.000 -5.575 4.081 D9 9.688* 1.531 0.000 4.860 14.516

D9

D1 -6.500* 1.531 0.001 -11.327 -1.672 D2 -13.279* 1.531 0.000 -18.106 -8.451 D3 -10.403* 1.531 0.000 -15.231 -5.576 D4 -7.122* 1.531 0.000 -11.950 -2.294 D5 -7.702* 1.531 0.000 -12.530 -2.875 D6 -4.408 1.531 0.103 -9.235 0.420 DT -10.435* 1.531 0.000 -15.263 -5.607 D8 -9.688* 1.531 0.000 -14.516 -4.860


Appendix X

liii

TABLE X: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF TEMPERATURE IN THE FABRICATED PROTOTYPE

TEMPERATURE (I)

TEMPERATURE (J)

MEAN DIFFERENCE


95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL

LOWER BOUND

UPPER BOUND

30°C 40°C -5.856* 1.154 0.000 -9.194 -2.518 45°C -5.349* 1.154 0.000 -8.687 -2.011 50°C -5.557* 1.154 0.000 -8.895 -2.219 60°C -4.585* 1.154 0.002 -7.923 -1.246

40°C 30°C 5.856* 1.154 0.000 2.518 9.194 45°C 0.507 1.154 1.000 -2.831 3.845 50°C 0.299 1.154 1.000 -3.039 3.637 60°C 1.272 1.154 1.000 -2.067 4.610

45°C 30°C 5.349* 1.154 0.000 2.011 8.687 40°C -0.507 1.154 1.000 -3.845 2.831 50°C -0.208 1.154 1.000 -3.546 3.130 60°C 0.765 1.154 1.000 -2.574 4.103

50°C 30°C 5.557* 1.154 0.000 2.219 8.895 40°C -0.299 1.154 1.000 -3.637 3.039 45°C 0.208 1.154 1.000 -3.130 3.546 60°C 0.973 1.154 1.000 -2.365 4.311

60°C 30°C 4.585* 1.154 0.002 1.246 7.923 40°C -1.272 1.154 1.000 -4.610 2.067 45°C -0.765 1.154 1.000 -4.103 2.574 50°C -0.973 1.154 1.000 -4.311 2.365


Appendix X

liv

TABLE XI: POST HOC TUKEY TEST FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF PRESOAK TIME IN THE FABRICATED PROTOTYPE

PRESOAK TIME (I)

PRESOAK TIME (J)

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound

Upper Bound

PT -5

PT -10 0.966 1.435 0.984 -3.202 5.134 PT -15 0.218 1.435 1.000 -3.950 4.386 PT -20 -5.998* 1.435 0.001 -10.166 -1.830 PT -25 -6.312* 1.435 0.000 -10.480 -2.144 PT -30 -8.611* 1.435 0.000 -12.779 -4.443

PT -10

PT -5 -0.966 1.435 0.984 -5.134 3.202 PT -15 -0.748 1.435 0.995 -4.916 3.420 PT -20 -6.965* 1.435 0.000 -11.133 -2.797 PT -25 -7.278* 1.435 0.000 -11.446 -3.110 PT -30 -9.578* 1.435 0.000 -13.746 -5.410

PT -15

PT -5 -0.218 1.435 1.000 -4.386 3.950 PT -10 0.748 1.435 0.995 -3.420 4.916 PT -20 -6.216* 1.435 0.000 -10.384 -2.048 PT -25 -6.530* 1.435 0.000 -10.698 -2.362 PT -30 -8.829* 1.435 0.000 -12.998 -4.661

PT -20

PT -5 5.998* 1.435 0.001 1.830 10.166 PT -10 6.965* 1.435 0.000 2.797 11.133 PT -15 6.216* 1.435 0.000 2.048 10.384 PT -25 -0.313 1.435 1.000 -4.482 3.855 PT -30 -2.613 1.435 0.457 -6.781 1.555

PT -25

PT -5 6.312* 1.435 0.000 2.144 10.480 PT -10 7.278* 1.435 0.000 3.110 11.446 PT -15 6.530* 1.435 0.000 2.362 10.698 PT -20 0.313 1.435 1.000 -3.855 4.482 PT -30 -2.300 1.435 0.599 -6.468 1.869

PT -30

PT -5 8.611* 1.435 0.000 4.443 12.779 PT -10 9.578* 1.435 0.000 5.410 13.746 PT -15 8.830* 1.435 0.000 4.661 12.998 PT -20 2.613 1.435 0.457 -1.555 6.781 PT -25 2.300 1.435 0.599 -1.869 6.468


Appendix XI

lv

APPENDIX XI

REFLECTANCE VALUES FOR VARIOUS SUBSTRATES

TABLE I: REFLECTANCE VALUES FOR SILK CRÊPE (BEFORE &AFTER WASH) REFLECTANCE VALUE (UNSOILED) SILK CRÊPE (SCr 1) = 55.01 SILK CRÊPE (SCr 2) = 58.12

REFLECTANCE VALUES

S No. SCr 1- SILK CRÊPE (LIGHT WEIGHT) SCr 2- SILK CRÊPE (HEAVY WEIGHT)

ULTRASONIC WASH MACHINE WASH ULTRASONIC WASH MACHINE WASH Before Wash

After Wash

Increase in Refl. Value

Before Wash

After Wash


Before Wash

After Wash


Before Wash

After Wash

Increase in Refl.Value

1 19.33 51.57 32.24 18.07 41.48 23.41 21.10 48.13 27.03 19.84 43.78 23.94 2 18.73 47.04 28.31 17.47 40.71 23.24 17.29 51.34 34.05 16.03 46.99 30.96 3 19.99 45.85 25.86 18.73 39.52 20.79 20.80 52.04 31.24 19.54 47.69 28.15 4 21.81 46.88 25.07 20.55 40.55 20.00 27.27 51.80 24.53 26.01 47.45 21.44 5 21.98 48.53 26.55 20.72 42.20 21.48 33.82 53.05 19.23 32.56 48.70 16.14 6 20.37 47.97 27.61 19.11 41.64 22.54 24.06 51.28 27.22 22.79 46.92 24.13 7 19.34 48.77 29.43 18.08 42.44 24.36 22.36 52.48 30.12 21.10 48.13 27.03 8 20.66 47.94 27.28 19.40 41.61 22.21 21.07 51.00 29.93 19.81 46.65 26.84 9 21.32 46.78 25.46 20.06 40.45 20.39 23.94 48.76 24.82 22.68 44.41 21.73 10 19.87 50.01 30.14 18.61 43.68 25.07 23.75 51.46 27.71 22.49 47.11 24.62 11 20.11 49.95 29.84 18.85 43.62 24.77 22.19 52.52 30.33 20.93 48.17 27.24 12 20.07 49.13 29.06 18.81 42.80 23.99 26.67 52.61 25.94 25.41 48.26 22.85 13 21.07 49.84 28.77 19.81 43.51 23.70 24.12 49.16 25.04 22.86 44.81 21.95 14 19.94 48.82 28.88 18.68 42.49 23.81 23.65 51.51 27.86 22.39 47.16 24.77 15 19.59 47.62 28.03 18.33 41.29 22.96 24.84 50.12 25.28 23.58 45.77 22.19 16 20.75 49.48 28.73 19.49 43.15 23.66 21.70 50.16 28.46 20.44 45.81 25.37

Average 20.31 48.51 28.20 19.05 41.94 22.90 23.66 51.09 27.43 22.40 46.74 24.34

TABLE II: REFLECTANCE VALUES FOR LIGHT WEIGHT SILK (BEFORE &AFTER WASH) REFLECTANCE VALUE (UNSOILED) LIGHT WT. SILK (S1) = 40.11

REFLECTANCE VALUES

S No. S1-LIGHT WEIGHT SILK

ULTRASONIC WASH MACHINE WASH Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

1 15.88 35.27 19.39 14.62 30.27 15.65 2 16.33 34.26 17.93 15.07 29.26 14.19 3 14.73 34.02 19.29 13.47 29.02 15.55 4 15.66 35.18 19.52 14.40 30.18 15.78 5 19.61 35.51 15.9 18.35 30.51 12.16 6 16.44 34.56 18.12 15.18 29.56 14.38 7 14.98 36.6 21.62 13.72 29.6 15.88 8 16.00 34.54 18.54 14.74 29.54 14.80 9 15.72 33.37 17.65 14.46 28.37 13.91 10 15.97 32.36 16.39 14.71 27.36 12.65 11 13.69 33.45 19.76 12.43 28.45 16.02 12 14.56 34.72 20.16 13.3 29.72 16.42 13 15.03 35.78 20.75 13.77 27.78 14.01 14 15.71 35.16 19.45 14.45 30.16 15.71 15 14.83 35.66 20.83 13.57 28.66 15.09 16 16.71 33.41 16.70 15.45 28.41 12.96

Average 15.74 34.62 18.87 14.48 29.18 14.7

Appendix XI

lvi

TABLE III: REFLECTANCE VALUES FOR MEDIUM WEIGHT SILK (BEFORE &AFTER WASH) REFLECTANCE VALUE (UNSOILED) MEDIUM WT. SILK (S2) = 52.33

REFLECTANCE VALUES S2-MEDIUM WEIGHT SILK

S No. ULTRASONIC WASH MACHINE WASH

Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

1 26.68 48.09 21.41 25.42 38.51 13.09 2 25.71 48.71 23.00 24.45 39.13 14.68 3 25.14 49.14 24.00 23.88 39.56 15.68 4 26.39 48.90 22.51 25.13 39.32 14.19 5 21.95 45.8 23.85 20.69 36.22 15.53 6 25.17 48.13 22.95 23.91 38.55 22.95 7 23.45 49.01 25.56 22.19 39.43 17.24 8 24.39 47.97 23.58 23.13 38.39 15.26 9 24.48 48.57 24.09 23.22 38.99 15.77 10 25.61 47.26 21.65 24.35 37.68 13.33 11 26.51 46.89 20.38 25.25 37.31 12.06 12 22.79 47.72 24.93 21.53 38.14 16.61 13 23.48 48.20 24.72 22.22 38.62 16.4 14 26.45 44.43 17.98 25.19 34.85 9.66 15 25.01 46.16 21.15 23.75 36.58 12.83 16 24.93 48.79 23.86 23.67 39.21 15.54

Average 24.88 47.74 22.85 23.62 38.15 15.05

TABLE IV: REFLECTANCE VALUES FOR HEAVY WEIGHT SILK (BEFORE &AFTER WASH) REFLECTANCE VALUE (UNSOILED) HEAVY WT. SILK (S3) = 51.91 REFLECTANCE VALUES S3-HEAVY WEIGHT SILK ULTRASONIC WASH MACHINE WASH

S No. Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

1 27.14 48.6 21.46 25.88 39.02 13.14 2 24.84 50.28 25.44 23.58 40.7 17.12 3 27.13 50.23 23.1 25.87 40.65 14.78 4 29.89 50.48 20.59 28.63 40.9 12.27 5 27.02 50 22.98 25.76 40.42 14.66 6 27.2 49.92 22.71 25.94 40.34 22.71 7 26.27 48.78 22.51 25.01 39.2 14.19 8 25.82 47.6 21.78 24.56 39.02 14.46 9 24.76 45.98 21.22 23.49 36.4 12.9 10 25.25 48.56 23.31 23.99 38.98 14.99 11 25.24 47.09 21.86 23.97 37.51 13.53 12 26.76 48.68 21.92 25.5 39.1 13.6 13 27.91 49.43 21.52 26.65 39.85 13.2 14 23.96 50.21 26.25 22.7 40.63 17.93 15 25.97 50.9 24.93 24.71 41.32 16.61 16 26.61 49.1 22.49 25.35 41.52 16.17

Average 26.36 49.11 22.75 25.1 39.72 15.14

Appendix XI

lvii

TABLE V: REFLECTANCE VALUES FOR CHIFFON (BEFORE &AFTER WASH) REFLECTANCE VALUE (UNSOILED) CHIFFON (CH1-DOUBLE LAYER) - 42.05

REFLECTANCE VALUE

S No. Ch1-CHIFFON


After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

1 22.76 38.73 15.97 21.50 31.11 9.61 2 22.80 38.66 15.86 21.54 31.04 9.50 3 17.63 38.13 20.50 16.37 30.51 14.14 4 20.06 37.52 17.46 18.80 29.90 11.10 5 19.20 39.77 20.57 17.94 32.15 14.21 6 20.49 38.56 17.27 19.23 30.94 17.27 7 21.65 39.23 17.58 20.39 31.61 11.22 8 23.45 40.10 16.65 22.19 32.48 10.29 9 22.11 38.62 16.51 20.85 31.00 10.15 10 23.76 40.25 16.49 22.50 32.63 10.13 11 23.19 38.20 15.01 21.93 30.58 8.65 12 24.38 39.82 15.44 23.12 32.20 9.08 13 23.91 38.85 14.94 22.65 31.23 8.58 14 19.04 38.07 19.03 17.78 30.45 12.67 15 20.22 39.96 19.74 18.96 32.34 13.38 16 23.30 38.80 15.50 22.04 31.18 9.14

Average 21.75 38.95 17.16 20.48 31.33 11.20

TABLE VI: REFLECTANCE VALUES FOR RAYON (BEFORE &AFTER WASH) REFLECTANCE VALUE (UNSOILED) RAYON (R1) = 56.50 RAYON (R2) = 52.05

REFLECTANCE VALUES

S No. R1-RAYON R2-RAYON


After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

1 33.01 52.71 19.70 31.75 46.42 14.67 17.44 48.41 20.97 16.18 34.65 20.97 2 31.73 54.43 22.70 30.47 48.14 17.67 25.48 44.87 14.61 24.22 31.11 14.61 3 30.47 54.36 23.89 29.21 48.07 18.86 25.92 44.90 18.98 24.66 32.14 18.98 4 33.03 54.74 21.71 31.77 48.45 16.68 27.51 45.41 17.90 26.25 31.65 17.90 5 29.06 55.35 26.29 32.80 49.06 16.26 24.67 45.36 20.69 23.41 31.60 20.69 6 31.46 54.32 22.86 30.20 48.02 17.83 24.20 42.83 18.63 22.94 29.08 18.63 7 32.43 53.80 21.37 31.17 47.51 16.34 20.77 45.61 24.84 19.51 31.85 12.34 8 33.02 54.20 21.18 31.76 47.91 16.15 21.60 44.32 22.72 20.34 30.56 10.22 9 31.96 53.17 21.21 30.70 46.88 16.18 22.39 43.98 21.59 21.13 30.22 9.09 10 32.77 53.36 20.59 31.51 47.07 15.56 23.65 45.76 22.11 22.39 32.00 9.61 11 29.57 54.47 24.90 30.31 48.18 17.87 24.42 44.38 19.96 23.16 30.62 7.46 12 30.62 52.28 21.66 29.36 45.99 16.63 25.10 42.96 17.86 23.84 31.20 7.36 13 30.32 54.07 23.75 29.06 47.78 18.72 23.87 45.76 21.89 20.61 32.00 11.39 14 31.17 53.71 22.54 29.91 47.42 17.51 23.63 46.66 23.03 22.37 32.90 10.53 15 32.48 52.69 20.21 31.22 46.40 15.18 24.00 44.94 20.94 22.74 31.18 8.44 16 33.50 54.93 21.43 32.24 48.64 16.40 24.28 46.02 21.74 21.02 34.26 13.24

Average 31.66 53.91 22.25 30.84 47.62 16.78 23.68 45.14 20.53 22.17 31.69 13.22

lviii

TABLE VII: REFLECTANCE VALUES FOR LIGHT WEIGHT COTTON (BEFORE &AFTER WASH) REFLECTANCE VALUE (UNSOILED) COTTON (C1) = 56.33 COTTON (C1) = 61.13

REFLECTANCE VALUES

S No. C1- LIGHT WEIGHT COTTON C2 – MEDIUM WEIGHT COTTON


After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

1 20.45 48.98 28.53 19.19 40.76 21.57 20.75 50.67 29.92 19.49 44.59 25.11 2 19.85 47.89 28.04 18.59 43.67 25.08 23.31 51.86 28.55 22.05 45.78 23.74 3 21.11 46.17 25.06 19.85 41.95 22.1 20.11 52.97 32.86 18.85 46.89 28.05 4 20.46 48.94 28.48 19.2 39.72 20.52 26.96 51.7 24.74 25.7 45.62 19.93 5 23.1 46.81 23.71 21.84 42.59 20.75 21.81 52.58 30.77 20.55 46.5 25.96 6 20.99 49.45 28.45 19.73 45.23 25.49 26.78 53.2 26.42 25.52 47.12 21.61 7 22.27 50.32 28.05 21.01 46.1 25.09 29.18 55.1 25.92 27.92 49.02 21.11 8 21.78 50.3 28.52 20.52 46.08 25.56 25.88 51.84 25.96 24.62 45.76 21.15 9 22.44 53.07 30.63 21.18 48.85 27.67 27.57 54.05 26.48 26.31 47.97 21.67 10 20.99 53.58 32.59 19.73 46.36 26.63 29.58 53.74 24.16 28.32 47.66 19.35 11 21.23 48.54 27.31 19.97 40.32 20.35 19.33 53.98 34.65 18.07 47.9 29.84 12 21.19 49.96 28.77 19.93 42.74 22.81 27.66 53.96 26.3 26.4 47.88 21.49 13 22.19 51.65 29.46 20.93 47.94 27.01 19.94 52.5 32.56 18.68 46.42 27.75 14 21.06 51.93 30.87 19.08 47.71 28.63 19.59 51.61 32.02 18.33 45.53 27.21 15 20.71 50.88 30.17 19.45 46.66 27.21 28.72 52.96 24.24 27.46 46.88 19.43 16 22.93 50.05 27.12 22.67 45.83 23.16 20.99 53.79 32.8 19.73 47.71 27.98

Average 21.42 49.91 28.48 20.18 44.53 24.35 24.26 52.91 28.65 23 46.83 23.83

TABLE VIII: REFLECTANCE VALUES FOR MEDIUM WEIGHT COTTON (BEFORE &AFTER WASH)

REFLECTANCE VALUE (UNSOILED) COTTON (C3) – 58.87 REFLECTANCE VALUE

S No. C3 – HEAVY COTTON


After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

Before Wash

After Wash

Inc. in Refl. Value

1 21.32 52.31 30.99 20.06 45.04 24.98 2 19.87 50.71 30.84 18.61 43.44 24.83 3 22.38 49.69 27.31 21.12 42.42 21.3 4 21.96 50.9 28.94 20.7 43.63 22.93 5 18.73 50.97 32.24 17.47 43.7 26.23 6 19.99 50.51 30.52 18.73 43.24 24.51 7 19.34 49.39 30.05 18.08 42.12 24.04 8 21.98 48.53 26.55 20.72 41.26 20.54 9 22.35 48.5 26.15 21.09 41.23 20.14 10 21.81 49.31 27.5 20.55 42.04 21.49 11 20.92 50.7 29.78 19.66 43.43 23.77 12 20.66 48.43 27.77 19.4 41.16 21.76 13 21.05 49.06 28.01 19.79 41.79 22 14 23.34 48.67 25.33 22.08 41.4 19.32 15 20.07 49.79 29.72 18.81 42.52 23.71 16 21.07 51.96 30.89 19.81 42.69 22.88

Average 21.05 49.97 28.91 19.79 42.57 22.78

lix

APPENDIX XII

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS PUBLICATIONS • Ultrasonic Cleaning (2009) Clean & Hygiene Review, Sept-October: (Reprint

attached) • Sound Clean your Clothes (Accepted for Publication) Laundry and Cleaning News

International (Paper attached) • Papers published in the proceedings of the conferences mentioned below PAPER AND POSTER PRESENTATIONS • “Ultrasonic Cleaning of Heavily Soiled Garments” at Golden Jubilee, Joint

Technological Conference (50th JTC) held on 7-8th March 2009 at ATIRA, Ahmedabad.

• “Ultrasonic Cleaning Of Textiles: Efficacy On Various Soils And Substrates at Asian Regional Association Of Home Economics (ARAHE), 15th Biennial International Congress, “Social Upliftment through Human Empowerment in the perspective of Home Economics” held on 11-15 December 2009 in Pune, India.

• “Ultrasonic Washing of Garments” presentation for the Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC) on 13th May, 2009.

• “Ultrasonic Cleaning Of Highly Soiled Garments” presentation before the Expert Panel Committee on 6th June 2008 and July 2009 at NITRA, Ghaziabad.

• Poster Presentation at 5th International Conference for Apparel and Home Textiles, ICAHT, organized by OGTC (Okhla Garment and Textile Cluster), 27-28 Sept.2009 on “Ultrasonic Cleaning Of Highly Soiled Apparel-An Alternative”.

• Working of the prototype demonstrated at various premium hotels with in house fabric care facilities such as ITC Maurya, Delhi.

AWARDS • 2nd prize poster presentation in 5th International Conference for Apparel and Home

Textiles, ICAHT, organized by OGTC(Okhla Garment and Textile Cluster) supported by UNODC and AEPC, Govt.of India. Associated sponsor PDEXCIL (Powerloom Development and Export Promotion Council), Knowledge Partner GTZ (German Technology Co-Operative)

ULTRASONIC CLEANING OF HEAVILY SOILED GARMENTS1 Sabina Sethi

Senior Lecturer, Department of Fabric & Apparel Science, Lady Irwin College New Delhi-110001, India

and Dr. J. V. Rao

Director, Northern India Textile Research Organization, Ghaziabad - 201002, India Introduction Fundamentally to clean clothes, four factors in proper combination are necessary; these are time, temperature, agitation and chemistry of the detergent. In conventional aqueous cleaning process agitation plays an important role. Agitation can be in the form of hand friction, scrubbing, brushing, etc. Agitation, which is an important requisite for effective cleaning, damages the garment. Repeated washings cause progressive damage to the garment. This damage is evident in the form of change in the surface characteristics like pilling and fiber protrusion. It also affects the aesthetics of apparel due to color fading, frosting and creation of air pockets/ de-lamination in multilayered fabrics. Despite technological strides in developing better detergents and more effective washing machines, heavily soiled areas in a garment like collars and cuffs are still a challenge. Agitation therefore is a critical factor that needs to be reviewed and substituted. Use of ultrasonic waves offers an alternative whereby the garments can be washed more effectively, especially in the highly soiled areas. In the present work, use of ultrasonic energy to substitute mechanical agitation and manual scrubbing was explored. To optimize the cleaning of heavily soiled portions of the garment, ultrasonic washing at various temperatures and concentrations was done, using standard as well as commercial detergent. Materials and Methods 100% bleached cotton (plain woven) fabric was used for the study. The fabric was soiled by three types of soils. For washing a phosphate reference detergent (B) without optical brightener namely Extran and commercial washing detergent, were used. Three different types of soils were applied to the fabric. • Standard soil recipe as per IS: 5785:2005 (Part IV) was prepared and applied. As

per the IS method after soiling the reflectance value of sample should be 34 ±1; as the study is meant for heavily soiled articles, the value was maintained at 28 ± 2.

1 Proceedings of Joint Technological Conference (50th JTC), 7-8th March 2009, ATIRA, Ahmedabad.

• Natural dry particulate Soil (dirt): The dirt was air dried to constant weight and sieved through a 200-size mesh screen to remove large particles. The soil was applied using Wet Abrasion Scrub Tester with suitable modifications and operated under controlled conditions.

• Field soiled samples: Collars were stitched with inter-lining. These were given to subjects to wear and soiled collars returned after a standard day’s wear.

Following series of experiments were carried out on soiled fabrics. All experiments were carried out by first soaking the soiled sample in detergent for five minutes. • Ultrasonic cleaning at 30oC, 40oC, 45oC, 50oC, and 60oC.to optimize washing

temperature using standard reference detergent. • Ultrasonic cleaning at 3g/l, 6g/l, 9g/l, 12g/l, 15g/l and 18g/l of concentrations of

standard reference detergent at the optimized temperature. • Manual scrubbing experiments at optimum temperature and concentration for

one minute. • Optimization of ultrasonic cleaning factors to replace manual scrubbing using

commercially available detergent. • Ultrasonic cleaning with three types of soil. Whiteness index was measured as per Hunter’s lab scale using computer color matching system. The illuminant used was D65 with 10o observer. The whiteness index of unsoiled fabric, soiled cloth and washed samples was measured taking necessary precautions to ensure the area measured after treatment was exactly same as before by careful placement of the markers. The ultrasonic cleaning unit has six transducers of 40 watt each. These piezo-ceramic transducers are bonded to the bottom of the tank and emit high frequency sound waves of 33 KHz. The ultrasonic tank is made of stainless steel. The tank was filled with six liter of ordinary tap water and specified amount of detergent. Results and Discussion The present work aims to eliminate mechanical scrubbing of soiled portions of a garment so as to avoid damage to the fabric. In practice, the heavily soiled portions of the garments are scrubbed manually or with the help of a brush for about a minute prior to loading them in to the washing machine. Therefore it was decided to carry out all experiments wherein the soiled portions were subjected to ultrasonic

treatment for only one minute. Whiteness index was measured before and after ultrasonic treatment to asses the extent of soil removal. Difference in the whiteness index readings was used as a criterion to evaluate the cleaning efficiency. Effect of temperature on cleaning efficiency Figs 1 to 5 show the effect of temperature on soil removal during ultrasonic cleaning. For the purpose of comparison these figures also show the extent to which cleaning was done in the absence of ultrasonic energy (control samples). For each temperature graph was plotted representing change in whiteness index values on ‘X’ axis and number of samples in each range on ‘Y’ axis .A comparison of cleaning efficiencies of control and ultrasonic cleaned samples indicates that one minute exposure to ultrasonic energy can help in removing the soil.

02468

101214161820

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Change in Whiteness Index

No. o

f Sam

ples

ControlUltrasonic Sample

Figure 1: Cleaning Efficiency at 30oC

02468

10121416

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Change in Whiteness Index Value

No. o

f sam

ples Control

Ultrasonic Sample


02468

1012141618

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Change in Whiteness Index value

No. o

f Sam

ples



02468

1012141618

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


No. o

f Sam

ples



0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


No. o

f Sam

ples



A comparison of cleaning at various temperatures showed, maximum cleaning is achieved between 40oC and 50oC, beyond 50oC there is no improvement in cleaning. Therefore all subsequent experiments were carried out between 40oC and 50oC Effect of detergent concentration on cleaning efficiency At all concentrations ultrasonic treated samples showed higher change in whiteness index value i.e. better cleaning compared to control sample (Table 1). From the range of concentrations taken in the study it appears that detergent concentration does not influence the cleaning efficiency to a great extent. Therefore all subsequent experiments were conducted with 3g/l detergent concentration.

Table 1

1 3 g /l A 1 .3B 5 .5

2 6 g /l A 1 .5B 5

3 9 g /l A 1 .3B 5

4 1 2 g /l A 1 .3B 6

5 1 5 g /l A 2 .6B 6 .5

6 1 8 g /l A 3 .6B 5

A - C o n tro l S a m p le B - U ltra s o n ic S a m p le

A v e ra g e W h ite n e s s In d e x v a lu e *S .N o .

D e te rg e n t C o n c e n tra tio n E X T R A N

S a m p le N o .

*This is an average of 36 samples

Manual Vs Automated Machine Scrubbing Samples were subjected to manual and automated scrubbing for one minute at 40oC-50oC with 3g/l detergent concentration. Change in whiteness index value is shown Fig 6. Manual scrubbing produced better cleaning when compared to automated scrubbing.

Figure 6: Scrubbing at optimized conditions

0123456789

10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 CHANGE IN WHITENESS INDEX VALUE

NU

MB

ER

OF

SA

MP

LE

S Automated Scrubbing

Manual Scrubbing

Cleaning with household detergent Experiments were conducted by varying concentration of a commercially available household detergent. At all concentrations ultrasonic cleaning showed marked improvement in cleaning efficiency (Fig 7 to 12) when compared to the cleaning of control samples. The increase in detergent concentration from 3g/l to 12 g/l seems to have no significant improvement in cleaning where as at higher concentrations (15g/l and 18 g/l) a marginal improvement in cleaning is seen. Fig 7 shows the cleaning efficiencies of ultrasonic washed samples and samples cleaned by manual scrubbing and automated machine scrubbing. All samples were washed with 3g/l commercial detergent at 40-500C with pre soaking in detergent solution for 5 minutes followed by ultrasonic cleaning/manual scrubbing/automated machine scrubbing. The figure clearly indicates that the cleaning efficiency of ultrasonic washed samples is almost same as those cleaned by manual scrubbing.

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Change in whiteness Index value

No. o

f Sam

ples

ControlUltrasonicManual ScrubbingAutomated Scrubbing

Figure 7: Cleaning efficiency at 3g/l

0

1

2

3

4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


No. o

f Sam

ples

ControlUltrasonic


0

1

2

3

4

5

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Change in Whiteness Index value

No. o

f Sam

ples

ControlUltrasonic


0

1

2

3

4

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Change in Whiteness Index Value

No. o

f Sam

ples

ControlUltrasonic


0

1

2

3

4

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16


No. o

f Sam

ples

ControlUltrasonic


0

1

2

3

4

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Change in Whiteness Index Value

No. o

f Sam

ples

ControlUltrasonic


Effect of type of soil on cleaning efficiency Fabric samples were soiled with three types of soils and then soaked in a commercial detergent solution for five minutes and washed in ultrasonic machine for one minute at 400-500C. For the three soils studied, ultrasonic washing produced better cleaning than washing under controlled conditions. Table 2 : Experiments with dry particulate soil

Difference in Whiteness Index valueControl Sample (A) Ultrasonic Sample (B) Manual Scrubbing Automated ScrubbingRange Average* Range Average* Range Average* Range Average*

1 3 6-11 8.5 12-15 14.0 16-22 19.0 14-16 15.22 6 8-11 9.5 10-17 12.5 - - - - 3 9 8-11 9.0 14-17 14.8 - - - - 4 12 9-11 9.3 12-15 13.7 - - - - 5 15 8-10 9.2 15-19 16.8 - - - - 6 18 8-11 10.2 19-22 20.5 - - - -

* This is an average of 36 samples

S.No.

Commercial Detergent Concentration (g/l)

The cleaning efficiency by ultrasonic cleaning, manual scrubbing and automated machine scrubbing for dry particulate soil is given in Table 2. For 3 g/l commercial detergent concentration at 400-500C for one minute cleaning, the cleaning efficiency seems to be same for all three methods of washing. Similar trend is observed while washing the soiled collars by the three different washing methods (Table 3)

Table 3 : Experiments with field soiled samples (collars)Difference in Whiteness Index value

Control Sample (A) Ultrasonic Sample (B) Manual Scrubbing Automated ScrubbingRange Average* Range Average* Range Average* Range Average*

1 3 2-5 3.3 2-7 4.3 4-8 5.75 2-5 3.3752 6 0-1 0.4 1-3 1.8 - - - - 3 9 1-4 2.1 1-5 2.1 - - - - 4 12 0-3 1.6 1-6 3.1 - - - - 5 15 1-2 1.6 1-5 3.3 - - - - 6 18 2-6 3.0 4-12 5.1 - - - -

* This is an average of 36 samples

Commercial Detergent Concentration (g/l)S.No.

Conclusion In can be concluded from this work that ultrasonic agitation can efficiently clean highly soiled portions of apparels and can replace harsh manual/brush scrubbing and vigorous agitation during machine washing. The cleaning efficiency is found to be good if washing is carried out between 40o and 50oC with 3 g/l commercial detergent.

Acknowledgement We are thankful to Dr. Mona Suri, Reader, Lady Irwin College, Delhi University and Dr. M. S. Parmar, Assistant Director, NITRA for their constant encouragement and valuable support during the course of the research work. References 1. Akalin, M. et al, Ultrasonic, Vol. 42, No. 1-9, April, 2004,. 161-164 2. Biagiarelli, J., "Ultrasonics - A practical approach to cleaning”, Lewis Cleaning

Systems, PF Online 3. Cheeke, D., "Fundamentals and Applications of Ultrasonic Waves", Pure and

Applied Physics, New York: New York Academic Press, 2002 4. Donoghue, O'Maurice, "Ultrasonic Cleaning Process", www.natclo.com/dp/ultra.html 5. Haskell, W.B., Nagapudi, K., Mock, G., McCall, R., Coto, M.J. and Klutz, D.,

"Fundamental Investigations of Ultrasonic effects in textile wet processing", National Textile Centre Research Briefs, May, 1995

6. Mathur, M., Sanke, M.D. and Bardhan, M.K., "Energy conservation in wet processing: Development of low energy dyeing machine", Colourage, Vol. 51, 2004, 93-99

7. Moholkar, V.S., Nierstrasz, V.A. and Warmoeskerken, M.M.C.G., "Intensification of mass transfer in wet textile processes by power ultrasound", Autex Research Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3, September, 2003

8. Rathi, N.H., Mock, McCall, G.N., R.E. and Grady P.L., "Ultrasound aided open width washing of mercerized 100% cotton twill fabric", AATCC Book of Papers, 1997,. 254-262

SOUND CLEAN YOUR CLOTHES

One of the biggest problems faced by the Laundry and cleaning industry is the removal of soil from heavily soiled areas of a garment. For instance, collars and cuffs of a shirt are the areas most likely to touch the skin & therefore are the dirtiest .Also the upper torso area of a shirt can be home to various stains. For particularly dirty clothing covered/encrusted with mud or dirt, it is necessary to constantly rub and flex the cloth to break apart solids and help the soap penetrate through thick, dry, or sticky layers of soil on the cloth In conventional wet cleaning process using water and detergent as a medium do not remove this soil easily .Often the process calls for severe mechanical action such as scrubbing, which is not only laborious and time consuming but also invites customer complaints- torn portions in the garment (especially collars and cuffs), color fading, delamination or creation of air pockets in multilayered areas and so on. Basically mechanical agitation whether provided by hand friction, brush action, agitation or rotor in a washing machine, results in fabric damage. This damage is further aggravated due to repeated washings and particularly scrubbing of hard to clean areas. These limitations of wet-cleaning lead to popularity of dry-cleaning where solvents or absorbents are used to remove greasy soil from fabrics. Dry-cleaning has advantages of using less water than aqueous washing, has softer action on fabric making it fiber gentle. But the use of dry-cleaning over the last few years has brought into focus its drawbacks. These include use of harmful chemical like PERC and other halogenated hydrocarbons that release obnoxious fumes in the atmosphere leading to larger problems of pollution and ozone depletion, therefore stricter norms and regulations. These problems of dry-cleaning have once again generated interest in wet-cleaning techniques but there is a need to make wet-cleaning more efficient, as the existing method to be effective in soil removal is also harsh on the fabric. There is one fiber gentle, very effective and eco-friendly way of cleaning using conventional aqueous system of cleaning with a detergent - use of ULTRASONIC energy for washing.

It is interesting to note that more than 35 patents have been awarded since the first patent in 1964 for sonic laundering machine .But none of these patents have been commercially accepted, which may be due to technical or commercial reasons. The work carried out by Ms. Sabina Sethi as part of her doctoral research at NITRA (Northern India Textile Research Organization) has shown encouraging outcome. It is possible to clean heavily soiled areas of a garment to an extent which replaces harsh pretreatments like scrubbing/brushing of these areas or use of strong chemicals before subsequent washing by washing machine. Ultrasonic agitation takes place not only at the textile surface but also deep within the structure of the fabric. Compared to the conventional methods, Ultrasonic washing is faster, labor saving and also more Eco-Savvy as effective washing is achieved with milder reagents and/or detergents at low concentrations; uses less energy as washing is at lower temperatures; requires small volumes of rinse water, and cleans thoroughly and gently. NITRA’S study has indicated that with the help of a small mounting on the washing machine the process can be carried out. The efficiency of cleaning by ultrasonic method can be gauged from the picture below

SOILED COLLAR CLEANING WITH ULTRASONIC

NITRA would be happy to associate with any laundry machine manufacturing companies in developing the above mentioned gadget which can be mounted on the machine. For details contact: Dr. J.V.Rao Director-NITRA Sector-23, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP (India)

appendices - inflibnetshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/9068/16/16_appendices.pdf · does...

Documents