Odorous clothing can be an annoying and unpleasant problem, particularly when odorants are not effectively removed via laundering. Cotton and polyester knit fabrics were soiled with three selected odorants, representing different polarities and lipophilicities (i.e. octanoic acid, 2-nonenal, dodecane). Fabrics were subjected to 1, 5 and 10 soil/wash cycles using a regular liquid detergent (Tide® Free and Gentle) or a sport liquid detergent (Tide® Plus Febreze Sport). Odorants released into the headspace were collected using solid phase micro-extraction, and odorants retained within the fabric were collected using solvent extraction. Analysis of odorant peaks was carried out using gas chromatography-flame ionization detection. Prior to laundering, higher amounts of all odorants were released into the headspace above polyester fabrics than above cotton fabrics. Cotton fabrics retained more octanoic acid within the fabric and lower amounts of 2-nonenal than polyester. Laundering was more effective at removing odorants from cotton than from polyester, and the polar octanoic acid was more readily removed than the two non-polar odorants from both fabrics. Accumulation of odorants occurred as soil/wash cycles increased from 1 to 5 cycles. However, between 5 and 10 soil/wash cycles the amounts of compounds did not significantly increase, with significantly lower amounts of octanoic acid extracted from cotton at 10 cycles compared to 5 cycles. The results from this study indicate that incomplete removal of odorants during washing, especially from oleophilic polyester fabrics, is a cause for odor build-up in clothing.
KleppIGBuckMLaitalaK, et al.What's the problem? Odor-control and the smell of sweat in sportswear. Fash Pract2016; 8: 296–317.
2.
McQueenRHHarynukJJWismerWV, et al.Axillary odour build-up in knit fabrics following multiple use cycles. Int J Cloth Sci Technol2014; 26: 274–290.
3.
McQueenRHLaingRMBrooksHJL, et al.Odor intensity in apparel fabrics and the link with bacterial populations. Text Res J2007; 77: 449–456.
4.
LaingRM. Natural fibres in next-to-skin textiles: current perspectives on human body odour. SN Appl Sci2019; 1: 1–8.
5.
McQueenRHVaezafsharS. Odor in textiles: a review of evaluation methods, fabric characteristics, and odor control technologies. Text Res J 2020; 90: 1157–1173.
6.
TakeuchiKYabukiMHasegawaY. Review of odorants in human axillary odour and laundry malodour: the importance of branched C7 chain analogues in malodours perceived by humans. Flavour Fragr J2013; 28: 223–230.
7.
NatschASchmidJFlachsmannF. Identification of odoriferous sulfanylalkanols in human axilla secretions and their formation through cleavage of cysteine precursors by a C-S lyase isolated from axilla bacteria. Chem Biodivers2004; 1: 1058–1072.
8.
TroccazMStarkenmannCNiclassY, et al.3-Methyl-3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol as a major descriptor for the human axilla-sweat odour profile. Chem Biodivers2004; 1: 1022–1035.
9.
ZengX-NLeydenJJLawleyHJ, et al.Analysis of characteristic odors from human male axillae. J Chem Ecol1991; 17: 1469–1492.
10.
KanlayavattanakulMLourithN. Body malodours and their topical treatment agents. Int J Cosmet Sci2011; 33: 298–311.
11.
MunkSMünchPStahnkeL, et al.Primary odorants of laundry soiled with sweat/sebum: influence of lipase on the odor profile. J Surfactants Deterg2000; 3: 505–515.
12.
YaoLLaingRMBremerPJ, et al.Measuring textile adsorption of body odor compounds using proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry. Text Res J2015; 85: 1817–1826.
13.
McQueenRHMoranLJCunninghamC, et al.The impact of odour on laundering behaviour: an exploratory study. Int J Fash Des Technol Educ 2020; 13: 20–30.
14.
ShoveE. Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience. J Consum Policy2003; 26: 395–418.
15.
EllmerKFuchsMBauerU, et al.Research project Simulation Wäschepflege – recommendations for improving resource efficiency in the laundry process in households in Germany. J Clean Prod2017; 153: 539–547.
16.
MunkSJohansenCStahnkeLH, et al.Microbial survival and odor in laundry. J Surfactants Deterg2001; 4: 385–394.
17.
ScheibelJJ. The evolution of anionic surfactant technology to meet the requirements of the laundry detergent industry. J Surfactants Deterg2004; 7: 319–328.
18.
McQueenRHLaingRMDelahuntyCM, et al.Retention of axillary odour on apparel fabrics. J Text Inst2008; 99: 515–523.
19.
HammerTRBerner-DannenmannNHoeferD. Quantitative and sensory evaluation of malodour retention of fibre types by use of artificial skin, sweat and radiolabelled isovaleric acid. Flavour Fragr J2013; 28: 238–244.
20.
FleischfresserBESmithGC. Sorption of carboxylic acids by wool: effect of solvents. Text Res J1988; 58: 221–226.
21.
PradaPACurranAMFurtonKG. The evaluation of human hand odor volatiles on various textiles: a comparison between contact and noncontact sampling methods. J Forensic Sci2011; 56: 866–881.
22.
LaitalaKKjeldsbergMKleppIG. Troubles with the solution: fabric softeners and odour properties. Tenside Surfactants Deterg2012; 49: 362–368.
23.
HazeSGozuYNakamuraS, et al.2-nonenal newly found in human body odor tends to increase with aging. J Invest Dermatol2001; 116: 520–524.
24.
ISO 17299-1:2014. Textiles - determination of deodorant property: Part 1 general principle.
25.
CAN/CGSB 4.2 No. 19.1:2004 Textile test methods - colourfastness to washing - accelerated test - Launder-Ometer.
26.
IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Released 2017.
27.
ObendorfSKWebbJJ. Detergency study: distribution of natural soils on shirt collars. Text Res J1987; 57: 557–563.
28.
ObendorfSKNamasteYMNDurnamDJ. A microscopical study of residual oily soil distribution on fabrics of varying fiber content. Text Res J1983; 53: 375–383.
29.
MillerCARaneyKH. Solubilization— emulsification mechanisms of detergency. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem Eng Asp1993; 74: 169–215.
30.
SainiAThaysenCJantunenL, et al.From clothing to laundry water: investigating the fate of phthalates, brominated flame retardants, and organophosphate esters. Environ Sci Technol2016; 50: 9289–9297.
31.
RichterTMBremerPJSilcockP, et al.Textile binding and release of body odor compounds measured by proton transfer reaction – mass spectrometry. Text Res J2018; 88: 2559–2567.
32.
Bishop DP. Physical and chemical effects of domestic laundering processes. In: Carr CM (ed.) Chemistry of the textiles industry. Dordrecht: Springer, 1995, pp.125–172.
33.
NobleWRWeilJKBistlineRG, et al.Soap-based detergent formulations: X. Nature of detergent deposits. J Am Oil Chem Soc1975; 52: 1–4.
34.
Zappone M, Kaziska A and Bogush G. Applications of detergent in laundering. In: Zoller U (ed.) Handbook of detergents: Part E: applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2008, pp.69–82.
35.
RheeHYoungRASarmadiAM. The effect of functional finishes and laundering on textile materials. Part 1, surface characteristics. J Text Inst1993; 84: 394–405.
36.
CireliASariişikMKutluB, et al.The effects of washing conditions on soil removal in domestic laundering processes. Autex Res J2004; 4: 101–112.
37.
LaitalaKKleppIGBoksC. Changing laundry habits in Norway. Int J Consum Stud2012; 36: 228–237.
38.
YatesLEvansD. Dirtying linen: re-evaluating the sustainability of domestic laundry. Environ Policy Gov2016; 26: 101–115.
39.
Brusdal R. Assessment of the consumer laundry habits - a quantitative survey. In: Arild A-H (ed.) An investigation of domestic laundry in Europe: habits, hygiene and technical performance. Oslo: National Institute for Consumer Research, 2003, pp.19–45.
40.
KymäläinenHR. Comparison of the washing efficiencies of a laboratory washing device (Launder-Ometer) and of automatic household washing machines with horizontal drums. Int J Consum Stud2007; 31: 565–570.
