A THPOH-NH3-treated flame-retardant cotton fabric has been shown to have an increased capacity to hold an electrostatic charge in comparison to untreated cotton fabric. Increased cling and frictional tendencies of the treated yarn, as well as increased wet soil deposition and retention in the treated fabric, have also been observed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amer. Assoc. of Textile Chemists and Colorists, Products/76, Text. Chem. Col. 7(7A), 127 (July 1975).
2.
BackerS., The Relationship Between the Structure Geometry of a Textile Fabric and Its Physical Properties. Part II: The Mechanism of Fabric Abrasion, Textile Res. J. 21, 453–468 (1951).
3.
BarilA.Jr.De LucaL. B.MayerM.Jr., Influence of Temperature and RH on Cotton Processing. Text. Indus. 136, 53 (1972).
4.
BeninateJ. V.KellyE. L.DrakeG. L.Jr.ReevesW. A., Soiling and Soil Removal Studies of Some Modified Crosslinked Cottons, Amer. Dyest. Reptr. 55, No. 2, 25–29 (1966).
5.
Consumer Reports, “Buying Guide, 1976,”Consumers Union of U. S., Inc., N. Y., 50 (1975).
6.
GefterP. L.AnbinderS. U.StysisV. N., Analysis of the Permissable Yarn Static Electrification Levels on ATPR Looms, Tekstil‘naya Promyshlennest‘35, No. 3, 53–56 (1975).
7.
MortonW. E.HearleJ. W., “Physical Properties of Textile Fibres,”Textile Institute, Manchester, Eng., 1962, pp. 463, 490.
8.
NorthrupA., Private Communication to the New York Section, A.A.T.C.C. Intersectional Contest Committee, 1951.
9.
PetersonH., Electrostatic Nuisance in the Textile Industry, Textilbetrieb93, No. 5, 42, 44–45 (1975).
10.
Private Communication.
11.
ReevesW. A.DrakeG. L.Jr.BeninateJ. V.PerkinsR. M., A Comparison of Four Flame Retardants, Text. Chem. Col. 1, 365–369 (1969).
12.
SnellD. S.SnellC. T.ReichI., The Nature of Soil to be Deterged and Its Bonding to the Surface, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 27, 62 (1950).
13.
UtermohlienW. P., Improvement of the Resistance of Cotton Cloth to Soiling, Amer. Dyest. Reptr. 39, 262 (1950).
