Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this study, wet wipes were produced for body applications with nonwoven fabrics consisting of polyester and cellulose (viscose and Tencel®). Fabrics were wetted by natural-based wetting solutions (rose water, olive oil) which were functionalized by sodium alginate and natural antibacterial agents (cinnamaldehyde and geraniol) without preservatives. Besides physical characteristics (weight, thickness, porosity, fiber orientation), bending rigidity, Handle-O-Meter measurements, and moisture management test parameters of the nonwoven fabrics were determined. Subjective hand and wiping performances of produced wipes were determined by subjective evaluations carried out on 10 female subjects. According to the results, 100% Tencel® and its blend with viscose have good absorption and moderate transfer characteristics. Polyester content up to 60% is acceptable for wet wipes for the body according to their liquid absorption, transfer, and subjective evaluation results if fabric weight is sufficient. Among the functionalized wetting solutions, antibacterial performance of the solution including olive oil, sodium alginate and cinnamaldehyde was the maximum and it has acceptable hand values according to objective Handle-O-Meter results and subjective evaluation results.

Keywords

Wet wipe natural solvent antibacterial liquid absorption/transfer subjective evaluation

Introduction

Increased use of wipes in industrial and consumer applications as a result of modernization and increased consumer awareness has led to a big market among personal hygienic products since 1990s. In United States, market growth of wet wipes in 2011–2016 is 5.1%, consisting of mainly personal care, household/home cleaning, and industrial cleaning wipes [1,2]. Besides baby care, many application areas (account 50% of the sales) exist such as face and eye cleaning, make up removing, sun protection (SPF), self-tanning, anti-perspirant, insect-repellent lotion applications on skin, treatment of dry or oily skin, body cleaning, and surface cleaning in houses and industry [3 –5]. Using a wipe is quicker and easier than other cloth/paper towels for dispensing a liquid. Qualifications necessary for baby care wipes determined by subjective panel tests are softness, elasticity, thickness, necessary wet strength in cross direction, and thermal prints [6]. In a patent study [7], dynamic friction resistances of wet wipes were evaluated subjectively after wiping arms and necks of subjects by ratings of stickiness, roughness, dampness, and white appearance after usage. A similar blind clinical trial study was carried out on premenopausal and postmenopausal women to investigate the effects of a prototype feminine hygiene wet wipe and a standard dry toilet tissue on the vulvar skin [8].

Wet wipes consist of two main components: absorbent fabric and the wetting solution. Generally blends of wood pulp or cellulosic fibers (viscose and cotton) with synthetics; mainly polyester, polyamide, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinylalcohol, and bicomponent fibers [9] are used as materials [10,11]. Linen, jute, silk, ramie, hemp, and bamboo may also be used for wet wipes [11,12]. Viscose fibers are a preferred component of fiber blends as they provide desirable wettability for most cleaning lotions when they are used as a component of a nonwoven fabric because of the relatively high surface energy of viscose rayon (∼50 dynes/cm) [6]. Spunlace (roughly half of the market), airlaid, carded, wet laid, needle punched, and composite nonwoven fabrics are used for absorbent fabrics of wet wipes [1]. Spunlace technology is a common method for producing soft, flexible webs having optimum cross direction modulus which gives an idea about the force required to crumple the fabric [6].

Wetting solutions of wet wipes may consist of hydro alcohols, emulsions or oils [5]. They may include alcohol, binder, softener, surfactant, pH buffering material (organic and inorganic acids), emulsifier, silicone oils, perfumes (aleo vera, cinnamon, lemon leaves, lavender, chamomile, etc.), mineral powders, antibacterial agents, and their combinations. Lotions and medicines may also be applied on wet wipes [13 –18]. Moreover, antibiotics (antibacterial and/or antiviral), antioxidants, vitamins (A and E), biological agents, swelling agents, absorptive agents, sedative agents, color pigments [19], and sodium alginate [20] may also be used in wetting solutions of wet wipes. Foaming proteins, such as May-Tein SY, May-Tein C or Supro-Tein S, and their super mild cleansing system, Biobase® SMC, can also be incorporated into wipes for makeup removing, skin cleaning, and body cleaning applications [9]. In a patent study [21], wet wipes including sodium bicarbonate were produced for unpleasant odor prevention and skin healing. A similar two-layered fragrance emitting wet wipe including an antibacterial agent was suggested [22]. According to subjective evaluation results of wet wipes including natural mineral powders (talk, kaolin, etc.) aiming skin relief and pleasant feeling, surface friction of the skin decreased by 95% after wiping. Its performance was further evaluated subjectively for dampness, stickiness, roughness, and whiteness after usage [7]. A test was carried out to determine the effect of wet wipe on skin moisture level by conductance measurements on arm skins of twenty subjects after 30 min of wiping [23]. In a preceding study [24] daphne oil and rose water was used as main wetting solutions combined with zeolite and antibacterial active agent alpha-pinen and it was aimed to leave some of the alpha-pinen caved within zeolite on skin to create healing effect after wiping.

An inadequately preserved wipe product could potentially harbor pathogenic organisms, causing infection or illness [9]. But preservatives which are used to keep the wipes hygienic and sterile by the time it contacts the consumer’s body lead to skin irritations and allergic reactions [25]. Generally used preservatives are alcohols, paraben, organic acid, phenoxyethanol, and glycols. As a result of hazardous effects of chemicals and preservatives, use of natural based products in wetting solutions has gained importance. Besides olive oil, which is one of the main wetting solutions of this study, volatile oils of different plants such as lemon, thyme, cinnamon, and carnation were used as components of wetting solutions [26,27]. Main solution application methods of wetting solutions on nonwoven fabrics are spraying or soaking it in a bath. The most common rate of solution saturation is 300–400% of fabric absorption capacity, which is 3–4 g of liquid per gram of fabric [5].

Liquid absorption and transfer characteristics are crucial for wet wipes. It is of great interest to study the liquid transport in dry nonwoven fabrics such as the initial stage of liquid absorption in dry wipes. The dry fabric should absorb liquids and the wet wipe should be tolerant to lotions and keep applied liquid in the product until the moment of use and release it for the intended purpose [28]. The phenomena of vertical wicking, absorbency, and liquid spreading are affected by the material (blend ratio), fiber diameter, fiber orientation distribution, thickness, weight, porosity, pore size, its distribution, and tortuosity of the pores [29 –32]. For the wet wipes, at least a portion of the fibers must have a surface energy that is high enough to allow them to be wetted by the wetting solution [6]. When transfer of liquid within the fabrics is considered, behavior of cellulose belongs to the category where wicking is accompanied by diffusion into fibers (two simultaneous processes are operating: capillary penetration and diffusion). Because of fiber swelling, sorption within the fibers decreases the volume of the liquid flowing in the capillary spaces. Behavior of polyester belongs to the category where wicking is accompanied by adsorption on fibers.

In this study, wet wipes were produced from spunlace nonwoven fabrics having different compositions and natural-based wetting solutions. Rose water and olive oil were functionalized by sodium alginate and herbal antibacterial agents to enable preservation and controlled antibacterial performance. Physical, mechanical characteristics, and moisture management parameters of the wet wipe fabrics were measured. Subjective hand and performance evaluations were carried out to determine the sufficiency of the wipes for different end uses. Results were put forward about optimum fabric and wetting solution combinations and relationships between objective and subjective data.

Experimental

Materials and production of wet wipes

Wet wipe fabrics produced from viscose (CV), Tencel®, and polyester (PES) blends which were produced by spunlace technology were wetted by six natural-based wetting solutions. Wetting solutions are basically rose water and olive oil. Rose water was obtained from a local producer which is 100% pure. Rose water, which is a specific product for the western part of Turkey is an antiseptic solution and is used in skin care products for its pleasant fragrance, moisturizing, anti-aging, and healing effects [33]. The second main solution, olive oil is known for its antioxidant and skin friendly characteristics and used as main components in many cosmetics [34,35]. Besides their raw forms, rose water and olive oil were functionalized by herbal antibacterial materials; cinnamaldehyde and geraniol, whose antibacterial performances were proved before (for 0.5 Molar concentration) on nonwoven fabrics [36]. Rose water was functionalized by geraniol (as it is one of the components) and olive oil was functionalized by cinnamaldehyde with the existence of sodium alginate. Cinnamaldehyde (C₉H₈O) is an aromatic aldehyde obtained from bark extracts of cinnamon (Cinnamomum verum) and is proved to be active against many pathogenic bacteria, fungi, and viruses [37 –39]. Geraniol (C₁₀H₁₈O) is an acyclic monoterpene alcohol emitted from the flowers of many species, notably roses (Rosa Damascena) [40]. Sodium alginate (NaAlg) was used within the solutions (3 g/L for wet wipes) to entrap herbal antibacterial agents for controlled antibacterial activity according to a preceding study [41]. Sodium alginate (Sigma Aldrich), is a natural polysaccharide derived from brown algae include calcium, magnesium, and sodium salts of alginic acid. It has some cosmetic applications about immobilization of volatile oils including vitamin E [42]. Wet wipe codes are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Wet wipe codes.

Nonwoven fabrics
Wetting solutions	100% Tencel	70/30% Tencel/CV	50/50% PES/CV	60/40% PES/CV	80/20% PES/CV	100% PES
Rose water	1	2	3	4	5	6
Olive oil	7	8	9	10	11	12
Rose water + NaAlg* + Geraniol**	13	14	15	16	17	18
Olive oil + NaAlg* + cinnamaldehyde**	19	20	21	22	23	24

Note: CV: viscose; PES: polyester.

3 g/L.

0.5 Molar.

Antibacterial agents were solved in ethanol (Sigma Aldrich) and concentrations were arranged according to the final amounts of main solutions (rose water and olive oil) and sodium alginate. After mixing rigorously with a magnetic mixer, homogeneous solutions were obtained and ethanol was evaporated from the solution. Wetting solutions were applied on nonwoven fabrics by spraying (Alfajet W-77S) and liquid amounts were arranged according to the literature [5,10] as 30% of their absorption capacities.

Physical and mechanical characteristics of the nonwoven fabrics

Weight values of nonwoven fabrics were determined according to ASTM D3776 Option C. Thickness values were measured according to EDANA WSP 120.6 (05) by the producer. Bending rigidity values were measured according to ASTM D 1388-96 (2002). Air permeability values were tested according to ASTM D 737 under 200 Pa pressure.

Fiber orientations of the nonwoven fabrics were determined by angle measurements on microscopic photos of the fibers with horizontal axis (Figure 1), a method modified from a preceding study [29]. Microscopic images were taken with 10x magnification by a Motic DMB3 microscope camera (Motic Co., China) from 20 points of 20 samples (Total 400 images).

Figure 1.

Angle measurements from microscopic fabric images.

Porosity characteristics of the nonwoven fabrics were determined according to a preceding study [29] on 2 × 2 cm fabric samples. Volume of the dry fabric (V_f) can be defined according to equation (1)

V_{f} = \frac{m_{d}}{δ_{f}}

(1)

where

m_d: dry weight (g)

δ_f: fabric density (g/cm³).

Fabric samples were wetted with glycerin to fill the pores with the liquid without absorption and liquid weights filling the pores were calculated from the weight differences of wet and dry fabrics (m_p = m_w − m_d). Volume of liquid filling the pores (V_p) is the free space volume within the fabric structure and porosity of the fabric can be calculated according to equations (2) and (3) in turn. δ_l is the density of the used liquid (glycerin density which is 1.261 g/cm³) [29]

V_{p} = \frac{m_{p}}{δ_{l}}

(2)

Porosity (ɛ) = \frac{V_{p}}{V_{p} + V_{f} *} \times 100

(3)

Moisture management characteristics

Dynamic moisture absorption and transfer properties of the nonwoven wet wipe fabrics were tested by moisture management tester (MMT) (SDL Atlas Textile Testing Solutions Co.) which measures liquid transfer in multi-directions by electrical conductivity principle according to AATCC 195-2009 [43].

Antibacterial tests

Antibacterial properties of the wet wipes including natural-based solutions were investigated by agar diffusion method (SN 195920:1992) against Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538) and Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922) strains to simulate real end use conditions of wet wipes. Bacterial suspensions were obtained from single colonies isolated on agar plates and inoculated in the appropriate broth for overnight cultures at 35℃. Bacterial suspensions (100 µL, 10⁸ CFU/mL) were dropped onto LB agar (Difco) plates. Wet wipes (1 cm diameter) were placed on the surface of the agar and incubated at 35℃ for 24 h. Kanamycin (30 µg) antibiotic disc was used as a control. All tests were performed in triplicate and the antibacterial activity was expressed as the mean of inhibition diameters (mm) produced by the wipes.

HOM measurements and subjective hand-performance evaluations of the wipes

Handle-O-Meter (HOM) stiffness measurements were conducted on the nonwoven fabrics in dry and wet wipe forms according to Method E of JIS L1096 to have an idea about their bending and surface roughness characteristics. The force required to deform a fabric through a restricted opening by a plunger is measured [44]. Specific hand value is calculated in mNm²/g from the force obtained for different directions and two faces of the fabric.

Subjective hand and performance evaluations were carried out with wet wipes having 10 x 5 cm dimensions on 10 female subjects (having ages between 25 and 40) who are frequent wet wipe users and have interest on natural based products. Five-point subjective rating scales were used for dampness, softness/compressibility, surface roughness, bending, and stickiness evaluations. A subjective five-point rating scale was used; 1 meaning ‘Do not feel at all’ to 5, meaning ‘Feeling completely’. Hand evaluations (softness, roughness and bending) were carried out according to a preceding study about fabric hand [45]. Dampness and stickiness evaluations were carried out after wiping forearms of the subjects once with the sample wipe [7]. Evaluations were carried out blind and at standard atmospheric conditions (20℃, 65% relative humidity) (Figure 2). Subjects came into the test chamber 20 min before the test for acclimatization.

Figure 2.

Subjective hand evaluations.

Statistical analyses

SPSS 15.0 Statistics Software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for parametric and non-parametric analyses of the results. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was carried out for variance analysis of objective measurement results. Duncan and Student–Newman–Keuls (SNK) tests were used to examine the differences between measured parameters of the fabrics. Correlation analysis was conducted to determine relationships between objective and subjective results. A value of p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Kendall’s Consistency test was used to evaluate the degree of agreement between subjects. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) is a measure of inter-judge reliability and agreement between fabrics evaluated by each judge (subject). Kruskal–Wallis H-test, which is the non-parametric equivalent of one-way ANOVA test, was used for variance analysis of subjective evaluation results. The Mann–Whitney U-test, which is the non-parametric equivalent of Student’s t-test, was used for double comparisons of each fabric for their subjective evaluation results [46].

Results and discussion

Fabric physical and mechanical characteristics

Physical and mechanical properties of the nonwoven fabrics are given in Table 2.

Table 2.

Physical and mechanical properties of fabric.

Code	Material	Weight (g/m²) [SD]	Thickn.^a (mm)	Porosity (%) [SD]	Fabric density (kg/m³) [SD]	Angle with the cross direction (°) [SD]	Bending rigidity (mg.cm) [SD]	Stiffness (HOM) (mNm²/g) [SD]
I	100% Tencel	70.08 [1.00]	0.75	99.912 [0.002]	93.44 [1.33]	56.46 [19.66]	79.49 [1.8]	11.13 [0.60]
II	70/30% Tencel/CV	61.91 [0.78]	0.70	99.918 [0.001]	82.54 [1.04]	55.51 [18.95]	60.08 [1.42]	8.93 [0.64]
III	50/50% PES/CV	50.43 [0.94]	0.60	99.913 [0.002]	67.25 [1.26]	56.79 [19.05]	23.50 [1.63]	4.61 [0.23]
IV	60/40% PES/CV	80.44 [0.53]	0.90	99.921 [0.039]	107.26 [0.71]	58.25 [18.41]	69.84 [1.61]	8.27 [0.56]
V	80/20% PES/CV	60.31 [0.79]	0.60	99.998 [0.002]	80.41 [1.06]	60.69 [18.38]	38.97 [1.44]	5.62 [0.22]
VI	100% PES	70.52 [0.51]	0.75	99.906 [0.004]	94.03 [0.69]	57.84 [18.3]	64.64 [1.25]	7.82 [0.98]

Note: CV: viscose; HOM: Handle-O-Meter; SD: standard deviation; PES: polyester.

Thickness values were obtained from company technical sheets.

Porosity values of the fabrics can be seen in Table 2. According to statistical analysis results, differences between porosity values of the fabrics were found insignificant (p > 0.05). As stated in a preceding study [29], the presence of large number of pores in thick/heavy samples provides more capillary channels to transport liquid. But porosity measurement technique used in this study could not be able to differentiate nonwoven fabrics.

Orientation of the fibers within the fabric is also important for liquid transfer characteristics. Angle measurement results with cross direction are presented in Table 3 and average angles were found identical according to statistical analyses (p > 0.05). Orientation distribution graphics of the nonwoven fabrics are given in Figure 3. Because of the nature of the optical method, orientation of only surface fibers could be measured with this test. As can be seen in Figure 3, the number of fibers ranging from 60°–90° belong to fabrics including more than 60% PES (IV, V and VI). This means that they are oriented more on the machine direction.

Table 3.

MMT results of the nonwoven fabrics (top).

Fabric code	Wetting time (s) [SD]	Absorption rate (%/sn) [SD]	Maximum wetted radius (mm)	Spreading speed (mm/sn) [SD]
100% Tencel (I)	7.46^b [2.17]	44.84^b [6.39]	15–25	3.30^b [1.06]
70/30% Tencel/CV (II)	5.28^a [1.92]	38.88^b [2.55]	20–25	5.17^c [2.39]
50/50% PES/CV (III)	8.19^b [0.40]	69.15^c [8.49]	15–30	3.51^bc [0.76]
60/40% PES/CV (IV)	7.97^b [0.63]	46.54^b [4.35]	25–30	3.79^bc [0.58]
80/20% PES/CV (V)	14.97^c [0.09]	21.10^a [6.34]	5–25	0.61^a [0.29]
100% PES (VI)	17.22^d [0.59]	79.99^d [6.67]	5	0.29^a [0.01]

CV: viscose; MMT: moisture management tester; PES: polyester; SD: standard deviation.

Superscript alphabets show statistical significance of the results (p < 0.05), same letters having identical properties.

Figure 3.

Fiber angle distributions with cross direction.

A certain amount of crumple resistance is necessary for a wet wipe fabric for an accepted hand and performance. Therefore, fabric bending rigidity and HOM measurements were conducted and results are compiled in Figure 4. According to the results of both parameters, which are in harmony as expected, significant differences were detected among all fabrics (p < 0.05). Highest values were measured for 100% Tencel fabric (I) and lowest values were measured for 50/50% PES/CV (III) fabric. As HOM measurements also include surface roughness characteristics, bending rigidity measurements differentiated fabric differences more than HOM results. All the fabrics have significantly different bending rigidity values from each other, but according to HOM results giving idea about hand performances of the fabrics, 100% Tencel fabric (I) is the stiffest one. The 70/30 Tencel/CV (II), 60/40% PES/CV (IV), and 100% PES (VI) fabrics have statistically identical performances. When fabric bending rigidity is considered, fabric weight is more effective on this property than material type confirming a preceding study [47]. One exception to this rule is 100% Tencel fabric (I) having the highest rigidity.

Figure 4.

Boxplot diagrams of (a) bending rigidity (b) stiffness (HOM) values.

Fabric permeability and liquid transfer characteristics

Air permeability and moisture management properties of the nonwoven fabrics were measured to have an idea about fabric structure. Air permeability values are statistically different from each other (p < 0.05). The 50/50% PES/CV fabric (III) have maximum air permeability and 100% Tencel fabric (I) have the minimum permeability (Figure 5). It can be concluded that, air permeability changes according to fabric weights for blended fabrics including more than 50% PES (III, IV, V and VI). This is an expected result that the number of fibers which the air passes through is less for these fabrics. But when cellulosic fabrics (I and II) are considered, they have lower air permeability values because of the rougher fiber surfaces making more friction with air passing through. Air permeability is not a property directly affecting performance of a wet wipe but we can get an idea about its pore structure and tortuosity enabling ascent of the liquid within the structure.

Figure 5.

Boxplot diagram of air permeability values.

Moisture management results of fabric top sides are compiled in Table 3. Capillary penetration of a drop indicates several important properties of a textile fabric: including repellency, absorbency, and sorption of stain. When the liquid is a surfactant solution as in the case of wet wipe wetting solutions, drop absorbency time and rate of capillary penetration depend on the solution concentration [29].

Among MMT parameters, significantly lower wetting time for top surface was detected for 70/30% Tencel/CV fabric (II). This result may be attributed to the higher water retention ability of viscose when compared to Tencel [48]. In this study, 30% viscose ratio decreased wetting period significantly. According to a study conducted by Lenzing, surface energies of viscose or Tencel were found identical and around 90 mN/m and water has a surface energy around 73 mN/m [49]. Other fabrics (I, III and IV) which are cellulosic or having up to 60% of polyester constituted the second group having identical liquid absorption properties. Fabrics including more than 80% polyester could not absorb liquid within acceptable periods. According to a study [49], if a droplet stays for more than 10 s, the fabric is called liquid repellent and fabric V and VI belong to this group. Differences between 100% PES (VI) and 80/20% PES/CV (V) fabrics are also significant. Wetting time values are also related to drop test results which were discussed in a preceding study [50]. For cellulosic fabrics, 100% Tencel (I) and 70/30% Tencel/CV (II) fabrics gave statistically identical results for drop test and differences of viscose and Tencel could be observed with MMT. Wetting time values for fabric bottom are identical except for the 80/20% PES/CV fabric (V) having the highest wetting period. Moreover, bottom layer of 100% PES fabric (VI) was not wetted.

Absorption rates of the nonwoven fabrics have also significant differences (p < 0.05). It is an unexpected result that while 100% PES fabric (VI) have the highest absorption rate, 80/20 PES/CV% fabrics (V) have the lowest one. Bottom absorption rate values have a great variation that their differences could not be analyzed. Cellulose including fabrics (I and II) have statistically identical results with 60/40% PES/CV fabric (IV) and 50/50% PES/CV fabric (III) transferred liquid significantly faster than the mentioned group. Lower absorption rates of cellulosic fabrics are not in harmony with the wicking test results of a preceding study [50]. Cellulosic fabrics (I and II) absorbed more water and capillary heights were higher than PES including fabrics according to wicking test results. This difference may be attributed to the different transfer directions of the mentioned two test methods.

Maximum wetted radii were detected for 60% PES including fabric (IV) (up to 30 mm) and values were identical for 50% PES including fabric (III). Cellulosic (I and II) and 80% PES including fabric (V) have similar and lower radius values (up to 25 mm) and the lowest radius was detected for the 100% PES fabric (VI) (up to 5 mm).

The area covered by the liquid spreading on fabric surface does not correlate with the drop absorbency time especially when liquid is absorbed by the fibers as for the cellulosic fabrics of this study [32]. But this is not the case for the fabrics constituting of cellulose and polyester blends. Significant differences were detected for both top and bottom spreading speed values of the fabrics (p < 0.05). Cellulosic fabrics and PES including fabrics up to 60% created statistically identical groups having higher values. Performances of cellulosic fabrics are also statistically different from each other. Spreading speed values for bottom of the fabric were identical except for 80/20 PES/CV% fabric (V) and bottom layer of 100% PES (VI) fabric was not wetted. Fabric weight did not have an effect on any of the liquid absorption and transfer characteristics.

Antibacterial activity test results of wet wipes

Qualitative test results of wet wipes having antibacterial activities and an antibiotic Kanamycin are compiled in Table 4. The highest antibacterial performance was detected for wetting solution consisting of olive oil/cinnamaldehyde/NaAlg for all fabrics and they were marked with bold letters in Table 4. When the mentioned results are compared with the results of antibiotic, an average of 30% more inhibition zone diameters were observed (21–30 mm) for all fabrics. Weights, hence absorption capacities of the nonwoven fabrics affected the absorbed antibacterial solution and antibacterial activity results as expected. Other wet wipes did not show sufficient antibacterial activity (11–12 mm of zone diameters).

Table 4.

Antibacterial activity test results of wet wipes.

		Escherichia coli		Staphylococcus aureus
Fabric Code	Wetting solution/ Wet wipe code	Inhibition zone diameter (mm)		Inhibition zone diameter (mm)
Fabric Code	Wetting solution/ Wet wipe code	Wet wipe	Antibiotic (Kanamycin)	Wet wipe	Antibiotic (Kanamycin)
100% Tencel (I)	Olive oil + NaAlg + cinnamaldehyde/19	30	21	29	19
%70/30 Tencel/CV (II)	Rose water + geraniol + NaAlg/14	12	22	28	19
%70/30 Tencel/CV (II)	Olive oil + NaAlg + cinnamaldehyde/20	27	22	28	19
%50/50 PES/CV (III)	Olive oil + NaAlg + cinnamaldehyde/21	26	20	29	18
%60/40 PES/CV (IV)	Olive oil + NaAlg + cinnamaldehyde/22	28	21	28	18
%80/20 PES/CV (V)	Rose water + geraniol + NaAlg/17	12	20	10	20
%80/20 PES/CV (V)	Olive oil + NaAlg + cinnamaldehyde/23	29	20	28	20
%100 PES (VI)	Olive oil + NaAlg + cinnamaldehyde/24	21	20	29	18

Note: CV: viscose; PES: polyester.

HOM and subjective hand/performance evaluation results

HOM results of the wet wipes are given in Figure 6. The 100% PES fabric (VI) have the highest HOM values, meaning a stiffer hand. The 50/50% PES/CV fabric (V) is the softest/pliable one among the fabric groups and its performance was not affected from wetting solutions. When wetting solutions are considered, olive oil and its mixture with NaAlg created softer hand for the wet wipes produced from cellulosic fibers (Tencel and viscose). This result is valid for all cellulose including wipes and the mentioned wetting solution has the best antibacterial performance. The effect of NaAlg is more apparent for the wet wipes including rose water that they became stiffer with the existence of NaAlg. When the HOM results of dry fabrics (Figure 3) are compared with their wet wipe forms, wetting solutions made the cellulosic fabrics softer because of absorption and swelling of fibers. According to the HOM values of the dry fabrics (Figure 3), 100% Tencel fabric was the stiffest one because of its high modulus [48], but in wet wipe form, its stiffness became similar with the 70/30% Tencel/CV and other 60% and 80% PES including ones (II, IV and V). 100% PES fabric was detected significantly stiffer than the other wipes. As a conclusion, all the fabrics became softer if they can absorb wetting solutions because of their cellulosic contents. But HOM values of the 50/50% PES/CV fabric (III) having the minimum weight was not affected from wetting solutions and it remained the softest one also for the wet wipe form.

Figure 6.

Handle-O-Meter (HOM) results of the wet wipes.

Subjective hand and performance data analysis was started with validity tests of subjective rating results by using Kendall’s coefficient of concordance for related samples analysis. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) for each fabric obtained from 10 female subjects are given in Table 5. As can be seen from Table 5, although there are differences between subjects’ evaluations, these differences are not significant at 0.05 level (p < 0.05).

Table 5.

Kendall’s Consistency test results.

	Softness	Roughness	Bending	Stickiness	Dampness
W	0.405	0.684	0.206	0.239	0.252
P	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00

According to Kruskall Wallis test results, differences between subjective evaluation results for different fabrics were found significant (p < 0.05). The Mann–Whitney U-test was used for double comparisons of each fabric for their subjective evaluation results. Subjective evaluation results of wet wipes are given in Figure 7. According to softness evaluation results, 60/40% PES/CV fabric (IV) have significantly higher compressibility/softness evaluation results for all wetting solutions. For all fabrics, except for fabric IV, wetting solution including olive oil/cinnamaldehyde/NaAlg slightly decreased compressibility/softness evaluation results, especially for the fabrics including up to 50% cellulose (I, II and III). Roughness evaluation results increased with inclusion of NaAlg for both rose water and olive oil but increment is higher for olive oil especially for the fabrics including cellulose. Swelling of cellulosic fibers by rose water and closing the fiber interspaces may be the reason of this result. Bending evaluations are generally lower for the cellulosic wet wipes, especially the ones including olive oil and they are higher for 60% and 100% PES including wipes except for the one including olive oil/cinnamaldehyde/NaAlg. 50/50% PES/CV fabric (III) having the lowest weight was evaluated as the softest/pliable one and 100% PES fabric (IV) was evaluated as the stiffest (despite its moderate weight values) in case of bending for all wetting solutions confirming its HOM results. When subjective evaluations are compared with the HOM results, a combination of roughness and bending characteristics; higher roughness but lower bending evaluation results of the olive oil/cinnamaldehyde/NaAlg solution created acceptable HOM results. Influence of bending on HOM results seems dominant. Stickiness feeling was affected from absorption capacities of the fabrics as expected. If the wet wipe absorbs more solution, it leaves damper and stickier feeling after. Moreover, solutions including olive oil created slightly stickier sensations than rose water especially for the cellulosic fibers including up to 50% PES. But results are acceptable for 60/40% PES/CV wipe including olive oil/cinnamaldehyde/NaAlg which have high antibacterial activity, higher compressibility/softness, acceptable roughness, and lower bending evaluations. Dampness evaluations are also in harmony with stickiness evaluations. Fabrics including more cellulosic fibers and higher weights created damper evaluations and 100% PES fabric was evaluated as the driest one. Wetting solutions including olive oil also created acceptable dampness for 60/40% PES/CV wipe including olive oil/cinnamaldehyde/NaAlg. Rose water gave damper feelings than olive oil especially for the wipes including PES up to 50%.

Figure 7.

Subjective evaluation results.

Relationships among objective and subjective results were investigated and significant correlation coefficients are compiled in Table 6. According to the results, compressibility/softness values are significantly correlated with fabric weight and thickness confirming the better evaluation results of 60/40% PES/CV fabric (IV) having higher weight. Bending evaluations are correlated with fabric weight as expected. An interesting result was obtained for stickiness and bending evaluations; a stiffer fabric gave drier feelings as the case for 100% PES fabric. Bending rigidity and HOM results have significant relationships as expected and both of them are negatively correlated with air permeability. It means that, denser fabrics having low air permeability are stiffer.

Table 6.

Correlation coefficients between objective and subjective results.

	Fabric thickness	Weight	Bending	Wetting time (top)	HOM	Air permeability
Compressibility	.971**^s	.943**^s
Bending		.852*^s
Stickiness			−.943**^s
Dampness				−.886*^s
Bending rigidity		.852*^p			.943**^p	−.924**^p
Spreading speed (top)				−.981**^p
HOM						−.951**^p

HOM: Handle-O-Meter.

and ** show correlation coefficients significant for p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively.

s: Spearman; p: Pearson correlation coefficients.

Conclusions

This study covers liquid absorption and transfer characteristics of nonwoven fabrics consisting of cellulosic and polyester-blended nonwoven fabrics. Performance, hand, and antibacterial evaluations were also made after they were wetted with completely natural-based solutions (rose water, olive oil and their antibacterial functionalized forms) without any preservatives. According to the results, the highest antibacterial performance was detected for the wetting solution including olive oil/cinnamaldehyde/NaAlg. Among the wipes of this wetting solution, 60/40% PES/CV fabric (IV) was felt softer by the subjects and its other evaluation results about roughness, stiffness, stickiness, and dampness are within acceptable levels. Performance of this fabric was confirmed by HOM measurements for all wetting solutions. Wetting time, absorption rate, and spreading speed results of 60/40% PES/CV fabric (IV) are also within the best or moderate groups. Its performance was not affected from high bending rigidity and HOM results of this fabric as wetting wipe. Its higher weight increased its stiffness but had positive effect on antibacterial and subjective performances. Among cellulosic fabrics, Tencel/CV blend (II) have the best performance for absorbing liquid. Both cellulosic fabrics (I and II) have moderate performances for liquid transfer. Their higher bending rigidity in dry form decreased when they are wetted and absorbed liquid. They had higher stickiness and dampness evaluations because of their higher absorption capacities. Summing up, if the fabric weight is sufficient, PES content up to 60% may be suitable for wet wipes of body applications. Viscose is better than Tencel for liquid absorption but Tencel have better subjective evaluation results. Natural solutions having antibacterial functions may be good solutions for completely non-hazardous wipes for the body.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mogul Textile Co. for supplying the material and Assoc. Prof. Dr Gungor Durur and Lenzing AG for affording the opportunity for MMT and HOM Tests in turn.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: A project of Suleyman Demirel University (3515-YL1-13).

References

Sahu PB. Wipes: what, where, why & how? Available at: www.nonwovens-industry.com (2012, accessed 15 December 2016).

EDANA. Personal care wipes. Available at: http://www.edana.org/discover-nonwovens/products-applications/personal-care-wipes (accessed 25 December 2016).

Yoh HJ. Wet wipes. Patent 4904524, USA, 1990.

Kopacz TJ, Zander TM, Everson MG, et al. Wet wipes having improved dispensability. Patent 5540332A, USA, 1996.

Cremiux

Cupferman

Lens

. Method for evaluation of the efficacy of antimicrobial preservatives in cosmetic wet wipes. Int J Cosmetic Sci 2005; 7: 223–236.

Sheehan AA, Brennan JP, Sawin PA, et al. Low basis weight wet wipes with a pleasing hand. Patent 8557722B2, USA, 2013.

Takeuchi K, Kamiya TS, Hagura T, et al. Cosmetic sheet comprising at least one powder. Patent EP0950391A1, Germany, 1999.

Farage

Stadler

Chassard

et al.

A randomized prospective trial of the cutaneous and sensory effects of feminine hygiene wet wipes. J Reprod Med 2008; 53: 765–773.

Jeffries N. Wet wipes. Global Cosmetic Industry (GCI) Magazine, 2004, p.20.

10.

Touchet YL and Radovanovich PM. Antimicrobially effective aqueous solution and preserved wet wipes using same. Patent 0619074, USA, 1994.

11.

Marsh RG and Duderstadt JM. Cleansing composition and a wet wipe comprising the same. Patent 8940675B2, USA, 2015.

12.

Amundson JD, Hendrickson WA, Drath DJ, et al. Microencapsulated delivery vehicle having an aqueous core. Patent 8192841 B2, USA, 2012.

13.

Amundson JD, Eckert JC, Everson MG, et al. Wet wipes with improved softness. Patent 6028018A, USA, 2000.

14.

Blieszner KC and Deckner GE. Personal care compositions and wipe products containing the compositions. Patent 5648083, USA, 1997.

15.

Richards MF and Wang KY. Premoistened, flushable, disposable and biodegradable wet wipes, Patent 5629081, USA, 1997.

16.

Piccini A and Tomarchio V. Disinfecting wet wipe. Patent 1059032Al, Italy, 2000.

17.

Klug P. Clariant product for wet wipes. Clariant R & D Personal Care Report, 2008.

18.

Rosenblatt JH. Mineral Salt Personal Care wet-wipe towelette. Patent 201110297577A1, USA, 2011.

19.

Pomeroy SL, Amundson JD, Riegert JR, et al. Wet wipe having increased stack thickness. Patent 20080248239, USA, 2008.

20.

Pung DJ, Elsbrock DJ and Thomas ME. Wet wipes. Patent 2002007701A3, USA, 2002.

21.

Erbisim AS. Wet wipe with sodium carbonate. Patent 201203199, Turkey, 2012.

22.

Ferenc D, Angelimi M, Novas ES, et al. Continuously fragrance-emitting dry or wet wipe fabric article and method for preparing same. Patent 6500444B1, USA, 2002.

23.

Maddern P and Khalifa S. Hand cleanser. Patent US5910455, USA, 1999.

24.

Guney S, Pulan S, Kaplan S, et al. Wet wipes including natural-based-clays and liquids for cosmotextile applications. In: 2nd international Congress on healthcare and medical textiles, Izmir, Turkey, 25–26 September 2014.

25.

Bornhoeft JW and Nelson JR. Wet wiper natural acid and salt preservative composition. Patent 5049440, USA, 1991.

26.

Pucci M. Stacked wet wipes having anti evaporation layers. Patent 0978247A1, USA, 2000.

27.

Komur E. Wet wipe including olive oil for baby care. Patent 201005675, Turkey, 2010.

28.

Wied L, Neuhofer J and Burrow T. The world of nonwoven cellulosic fibers. In: Skinology: the effect of Tencel fibers on skin. Weinheim: John Wiley & Sons, 2013, pp.48–49.

29.

Rengasamy

Kothari

Bele

et al.

Liquid sorption behaviour of nonwovens. J Text Inst 2011; 102: 1019–1030.

30.

Das

Pradhan

Pourdeyhimi

. Dependence of the liquid absorption behavior of nonwovens on their material and structural characteristics: Modeling and experiments. J Appl Polym Sci 2012; 126: 1053–1060.

31.

Chen

Vroman

Lewandowski et al.

Study of the influence of fiber diameter and fiber blending on liquid absorption inside nonwoven structures. Text Res J 2009; 79: 1364–1369.

32.

Patnaik

Rengasamy

Kothari

et al.

Wetting and wicking in fibrous materials, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 2006, pp. 105–105.

33.

Raaz

Rani

. Intrinsic benefits and therapeutic application of rose water. Univ J Pharm 2013; 02: 4–7.

34.

Viola

. Virgin olive oil as a fundamental nutritional component and skin protector. Clin Dermatol 2009; 27: 159–165.

35.

Badiu

Luque

Rajendram

Effect of olive oil on the skin. In: Preedy

Watson

(eds). Olives and olive oil in health and disease prevention, 1st ed. London: Academic Press, 2010, pp. 1125–1131.

36.

Aslan S, Kaplan S, Ulusoy S, et al. An investigation about antibacterial sweat pads modified by biopolymers. In: 2nd international Congress on healthcare and medical textiles, Izmir, Turkey, 25–26 September 2014.

37.

ve Holley

Gill

Holley

. Mechanisms of bactericidal action of cinnamaldehyde against Listeria monocytogenes and of eugenol against L. monocytogenes and Lactobacillus sakei. Appl Environ Microbiol 2004; 70: 5750–5755.

38.

Ali

Khan

Ahmed

et al.

Antimicrobial activities of eugenol and cinnamaldehyde against the human gastric pathogen Helicobacter pylori. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrobiol 2005; 4: 1–7.

39.

Domadia

Swarup

Bhunia

et al.

Inhibition of bacterial cell division protein Fts Z by cinnamaldehyde. Biochem Pharmacol 2007; 74: 83–83.

40.

Iijima

Gang

Fridman

et al.

Characterization of geraniol synthase from the peltate glands of sweet basil. Plant Physiol 2004; 134: 370–370.

41.

Behary

Kerkeni

Perwuelz

et al.

Bioactivation of PET woven fabrics using alginate biopolymer and the bacteriocin nisin. Text Res J 2013; 10: 1–10.

42.

Kaushik P. Skin-cleansing compositions for cosmetic applications enriched with vitamin-E encapsulates. In: 18th international conference on bioencapsulation, Porto, Portugal, 1–2 October 2010.

43.

MMT operation manual, Version 3.06, SDL Atlas Corp., UK, 2005.

44.

Behery

Characterization and testing of nonwovens with emphasis on absorbency. In: Turbak

(ed). Nonwovens: theory, process, performance and testing, Atlanta: TAPPI Press, 1993, pp. 213–213.

45.

Sülar

Okur

. Objective evaluation of fabric handle by simple measurement methods. Text Res J 2008; 78: 856–868.

46.

Gravetter

Wallnau

. Statistics for the behavioral sciences, 8th ed. New York, NY: Wadsworth Publishing, 2009.

47.

Das D and Pourdeyhimi B. Composite nonwovens in wipes. In: Rengasamy RS (ed.) Composite nonwoven materials structure, properties and applications. 1st ed. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 2014, pp.98–99.

48.

Ozcelik

Bozdogan

Hes

. Performance properties of regenerated cellulose fibers. Tekstil ve Konfeksiyon 2010; 3: 208–212.

49.

Schachtner

Maier

. TENCEL Biosoft – a completely new fiber development: Soft – hydrophobic-botanic. Lenzinger Berichte 2013; 91: 52–55.

50.

Pulan

Kaplan

Ulusoy

. An investigation of liquid absorption and transfer characteristics of nonwoven fabrics used for wet wipe production. Tekstil ve Muhendis [J Text Eng] 2015; 22: 13–24.

Objective and subjective performance evaluations of wet wipes including herbal components

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Experimental

Materials and production of wet wipes

Physical and mechanical characteristics of the nonwoven fabrics

Moisture management characteristics

Antibacterial tests

HOM measurements and subjective hand-performance evaluations of the wipes

Statistical analyses

Results and discussion

Fabric physical and mechanical characteristics

Fabric permeability and liquid transfer characteristics

Antibacterial activity test results of wet wipes

HOM and subjective hand/performance evaluation results

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References