## Development ofa Standardized Energy Test Cloth for Measuring Remaining Moisture Content in a Residential Clothes Washer

U.S. Department of Energy Buildings, Research and Standards May 2000

Prepared by: Arthur D. Little, Inc. Acorn Park Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140-2390Table of Contents (continued)

1. I I I

### .2 13 14 

### 2. 

### 2. l l.l. j 1 1 1 l.l.3 

### 24 2 5 2.5. l 

### l.5.2 26 2.6. j 

### J.62 J.63 2.6-1 ::. 6.

### 5 2.65.l 

### 3. 4. 41 

### 4.2 Introduction
...............................................................................................1-1 Background
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... 1-1 Energy Test Cloth......
................................. 1-2 Moisture Absorption and Retention in an Energy Test Cloth
..................... 1-3 Summary and Approach
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... 1-3 Extractor-Based RMC Testing
..................................................................2-1

Purpose ofTest Program........................................................................2-1 Lahoratorv and Procedure
........................................................................2-1



### /,uhorotm:r**1~·q11ipme111**

### ............... ............................................................. 2-2 

### l 1

### roced11re
..... ..........................................................................................2-2 Shakedown Jests.....................................................................................2-3 Test Cloth Sources... ..........................................................2-3 Test Matrix
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ...................................."... 2-4 Test Results RMC versus cfg for Different Test Lots .................2-6



### ('0111pariso11 of('loth l,o/s
.......................................................................

### 2-6 I.1·(t/11ation ofA/liance Cloth
...................................................................**2-~** Test Results Influence ofOther Test Variables on RMC ........................2-9



### l."fI,. 

## 1·c · J'· , DAA(' ) 

### 111

:.f( (/ 0 ,ll)//I Jn](; ()JI IVVJ .•........•..••.••.....•..•..•....••..••.•..•.••••••••..••.•••.••. - - II 

### Jjfect of IJ>od

### Size 011 Rl\1C
.................................................................. 2-10 /}feet 

### of Soak Water frmperature 

### 011 /?.MC.
.......................................... 2-11 /}feet 

### <?(Soak lime 011 

### RM('................................................................. 2-13 

### ljlect <!(Cloth J,[f'c: 011 Rlv!C
.................................................................. 2-13 /.-,:/", ' ffJ.' (, d'
. . 7 jJAf(' ) 16

:ftUI 

### <! IL- Oil lt/011111}.!. OJI VI-' ,. ...................................................... __ J Results ofWasher Based RMC Tests Conducted by lntertek Testing Services (ITS)........................................................................................3-1 Cloth Characteristics and Relation to RMC
.............................................4-1

Discussion ofCloth Characterization Variables..
...............................4-1 Results ofCloth Characterization Tests ............... .................................4-2 4J Comparison ofCloth Characterization Test Results with RMC Test Results.....
.....................................................................................4-5 5. RMC Correction Factor .............................................................................5-1 :' I Procedureto Calculate Correction Factor . .. ...................................... 5-2 

### 5. !. 

### I S1u11dardRMC1·ersu.\ 

### cfK( 'urve .............................................................5-3 

### 5. J.J 

### FstahlishRA·!C 1·ers11s**~'fk** 

### l"aluesforNew 

### Jest Cloth
..............................5-3 5. 1.3 

### reus1 Squares ht
.................................................................................... 5-3 5. J.-1**App~1·** to Clothes 

### Washer Jest Results
.....................................................5--1 5 2 Test Data Confirming Correction Procedure
..........................................5-4 6. Approach to Obtaining and Verifying Consistent Test Cloth .................6-1 6 I Outline ofProposed Specification
........................................................... 6-1 6.2 Verification
. ......... ... ... ... ............ ............. ........................6-1 6J Standard Language...... ................................................................6-2List of Figures (continued) 

### Figure 2 I RMC vs. g for Tl and CG 

### Cloth
....... ... ········ ..............................2-7 

### Figure 2.3 

### Figure 2.4 

### Figure 2.5 

### Figure 2.6 

### Figure 2.7 

### Figure 2.8 

### Figure 2 9 Figure 2 10 Figure 2. II Figure 5-I Figure 5-2 

### Figure 5-3 RMC for Alliance Cloth before and after Treatment for Removal ofStain-Resistance Fluoropolymer Surface Finish
............................2-9 Rl\1C vs Spin Time for I00 

### and 300g....... .............. 2-10 

### Rl\1C vs. Load Size at 100 

### and 300

### g's........ . ...........................2-11 Rl\1C vs. g for Warm and Cold Soak for Load TI2 ............................. 2-12 Rl\1C vs. g for \Varm and cold Soak for Load TB...........................

### 2-12 Rl\1C vs. Soak Time in Minutes for Warm and Cold Soak at 115 g...... 2-13 R!\1C vs. Number ofWash/dry cycles
.............................................2-14 Bone Dry Weight vs. Number of"Washes..
............................2-15 Shrinkage ofEnergy Cloth Used in Cloth Life Tests ........................2-16 Rl\1C Correction to Determine the RMC that would have been Measured with ··standard" Test Cloth...
.............. ........... ...... 5-2 Linear Correction Curve for Tl Lot 4, \vith Individual Extractor Rl\1C Data Points
.. .. . .. . . . .. .. .. .. ......................................5-5 Linear Correction Curve for Tl lot 5, with Individual Extractor Rl\1C Data Points.
......................................... 5-6

iiList ofTables (continued)



### Table 2.1 

### Table 2.2 

### Table 2.3 Table 2-4 Table 3.1 

### Table 4.1 

### Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Equipment used in Extractor Based RMC Tests ................................. 2-2 Summary ofTest Lot Status....... ..... . ............. ............2-4 Extractor Based RMC Test Program .......................................... 2-5 Rl\tC Values for Different Pre-Conditioning Machine Type.............2-16 ITS Washer Based RMC Results
.....................................3-1 

### Cloth Characterization Variables
......... ........ ······· ..........4-2 Cloth Characterization: Fabric Weight. Thread Count. Yarn Number and Fiber Content............................................................................4-3 Cloth Characterization: WaterRetention, Drop Absorbency, Finish,

Repellency and Vertical Wicking Rate .... . ................................4-4 Summar:-.· ofResults from Independent Laboratories....
..............4-5 Standard RMC vs. g Values and Corresponding New Cloth RMC Values for Linear Least Squares Fit
...................... ..... 5-4 Correction Coefficients
.... ......................... ........... 5-4 Table 5-3 Lot 4 Verification ofCorrection Factorin Clothes Washer
.................5-6 Table 5-4 Lot 5Verification ofCorrection Factorin Clothes \Vasher.....
.....5-7 Table 2 6.5 l\fatrix ofExtractor RMC Test Conditions
...... 6-3 Table 2 6 61 

### Standard RMC values (RMC1;u1dar<l).
. ....... .. . .. ....... 6-5

iii1. Introduction

This report summarizes the result to-date ofthe investigation. ··remaining moisture content.. (Rl\1C) testing. fabric characterization, and correction procedure undertaken to define a standardized energy test cloth 1.1 Background Under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA). energy efficiency standards and energy test procedures have been established for a wide range ofconsumer appliances. including clothes washers and clothes dryers. The energy test proceduresfor these t\VO laundry appliances originally were established in 1977 (clothes washers) and 1981 (clothes dryers) (10 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) 430. Subpart B, Appendices 

### J and D. respectively). Both specify a 50/50 cotton/polyesterblend "energy test cloth"' that is used as a simulated wash load for testing clothes washers and for testing clothes dryers The energy test procedurethat is currently in effect for clothes washers measures the electric energy input to the washer and the energy content ofthe hot water consumed by the clothes washer. A clothes washer energy factor is defined in terms ofthe basket \olume and the total electric and hot water energy use. Thecurrent efficiency standard is set in terms ofthis measurement ofthe energy factor. The effectiveness ofthe final spin**c~·cle** in remO\ing moisture from the wash load (and thereby reducing the energy consumption ofthe clothes dryer) is not measured or considered. For a number ofyears, a rulemaking has been ongoingto revise both the test procedure and the efficiencv standard for clothes washers to take moisture removal effectiveness into account A revised test procedure was adopted in a Final Rule dated August 27, 1997 (I0 CFR 430 Subpart B. Appendix 

### J and J 1). Revisions to Appendix J are currently in effect. however, Appendix J 1will not go into effect until proposed efficiency standards into effect A modified energy factor (MEF) is defined in Appendix J1, based on the electric energy input. the hot water energy, and the dryer energy. Dryerenergy is based on the remaining moisture content ofa test wash load. The processto establish the ne\\ efficiency standard in terms ofthe MEF is ongoing. ln the Appendix JI test procedure. ··remaining moisture content" (RMC) in a test load of the aforementioned energy test cloths is the measure ofwaterremoval effectiveness. Overthe approximately 20 year period that the original clothes washer and clothes dryer test procedures have been used, no variations or inconsistency ofwasher ordryertest results had been attributed to variations in the test cloths A significant inconsistency in Rl\K test results underthe new Appendix J 1procedure was noted by Alliance Laundry Systems LLC and was brought to the Department ofEnergy's (DOE's or Department's) attention in a letter dated June 7. 1999. In the tests referred to in this letter, which were run at lntertd.; Testing Services (ITS), the RMC values that \Vere obtained in one machine with two different Jots ofenergy test cloths differed by over 11 percentage points (67 9

1-

### percent versus 56.0 

### percent). When these two lots ofenergy test cloth were run through a second machine. a similar difference in RMC occurred. The effect ofRJ\1C on MEF can be substantiaL particularly for washers wfoch are more efficient with respect to electrical consumption and use ofhot \\ater. The following scenario illustrates: For a high efficiency horizontal axis \vasher. an 18% 

### increase in RMC (54 5%-64 5%)

### \viii result in a 13% 

### decrease in MEF (1.52-1 33) 

### For alower efficiencv washer. a 17%) 

### increase in Rl\1C (57 7%-67**7~/o)** 

### will result in onlv a 6%



### - 

## - decrease in l\1EF (82- 

### 77) 1.2 Energy Test Cloth 

### .-\ \\ide variety· ofarticles and fabrics are machine washed by consumers. including:
• Cotton 

### knit goods. denim. towels • Cottonipoly·ester blends in shirts. sheets, tablecloths • \'arious svnthetics in a wide varietv ofarticles



### - - It 

### is clear that all ofthe above could not be evaluated in the revised procedures that include moisture content As mentioned above, to simplify RMC testing, the standardized cloth used successfully in previous energy tests was specified. Anumber ofqualified vendors have been providing these test cloths to manufacturers and other test labs on an ongoing basis for many years. The specifications stated in the energy test procedure are: • A 50/50 

### cotton/polyester to represent arough average ofthe typical mix ofcotton, cotton1

### polyesterblend, and synthetics. The cloth has a momie or granite weave and a pure bleached finish • The thread count shall be 61 

### x 54 (warp xfill) per inch • The fabric weight shall be 5.75 

### oz. per sq. yd. (195 0 gm per sq. m) Aside from the historical success with respect to previous procedures. there is no justification for these specifications. The energy cloths are 24 in. by 36 in. (61.0 cm by 91.4 cm.) and are hemmed to 22 in. by 34 in (55 

### 9 cm by 86.4 cm.) before washing. Energy stuffer cloths (smaller cloths used to even-out load size) are 12 in. by 12 in. (30.5 cm by 30.5 cm.) and are hemmed to 10 in by I0 in (25.4 cm. by 25.4 cm)before washing. Both energy test cloths and stuffers clot!is should shrink no more than 4% on the length and width after five washes. Cloth manufacturers typically produce yarn from fiber and subsequently weave and finish the cloth material Two suppliers. Textile Innovators Corp. (TI) and Cotton Goods Mfg. Co. Inc. (CG) purchase cloth materiaL prepare the energy cloth by sewing and hemming and provide it to washer manufacturers and testing laboratories. They have supplied energy test cloth that. overthe years. has varied somewhat from the above standards.
1-There are additional cloth specifications that influence the moisture content. Theyarn size is a parameterthat is related to the yarn diameter. This. together with thread count, blend (fiber content) and weight define the porosity ofthe cloth Finish. referred to by descriptors such as ..pure bleached
.. must be clearly identified. Any finish, particularly a waterrepellant finish (frequently specified for cloth used in other applications), must be avoided. 

### 1.3 Moisture Absorption and Retention in an Energy Test Cloth The amount ofwater absorbed and retained in an energy test cloth can be attributed to se\era! factors
• Surface \\etting. which is a function ofrelative humidity • Water retained betv,een the warp and fill • Water retained betweenthe fibers • Waterretained in the lumen, orcenter ofthe cotton fiber • Water ionicallv bonded in the cotton fiber Polyester is hydrophobic, and essentially has no attraction for water. All ofthe factors listed. except ionic bonding, are effected by the mechanical removal process. Waterthat is ionically bonded can only be removed chemically orby heating. Since RMC tests are only mechanical. there is a limit to the moisture that is removed. 1.4 Summary and Approach It is apparent that a standardized test cloth is required in orderto provide consistent RMC test results. The work summarized herein is aimed at
• Identif\'ing the variables in the construction of50/50 polyester cloth and its constituent fiber and yarn that affect the moisture absorption and moisture retention characteristics ofthe cloth • Developing a process for obtaining and validating standard test cloth • Generating data that indicates the sensitivity ofRMC values to different operating rnriables and reporting them in a publicly available document This report summarizes our efforts to date in addressing these issues Our approach includes the following tasks:
• In-house laboratory testing using an extractorto obtain effects ofoperating variables on RMC for cloth from different suppliers and different lots from the same supplier • Analyze cloth samples using external testing laboratories • Use information from above to: 

### 1-Document the effect ofvariables on 

### RMC Propose a procedureto obtain and verify consistent test cloth Propose a revised definition oftest cloth for regulations Details on progress are found in the follmving report.



### 1-2. Extractor based RMC Testing

To understand the effects ofoperating variables and cloth specifications. it is necessary to conduct laboratorv tests to determine RMC To insure that test results would not be influenced orbiased by any manufacturer's product (clothes washer). we used an extractorto remove moisture content. An extractoris a centrifuge

- basically a rotating basket that has a controllable speed to produce a variety ofcentrifugal forces The speed was varied to impose different centripetal accelerations on the test load. These accelerations are reported in terms ofgravitational acceleration (g) We also choseto soak the cloth in a tub at controlled temperature ratherthan use the agitated soak cycle provided by a**t~vical** washer. Otherwise, ourRMC tests closely resembled those specified in the energy test procedure 

### 2.1 Purpose of Test Program The extractor-based RMC tests have two basic purposes: To evaluate the differences in spin g vs. RMC for available test cloths from different suppliers and different lots from the same supplier. Ultimately, relate these variations (orlack ofvariation) to differences in cloth specification that can be ascertained by laborator)· tests (as explained in Section 4.). Detem1ine whether differences in RMC 's. gin the extractortest correlate with differences in RMC in a particular clothes washer as obtained by Intertek Testing Services (ITS). ; To evaluate the impact ofseveral basic variables on RMC results and the consistency/ repeatability ofRMC results when identical cloth is run under identical conditions using an extractor. Variables to be studied are:
• Effect ofspin time on RMC • Effect ofsoak watertemperature prior to spinning on RMC • Effect oflength ofsoak time priorto spinning on RMC • Effect ofload weight/basket \'Olume on RMC • Effect oftest fabric 

### life (cumulative wet - dry cycles) on RMC and shrinkage Quantitative data addressing each ofthese variables and repeatability under identical test conditions will be indicative ofwhich variables need tobe closely controlled in future testing and/or where bounds need tobe established to ensure consistent results. 

### 2.2 Laboratory and Procedure This section discusses ourextractor-based RMC testing laboratory and procedures. Also included is a description ofshakedowntests used to verify testing procedures and establish initial test parameters

2-2.2.1 Laboratory Equipment Table 2.1 details major equipment used in our extractor-based RMC studies. As noted, our preferred extractorhad a long delivery time, so a smaller unit with immediate availability \Vas initially utilized. Table 2.1 Equipment used in Extractor Based RMC Tests ,·. 

### tTE:M ··•·· Sf>ECtFlCA:TJON 

### <•''• ,:,·.>SUPPLIER .·... .· · . PURPOSE
... :..• •:

............. Washing Typical , 3**~peed.** 14 Local supplier For initially preparing cloth for extractor. Machines (2l cycle, 2.9 W Two machines of identical construction. (Maytag Model# LAT9706AAE) Clothes Dryer 90000 BTU/hr, gas Local Supplier A commercial size dryerto insure "bone fired dry" cloth. Extractor 35 lb. capacity, 20 in. Bock This extractor is sized to satisfy all test diameter. 11.5 in. Engineered requirements. depth, with variable Products speed drive Extractor 20 lb. capacity, 17 in. Smart-Sox, This is a smaller extractor, purchased diameter, 10.5 in. Inc. because of its immediate availability. It depth was used for initial testinq Power Inverter MagneTek, 3 hp, 3 Blanchard Required to operate the smaller extractor phase, 220 volts Electric. Inc. at variable speed Water Heater 40 gallon capacity In-house Required for 135F wash water Scales 26 lb. +/- 00022 lb. In-house Required for weighing cloth. 480 lb. +/- .01 lb. 2.2.2 Procedure Our procedure closely resembles those in the existing energy test procedure. We have a pretest procedureto both precondition the cloth and the clothes \vashers. Test loads are preconditioned once unless otherwise noted A series ofextractor-based RMC tests is then performed on the test load at specified conditions. 

### Pretest Procedure Test lots ofcloth (energy test cloth and stuffer(s)) from different sources are divided into test loads Each cloth is marked with the test load number in indelible ink. ' Clothes washers are preconditioned per Appendix 

### J1: Section 2.9 (JI :2.9)**~** Inlet hot and cold watertemperatures arerecorded. Hot wateris maintained at l35F +i- 

### SF. 4. Each load is prewashed: 2 complete cycles: warm prewash/warm wash w/AHAM detergent and 2 warm rinses and drying

3 complete cycles: warm normal wash and warm rinse and drying :". Each load is made bone-dry perJl: 1.3
2-RMC Test Procedure Each extractor-based RMC test is conducted using the following procedure: 1. Record the bone-dry weight. Soak in a cylindrical vessel 16"' in diameter containing approximately 10 gallons of water. Soak temperature is either cold (60F ±_SF) or warm ( 1 

### OOF ±SF) and time is \ariable. 3. RemO\e the load and place carefully in the extractor without wringing the cloth. 4 Run the extractorat the prescribed g and time. :". Remove the load and record the v.·eight. 6. Compute 0oRMC as follows: % RMC= [(Weight after extraction

- bone-dry weight) i bone-dry weight] 

## *100 Bone-dry the load and repeat steps 1-7 as prescribed in test plan 2.2.3 Shakedown Tests \Ve conducted shakedown tests to verif)1the above procedures and to establish parameters for our initial tests. The load size was 4.5 lbs
.. which represented a mid-sized load for a washer with the dimensions ofourinitial extractor. Otherparameters included soak time and spin time. A soak time of20 minutes and spin time of 10 minutes was selected for the initial tests. 

### 2.3 Test Cloth Sources Ourtest cloth is obtained primarily from Textile Innovators Corporation. (Tl) and Cotton Goods Manufacturing Company, Inc. (CG). To date. five lots (orders) have been received from Tl and t\\o lots from CG. In addition. cloth was distributed as follows
• A portion was sent to lntertek Testing Services Inc. (ITS) for washer-based RMC tests (see Section 3) • Samples from each lot were sent to independent laboratories for determination of cloth characteristics (see Section 4) • A small portion ofTl lot 3, and a largerportion ofTl lot 5 was sent to each washer manufacturer for in-house laboratory testing. In addition. \Ve performed extractor-based RMC tests on cloth received from Alliance Laundry Systems LLC. It was suspected that a fluorochemical finish was present on this material. Consequently. as detailed belmv, wetested this clothboth as received and also after a finish removal process was conducted.
Table 2.2 summarizes the status oftest lots.

2-Table 2.2 Summary ofTest Lot Status

:--I. .· •.!:,O}.;at .•..

## ffi~cla·ti~oadn·•.·•.·••.·••.••· .. ·•.•··.••..

••.·•.•.. •·.•••.

# +**T~t···**..1 .•...· 

## .a •. ·•.•r:.·.·• ·.·.s

### per RMC 'fesbf• ••••• 

### ITSTesth1g •• CtiaracteriStk:s
.

## M11ll:t1fa<:tμt~i;t •

. iut:.. , j
...-. ..· ...·..···· · ......·.··· 

# > le.$.ts**~f**l;af)s
....·.·.·· · 

### Tili$ i Tl Lot 1. (AOL 1.1 ! 2 C C C N r--fffot 2, (AOL

### 2; 1 1 C C C N : Tl Lot 3. (AOL 31 ·· 

## I 1 C C C C 1-·--·
. • Tl Lot 4. (AOL 41
_____

## L 1 C N C N 0

### 1'1 Lot 5. (AOL 5}
_____

## L
___ 1_
_ C P C C • CG Lot 1 I 2 C C C N**~** CG Lot 2 I 1 C N N N LAlliance Initial : C C C N • Alliance Treated 

### I C C N N

KEY TO TABLE: C =Complete, P =planned, N =not planned 2.4 Test Matrix 

### Atest program was designed to carry out the objectives outlined in Section 2.1. As indicated in Table 2.3, the program was divided into a series oftests. The first two series oftests \\ere intended to evaluate the differences in RMC vs spin g with respect to test lots. We also tested the Alliance load with and v.ithout atluorochemical finish. In the remaining tests, we evaluated the effect ofvariables (in addition tog) on RMC results These variables included
• Spin time • Load size • Soak water temperature prior to spin • Soak time priorto spin • noth life (cumulative wash cycles, shrinkage) The Appendices include a list ofall test results included in this report

2-Table 2.3 Extractor Based RMC Test Program

# r~· C1oft1 I.().·. 

## i Sptf19>

# ~=.

# ·····=·•/>**~~'~·me, lo1b~ize;·**  /\·

# >.

# I'"?>°:t:est\/**~--~--~** < 

# <**-~-~+--"-'·=m=•n'-·** •.-+.·

# --.....c.~~--'.f==~~~·.:...c·······=··· 

# ·."""···

·..;....·**-'---4~· ~··<~·•••··••·••·..,...>..,.**  ..

# ··~··~**.·<~. ·~······•••·**  ...........

# •·•••·••<·~····•••·•<'""-4 .·>••••······ 

## ... / .

. Tl1
__100

### _j 10 4.7 Evaluate RMC vs. g for : CG1, CG2 300 i Lots from different Suppliers Warm 20 I I 

### -50()1 e--- _, 50 

## I i Tl1 T12,Tl3
___

# 100! 15 Warm 20 I I I I 84 Evaluate RMC vs g for Lots from the same Supplier 200 I

L.- -----·---..;

# .-_.i_~-~-t---+-----------+-------+-----+--------------i : Alliance '**-~** 10 Warm 20 4.7 Effect of Finish 

## I

! Initial and 300 ' Removal on RMC I Treated 500 

## I r------------+**---+-------+------+----,-----+-------+-c----.,..~,--------___,** i Tl1. Tl2 ' 100, 2 Warm 20 84 Effect of Spin time on 300 4 RMC 6 10 15 20 25 15 "Wash"• "Wash"• 3 Effect of Load Size on 

## r=r12 

# -foo.- i ---- 30 0 vo j ---+-------+-------+------f--------------1 iTl2, Tl3

### ~ 15 4.7 RMC

-- 84 Warm, 20 84 Effect of Soak 100 I Cold Temperature on 200 I RMC 300 ! 

## --·50][j

. __________ 8_00_-ll----+------+------+-----+--------------1 Tl1 115 I
i : Tl2, T14, Tl5 I

j T13. T14, TIS I I 

### !

i 10 I ! 100 15

I 50 4 ' i r------+-----< 200 15**~------** ------< I I 350 Warm, 10 Cold 20

"Wash"*

Warm,

Cold 60 120 16 hr. "Wash"•

20 4.7

84

84 Effect of Soak Time on RMC

Effect of Cloth Life on RMC (50 "washes" with RMC determined after every fifth "wash") Obtain data for generation of correction curves**L__----~----~------+-------+-----~----~--------------i ~,**  

### A..wash" consists ofan agitation. spinning lightly and a second agitation with no detergent and warm waterin a washer

2-2.5 Test Results: RMC 

### vs. g for Different Test Lots 

### This section discusses the differences in RMC vs. spin g with respect to different cloth suppliers. We report results for cloth from the t\vo suppliers. Tl and CG. as \veil as evaluation of the Alliance cloth that \Vas suspected to have a tluorochemical finish. Below. \Ve first compare the Tl and CG lots. discuss differences between lots, and finally address the Alliance lot 2.5.1 Comparison of Cloth Lots 

### Comparison ofTl and CG lots is shov..i1 on Figure 2.1. These data (taken in the smaller, Smart-Sox extractor) are with a spin time of 10 min
.. \varm soak temperature, 20-min. soak time and a 4.7lb. load. As expected. there is a clear decrease ofmoisture content "ithhigher g Typical vertical axis washing machines produce spin g·s in the range of I20 g·s The asymptotic value at high g represents the maximum amount ofmoisture that can be mechanically removed from cloth. (see Section 1.3) The CG 

### cloth clearly has higher RMC with decreasing differences at higher g values. At 100 g·s, the lot-to-lot variation ofthe Tl loads \vas 2% RMC, while the CG to Tl difference is 11% The two cloths had a different "feel'". the CG 

### cloth feeling much smootherthan the Tl cloth. In Section 4, "'e present laboratory results indicating that Tl and CG cloth had some differences in characteristics. However. there is no clear connection between these differences and RMC Further investigation indicated that the CG cloth and Tl cloth came from different manufacturers. The Tl cloth was purchased from Riegel Mills, which produces finished product (cloth) from ra\\ material. The mill that produced the CG cloth is unknown. CG 

### obtained their cloth from Artex, a distributor that purchases cloth from mills and resells it to users. Our conclusion is that in this case. differences in RMC could not be easily e-.:plained by examining cloth specifications. Water absorption and retention mav change \\ith manufacturers who are supplying material with similar characteristics. Identifying the mill oforigin may help determine these differences. This may suggest that a single manufacturer ofenergy cloth may be desirable.

2-**-~o,o ~-------------------------------~** 

---- --Tl11'. '--CG1A ; --Tl1B**~CG1B;**

;['**~** .:iS0:C 0::

:5%

Lead S1Z" 4 7 lbs S::.ak T;:;1:::- 2C· f.11n :?'5°·o**-Saa~** Temp vVarm · Spin frne 1G Min ]Q0,0 '--------------------------------------< 100 200 300 400 500 600 g Factor Figure 2.1 RMC vs. g for Tl and CG Cloth 

### Also ofinterest is the difference between lots supplied by the same manufacturer. Figure 2 2 

### shows data for five TI lots (ADLJ-5) These data (taken in the Bock extractor) are all with a spin time of 1 Sminutes. warm soak temperature, 20-minute soak time and an 8.4 lb. load. Forthe first three lots tested ADL 1. ADL2. ADL3. there is a maximum data spread ofabout 2percent Subsequent lots 4 and 5varied significantly as shown.

2-u :i 40 0°'" IX --ADL 1 -111-ADL 2**~ADL3 ~ADL4**  -+-ADL 5

c· 1DO 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 g Figure 2.2 RMC vs. g for all Tl loads 2.5.2 Evaluation ofAlliance Cloth As part ofour test program, we were asked to perform RMC tests on cloth supplied by Alliance Laundry Systems LLC. They had purchased this cloth from Tl and obtained inconsistent results in their in-house tests, i.e, RMC was lowerthan expected. It was suspected that a tluorochemical finish that would repel moisture \vas present onthis material This was verified by laboratory tests performed by Minnesota Mining and l\1anufacturing Company (3M). We tested this cloth as received and also after a finish remO\·al process. A procedure recommended by the United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA) Laboratory (Southern Regional Research Center) for removal offinish was performed. The procedure called for a mixture ofTriton X-100, Trisodium pyrophosphate, and Tide® to be mixed at a concentration of 1gram/Liter, each. Thetest load was then soaked for one hour at 200 to 2I2 °F. The results are shown in Figure 2.3. These data are with a spin time ofI0 minutes, warm soak temperature, 20 minute soak time, and a 4.7 lb. load (taken in the smaller, Smart-Sox extractor). The results showthat the RMC values were higher in the treated cloth, but not to the extent expected with finish removal. The conclusion is that the tluorochemical finish was not removed by theprocess orthat the tluorochemical finish was not responsible for the differences in RMC. Since the removal process is used routinely by USDA, we suspect the latter conclusion is correct.

2-0 ::;: a:**~,:::.%** .-----------------------------------,**~,Q%**

.?5%
. ·Load Size 4 7 lbs

- - Soak Tane 20 Min Scak Tem;; \\'arm , Sr1nT1r.:i:o**10~.,1n** ·-+-1'.SG

,-- Stripped_ASG

?D%**~--------------------------------!** 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 g Factor Figure 2.3 RMC forAlliance Cloth before (ASG) and afterTreatmentfor Removal ofStain-Resistance Fluorochemical Surface Finish (ASG Stripped)


### 2.6 Test Results: Influence ofotherTestVariables on RMC The data in the previous section shows that the RMC is strongly influenced by spin g le\el Several other operatingvariables also influence the RMC level reached after a spin cvcle.
• Spin time • Load size • Soak watertemperature prior to spin • Soak time priorto spin • Cloth life (cumulative wash cycles, shrinkage) The primary focus ofthe work reported herein has been to develop a test cloth specification, so that consistent RMC values are obtained with different lots oftest cloth. In pursuit ofthis objective, it is ofinterest to understand the quantitative magnitude ofthe 

### effect ofthese \'ariables on RMC 

### levels: it is further ofgeneral interest to have this information publicly available_

2-2.6.1 Effect of Spin Time on RMC 

### For a fabric and load size, at a given spin g level, there appears to be an equilibrium RMC level that is reached after a comparatively long spin time. This is the limit ofthe mechanical removal process for that g force. Figure 24 plots RMC \s. spin time for two different lots at I00 and 300 g. These data represent TIl and TI2 loads \vith warm soak temperature. 20-minute soak time. and an 84 lb. load. The figure shows evidence of dependence ofspin time on RMC The equilibrium time at 300g (about 20 minutes) appears to be somewhat longerthan at 100 g (about 15 minutes) There is, ofcourse. more moisture removed at higher g The process (see Section 1.3) involves several mechanisms\\ith effecti\·eness that varies with g, apparently resulting in somewhat longer equilibrium times as more moisture is removed.

-55°10 .--------------------------------.

45%

40%

Load Size. 8.4 lbs .Soak Time: 20 Min Soak Temp Warm -+-Tl Lot 1 (300 g) -+-Tl Lot 2 (300 g) : .--Tl Lot 1 (100 g) -tt-TI Lot 2_(100 g)

2C·0·o ,___ ____________________________ ___, 10 15 20 25 30 Spin Time (min) Figure 2.4 RMC vs. Spin Time for 100 and 300g. 2.6.2 Effect of Load Size on RMC 

### RMC vs. load size is plotted in Figure 2.5 at 100 and 300 g"s respectively. These data were taken in conjunction with ourtests on cloth life (see Section 2.6.5). The three load size<; represent the minimum. average. and maximum load size recommended for the extractor drum volume. The normal soak process was replaced by a ·'wash" that consisted ofan agitation. light spin and a second agitation No detergent and warm water was used. This was followed by the extractor-based spin. Forthese tests, the spin time was 15 minutes and the spin g was 100 and 300. Figure 2.5 shows the RMC decreases by several percentage points with increasing load at an amount that is independent ofg force This is possibly due to the increased pressure on the outer cloths in the basket
2-1caused by the increased radial depth ofthe load. 

### It suggests that the load size and extractor dimensions (diameter. depth and perhapsbasket porosity) be specified for RMC tests.**~~5°10 ~---------------------------------,** 

.?5% Tl 1967 I.Lot 2) Spin Time 15 Min. Ill 33 5% -- -- • 100g • 300g

• 46 6%

ID 31.5%

:?00.'o**~----------------------------~** 0 5 9 10 Load Size (lb.I Figure 2.5 RMC vs. Load Size at 100 and 300 g's 2.6.3 Effect of Soak Water Temperature on RMC The RMC is generally higher when the rinse watertemperature is 

### lov·ier. Figures 2.6 and 2 7 show RMC vs. g for TI2 and TB loads respectively at warm (I00°F) and cold (60°F) soak temperatures The spin time was 20 minutes. soak time was 20 minutes and the load was 84 lb Two figures are provided since the effect oftemperature is difficult to discern when compounded with the data spread with load. Similar results were obtained with future lots 4 and 5. The cold water RMC values are as much as 8%. but generally 2-3% higher than the warm water RMC values. This is perhaps attributable to the temperature dependence ofthe surface tension and the absorptivity ofwaterin cotton (both decrease with increasing temperature).



### 2-1o!' (.) :: a: 55%

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25% Loaj S12° ,3 4 lbs ;Soak T1r:v- 2·J Uin Spin T1mf- 15 r.1tn '--Tl2Cold -+-Tl2 Warm

20%**'--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--** 0

55%

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 g Factor Figure 2.6 RMC vs. g for Warm and Cold Soak for Load Tl2

.Load S12c a4 lbsSoak Tw12 2G f.11n 'SpinT1rn.: 15Uin 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 g Factor Figure 2.7 RMC vs. g for Warm and Cold Soak for Load Tl3 800 900

--Tl3Warm -4-Tl3 Cold

800 900



### 2-1

### 2.6.4 Effect of Soak Time on RMC In actual RMC tests, a washeris used and the soak time also includes agitation As e:-;plained earlier. for our extractorbased RMC tests, \\e soak the cloth in a cylindrical tub containing IO gallons ofwater. During our shakedown tests, we determined the effect ofsoak time on RMC. Figure 2 8 shows results for warm and cold soaks The data are for Tl cloth, 11 Sg. I0-min spin time and a 4.7 lb. load. The data show no discernable trends in RMC vs soak times for cold soaks. There appears to be an increase in RMC with soak times ofwarm soaks for time greaterthan 1hour. In orderto resemble, to some extent, actual washer soak time and to maintain reasonable test times. we selected 20 minutes as soak time for ourtests.**-,=o,~, ------------------------------~**  L:.ad Size 4 - !r,s Spin Time 1.:_,, '..1m Spin Speej**~** i:; g

2G 60 Soak Time 

# I I

11111

i!llllil!lll

120 :£'lTI 1Warm· .ETI 1 Cold'

16 Hours Figure 2.8 RMC vs. Soak Time in Minutes for Warm and Cold Soak at 115 g. 

### 2.6.5 Effect ofCloth Life on RMC To determine the effect ofcloth life orcloth durability on RMC we repeatedly "washed" a load ofcloth and periodically performed RMC tests (omitting soak time). Our "wash" c>·cle includes agitation. spinning lightly and a second agitation with warm water, all with no detergent. Otherportions ofa normal wash cycle are presoak and spin/rinse. The presoak is optional and we considered the spin/rinse taken care ofin the RMC test. We --washed'' the load Stimes. then performed an RMC test and repeated this process I0 times, ultimately completing SO '·washes". Results for RMC change with ·'washes" and 2-1

### the change in bone dry cloth weight with
..washes" are shown in Figures 2.9 and 2.10, respectively. The data are for TI cloth, at I00 g, with IS-min. spin time, and an 8.4 lb. load. The cloth weight is reduced approximately 2% in SO '·washes'' because ofthe continual remc)\al ofmaterial in the washing process. The RMC increases on the order of I0 

## /o in SO ..washes". The rate ofweight loss from the fabric and the rate ofRMC increase were linear over the entire SO wash cycles. Neither showed any sign of increasing toward the end ofthe SO wash cycles. The conclusion is that the cloth appears to hold**slight!~·** 

### more moisture as it ages. This is possibly due to greater voids created in the cloth with age Note that the DOE 

### test procedure allows test cloths tobe used for up to 25 wash C\'cles.**::/='~'C** .-----------------------------------.,

'.**~t** 4 

## • Ill 'rt = 

## •• ;;<**~ ~D%**  Q'. 

## • 46% 

## •**''~**'1, ·Load Sizeo ii 4 lbs Spin Time, 1:'>**l~1n** Spin SpEc:J 1DO g 111111 I 

## ••

...

t 

# • • Ill

- ---- ".8 

# •• • •


## • •• • II 

## •

el gt? •



## • .. Ill Ill· .18. 

## • 

## ••**_jC1S'~ ~------------------------------~**  10 20 30 #Washes 40
Figure 2.9 RMC vs. Number ofWash/dry cycles 50 60

2-13950

Lot5
Lot 4

# .;-""'r*=====::===--?~-----w**11**

# ~xio:-----...2f...-**~** x x

..-.-..**---X~-** 

## 5380:!


# .. I: 0 m



## I Ala

• ton-----

3650

# L
_______________________________**~** 10 15 2G 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Wash# Figure 2.10 Bone Dry Weight vs. Number of "Washes" As part ofthe fabric 

### life testing the test cloth shrinkage was monitored. Linear dimensions were taken in three locations on both the horizontal and vertical axis ofthe test cloth. The unwashed test cloth dimensions established the baseline Measurements were recorded after each ofthe five pre-conditioning washes and then after every ten \\ash cycles The results are shown in Figure 2.11. The percent shrinkage increased steadily during the pre-conditioning process, reaching a plateau after ten wash cycles. The variation in percent shrinkage between lot 4 and lot5 was nearly consistentat I%. There is no compelling evidence that the percent shrinkage has an impact on the moisture retention ofthe test cloth With the improved test cloth specification and more robust pre-conditioning procedure, it is suggested that the shrinkage requirement beremoved from the test procedure.

2-1 65

### I ! i SC·:

II a 

### • • 

### • • •

4 C.1

3 G:,

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 #Washes Figure 2.11 Shrinkage of Energy Cloth Used in Cloth Life Tests 2.6.5.1 Effect ofPre-Conditioning on RMC ;•Lot 4**~** :m Lot 5

The pre-conditioning procedure was verified using both a vertical and horizontal axis washing machine to determine ifthe machine type used in pre-conditioning impacts the Rl\1C' results TI Lot 4 and Lot 5 were each pre-conditioned following the procedure described in section 6.3. subsection 2.6.3. Each load \Vas then run in the extractorto com;_Jare Rl\1C' values. The extractortests were performed. as previously. with a 20 minute warm soak. 15 minute spin. at I00 g. The results. shown in Table 2-4, show nearly identical RMC results regardless ofthe pre-conditioning machine type used. Based on these results. specification ofa pre-conditioning machine type is not necessary. Table 2-4: RMC Values for Different Pre-Conditioning Machine Type Machinet L.Ot5 Vertical 53.3% 50.1% 52 1% 51.0% 53.1% 50.9% Horizontal 52 3% 50.3% 

### L
___ 53.0% 50.5%

2-13. Results ofWasher Based RMC Tests Conducted by lntertek Testing Services (ITS) Since ITS is an independent laboratory that routinely does washerbased RMC testing for the industrv. it was decided to send cloth to them from the same lots \ve used in our extractor-based RMC tests for evaluation. This would allow a comparison ofwasherbased RMC to extractor-based RMC. The results ofITS washerbased RMC tests are given in Table 31. The ITS tests are done ontwo washers, listed as Amana and Whirlpool The loads that originated the study are listed as Alliance (origin Tl) and ITS (origin CG). Our (ADL) cloth came from lots used in omRMC tests discussed above. The lots were purchased at different times from the supplier listed. The dramatic difference bet\\een the Alliance and ITS loads is also evident in the ADL data, suggesting that the discrepancies in RMC between Tl and CG cloth is independent oflot. There is about 

### :'% maximum difference in the Tl lots permachine and up to a 7 % difference between machines A comparison ofvalues between those in the table and Figure 2.1, extractor-based results, indicates a similarity in trend. Numerical values cannot be comparedbecause ofthe differences in test methods, i.e
.. washer-based vs. extractor-based Table 3.1 ITS Washer-Based RMC Results 

## I**Wasb~r'** •·.... • ....·· ..· ..... ....... ·**'l'~tilt!J.lllf'l:O:V~tors** 

### <**C~ffi>n**Goods < .·•....·.·. r •.•·. 

# <> ..··**Amanc~** .••. .•· Aot. Jl1
. ... 

### AC>t. [12.·\ 

### iAPL Tl$ /. l'f'Q • . ) 

### APt: CQ1 : Amana 56 0% 55.21% 52.28% 53.09% 67.9% 66 09% 

### :_wF[r1poo-1-153 7% 54.65% 51 56% 49.58% 64.9% 63.84%

3-4. Cloth Characteristics and Relation to RMC 

### The construction ofatextile fabric and its constituent yarns is characterized by a number ofbasic variables. For aparticular fabric, cloth specifications could define the nominal value ofthese variables and the acceptable tolerance range. The material that follows is a discussion ofthese variables and the likely relationship ofthese variables to the moisture absorption and retention ofthe cloth. Following the discussion ofthe variables, the test results are summarized from several labs to characterize the test cloths that have been examined in this project. 4.1 Discussion of Cloth Characterization Variables 

### :\ listing ofcloth characterization variables, their descriptions, suspected relation to RMC specification in current (proposed) regulation and appropriate test for evaluation is gi\'en in Table 4.1. Note that only fabric construction, thread count, fiber content, fabric \\eight and finish are currently specified in the proposed regulation.

4-Table 4.1 Cloth Characterization Variables**~** 

### PROPERTY ··. ··· DESCRIPTJOf{ / R.f.l.A'tJON
...... 

# < < . CURRENT< /**ttst~OR**

### ·························· 

## i· <\
....•· ·· •··....·•·. · ..··.···• > 

### >

# ~U~\1~1fP'to>/ >$PECIFJQATiQN ( 

## ¢VAL-UATtQN ]**L.~~~~~- -~-+......._-~'"--_...._---'",,,......__'+~...._......._.;~'--.---'"--+--~...-.U~~~=~~======="""!**  ' Fabric Construction Weave of cloth. Either Unknown Momie (granite) Identified visually momie (granite)- weave irregularly woven with rough surface or plain weave-regularly woven. rvarn Type Unknown Unspecified Identified visually Either open-end or ring spun (open end common today)

-----**----+------~~--+------------+----------+---------~** Thread Count

, 

### ______ _ ; Fiber Content I f-Yarn Number f-Fabric Weight
: Ftnts_h
______ _

1----------- i Water Retention i Absorbency vertical Wicking Rate

I Repellency to Oil and ! Water I ! , i Number ofyarns that run lengthwise (warp or ends)/number of yarns that interlace(fill or picks) % blend by weight of fiber type in yarn Linear density ofyarn, mass/length Dry weight per unit area (oz. per sq. yd. or gms. per sq. m.) Could cover a variety of finishes applied to the cloth (related to final uses or facilitating manufacturing process) Amount of water retained in a centrifuQe test Amount oftime for a drop ofwater to absorb Time for water to travel a fixed distance up the cloth. Tested in the warp and fill directions If a surface is wetted by oil or water. Identifies fluorochemical and other finishes Higher thread count implies more cotton, higher RMC More cotton fiber implies higher RMC Thickerthread implies more cotton , higher RMC Heavierweight implies more cotton, more RMC Any finish would lower RMC

Water retention increases RMC Absorbency increases RMC Faster wicking implies higher RMC
Repellency lowers RMC 65/57

50/50 cotton /polyester Not Specified 5.75 oz. Per sq. yd. Pure finished bleached

Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified

Not Specified ASTM D 3775 Thread Counts per Inch AATCC 20A-with moisture Fiber Composition ASTM D 1059 Standard Test Method for Yarn Number ASTM D 3776 Weight AATCC TM 94 Finishes in Textiles• Identification

ASTM D 2402 Water Retention by lmbibit1on AATCC TM 79 Absorbency of Bleached Textiles Vertical Wicking Rate

AATCC TM 118 Oil Repellency**'------------~--------~--------~---------'--------------'** 4.2 Results of Cloth Characterization Tests 

### Tables 4.2 and 4.3 

### present results from the independent laboratories for the cloth characterization tests. As shown. there is an absence ofdata in some cases. Eitherthe data was not requested orthe laboratory was unable to perform the required tests. Also there
4-arc some discrepancies in the reporting and/or method ofanalysis (see results for water retention) Information on fabric construction and yarn type is particularly sparse. Vartest reported the \\eave on both CG and Tl samples tobe ··crepe \\'eave·· (not momie). CG to be "ring-spun" \arn. and Tl to be "open-end" spun yarn. Table 4.2 Cloth Characterization: Fabric Weight, Thread Count, Yarn Number and Fiber Content Fabric Thread Count Yarn Number Fiber Content F abric ' 

### : s l ource L_
__

1le

Text Innavatars

' Sample ID

---·- I I

1
..All1ance" I 

## I I

# ~ADL Lot 1 I (Tl1) lADL Lot 2 i (Tl2)

# r·~~L Lot 3

(Tl3)

# ~DL Lot 4 ! (Tl4) ' r·- ·------· I AQL Lot 5**~------** 

# J (Tl5)

·---- ----- I i I I i ton i ITS ds I I i Cot 1 Goo I I 

## L I CG 1

___ _L_ ' i
___ Test Lab Weight, oz. Per sq. Warp yd. ACTS 5.86 65.0 5.90 67.20 lntertek 6.2 67.00 5.81 61.00 USDA 5.84 - Vartest 5.90 66.20 5.98 66.70

1 Vartest 5.60 64.80 5.64 64.00 lntertek 5.3 60 Vartest 5.23 60.5 ACTS 5.3 62 lntertek 5.3 61 Vartest 5.33 61.7 ACTS 5.87 63 lntertek 5.9 65.6 Vartest 5.62 64.3 ACTS 5.55 63 lntertek 5.89 66.0 Vartest 544 63.3 ACTS 5.73 70.00 5.90 70.60 lntertek 5.80 70.40 USDA 5.67 63.00 5.75 

### - 5.88 69.70 Vartest 5.88 71 00 Vartest 5.20 67.30 5.24 67.00 Warp Fill Fill Cotton Poly % % 60.0 

### - - 49.58 50.2 61 00 - - 49.8 49.5 62.00 - 50.2 49.8 67.00 16.90 16.20 51.9 48.1

- 

### - - - - 61 00 - - 50.53 49.47 61.00 

### - - 50.24 49.76 55.00 16.20 15.5 51.21 48.79 55.30 16.40 16.10 50.7 49.3 54 16.0 16.0 52.6 47.4 53.5 16.3 16.0 53 16.3 15.8 48.5 51.5 53 15.9 15.9 51.5 48.5 54.0 15.8 15.5 50 09 49.91 53 14.6 14.7 50.5 49.5 53.6 15.1 14.3 51.6 48.4 53.0 16.7 15.1 51.76 48.24 52 15.4 14.5 50.7 49.3 54.0 15.2 15.2 52.0 48.0 53.0 15.3 15.0 51.76 48.24 61.00 

### - - 45.1 54.9 64.00 - - 47.2 52.8 62.40 

### - - 48. 52.0 71.00 18.10 17.50 47.8 52.2



### - - - 

### - - 63.00 - - 48.32 51.68 64.30 - 

### - 48.88 51.12 56.00 18.00 18.10 54.27 45.73 55.50 17.30 17.50 54.02 45.98

4-Table 4.3 Cloth Characterization: Water Retention, Drop Absorbency, Finish, Repellency and Vertical Wicking Rate

--..-------·- ···---- - Repellency, Water Vertical Fabric Sourc Sample ID Test Lab Retention, Drop D =absorb, Wicking, sec. Absorbency, Finish e

; Text1IE:

Innovators

-

! Cotton

Goods "Alliance"

# ~;D~lot 1 (Tl1 \

---

AOL Lot 2 (Tl2\ ADL Lot 3 (Tl3)


# --··-

AOL Lot 4 (Tl4)**~--** AOL Lot 5 (TIS\

ITS

f----.

CG 1

I %
USDA 15.5 15.2 Vartest 191 Vartest 185 lntertek Vartest 196.6 ACTS 13.75 lntertek Vartest 226.68 ACTS lntertek Vartest ACTS lntertek Vartest

USDA 18.4 17.2 Vartest 292 Vartest 287 A= repel sec. Water Oil 388 153 D D A D 0.8 Possible lubricant D D or surfactant 0.8 Possible lubricant D D or surfactant

--- 8.0 5.9 Polyvinyl Acetate D D 7.1 D D 6.4 6.6 None D D < 1 D D 2.6 1.9 D D < 1 1.2 D D 1.4 D D

<1 <1 D D D D .4 Wax
. D D Silicone/polyester oligomer, Possible lubricant or surfactant .5 Possible lubricant D D or surfactant 

### Table 44 summarizes the differences found in the laboratory results and provides comments on conclusions and effect on RMC Here we discuss only the lots tested in our e:-;tractor-based RMC tests, not the "Alliance" and ITS data.

4-for 2 cm. Warp Fill 68 399

30 30

30 30

15 12Table 4.4 Summary of Results from Independent Laboratories 

## i

# l----~

Fabric Construction 

# '-Yarn Type f-Thread Count ? ·**~ttet~~** <...· 

### Differences \·.·_.···· Qiff¢reriees < 

### com:::tvsf:c>t'I**~~** 

# .\····**1~;····.···· ~~·** 

# ..·:**I~··•·····•· •>'~"'"'"tojg0j···**  Vartest reported Tl and CG cloth to be crepe weave (not momie) More data needed Vartest reported CG to be ring-spun and Tl to be open-end More data needed yarn 2% 4%

4% 4% 4% -11% between Tl and CG, but not overlapping Tl lot difference 6-12% Significant difference between CG and Tl. may be connected to RMC No discernable differences between lots and laboratories. Differences between CG and Tl may be connected L__
__________ ----+---------+---------+---------+--to_R_M_C
______ ---< ; Yarn Number 2% 2% 12% No discernable differences between lots and laboratories. Differences between CG and Tl may be connected to RMC Small 5% 2% 5% between lots l.
________ -----1-----------+---------+---------+--m_a_,1y_b_e_si_,,___Qn1_fi_ca_n_t
__ ___, Finish Not enough data Some reported Same finish on both Finishes reported, but no connection to RMC**:-~\later** Retention Data here difficult to analyze because of differences in test More information needed 1 methods/results r--;.:bsorbency Larqe Larqe Not reported More information needed**~**Vert1caI**Wic~_R_a_te** __ --+_N_o_t_e_n_o_u_,,___Qh_d_a_ta_-+-_N_o_t**_en_o_u~1q'--h_d_a_ta** _ _._____N_o_t**_re~~P_·o_rt_e_d**__ +--M_o_re-,--in_fo_r_m_a_t_io_n_n_e_e_d_ed-----< ' Repe1lency Data indicates all samples studied absorb oil and water No differences noted



### 4.3 Comparison ofCloth Characterization Test Results with RMC Test Results Table 4.3 indicates some differences in cloth characteristics that may be linked to RMC results. Hmve\er, there are no clear connections. There is reasonable uniformity in characteristicsbetween Tl lots reported here and these differences are \vithin the same bounds as the differences in RMC results. This suggests that a "standard'' cloth should originate one manufacturerto limit the variability ofcharacteristics. The tests available for finish can be extensive. However, two simple droplet tests for absorbency ofwater and oil can beused to detect the type ofstain ofwater repellent finish that could be inadvertently applied during production ofthis fabric

4-5. RMC Correction Factor



### As discussed in the preceding sections, the relationship that can be discerned between measurable. specifiable properties ofthe cloth and the resulting moisture absorption 1

### retention characteristics as measured by a standard RMC test is tenuous at best. The difficulty ofrelating specifiable characteristics

- fiber content. weight, etc. to Rl\'IC characteristics is compounded by the wide tolerances that apply to the nominal specifications oftextile products. The textile industry requires wide tolerances to allow for the variability ofcotton and synthetic fibers, as well as process control variability. Based on discussions with textile industry marketing and manufacturing managers, special manufacture to tighter specifications is probably not available: based on the laboratory testing to date. tight specifications alone will not necessarily lead to a comparably consistent RMC characteristic. Based on the highly consistent extractorbased RMC-g curves for Tl lots L 2, and 3, it appeared that a viable approach to minimize the effects ofcloth variation on RMC would be to consistently specify a single type offabric that is produced frequently by one mill to a consistent set ofspecifications Riegel Permalux 50/50 Momie Weave (the cloth used for Tl lots 1. 2. 

### and 3) appears to be a suitable choice. because this cloth is produced in high volume. has been produced to a consistent specification for many years and is likely to continue to be produced on this basis for the foreseeable future. Riegel produces the varns from purchased fiber and weaves and finishes the cloth material. so they have complete control O\'erthe process. Howe\'er. as discussed in the preceding sections, the extractor based RMC-g curves of subsequent lots ofthe Riegel cloth (Tl lots 4 and 5) were 5to 8percentage points higher than the corresponding RMC-g curves for Tl lots 1, 2. 

### and 3. To account for lot-to-lot \ariation, Robert Van Buskirk ofLawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) proposed a linear least squares fit based RMC correction (Appendix C) The basic approach is to define standard R1\1C vs g values for cold and warm (60°F and 100°F) water and 4 minute and I'.' minute spin times. The RMC values ofTl lot 3 have been adopted as this standard. For other lots oftest cloth. RMC-g values are absorbed in the standard extractor. Alinear least squares fit 

### between the new cloth RMC and the "standard" cloth RMC yields a linear relation between the RMC obtained with the new cloth and the RMC that would have been expected with standard cloth. Figure 5-1 illustrates the basic concept.

5-

### i ANewL::-U Standard Extractor RMC vs. g \ Test Cloth_J 

## I --T·-**~-~** RMC Correction

Curve**L---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~** 1 Standard Test Cloth Basis RMC for Clothes Washer X**~----** i RMC for Clothes Washer X with New Test Cloth

Figure 5-1 RMC Correction to Determinethe RMC that would have been Measured with "Standard" Test Cloth As described helow, test results to date indicate that this procedure produces results that are highly consistent. The material below summarizesthe proposed method to determine the correction factor cune for a ne\\ lot oftest cloth and the test data, to date, that showsthat this procedure will vield consistent 

### RMC results for clothes washers. 5.1 Procedureto Calculate Correction Factor The typical linear correction curvethat is generated is shown in Figure 5-2. The simple algebraic equation is
\\'here


### • RMC:,,nw1-:.i is the average 

### RMC that would havebeen expected at each test condition for clothes washer X if"standard'' test cloth had been used for the

### J1

### RMC test


### • RMCi-·N11,·d is the 

### RMC measured by theJI test procedure for clothes washerX with a lot ofnon-standard test cloth for which a linear correction curvehas been created.
• A and B are the coefficients (intercept and slope) that result in the least squares linear fit relating the 

### RMC values measured in the standard extractorfor a particular lot of non-standard test cloth and those that were measured with standard test cloth, at each water temperature. spin time, and g test point

5-The procedure has fourbasic steps. l Establish the standard RMC vs. g values for cold and warm water and 4 minute and 

### IS minute spin time For a new lot oftest cloth, measure the RMC vs. g values for cold and warm water and 4 minute and 1

### Sminute spin time. 

### 3 Linear least squares fit and root mean square (RMS) errorcheck to generatethe linear correction curve. 4 Apply correction to JI measurements ofRMC with clothes washer. 5.1.1 Standard RMC vs. g Curve The standard RMC vs. g values are summarized in the ··standard cloth" column ofTable 5-1 They are the average ofthree measured RMC values at each spin time

- water temperature - spin g test point with test cloths from TI lot 3. They were measured in a Bock Model 21 Sextractor. Forthis test procedureit was decided that the Bock Model 21 5 extractor would bethe ''standard" 5.1.2 Establish RMC vs. g Values for New Test Cloth Using the standard Bock Model 21 

### Sextractormeasure the RMC at the specified combinations ofspin time. watertemperature and spin gin Table 5-1. Each ofthe RMC measurements should be done three times, with the average used to determine the correction cu1Ye. 5.1.3 Least Squares Fit and RMS ErrorVerification Using a spreadsheet or statistical calculator, calculate the linearleast squares fit relating the pairs of"standard'' and "'new cloth" RMC values at each ofthe spin time

- water temperature - spin g test points. To quantWv the uncertainty ofthe linear least squaresfit a root mean square error analysis is performed The root mean square value of 

# :L RMCstandard_i - RMCcorr_ i

### J 

### ,·'12 ( \211/2 !' 

### i=1 10 Should be less than 2-percent.

5-The Root**~dean** Square (RMS) is a standard statistical quantity generated in least-squares regression analvsis. 

### It is typically used to construct confidence interval estimates and to test hypotheses about the derived model. The RMS quantifies the amount ofvariation (or uncertainty) associated with estimatingthe standard Rl\1C % from any corresponding RMC 

### 'Yo value observed with new cloth. Underlyingtheory and computational details are gi\en in most applied statistics texts. Table 5-1: Standard RMC vs. g Values and Corresponding NE!W Cloth RMC Values for Linear Least Squares Fit

# r~·~~~~i~::L

# ....**·~t=··Tern~~j'~**

# .........**··~··········~~1n••;·;··········· ·········-=t~~:ii:!~•••the·~~=:·••~::CtiJ'•.**  i Cold 50 59 0% 200 43.1% 350 35.8% 4 min Warm 50 55.7% 200 40.4% 350 33.1%**~--------r-·c_o_l_d**_______ f-c-50----+----5-2-...,.8-,-%,----+----------

200 37.9% 350 30.6% 15 min. : Warm 50 50.4% 200 35.6% 350 29 6%
5.1.4 Apply to Clothes Washer Test Results Once the linear correction curve has been generated for a new lot oftest cloth, energy test cloths and stuffers may be used to perform the JI RMC test on any clothes washer to \\hich the JI test procedure is applicable. TheRMC measured with the nev.· test cloth is corrected to the standard test cloth RMC either graphically using a plot ofthe linear correction curve. or arithmetically, using the linear equation with the coefficients A and B that define the linear correction curve. 5.2 Test Data Confirming Correction Procedure To evaluatethe effectiveness ofthe correction procedure, results from extractorRMC-g tests for Tl lots 4 and 5 were used to generatethe linear correction curvesto TI lot 3. The resulting coefficients for the linear correction equation RMC1d =A+ B*RMCm.:asured are summarized in Table 5-2. Table 5-2: Correction Coefficients

5-!

# +t-~-------~=-**-------~1~~-~---~-~-~_9**

# ______ I0.967 0.997) 

### The linear correction curve and the individual extractor Rl\1C data points for lots 4 and 5 are plotted in Figures S-2 and 5-3, respectively. The individual data points are the a\·erage ofthe 3 

### RMC values measured for each combination ofwatertemperature, spin time. and spin g The detailed data is shown in tabular form in Appendix D.

C orrect1on Curve for Lot 4

----------



# .

- 

# /

u**~** ;;



# L
____**----------------~** Lo! A RMC \"',.I Figure 5-2: Linear Correction Curve for Tl Lot 4

5-C orrect1on Curve tor Lot S

----------------·------

Lot!> RI.IC I·..; Figure 5-3: Linear Correction Curve for Tl Lot 5
The results ofthe extractor-based correction curve tests are shown in table 5-3 and 5-4. The tables show the standard (Lot 3) measured value. 1 he Lot 4 (or 5) measured rnlue. and the corrected \'alue All measured values are shown. however. the average ofthe three test Yalues at each condition are used for the leas1t squares curve 

### fit Table 5-3: Lot 4 Verification of Correction Factor in Clothes Washer



### ..···•··•·**<T~st** Point·.•.\ ·.• / .• ..·**l.;Qt:3.i'{MCJStan~~r- Lot~RMt···············**  

### corr-ecte(f'RMC ' (Soak Temp.•.Time.;: a) ··• ·. ·· :::..:..::::--:::/::,:.:
...; : ..:·...... -····· :.·..·:··:_._....._ .._ ... <:: 514% 56.2% 50.5%

. Warm 15, 50 49.6% 57.2% 51.5% 50.2% 57.2% 51.5% 364% 42.2% 37.0% Warm. 15. 200 35.7% 42.6% 37.4%

-- -------- - 34.9% 40.5% 35.4% 29.1% 34.2% 29.3%

. ------- - --- - Warm. 15. 350 29.9% 34.2% 29.3%

- - -- ---- - -- 29.9% 34.1% 29.2% 55.8% 61.5% 55.6%

. --··--· ---- ---- Warm, 4, 50 55.8% 61.5% 55.6%

-·--··-····---· - 55.5% 61 1% 55.3% 41 1% 46.3% 41 0% Warm. 4. 200 40.6% 45.6% 40.3% 39.6% 45.5% 40.2%
5-32.1% 37.5% 32.5%

·- Warm 4. 350 33.6% 37 8% 32.8% --------· 33.5% 38.5% 33.5% 52.2% 58.8% 53.0%

--- -- - --- Cold 15. 50 53.3% 580% 52.3%

- ·····- -- 53.1% 59.8% 54.0% 38.0% 43.1% 37.9% 42 20/o ··-------- Cold 15. 200 37.9% 37.0%**43~4°/o** -- 37.9% 38.2% 30.2% 35.5% 30.6%
----··· -·-·· ·--- Cold. 15. 350 30.7% 35.4% 30 5% 31.1% 35 4% 30.5% 59.1% 64.6% 58.6%

- -·--- -- Cold. 4, 50 58.9% 64.4% 58.4% 58.9% 63.2% 57.3% 43.5% 47 9% 42.5%

- - ----- --- Cold. 4. 200 43.0% 49.0% 43.6%

·- -- --- 42.8% 48.5% 43.1% 35.3% 41.5% 36.3% Cold. 4. 350

---- -· - - 36.0% 40.3% 35.2%

--·-··- -- -· 416% -·--·-------- 36.1% 35.9%

Table 5-4: Lot 5 Verification of Correction Factor in Clothes Washer



### .i te$tPoint 

## > .•...·

..**--~3-RM¢1$\a·oo·--'..-a** 

## ... -.-.'*'.•.·•.•·.-.••.:i.••.- .•.•. -.-.•.•.••.•.-.••.••.•.•.1 

### .J ..•..•....

## ·••.-i.i;)t58Mc ·

## ¢9r~l~J~M<f-; <······ 

### :**-·(_$68k?t•fui:>a~--:TI;ne~::Qj**

### _.-· 1:**-::::·-:·;:-:::.::::};:.\:·:~>>~-:<>A:>:>>:·.:·**·.· · Warm. 15. 50
Warm, 15. 200
Warm, 15, 350

Warm, 4. 50
Warm. 4. 200
Warm, 4. 350 51.4% 49.6% 50.2% 36.4% 35.7% 34.9% 29.1% 29.9% 29.9% 55.8% 55.8% 55.5% 411%

·-·-. ----

40.6% 39.6% 32.1% 33.6% 33.5% 54.8% 55

### 4°k 53.1% 40.1% 39.5% 39.1% 32.8% 32.2% 32.1% 58.1% 

### 59 4o/o
- 58.7% 44.6%**44~4o/o** 43.2% 36.6% 36.4% 35.2% 51.4% 52.0%

--- ----·--- 49.7% 36.8%

.. -- - ---- -

36.2% 35.8% 29.6% 29.0%

--- .-- ------------ 28.9% 54.7% 56.0%

- ------------- --- --- 55.3% 41.3% 41.1% 39.9% 33.4%

-- ·- --- ·---- - - --- --- ---- 33.2% 320% 5-52.2% 56.4% 530% Cold, 15. 50 53.3% 55.4% 52 0% 53.1% 55.8% 52.4% 38 0% 41.7% 38.4% Cold. 15. 200 37.9% 400% 36.7% 37.9% 42.4% 39.1% 30.2% 35 1% 31.9% Cold 15. 350 30.7% 330% 29.8% 31 1% 33.7% 30.5% 59.1% 61.4% 58 0% Cold. 4. 50 58.9% 61.9% 58.5% 58.9% 62.4% 590% 43.5% 46.6% 43.3%

-------·-- ·- Cold. 4 200 43 0% 47.6% 44.3% 42.8% 46.3% 43 0% 35.3% 38.6% 35.3%

-·-- --- . - Cold, 4 350 360% 38.7% 35.4% 36.1% 39 0% 35.7% 

### R!\IC values \\ere determined for ahorizontal axis washer and a vertical axis washer, following the JI 

### RMC test procedure. with each ofTl lots 3 (the standard), 4 and 5 The R!\1C tests were run three times for each clothes washer/test cloth lot combination. Tables 5-5 and 5-6 summarize the RMC measured in each ofthe machines using test cloth from Tl lots 4 and 5. respectively In each table, these values are corrected to the Tl lot 3 

### standard and compared to the RMC values measured with test cloths from Tl lot 3. \\'ith one exception. the corrected RMC is less than I%. ofthe RMC measured with the standard (Tl lot 3) test cloth. Table 5-5: Verification of Lot 4 Correction Curve in Clothes Washer Machine Ty.Pe Lot 3 RMC Lot4 RMC
...· Corrected Lot4 RMC 

## =-

Vertical-Axis Machine 55.4% 620% 56.1% 560% 61.5% 55.7% 56.1% 61.2% 55.3%

---- Horizontal-Axis Machine 47.1% 53.6% 48.1% 49.3% 54.3% 48.7% 48.6% 54.5% 48.8% Table 5-6: Verification of Lot 5 Correction Curve in Clothes Washer Machine.Jype Lot3 RMC •·
.. < Lot5 RMC CorrectedLot5 RMC· Vertical-Axis Machine 55.4% 59.4% 56.0% 560% 59.6% 56.2% 56.1% 60.0% 56.6% Horizontal-Axis Machine 47.1% 50.3% 47 0% 49.3% 49.8% 46.5% 48.6% 51.9% 48.5%

5-5-6. Approach to obtaining and verifying consistent test cloth

An approach to minimize the effects ofcloth variation on RMC is to consistently specify a single type offabric that is produced frequently by one mill to a consistent set of specifications Riegel Permalux 50/50 MomieWeave appears to be a suitable choice, becausethis cloth is produced in high volume, has been produced to a consistent specification for many years and is likely to continueto be produced on this basis for the foreseeable future Riegel produces theyarns from purchased fiber and weaves and finishes the cloth materiaL so they have complete control overthe process. With the modest inconsistenciesbetween lots that have been observed to date. a correction factor needs to be applied to obtain consistent clothes washer RMC test results. The previous section presented a linear least squares 

### fit method to correct actual cloth to --standard" cloth. The material below summarizes the cloth specifications. the approach to consistency verification and the translation ofthese into draft language that could be inserted into the test standard (Appendix JI) 6.1 Outline of Proposed Specification I) Specif}· one standard grade ofcloth from one mill e.g., 

### Riegel Permalux 50/50 Momie \\"eave with purebleached finish**~)** Change the energy test cloth specification in I0 CFR430 Subpart B Appendix JI to:
• Duplicate the Riegel Mills specifications for the Permalux 

### 50/50 50. 50 cotton/polyester±4% 

### 5 60 oz sq yd. 

### ± 5% Warp and filling yarns 15!I 

### ± 5% cotton**~ount.** open end spun yarn Thread counts of61 x 54 (warp x fill) ± 2%
• Require AATCC-118 with 

### "D'' across the board result
• Require AATCC
-79 with drop absorbingtime on the order ofI second
• Require standard extractorbased RMC vs. g standardization curves and RMC correction curve for each new lot oftest cloth
6.2 Verification I) AATCC- l 18 Oil Repellency Test (DuPont or 3M version) ofeach new lot oftest cloth (\vhen purchased from Riegel) to confirm absence ofScotchguard or other water


### 6-

### repellent finish (required scores of
..D'" across the board) 2) 

### AATCC-70 Drop Absorbency Test ofeach nevi lot oftest cloth (when purchased from Riegel) for further confirmation ofthe absence ofScotchguard or otherwater repellent finish (time to absorb one drop should be on the order of I 

### second) 3) Run 4 minute and I

### 5minute standard RMC vs. g curves with 60°F and 100°F water temperature for each new lot oftest cloth as the basis for calculating an RMC correction curve to correct RMC test results to "standard'' test cloth (average ofTI lot 3)

6.3 Standard Language 

### DOE Draft Language for Changes to JI Test Procedure to Specify The Energy Test Cloth and The RMC Correction to "Standard'" Test Cloth RMC Replace the current Section 2.6 in Appendix JI with the following:
2 6 lest Clolf 1,. 2 

### 6 I Fner;:y Fest Cloth. 

### The energy test cloth shall be made from energy test cloth materiaL as specified in 2.6.4, that is 24 inches by 36 inches (61.0 cm by 91.4 cm) and has been hemmed to 22 inches by 34 inches (55.9 cm by 86.4 cm) before washing. The energy test cloth shall not be used for more than 25 test runs (after preconditioning as specified in Section 2 6 3) l.6 l ;.:111..'r,!.:r**Slldf~r** Cloth. 

### The energy stuffer cloth shall be made from energy test cloth material. as specified in 2.6.4, and shall consist ofpieces ofmaterial that are 12 inches by 12 inches (30 5cm by 30.5 cm) and have been hemmed to I0 inches by I0 inches (254 cm by 254 cm) before washing. The energy stuffer cloth shall not be used for more than 25test runs (after preconditioning as specified in Section 2 6 3) 2 6.3 Preconditioning

## olJest Cloths. 

### The nev,r test cloths, including energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths, shall be preconditioned in aclothes washer in the following manner: 2 

### 6 3. I Perform 5complete normal wash-rinse-spin cycles, the first two with AHAM Standard detergent 2A and the last three without detergent Place the test cloth in a clothes washer set at the maximum water level. Wash the load for ten minutes in soft \\ater (17 ppm hardness orless) using 6 0 grams per gallon of\vaterofAHAM Standard detergent 2A The wash temperature is tobe controlled to 135°

## .± 5° F (57.2° .±__2.8° C) and the rinse temperature is to be controlled to 60° 

### ±5° F (15.6°

### ±2.8° C) Repeat the

6-**c~·cle** with detergent and then repeat the cycle three additional times \Vithout detergent, bone drying the load between cycles (total offive wash and rinse cycles). 

## :.u. -I**1~·11erx_1** 

### Iest ('/oth

### Material. The energy test cloths and energy stuffer cloths shall be made from fabric meeting the following specifications.


### :.6 -I. 

### 1 Xominal Fahric J)pe. Purefinished bleached cloth, made \vith a momie or granite wea,·e. \Vhich is nominally 50 percent cotton and 50 percent polyester. 

### 2 64.2 The fabric weight shall be 5.60 ounces per square yard ( 190 0 g/m2), ± 5%. 

### 2 6 

### 4.3 The thread count shall be 61 x 54 perinch (warp x fill),± 2%. 2.64 .4 The \\arp yarn and filling yarn shall each have fiber content of50 percent ± 4 percent cotton. with the balance being polyester, and be open end spun, 15/I ± 5% cotton count blended varn. 2 b

### 4 5 Water repellent finishes, such as fluoropolymer stain resistant finishes shall not he applied to the test cloth. The absence ofsuch finishes shall be verified by: 

### 2 64.5 I AATCC-118 Oil Repellency Test (DuPont or 3M version) ofeach new lot of test cloth (\\hen purchased from the mill) to confirm the absence ofScotchguard or other \\ater repellent finish (required scores of

### ''D'' across the board) 2 64 5 2 AATCC-79 Drop Absorbency Test ofeach new lot oftest cloth (when purchased from the mill) to confirm the absence ofScotchguard or other water repellent finish (time to absorb one drop should be on the order of 1second)
::: 6 4 6 The moisture absorption and retention shall be evaluated for each ne\v lot of test cloth by the Standard Extractor RMC Test specified in 2.6.5. 

### 26461 Repeat the Standard Extractor RMC Test 2.6 5 three times. 2.6.4.6.2 An RMC correction curve shall be calculated as specified in Section 2.6.6. 2 6 5 

### Standard**1'..~¥/ractor** 

### RAIC Jest Procedure Thefollowing procedure is used to evaluatethe moisture absorption and retention characteristics ofa lot oftest cloth by measuring the RMC in a standard extractor at a specified set ofconditions Table 2.6.5 is the matrix oftest conditions. When this matrix is repeated 3 times, a total of48 extractor Rl\1C test runs arerequired. Forthe purpose ofthe extractor RMC test, thetest cloths may be used for up to 50test runs (after preconditioning as specified in Section 2.6.3). Table 2.6.5 Matrix of Extractor RMC Test Conditions

6-

### : 6 5 I The standard extractor RMC tests shall be run in a Bock Model 215 extractor (ha\ing abasket diameter of 19.5 inch. length of 12. and \'olume of2.1 ft\ with a 'ariable speed dri'e [Bock Engineered Products, P 0 

### Box 5127. Toledo. OH 

### 43611]

_ 1 65.l
.....

# re,1 /,oad 

### Test cloths shall be preconditioned in accordance with 2 6.3. The load size shall he 84

### lbs
.. consistent with Section 3.8.1.
::.65.3 Procedure
: 6 

### 5.3.1 Record the actual 'bone-dry· weight ofthe test load (WI). 2 6 5 3.2 Soak the test load for 20 minutes in I0 gal ofsoft (< 

### 17 ppm) water. The entire test load shall be submerged. The water temperature shall be I00°F 

### ± 5°F. 2 6 5.3.3 Remove the test load and allow waterto gravity drain offofthe test cloths. Then**manual!~·** 

### place the test cloths in the basket ofthe extractor, distributing them e'enly by eye Spin the load at a fixed speed corresponding tothe intended centripetal acceleration le'el (measured in units ofthe acceleration ofgravity. g) 

### ± I g for the intended time period 

### ±5 seconds. 2 6 5 3A 

### Record the weight ofthe test load immediately after completion ofthe extractor spin cvcle (WC) Calculate the RMC as (WC-Wl)/Wl 2 653.6 

### The RMC ofthe test load shall be measured at four (4) g levels: 50 g. 200 g. 350g. 500g. using two different spin times at each g level: 4 minutes and 15 minutes 2 654 

### Repeat 2.6 5.3 using soft (<17 ppm) water at 60 F

### ±5 F.
::. 6. 6 ('alc11/01io11 

### (?lRA1C correctio11

### rnn•e. 2 6 

### 6.1 Average the values of3 test runs and fill in table 2.6.5 Perform a linear leastsquares fit 

### to relate the standard RMC (RMC1and:ird) values (shown in table 2.6.6.1) to the 'alues measured in 2.6 5 (RMC.1,,111):

Where A and B are coefficients ofthe linear least squares fit.
6-

### (Snedecor. G \\' ad Cochran. W G. Statistical.\1ethod\. 

### The Iowa University Press. :\mes. Iowa (1967). 6111 

### ed.)

Table 2.6.6.1 Standard RMC values (RMCstandard)

IS lll111. sp111 )Ii 'ill -I";, 55.'7'X•**~2.8{~~1** i )lJ ()'%

--- 

### -t· 21)(1**35.()>JI~)** -lll.'1 1Yt1 -'""l·lJt}'(, -13.1% L3:'11_ 29.**()l~~)** ,, IOI**3(1.6'~(,** I 35.8°/,, ·"'·" "'

.... - ----- 

### 2 b 

### 6 2 Check accuracy oflinear least squares fit using the following method: The root mean square value of

12 ( Q\1/2 

# :L**R~C s~§lndard_i**  - RMCcorr_ i I I



### . 10 fee 

### 1 ) 

### shall be less than 2%. where a sum is taken over all ofthe different tests. where R\I<·_,. :\,,_,:., . 

### is the RMC standard value measured for the i-th test. and Rl'v!C·on- 1 

### is the corrected R!\1C 

### value for the i-th cloth test. :3 6

- Applicolion 

### <?l

### RA 1

### !C correction

### rnn•e. :2 6 

### 7 I 

### Using the coefficients. Aand B calculated in Section 2.6.6. 1.

2 6 

### 7 2 Substitute RMC..11 

### values in calculations in Section 3.8.

6-6