Use detergent as well as solvent
Drycleaners often confuse the functions of solvents and detergents. In several cases, garments sent to DTC have been accompanied by process details that list a solvent, such as perc, as the detergent. Clearly they believe that detergent as such is not necessary and will simply add to the cost.
While water alone can successfully remove certain contaminants it would never be mistaken for a detergent and the same rule should apply to drycleaning solvent. A special drycleaning detergent is essential for producing an overall clean result and an acceptable finish. The recommended dose is typically 1 – 2% by volume of solvent.
Drycleaning detergents contain various active ingredients that help all aspects of the cleaning process including: The removal of general dirt and stains, suspending soiling and preventing its re-deposition, acting as an anti-static, replacing lost yarn oils and softening. Selecting the correct detergent and/or additive is crucial and the wrong choice can prove costly.
It’s just as important to distinguish between machine and pre-treatment detergents, as these aren’t always interchangeable.
Pre-treatment detergents are designed to be applied directly to a textile and are therefore significantly less concentrated than those designed to be added to the drycleaning machine. DTC has seen several cases where machine detergent has been applied directly to a stained garment with disastrous results. Pre-treatments are specifically designed according to stain and fabric type and should always be a go-to for treatment of specific stains.
Additives and item specific treatments should not be overlooked. Leathers are particularly susceptible to loss of natural oils and other animal hides often lose their water repellency after processing.
To avoid costly come-backs, the cleaner should always use the recommended level of leather oil or waterproofing agent or at the very least advise the customer if they are not able or willing to do this.
Wedding dress now has a two-tone look
Fault: Cleaning this wedding dress has produced colour variations across the lace overlay.
Cause: The lace overlay was made up of different layers, which included both natural and synthetic materials. The cleaner wetcleaned the dress using a detergent with optical brightener (OBAs). The brighteners have only attached to the natural fibres, which now look much whiter and brighter than the synthetic ones.
Responsibility: The dress’s care label stated "dryclean only" but the fibre content label did not define the lace fibres correctly and the manufacturer is responsible for this poor description.
The cleaner chose the wrong detergent and is responsible for the colour change as the fault would not have occurred if the garment had been drycleaned.
Rectification: OBA quenching is possible. However, this is a long and harsh process that would never be recommended for a wedding dress.
Yellow marks appear on dress
Fault: Lemon yellow marks appeared on this polyester wedding dress after specialist wetcleaning and pressing.
Cause: The cleaner chose wetcleaning to give the best possible stain removal but this has only a low level mechanical action so the detergent was not well dispersed. The localised exposure of the alkaline detergent resulted in yellow marks appearing during pressing.
Responsibility: The cleaner is responsible for not using a gentler detergent and not allowing sufficient rinse time. Similar faults are often observed where stubborn vegetable/tannin dyes are not removed.
Rectification: None.
Suede coat discoloured by rain shower
Fault: This suede coat has been marked by rain splashes.
Cause: Machine cleaning has removed the coat’s water repellency and the cleaner had failed to re-apply the treatment after cleaning
Responsibility: The cleaner took responsibility as he had failed to ensure the coat’s water repellency after cleaning.
Rectification: Re-cleaning with a high dose of leather oil may remove the marks. Suitable water repellent should then be applied.
Oily mark remains after cleaning
Fault: When it was brought in, this garment had a black mark, which remained after pre-treating and wetcleaning.
Cause: The stain was an oily residue. Although the cleaner pre-treated it, the pre-spotter was too mild to help remove marks of this kind and the subsequent wetcleaning would not shift oily or greasing marks.
Responsibility: The cleaner is responsible for failing to remove the mark. This polyester garment would have withstood a stronger
pre-treatment. Drycleaning in perc would have been a better cleaning choice as this would have helped to remove oils and grease whereas wetcleaning will not.
Rectification: Applying a suitable post-spotting treatment, followed by drycleaning should remove the mark.
DIY treatment brings problems
Fault: A sofa cover looked noticeably patchy in colour after it had been cleaned.
Cause: The cover has been sponged with a neat household detergent containing high levels of OBA. When the cover was inspected at the counter the discolouration seemed to be the result of dirt and grime but the patchy effect became much more obvious after cleaning.
Responsibility: The owner is responsible for the patchiness, which has been caused by the attempts at stain removal using an unsuitable detergent.
The cleaner could not have predicted what had happened and did not use an unsuitable process on the cover.
Rectification: None is possible. Wetcleaning with a very high dosage of an OBA detergent may even out the shade difference but it is also likely to severely shrink the cover.
Stain treatment was not suitable
Fault: These pale grey trousers changed colour after a stain treatment.
Cause: The trousers had a drink stain down the right leg when they were brought in. Drink stains are usually water soluble but instead of pre-treating the mark, the cleaner dipped the trousers in a water bath containing a low dose of detergent. As the detergent contained an OBA this made the exposed area look lighter and the drinks stain was not removed as the treatment did not allow the stain to solubilise. If the stain had been pre-treated, then the mark would have been loosened and become much more soluble.
Responsibility: The cleaner here is responsible. It would have been better to treat the stain locally with a suitable (OBA-free) pre-treatment rather than a detergent.
Rectification: It should still be possible to remove the stain but the original overall colour cannot be restored.
Detergent attack makes holes in cashmere
Fault: A cashmere cardigan had several large holes and unsightly colour loss after it had been cleaned.
Cause: The garment was hand washed in an alkaline detergent containing OBA. The detergent was not sufficiently mixed into the water before submersion and the garment was not rinsed properly. The combination of these two faults resulted in concentrations of detergent, which have "attacked" the delicate fabric leaving the holes and colour loss.
Responsibility: The responsibility here has to lie with the cleaner. Hand-washing the garment was a good choice but it should have been done with a very delicate detergent and preferably one that was OBA-free. When hand-washing, the detergent should be mixed into the water properly before immersing the garment and rinsing should be extremely thorough.
Rectification: None.
