Around half a cleaner’s workload will have some kind of staining. Often the cleaner has no details about the mark and is totally reliant on his own skills in identifying the stains and deciding which need pre-treatment. Testing reagents on a hidden area before treating more fully is wise – sometimes essential.
Simply brushing pre-treatment detergent liberally over the staining is rarely the best solution. On items such as pastel cotton or linen, this could cause patchy colour loss for which the cleaner is probably responsible. Over-diluted detergent greatly increases the risk, as does leaving the treatment on for too long.
Stains from dairy or meat products will never be removed just by machine cleaning and the drying stage will cause them to harden, darken and set, making them very difficult to remove. They must be pre-treated with a stain removal reagent for protein. Flush the area and feather dry. Then mask the treated area with a trace of neat pre-treatment detergent, applied sparingly, to protect against localised greying or felting if there is a trace of humidity left in the cloth.
Vegetable dye stains, such as red wine, rarely dissolve in drycleaning solvent but can easily be removed with a tannin remover. It may take some time but is worthwhile so be patient. With the right technique, even a white designer sweater with a red wine mark can be treated easily and with very little risk. Otherwise these stains are impossible to remove.
Cleaners may be reluctant to tackle stains for fear of complaints about damage during treatment. If the risk is forseeable but unavoidable, such as a spill that might react badly with the garment dyes, the cleaner can ask the customer for authorisation. This type of damage will follow the shape of the original stain but cleaner damage would generally be larger.
Ice cream stain turns yellow
Fault: During a children’s party these curtains were extensively stained with ice cream leaving bright yellow marks. Machine drycleaning made the marks look darker. Cause: Ice cream contains dairy protein, which will not dissolve in the solvent. The unremoved protein has oxidised and darkened during the drying and the marks are now set.
Responsibility: If the cleaner knew that the marks were ice cream then he should take the blame for the darkening and for making removal after cleaning more difficult.
Rectification: The marks can probably still be removed by careful, patient work with a good protein remover designed for post-treatment. Pre-testing is essential. Apply the protein remover to a hidden area and leave for around 30 minutes, keeping the test area damp with a small, folded cloth soaked in reagent. Then flush and feather dry, looking for any sign of colour damage before treating the stain.
Detergent mix loosens dyes
Fault: This beer- and wine-stained cotton jacket was brushed with a mixture of pre-treatment detergent and water before drycleaning. After cleaning, the patch of colour loss matched the pre-treatment area even down to the brush marks and dribbles.
Cause: The combination of moisture and detergent has loosened some of the fabric dye’s components. The pre-treatment mix had too much water and was left on the cloth for too long. So much colour has flushed away that the fading is very obvious.
Responsibility: This fault is readily avoidable so the cleaner is responsible. Detergent pre-brushing should be restricted to treating heavy grime on dark coat collars and cuffs and only a limited amount of water should be used.
Stain causes colour loss
Fault: This linen jacket had a brown beer mark on the front. After pre-testing the reagent, the cleaner treated the mark with a tannin remover but this left an area of colour loss the same size and shape as the original stain.
Cause: The alcohol in the beer has almost certainly damaged the dye-to-fibre bonds. Removing the beer has also removed the weakened dyes, with the result seen here.
Responsibility: The jacket maker and ultimately the original dyer are responsible for the fabric’s resistance to alcohol. The cleaner can neither foresee nor prevent this type of result.
Curry stain spoils designer T-shirt
Fault: This high-quality designer T-shirt had a vivid vegetable curry stain down the front. Drycleaning in perc made the stain even worse and re-cleaning did not produce any improvement.
Cause: Vegetable dyes do not dissolve in perc but the curry also contains sugars and proteins. Perc will not remove these either but the drying stage will darken them and make the stain more obvious and more difficult to remove.
Responsibility: The cleaner is responsible for pre-treating the stain correctly and this includes the necessary pre-testing to check whether stain removal is likely to have any adverse effects. The cleaner is also responsible for the stain darkening because the garment was cleaned without pre-treatment.
Rectification: The first drycleaning will have caramelised any sugars so the first step is to carefully dissolve and remove these with warm water. Then use a tannin remover on the vegetable dyes. Several applications may be needed. While treating the stain observe the area and stop treatment if there are any signs of colour fade. Prospects for complete removal are still excellent.
Stains appear during cleaning
Fault: This wedding dress did not have any visible marks when it went into the cleaning machine but it came out with brown stains at the underarm. These spoilt the appearance and ruined the owner’s re-sale hopes.
Cause: Underarm perspiration creates stains that will not be visible once they have dried. However, the proteins in the stain will oxidise and darken with the warmth of the tumble dry, leaving brown marks of the type seen here.
Responsibility: The cleaner can only take responsibility for treating visible stains and owner is responsible for causing them. However, the cleaner should now take responsibility for attempting removal.
Rectification: It is worth trying to dissolve away the oxidised proteins with a strong protein remover. This may take upwards of 30 minutes. Test the reagent on a hidden area before starting.