How to avoid or minimise shrinkage

At one time or another, every cleaner will face a claim of shrinkage from a dissatisfied, angry or abusive customer! It is a very common complaint and is often justified. The problem is that every garment is likely to relax a little in cleaning, giving rise to so-called relaxation shrinkage. This happens when the slight stretch set into fabric and seams in manufacture is relaxed out by the lubricating effect of the drycleaning solvent. The cleaner can neither foresee the magnitude of this, nor prevent it happening. It happens with nearly every new garment , and it can take up to three drycleans or wetcleans to release it all. However, the trained professional cleaner can minimise the loss in size by skilful refinishing, using a little steam, tension and vacuum to remove seam pucker and restore the item to as near as possible the original size.

Relaxation shrinkage is not a cleaner error and does not merit any talk of compensation, even if the cleaner is unable to restore any of the relaxation (which ought not to exceed 3%, because that is the typical retail standard). However, there are several other causes of shrinkage for which the cleaner could certainly be to blame and this month we take a look at some of the problems that can arise and how to avoid them ever occurring. Controlling shrinkage successfully is the hallmark of the reputable and skilled professional!

One leg becomes longer than the other

Fault: after drycleaning and pressing, the disgruntled owner noted that one leg of these trousers was now longer than the other.

Technical cause: the fibre content of the fabric from which these trousers are made includes an elastomer, giving the trousers a bi-stretch character. If this material is finished with care (cool iron, no steam and no tension) then the leg length will not change by much (possibly a little relaxation shrinkage). However, if the garment is placed in a steam cabinet or on an open steam-air former, with clamps on the bottoms of the legs, then the weight of the clamps could stretch one or both legs and the steaming and hot air blow will set the legs to the stretched length. Often the two legs end up different lengths, as was the case here.

Responsibility: the blame for this fault usually lies with the operator. It is a risk with any bi-stretch fabric, even a crepe. Some manufacturers warn of the risk with a one-dot iron (which means steam finishing may be risky) but steam alone is not the problem – the damage is caused by the weighting clamp, which is the operator’s responsibility.

Rectification: if the garment can be re–finished, with suitable frames to stretch the legs back in the width, it will be found that the legs come back to length. Otherwise, re-hemming is the only solution, but the legs will be narrower.

Upholstery covers shrink and no longer fit

Fault: after drycleaning in perchloroethylene and lightly steaming on the buck of a free-steam press to remove the wrinkles, these smart covers to a three-piece suite no longer fitted, with the sofa the worst affected. The care and fibre content label stated modacrylic fabric and carried the one dot iron symbol.

Technical cause: modacrylic fabric is inherently flame retardant, but it is very heat sensitive and requires a much-reduced drying temperature after cleaning. Also, the use of steam in finishing may cause irreversible shrinkage. In this case they shrank by some 11%. The reason the sofa was the worst affected was because this is the longest cover and so 11% shrinkage meant a loss of over 15cm (6 inches)!

Responsibility: the cover is correctly care labelled and if the cleaner had reduced the drying temperature (to 40 – 45C), avoided the use of steam in finishing and sent the covers back with wrinkles (these will stretch out on the frames), then the thermal shrinkage could have been avoided.

Rectification: it was not possible to stretch the sofa cover sufficiently to recover 15cm without tearing the seams, so rectification was not possible.

Only the cashmere sweaters Shrank

Fault: in a load of soft knitted garments (including some made from mohair and from angora) cleaned on a ‘delicates’ cycle, the only items which matted, felted and shrank significantly were two cashmere sweaters made by the same manufacturer and brought in by the same customer.

Technical cause: matting and felting are caused by drycleaning with too much moisture in the system or by drycleaning an item carrying excessive regain moisture. They are generally accompanied by significant shrinkage. The moisture makes the scales on the cashmere fibres rise, so that they become like a barbed spear. They can be pushed in one direction, but they cannot then be withdrawn. The mechanical action in drycleaning is sufficient to cause the resultant felting.

Responsibility: the cleaner should be taking the blame for the felting and the shrinkage caused here. If the rest of the sensitive garments were all right, then the moisture was probably in the two cashmere sweaters (possibly from a damp room or through being left in the boot of a car overnight). The owner would not be expected to understand the importance of this. It was up to the cleaner to air off the moisture (even though the garments probably did not even feel damp).

Rectification: unfortunately felting shrinkage cannot be reversed.

Assessing shrinkage using the pattern repeat

Fault: the owner of this patterned jacket noted excessive shrinkage in the girth following drycleaning.

Shrinkage assessment: the cleaner noted that the fronts of the jackets were stabilised with a fusible interlining which showed no rippling or bubbling. They therefore reasoned that the fronts could not have shrunk significantly. When they measured the pattern repeat on the unsupported fabric used for the back of the garment, they found the pattern repeat in both directions to be identical to the stabilised fronts. The garment has probably relaxed slightly in cleaning, rather than shrunk significantly.

Responsibility: if the garment no longer fits, this might be a consequence of the snugness of the original fit or the customer having put on weight, not excessive shrinkage in cleaning. A typical loss of 3% caused by normal relaxation would mean a loss of about 2.7cm (1 inch) in an original 90cm (35 inch) girth. This would be noticeable, but it should be largely recoverable by skilled pressing. There is no cleaner error here and it is unlikely that the retailer would entertain a claim for what is normal relaxation.

Rectification: the garment should be softened with a little steam, then re-finished under tension, with vacuum applied. If the tension is maintained until the item is cooled and dried, then when this is released, the garment should be much nearer to the original size. The cleaner should take responsibility for doing this, after making clear that the shrinkage itself is not the result of cleaner error.

Embroidery pucker spoils the effect

Fault: this decorative bedcover exhibited severe shrinkage, with extensive pucker appearing along the embroidery after washing.

Technical cause: there has been significant differential shrinkage here, with the embroidery thread exhibiting far more shrinkage than the fabric.

Responsibility: if this cover had been care-labelled for laundering, then the responsibility would have lain with the maker, because it stems from the use of too high a thread tension for the embroidery. As it was unlabelled, the cleaner took the blame, but managed to restore some of the loss by refinishing the embroidered area, with careful use of steam, tension and vacuum.

Rectification: unfortunately, full recovery may not be possible.

• If you have problems you would like the authors to examine please send with a good quality, high resolution (300dpi/1MB at least) pic of the item to
  kathy.bowry@laundryandcleannnews.com