INTER LABORATORY TESTING SCHEME - Textiles Committee · 2014-06-05 · Report on Inter Laboratory...

of 1

INTER LABORATORY TESTING SCHEME

ON

“Testing of Chemical parameters

in Textile Material”

TC/ILTS/CHEM-1/2012-13

Conducted by

PPPrrrooofffiiiccciiieeennncccyyy TTTeeessstttiiinnnggg PPPrrrooovvviiidddeeerrr

LLLaaabbbooorrraaatttooorrriiieeesss

TEXTILES COMMITTEE (Ministry of Textiles, Government of India)

P. Balu Road, Prabhadevi Chowk, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. Ph : (022) 6652 7542, Fax : 6652 7554

E-mail : [email protected] E-mail : [email protected]

2012-2013

mailto:[email protected]


Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme

OOnn

““TTeessttiinngg ooff CChheemmiiccaall ppaarraammeetteerrss

iinn TTeexxttiillee MMaatteerriiaall””

TC/ILTS/CHEM-1/2012-13

Conducted by

PPPTTT PPPRRROOOVVVIIIDDDEEERRR

LLLaaabbbooorrraaatttooorrriiieeesss TEXTILES COMMITTEE

(Ministry of Textiles, Government of India) P. Balu Road, Prabhadevi,

Mumbai – 400 025. Ph : (022) 6652 7542, Fax : 6652 7554

E-mail : [email protected]

2012-2013


of 56

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PT PROVIDER PT Provider, Laboratory, TEXTILES COMMITTEE (Ministry of Textiles, Government of India) P. Balu Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. Ph : (022) 6652 7542, Fax : 6652 7554, E-mail : [email protected]

CONTACT PERSONS (1) Shri Kartikay Dhanda, PT-Coordinator

Director(Laboratories), Textiles Committee, Mumbai –400 025 Ph: 91 22 6652 7519, Fax: 91 22 6652 7554, E-mail : [email protected]

(2) Dr. K.S. Muralidhara, PT-Quality Manager Joint Director(Laboratories), Textiles Committee, Mumbai –400 025 Ph: 91 22 6652 7542, Fax: 91 22 6652 7554,

E-mail : [email protected]

(3) Shri M.S. Shyamsundar, PT-Technical Manager Quality Assurance Officer (Laboratory), Textiles Committee, Mumbai –400 025 Report prepared by: Shri M.S.Shyamsundar, PT – Technical Manager SCHEME : INTER LABORATORY TESTING SCHEME -TC/ILTS/CHEM-1/2012-13 - TTeessttiinngg ooff MMeecchhaanniiccaall ppaarraammeetteerrss iinn TTeexxttiillee MMaatteerriiaallss DATE OF ISSUE: August 1, 2013

CONFIDENTIALITY : All the information furnished by the participants shall be kept confidential by the PT Provider and the same shall not be revealed to others. However, if the accrediting body, for example NABL, requests the PT provider to furnish the performance of any of the participants, the same shall be provided to them directly, after obtaining permission of the concerned participant COPY RIGHT: This report is property of Textiles Committee, the PT Provider. The copy right of this report is retained with Textiles Committee. This report should not be reproduced by others in full or partially in any form without obtaining the consent from Textiles Committee, in writing Disclaimer: The PT Programmes are meant for evaluation of performance of the participants for the specified tests undertaken in the programme only and are voluntary in nature. Further, it is clarified that reasonable care has been taken to meet the requirement of ISO/IEC 17043:2010, while designing and conducting the programmes. Participants are expected to exercise due diligence while carrying out the tests and meet all safety, statutory and accreditation body’s requirements. PT Provider and Textiles Committee will not be responsible for any claim/damages arising out of participating in this programme

of 56

I N D E X

S. No. Contents Page No. 1 PT-Provider details

1

2 Index

2

3 Report on Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme Preamble 3 Textiles Committee 3 PT-Provider 3 The Present Programme 4 Advisory Group 5 Participants 6 Proficiency Test Proceedings 6 Compilation of the Test Results 7 Determination Assigned Value 8 Detection and elimination of Trivial Outliers 9 Determination of Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment

9

Performance Evaluation of Participants 9 Interpretation of Performance Comment 10 Outliers and Stragglers 10 General Advise to the Laboratories on the performance

10

4 Annexure - Performance Evaluation of participants – Test wise

13

S.No. Table Page No. 1 ILPT schemes conducted by the PT Provider 4 2 Tests covered in TC/ILTS/CHEM-1/2012-13 4 3 Advisory Group 5 4 Assigned Values 8 5 Details of Eliminations of Trivial Outliers from

Analysis 9

6 Interpretation of Performance comments 10 7 Outliers and stragglers Analysis 11 8 List of outliers and stragglers 12

Report on Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme

Preamble: Increasing awareness on textile quality and the buyer requirements are forcing textile

manufacturers and traders to test textile products from reputed laboratories. Reputation of any laboratory depends upon the result it produces. The test report given byshould be precise, accurate, repeatable and reproducible. This means, a set of results obtained within a laboratory by testing a representative sample at any time interval should be comparable. And also, the result obtained over testing a laboratory should compare with that of other laboratory and fall within the statistical tolerance limit. In other words, the laboratory should be able to generate comparable results by performing the same test

The repeatability and reproducibility of any test result involves the laboratory’s

competence in conducting the test which involves knowledge of technical manpower working in the laboratory, the testing conditions and test method adopted. In this pursuit, the laboratory has to meet a requirement of maintaining its own management system as per ISO/IEC 17025:2005Comparison (ILC) and/or Inter Laboratory Pr

Inter laboratory Comparison is defined as’ of tests on the same or similar test items by two or more laboratories in accordance with predetermined conditions.” The goal of the Interverification of each participant’s with all other Laboratories using different make & model of testing equipment and manpower. The requirement for inter laboratory comparisons remaibeen further entrenched into metrology management systems by its incorporation in the requirements of IS0/IEC 17025:2005

Textiles Committee:

Textiles Committee is a statutory organization under the Ministry of Textiles, Government of India, established in the year 1963. The Committee has set up 19 laboratories throughout the country for catering to the testing requirements of the textile trade and industry in different centers. Fourteen laboratories of Textiles Committee are accredited as per ISO/IEC 17025:2005 by National Accreditation Board for testing & calibration Laboratories (NABL), India

PT-Provider:

The Laboratory, Textiles Committee at Mumbai conducts Inter Laboratory Testing (ILPT) schemes for the benefit of Textile Testing national accreditation agency, NABL nomILPT schemes. The German Standards body, (PTB), Germany recognized the schemes conducted by Textiles Committee and sponsored some laboratories of SAARC countries under (QIDP) in SAARC countries. Apart from India, laboratories from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, Hong Kong and Vietnam also participate in the ILPT schemes conducted by Textiles Committee

In order to offer ILPT schemes professionally

Textiles Committee at Mumbai with the requirements stipulated in ISO/IEC 17043 : 2010. The PT Provider has conducted14 schemes since 2007. The details are given in Table

Report on Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme

ncreasing awareness on textile quality and the buyer requirements are forcing textile manufacturers and traders to test textile products from reputed laboratories. Reputation of any laboratory depends upon the result it produces. The test report given by the laboratory should be precise, accurate, repeatable and reproducible. This means, a set of results obtained within a laboratory by testing a representative sample at any time interval should be comparable. And also, the result obtained over testing a representative sample in any laboratory should compare with that of other laboratory and fall within the statistical tolerance limit. In other words, the laboratory should be able to generate comparable results by

ty and reproducibility of any test result involves the laboratory’s conducting the test which involves the testing equipment, the skill and

knowledge of technical manpower working in the laboratory, the testing conditions and test ted. In this pursuit, the laboratory has to meet a requirement of maintaining its

own management system as per ISO/IEC 17025:2005, to participate in Inter Laboratory Comparison (ILC) and/or Inter Laboratory Proficiency Testing Scheme (ILPT)

Inter laboratory Comparison is defined as’ “Organization, performance and evaluation of tests on the same or similar test items by two or more laboratories in accordance with

The goal of the Inter-laboratory Comparisons (ILC) i technical capability by obtaining a measurement that agrees

with all other Laboratories using different make & model of testing equipment and manpower. The requirement for inter laboratory comparisons remains in place today, and has been further entrenched into metrology management systems by its incorporation in the

uirements of IS0/IEC 17025:2005

extiles Committee is a statutory organization under the Ministry of Textiles, rnment of India, established in the year 1963. The Committee has set up 19

the country for catering to the testing requirements of the textile trade and industry in different centers. Fourteen laboratories of Textiles Committee are accredited as per ISO/IEC 17025:2005 by National Accreditation Board for testing &

boratories (NABL), India

The Laboratory, Textiles Committee at Mumbai conducts Inter Laboratory for the benefit of Textile Testing laboratories as PT Provider. T

national accreditation agency, NABL nominated Textiles Committee as nodal agency for two The German Standards body, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt

the schemes conducted by Textiles Committee and sponsored SAARC countries under its Quality Infrastructure Development Project

Apart from India, laboratories from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, Hong Kong and Vietnam also participate in the ILPT schemes conducted by

schemes professionally as a PT Provider, the laboratory of Textiles Committee at Mumbai has implemented the Management System in accordance with the requirements stipulated in ISO/IEC 17043 : 2010. The PT Provider has conducted

schemes since 2007. The details are given in Table – 1

ncreasing awareness on textile quality and the buyer requirements are forcing textile manufacturers and traders to test textile products from reputed laboratories. Reputation of

the laboratory should be precise, accurate, repeatable and reproducible. This means, a set of results obtained within a laboratory by testing a representative sample at any time interval should be

representative sample in any laboratory should compare with that of other laboratory and fall within the statistical tolerance limit. In other words, the laboratory should be able to generate comparable results by

ty and reproducibility of any test result involves the laboratory’s the testing equipment, the skill and

knowledge of technical manpower working in the laboratory, the testing conditions and test ted. In this pursuit, the laboratory has to meet a requirement of maintaining its

participate in Inter Laboratory

“Organization, performance and evaluation of tests on the same or similar test items by two or more laboratories in accordance with

laboratory Comparisons (ILC) is to provide technical capability by obtaining a measurement that agrees

with all other Laboratories using different make & model of testing equipment and man-ns in place today, and has

been further entrenched into metrology management systems by its incorporation in the

extiles Committee is a statutory organization under the Ministry of Textiles, rnment of India, established in the year 1963. The Committee has set up 19

the country for catering to the testing requirements of the textile trade and industry in different centers. Fourteen laboratories of Textiles Committee are accredited as per ISO/IEC 17025:2005 by National Accreditation Board for testing &

The Laboratory, Textiles Committee at Mumbai conducts Inter Laboratory Proficiency as PT Provider. The

inated Textiles Committee as nodal agency for two Technische Bundesanstalt

the schemes conducted by Textiles Committee and sponsored Quality Infrastructure Development Project

Apart from India, laboratories from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, China, Hong Kong and Vietnam also participate in the ILPT schemes conducted by

as a PT Provider, the laboratory of the Management System in accordance

with the requirements stipulated in ISO/IEC 17043 : 2010. The PT Provider has conducted

Table – 1 ILPT schemes conducted by the PT Provider

S.No Identity of the ILPT

1 TC/ILTS/MECH/01/07

2 TC/ILTS/CHEM/02/07









11 TC/ILTS/MECH/11/10-11

12 TC/ILTS/CHEM/12/10-11

13 TC/ILTS/Mech-1/2012-13

14 TC/ILTS/Chem-1/2012-13

The Present Program

Design: In order to assess the reproducibility of the test results being reported by various textile testing laboratoriesTC/ILTS/CHEM-1/2012-13 was designed. present PT Scheme are given in Table

Table – 2 : Tests covered in

S.No Test parameter

1 Quantitative analysis of fibre mixturesDissolution method

2 pH of aqueous extract of Textile Material

3 Dimensional Changes on soaking in water

4 Dimensional Changes of Fabric after Home Laundering

5 Appearance of Fabrics after Repeated Home Laundering

6 Skewness Change in Fabric Resulting from Automatic Home Laundering

1 ILPT schemes conducted by the PT Provider

Year Field PT

items

No. of test

parameters

2007 Mechanical Fibre, Yarn & Fabric

17

2007 Chemical Fabric 13

2008 Mechanical Fabric 11


2009 Mechanical Fabric 11

2009 Mechanical Yarn 12

2009 Mechanical Fibre 15




2010-11 Mechanical Fabric 10

2010-11 Chemical Fabric 10

2012-13 Mechanical Yarn&Fabric 13

2012-13 Chemical Fabric and metal

clothing accessory

12

The Present Program me:

In order to assess the reproducibility of the test results being reported by textile testing laboratories, this Proficiency Testing Scheme for Chemical

was designed. The test parameters thus covered in the present PT Scheme are given in Table – 2

2 : Tests covered in TC/ILTS/CHEM-1/2012-13

Standards suggested

Quantitative analysis of fibre mixtures-Chemical IS 667:1981 and Suitable Standard test method for blend composition

pH of aqueous extract of Textile Material IS 1390-1983 ISO 3071:2005

Dimensional Changes on soaking in water IS 2977:1989

Dimensional Changes of Fabric after Home Laundering AATCC 135- 2010 ISO 6330:2012

Appearance of Fabrics after Repeated Home AATCC 124:2011 ISO 16322:2005

Skewness Change in Fabric Resulting from Automatic AATCC 179:2010

1 ILPT schemes conducted by the PT Provider

parameters

No. of Labs

participated 70

70

60

60

50

31

14

51

45

20

65

70

42

56

In order to assess the reproducibility of the test results being reported by the Chemical testing -

covered in the

13

Standards suggested

Suitable Standard test method for blend composition

S.No Test parameter

7 Colour fastness of Textile Materials to organic solvents

8 Quantitative analysis of fibre mixture by physical separation

9 Determination of water repellency of fabrics by cone test

10 Moisture Content in cotton Textile materials

11 Screening Test for Nickel release

12 Absorbency of Textiles

However, participants were required to use the test method which is routinely adopted for the testing of regular samples. Hence, validated in-house method which is equivalent to the suggested standards.

Remark: The ILPT was initially designed for protocol/notification. However, subsequently it was upgraded to 1

Advisory Group:

As per the requirements stipulated in ISO/IEC 17043:2010, an comprising the following internal and external experts having the necessary expertise in testing of Textiles and/or statistics was constituted

Table

S.No Expert

1 Mr. Kartikay Dhanda Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Mumbai

2 Dr. G.S. Nadiger Ex-Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, MumbaiAssessor, NABL

3 Dr. P.V. Varadarajan Ex-Principal Scientific Officer, CIRCOT, Assessor, NABL

4 Mr. G. M. Fairoze Deputy Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Mumbai

5 Mr. K. Selvaraj Deputy Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, TirupurAssessor, NABL

6 Dr. P. Ravichandran Deputy Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Bangal

7 Mr. S. P. Singh, Asst. Director (Lab), Textiles Assessor, NABL

Standards suggested

Colour fastness of Textile Materials to organic solvents IS 688-1988 ISO 105 X05:1994

Quantitative analysis of fibre mixture by physical AATCC 20 and 20 A-

Determination of water repellency of fabrics by cone IS: 7941-1976

Moisture Content in cotton Textile materials IS 199:1989

Test for Nickel release BSEN 12471:2002

AATCC 79:2000

were required to use the test method which is routinely adopted for the testing of regular samples. Hence, participants could adopt any equivalent s

house method which is equivalent to the suggested standards.

The ILPT was initially designed for 11 parameters as indicated in the subsequently it was upgraded to 12 parameters.

As per the requirements stipulated in ISO/IEC 17043:2010, an Advisory Groupcomprising the following internal and external experts having the necessary expertise in

and/or statistics was constituted

Table – 3 : Constitution of Advisory Group

Expert Affiliation Field of expertise

Textiles Committee, Mumbai Chairman Textile testing

Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Mumbai Member Textile testing

Principal Scientific Officer, CIRCOT, Mumbai Member Textile testing

Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Mumbai Member Textile testing

Deputy Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Tirupur Member Textile testing &

Statistics

Deputy Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Bangaluru. Member Textile testing

Asst. Director (Lab), Textiles Committee, Kanpur. Member Textile testing

Standards suggested

-2008

were required to use the test method which is routinely adopted for could adopt any equivalent standard or

parameters as indicated in the

Advisory Group comprising the following internal and external experts having the necessary expertise in

Field of expertise

Textile testing

Textile testing

Textile testing

Textile testing

Textile testing & Statistics

Textile testing

Textile testing

The terms of reference of the Advisory Group were as follows:

a) Planning requirements b) Identification and resolution of any difficulties expected in the preparation and

maintenance of homogeneous assigned value for a proficiency test item;

c) Preparation of detailed instructions for participantsd) Comments on any technical difficulties raised by participantse) Provision of advice in evaluating the perff) Comments on the results and performance of participants as a whole and, where

appropriate, groups of participants or individual participants;g) Provision of advice for participants (within limits of confidentiality), either individual

within the report; h) Responding to feedback from participants; and i) Planning or participating in technical meetings with participants.j) Arbitration of any dispute(s) between participating laboratory(ies) and the PT provider

Participants:

In all 56 participants from India, scheme

Proficiency Test Proceedings

The laboratory of Textiles Committee (PT Provider), Mumbai, procured quantity of fabric (PT item) from a reputed Laboratory Testing Scheme, on the basis of expected number of participants

Preparation of PT items:prepared ensuring the quantityparameters included in the schemewere numbered serially, packed in polyethylene bags and labeled

Allotments of PT items:appropriate Sampling procedures adopted computer, for Homogeneity testing, Stability testing and for distribution among participantThe remaining part of the population was kept asdamage. Henceforth, the allotted PT items

Homogeneity testing:homogeneity testing was conducted at the laboratory of Textiles Committee at MumbaiLudhiana and Tirupur for the test parameters covered in the scheme by adopting any one of the suggested methods. However, while conducting performance evaluation of the participants, the “between- samples SD” calculated during homogeneity testing by a particular method was used for calculating “SD of PT assessment” for different methods adopted by the participants, as the inherent variation in the sample (degree of non homogeneity) is independent of the test method adopted. The procedure given in ISO 13528:2005 was followed for conducting homogeneity testing

Dispatch of PT items:respective participants on 17th April 2013

(a) Form for Acknowledging the receipt of PT items(b) Instructions to the participants in the Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme (c) Form for reporting test results by the participants in the

Scheme The participants were requested to send the test results by 2

The terms of reference of the Advisory Group were as follows:

Identification and resolution of any difficulties expected in the preparation and maintenance of homogeneous proficiency test items, or in the provision of stable assigned value for a proficiency test item; Preparation of detailed instructions for participants Comments on any technical difficulties raised by participants Provision of advice in evaluating the performance of participants Comments on the results and performance of participants as a whole and, where appropriate, groups of participants or individual participants; Provision of advice for participants (within limits of confidentiality), either individual

Responding to feedback from participants; and Planning or participating in technical meetings with participants. Arbitration of any dispute(s) between participating laboratory(ies) and the PT provider

from India, Bangladesh and Vietnam were participated in this

Proceedings :

extiles Committee (PT Provider), Mumbai, procured from a reputed textiles mill for designing and conducting Inter

Laboratory Testing Scheme, on the basis of expected number of participants

of PT items: On receipt of the procured materials, PT itemsthe quantity of each PT item is adequate for the testing of all the

included in the scheme. The PT items thus prepared from the material procuredpacked in polyethylene bags and labeled

of PT items: Allotments of PT items were done by procedures adopted by using Random Numbers generated by

for Homogeneity testing, Stability testing and for distribution among participantThe remaining part of the population was kept as reserve for replacement in case of loss or

. Henceforth, the allotted PT items can be referred as sample

: To verify the homogeneity of the prepared was conducted at the laboratory of Textiles Committee at Mumbaifor the test parameters covered in the scheme by adopting any one of

the suggested methods. However, while conducting performance evaluation of the samples SD” calculated during homogeneity testing by a

method was used for calculating “SD of PT assessment” for different methods adopted by the participants, as the inherent variation in the sample (degree of non homogeneity) is independent of the test method adopted. The procedure given in ISO

05 was followed for conducting homogeneity testing

Dispatch of PT items: The Proficiency Testing items were dispatched to the April 2013, along with the following:

Form for Acknowledging the receipt of PT items Instructions to the participants in the Inter Laboratory Testing Scheme Form for reporting test results by the participants in the Inter Laboratory Testing

were requested to send the test results by 29th April 2013.

Identification and resolution of any difficulties expected in the preparation and proficiency test items, or in the provision of stable

Comments on the results and performance of participants as a whole and, where

Provision of advice for participants (within limits of confidentiality), either individually or

Arbitration of any dispute(s) between participating laboratory(ies) and the PT provider

and Vietnam were participated in this

extiles Committee (PT Provider), Mumbai, procured sufficient for designing and conducting Inter

PT items were adequate for the testing of all the

material procured

were done by following by using Random Numbers generated by

for Homogeneity testing, Stability testing and for distribution among participants. n case of loss or

prepared PT items was conducted at the laboratory of Textiles Committee at Mumbai, for the test parameters covered in the scheme by adopting any one of

the suggested methods. However, while conducting performance evaluation of the samples SD” calculated during homogeneity testing by a

method was used for calculating “SD of PT assessment” for different methods adopted by the participants, as the inherent variation in the sample (degree of non homogeneity) is independent of the test method adopted. The procedure given in ISO

The Proficiency Testing items were dispatched to the

Inter Laboratory Testing

The participants were also requested to

� Treat the samples in the same manner as regularly tested samples and accordingly, codify the samples such that the technical staff testing them are not aware that they are meant for PT purposes;

� Adopt the latest test method which is routinely used by the laboratory for the

testing of regular samples which may be any standard or validated inmethod;

� Forward (i) copy of the in

parameter and also (ii) specifyhas been done; and,

� Forward photo copy of Scope of

for the test method adopted (

The participants were informed thatparticipant’s value will not be considered for arriving at “Assigned Value” for the concerned test parameter, although, performance of the parameter. Further, it was also informed that the test results that may be inappropriate for statistical evaluation, for example, gross errors, miscalculations and transpositions may be excluded for calculation of summary statistics and performance evaluation of pa

Compilation of the Test Results:

In order to maintain the confidentiality of the participants of the PT Scheme, tindividual participants were given Code Subsequently, the test results reported by the participantanalyzed for the basic statisticsDeviation, etc., While doing so, test results evaluation, for example, gross errors, miscalculations

Determination Assigned Value:

To ensure the measurement traceability, only considered for evaluating the Assigned Values. Thus due weightage is given to the accredited participants. However, this weightage is given only when the submitted their Scope of accreditation and accredited for the specific test in which the ILPT is conducted

Initially, the robust average and the standard deviation of accredited participants (in respective testsaccordance with the procedure given in ISO 13528: 2005were calculated on the basis of the above. The test results of those laboratories which were found to be outliers (Z score more than +3 or less than of the remaining experts was assigned value for the concerned parameter

The Assigned Value of both the parameters thus arrived are given in

The participants were also requested to

Treat the samples in the same manner as regularly tested samples and accordingly, codify the samples such that the technical staff testing them are not aware that they are meant for PT purposes;

est method which is routinely used by the laboratory for the testing of regular samples which may be any standard or validated in

Forward (i) copy of the in-house method adopted (if applicable) for testing any parameter and also (ii) specify the standard method against which the validation

Scope of accreditation certificate as a proof of accreditation for the test method adopted (applicable to accredited laboratories only).

were informed that, in the absence of proof of accreditation, the ’s value will not be considered for arriving at “Assigned Value” for the concerned

test parameter, although, performance of the participants will be evaluated for this Further, it was also informed that the test results that may be inappropriate for

statistical evaluation, for example, gross errors, miscalculations and transpositions may be excluded for calculation of summary statistics and performance evaluation of pa

Compilation of the Test Results:

In order to maintain the confidentiality of the participants of the PT Scheme, twere given Code numbers which are generated by using

reported by the participants were tabulated and statistically statistics viz., Mean, Median, Mode, Maximum, Minimum, Standard

While doing so, test results were checked for inappropriate for statistical or example, gross errors, miscalculations and transpositions

Determination Assigned Value:

To ensure the measurement traceability, only accredited participants the Assigned Values. Thus due weightage is given to the

. However, this weightage is given only when the participantssubmitted their Scope of accreditation and accredited for the specific test in which the ILPT

Initially, the robust average and the standard deviation of values reported by the in respective tests) were determined for each parameter in

cedure given in ISO 13528: 2005. Subsequently, robust Z calculated on the basis of the above. The test results of those laboratories which were

found to be outliers (Z score more than +3 or less than -3) were deleted and Robust Average again calculated. This Robust average is tr

assigned value for the concerned parameter

The Assigned Value of both the parameters thus arrived are given in Table–4 .

Treat the samples in the same manner as regularly tested samples and accordingly, codify the samples such that the technical staff testing them are not

est method which is routinely used by the laboratory for the testing of regular samples which may be any standard or validated in-house

house method adopted (if applicable) for testing any the standard method against which the validation

accreditation certificate as a proof of accreditation .

in the absence of proof of accreditation, the ’s value will not be considered for arriving at “Assigned Value” for the concerned

will be evaluated for this Further, it was also informed that the test results that may be inappropriate for

statistical evaluation, for example, gross errors, miscalculations and transpositions may be excluded for calculation of summary statistics and performance evaluation of participants.

In order to maintain the confidentiality of the participants of the PT Scheme, the by using computer.

were tabulated and statistically viz., Mean, Median, Mode, Maximum, Minimum, Standard

inappropriate for statistical

(experts) are the Assigned Values. Thus due weightage is given to the

participants had submitted their Scope of accreditation and accredited for the specific test in which the ILPT

values reported by the ) were determined for each parameter in

. Subsequently, robust Z Score calculated on the basis of the above. The test results of those laboratories which were

3) were deleted and Robust Average again calculated. This Robust average is treated as the

of 56

Table 4: Assigned Values

S.No. Test Assigned Value

Rob

ust S

D o

f A

ssig

ned

Val

ue

Unc

erta

inty

of

Ass

igne

d V

alue

No.

of L

abs

cont

ribut

ed

for

Ass

igne

d V

alue

Tot

al N

o. o

f A

ccre

dite

d pa

rtic

ipan

ts

avai

labl

e fo

r

the

Tes

t T

otal

num

ber

of

part

icip

ants

*

1 Quantitative analysis of fibre mixtures-Chemical Dissolution method

a) Identification of fibre – Warp Weft

b) Polyester % c) Cotton %

Polyester+Cotton Polyester+Cotton

69.2 30.8

NA NA

0.49 0.49

NA NA

0.12 0.12

NA NA 28 28

28 28 28 28

50 50 52 52

2 pH of aqueous extract of Textile Material

7.08 0.14 0.03 27 27 48

3 Dimensional Changes on soaking in water Relaxation Shrinkage (%)

Warp Weft

0.8 0.4

0.13 0.09

0.04 0.03

15 15

15 15

29 29

4 Dimensional Changes of Fabric

after Home Laundering Mechanical wash Shrinkage (%)

Warp Weft

2.3 1.1

0.45 0.18

0.12 0.05

21 20

21 21

39 39

5 Appearance of Fabrics after Home Laundering 4.0 0.0

0.5 rating 12 12 27

6 Skewness (%) Change in Fabric Resulting from Automatic Home Laundering

1.4 0.74 0.23 16 16 33

7 Colour fastness of Textile Materials to organic solvents a) Change in colour b) Staining on

Acetate/Cotton/Polyamide Polyester/Acrylic/wool

4-5

4-5/4-5/4-5 4-5/4-5/4-5

NA ½ grading 17 17 37

8

Quantitative analysis of fibre mixture by physical separation

a) Identification of fibre – Warp Weft

b) Polyester % c) Cotton %

Polyester Cotton 55.7 44.3

0.61 0.61

0.16 0.16

23 23

24 24

44 44

9

Determination of water repellency of fabrics by cone test Amount of leaked water (ml)

385.1 12.0 5.7 7 9 19

10 Moisture Content in cotton Textile materials (%) 6.4 0.67 0.22 15 15 40

11 Screening Test for Nickel release Positive NA NA 5 5 20 Remarks: * Total labs reported valid results in the respective method

NA: Not Applicable

Detection and elimination of Trivial Outliers:

From the extreme values theSuspected extreme values which satisfy Outlier and eliminated from performance evaluation. However, if it is not satisfy any one criteria, considered as ‘Qualified’ and included for performance evaluation

Criteria1: Suspected extreme value Criteria 2: Dixon’s Q test for detection of outlier at 5% level of significance

The list of such exclusions is placed in Table

Table 5: Details of Eliminations of Trivial Outliers from

S.No. Test

1 Determination of Moisture content in Cotton textile material

Total

Determination of Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment (

The robust average and the robust standard deviation reported by the participants were calculated for each of the test separately in accordance with the procedure given in ISO 13528:2005deviation (SS)” of homogeneity testing data was compared with the standard deviation of all the participants. If SS ≤ 0.3 σ1

robust standard deviation of values reported by Deviation for Proficiency Testing. That is

If SS > 0.3 σ1 , then the sample is considered as heterogeneous and Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment is calculated by adding allowance for heterogeneity of the sample as stipulated in ISO 13528:2005, by using the formula

Performance Evaluation of Participants:

The performance of the individual score technique given in ISO 13528:2005

where � is the test result reported by the standard deviation of the Proficiency Assessment

In case of Subjective test the deviation of laboratory result by more than ½ grade rating) compared to Assigned Value is taken as unsatisfactory (and outliers) and all other results are taken as satisfactory.

Detection and elimination of Trivial Outliers:

From the extreme values the Trivial Outliers were identified and eliminatedwhich satisfy both of the following criteria are treated as Trivial

Outlier and eliminated from performance evaluation. However, if it is not satisfy any one criteria, considered as ‘Qualified’ and included for performance evaluation

Criteria1: Suspected extreme value lies outside of the interval of ± 25% of Assigned ValueCriteria 2: Dixon’s Q test for detection of outlier at 5% level of significance

The list of such exclusions is placed in Table – 5.

: Details of Eliminations of Trivial Outliers from Analysis

Test Assigned Value

Result Reported

by the participant

Moisture content in Cotton textile 6.4% 1.3%

Total 1

Determination of Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment (

The robust average and the robust standard deviation (σ1) of all qualified values were calculated for each of the test separately in accordance

with the procedure given in ISO 13528:2005. Subsequently, the “between-samples standard )” of homogeneity testing data was compared with the standard deviation of all

1 , then the sample is considered as homogenous and the alues reported by all the participants is treated as Standard

Deviation for Proficiency Testing. That is σ = σ1

, then the sample is considered as heterogeneous and Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment is calculated by adding allowance for heterogeneity of the sample as stipulated in ISO 13528:2005, by using the formula

� � ��

Performance Evaluation of Participants:

The performance of the individual participant was evaluated by adopting given in ISO 13528:2005, as per the following formula:

� � � ��

is the test result reported by the participant; � is the Assigned Value and standard deviation of the Proficiency Assessment

In case of Subjective test the deviation of laboratory result by more than ½ grade compared to Assigned Value is taken as unsatisfactory (and outliers) and all other

results are taken as satisfactory.

were identified and eliminated. both of the following criteria are treated as Trivial

Outlier and eliminated from performance evaluation. However, if it is not satisfy any one

lies outside of the interval of ± 25% of Assigned Value

Analysis

Result Reported

by the participant

Lab Code

1.3% 14009

Determination of Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment ( σ):

qualified values were calculated for each of the test separately in accordance

samples standard )” of homogeneity testing data was compared with the standard deviation of all

, then the sample is considered as homogenous and the is treated as Standard

, then the sample is considered as heterogeneous and Standard Deviation for Proficiency Assessment is calculated by adding allowance for heterogeneity of

was evaluated by adopting Robust Z

is the Assigned Value and σ is the

In case of Subjective test the deviation of laboratory result by more than ½ grade (0.5 compared to Assigned Value is taken as unsatisfactory (and outliers) and all other

Test wise performance evaluation is given in Annexure.

Interpretation of Performance comment:

Table – 6: Interpretation of Performance comment

Range

Objective Tests

│Z - Score

2 <│Z - Score

│Z - Score

Subjective Test

│Reported Value – Assigned Value

│Reported Value - Assigned Value

Outliers and Stragglers:

Overall performance of all the rare and far. The Outlier and Straggler Analysis is given in Table outliers and stragglers are listed in Table

General Advise to the

If a participant is found to be after thorough investigation of the root cause of the problem. In case be “Straggler”, the method of testing, personnel error, use of correct materials / equipments, maintenance of environmental ensure that the test results being reported for the concerned test parameters are satisfactory

Test wise performance evaluation is given in Annexure.

Interpretation of Performance comment:

Interpretation of Performance comment

Range Performance of Laboratory

Score│≤ 2 Satisfactory

Score│< 3 Straggler

Score│≥ 3 Outlier

Assigned Value │≤ ½ grade Satisfactory

Assigned Value │> ½ grade Outlier

Outliers and Stragglers:

Overall performance of all the participants is good. Outliers and Stragglers are very The Outlier and Straggler Analysis is given in Table – 7. Parameter

outliers and stragglers are listed in Table-8

General Advise to the Participants on the performance:

is found to be “Outlier”, necessary corrective action should be taken after thorough investigation of the root cause of the problem. In case a participant

the method of testing, personnel error, use of correct materials / equipments, maintenance of environmental conditions etc., are have to be reensure that the test results being reported for the concerned test parameters are satisfactory

Performance of Laboratory

Satisfactory

Straggler

Outlier

Satisfactory

Outlier

is good. Outliers and Stragglers are very Parameter-wise the

corrective action should be taken a participant is found to

the method of testing, personnel error, use of correct materials / conditions etc., are have to be re-examined to

ensure that the test results being reported for the concerned test parameters are satisfactory

of 56

Table – 7: Outlier and Straggler Analysis

S.

No Test

No. of

Participants*

Valid

Results

No. of

Stragglers

% of

Stragglers

No. of

Outliers

% of

Outliers

1a Identification of fibres- Warp 50 50 0 0 3 6.0

Identification of fibres- Weft 50 50 0 0 2 4.0

1b

Quantitative analysis of fibre mixtures-Chemical Dissolution method

% Polyester 52 52 0 0 0 0

% Cotton 52 52 0 0 0 0

2 pH of aqueous extract 52 52 0 0 0 0

3a

Dimensional Changes on soaking in water - warp 29 29 1 3.4 0 0

3b -weft 29 29 1 3.4 0 0

4a

Dimensional Changes of Fabric after Home Laundering - warp 39 39 0 0 0 0

4b weft 39 39 0 0 1 2.6

5

Appearance of Fabrics after Repeated Home Laundering 29 29 0 0 0 0

6

Skewness Change in Fabric Resulting from Automatic Home Laundering 33 33 0 0 0 0

7

Colour fastness of Textile Materials to organic solvents Change in Colour 35 35 0 0 0 0

St on Acetate 35 35 0 0 0 0

St on Cotton 35 35 0 0 0 0

St on Nylon 35 35 0 0 0 0

St on Polyester 35 35 0 0 0 0

St on Acrylic 35 35 0 0 0 0

St on Wool 35 35 0 0 0 0

8 Identification of fibre-warp 45 45 0 0 2 4.4

-weft 45 45 0 0 1 2.2

Quantitative analysis of fibre mixture by physical separation % Polyester 45 44 0 0 1 2.2

% Cotton 45 44 0 0 1 2.2

9

Determination of water repellency of fabrics by cone test 19 19 0 0 1 5.3

10

Moisture Content in cotton Textile materials 40 40 2 5 1 2.5

11

Screening Test for Nickel release 20 20 0 0 0 0

Total 958 956 4 0.42 13 1.36

*Inclusive of results rejected as Gross error.

of 56

Table – 8: List of Outliers and Stragglers

S. No Test Straggler Lab codes

Outlier Lab codes

1

Quantitative analysis of fibre mixtures-Chemical Dissolution method

a) Identifying nature of fibre –warp Weft

b) Percentage composition

Nil Nil Nil

14030, 14038, 14048 14038, 14048

Nil

2 pH of aqueous extract of Textile Material Nil Nil

3

Dimensional Changes on soaking in water Warp Weft

14013, 14015

Nil Nil

4

Dimensional Changes of Fabric after Home Laundering Warp Weft

Nil Nil

Nil 14045

5 Appearance of Fabrics after Repeated Home Laundering Nil Nil

6 Skewness Change in Fabric Resulting from Automatic Home Laundering Nil Nil

7 Colour fastness of Textile Materials to organic solvents Nil Nil

8

Quantitative analysis of fibre mixture by physical separation

a) Identifying nature of fibre Warp Weft

b) Percentage composition

Nil Nil Nil

14017,14023 14017 14023

9 Determination of water repellency of fabrics by cone test Nil 14021

10 Moisture Content in cotton Textile materials 14016,14052 14009

11 Screening Test for Nickel release Nil Nil Total 4 12

of 56

Annexure

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF PARTICIPANTS - TEST WISE

1a. Identification of Fibres

Assigned

Value

Warp ‘Polyester + Cotton’ OR ‘Polyester and Cotton blend ed’

Weft ‘Polyester + Cotton’ OR ‘Polyester and Cotton blend ed’

Lab code Warp Weft Test Method Remark on performance

14001 Polyester / Cotton Polyester / Cotton AATCC 20 Satisfactory(2)

14003 Polyester + Cotton Polyester + Cotton ISO 1833-11:2006 Satisfactory

14004 Polyester + Cotton Polyester + Cotton IS 667:1981 Satisfactory

14005 Polyester + Cotton Polyester + Cotton IS 667:1981(RA 2008) Satisfactory



14008 Cotton + Polyester Cotton + Polyester AATCC 20 Satisfactory(1)




14012 Cotton/Polyester Cotton/Polyester IS 667:1981(RA 2008) Satisfactory(2)




14016 Polyester-Cotton Polyester-Cotton ISO 1833:11:2006(E) Satisfactory

14017 Cotton/Polyester Cotton/Polyester AATCC 20 Satisfactory(2)



14020 Polyester + Cotton Polyester + Cotton ISO 1833 Satisfactory

14021 Polyester / Cotton Polyester / Cotton IS 667:1981 Satisfactory(2)


14023 Polyester + Cotton Polyester + Cotton IS 667 Satisfactory

14024 Cotton + Polyester Cotton + Polyester ISO 1833 Satisfactory(1)

14025 Cotton + Polyester Cotton + Polyester IS 667:1981(RA 2008) Satisfactory(1)





14030 Cellulose + Synthetic Cotton + Polyester IS 667:1981

Not Satisfactory (3)

14031 Polyester + Cotton Polyester + Cotton ISO 1833:11:2006(E) Satisfactory

14034 Polyester / Cotton Polyester / Cotton IS 667:1981 Satisfactory(2)

14035 Polyester + Cotton Polyester + Cotton ISO 1833:2006 Satisfactory


14037 Polyester-Cotton Polyester-Cotton IS 667:1981(RA 2008) Satisfactory(2)

14038 Poly / Cotton Poly / Cotton IS 667:1981(RA 2008) Not Satisfactory (3)

of 56


14039 Cotton/Polyester Cotton/Polyester ISO 1833 Satisfactory(2)

14040 Polyester & Cotton Polyester & Cotton IS 667:1981(RA 2003) Satisfactory(2)




14044 Polyester + Cotton Polyester + Cotton AATCC 20 Satisfactory

14046 Cotton + Polyester Cotton + Polyester IS 667 Satisfactory(1)

14047 Polyester / Cotton Polyester / Cotton ISO 1833 Satisfactory(2)

14048 Blended Blended IS 3416 Part 2:1999 (RA 2003)

Not Satisfactory (3)

14049 Cotton + Polyester Cotton + Polyester IS 667:1981(RA 2008) Satisfactory(1)


14052 Polyester / Cotton Polyester / Cotton In House Satisfactory(2)

14053 Polyester - Cotton Polyester - Cotton IS 667:1981(RA 2008) Satisfactory(2)


14056 Polyester + Cotton Polyester + Cotton IS 667:1981(RA 2008) Satisfactory No. of participants 50

Remarks:

(1) As per IS 11195:1985(RA 2007) “Specification for Blend Composition of Textiles”, the order of fibres is expected to be reported on the basis of dominance. Accordingly, it is expected to be reported as “Polyester + Cotton” and not “Cotton + Polyester”. However, performance is given as "Satisfactory” as nature of fibres have been identified correctly.

(2) It is a de-facto standard to report blend of fibres by using the symbol ‘p lus(+)’ and

non blend by ‘coma(,)’. Accordingly, the fibre identification is expected to be reported as "Polyester + Cotton". Since, using ‘slash(/) ’ misleads the interpretation as “OR” . i.e., Polyester or Cotton, it should be avoided. Similarly, using ‘hyphen(-) ’ also need to be avoided. However, performance is given as "Satisfactory”, though the participants reported in different ways

(3) participant coded 14048 reported simply “Blended” in both direction without indication

of actual fibres. Participant coded 14038 reported as Poly / Cotton. The name of the fibre must be reported in full like Polyamide, Polyester, Polyacrylonitrile, Poly Vinyl Chloride, Polyurethane, Polypropylene etc. “Poly” indicate the Polymerisation process in which the fibre was manufactured. Participant coded 14030 reported as Cellulose + Synthetic that also not acceptable. Hence, performance is given as “Not Satisfactory”.

(4) According to ISO/IEC 17043:2010(E), one of the purpose of the ILPT is educating the

participants based on the outcomes. Hence, the participants who reported in different ways are requested to follow universally accepted methods while reporting the results

of 56

1b. Blend Composition - Polyester Content

Lab code Reported value (%) Test method adopted Z-

Score Performance

Remark

14001 68.9 AATCC 20A : 2012 -0.5 Satisfactory

14002 69.6 IS 3416:1988 0.7 Satisfactory

14003 68.2 ISO 1833-11:2006 -1.7 Satisfactory

14004 69.3 IS 3416:1988 (RA 2008) 0.2 Satisfactory


14006 68.9 IS 3416:1988 (RA 2008) -0.5 Satisfactory










14016 68.6 ISO 1833:11:2006(E) -1.0 Satisfactory

14017 69.5 AATCC 20A : 2012 0.5 Satisfactory

14018 70.0 IS 3416(Part 1):1988 (RA2008) 1.3 Satisfactory


14020 69.3 ISO 1833:2006 0.2 Satisfactory

14021 69.4 IS 3416:1988 0.3 Satisfactory

14022 68.5 IS 3416:1988 -1.2 Satisfactory

14023 68.2 IS 3416:1988 -1.7 Satisfactory

14024 69.4 ISO 1833:11:2006(E) 0.3 Satisfactory

14025 69.1 IS 3416:1988 -0.2 Satisfactory

14026 70.0 IS 3416:1988 1.3 Satisfactory

14027 70.1 IS 3416:1988 1.5 Satisfactory

14028 68.5 IS 3416(Part 1):1988 (RA 2008) -1.2 Satisfactory


14030 69.2 IS 3416:1988 0.0 Satisfactory


14034 69.2 IS 3416:1988 0.0 Satisfactory

14035 69.1 ISO 1833:2006 -0.3 Satisfactory

14036 68.6 IS 3416:1988 -1.0 Satisfactory

14037 69.4 IS 3416:1988 0.3 Satisfactory

14038 69.9 IS 3416:1988 1.1 Satisfactory


14040 69.3 IS 3416(Part 1):1988 (RA 2003) 0.2 Satisfactory




of 56


Score Performance

Remark


14046 70.2 IS 3416:1988 1.7 Satisfactory


14048 69.5 IS 3416(Part 2):1999(RA 2003) 0.5 Satisfactory




14052 69.7 In House 0.8 Satisfactory




No. of participants 52 Maximum 70.3 Minimum 68.1 Mean 69.3

Std Deviation 0.5597 Median 69.3

SUMMARY

Robust Average = 69.31%

Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) = 0.60%

Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing ( SS ) = 0.0969%

SD for PT Scheme with allowance for the heterogeneity if any (σ) = 0.60%

No heterogeneity observed

Assigned Value ( X ) = 69.2% SD of PT Scheme ( σσσσ ) = 0.60%

of 56

1c. Blend Composition - Cotton Content


Score Performance

Remark


14002 30.4 IS 3416:1988 -0.7 Satisfactory

14003 31.8 ISO 1833-11:2006 1.7 Satisfactory















14018 30.0 IS 3416 (Part 1): 1988 (RA2008) -1.3 Satisfactory



14021 30.6 IS 3416:1988 -0.3 Satisfactory

14022 31.5 IS 3416:1988 1.2 Satisfactory

14023 31.8 IS 3416:1988 1.7 Satisfactory


14025 30.9 IS 3416:1988 0.2 Satisfactory

14026 30.0 IS 3416:1988 -1.3 Satisfactory

14027 29.9 IS 3416:1988 -1.5 Satisfactory



14030 30.8 IS 3416:1988 0.0 Satisfactory


14034 30.8 IS 3416:1988 0.0 Satisfactory


14036 31.4 IS 3416:1988 1.0 Satisfactory

14037 30.6 IS 3416:1988 -0.3 Satisfactory

14038 30.1 IS 3416:1988 -1.1 Satisfactory

14039 31.5 ISO 1833 1.2 Satisfactory




of 56


Score Performance

Remark



14046 29.8 IS 3416:1988 -1.7 Satisfactory

14047 30.0 ISO 1833 -1.3 Satisfactory

14048 30.5 IS 3416 (Part 2):1999(RA 2003) -0.5 Satisfactory

14049 31.9 IS 3416 (Part 1):1988 (RA 2008) 1.8 Satisfactory



14052 30.3 In House -0.8 Satisfactory

14053 30.5 IS 3416 (Part 1):1988 (RA 2008) -0.5 Satisfactory

14055 30.0 IS 3416 (Part 1):1988 (RA 2008) -1.3 Satisfactory


No. of participants 52 Maximum 31.9 Minimum 29.7 Mean 30.7 Std Deviation 0.5597 Median 30.7

SUMMARY

Robust Average = 30.69% Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) = 0.60%

Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing ( SS ) = 0.0969%

SD for PT Scheme with allowance for the heterogeneity if any (σ) = 0.60%


Assigned Value ( X ) = 30.8% SD of PT Scheme ( σσσσ ) = 0.60%

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

14

00

1

14

00

2

14

00

3

14

00

4

14

00

5

14

00

6

14

00

7

14

00

8

14

00

9

14

01

0

14

01

1

14

01

2

14

01

3

14

01

4

14

01

5

Z -

Sco

re

Blend Composition

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

14

00

1

14

00

2

14

00

3

14

00

4

14

00

5

14

00

6

14

00

7

14

00

8

14

00

9

14

01

0

14

01

1

14

01

2

14

01

3

14

01

4

14

01

5

Z -

Sco

re

Blend Composition

14

01

5

14

01

6

14

01

7

14

01

8

14

01

9

14

02

0

14

02

1

14

02

2

14

02

3

14

02

4

14

02

5

14

02

6

14

02

7

14

02

8

14

02

9

14

03

0

14

03

1

14

03

4

14

03

5

14

03

6

14

03

7

14

03

8

14

03

9

14

04

0

Lab Code

Blend Composition - Polyester Content

14

01

5

14

01

6

14

01

7

14

01

8

14

01

9

14

02

0

14

02

1

14

02

2

14

02

3

14

02

4

14

02

5

14

02

6

14

02

7

14

02

8

14

02

9

14

03

0

14

03

1

14

03

4

14

03

5

14

03

6

14

03

7

14

03

8

14

03

9

14

04

0

Lab Code

Blend Composition - Cotton Content

Page 19 of 56

14

04

0

14

04

1

14

04

2

14

04

3

14

04

4

14

04

6

14

04

7

14

04

8

14

04

9

14

05

0

14

05

1

14

05

2

14

05

3

14

05

5

14

05

6

14

04

0

14

04

1

14

04

2

14

04

3

14

04

4

14

04

6

14

04

7

14

04

8

14

04

9

14

05

0

14

05

1

14

05

2

14

05

3

14

05

5

14

05

6

of 56

2. pH of aqueous Extract It has been observed that performance of participants reported from pH 6.3 to 7.7, (Range = 1.4pH) all are Satisfactory. This implies that Acidic side pH 6.3 and Alkaline side pH 7.7, both are equal which is contradiction to Chemistry. This variation is due to the pH of extracting medium ie., distilled water and the temperature at which the measurement is made. Since, the pH is a function of the pH of extracting medium and temperature, the pH values of each laboratory is regressed by the reported pH of aqueous extract, temperature at which pH was measured and pH of distilled water used Assigned Value: 27 accredited participants contributed for the assigned value which is the robust average of estimated values using their regressed equation

pH = 5.0928 + 0.3582 (pH of extracting solution) – 0.0155(temperature in °C). The range of pH values reported by accredited participants is reduced from 0.81pH to 0.54pH and the robust average is 7.08pH. Performance Evaluation: The entire group of 52 participants was evaluated for performance using the estimated pH values derived by the their regressed equation

pH = 5.6408 + 0.3339 (pH of extracting solution) – 0.0331 (temperature in °C) The estimated pH is given in the last column. It varies from 6.71 to 7.26 only. The range of pH values reported by all the participants is reduced from 1.4 to 0.55.

Lab code Reported

pH value

pH of extracting

medium

(ie., distilled water)

temp °C Estimated

pH

14001 6.80 6.50 25.0 7.03

14003 6.70 6.12 31.2 6.80

14004 7.10 6.40 23.5 7.02

14005 6.90 6.55 24.3 7.06

14006 7.20 7.05 25.0 7.23

14007 6.74 6.60 25.0 7.07

14008 6.94 5.74 23.5 6.78

14009 6.85 6.63 28.0 7.03

14010 7.20 7.11 26.8 7.22

14011 7.30 6.80 26.0 7.13

14012 7.30 6.80 25.2 7.14

14013 6.75 6.85 25.2 7.16

14014 7.20 6.72 27.5 7.07

14015 6.70 6.20 25.0 6.93

14016 7.01 6.14 25.0 6.90

14017 6.70 6.90 23.6 7.20

14018 7.12 7.00 25.1 7.21

14019 7.20 7.00 25.0 7.21

14020 6.80 6.00 25.0 6.85

14022 7.10 6.30 20.1 7.04

14023 6.30 6.20 25.0 6.93

of 56

Lab code Reported

pH value

pH of extracting

medium

(ie., distilled water)

temp °C Estimated

pH

14024 7.21 6.40 20.4 7.07

14025 7.00 6.80 25.0 7.14

14026 6.80 6.60 24.0 7.08

14027 7.11 6.95 25.0 7.19

14029 7.21 6.60 26.5 7.05

14030 7.30 6.60 21.2 7.13

14031 7.31 5.89 20.7 6.88

14033 7.65 6.48 21.0 7.09

14034 6.75 6.58 27.0 7.03

14035 7.00 6.15 25.0 6.91

14036 6.90 6.70 22.0 7.15

14037 7.30 7.00 27.0 7.18

14038 7.24 6.72 25.6 7.10

14039 6.81 6.51 25.0 7.04

14041 7.15 6.90 25.0 7.18

14042 6.90 6.50 26.0 7.02

14043 7.15 6.80 25.0 7.14

14044 6.82 6.40 23.1 7.03

14045 6.90 6.70 27.0 7.07

14047 6.50 5.51 23.2 6.71

14048 7.06 6.50 30.0 6.96

14050 7.18 7.12 25.0 7.26

14051 7.30 7.10 25.0 7.25

14052 6.90 6.81 25.0 7.14

14053 7.30 7.00 27.0 7.18

14055 7.03 7.00 25.0 7.21

14056 7.15 6.50 25.0 7.03

No. of participants 48 48 48 48

Maximum 7.65 7.12 31.20 7.26

Minimum 6.30 5.51 20.10 6.71

Range 1.35 1.61 11.10 0.55

Mean 7.02 6.59 24.93 7.07 Std. Deviation 0.25 0.37 2.17 0.13

Median 7.05 6.60 25.00 7.07

of 56

Lab code Estimated pH value

Test method adopted Z- Score

Performance Remark







































14044 7.03 ISO 3071 : 2005 -0.11 Satisfactory



of 56

Lab code Estimated pH value


Performance Remark

14048 6.96 IS 1390:1983(RA 2004) -0.26 Satisfactory


14051 7.25 IS 1390:1983(RA 2009) 0.36 Satisfactory







SUMMARY

Robust Average = 7.08

Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) = 0.12

Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing ( SS ) = 0.45

SD for PT Scheme with allowance for the heterogeneity if any (σ) = 0.47


Assigned Value ( X ) = 7.08 SD of PT Scheme ( σσσσ ) = 0.47

The participants coded 14002, 14021, 14040 and 14046 have not reported the numerical value of the pH of extracting solution. Hence they were not included to derive the regression equations. However, their performance is evaluated on their reported value with respect to the Assigned Value and SD of the remaining participants given in the summary.

Lab

code

Reported

pH value

pH of

extracting

solution

temp

°C Test method

Z- Score

Performance Remark

14002 6.9 Not indicated 25.0 IS 1390:1983 -0.38 Satisfactory

14021 7.1 yes 25.0

IS 1390:1983

(RA 2004) 0.04 Satisfactory

14040 7.24 yes 33.5

IS 1390:1983

(RA 2004) 0.34 Satisfactory

14046 6.5 Grade-3 25.0 ISO 3071 -1.23 Satisfactory

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

14

00

1

14

00

3

14

00

4

14

00

5

14

00

6

14

00

7

14

00

8

14

00

9

14

01

0

14

01

1

14

01

2

14

01

3

14

01

4

Z -

Sco

re

14

01

4

14

01

5

14

01

6

14

01

7

14

01

8

14

01

9

14

02

0

14

02

2

14

02

3

14

02

4

14

02

5

14

02

6

14

02

7

14

02

9

14

03

0

14

03

1

14

03

3

14

03

4

14

03

5

14

03

6

14

03

7

14

03

8

14

03

9

Lab Code

pH of aqueous Extract

Page 24 of 56

14

03

9

14

04

1

14

04

2

14

04

3

14

04

4

14

04

5

14

04

7

14

04

8

14

05

0

14

05

1

14

05

2

14

05

3

14

05

5

14

05

6

of 56

3a. Dimensional Change to soaking in water Relaxation Shrinkage (%) - Warp

Lab code Reported

value (%)

Test method adopted Z- Score Performance Remark

14002 0.80 IS 2977:1989 0.00

14004 0.90 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.67

14005 0.90 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.67

14006 0.60 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -1.33

14007 0.90 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.67

14009 1.10 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 2.00

14010 0.90 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.67

14011 0.80 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00

14013 0.40 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -2.67 Straggler

14014 0.64 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -1.07

14015 1.00 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 1.33

14018 0.70 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -0.67

14019 0.80 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00

14025 0.70 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -0.67

14026 0.90 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.67

14027 0.90 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.67

14028 0.90 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.67

14030 0.70 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -0.67

14036 0.70 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -0.67

14037 0.60 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -1.33

14040 0.90 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.67

14041 0.70 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -0.67

14042 0.90 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.67

14043 0.80 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00

14050 0.60 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -1.33

14051 0.60 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -1.33

14052 0.60 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -1.33

14053 0.60 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -1.33

14056 0.80 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00


of 56

SUMMARY

Robust Average = 0.77 Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) = 0.15





of 56

3b. Dimensional Change to soaking in water Relaxation Shrinkage (%) - Weft

Lab code Reported value (%) Test method adopted Z- Score Performance

Remark

14002 0.4 IS 2977:1989 0.00

14004 0.6 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 1.67

14005 0.4 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00

14006 0.3 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -0.83

14007 0.4 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00

14009 0.2 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -1.67

14010 0.6 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 1.67

14011 0.3 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -0.83

14013 0.6 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 1.67

14014 0.4 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.17

14015 0.7 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 2.50 Straggler

14018 0.4 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00

14019 0.4 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00

14025 0.3 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -0.83

14026 0.3 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -0.83

14027 0.6 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 1.67

14028 0.3 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -0.83

14030 0.2 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -1.67

14036 0.4 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00

14037 0.3 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -0.83

14040 0.3 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -0.83

14041 0.4 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00

14042 0.5 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.83

14043 0.4 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00

14050 0.4 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00

14051 0.4 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00

14052 0.4 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00

14053 0.3 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) -0.83

14056 0.4 IS 2977:1989 (RA 2005) 0.00


of 56

SUMMARY






Remark: The test method, ISO 6330-1984 “Domestic washing and drying procedures for textile testing” involves mechanical action on test specimen and hence is not the test ‘Dimensional Change to soaking in water’. The results reported by participants coded 1420, 1424, 1431 and 1447 using ISO 6330 method are excluded from evaluation.

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

14

00

2

14

00

4

14

00

5

14

00

6

14

00

7

14

00

9

14

01

0

14

01

1

Z -

Sco

re

Dimensional Change

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

14

00

2

14

00

4

14

00

5

14

00

6

14

00

7

14

00

9

14

01

0

14

01

1

Z -

Sco

re

Dimensional Change

14

01

3

14

01

4

14

01

5

14

01

8

14

01

9

14

02

5

14

02

6

14

02

7

14

02

8

14

03

0

14

03

6

14

03

7

14

04

0

Lab Code

Dimensional Change - Relaxation Shrinkage - Warp

14

01

3

14

01

4

14

01

5

14

01

8

14

01

9

14

02

5

14

02

6

14

02

7

14

02

8

14

03

0

14

03

6

14

03

7

14

04

0

Lab Code

Dimensional Change - Relaxation Shrinkage - Weft

Page 29 of 56

14

04

1

14

04

2

14

04

3

14

05

0

14

05

1

14

05

2

14

05

3

14

05

6

Warp

14

04

1

14

04

2

14

04

3

14

05

0

14

05

1

14

05

2

14

05

3

14

05

6

Weft

of 56

4a. Dimensional Change (Shrinkage) to Home Launderi ng-Warp


Score Performance

Remark

14001 2.0 AATCC 135:2010 -0.68 Satisfactory

14003 2.8 AATCC 135:2010 1.14 Satisfactory










14016 1.6 ISO 5077:2007 ISO 6330:2012 -1.59 Satisfactory


14020 2.5 AATCC 135 0.45 Satisfactory








14030 2.6 AATCC:135 0.68 Satisfactory


14033 2.1 AATCC 135:2012 OPTION 1 -0.57 Satisfactory


14036 2.1 AATCC 135 -0.45 Satisfactory














of 56


SUMMARY





Heterogeneity Accounted


of 56

Lab code Reported

value (%)


Performance Remark






















14030 1.6 AATCC:135 1.67 Satisfactory


14033 0.9 AATCC 135:2012 OPTION 1 -0.67 Satisfactory








14045 0.2 AATCC 135 -3.00 Outlier








4b. Dimensional Change (Shrinkage) to Home Launderi ng-Weft

of 56



SUMMARY






-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

14

00

1

14

00

3

14

00

4

14

00

5

14

00

6

14

00

7

14

00

8

14

00

9

14

01

0

14

01

2

14

01

5

Z -

Sco

re

Dimensional Change

-4.00

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

14

00

1

14

00

3

14

00

4

14

00

5

14

00

6

14

00

7

14

00

8

14

00

9

14

01

0

14

01

2

14

01

5

Z -

Sco

re

Dimensional Change

14

01

5

14

01

6

14

01

7

14

02

0

14

02

2

14

02

3

14

02

4

14

02

5

14

02

6

14

02

8

14

02

9

14

03

0

14

03

1

14

03

3

14

03

5

14

03

6

14

03

9

14

04

0

14

04

1

Lab Code

Dimensional Change - Shrinkage to Home Laundering

14

01

5

14

01

6

14

01

7

14

02

0

14

02

2

14

02

3

14

02

4

14

02

5

14

02

6

14

02

8

14

02

9

14

03

0

14

03

1

14

03

3

14

03

5

14

03

6

14

03

9

14

04

0

14

04

1

Lab Code

Dimensional Change - Shrinkage to Home Laundering

Page 34 of 56

14

04

1

14

04

2

14

04

4

14

04

5

14

04

6

14

04

7

14

05

1

14

05

2

14

05

4

14

05

5

14

05

6

Shrinkage to Home Laundering - Warp

14

04

1

14

04

2

14

04

4

14

04

5

14

04

6

14

04

7

14

05

1

14

05

2

14

05

4

14

05

5

14

05

6

Shrinkage to Home Laundering - Weft

of 56

Lab code Reported value (Rating)

Test method adopted

Performance Remark

14001 4.5 AATCC 124:2011 Satisfactory 14003 4.5 AATCC 124:2009 Satisfactory 14004 4.0 AATCC 124:2011 Satisfactory 14005 3.5 AATCC 124:2009 Satisfactory 14007 3.5 AATCC 124:2009 Satisfactory 14008 4.0 AATCC 124 Satisfactory 14012 4.0 AATCC 124:2009 Satisfactory 14015 4.0 AATCC 124:2009 Satisfactory 14016 3.5 AATCC 124:1996 Satisfactory 14017 4.5 AATCC 124:2011 Satisfactory 14020 4.0 AATCC 124 Satisfactory 14022 4.0 AATCC 124:2009 Satisfactory 14024 3.5 AATCC 124 Satisfactory 14025 4.0 AATCC 124:2009 Satisfactory 14026 4.0 AATCC 124:2009 Satisfactory 14028 4.0 AATCC 124:2009 Satisfactory 14030 3.5 AATCC 124:2011 Satisfactory

14031 3.8 AATCC 124:2009 Satisfactory 14033 3.8 AATCC 124:2011 Satisfactory 14035 3.5 AATCC 124:2011 Satisfactory 14039 4.0 AATCC 124 Satisfactory 14040 3.5 AATCC 124 Satisfactory 14044 4.0 AATCC 124 Satisfactory

14046 4.0 AATCC 124 Satisfactory 14047 4.0 AATCC 124 Satisfactory 14051 4.0 AATCC 124:2010 Satisfactory 14052 3.5 AATCC 124:2009 Satisfactory 14054 4.0 AATCC 124:2009 Satisfactory 14055 3.5 AATCC 124:2009 Satisfactory

No. of participants 29 Median 4

Rating Frequency

3.5 9

3.8 2

4.0 15

4.5 3

Total 29

Mode 4.0

Assigned Value 4.0

5. Appearance after Home Laundering

of 56


Score Performance

Remark

14001 0.8 AATCC 179:2004 -0.89 Satisfactory 14003 1.0 AATCC 179 : 2010 -0.60 Satisfactory 14004 0.6 AATCC 179:2012 -1.19 Satisfactory 14005 1.0 AATCC 179:2010 -0.60 Satisfactory 14007 1.1 AATCC 179:2010 -0.45 Satisfactory 14008 0.6 AATCC 179 -1.19 Satisfactory 14009 2.2 AATCC : 179 1.19 Satisfactory 14010 1.2 AATCC:179:2010 -0.30 Satisfactory 14012 0.5 AATCC 179:2010 -1.34 Satisfactory 14015 1.1 AATCC 179:2010 -0.45 Satisfactory 14016 1.6 AATCC 179:1996 0.30 Satisfactory 14017 2.3 AATCC 179:2012 1.34 Satisfactory 14020 2.2 AATCC 179 1.19 Satisfactory 14022 1.2 AATCC 179:2010 -0.30 Satisfactory 14023 2.5 AATCC 179:2010 1.64 Satisfactory 14024 2.0 AATCC 179 Option - 1 0.89 Satisfactory 14025 1.7 AATCC 179:2010 0.45 Satisfactory 14026 1.1 AATCC 179:2010 -0.45 Satisfactory 14028 1.4 AATCC 179:2010 0.00 Satisfactory 14030 0.6 AATCC 179 -1.19 Satisfactory 14031 1.9 AATCC 179:2010 0.74 Satisfactory 14035 2.0 AATCC 179:2012 0.89 Satisfactory 14036 1.1 AATCC 179 -0.45 Satisfactory 14039 0.9 AATCC 179 -0.74 Satisfactory 14040 1.0 AATCC 179 -0.60 Satisfactory 14044 1.1 AATCC 179 -0.45 Satisfactory 14045 2.6 AATCC 179 1.79 Satisfactory 14046 1.3 AATCC 179 -0.15 Satisfactory 14047 2.1 AATCC 179 1.04 Satisfactory 14051 1.2 AATCC 179:2010 -0.30 Satisfactory 14052 1.6 AATCC 179:2010 0.30 Satisfactory 14054 0.8 AATCC 179:2010 -0.89 Satisfactory 14055 1.5 AATCC 179:2010 0.15 Satisfactory



6. Skewness of fabric after washing

of 56

SUMMARY


Robust SD for valid results reported by all participants (σ1 ) = 0.59 Between sample SD of Homogeneity testing ( SS ) = 0.32

SD for PT Scheme with allowance for the heterogeneity if any ( σ ) = 0.67



-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.001

40

01

14

00

3

14

00

4

14

00

5

14

00

7

14

00

8

14

00

9

14

01

0

14

01

2

Z -

Sco

re

Skewness of fabric after washing

14

01

2

14

01

5

14

01

6

14

01

7

14

02

0

14

02

2

14

02

3

14

02

4

14

02

5

14

02

6

14

02

8

14

03

0

14

03

1

14

03

5

14

03

6

14

03

9

14

04

0

Lab Code

Skewness of fabric after washing

Page 38 of 56

14

04

4

14

04

5

14

04

6

14

04

7

14

05

1

14

05

2

14

05

4

14

05

5

of 56

7. Colour Fastness to organic Solvent

(a) Change in Colour

Lab Code

Test Method

Change In Colour

Performance Remark

14002 IS 688:1988 4 Satisfactory

14004 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory


14006 IS 688:1988 (RA 2004) 4 Satisfactory


14008 ISO 105 X 05 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14009 IS 688:1989 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14010 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14011 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14012 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14014 IS 688:1988 (RA 2009) 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14015 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory


14019 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14020 ISO 105 X05 4 - 5 Satisfactory







14030 IS 688 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14031 ISO 105 X05:1994 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14035 ISO 105 X05:1994 4 Satisfactory

14036 IS 688 4 Satisfactory


14039 BSEN ISO X 05 4 Satisfactory

14040 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14042 IS 688 : 1988 (RA 2004) 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14044 ISO 105 X05:1994 4 Satisfactory


14048 IS 688:1988 (RA 2004) 5 Satisfactory



14056 IS :688:1988(RA 2009 4 - 5 Satisfactory

Number of Participants 35

Minimum 4

Maximum 5

of 56

Grade Frequency

4 15

4 - 5 19

5 1

Total 35

Mode 4 - 5

Assigned Value 4 - 5

Remark: Participants 14016 and 14052 carried out the test as per and ISO 105 D01:2010 which is not the test in which PT is conducted. Hence the results are not evaluated.

of 56

Lab Code

Test Method

(b) Staining on adjacent fabrics

Acetate Performance Remark Cotton Performance

Remark Polyamide Performance Remark Polyester Performance

Remark Acrylic Performance Remark Wool Performance

Remark

14002 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14004 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory


14006 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory


14008 ISO 105 X 05 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory





14014 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory


14018 IS 688:1988 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory

14019 IS 688:1988 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14020 ISO 105 X05 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory



14025 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory


14027 IS 688:1988 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14028 IS 688:1988 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14030 IS 688 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory



14036 IS 688 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14037 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory

of 56

Lab Code

Test Method

(b) Staining on adjacent fabrics

Acetate Performance Remark Cotton Performance

Remark Polyamide Performance Remark Polyester Performance

Remark Acrylic Performance Remark Wool Performance

Remark

14039 BSEN ISO X 05 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory


14042 IS 688 : 1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory



14048 IS 688:1988 5 Satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 5 Satisfactory


14053 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory

14056 IS 688:1988 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory 4 - 5 Satisfactory Number of

Participants 35 Number of





Participants 35

Minimum 4 Minimum 4 Minimum 4 Minimum 4 - 5 Minimum 4 - 5 Minimum 4 - 5

Maximum 5 Maximum 5 Maximum 5 Maximum 5 Maximum 5 Maximum 5

Staining on Acetate Cotton Polyamide Polyester Acrylic Wool

Grade Frequency Grade Frequency Grade Frequency Grade Frequency Grade Frequency Grade Frequency

4 3 4 6 4 7 4 2 4 4 4 2

4 - 5 30 4 - 5 26 4 - 5 27 4 - 5 30 4 - 5 29 4 - 5 32

5 2 5 3 5 1 5 3 5 2 5 1

Total 35 Total 35 Total 35 Total 35 Total 35 Total 35

Mode 4 - 5 Mode 4 - 5 Mode 4 - 5 Mode 4 - 5 Mode 4 - 5 Mode 4 - 5

Assigned

Value 4 - 5 Assigned Value 4 - 5 Assigned

Value 4 - 5 Assigned Value 4 - 5 Assigned

Value 4 - 5 Assigned Value 4 - 5

of 56

8a. Identification Of Fibres

Assigned Value

Warp Polyester

Weft Cotton


14001 Polyester Cotton AATCC 20 Satisfactory












14016 Polyester Cotton ISO 1833-1:2006 Satisfactor y

14017 Cotton / Polyester Cotton / Polyester AATCC 2 0 Not Satisfactory





14023 Polyester + cotton Cotton AATCC 20 Not Satisfactory


















14046 Polyester cotton AATCC 20 Satisfactory


of 56


14049 Polyester cotton In House Satisfactory


14052 Polyester Cotton ISO 1833-1:2006 Satisfactor y


14054 Polyester Cotton Not indicated Satisfactory


14056 Polyester Cotton AATCC 20 Satisfactory No. of participants 45

of 56

8b. Composition by Physical Separation - Polyester Content

Lab code Reported

value (%)


Performance Remark

14001 55.8 AATCC 20A 0.1 Satisfactory

14003 55.4 AATCC 20A -0.4 Satisfactory











14016 55.3 ISO 1833-1:2006 Annex B -0.5 Satisfactory






14023 52.7 AATCC 20A -3.7 Outlier





















14052 55.6 ISO 1833-1:2006 Annex B -0.1 Satisfactory

of 56

Lab code Reported

value (%)


Performance Remark







SUMMARY






of 56

8b. Composition by Physical Separation - Cotton Con tent

Lab code Reported

value (%)


Performance Remark













14016 44.7 ISO 1833-1:2006 Annex B 0.5 Satisfactory






14023 47.3 AATCC 20A 3.7 Outlier




















of 56

Lab code Reported

value (%)


Performance Remark


14052 44.4 ISO 1833-1:2006 Annex B 0.1 Satisfactory






SUMMARY







Remark: Participant 14045 reported as 100% Polyester and 100% cotton and hence performance is not evaluated.

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

14

00

1

14

00

3

14

00

4

14

00

5

14

00

6

14

00

7

14

00

8

14

00

9

14

01

0

14

01

1

14

01

2

14

01

5

Z -

Sco

re

Composition by Physical Separation

14

01

5

14

01

6

14

01

7

14

01

8

14

01

9

14

02

0

14

02

2

14

02

3

14

02

4

14

02

5

14

02

6

14

02

7

14

02

8

14

02

9

14

03

0

14

03

1

14

03

5

14

03

6

14

03

7

14

03

9

14

04

0

14

04

1

Lab Code

Composition by Physical Separation - Polyester Content

Page 49 of 56

14

04

1

14

04

2

14

04

4

14

04

6

14

04

7

14

04

9

14

05

1

14

05

2

14

05

3

14

05

4

14

05

5

14

05

6

Polyester Content

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.01

40

01

14

00

3

14

00

4

14

00

5

14

00

6

14

00

7

14

00

8

14

00

9

14

01

0

14

01

1

14

01

2

14

01

5

Z -

Sco

re

Composition by Physical Separation

14

01

5

14

01

6

14

01

7

14

01

8

14

01

9

14

02

0

14

02

2

14

02

3

14

02

4

14

02

5

14

02

6

14

02

7

14

02

8

14

02

9

14

03

0

14

03

1

14

03

5

14

03

6

14

03

7

14

03

9

14

04

0

14

04

1

Lab Code

Composition by Physical Separation - Cotton Content

Page 50 of 56

14

04

1

14

04

2

14

04

4

14

04

6

14

04

7

14

04

9

14

05

1

14

05

2

14

05

3

14

05

4

14

05

5

14

05

6

Cotton Content

of 56

9. Water Repellency - Cone Test

Lab code Reported

value (%)


Performance Remark

14002 385.0 IS 7941 : 1976 0.0 Satisfactory

14003 400.0 IS 7941 : 1976 0.4 Satisfactory

14004 385.0 IS 7941 : 1976 0.0 Satisfactory

14005 370.0 IS 7941 : 1976 -0.4 Satisfactory

14007 375.0 IS 7941 : 1976 -0.3 Satisfactory

14010 378.0 IS 7941 : 1976 -0.2 Satisfactory

14011 360.0 IS 7941 : 1976 -0.7 Satisfactory


14019 372.0 IS 7941 : 1976 -0.4 Satisfactory

14021 248.0 IS 7941 : 1976 -4.0 Outlier

14026 365.0 IS 7941 : 1976 -0.6 Satisfactory

14032 377.0 IS 7941 : 1976(RA 2004) -0.2 Satisfactory

14037 397.0 IS 7941 : 1976 0.3 Satisfactory

14038 395.0 IS 7941 : 1976 0.3 Satisfactory

14040 400.0 IS 7941 : 1976 0.4 Satisfactory

14043 382.0 IS 7941 : 1976 -0.1 Satisfactory

14051 376.0 IS 7941 : 1976 -0.3 Satisfactory

14053 398.0 IS 7941 : 1976 0.4 Satisfactory

14055 400.0 IS 7941 : 1976 0.4 Satisfactory

No. of participants 19 Maximum 400 Minimum 248 Mean 377 Std Deviation 34 Median 382

SUMMARY





Assigned Value ( X ) = 385 SD of PT Scheme ( σσσσ ) = 34

Remark: The participant Coded 14039 had carried out the test by BSEN 24920 (Spray Test) and which is not equivalent to IS 7941. Hence, the result is not evaluated.

-4.5

-4.0

-3.5

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

14

00

2

14

00

3

14

00

4

14

00

5

14

00

7

14

01

0

Z -

Sco

re

14

01

0

14

01

1

14

01

4

14

01

9

14

02

1

14

02

6

14

03

2

14

03

7

14

03

8

14

04

0

Lab Code

Water Repellency - Cone Test

Page 52 of 56

14

04

0

14

04

3

14

05

1

14

05

3

14

05

5

of 56

10. Moisture Content in Cotton Textile Material


Score Performance

Remark

14002 5.3 IS 199:1989 -1.36 Satisfactory

14003 5.9 IS 199:1989 -0.64 Satisfactory

14004 6.4 IS 199:1989 0.00 Satisfactory

14005 5.6 IS 199:1989 -1.03 Satisfactory


14007 5.9 IS 199: 1989 -0.64 Satisfactory

14008 5.6 ASTM D 2495 -1.03 Satisfactory

14010 7.1 IS 199:1989 0.90 Satisfactory

14011 6.3 IS 199: 1989 -0.13 Satisfactory

14012 6.0 IS 199:1989 -0.51 Satisfactory

14014 5.8 IS 199: 1989 -0.72 Satisfactory

14015 5.8 IS 199: 1989 -0.77 Satisfactory

14016 4.2 IS 199:1989 -2.82 Straggler

14017 6.0 AATCC 20A :2012 -0.51 Satisfactory



14021 5.9 IS 199 : 1989 -0.64 Satisfactory

14022 6.9 IS 199:1989 0.64 Satisfactory

14025 5.4 IS 199:1989 -1.28 Satisfactory

14026 5.5 IS 199:1989 -1.15 Satisfactory

14027 6.1 IS 199:1989 -0.38 Satisfactory


14029 7.1 IS 199:1989 0.90 Satisfactory

14030 6.3 IS 199 -0.13 Satisfactory


14034 6.9 IS 199 0.64 Satisfactory

14036 6.3 IS 199 -0.13 Satisfactory

14037 5.0 is199:1989 -1.79 Satisfactory






14049 5.8 IS 199:1989 -0.78 Satisfactory


14052 4.3 IS 199:1989 -2.69 Straggler

14053 5.0 IS 199:1989 -1.79 Satisfactory

14055 5.8 IS 199:1989 -0.77 Satisfactory


of 56


SUMMARY






Remark: Extreme values reported by participants are detected as Trivial Outlier and hence, the same are excluded from Performance Evaluation. Details are given in the following table

Participant Code

Extreme Value reported by

the Participant

Criteria for Trivial Outlier

Test the reported value for the

criteria Conclusion Remark

14009 1.3%

Dixon’s Q Test Null Hypothesis: Extreme value is Not an Outlier

Q calculated = 0.5172 Q n=7;α=5% (tabulated) = 0.462

Q cal > Q n=7;α=5%. Reject the Null Hypothesis.

Extreme value falls within ±25% of Assigned Value

Assigned Value:6.4%

Acceptable Range 4.8 < x < 8.0

1.3 does not falls in the acceptable range. Hence, reject the value.

-3.50

-3.00

-2.50

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

14

00

2

14

00

3

14

00

4

14

00

5

14

00

6

14

00

7

14

00

8

14

01

0

14

01

1

14

01

2

14

01

4

Z -

Sco

re

Moisture Content in Cotton Textile Material

14

01

4

14

01

5

14

01

6

14

01

7

14

01

8

14

01

9

14

02

1

14

02

2

14

02

5

14

02

6

14

02

7

14

02

8

14

02

9

14

03

0

14

03

2

14

03

4

14

03

6

14

03

7

14

04

0

Lab Code

Moisture Content in Cotton Textile Material

Page 55 of 56

14

04

0

14

04

1

14

04

2

14

04

3

14

04

4

14

04

9

14

05

1

14

05

2

14

05

3

14

05

5

14

05

6

of 56

11. Screening Test for Nickel Release

Assigned Value: Positive

Lab code value Test Method Performance

Remark

14003 POSITIVE BSEN 12471:2002 Satisfactory





14016 POSITIVE FD CR 12471:2002 Satisfactory

14017 POSITIVE CR 12471:2002 Satisfactory

14020 POSITIVE EN 12471 Satisfactory










14047 POSITIVE EN 12471 Satisfactory



No. of participants 20

INTER LABORATORY TESTING SCHEME - Textiles Committee · 2014-06-05 · Report on Inter Laboratory...

Documents

Transcript of INTER LABORATORY TESTING SCHEME - Textiles Committee · 2014-06-05 · Report on Inter Laboratory...