Polysiloxane softener coatings

7/29/2019 Polysiloxane softener coatings

1/8

Polysiloxane Softener Coatings on

Plasma-Treated Wool: Study of the Surface

Interactions

Cristina Canal, Ricardo Molina, Enric Bertran, Pilar Erra*

Introduction

Wool is a natural fibre mainly constituted by keratins.

Keratins contain high amounts of disulfide bonds from

cystine residues, crosslinking mainly adjacent protein

chains and thus restricting their conformational rearrange-

ments. Morphologically, the fibres are formed by cortical

and cuticular cells and cell membrane complex. Cuticular

cells are located in the outermost part of the fibre,

surrounding the cortical cells. The cuticle consists of a layer

of flat scales of approximately 1 mm thickness overlapping

one another like tiles on a roof, and forming a ratchet-like

structure, which provokes a directional frictional effect[1]

which has traditionally been considered the main reason

for felting shrinkage of wool fabrics. Felting shrinkage is a

process which comprises the compacting and entangle-

ment of fibres submitted to mechanical action, friction and

pressure in the presence of heat and humidity and

accounts for the undesirable and irreversible reduction

of the area of the fabrics. From the chemical point of view,

the outermost part of cuticle cells is of hydrophobic nature

due to the presence of a fatty layer, a thin layer of

18-methyl eicosanoic acid (18-MEA) covalently bound via a

thioester linkage to the protein layer of the cuticle.[2] It has

recently been pointed out that the presence of this fatty

layer on the surface could influence the shrinkage

behaviour of wool fabrics during aqueous washing.[3,4]

Traditional shrink-resist treatments use chemicals that

may produce a highly polluted waste water.[5] In addition,

they may even damage the bulk of the fibre. Low

Full Paper

Low temperature plasma (LTP) improves the shrink-resistance of wool fabrics but impairs theirsoftness, so different polysiloxane coatings were applied. Modifications in surface hydro-philicity and topography of fabrics and fibres have been recorded through drop test, contactangle and SEM, respectively. LTP improves the deposition of the polysiloxanes which,

depending on their functionalities alter the originalhydrophilicity of the wool surface. Softness andshrink-resist results of the fabrics point out to apossible relationship between hydrophilicity of thewool fibre surface and the shrinkage behaviour ofthe fabrics. A possible mechanism of interactionbetween the different polysiloxane groups andthe surface of untreated (UT) and LTP-treated woolis proposed.

C. Canal, P. Erra

Surfactant Technology Department, Institute of Chemical and

Environmental Chemistry of Barcelona Consejo Superior de

Investigaciones Cientficas, c. Jordi Girona 18-26, 08034

Barcelona, Spain

Fax: (34) 93 204 5904; E-mail: [email protected]

R. Molina, E. Bertran

Optical and Applied Physics Department, University of Barcelona,

Avda. Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain

Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2007, 292, 817824

2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim DOI: 10.1002/mame.200700023 817


2/8

temperature glow discharge

plasmas (LTP) are considered

as an emerging technique to

obtain wool with shrink-

resistant properties by envir-

onment friendly methods,[6]

as they modify the wool

fibre surface to a depth of

nanometers without alter-

ing the bulk properties of

the fibre. Plasma processes

need only small amounts of

selected chemicals and do

not produce waste water or

chemical effluents; so the

plasma method is efficient,

economical, and can reduce

the environmental impact

caused by the use of chemi-

cals in the textile industry.[7]

Plasma is a partially ionized

gas generated by an electri-

cal discharge, and consists of

neutral particles (molecules,

excited atoms, free radicals

and metastable particles),

charged particles (ions and

electrons) and UV and Visible radiation.[810] LTP chemistry

takes place while the gas remains at relatively low

temperatures, close to room temperature.[11] When the

plasma is generated by an oxidative gas, such as air,oxygen or water vapour, the fatty layer on the wool fibre

surface is oxidized progressively by forming COH, CO,

HOCO groups, and promoting an ablation effect.[1214]

Also, the cystine residues are oxidized to cysteic acid

residues increasing the anionic groups on the wool fibre

surface.[13,15] Due to these oxidative processes, the wetting

properties of the surface are improved and therefore the

adhesion properties.[16,17] Furthermore, tear strength and

hygral expansion are reduced, and the fibre-to-fibre and

interyarn friction are increased leading to improvement in

dimensional stability as well as the frictional coefficient

increase for an apparent harsher handling.[18]

Preliminary studies of our group revealed that, while

LTP improves significantly the shrink-resistance of wool

fabrics, it produces, at the same time worsening of its

softness. To solve such a problem, conventional textile

softeners are applied on LTP-treated wool fabrics; but

although they confer better handling, it resulted in an

increase in the shrinkage area to undesirable values.[19]

Kim and Kang[20] also found that the hygral expansion of

LTP-treated wool fabrics increases with silicone postap-

plication, which they attribute to the effect of reduced yarn

interaction. The aim of this paper is to investigate the

effects of coating LTP-treated wool fabrics with polysilox-

ane softener emulsions of different functionalities: one

cationic (RI), its uncharged counterpart (RS) and an un-

charged polysiloxane with amide group (RA) (Figure 1).Different techniques have been used [drop test, contact

angle, handle evaluation and scanning electron micro-

scopy (SEM)] to allow elucidation of the reasons for the

shrinkage and handling variations of LTP-treated wool

fabrics and to explain the possible interactions between

the surface and the polysiloxane softeners.

Experimental Part

Materials

Botany knitted merino wool fabric with a cover factor of 1.22

tex/mm was used throughout the work. Before treatments, the

fabrics were washed with a nonionic surfactant, thoroughly

rinsed with deionized water and dried at ambient temperature.

Humanhair fibres were usedas a model for the woolfibrein the

determination of contact angle thanks to their chemical and

morphological superficial similarities. In addition, the stiffness of

hair fibres allows their vertical introduction in the wetting liquid

used for contact angle measurements producing reproducible

wetting force measurements.[21] Before treatments, hair fibres

underwent the same washing process already described for

wool fabrics. Milli-Q water (pH 6.5), with a surface tension of

72.8 mN m1 was used as the wetting liquid. Decane (purum,

C. Canal, R. Molina, E. Bertran, P. Erra

Figure 1. Chemical structure of the three modified polysiloxane softeners used in the present study RI,RA and RS.

818


2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim DOI: 10.1002/mame.200700023


3/8

Fluka) with a surface tension of 23.8 mN m1 was employed as

the zero contact angle liquid to determine the fibre perimeter.

Three softener polysiloxane microemulsions provided by

Rudolf Chemie (Germany) were used, Rucofin SIQ, Rucofin GWA

and Rucofin GWS and willbe identified as RI, RA and RS.They have

thesame basic polymericsilicone molecularstructure anddiffer in

some functional groups (Figure 1); RI possesses two quaternisedamine groups which confer cationic character to the molecule at

any pH, and a potentially reactive amine side chain. RA possesses

an amide end group in the lateral chains and is consequently

nonionic. RS possesses a potentially reactive amine end group in

the side chain which can be protonated at acidic pH.

Treatments

Low Temperature Plasma

A laboratory radiofrequency reactor operating at 13.56 MHz was

employed using water vapouras plasmagas. The characteristics ofthis reactor are described elsewhere.[22] The distance between the

electrodes was 8.5 cm, and the sample was hung equidistant

between the electrodes. The samples were placed in the vacuum

chamber, which was evacuated to a pressure of approximately

10 Pa before introducing the plasma gas. During treatments (120

and 300 s), pressure and incident power were kept constant at

100 Pa and 100 W, respectively.

Polysiloxane Softener Coatings

Polysiloxane softening coatings were carried out in the conditions

suggested by the company which provided the polysiloxanes but

always using the minimum concentration recommended. Treat-

ments with RA and RI were carried out by exhaustion at 1% owf,

pH5.25 and a liquor to wool ratio of 20:1 at 40 8C for 20 min.

Afterwards, the samples were squeezed in a padding mangle and

dried at an ambient temperature. The samples treated with RS

were padded at 1% owf and pH5.25 to obtain a liquor pickup of

80% and further dried at 110 8C for 10 min.

Methods

The methods used are the same as those described in ref. [23]

Wettability

Hydrophilicity of fabrics has been evaluated according to the

AATCC Test Method 39-1980 by determining the wetting time inseconds using the drop test. The test schematically consists in

depositing a droplet of water of constant volume, delivered by a

burette, on the surface of the fabric and measuring the time

required for its absorption. Results are the average of at least five

measurements.

Dynamic Contact Angle Measurements

The contact angles of individual fibres were calculated from the

dynamic wetting force (Fw) measurements carried out in an

electrobalance KSV Sigma 70 contact angle meter by applying the

Wilhelmy method. Human hair fibres were used instead of wool

fibres due to their experimental advantages, according to previous

studies.[13,21] Hair fibres had undergone the same treatments as

wool fabrics. An average of eight or nine keratin fibres were

scanned over 1 mm at a speed of 0.5 mm min1 for both the

advancing and receding modes using Milli-Q water as wetting

liquid, at room temperature.

The perimeter of the scanned fibres was determined from thewetting force (Fw) measured in a completely wetting liquid,

decane, where cos uwas assumed to be unity. Calculations of the

contact angle and perimeter were done as described elsewhere[24]

applying the following equation:

Fw gLp cos u (1)

p being the fibre perimeter, gL the liquid surface tension and uthe

fibre-liquid contact angle.

Determination of Shrink-Resistance

The shrink-resistance test was performed in accordance with

Woolmark test method no. 31, in a Wascator washing machinemodel FOM 71 (Electrolux-Wascator AB, Ljungby, Sweden) with

the ISO 6330 5A wash cycle program as a base to determine the

total felting shrinkage of wool samples.

Softness Evaluation

Softness evaluation was carried out with the aid of (n1)

nonexpert panelists, where n was the number of samples to

evaluate. The panelists were required to assess the fabrics

according to their softness.

Scanning Electron Microscopy

The topography of wool fibre surface was studied by SEM using a

JEOL JSM-5610 Scanning Electron Microscope for the observationof wool fabrics. All samples were AuPd coated with a BAL-TEC

SCD Sputter Coater, prior to SEM observation.

Results and Discussion

Wettability

According to Kamath,[25] wetting behaviour can be used as

a measure of the superficial changes experienced by fibres.

In this work, we have used two techniques; drop test,

which is commonly used for the quick evaluation of the

wettability of fabrics, and the determination of contact

angle on individual fibres by the Wilhelmy balance

method which provides quantitative data on surface

hydrophilicity of fibres and avoids the influence of

the capillary forces of the fabric.

In Figure 2, drop test results reveal the important

increase of wettability of wool fabrics conferred by the LTP

treatment for 120 and 300 s. While the wetting time of

untreated (UT) wool fabrics is above 3 h (and therefore

considered a nonwetting fabric), the samples treated for

both 120 and 300 s show immediate absorption (0 s) and

Polysiloxane Softener Coatings on Plasma-Treated Wool . . .


2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.mme-journal.de 819


4/8

therefore reflect hydrophilic fabric surfaces. Advancing

contact angle (Figure 3) shows that LTP modifies the

surface of wool fibres turning them from hydrophobic

(102.8 1.68 in UT fibres) to hydrophilic (50.7 2.78 after

120 s ofLTP and similar valuesafter300 s). Bymeans ofthe

contact angle measurements carried out on single fibres,

the influence of the capillary forces present in the

wettability measurement on fabrics by drop test is

avoided.

The increase in wettability is due to the generation of

new hydrophilic groups (COH, COO

, CO, SO

3 ) onthe surface of fibres and to the total or partial elimination

of the fatty layer by LTP treatment.[21,26] This results in the

chemical homogenization of the scale surface which is in

opposition to the superficial chemical

heterogeneity of UT fibres as shown in

previous results.[15,21]

Application of softener polysilox-

ane microemulsions, RI, RA and RS on

UT or LTP-treated wool reveals differ-ent behaviours. As expected, UT sam-

ples post-treated with polysiloxanes

remain hydrophobic independently of

the softener applied (Figure 2 and 3).

LTP-treated samples post-treated

with RI or RA polysiloxanes show an

increase in wetting time (Figure 2)

and in contact angle values (from

around 508 to values slightly below

908) (Figure 3) (908 being considered

the frontier between hydrophilic

below and hydrophobic above).

On the other hand, post-application of

the polysiloxane RS confers hydro-

phobic character to the surface of LTP-treated fibres,

producing contact angle values of 112.5 3.28 or 112.6

1.28 on LTP-treated samples for 120 or 300 s, respectively.

Contact angle values being slightly higher in LTP-treated

samples than in UT samples could indicate a greater

deposition of the product on the fibre due to the increase of

adhesion promoted by LTP or that RS polysiloxane

molecules adopt a specific orientation on the plasma-

treated wool surface.

Shrink-Resistance

An important reduction of the area shrinkage of fabrics

treated only with LTP can be observed

in Figure 4. According to previous

studies, the shrink-resistance effect

produced by LTP on wool fabrics is

attributed to the various changes

promoted in the surface of wool such

as the formation of new hydrophilic

groups as confirmed by XPS stud-

ies,[13,15] total or partial elimination of

the fatty acids covalently linked to the

epicuticle of wool fibres and etching

effect.[15,17] All these factors contri-

bute to an increase of wettability and

of interfibre friction, and hence the

fibres have greater difficulties to move

relative to each other. However, it is

important to take into account the

influence of the fibre-medium inter-

action; UT hydrophobic fibres, in the

presence of water during washing,


Figure 3. Advancing contact angle of UT and LTP-treated keratin fibres (for 120 and 300 s)and subsequently treated with polysiloxanes.

Figure 2. Wetting time (in seconds) of UT and LTP-treated fabrics (for 120 and 300 s) and

subsequently treated with polysiloxanes.

820




5/8

may tend to compact themselves to minimize contact with

water, which will lead to fibre--fibre anchoring and

irreversible felting shrinkage. In contrast, after LTP

treatment, the fibre surface interacts readily with water

molecules of an aqueous medium and, therefore, the

compacting process of fibres is reduced and so is the

natural tendency of wool for felting shrinkage. SEM

pictures [Figure 6(b) and 6(c)] reveal that the LTP conditions

used neither eliminate nor reduce the scale height (whichwas also confirmed by AFM analysis[27]), so the main effect

responsible for the shrinkage reduction seems to be related

with the hydrophilic nature of the outermost part of the

fibre surface after LTP.

This is in accordance with the percentage area shrinkage

results shown in Figure 4, and advancing contact angle

results (Figure 3). Fabrics with lower shrinkage correspond

to fibres exhibiting low advancing contact angle values.

For instance, UT fabrics with RI and RA-modified

polysiloxanes are hydrophobic (uadv99.3 4.78

and104.61.48, respectively) and show area shrinkage values

similar to UT fabric (70%). Meanwhile, LTP-treated fabrics

with RI and RA polysiloxanes exhibit hydrophilic proper-

ties (advancing contact angles below 908) and area

shrinkage values below 40%. Conversely, UT and LTP-

treated fabrics, after the application of RS are highly

hydrophobic, showing area shrinkage values even higher

than UT wool (Figure 4). Such results suggest a correlation

between hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity of the wool fibre

surface and the shrink-resistance properties of the fabrics.

Indeed, if we take into account the results of Kan et al.[28]

on D (density of felted balls), they recorded a reduction in

felting of 70% with LTP and 43% with LTPBasolan MW

(a cationic polysiloxane) with respect to UT wool. Our

results of fabric felting shrinkage show a reduction of 82%

with LTP and of 56% with LTPRI with respect to UT

fabrics. Both results are comparable, which indicates that

felting shrinkage variations obtained through the applica-

tion of LTP and a cationic polysiloxane are comparable

although the chemical formula and the product formula-

tion might not be the same. This confirms the great

relevance of hydrophilicity of the wool fibre surface on the

shrink-resistance of wool fabrics.

Although shrinkage results obtained by the combined

process of plasmaRI or plasmaRA are above the valuesby which they could be considered as machine washable,

they have allowed achieving a 56 and 63% reduction of the

area shrinkage in the second washing cycle with respect to

UT wool fabrics.


Figure 4. Area shrinkage (%) after two washing cycles of woolfabrics UT and LTP treated and subsequently treated with poly-siloxanes.

Figure 5. Sensorial evaluation of the softness of fabrics submitted to different treatments.

Figure 6. Microphotographs of (a) UT, (b) LTP treated for 120 s, (c) LTP treated for 300 s wool fibres.




6/8

Softness Evaluation

Softness evaluation by nonexpert panelists, shown in

Figure 5 is the result of a consensus of 50% of the panelists

who confirmed that fabrics treated with only LTP were

found to be harsh and slightly unpleasant. In contrast,

application of the modified polysiloxanes on UT andLTP-treated wool fabrics produced high acceptance of the

fabrics, which were considered to have an agreeable

handle. A previous work[29] found that the increased

friction coefficients with plasma pretreatment are again

reduced with the subsequent silicone application, which

they explained by the surface coating effect of the silicone

polymer, which acts as a lubricant between the fibres.

Scanning Electron Microscopy

From the SEM micrographs [Figure 6(a)] of the UT merinowool fabric, the diameter of the fibres was measured to be

around %1822 mm.[30] The cuticular cells (scales) of the

surface can be clearly distinguished, the only roughness of

the wool fibre coming from the overlapping of the cuticle

cells.

Wool fibres treated by LTP for 120 and 300 s [Figure 6(b)

and 6(c)], apparently do not show morphological differ-

ences with respect to UT ones. However, an enlargement of

Figure 6(c) reveals that, from 300 s of LTP treatment,

etching effects due to the reactive species of plasma start

to create microcraters on the wool surface.

Kim and Kang[20] found that the plasma pre-treatment

of the cuticle surface of the wool fibres increased the

reactivity of the wool fabric towards silicone polymers,

improved the dimensional stability, wrinkle resistance

and performance properties of the wool. Figure 7 shows

SEM micrographs of UT and 120 and 300 s water vapour

LTP-treated fabrics with RI polysiloxane. While LTP-treated

fibres show a uniform adsorption of RI on the surface

[Figure 7(b) and 7(c)], UT fibres [Figure 7(a)] show irregular

deposition of the polysiloxane RI, preferably adsorbed in

the scale edges. That could be explained by taking into

account that the cationic groups of the RI polysiloxane

may preferably interact with the hydrophilic frontal area

of the scales. That is in accordance with Kamaths

research,[25] which suggests that the frontal of the scales

is more hydrophilic than the dorsal as it is more exposed to

mechanical damage, leaving bare part of the hydrophilic

material under the epicuticle. However, after the hydro-

philicity increase and homogenization of the fibre surfacethrough LTP, RI can interact with both the frontal and

dorsal areas of the scales leading to a uniform deposition.

Deposition of the polysiloxane RA (nonionic) is much

more uniform in UT wool [Figure 8(a)] than RI, which can

be explained by the fact that its nonionic character may

impair the deposition on the hydrophilic scale edges.

Figure 8(b) and 8(c) of LTPRA-treated wool also show a

very uniform deposition.

When RS is applied on UT wool [Figure 9(a)], an

important deposition is observed on the surface as well

as the presence of artefacts which we attribute to the


Figure 7. SEM pictures of wool (a) UTRI, (b) LTP 120 sRI, (c) LTP 300 sRI.

Figure 8. SEM pictures of wool (a) UTRA, (b) LTP treated 120 sRA, (c) LTP treated 300 sRA.

822




7/8

possible elimination of material from the softener layer

due to tension effects and its low adhesion towards the

scale surface. Nevertheless, the RS polysiloxane deposition

on the LTP-treated fabrics is more even, which could be

attributed to the better adhesion fibre-polysiloxane.

Whether deposition of the polysiloxanes on the surface

is even or not, it does not seem to have any influence on

the shrink-resistance values, which seem to be much more

dependent on the hydrophilic characteristics of the surface

of fibres.

Figure 10 schematically shows a possible interpretation

of the observed phenomena. After LTP, the dorsal of scales

becomes hydrophilic and chemically homogeneous. This

can promote the formation of ionic or covalent bonds

between the functional groups of the polysiloxanes (RI, RS)

and the anionic groups (COO, SO3 ) formed by the LTP

treatment throughout the wool fibre surface. Therefore,

the cationic group of RI could interact with the LTP-treatedsurface, leaving some quaternary ammonium groups and

primary amine side groups oriented towards the outer part

of the surface. That would justify the hydrophilic character

observed in Figure 2 and 3. For the same reason, the amide

side group of RA could interact with the hydrophilic groups

created on the wool surface and leaving the hydrocarbon

chains oriented towards the outside. In that case, a

hydrophobic interaction between RA molecules forming a

bilayer could take place, leaving the amide groups exposed

to the outer surface, which would be in accordance with

the contact angle results of Figure 3. Lastly, the uniform

deposition of RS on LTP-treated fabrics [Figure 9(b) and 9(c)]

could be explained by the bond formation between the

fibre surface and the amine groups of the polysiloxane

which would leave the hydrophobic chains of the molecule

oriented towards the outer part of the molecule justifying

its hydrophobicity (Figure 2 and 3). Similar results have

recently been found by other authors[31] with a poly-

siloxane softener of a very similar chemical structure by

using the AFM technique.

Conclusion

Low temperature plasma, generated from water vapour

modifies the wool surface, rendering it highly hydrophilic

and increasing its shrink-resistance. The advancing con-

tact angle determination on single fibres evidenced that

postapplication of the functional polysiloxane softeners on

LTP-treated fabrics may increase hydrophobicity of thesurface depending on the molecular structure of the

softener applied. Combined application of LTP and RI

(cationic polysiloxane with two quaternised amine groups

and an amine side chain) or RA (nonionic polysiloxane

with an amide end group) has allowed to obtain fabrics

with an improved softness with respect to UT fabrics and a

reduction of the area shrinkage of 56 and 63% respectively.

Meanwhile, the application of RS (nonionic polysiloxane

with an amine end group) on LTP-treated fabrics renders

the surface highly hydrophobic and produces very high

shrinkage values, as though dealing with UT wool fabrics.

Surface modification of wool by LTP improves polysiloxane


Figure 10. Scheme of the proposed deposition of the polysiloxanes (a) RI, (b) RA, and (c) RS on LTP-treated wool fibre surface.

Figure 9. SEM pictures of wool (a) UTRS, (b) LTP treated 120 sRS, and (c) LTP treated 300 sRS.




8/8

deposition in all cases. The handle of LTP-treated wool

fabrics is largely improved with the application of any of

the polysiloxane softeners studied. The results obtained

have evidenced a relationship between increased surface

hydrophilicity and reduced area shrinkage of the fabrics.

Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful to the MCYT(MAT2002-02613 project) for the financial support, to FEMANassociated unit for the plasma treatments, to the quality group2001SGR-00357, and would also like to acknowledge Mr. Oscar

Batlle from Rudolf Iberica for providing the products, Mrs. Munozand Mrs. Dolcet for their help with the experimental work andMrs. Escusa for her collaboration in SEM.

Received: January 22, 2007; Revised: April 16, 2007; Accepted:May 4, 2007; DOI: 10.1002/mame.200700023

Keywords: chain; cold plasma; polysiloxane softeners; shrink-resistance; surface treatment; wool

[1] M. Feughelman, Mechanical Properties and Structure ofAlpha-Keratin Fibres: Wool, Human Hair and Related Fibres,University New South Wales Press, Sidney 1997.

[2] A. P. Negri, H. J. Cornell, D. E. Rivett, Textile Res. J. 1993, 63,109.

[3] R. Molina,PhD Thesis,Dpt.FsicaAplicada i Optica,Universityof Barcelona 2002.

[4] C. Canal, R. Molina, E. Bertran, P. Erra, Textile Res. J. 2007, inpress.

[5] R. J. Denning, G. N. Freeland, G. B. Guise, A. H. Hudson,

Textile Res. J. 1994, 64, 413.[6] IPPC ReferenceDocumenton Best AvailableTechniques forthe

Textile Industry European Comission, Seville, 2003.[7] K. S. Johansson, P. A. K. Vesa, Polymer Surface Modification:

Relevance to Adhesion, K. L. Mittal, Ed., VSP, The Nederlands2004, Vol. 3, p. 39.

[8] F. Johan, G. Paul, H. P. Schreiber, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 1994, 51,285.

[9] W. Rakowski, M. Okoniewski, K. Bartos, J. Zawadzki,Melliand Textilberichte Int. Textile Reports . 1982, 11, 301.

[10] T. Yasuda, M. Gazicki, H. Tasuda, J. Appl. Polymer Sci. 1984,38, 201.

[11] A. Grill, Cold Plasma in Materials Fabrication, From Funda-mentals to Applications, IEEE Press, New York 1993.

[12] C. W. Kan, K. Chan, C. W. M. Yuen, M. H. Miao, Textile Res. J.1999, 69, 407.

[13] R. Molina, P. Jovancic, D. Jocic, E. Bertran, P. Erra, Surf.Interface Anal. 2003, 35, 128.

[14] R. Molina, J. P. Espinos, F. Yubero, P. Erra, A. R. Gonzalez-Elipe, Applied Surf. Sci. 2005, 252, 1417.

[15] C. Canal, F. Gaboriau, R. Molina, P. Erra, A. Ricard, PlasmaProcess. Polym. 2007, 4, 445

[16] I. M. Zuchairah, M. T. Pailthorpe, S. K. David, Textile Res. J1997, 67, 69.

[17] P. Erra, R. Molina, D. Jocic, M. R. Julia, A. Cuesta, J. M. D.Tascon, Textile Res. J. 1999, 69, 811.

[18] C. W. Kan, C. W. M. Yuen, Textile Res. J. 2006, 76, 309.[19] C. Canal,PhD Thesis, UniversitatPolitecnica de Catalunya 2005.[20] M. S. Kim, T. J. Kang, Textile Res. J. 2002, 72, 113.

[21] R. Molina, P. Jovancic, F. Comelles, E. Bertran, P. Erra,J. Adhesion Sci. Technol. 2002, 16, 1469.

[22] G. Viera, J. Costa, F. J. Compte,E. Garca-Sanz, J. L. Andujar, E.Bertran, Vacuum . 1999, 53, 1.

[23] C. Canal, R. Molina, E. Bertran, P. Erra, Proceedings 11thInternational Wool Research Conference, Leeds,England 2005.

[24] R. Molina, F. Comelles, M. R. Julia, P. Erra, J. Colloid InterfaceSci. 2001, 237, 40.

[25] Y. K. Kamath, C. J. Dansizer, H. D. Wergmann,J. Soc. CosmeticChem. 1977, 28, 273.

[26] C. Canal, R. Molina, P. Erra, A. Ricard, Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys.2006, 36, 35.

[27] P. Erra, P. Jovancic, R. Molina, D. Jocic, M. R. Julia, Science,Technology and Education of Microscopy: An Overview,A. Mendez-Vilas, Formatex, Badajoz 2003, p. 549.

[28] C. W. Kan, K. Chan, C. W. M. Yuen, M. H. Miao, Textile Res. J.1998, 68, 814.

[29] T. J. Kang, M. S. Kim, Textile Res. J. 2001, 71, 295.[30] R. Molina, C. Canal, E. Bertran, J. M. D. Tascon, P. Erra,

Formatex Microscopy Book Series Current Issues on Multi-disciplinary Microscopic Research and Education, Labajos-Broncano L, Formatex, Badajoz 2005, Vol. 2, p. 242.

[31] Q. An, L. Li, L. Huang, AATCC Rev. 2006, 6, 39.


824



Polysiloxane softener coatings

Documents

Transcript of Polysiloxane softener coatings