Submitted:
29 August 2023
Posted:
31 August 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Experimental work
2.1. Materials
2.2. Weight reduction process
2.3. Laboratory testing
2.4. Experimental design
2.5. Optimization technique using Taguchi
2.6. Grey relational analysis (GRA)
2.7. Analysis of variance
3. Results and discussion
3.1. S/N ratios and grey relational coefficients and their grades
3.2. Results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA)
3.3. Confirmation test
4. Conclusion
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fabia, J. , Gawlowski, A., Rom, M., Slusarczyk, C., Brzozowska-Stanuch, A., Sieradzka, M. PET fibers modified with cloisite nanoclay. Polymers (Basel), 2020; 12. [Google Scholar]
- Ni, Y.P. , Wu, W.S., Chen, L., Zhao, X., Qin, Z.H., Wang, X.L., Wang, Y.Z. How hydrogen bond interactions affect the flame retardancy and anti-dripping performances of PET. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2019; 305. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, H.B. , Wang, Y.Z. Design and synthesis of PET-based copolyesters with flame[1]retardant and antidripping performance. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2017; 38. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, S. , Zhou, X., Xing, Z., Tu, T. Probing polarity of flame retardants and correlating with interaction between flame retardants and PET fiber. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 498, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qi, L. , Wang, B. , Zhang, W., Yu, B., Zhou, M., Hu, Y., Xingm W. Durable flame retardant and dip-resistant coating of polyester fabrics by plasma surface treatment and UV-curing., Progress in Organic Coatings 2022, 172, 107066. [Google Scholar]
- Fang Yinchun, Liu Xinhua, Wu Yarong, High efficient flame retardant finishing of PET fabric using eco-friendly DOPO[J], The Journal of The Textile Institute 2021, 5, 113–120.
- Jian, Li, Peng, Qi, Dan, M. et al. Eco-friendly flame retardant and smoke suppression coating containing boron compounds and phytic acids for nylon/ cotton blend fabrics. J. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2022, 15, 186–198. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J. , He, H., Yu, Z., Suryawanshi, A., Li, Y., Lin, X., Sun, Z. Investigation of temperature-responsive and thermo-physiological comfort of modified polyester fabric with Sericin/PNIPAAm/Ag NPs interpenetrating polymer network hydrogel. Text. Res. J. 2020, 90, 2622–2638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.-N. , Qin, Z.-H., Chen, L., Liu, B.-W., Wang, X.-L., Wang, Y.-Z. Tailoring schiff base cross-linking by cyano group toward excellent flame retardancy, anti-dripping and smoke suppression of PET. Polymer 2018, 153, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brueckner, T. , Eberl, A., Heumann, S., Rabe, M., & Guebitz, G. Enzymatic and chemical hydrolysis of poly (ethylene terephthalate) fabrics. Journal of Polymer Science Part A: Polymer Chemistry 2008, 46, 6435–6443. [Google Scholar]
- Rakesh M. Musale and Sanjeev R. Shukla. Weight reduction of polyester fabric using sodium hydroxide solutions with additives cetyltrimethylammonium bromide and [BMIM] Cl. The Journal of The Textile Institute 2017, 108 4, 467-471.
- Petkovska, J. , Mladenovic, N., Markovi´c, D., Radoiˇci´c, M., Chiang, H., Bethany, C., et al. Environmentally benign few-bilayer intumescent nanocoating for flame retardant enzyme/plasma modified polyester fabric. Polymer Degradation and Stability 2023, 214, 110406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J. N. , Chen, L., Fu, T., Zhao, H.B., Guo, D. M., Wang, X. L., Wang, Y. Z. New application for aromatic Schiff base: high efficient flame-retardant and anti[1]dripping action for polyesters. Chem. Eng. J. 2018, 336, 622–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, Y. C. , Zhou, X., Xing, Z. Q., Wu, Y. R. Flame retardant performance of a carbon source containing DOPO derivative in PET and epoxy, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2017, 134, 44639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mousazadegan, F.; Saharkhiz, S.; Maroufi, M. , Weight reduction of microfibre polyester fabric and the effect on its physical and mechanical properties. The Journal of the Textile Institute 2010, 101, 716–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Natarajan, S.; Moses, J. , Surface modification of polyester fabric using polyvinyl alcohol in alkaline medium. Indian Journal of Fibre and Textile Research 2012, 37, 287–291. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, A. -N., Zhao, H.-B., Cheng, J.-B., Li, M.-E., Li, S.-L., Cao, M., Wang, Y.-Z. Construction of durable eco-friendly biomass-based flame-retardant coating for cotton fabrics. Chem. Eng. J. 2021; 410. [Google Scholar]
- Carosio, F. , Di Pierro, A., Alongi, J., Fina, A., Saracco, G. Controlling the melt dripping of polyester fabrics by tuning the ionic strength of polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane and sodium montmorillonite coatings assembled through layer by layer. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2018, 510, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, Y. , Zhou, X., Xing, Z., Ma, J. Metal compounds as catalysts in the intumescent flame retardant system for polyethylene terephthalate fabrics. Text. Res. J. 2018, 89, 2983–2997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsaid Ahmed Almetwally. Alkaline hydrolysis of polyester woven fabrics and its influence on thermal comfort properties. Egyptian Journal of Chemistry 2022, 65, 259–274. [Google Scholar]
- Kanik, M.; Bayari, A. Effect of weight reduction process on printing properties of polyester fabrics. Coloration Technology 2006, 119, 264–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tadesse, M.; Chavan, R. , Catalyzation of Alkaline Hydrolysis of Polyester by Oxidizing Agents for Surface Modification. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) 2015, 22, 232–253. [Google Scholar]
- Tavanai, H. , Kaynak, A. Effect of weight reduction pre-treatment on the electrical and thermal properties of polypyrrole coated woven polyester fabrics. Synthetic Metals 2007, 157, 764–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mousazadegan, F. , Saharkhiz, S., Maroufi, M. Weight reduction of microfibre polyester fabric and the effect on its physical and mechanical properties. The Journal of The Textile Institute 2010, 101, 716–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nabil, A. Ibrahim, Basma M. Eid, Heba M. Khalil, Alsaid A. Almetwally. A new approach for durable multifunctional coating of PET fabric. Applied Surface Science 2018, 448, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tavanai, H. , Kaynak, A. Effect of weight reduction pre-treatment on the electrical and thermal properties of polypyrrole coated woven polyester fabrics. Synthetic Metals 2007, 157, 764–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahin M. F., A. R M. a. M. M. M. Optimizing the dyeing process of Alkali-treated polyester fabric with dolu natural dye. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications. 2014, 4, 35–40. [Google Scholar]
- Özdemir, H. , Thermal comfort properties of clothing fabrics woven with polyester/cotton blend yarns. AUTEX Research Journal 2017, 17, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Messiry, M. , El Ouffy, A., Issa, M. Microcellulose particles for surface modification to enhance moisture management properties of polyester, and polyester/cotton blend fabrics. Alexandria Engineering Journal 2015, 54, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Natarajana, S. , and Moses J. J. Surface modification of polyester fabric using polyvinyl alcohol in alkaline medium. Indian Journal of Fibre & Textile Research 2012, 37, 287–291. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Xudong. Modifications of nonwoven polyethylene terephthalate fibrous matrices via NaOH hydrolysis: Effects on pore size, fiber diameter, cell seeding andproliferation. Process biochemistry (1991) (1359-5113), 44, 2009.
- Test Method for Thermal Resistance of Batting Systems Using a Hot Plate, ASTM D1518, 2014.
- Manimaran, G. , Kumar, M. P. Multiresponse optimization of grinding AISI 316 stainless steel using grey relational analysis. Materials and Manufacturing Processes 2013, 28, 418–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhipeng Xing, Haicong Dai, Jiong Zhang and Yufeng Li. Evaluation and improvement of greenness for milling AL6061 alloy through life cycle assessment and grey relational analysis. Materials 2022, 15, 8231.
- Yan, J, Li, L. Multi-objective optimization of milling parameters – the trade-offs between energy, production rate and cutting quality. J Clean Prod 2013, 52, 462–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bademlioglu, A.H. , Canbolat A.S., Kaynakli O. Multi-objective optimization of parameters affecting Organic Rankine Cycle performance characteristics with Taguchi-Grey Relational Analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2020, 2020, 109483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammed Shakir Nahi, Saad Hameed Al-Shafaie, and Sundus Abbas Jasim. Multi-Objective optimization in electrical discharge machining of SiC and/ or B4C reinforced Al7075 using grey relational analysis. AIP Conference Proceedings 2023, 2830, 030021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu Su, Guoyong Zhao, Yugang Zhao, Jianbing Meng and Chunxiao Li. Multi-Objective optimization of cutting parameters in turning AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel. Metals 2020, 10, 217. [CrossRef]
- Ajith Arul Daniel, S. , Pugazhenthi R., Kumar R., Vijayananth S. Multi objective prediction and optimization of control parameters in the milling of aluminium hybrid metal matrix composites using ANN and Taguchi -grey relational analysis. Defence Technology 2019, 15, 545–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]






| Independent factors | Factor code | Levels codes and values | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Caustic soda concentration (X1), % | A | 19 | 23 | 27 |
| Machine speed (X3), m/min | B | 20 | 30 | 40 |
| Treatment temperature (X4), oC | C | 90 | 110 | 125 |
| Machine Speed (m/min) - (C ) |
Temperature (OC) - (B ) |
Caustic soda concentration (%) - (A ) | Sample No. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 90 | 19 | 1 |
| 30 | 90 | 19 | 2 |
| 40 | 90 | 19 | 3 |
| 20 | 110 | 19 | 4 |
| 30 | 110 | 19 | 5 |
| 40 | 110 | 19 | 6 |
| 20 | 125 | 19 | 7 |
| 30 | 125 | 19 | 8 |
| 40 | 125 | 19 | 9 |
| 20 | 90 | 23 | 10 |
| 30 | 90 | 23 | 11 |
| 40 | 90 | 23 | 12 |
| 20 | 110 | 23 | 13 |
| 30 | 110 | 23 | 14 |
| 40 | 110 | 23 | 15 |
| 20 | 125 | 23 | 16 |
| 30 | 125 | 23 | 17 |
| 40 | 125 | 23 | 18 |
| 20 | 90 | 27 | 19 |
| 30 | 90 | 27 | 20 |
| 40 | 90 | 27 | 21 |
| 20 | 110 | 27 | 22 |
| 30 | 110 | 27 | 23 |
| 40 | 110 | 27 | 24 |
| 20 | 125 | 27 | 25 |
| 30 | 125 | 27 | 26 |
| 40 | 125 | 27 | 27 |
| Untreated ( Blank) sample | 28 | ||
| Experiment No. | Levels of the control factors | Fabric properties | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | Weight reduction (%) | Air permeability | Tensile strength | Thermal resistance | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8.7 | 9.7 | 753.4 | 4.7 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8.2 | 9.4 | 892.7 | 4.6 |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4.9 | 9.7 | 861.9 | 5.7 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 14.8 | 10.9 | 777.0 | 4.6 |
| 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 13.0 | 11.8 | 751.4 | 4.7 |
| 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 10.3 | 11.8 | 803.4 | 4.7 |
| 7 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 19.1 | 16.8 | 754.4 | 4.4 |
| 8 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 13.5 | 13.0 | 757.3 | 4.1 |
| 9 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 12.7 | 10.7 | 804.4 | 4.6 |
| 10 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 11.9 | 12.3 | 786.8 | 4.9 |
| 11 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8.3 | 11.4 | 803.4 | 5.1 |
| 12 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 8.7 | 11.2 | 802.5 | 4.9 |
| 13 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 23.9 | 17.8 | 666.1 | 4.6 |
| 14 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 15.2 | 12.5 | 760.3 | 4.3 |
| 15 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 12.3 | 13.2 | 735.8 | 4.6 |
| 16 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 16.7 | 18.1 | 696.5 | 4.5 |
| 17 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 16.1 | 15.7 | 685.7 | 4.1 |
| 18 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 15.2 | 10.8 | 734.8 | 4.4 |
| 19 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 14.1 | 15.8 | 750.5 | 4.6 |
| 20 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 11.2 | 13.7 | 757.3 | 4.4 |
| 21 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 9.9 | 12.9 | 773.0 | 5.0 |
| 22 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 22.4 | 16.9 | 625.9 | 4.4 |
| 23 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 14.6 | 15.7 | 755.4 | 3.9 |
| 24 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 11.9 | 14.2 | 799.5 | 4.3 |
| 25 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 36.8 | 28.6 | 492.5 | 3.3 |
| 26 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 21.6 | 15.6 | 645.5 | 2.5 |
| 27 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 19.6 | 15.4 | 718.1 | 3.5 |
| A: Concentration of caustic soda – B: Treatment temperature – C: Machine speed | |||||||
| Properties | Value |
|---|---|
| Weight (g/m2 ) | 198.3 |
| Tensile strength (Newton ) | 835 |
| Air permeability (cm3/cm2.sec ) | 6.796 |
| Thermal resistance (W-1m2K ) | 5.42 |
| Experiment No. |
Weight reduction | Air permeability | Tensile strength | Thermal resistance | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S/N ratio |
Normalized S/N |
S/N ratio |
Normalized S/N |
S/N ratio |
Normalized S/N |
S/N ratio |
Normalized S/N |
|
| 1 | 18.78 | 0.29 | 19.73 | 0.04 | 57.25 | 0.66 | -13.44 | 0.74 |
| 2 | 18.27 | 0.26 | 19.39 | 0.00 | 59.01 | 1.00 | -13.23 | 0.71 |
| 3 | 13.75 | 0.00 | 19.69 | 0.03 | 58.70 | 0.94 | -15.30 | 1.00 |
| 4 | 23.38 | 0.55 | 20.61 | 0.13 | 57.80 | 0.77 | -13.29 | 0.72 |
| 5 | 22.27 | 0.49 | 21.42 | 0.21 | 57.49 | 0.71 | -13.41 | 0.74 |
| 6 | 20.22 | 0.37 | 21.40 | 0.21 | 58.09 | 0.82 | -13.44 | 0.74 |
| 7 | 25.62 | 0.68 | 24.40 | 0.52 | 57.55 | 0.72 | -12.88 | 0.67 |
| 8 | 22.60 | 0.50 | 22.21 | 0.30 | 57.58 | 0.72 | -12.32 | 0.59 |
| 9 | 22.07 | 0.47 | 20.58 | 0.12 | 58.11 | 0.83 | -13.30 | 0.72 |
| 10 | 21.51 | 0.44 | 21.57 | 0.23 | 57.91 | 0.79 | -13.90 | 0.81 |
| 11 | 18.33 | 0.26 | 21.10 | 0.18 | 58.10 | 0.82 | -14.18 | 0.85 |
| 12 | 18.75 | 0.28 | 20.99 | 0.17 | 58.08 | 0.82 | -13.83 | 0.80 |
| 13 | 27.57 | 0.79 | 24.89 | 0.58 | 56.44 | 0.51 | -13.27 | 0.72 |
| 14 | 23.64 | 0.56 | 21.83 | 0.25 | 57.61 | 0.73 | -12.71 | 0.64 |
| 15 | 21.78 | 0.46 | 22.31 | 0.31 | 57.32 | 0.67 | -13.30 | 0.72 |
| 16 | 24.45 | 0.61 | 25.10 | 0.60 | 56.86 | 0.59 | -13.03 | 0.69 |
| 17 | 24.13 | 0.59 | 23.87 | 0.47 | 56.72 | 0.56 | -12.26 | 0.58 |
| 18 | 23.61 | 0.56 | 20.65 | 0.13 | 57.31 | 0.67 | -12.91 | 0.67 |
| 19 | 22.98 | 0.53 | 23.94 | 0.48 | 57.50 | 0.71 | -13.27 | 0.72 |
| 20 | 20.98 | 0.41 | 22.70 | 0.35 | 57.57 | 0.72 | -12.88 | 0.67 |
| 21 | 19.83 | 0.35 | 22.18 | 0.29 | 57.75 | 0.76 | -14.07 | 0.83 |
| 22 | 27.01 | 0.76 | 24.51 | 0.53 | 55.87 | 0.40 | -12.88 | 0.67 |
| 23 | 23.26 | 0.54 | 23.89 | 0.47 | 57.56 | 0.72 | -11.87 | 0.53 |
| 24 | 21.48 | 0.44 | 23.04 | 0.38 | 58.05 | 0.82 | -12.78 | 0.65 |
| 25 | 31.30 | 1.00 | 28.96 | 1.00 | 53.81 | 0.00 | -10.49 | 0.34 |
| 26 | 26.66 | 0.74 | 23.78 | 0.46 | 56.06 | 0.43 | -8.05 | 0.00 |
| 27 | 25.83 | 0.69 | 23.15 | 0.39 | 57.12 | 0.63 | -10.81 | 0.38 |
| Experiment No. |
Grey relational coefficients (GRC) |
Grey Relational grade (GRG) |
Rank | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight reduction | Air permeability | Tensile strength | Thermal conductivity | |||
| 1 | 0.5837 | 0.5091 | 0.7465 | 0.7962 | 0.615734 | 27 |
| 2 | 0.5739 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.7777 | 0.63639 | 25 |
| 3 | 0.5 | 0.5079 | 0.9429 | 1 | 0.630191 | 26 |
| 4 | 0.6891 | 0.534 | 0.8111 | 0.7833 | 0.677547 | 12 |
| 5 | 0.6604 | 0.5592 | 0.7733 | 0.7929 | 0.667542 | 16 |
| 6 | 0.613 | 0.5588 | 0.8493 | 0.7963 | 0.654749 | 22 |
| 7 | 0.7555 | 0.6773 | 0.78 | 0.7499 | 0.737271 | 4 |
| 8 | 0.6687 | 0.5865 | 0.7843 | 0.7086 | 0.667177 | 17 |
| 9 | 0.6553 | 0.5332 | 0.8518 | 0.7837 | 0.666397 | 18 |
| 10 | 0.6419 | 0.5642 | 0.8245 | 0.8387 | 0.673156 | 14 |
| 11 | 0.575 | 0.549 | 0.8502 | 0.8659 | 0.644931 | 23 |
| 12 | 0.583 | 0.5457 | 0.8482 | 0.832 | 0.642496 | 24 |
| 13 | 0.8247 | 0.7018 | 0.6692 | 0.7812 | 0.76759 | 2 |
| 14 | 0.6961 | 0.573 | 0.7874 | 0.7372 | 0.68124 | 11 |
| 15 | 0.6483 | 0.5901 | 0.7543 | 0.7838 | 0.666199 | 19 |
| 16 | 0.7193 | 0.7128 | 0.7069 | 0.7614 | 0.722451 | 5 |
| 17 | 0.7102 | 0.6527 | 0.6939 | 0.7046 | 0.692434 | 8 |
| 18 | 0.6955 | 0.5353 | 0.7537 | 0.7525 | 0.669392 | 15 |
| 19 | 0.6783 | 0.6558 | 0.7745 | 0.7816 | 0.699512 | 7 |
| 20 | 0.6298 | 0.6046 | 0.7825 | 0.7499 | 0.659573 | 21 |
| 21 | 0.6048 | 0.5853 | 0.8044 | 0.8551 | 0.661256 | 20 |
| 22 | 0.8038 | 0.6824 | 0.6233 | 0.7495 | 0.742429 | 3 |
| 23 | 0.6859 | 0.6535 | 0.7819 | 0.6788 | 0.687924 | 10 |
| 24 | 0.6412 | 0.6177 | 0.8439 | 0.7422 | 0.674562 | 13 |
| 25 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.6014 | 0.880208 | 1 |
| 26 | 0.7909 | 0.6487 | 0.6374 | 0.5 | 0.691882 | 9 |
| 27 | 0.7625 | 0.6224 | 0.7326 | 0.6178 | 0.700792 | 6 |
| Control factors | Level1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Gain (Max-Min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caustic soda concentration | 0.6614 | 0.6844 | 0.7109a | 0.0495 |
| Treatment temperature | 0.6515 | 0.6911 | 0.7142a | 0.0627 |
| Machine speed | 0.7240a | 0.6699 | 0.6629 | 0.0611 |
| Total mean grey relational grade= 0.6856 – a is the optimal level | ||||
| Source of variation | DF | SS | MS | F | P-value | Contribution % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caustic soda concentration concentration | 2 | 0.01103 | 0.0055 | 5.19 | 0.015 | 15 |
| Treatment temperature | 2 | 0.02012 | 0.1006 | 9.48 | 0.001 | 29 |
| Machine sped | 2 | 0.0183 | 0.0091 | 8.54 | 0.002 | 26 |
| Error | 20 | 0.02123 | 0.0011 | 30 | ||
| Total | 26 | 0.07051 |
| Initial conditions | Optima conditions | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted | Experimental | ||
| Levels | A1B1C1 | A3B3C1 | A3B3C1 |
| Weight reduction | 8.7 | --- | 36.8 |
| Air permeability | 9.7 | ---- | 28.6 |
| Tensile strength | 753.4 | ---- | 492.6 |
| Thermal resistance | 4.7 | ----- | 3.34 |
| GRG | 0.6157 | 0.778 | 0.88 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).