FEBRUARY 2005 157

Comparison of the Performance Properties of Carpets

Containing Nylon 6 and Nylon 66 Face Yarns
P. RADHAKRISHNAIAH
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, 30032, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT
A parametric analysis of the performance properties of a group of twenty-four well
balanced carpet samples, half of which represent nylon 6 and the other half nylon 66 face
yarns, shows that nylon 66 carpets offer superior performance in terms of texture retention
and color fastness to ozone. There are no significant differences in measured performance
properties between nylon 6 and 66 carpets in terms of soil repellency, oil repellency, water
repellency, color fastness to light, color fastness to nitrous oxides, and thickness recovery
from prolonged application of a static load. A nonparametric evaluation of an expert
grader’s assessment through a paired comparison of nylon 6 and 66 carpets subjected to
wear on a Vettermann drum tester shows that the grader overwhelmingly prefers nylon 66
over nylon 6 (fifty times out of fifty-four). The comparison, however, is between
identically constructed carpets and not between carpets whose construction has been
optimized for the specific fiber type. Since the texture of the finished carpet is believed to
be influenced by a host of construction parameters such as fiber denier, fiber modulus,
fiber cross-sectional shape, yarn denier, yarn twist, heat setting conditions, pile height, pile
weight, etc., it would be interesting to see how a fiber-specific carpet construction and
design optimization would influence the texture comparison. Both pile type and pile yarn
weight exert an influence on texture retention properties as measured on the Vettermann
tester. In addition, pile type influences soil repellency. Fluoropolymer treatment has a
significant positive influence on color fastness to ozone, soil repellency, oil repellency,
and water repellency properties.

Historically, studies of nylon 66 and nylon 6 polymers
have focused on structure development, physical and
mechanical properties, structure-property relationships,
and morphology. Thus, many fiber and polymer proper-
ties such as melt behavior, tensile properties, thermal and
oxidative stability, crystallinity, and orientation have
been extensively investigated [2, 5–7, 9, 13]. While
differences in some of these properties appear to be
significant, nylon 66 and nylon 6 continue to be used
more or less interchangeably for many of the same end
uses, perhaps due to the similarity of many of their
properties.
According to Prevorsek et al. [12], while it is possible
to impart widely differing properties to both nylon 6 and
66 fibers through process changes and small chemical
modifications, the performance of nylon 6 has seldom
been equivalent to nylon 66 for the same application.
This, however, does not mean that nylon 66 is automat-
ically preferable to nylon 6, because certain end uses
may not require the special characteristics of nylon 66, or
specific circumstances associated with product design
and application may mask any polymer differences.
When it comes to carpet performance, it is well un-
derstood by the trade that in most constructions, nylon
significantly outperforms the less resilient polypropylene
and polyester fibers. However, the differences in perfor-
mance properties of carpets made from nylon 66 and
nylon 6 fibers have been viewed more or less as subtle
differences. Interestingly, there are no significant pub-
lished data available describing performance differences,
if any, between nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpets. In 1995,
Werny [16] judged nylon 66 to have a slight texture
recovery advantage over nylon 6 in carpets, but his claim
has not been supported by data collected from a group of
identically constructed carpets. Yet another unpublished
report by Beyerlein [1] concluded that no discernable
differences in performance exist between carpets repre-
senting nylon 66 and nylon 6 fibers. Unfortunately, this
work also suffered from the same weaknesses as
Werny’s, in that it did not fully match constructions
between the fibers; instead, it compared the performance
of solution dyed carpets with that of regular dyed carpets.
In contrast, our study is a statistically designed, full
factorial study to facilitate a scientifically valid and com-

Textile Res. J. 75(2), 157–164 (2005) 0040-5175/$15.00

158
mercially relevant comparison of the important perfor-
mance properties of carpets made from nylon 6 and
nylon 66 face yarns. The main goal of the study is to
identify statistically significant carpet performance pa-
rameters attributable to the inherent properties of the
polymer and to quantify the differences where possible.
We believe that the work fills an important gap in un-
derstanding the performance differences exhibited by
nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpets.
Materials and Methods
TEST MATERIALS
This study covered twenty-four different carpet sam-
ples, half of which represented nylon 66 yarns and the
other half nylon 6 yarns. The yarns were perfectly
matched for cross section, filament denier, and yarn
denier. Also, to ensure that the results of this study could
be applied to a wide range of residential and industrial
carpets, we included pile type, pile weight, and pile
height as the construction variables and fluoropolymer
treatment as a finishing variable. We also kept the levels
of these variables similar for the two fiber types, thus
providing for a matched pair comparison of the perfor-
mance properties of the two fiber types across a range of
construction variables. Table I, shows that the test ma-
terials represent a full factorial design [11] with four
different factors, each factor being represented by at least
two different levels.
TABLE I. Description of variable factors.
Factor Levels
Polymer nylon 6, nylon 66
Pile type cut, loop
Pile weight low, medium, high
Fluorochemical treatment treated, not treated
The complete set of test materials representing these
variable parameters is shown in Table II. All necessary
precautions were taken during the fabrication of the test
materials to keep the physical parameters of the two sets
of carpets as close to each other as possible. Pile weights
chosen for cut and loop pile carpets were different (30,
36, and 42 ounces for cut pile and 24, 28, and 32 ounces
for loop pile). These differences reflect industry practice.
There was no statistically significant difference between
the average pile weights of the nylon 6 and nylon 66
carpets, and this was true for the average pile heights as
well, thus providing for a fully balanced design of nylon
6 and nylon 66 carpets.
TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL
Following are some additional construction particulars
of the carpet samples that are not listed in Table II:
Sample production: the carpets were specially made to
the specifications of the study, and the two fibers used the
same production equipment. Yarn type: eighteen of the
twenty-four carpets used continuous filament yarn and
the remaining six carpets used staple fiber yarn; 50% of
the filament yarn carpets represented nylon 6 and the
other 50% nylon 66; similarly, three of the six staple yarn
carpets represented nylon 6 and the other three repre-
sented nylon 66. Particulars of filament yarn: the filament
yarn was made of 20 dpf trilobal filaments, yarn denier
was 1300 with 4.75 turns of twist. Particulars of staple
fiber yarn: the staple yarn was made of 18 dpf trilobal
fibers, yarn count was 3.4 Ne, singles twist was 5.3 tpi,
and ply twist was 5.1 tpi, needle gauge: 1/10⬙, amount of
stain blocker on nylon 6 and 66 carpets: zero (no stain
blocker), heat setting equipment: the filament yarns used
the Superba heat setting equipment and the staple yarns
used the Sussen heat setting equipment; yarns were heat
set following the commercial practice for nylon 6 and 66
yarns. Coloring method: wet dyeing.
TEST METHODS
The following performance properties were evaluated
for all test materials: Light fastness: Color fastness to
light was measured according to the standard ATTCC
test method (method 16), which uses a water-cooled
xenon arc lamp that emits continuous light. Higher mea-
sured values of fastness indicate better performance.
Static loading test: We measured 1 hour and 24 hour
thickness recovery values by placing on the surface of
the carpet weights close to the average body weight and
then measuring the percent thickness recovered exactly 1
hour and 24 hours after the weight was removed. There
is no standard ASTM test procedure available for this
test, so we used a procedure similar to that of the carpet
manufacturers of Dalton, GA. The results of this test are
useful in predicting and understanding the indentations
made by furniture and help to estimate the recovery time
span required for the indented spot to return to the
original state. The results of this test bear no relationship
to surface texture measurements. Vettermann drum test:
We used the standard ASTM test (D 5417-99) for char-
acterizing the texture retention property of carpets, with
three replicates for each carpet sample, and ran the test
for 5000 cycles. Higher measured values suggest better
texture retention. Ozone fastness: We measured color-
fastness to atmospheric ozone at high humidities as per
method 129 of the AATCC. Higher measured values
indicate better fastness properties. NOx fastness: We
FEBRUARY 2005 159

TABLE II. Construction particulars of the experimental carpet samples.

Sample Fiber Pile Pile weight, Weight Pile height,

S. no. ID type type Fluoropolymer oz/sq.yd rank inches

1 15 6 cut none 30.3 low 0.219

2 16 6 cut none 36.1 medium 0.25
3 19 6 cut none 41.7 high 0.281
4 32 6 cut treated 30.3 low 0.219
5 34 6 cut treated 36.1 medium 0.25
6 35 6 cut treated 41.7 high 0.281
7 20 6 loop treated 28.5 medium 0.156
8 21 6 loop none 28.5 medium 0.156
9 24 6 loop none 31.7 high 0.188
10 26 6 loop none 23.8 low 0.125
11 30 6 loop treated 31.7 high 0.188
12 36 6 loop treated 23.8 low 0.1
13 14 66 cut none 29.8 low 0.219
14 17 66 cut none 35.7 medium 0.25
15 18 66 cut none 42.1 high 0.281
16 28 66 cut treated 36.1 medium 0.25
17 29 66 cut treated 29.8 low 0.219
18 33 66 cut treated 42.1 high 0.281
19 22 66 loop none 32.2 high 0.188
20 23 66 loop treated 32.2 high 0.188
21 25 66 loop none 24.9 low 0.125
22 27 66 loop none 27.6 medium 0.156
23 31 66 loop treated 27.6 medium 0.156
24 37 66 loop treated 24.9 low 0.1

measured color fastness to nitrous oxides at high humid-
ities as per method 164 of the standard AATCC. Higher
measured values indicate better fastness. Resistance to
oil stains: Resistance to oil stains or oil repellency fol-
lowed AATCC method 118. Higher measured values
indicate better repellency. Water repellency: Resistance
to wetting or water repellency followed AATCC method
118. Higher measured values imply better repellency or
greater resistance to wetting. Soil repellency: We mea-
sured soil repellency following a method developed by
Solutia Inc., in which a water-based slurry is sprayed on
cut samples in a precisely controlled manner using an
apparatus designed and built by Solutia. The soil is the
standard soil supplied by 3M as per the requirements of
the AATCC soiling method 123. After wet soil applica-
tion, the samples are allowed to dry and then trafficked in
the Vettermann drum for 600 cycles. We then measured
color on both soiled and unsoiled carpets with a Minolta
chroma meter CR-210. The color difference between
soiled and unsoiled carpets is reported as delta E, which
is calculated as follows:
Delta E ⫽ 关共DL*兲2 ⫹ 共Da*兲2 ⫹ 共Db*兲2 兴1/ 2 , rameter, while the vertical line above and below the
where DL* ⫽ L* soiled ⫺ L* unsoiled, Da* ⫽ a* soiled
⫺ a* unsoiled, and Db* ⫽ b* soiled ⫺ b* unsoiled.
Lower measured values of delta E imply better soil
resistance.
Results and Discussion
PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF MEASURED PROPERTIES
Table III gives the measured performance properties
of the experimental carpets for light fastness, ozone
fastness, NOx fastness, oil repellency, water repellency,
soil repellency, thickness recovery, and surface texture
rating as measured by the Vettermann drum method.
Table IV indicates which of the carpet construction vari-
ables exert a statistically significant influence (95 %
confidence) on the measured performance properties and
which variables have no influence on the measured prop-
erties.
In addition to the statistical significance results given
in Table IV, we used a series of box plots to illustrate the
influence of different construction variables on perfor-
mance properties. Box plots display the entire distribu-
tion of each measured property parameter side by side
for different levels of the variable, as opposed to display-
ing only the mean or median values. The height of the
rectangle of each box plot represents the inter-quartile
range (mid 50% values) of the measured property pa-
rectangle represents the fourth and first quartiles. The
horizontal line inside the rectangle represents the median
value of the measured parameter. The absence of a
horizontal line inside the rectangle suggests that the
median coincides with the lines representing either the
160 TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL

TABLE III. Measured performance properties of the carpet samples.

Fiber Light Ozone NOx- Oil Water Soil 1-Hour 24-Hour V-drum
S. No. type fastness fastness fastness repellency repellency repellency recovery, % recovery, % reading

1 6 4 2 3 1 1 14.6 92.5 97.7 3.5

2 6 4 1.5 3 1 1 14.8 91.9 96.6 3.5
3 6 4 1.5 3 1 1 14.9 94 97.5 3.5
4 6 4 2.5 3 3 3 9.9 88.6 95.3 3.5
5 6 3.4 2.5 3.5 3 4 10.4 88.8 95.1 3.5
6 6 3.5 2.5 3 2 3 10.3 92.5 95.8 3.5
7 6 4 3 4 5 4 8 98.2 98.9 4
8 6 4 2 3.5 1 1 11.3 98.5 98.9 4
9 6 4 2.5 3 1 1 11.4 96.6 98.5 4
10 6 4 2 3.5 1 1 11 96.7 98.5 4
11 6 3.5 2.5 3.5 3 3 9.5 89.8 91.6 4
12 6 4 2.5 2.5 3 3 7.5 86.3 92.9 3.5
13 66 4 3 3.5 1 1 15.3 93.1 96 3.5
14 66 4 2 2 1 1 15.5 93.7 97.1 3.5
15 66 3.5 2 3 1 1 15.8 96 96 3.5
16 66 3 4 4.5 3 4 10.8 92.7 96.4 4
17 66 3 3 4 3 4 10.8 88.6 94.4 3.5
18 66 4 3 2.5 2 3 10.9 88.6 96 4
19 66 4 2.5 3 5 4 8.9 92.3 98.7 4.5
20 66 4 3 3 1 1 11.5 93.1 98.1 4.5
21 66 3.5 3 3.5 1 1 10.7 92 97.9 4
22 66 4 2.5 3.5 1 1 9.9 93 98.3 4.5
23 66 3.5 3.5 4 4 4 8.5 87.4 93.1 4.5
24 66 4 4 4 5 4 7.3 91.1 93.4 4

third or first quartiles. The printed numerical value inside
the rectangular box represents the mean. The asterisks
represent the outliers (values falling above and below
⫾ 3 ␴ limits).
Influence of fiber type on surface texture properties as
measured by Vettermann drum: From Figure 1, we see
that nylon 66 has a better texture retention property
compared to nylon 6 after 5000 cycles of loading in the
Vettermann drum tester. Table IV suggests that the ob-
served difference in the Vettermann drum reading be-
tween nylon 6 and nylon 66 fibers is statistically signif-
icant. Figure 2 suggests that pile type influences the
measured surface texture and that loop pile construction,
as expected, retains texture better than cut pile construc-
tion. From Figure 3, we see that pile weight also influ-
ences carpet texture and that the measured texture values
of the low pile weight carpets are significantly lower than
those of the medium and heavy pile weight carpets.
However, the measured texture values of the medium
and heavy pile weight carpets are identical, suggesting
that there may be a critical face weight beyond which
pile weight may not influence texture as measured by the
Vettermann drum. A separate analysis of the texture data
of cut and loop pile carpets shows that low pile weight
adversely affects the measured texture of both cut and
loop pile carpets, and the texture of the loop pile carpet
is more sensitive to low pile weights.
Influence of fiber type on ozone fastness: From Figure
4 and the corresponding significance value in Table IV,
it is clear that the ozone fastness property of nylon 66
carpets is superior to that of nylon 6 carpets. The behav-
ior is similar to observations made in a previous work
[8]. Figure 5 suggests that carpets treated with a flu-
oropolymer exhibit better ozone fastness compared to
untreated carpets.
Influence of fiber type on oil repellency: Table IV
shows that the observed difference in the measured val-
ues of oil repellency for nylon 66 and nylon 6 carpets is
not statistically significant. However, Table IV and Fig-
ure 6 suggest that oil repellency is positively influenced
by fluoropolymer treatment, with the treated carpets giv-
ing a mean repellency rating of 3.08 compared to a rating
of 1.33 for untreated carpets.
Influence of fiber type on water repellency: Table IV
suggests that water repellency is not influenced by fiber
type. However, the table also shows that water repel-
lency is significantly influenced by fluoropolymer treat-
ment, and this observation agrees with expectations.
Influence of fiber type on soil repellency: Soil repel-
lency is not influenced by fiber type. However, the two-
way ANOVA tests clearly reveal that soil repellency is
influenced by both pile type and fluoropolymer treat-
ment. With lower values for soil repellency, loop pile
carpets show better soil repellency compared to cut pile
carpets. Also carpets treated with fluorocarbon polymer
show better soil repellency compared to untreated car-
pets.
FEBRUARY 2005 161

TABLE IV. Table of statistical significance for 2-way ANOVA test

on measured properties.

P-value of Significance
Description of 2-way influencing at 95%
ANOVA test variables confidence

V-drum reading versus fiber fiber type-0.043 yes

type and pile weight pile weight-0.049 yes
interaction-0.908 no
V-drum reading versus fiber fiber type-0.063 no
type and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.781 no
interaction-0.408 no
V-drum reading versus fiber fiber type-0.003 yes
type and pile type pile type-0.000 yes
interaction-0.159 no
Ozone fastness versus fiber type fiber type-0.006 yes
and pile type pile type-0.223 no FIGURE 1. Influence fiber type on measured
interaction-0.859 no texture retention property.
Ozone fastness versus fiber type fiber type-0.000 yes
and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.000 yes
interaction-0.448 no
Soil repellency versus fiber type fiber type-0.828 no
and pile type pile type-0.001 yes
interaction-0.567 no
Soil repellency versus fiber type fiber type-0.828 no
and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.001 yes
interaction-0.565 no
Oil repellency versus fiber type fiber type-0.684 no
and pile type pile type-0.229 no
interaction-0.684 no
Oil repellency versus fiber type fiber type-0.612 no
and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.002 yes
interaction-0.400 no
Water repellency versus fiber fiber type-0.679 no
type and pile type pile type-0.890 no
interaction-0.890 no
Water repellency versus fiber fiber type-0.504 no
type and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.000 yes
FIGURE 2. Influence of pile type on measured
interaction-0.504 no
texture retention property.
NOx fastness versus fiber type fiber type-0.496 no
and pile type pile type-0.310 no
interaction-1.00 no
NOx fastness versus fiber type fiber type-0.475 no
and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.160 no
interaction-0.280 no
1-Hour recovery versus fiber fiber type-0.438 no
type and pile type pile type-0.397 no
interaction-0.197 no
1-Hour recovery versus fiber fiber type-0.368 no
type and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.004 yes
interaction-0.600 no
24-Hour recovery versus fiber fiber type-0.864 no
type and pile type pile type-0.660 no
interaction-0.836 no
24-Hour recovery versus fiber fiber type-0.827 no
type and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.002 yes
interaction-0.528 no
Light fastness versus fiber type fiber type-0.252 no
and pile type pile type-0.207 no
interaction-0.582 no FIGURE 3. Influence of pile weight on measured
Light fastness versus fiber type fiber type-0.231 no texture retention property.
and fluoropolymer fluoropolymer-0.058 no
interaction-0.949 no
However, in dealing with colorfastness, it is important to
remember that what applies to one dye need not be true
Influence of fiber type on color fastness to nitrous for other dyes. The results are therefore applicable only
oxides: Table IV suggests that the differences between for the acid dye system used in this study (Telon Blue
nylon 6 and 66 carpets are not statistically significant. BRL 200 and Telon Red 2BN 200).
162
FIGURE 4. Influence of fiber type on ozone fastness.
FIGURE 5. Influence of fluoropolymer treatment on ozone fastness.
FIGURE 6. Influence of fluoropolymer treatment on oil repellency.
Influence of fiber type on light fastness: Table IV
shows that light fastness is not influenced by fiber type.
Table IV also suggests that pile type has no influence on
the measured value of light fastness. Here again, it is
important to remember that the observed light fastness
behavior applies only to the dyes used in this study.
Influence of fiber type on thickness recovery from
applied static load: Table IV shows that neither 1-hour
recovery nor 24-hour recovery is influenced by fiber
type. The table also shows that pile type has no influence
TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL
on thickness recovery, but it is significantly lower for
fluoropolymer treated carpets, and this is true for both
1-hour and 24-hour thickness recoveries. Therefore, flu-
oropolymer treatment has a significant negative influence
on thickness recovery from an applied static load. As
stated earlier, the scope of this study is limited to iden-
tifying and quantifying the performance differences, and
we did not attempt to explore the underlying reasons for
the observed differences. New studies focusing on the
factors contributing to the reduced thickness recovery of
fluoropolymer treated carpets may be needed.
PREDICTIVE MODELS FOR SURFACE TEXTURE PROPERTY
AND OZONE FASTNESS PROPERTY
Since we noticed major differences in performance
properties between nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpets in terms
of texture retention and ozone fastness properties, we
attempted to develop predictive models for these two
properties. The two models and their respective param-
eters are as follows:
V-Drum Reading ⫽ 3.73 ⫺ 0.29 ⫻ Fiber Type ⫹ 0.54
⫻ Pile Type ⫹ 0.13 ⫻ Pile Weight . (1)
This model produced an R2 value of 0.78, with the
variable Fiber Type being significant at a p-value of
0.0012, Pile Type at 0.0001, and Pile Weight at 0.0158.
For the purpose of developing the models, we consid-
ered all three independent variables as categorical vari-
ables and coded them as follows: Fiber Type ⫽ 0 (nylon
66), Fiber Type ⫽ 1 (nylon 6), Pile Type ⫽ 0 (cut pile),
Pile Type ⫽ 1 (loop pile), Pile Weight ⫽ ⫺1 (low
weight), Pile Weight ⫽ 0 (mid weight), and Pile Weight
⫽ ⫹1 (high weight). Model 1 predicts a better surface
texture (higher Vettermann drum reading) for nylon 66
fiber type, for loop pile type, and for higher pile weights.
Ozone Fastness ⫽ 2.42 ⫺ 0.71 ⫻ Fiber Type ⫹ 0.79
⫻ Fluorocarbon ⫹ 0.29 ⫻ Pile Type ⫺ 0.16
⫻ Pile Weight . (2)
2
This model produced an R value of 0.77, and the vari-
able Fiber Type was significant at a p-value of 0.0001,
while Fluorocarbon was significant at 0.0001, Pile Type
at 0.0549, and Pile Weight at 0.0895.
The variable Fluorocarbon was coded as follows:
No Treatment ⫽ 0 ,
Treated ⫽ 1 .
This model, similar to the texture property model, ac-
counts for the advantages offered by nylon 66 carpets.
FEBRUARY 2005 163

NONPARAMETRIC EVALUATION OF TEXTURE the nine comparisons were made, another nine items
were judged for the next pair. All pairs of cut pile were
One of the major limitations to texture evaluation by judged before proceeding to the loop pile pairs. The
the CRI texture rating scale is that it represents an ordinal comparison schemes for the cut and loop pile carpets and
system, where carpet texture changes are compared to a the grader’s preferences for each comparison pair are
standard “best match” photograph. In addition, since this shown in Tables V and VI:
is an ordinal scale, a rating difference of x at the lower
end of the scale cannot be assumed to have the same
practical significance as the rating difference of x at the TABLE V. Paired comparison scheme for cut pile carpets.
higher end of the scale. Thus, even though the numerical Nylon (1–3) & nylon 66
difference between ratings 4 and 5 and ratings 2 and 3 is Cut pile comparisons (A–C)
the same, the practical significance of the two rating N6 v N66, Pair: Pair: Pair:
differences could be very different. For this reason, item #s preference preference preference
quantitative treatment (parametric evaluation) of ordinal
32 v 29 1vA: same 1vB: B 1vC: same 6/9 for N66
data can be somewhat misleading because they do not 2vA: same 2vB: B 2vC: C
fully reflect the actual quality differences. In addition, 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
there are situations where nonparametric evaluations 34 v 28 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
may serve the purpose better than parametric evaluations 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
[3– 4, 14 –15]. The superiority of human judges over 35 v 33 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
measuring instruments for picking up fabric streakiness 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
is described by Davis [4], “The most amazing fact about 15 v 14 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
streakiness is the small absolute lightness variation that 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
people perceive as objectionable in fabrics. People object 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
16 v 17 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
to streaks that are hardly detectable with instruments.” 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
Human judges often manage to pick up even minute 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
differences in texture between samples, thus making the 19 v 18 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
CRI texture rating less effective at resolving differences 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
between samples. Also, in the real world, consumers
make purchase decisions based on their own senses, and
so capturing what a human perceives is critical to com- TABLE VI. Paired comparison scheme for the loop pile carpets.
mercial development. Therefore, in this work, we chose
Nylon 6 (1–3) & nylon
to use the more discriminating characterization of paired Loop pile comparisons 66 (A-C)
comparison [3] of each nylon 66 carpet against its nylon
6 counterpart. We used the paired comparison approach N6 v N66, Pair: Pair: Pair:
item #s preference preference preference
to answer the question: Are there significant differences
in wear between matched nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpets? 36 v 37 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
We believe the method of paired comparisons is a pow- 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
erful statistical technique [3] to characterize head-to- 20 v 31 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
head contrasts, and it is superior to the CRI texture rating 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
scale in terms of relevance and usefulness. 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
30 v 23 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
Three replicate samples of each of the twenty-four 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
carpets that were subjected to 5000 wear cycles on the 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
Vettermann drum tester were used in the paired compar- 26 v 25 1vA: same 1vB: B 1vC: C 5/9 for N66
2vA: same 2vB: same 2vC: C
ison tests. Samples representing the same construction 3vA: A 3vB: same 3vC: C
parameters were chosen as a pair for the paired compar- 24 v 22 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
ison. Each nylon 6 replicate was labeled 1, 2, or 3, and 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
each nylon 66 replicate A, B, C. All nine possible com- 21 v 27 1vA: A 1vB: B 1vC: C 9/9 for N66
binations of the nylon 6 versus 66 contrasts (1 versus A, 2vA: A 2vB: B 2vC: C
2 versus A, . . . 3 versus C, etc.) were presented to the 3vA: A 3vB: B 3vC: C
grader (a person skilled in the art of judging wear) to
judge the extent of wear (or the texture grade), following
a blind procedure. Within a particular pair being tested, Table V shows that in the blind comparison involving
the nine comparisons were selected randomly, and after matched pairs, the expert grader preferred nylon 66 car-
164
pets 50 out of 54 times in the case of cut pile carpets and
showed equal preference for both nylon 6 and 66 carpets
4 out of 54 times. Table VI shows that the expert grader
preferred nylon 66 carpets 50 out of 54 times in the case
of loop pile carpets and showed equal preference for both
nylon 6 and 66 carpets 4 out of 54 times. Thus, the grader
overwhelmingly preferred nylon 66 carpets compared to
nylon 6 carpets, and the preferences were identical for
the cut pile and loop pile carpets.
Conclusions
A full factorial evaluation of the performance proper-
ties of nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpets involving the most
common construction variables has revealed that nylon
66 carpets provide better texture retention and better
colorfastness to ozone compared to nylon 6 carpets.
In a blind comparison test involving matched pairs, an
expert grader overwhelmingly prefers nylon 66 carpets
(50 times out of 54) over nylon 6 carpets. However, we
must remember that the texture comparisons are not
between optimally designed nylon 6 and 66 carpets, and
preferences can differ substantially when two sets of
optimally designed carpets are compared. It is also im-
portant to remember that nylon 66 fibers generally cost
more than nylon 6 fibers, and the possibility exists for
nylon 6 carpets to match the texture preference of nylon
66 carpets on the basis of fiber cost parity.
There are no significant differences in performance
properties between nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpets in terms
of colorfastness to nitrous oxides, thickness recovery
from prolonged static load application, oil repellency,
water repellency, and soil repellency.
As expected, fluoropolymer treatment of nylon signif-
icantly improves water repellency, oil repellency, and
soil repellency properties. However, fluoropolymer treat-
ment also accounts for reduced thickness recovery from
prolonged static load application. This work does not
focus on understanding the reasons for the reduced thick-
ness recovery shown by the fluoroploymer treated car-
pets, and further work may be necessary to understand
this behavior.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to gratefully acknowledge the help of Invista娂
nylon commercial flooring in providing test materials
and partial financial support for this work.
TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL
Literature Cited
1. Beyerlein, A., Nylon Fiber Facts, Clemson University,
Clemson, SC, unpublished report.
2. Danford, M. D., Spruiell, J. E., and White, J. L., Structure
Development in the Melt Spinning of Nylon 66 Fibers and
Comparison to Nylon 6, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 22, 3351
(1978).
3. David, H. A., “The Method of Paired Comparisons,” 2nd
ed., Oxford University Press, NY, 1988.
4. Davis, H., McGregor, R., Pastore, C., and Timble, N.,
Human Perception and Fabric Streakiness, Textile Res. J.
66, 533–544 (1996).
5. Dumbleton, J. H., and Buchanan, D. R., A Comment on the
Crystal Moduli of Nylon 6 and Nylon 66, Polymer 9, 61
(1968).
6. Han, L., Wakida, T., and Takagishi, T., Changes in Fine
Structure and Dyeing Behavior of Nylon 6, Nylon 66, and
PET Fibers Treated with Superheated Steam, Textile Res.
J. 57, 519 –522 (1987).
7. Horsfall, G. A., Factors Influencing the Daylight Photo-
degradation of Nylon 66, Nylon 6, and Polyester in Com-
mercial Fabrics, Textile Res. J. 52, 197–205 (1982).
8. Jellinik, H. H. G., and Choudhury, A. K., Inhibited Deg-
radation of Nylon 66 in the Presence of Nitrogen Dioxide,
Ozone, Air, and Near Ultraviolet Radiation, J. Polym. Sci.
Part A-1 Polym. Chem. 10, 1773–1788 (1972).
9. Leung, W. P., Ho, K. H., and Choy, C. L., Mechanical
Relaxations and Moduli of Oriented Nylon 66 and Nylon
6, J. Polym. Sci. 22, 1173 (1984).
10. Makansi, M., Perception and Control of Fabric Streaks,
Textile Res. J. 57, 495–502 (1987).
11. Montgomery, D. C., “Design and Analysis of Experi-
ments,” 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1991.
12. Prevorsek, D. C., and Chin, H. B., Intrinsic Differences
Between Nylon 6 and Nylon 66 Industrial Fibers: Micro-
mechanical and Molecular Analysis, Int. J. Polym. Mater.
25, 161 (1994).
13. Schmitz, F. P., Mroszewski, K. D., and Rossbach, V., On
The Thermal Mobility of the Amino End Groups of Poly-
amides 6 and 66, Makromol. Chem. 184, 184 (1983).
14. Slater, K., Subjective Textile Testing, J. Textile Inst. 88,
79 –91 (1997).
15. Wang, J., and Wood, E. J., A New Method for Measuring
Carpet Texture Change, Textile Res. J. 64, 215–224
(1994).
16. Werny, F., The Floor Performance of Synthetic Polymers
Currently Used in Carpet Fibers, Carpet Rug Ind. 6, 38
(1995).
Manuscript received January 16, 2004; accepted March 12, 2004.