{"id":147382,"date":"2023-07-26T10:44:16","date_gmt":"2023-07-26T08:44:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/concentrol.com\/comparing-defoamers-for-ecological-fabric-softener-why-is-emultrol-dfm-dv-1-s-the-best\/"},"modified":"2025-07-23T13:23:16","modified_gmt":"2025-07-23T11:23:16","slug":"comparing-defoamers-for-ecological-fabric-softener-why-is-emultrol-dfm-dv-1-s-the-best","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hosting175685eu-cp704.wordpresstemporal.com\/zh-hans\/comparing-defoamers-for-ecological-fabric-softener-why-is-emultrol-dfm-dv-1-s-the-best\/","title":{"rendered":"Comparing defoamers for ecological fabric softener: why is EMULTROL DFM DV-1 S the best?"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”687143″]With the goal of continuously enhancing its solutions, Concentrol has a specialized department comprising professionals from various specialties. This team is exclusively dedicated to <\/span>conducting comparative studies aimed at optimizing and improving chemical solutions<\/b>, striving to create more complete products with superior properties for each professional sector.<\/span><\/p>\n

Recently, the Concentrol R+D+i team conducted an investigation to <\/span>evaluate the effectiveness of different defoamers over time in an ecological softener<\/b> available in the market. The defoamers tested included: EMULTROL DFM OLV-55 FG, EMULTROL DFM DV-1 and EMULTROL DFM DV-1 S.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Antifoam<\/b><\/td>\nBase<\/b><\/td>\nSolids, %<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
EMULTROL DFM OLV-55 FG<\/span><\/i><\/td>\nVegetable oils<\/span><\/td>\n100<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
EMULTROL DFM DV-1<\/span><\/i><\/td>\nSilicone<\/span><\/td>\n17<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
EMULTROL DFM DV-1 S<\/span><\/i><\/td>\nSilicone<\/span><\/td>\n28<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

To assess the effectiveness of these defoamers, macrofoam tests based on the gas injection method were performed. A 20% aqueous solution of eco-softener without defoamers served as the foaming medium. Additionally, the surface appearance of the softener was compared with each of the defoamers used.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Concentrol methodology<\/b><\/p>\n

The first step of the study involved the <\/span>gas injection method<\/b>. 200 mL of softener were measured in a 1000 mL beaker at an ambient temperature of 25 \u00b0C, with magnetic stirring at 400 rpm. Subsequently, a dose of 0.025% of the corresponding antifoam was added (equivalent to a single drop). The preparation was visually monitored to detect possible incompatibilities, and gas was injected through a gas diffuser (Pressure 1 kg\/cm\u00b2 and flow rate 0.1 L\/min). The volume of foam formed was measured at 30-second intervals for up to 15 minutes.<\/span><\/p>\n

The second step consisted of <\/span>analyzing the surface appearance<\/b>. Prior to gas injection and after adding the drop of antifoam, the mixture was gently stirred with a laboratory stirrer to incorporate the antifoam. After standing for 30 seconds, the surface appearance of the 20% aqueous softener dilution was compared with each of the antifoams.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Study results<\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

The graph illustrates the difference in foam volume formed over time with different defoamers on a 20% softener base.<\/span><\/p>\n

As observed in the control test, represented with a black line, a rapid increase in foam volume occurs, whereas in the tests with the different Concentrol antifoams, a consistent foam level can be maintained without significant differences in the first two minutes.<\/span><\/p>\n

The conclusions drawn from this study are as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n