Colorfastness Testing and Dye Lot Tracking Log - Textiles

This template records laundering colorfastness and crocking or rub fastness results for textile samples tied to a specific dye lot and production roll. It also captures the test method, controls, specimen details, photos, and final lot disposition. Use it when you need a repeatable record that links lab or QC results back to the exact material shipped or held.

Use this log when the key question is whether a fabric or finished textile meets a color-related customer specification or label claim. It is especially useful for incoming fabric review, pre-production approval, lot release, complaint investigation, and supplier scorecards. A general quality form usually does not capture the method details, control fabrics, or traceability needed for colorfastness decisions.

Log it whenever a new dye lot, fabric lot, or production roll is sampled for verification, and again if a customer complaint or process change requires retesting. Many teams also use it at first article, before bulk release, and during supplier qualification. The right cadence depends on the risk of shade variation, the product end use, and the customer specification.

A trained QC technician, lab technician, or quality inspector should complete the log, with review by a supervisor or quality manager for failed lots. The person running the test should understand the chosen method, specimen preparation, and grading scale. If the result affects a label claim or release decision, the approving reviewer should be clearly identified.

The template is built to record method details for common textile colorfastness procedures, including laundering and crocking tests such as AATCC methods. It can also be adapted to customer-specific test plans, internal specifications, or other recognized textile test standards. The key is to document the exact method used so results are defensible and repeatable.

The biggest issues are missing dye lot or roll numbers, unclear sample orientation, and recording results without the test conditions that produced them. Teams also forget to note whether a reference fabric or control was used, or they skip photo evidence when the result is borderline. Another common pitfall is treating a failed result as a standalone defect instead of documenting the non-conformance and disposition.

Yes. You can add fields for fiber content, finish type, shade band, customer code, or internal approval status without changing the core traceability structure. Many teams also create variants for knit, woven, dyed yarn, or printed goods so the same log works across product lines. Keep the result fields consistent so trends can still be compared across programs.

This log can sit alongside lot release records, non-conformance reports, CAPA, and supplier quality files. If your system supports attachments or integrations, link the log to sample IDs, production orders, and photo evidence so the record is easy to audit later. The main goal is to preserve the chain from test result to lot decision without relying on memory or scattered spreadsheets.

Record the failed grade, the affected lot, and the exact specification that was not met, then document the disposition. Typical actions include hold, rework, rewash, supplier notification, or customer review depending on the product and contract terms. The template is designed to make that follow-up visible instead of leaving the failure as an unassigned note.