The chlorine-Hercosett process has been dominant in the wool shrink-proofing industry for more than 30 years. Hypochlorite breaks the hydrophobic nature of wool surface; Hercosett (cationic polyamide epichlorhydrin resin) covers wool and prevents wool from shrinking. From today's modem point of view, however, the chlorineHercosett process shows a number of drawbacks which make the search for an ecologically clean alternative worthwhile: poor handle, yellowing of wool, difficulties in dyeing and most importantly today, environmental impact (rdlease of absorbable organic halogens- AOX to the effluents). As a result, many researches have been carried out for Non-AOX rapid oxidation of wool. Potassium peroxomonosulphate (PMS), hydrogen peroxide and some per acids have been concerned as possible alternatives, but only little commercial successes. It was well known that Hercosett will not deposit on the PMS or hydrogen peroxide treated wool. The key difference. in terms of polymer compatibility between chlorinated and PMS, hydrogen peroxide treated wool is the surface energy (wettability). Surface energy has influence on the spreading properties of Hercosett and wool/polymer interfacial adhesion. Resent researches have shown that this difference is associated with the removal of a fatty acid (lipid), namely IS-methyleicosanoic acid (IS-MEA), which is thought to be chemically bound to the surface of wool fibre by a thio-ester linkage. In common words, chlorination can remove this fatty acid but PMS and hydrogen peroxide treatments can not. The wool shrink-proofing research in this thesis is f