Textile technology: Cotton fiber chemical differences and their effect on friction behavior: A comparison of two crop years in the ATMI/ARS Leading Cultivars Study

Journal of Cotton Science

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 56-64

  Gamble, Gary R ^a  

^a USDA ARS Cotton Quality Research Station   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GOSSYPIUM HIRSUTUM;

COTTON; FIBER; FRICTION;

EID: 27244433123     PISSN: 15243303     EISSN: 15243303     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1997. Standard test method for micronaire reading of cotton fibers (D1448-97). In Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol. 07.01. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
2. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2001. Standard test method for moisture in cotton by oven drying (D2495-01). In Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Vol. 07.01. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA.
3. Basu, S., A. Hamza, and J.Sikorski. 1978. The friction of cotton fibers. J. Textile Inst. 69(2): 68-75.
4. El Moghazy, Y., R. Broughton, and H. Guo. 1998. Evaluating staple fiber processing propensity. Part I: Processing propensity of cotton fibers. Textile Res. J. 68(11):835-840.
5. Gamble, G.R. 2003. Variation in surface chemical constituents of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) fiber as a function of maturity. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:7995-7998.
6. Gamble, G.R. 2004a. Implications of surface chemistry on cotton fiber processing. J. Cotton Sci. 8:198-204 [Online]. Available at http://www.cotton.org/journal/200408/3/198.cfm
7. Gamble, G.R. 2004b. The relationship between fiber maturity and moisture content. p. 2327-2330. In Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Conf., San Antonio, TX. 5-9 Jan. 2004. Natl. Cotton Counc. Am., Memphis, TN.
8. Ghosh, S., J.E. Rodgers, and A.E. Ortega.1992. RoterRing measurement of fiber cohesion and bulk properties of staple fiber. Textile Res. J. 62:608-613.
9. Hussain, G., and R. Nachane. 1998. Friction on cotton fibers. Ind. Textile J. 109(2): 22-24.
10. Kongdee, A., T. Bechtold., E. Burtscher, and M. Scheinecker. 2004. The influence of wet/dry treatment on pore structure- the correlation of pore parameters, water retention and moisture regain values. Carbohydrate Polymers 57:39-44.
11. Mihranyan, A., A.P. Llagostera, R. Karmhag, M. Stromme, and E. Ragnar. 2004. Moisture sorption by cellulose powders of varying crystallinity. Int. J. Pharm. 269:433-442.
12. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association - National Weather Service (NOAA-NWS). 2005. Southern Region Headquarters. Available online at http://www.srh.noaa.gov (verified 22 Mar. 2005).
13. Nelson, M.L., and R.T. O'Connor. 1964. Relation of certain infrared bands to cellulose crystallinity and crystal lattice type. Part II. A new infrared ratio for estimation of crystallinity in celluloses I and II. J. Appl. Polymer. Sci. 8:1325-1341.
14. O'Connor, R.T., E.F. DuPre, and D. Mitcham. 1958. Applications of infrared absorption spectroscopy to investigations of cotton and modified cottons. Part I: Physical and crystalline modifications and oxidation. Textile Res. J. 28:382-392.