Determination of cotton fiber finenessand maturity by different methods

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Aşici, Irfan, 1934-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 29/08/2021 12:37:34

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/347707

DETERMINATION OF COTTON FIBER FINENESS AND MATURITY BY DIFFERENT METHODS

byIrfan A^xcx

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of theDEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree ofMASTER OF SCIENCE

In the Graduate CollegeTHE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1 9 7 0

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfill­ment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Libraryo

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowl­edgment of source is ma d e « 'Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the inter­ests of scholarshipo In ail other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author«,

This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

SIGNED:/

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR

Dat eAssociate Professor of Agronomy

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to Dr e Robert E e Briggs for his advice 9 assistance 9 and encouragement with this study*

The author further wishes to thank Dr* Robert E* Dennis and Dr * L * N * Wright for their constructive criticism and suggestions during the review of the manu­script o '

Special thanks are also extended to Dr* A * B * Humphrey for his assistance in the statistical analyses of the data and to Dr * Lee S * Stith for his help during this study* -

The author is indebted to the Turkish Government for making this study possible in the United States of America *

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viLIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . T . . . . . . . . . . viiiA. IBS T? IRA.CTD © © © © © © © © © © ® © © © © © © © © © © © i!XINTRODUCXION © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 1REVIEW OF LITERATURE © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 3MATERIAL AND METHODS © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © l4

General Statement © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 14First Methods Standard Micronaire Test © © © © l4Second Method: Micronaire Test With A

0.5-inch Spacer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Third Method: The Causticaire Test . . . . . . 19

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Fiber Fineness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Fiber Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

SUMMARY AND" CONCLUSIONS . „ „ .. . . .... . . . . . . . 52APPENDIX A. AVERAGE TEST VALUES OF TWO SAMPLES

OF DpSL AND HOPICALA OVER ALL FERTILIZATION, IRRIGATION,

. SPACING, AND HARVESTING VARIABLES . . 54APPENDIX B. AVERAGE MATURITY INDEX OF TWO

TEST SAMPLES OF DpSL AND HOPICALA OBTAINED FROM THE CAUSTICAIRE MATURITY AND THE 1/2-INCH SPACER TESTS OVERALL TREATMENTS , . . . . . . . . . . 59

. i v : ’ ' • : '

TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued

APPENDIX C<

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

PageAVERAGE TEST VALUES OF COTTON

FIBER FROM 2 CULTIVARS GROWN UNDER 3 FERTILIZATION LEVELS OVER 2 IRRIGATION AND SPACINGTREATMENTS AND 11 HARVEST WEEKS „ 0,0 64

AVERAGE TEST VALUES OF COTTON FIBER FROM 2 CULTIVARS GROWN UNDER 2 IRRIGATION LEVELS OVER 3 FERTILIZER AND 2 SPACING TREAT­MENTS, AND 11 HARVEST WEEKS « . „ = „ 66

AVERAGE TEST VALUES OF 2 CULTIVARS FROM 11 HARVEST WEEKS OVER 3 FERTILIZER, 2 IRRIGATION ANDSPACING TREATMENTS „ . „ 0 , . „ , » 68

LITERATURE CITED . . « » , . . , , . . , « = „ . » „ 69

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page1 o The Model 60-P Micronaire (left) with

the 0 o 5-inch spacer in place <, <, 0 <> 0 0 o <> l82 e Equipment used for NaOH treatment o 223 o . Micronaire indexes of cotton fiber from

two cultivars grown under three fertilizer levels over two irrigation and spacing treatments and 11 harvestwe ek s © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 2 6

4 © Micronaire indexes of cotton fiber fromtwo cultivars grown under two irrigation levels over three fertilizer and two spacing treatments and 11harvest weeks © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 27

5 o Micronaire indexes of cotton fiberharvested from two cultivars and11 harvest weeks over three . ,fertilizer, two irrigation andspacing treatments © © © © © © © © © © © © © 29

6 © Causticaire fineness indexes of cottonfiber from two cultivars grown under three fertilizer levels over two irrigation and spacing treatmentsand 11 harvest weeks © © © © © © © © © © © © 31

7 © Causticaire fineness indexes of cottonfiber from two cultivars grown under two irrigation levels over three fertilizer and two spacing treatmentsand 11 harvest weeks © © © © © © © © © © © © 3^

8 © Causticaire fineness indexes of cottonfiber from two cultivars and 11 harvest weeks over three fertilizer, twoirrigation and spacing treatments © © © © © 35

vi

VllLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS— Continued

Figure9 o Scatter diagram of paired fineness values

of fiber tested by the Micronaire and Causticaire methods , « « e o » » o o

10 o Average Causticaire maturity indexes ofDpSL and Hopicala from three fertilizer levels over two irrigation and spacing treatments 9 and 11 harvest weeks o o o o o o o o o o o e o o o 42

1 1 o Average Causticaire maturity indexes ofDpSL and Hopicala obtained from 11 harvest weeks over three fertilizer9two irrigation and spacing treatments o o <> 43

1 2 o Spacer maturity^indexes of cotton fiberfrom two cultivars grown under three fertilizer levels over two irrigation and spacing treatments 9 and 11 harvesttv e ek s @ @ o o © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 46

13 o Spacer maturity indexes of DpSL andHopicala obtained from 11 harvest weeks over three fertilizer 9 twoirrigation and spacing treatments. © ©.© © © 47

l4© Scatter diagram of paired values ofmaturity indexes of fiber tested by the Causticaire and the 0 © 5-inchspacer methods @ © © © © © © © © © © © © © 51

Page

39

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. .

2 a

3o

4.

5.o .

6 o

7o

8.

9 o

PageCotton samples tested including the week

of harvest and the cultural treatmentsused during production of the crop <> * o 0 «, 15

Analysis of variance with the least . ; square method for the Micronaire testfor fiber fineness o o o o o o o o o o ® o 25

Least square analysis of variance forthe Causticaire fineness test » o c » 30

Comparative values of fiber fineness obtained from the Micronaire and theCaustic air e tests , <, <, » e o o ® o o 36

Correlation coefficient and covariance for fiber fineness obtained from the Micronaire and the Causticaire fineness -teStS o o o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o o e 36

Analysis of variance by the leastsquare method of fiber maturity values as determined by the Causticaire test » • » . 4l

Analysis of variance by the least square method of fiber maturity values asdetermined by the spacer test » o » *, o » » 45

Correlation coefficient and covariance of fiber maturity values obtained from the Causticaire and spacer tests « o o . o 48

Comparative values of fiber maturity .values obtained from the Causticaireand spacer tests « ® ® * o o o o ® ® o o * o 49

vxxx

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to determine two methods for measuring cotton fiber fineness and maturity» The Micronaire and the Causticaire tests were used to evaluate fiber fineness• Fiber maturity was determined with the Causticaire test and the Micronaire with a Oo^-inch spacer.

The results of the statistical values, standard deviation, analysis of variance, and the correlation coefficient indicated that both the Micronaire and the Causticaire fineness tests can be used for measuring fiber fineness. The Causticaire test gave more satisfactory results for testing cotton fiber maturity than the Micronaire with a 0 .5-inch spacer. The Causticaire test could, therefore, be used both in fiber fineness and maturity tests.

This study suggested the need for further experi­mentation with the Micronaire with spacers for the determination of fibber maturity. ,

INTRODUCTION

Fiber fineness is one of the most important characteristics of cotton lint« One method to determine fiber fineness is the Micronaire test wliich indicates coarseness or fineness » One weakness of the Micronaire is that a low reading«, which indicates fineness 9 may actually be due to immature cotton«,

Another important fiber property is maturity* This' • - •

characteristic is important when blending different types of cotton fibers before processing <> The greater the amount of mature fibers used in yarn production, the better the textile processing and dyeing performance« Mature fibers also increase the quality of the textile due to less neps0

Maturity refers to the thickness of the fiber wall in relation to the width of the lumen, the central cavity of a fiber* Fibers whose lumen width is less than twice that of the wall are considered mature, and those having a lumen more than twice the wall width are considered immature * Cotton fiber maturity has been measured by different methods that include use of the microscope, x- rays, polarized light, and differential dyeing* The maim disadvantage of these methods is that they are time consuming, thus expensive* Two relatively recent methods

for testing fiber maturity are the Cansticaire test and the Micronaire with a 0.5-inch spacer»

The objective of this study was to evaluate two testing methods for determining both fineness and maturity of cotton fiber. Fiber fineness values as determined by the Micronaire and Causticaire tests were compared®Maturity was evaluated using the Causticaire and the 0 ®5- inch spacer tests® The fiber used in this study was from two cultivars that had been produced using several differ­ent irrigation9 fertilizer9 and spacing treatments® This provided an excellent source of material to study the testing methods using a wide range of fiber quality®

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Cotton fiber 9 one of the most important materials used in the textile industry, is a single-celled outgrowth of an epidermal cell of the seed coat (37)° Fiber growth and development takes place in two different phases, cell elongation and cell wall thickening (1 , 3 v 5 9 2 9 , 37 9 48,5 1 ).

The elongation period includes primary wall devel­opment while the cell attains its final 1ength» The pri­mary wall is a very thin layer (0«3p,), and mainly consists of fibrillar cellulose deposited in a spiral framework being present with several organic substances (40, 44)* Accord­ing to many workers (1 , 4, 7 , 19 9 27 9 33)? fiber elongation including the formation of the primary wall is completed in 15 to 25 days * This period is influenced by variety and environmental factors »

Cell wall thickening, which is the second phase of fiber growth, usually occurs within 40 to 45 days' after elongation stops (3)° The fibril-like cellulose is deposited in spiral layers at approximately a 20 to 30 degree angle with the long axis of the fiber, while the- primary wall deposition is 70 degrees (1)*

The first cellulose deposited during wall thicken­ing covers the inner surface of the primary wall*:

' . • . 4Succeeding layers occur at right or left angles as revers­ible strands (37) o According to Clegg and IIarland (17)9 and Morton and Hearle (38)9 the fibril-like cellulose changes its direction at the turning point? where convolu­tions exists when the fiber cell dies, This inward thick­ening does not change the original fiber diameter*

Secondary thickening takes place until a few days before the boll opens 9 but it does not fill t h e .entire cavity (29)» According to Anderson and Kerr (1)9 fiber length is approximately 1200 times longer than its diameter• The degree of secondary growth of early and late season samples show a relationship between fiber properties based on fiber development * Fibers developed in the early part of the growing season are more mature than late season cotton9 due to high cellulose deposition (37)*

Balls (3) was the first person to report that a cotton fiber shows a series of rings in its cross section*He referred to this secondary wall formation as daily growth rings o' Berriman (4) and Berriman and Benedict (5 ) reported that this series of rings resulted from daily cellulose deposition* Dark rings resulted from daytime growth; light r i n g s .from growth at night (25)* Grant and Orr (27 ) concluded that temperature was more effective on the ring formation and fiber maturation than light«

Clegg and Harland (17) reported that fibers collapse from dehydration after the boll opens * Immature fibers

■ " " “ ■ 5 become a ribbon-like shape while mature fibers twistresulting in a convoluted appearance* Convolutions are the characteristic shape of the cotton fiber which changes its direction frequently along the longitudinal axis of the fiber * Balls (3) observed that reversal convolutions coincide with fibrillar reversals*

According to Hearle and Peters (29)9 immature fibers^ which are ribbon-like 9 have less rigidity, and tend to form more neps* Simpson, Landstreet, and Duncan (43) reported no significant effect in the spinning process with a 1 to 1 ratio of blended mature and immature fibers *

Booth ( 6 ) reported that for many purposes, fiber length is often taken as a criterion in the spinning pro­cess, but fiber fineness is important in classification of cotton for yarn production* Booth ( 6 ) and Morton and Hearle (38) found that finer fibers gave more uniform and stronger yarn than coarse fibers * Finer fibers have greater inter-fiber contact to increase yarn strength * According to Leitgeb and Wackham (33)9 yarn made from finer fibers does not need many twists to obtain its greatest strength*

Maturity and fineness of cotton fiber should be described separately* Fiber., fineness is generally defined as the weight per unit length* The lower the weight pen unit length the finer the fiber, and vice versa (1 2 , 22 9,35)° Cotton fiber maturity is generally considered to be the result of the thickening of the secondary wall do, 35)«

6The degree of secondary wall thickening compared with the central cavity or lumen 9 gives, its maturation value (12 9 37 f 48) e A fiber with a thin secondary wall is assumed to be an immature fiber o Whereas 9 a fiber with a thick secondary wall is considered a mature fiber®

Lord (3^) reported that fibers obtained from two different cultivars may have the same fineness^ but may be different according to their . weight <,

According to Brown and Graham (8) and Sullivan and Hertel (43), the accepted general method to determine fiber fineness is to divide the fiber weight by their mean length times the number of fibers 9 which gives the average weight per unit-length per individual-fiber ®

Lee and Hernandez (32) and Raes and Fransen (42) reported that the term "fiber fineness" can be replaced by the determination of the specific surface 9 or estimated weight per inch» According to Carpenter and Lee (13)? the specific surface area has a direct relation on the mean fiber-weight per unit-length®

Extensive studies have shown that fiber fineness is important in respect to yarn appearance ( 6 ? 15 > 28)v Fiber fineness is one of the distinguishing attributes of- a cotton cultivar® Cultivars which have short fiber are normally coarser than long fibered cultivars (12\ 33)*

Many researchers including Pfeiffenberger (4l)r Sullivan and Hertel (45)? and Webb and Burley (49) have1

proposed that the surface area per gram of cotton fiber should be used as a measure of fiber fineness o A few workers have devised different methods of applying the general principle, which primarily depends upon the resistance of the air flow through a known weight of fibers which are compressed to constant density in the form of a porous plug o Five types, of instruments using this principle have been developed« They are %

1 o The Kendall-Mill Porosity Meter (40)2 o The Schiefer-Frazier Fabric Permeability Tester,

as adapted by Pfeiffenberger (4l) for testingcotton fineness and given the name "Permeamet ert!

3 o The Arealometer which was developed by Hertel andCraven (30) .

4 o The Micronaire instrument (2) manufactured by theSheffield Corporation, Dayton, Ohio

■ ' ■' 15« The Fibronaire, developed by Motion Control, Inc«

The resistance to air flow, offered by a given mass of cotton with a given weight in a known volume, depends upon the surface area of fibers (l 4 , 4l)o However, the surface area per unit mass of fibers depends upon the number of fibers in that mass and the mean fiber diameter as well as fiber maturity and the number of fiber convolu­tions (9 9 32, 39)<> Hence, the resistance offered by a

1 o Motion Control, Inc., 7128 Envoy Ct », Dallas, Texas 75247*

' . ■■ . . 8 given mass of cotton to air flow varies with the fiberdiameter, weight, length, and convolutions e Thus, fiberwith larger diameter and larger mean fiber weight per unithas much less specific surface than fiber with small meanfiber weight« Consequently, fibers with wider diametersoffer less resistance to air flow, resulting in higherMicronaire readings (20, 21, 30)o

The Micronaire, while useful in fiber quality evaluation, does not always provide valid data* Lord (36) reported that two cottons may have the same maturity, b u t . differ in their specific surface area, due to differences in fiber diameter. Two cultivars may have the same fiber weight per unit-length, but differ in fiber maturity* More mature fiber of a given cultivar will give a higher Micronaire reading than a less mature one» Lord also pointed out low readings for American-Egyptian cotton would be biased*

Chapman (15) concluded that a fine fiber, with relatively small fiber diameter, might have a thick secondary wall resulting in a mature and fine fiber*

A cotton cultivar with a larger mean fiber weight than 5 °0 micrograms per inch, of fiber is considered more: mature and vice versa (37)* In comparing cultivars, one? therefore has to know the normal Micronaire value of mature fibers for those cultivars (3^> 42)* Furthermore, Gatesand Jennings (23) have shown that temperature^ relative

9 :

humidity 9 and the evaluation of different machine operators may change the results obtained.

It is generally accepted that longer fibers arefiner than shorter ones (12 9 42). The variation of the

: . ' . test results of fiber fineness will affect the use of rawcotton in the textile industry, particularly in yarnproduction ( 6 ), and the dyeing process (36). An increasein the nep counts of yarn is often associated with adecrease in maturity value or with an increase in fiberfineness. To prevent this, more mature or coarser fibers .are used in combination with finer fibers, if the percentageof immature fibers in the sample is known (6 ) 0 However,such blending gives undesirable results in the dyeingprocess due to variation of shades between mature andimmature fibers (36).

Leitgeb and Wackham (33) reported that finer fibers have both advantages and disadvantages in processing per­formance. The advantages are higher rowing and yarn strength, better spinnability, and lower twist required for maximum yarn strength. The disadvantages are more neps in yarn and textile and more processing waste.

The increased use of. instruments by industries for the classification of cotton fibers necessitated a need for uniform testing within and between different laboratories (31)0 Thus, the criticism of evaluation of cotton fiber for fineness and maturity has to be done in such a way that

. ̂ ^ -:-. ' '' -10 .both characteristics should be determined through one■method. Webb and Richardson (50) emphasized the urgentneed of a new method which could be more effective andreliable for measuring fiber maturity. There are tworelatively recent testing methods for evaluation of cottonfiber maturity and fineness9 which are primarily concernedwith the use of the Micronaire instrument.

Burley and Bartmess (10) 9 Gaus and Burley (24) 9 andWebb and Burley (^9) reported that the Causticaire methodhas given desirable results. With this method 9 maturity -

• » . . ■ and fineness can be predicted by using the standardMicronaire instrument before and after treating sampleswith a solution of l8% sodium hydroxide (NaOH)9 which isequivalent to 40 Twandell (Tw).

Most methods have failed to determine the degree ofcell thickening of cotton fiber. The Causticaire methodeliminates this weakness (10 9 15 9 2 4 9 49). When a cottonfiber is treated with a solution of l8% NaOH9 the celluloseswells and the fiber becomes tube-like. The degree of thisswelling depends upon the thickness of the fiber wall

(11, 49). "

Calvert and Summers (11) observed that when a cotton fiber is treated with NaOH, swelling takes place inward and outward, while the fiber loses its convolutions. The NaOH solution is capable of penetrating between the microfibrils of cellulose, and it can also penetrate into the

-v;: ■ n ■.microcapillary spaces between the chain bundles« This allows the fiber to swell» Further swelling would take place if the solution could penetrate between the chain and break the secondary valences between the hydroxile groupo This penetration is proportional with .the percentage of solution but further increases of NaOH concentration does not increase penetration. Thus, swelling increases the original width of the dried fiber. After treatment and drying, the lumen of the fiber does not.collapse again.

Goldthwait (26) reported that fiber length shrinks 15 t o . T9% after NaOH treatment. This shrinkage depends upon the type of fiber including maturity and cultivar differences. He reported that Sea Island cotton fibers . shrank more (26%) and Indian types least (11%) ..

According to, Webb and Burley (49) and Calvert and Summers (ll), an l8% NaOH solution was the best concentra­tion to use for fiber swelling. Goldthwait (26) reported that a NaOH solution less than 1.3% and more than 20% had less effect on fiber shrinkage than solutions between 13 to 20%.

Webb and Burley (49) found that the best time period for samples treated with NaOH solution was 15 minutes.Peters (4o) reported that the l8% NaOH solution did not affect cellulose, unless fibers were treated with a high con­centration of hot NaOH solution. Although, NaOH solutions are not good surface active agents like detergents and soap?

rapid penetration of l8% NaOH into fiber cellulose takes place in the first 15 minutes <, Whereas 9 Calvert and Summers (11) found that a 2? -1% NaOH solution showed very slow contraction or intake, while a 36•7% solution had very little effecto Webb and Burley (49) suggested using a 1 to 2% wetting agent (by volume) in order to increase the surface activity of the NaOH solution. Peters (40) , however, suggested the same amount of wetting agent, but it must not possess detergent action.

The other recent method for testing maturity pro­posed by Chapman and Staten (l6) is similar to the Micronaire test, except a 0.5-inch spacer is used to change the volume of the testing chamber. The correlation of the normal Micronaire reading with a value obtained by using the different volume for the same sample gave a satisfactory result for determining fiber maturity according to the re­searchers. However, Chapman (15) found in a more recent study that this method did not result in a high correlation when mixed specimens were used from different cultivars.

Webb and Burley (49) reported that the Causticaire test required an additional chemical treatment of fibers 9 but fineness and maturity can be tested with a single Causticaire scale (47)® This method gives a more reliable maturity value considering hep-count of card web, yarn appearance, and yarn strength than the standard method or Arealometer. It also gives more accurate results for

: !3evaluation of fiber maturity or fineness for a sample which has a relatively large or small percentage of immature fiber than the other methods <, Webb and Burley also ob­tained high correlations when comparing Caus tic aire maturity with results obtained from any other maturity test„ They reported that Causticaire fineness showed high corre­lation with the other fineness testing methodso

Burley and Bartmess (lO) reported a high - correlation coefficient between the Causticaire and other methods•This new method'necessitates a small calculation to obtain either fineness or maturity value9 and the use of a particular scale on the Micronaire®

MATERIAL AND METHODS

General Statement In this study, two methods were compared for the

determination of cotton fiber fineness and maturity« The methods used were the standard Micronaire test, the Micronaire test with a 0.5-inch spacer, and t h e .Causticaire tests' for fiber fineness and maturity.

The cotton samples used for testing were obtained from two replications of a fertilization, irrigation, spacing, and cultivar experiment (Table 1) conducted in 1966 under the direction of D r » Robert E » Briggs of The University of Arizona Department of Agronomy® The test samples were harvested weekly for 11 periods. There were not enough open bolls to obtain representative fiber samples for all measurements for all weekly periods® A total of 154 samples were obtained and conditioned in the standard atmosphere of The University of Arizona Cotton Laboratory® The samples' were blended three times with a mechanical cotton blender (2)®

First Method: Standard Micronaire TestA Model 60-P Micronaire was used in this study®

Calibration and operation of this model is simpler than

14 . .

Table 1. Cotton samples tested including the week of harvest and the cultural treatments used during production of the crop.

Week of Harvest Treatments1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2/ 1/ 1/ 1/

x V X X X X X X 1 1 2 1X X . X X X X X 1 1 1 1X X X X . X X 1 1 2 2X X X X X X 1 1 1 2X X X X X 1 2 1 1X X X X X X X X 1 * 2 2 1

X X X X X X X ' 1 2 1 2X X X X X X X 1 2 2 2

X X X X X X X X 3 1 1 2X X X X X X 3 1 2 2X X X • X X X X X 3 1 1 1X X X X X X X X X 3 1 2 1X X X X X 3 2 2 2

X X X % X 3 2 1 2X X X X X X 3 2 2 1X X X X X X X 3 2 1 1

X X X 2 2 1 1X X X X X X 2 2 • 2 1X X X X X X 2 2 1 2X X X X X X X 2 2 2 ' 2

X X X X X X 2 1 1 2X X X X X 2 1 2 2X X X X X X X 2 1 1 1X X X X X X X 2 1 2 1

— ^An "x 11 indicates a sample. A blank space indicates no sample.— ertilization: (1) no fertilizer; (2) 108.1 kg N/ha ; (3) 216.2 kg N/h a .3 /— Irrigation: (1) medium; (2) wet.— ^Spacing: (1) 50.8 cm row; (2) 101.6 cm row.— ^Cultivar: (1) Deltapine Smooth Leaf; (2) Hopicala.

previous modelso There is only one master orifice which isused to calibrate the instrumento

Two specimens from each fiber sample were tested*, .Each specimen was obtained by taking three or four pinchesfrom different parts of the blended laboratory sample» A50 grain (3•24 g o ) sample was weighed on a shadowgraph withan accuracy of 0,1 gro The sample was then placed into thefiber compression chamber and the compression plungerinserted* The operating handle was moved forward to allowair to flow through the sample* The float then moves into

, *position and a reading was made to the nearest 0*5 scale unit * The operating handle was moved backward to stop the air flow9 then the sample was removed and the instrumentwas ready to run another sample* Other samples were

_ . » prepared and tes ted identically as explained above *Twenty-four subsamples had larger deviations

between their two Micronaire values than expected9 whichmay have resulted from one or several of the followingreasons: .

1* Excess water in the air supply of the Micronaireinstrument *

2* Uneven dispersion of trash in the two samples after blending» ,

3» Improper placement of the specimen in the compres­sion chamber *

■ ' 17 These 24 subsamples were mixed with the remainder

of the respective samples 9 and two new subsamples were.prepared taking a pinch of fiber randomly from several

areaso The values obtained from the second reading were used for data analysiso

During the testing process9 the caXibration of the instrument was checked with a standard sample after every 20 sampleso The laboratory was controlled at the recommended atmosphere (65% relative humidity and 22 0 2 C ) throughout the testing process (2)e

Second Method: Micronaire Test WithA 0 o 5-inch Spacer

The Micronaire test with a 0,5-inch spacer (here­after referred to as the spacer test) is a relatively new method• All conditions and principles required for the normal Micronaire test were applied» The only difference between this method and the standard Micronaire test was the use of a 0 <, 5-inch spacer <, The 0 »5-inch spacer with a handle was constructed from a solid piece of aluminum alloy» The distance between the two arms of the spacer was wide enough to allow the placement of the plunger into the compression chamber 0«5 inch less than with a normal Micronaire test (Figure 1)«

The use of a 0,5-inch spacer between the top wall of the cylinder and the compression plunger was to test a normal 50 g r , sample in a larger volume= This increased

18

F ig. 1. The Model 60-P Micronaire (left) with the 0.5-inch spacer in place -- The shadograph (right) was used to weigh samples.

volume was 0 «, 39^7 cubic inch more than the normal Micronaire test. With a O.^-inch spacer, the plunger can not be locked in place, so it was held by hand while the reading was made. The first reading was made with the spacer in place o After this reading the spacer was removed from its place, and the plunger was pushed down, without removing the specimen from the cylinder, and locked. Thus, this second reading was actually a normal Micronaire testo

The maturity value for each sample was obtained by using an arithmetic equation, reported by Chapman and Staten (1 6 ) which is given below:

Y = A + BXwhere

Y = fiber maturity value,A. - 56.46 (constant)B = 15 o09 (constant)

where= first reading with the spacer

X^ . = ■ second reading, without the spacer<,

Third Method: The Causticaire TestThe Causticaire method is capable of measuring both

fiber fineness and maturity. This method includes ther combination of normal Micronaire values for untreated

- . aosamples and a reading of the same specimens treated with an l8% NaOH solution* A Causticaire scale is used for all readings * ’

Two specimens of each sample were tested before they were treated with N aOH» These readings were obtained with the normal Micronaire scale* The Micronaire values were converted to the equivalent values on the Causticaire scale* The two scales (Micronaire and Causticaire) were placed side by si.de in accordance with their calibration line * .

The test samples were mixed with their corresponding residue and placed into a 6 by 6-inch marquisette bag? and tied with a cord * Each cord had a piece of polyethylene attached with the proper sample identification*Marquisette material was suggested as it would permit rapid penetration of the NaOH solution and facilitate washing»

Ten bagged samples were placed into a 4000 cc beaker and saturated with an l8% NaOH solution with a 1% wetting agent (by volume)* The wetting agent used was the spreader activator? X - 7 7 » The l8%. NaOH solution? with a specific gravity of 1*24 was prepared from a 50% solution by using the following equation:

(50%) (X^) = (18% ) (Xg)The specific gravity of the solution was checked with a hydrometer before each test was made *

' / 21The normal period for complete samp1e saturation with

NaOH was reported by Webb and Burley (4$) to be 15 minutes«However 9 they found no detectable effect on the fiber afterthe normal period for saturation, A 20 minute treatmentwas chosen in this study to assure that the samples wouldbe completely saturated with N a O H « All samples weretreated similarly. One-fourth of the NaOH solution wasreplaced with fresh NaOH before the next treatment in orderto keep the volume and percentage of the solution constant*

» -

After placing the samples in the NaOH solution (Figure 2 ) they were agitated for a 5-minute period. After 20 minutes^ each sample was squeezed by hand 9 and placed into a clean beaker to thoroughly wash out the NaOH with tap water. Rubber gloves were used for protection during sample preparation.. At 5-minute intervals 9 the samples were agitated in the beaker for a 2-minute period, The strength of NaOH in the water was checked.periodically with red litmus-paper, Webb and Burley (49) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2) gave no specific time period for the washing process * However ̂ a 40-minute washing period was found to be satisfactory^ After washing ̂ the samples were again squeezed by hand r and dried in an air circulated oven at 105 C for 2 hoursw

After drying9 the samples were conditioned in the cotton fiber laboratory overnight, This was necessaryr since unconditioned dry fibers are often broken during the

22

Fig. 2. Equipment used for NaOH treatment — Notice the samples being treated in the l8% NaOH solution, rubber gloves, and untreated samples in marquisette bags.

' v-.^. - v ; ;v;', - 23mechanical blending process » After conditioning, each of the treated samples was blended 3 times with a mechanical cotton blendero

All readings for treated samples were obtained from the normal Micronaire scale, and converted to the equiva­lent value of the Causticaire scale as was done for the untreated readingso

The maturity index and Causticaire fineness of each sample was obtained by calculating the average value of the treated and untreated samples0 The following equations were used to determine the maturity index and fineness (2 ):

Causticaire Average reading of untreated specimens^ (100) Maturity Index" Average reading of treated specimens

2Caus ticaire fineness = 1.185 + 0 <,00075 T - 0*020 M where

T = Average reading of treated specimens M = Maturity index*

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fiber Fineness Results of the least square analysis of variance

for the Micronaire test showed three significant inter­actions (Table 2 ) 0 They included fertilizer by cultivar 9 irrigation by cultivar 9 and cultivar by harvest week»

It was expected that fiber from the various harvests would he significantly different in fineness <,This was found to be true and is designated as "harvest week" (Table 2 ) 0 Fibers obtained from later harvest are generally more immature than those from earlier harvests (Appendix A ) * In cross section, such fibers show thin walls with wide lumens o Therefore, they give less weight per unit-Tength and indicate fiber fineness *

The interaction between fertilizer and cultivar showed that both cultivars had nearly the same fiber fine­ness with no fertilization (Figure 3)® However, there was a greater difference between the cultivars at the1 two N application-rateso The Micronaire value of Hopicala was higher with added N but lower with DpSLo

The significant interaction between irrigation and cultivar showed that the difference between cultivars was greater at the medium than with the wet treatment (Figure 4 ) o Fiber fineness of DpSL was similar at both irrigation

24 . ", :

25Table 2 . Analysis of variance with the least square method

for the Micronaire test for fiber fineness o

Source D „F . M,S .

F ertilization (F) 2 .087

Irrigation (I) 1 . 000

Spacing (S) 1 .015

Cultivar (c) 1 .000

Harvest week (H) 10 A ? 3*

F x I ‘ 2 .174

F x S • 2 .224

F x C 2 1 .291*

F x H 19 .156

I x S 1 .012

I x C 1 1 .01 5 *

I x H 10 .164

S x C 1 ■ .006

S x H 10 .088

C x H 10 .438*

Error 8o .223

*Significant at the 5% level»

MIC

RO

NA

IRE

IN

DE

X

26

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.75

2 1 6.2108.10N F E R T I L I Z E R ( k g / h a )

F i g . 3• Micronaire indexes of cotton fiber from twocultivars grown under three fertilizer levels over two irrigation and spacing treatments and 11 harvest weeks.

27

5.00

xLU

Qz

LU

<Z Joa 4.00 u

3.75

Medium W e t

I R R I G A T I O N

F i g . 4. Micronaire indexes of cotton fiber from twocultivars grown under two irrigation levels over three fertilizer and two spacing treatments and 11 harvest weeks.

28levels while Hopicala was less with the wet treatment(Appendix D)„

The interaction between cultivar and harvest weekshowed that there was a greater difference between culti-vars during the early harvest periods than at the lateharvest (Figure 5 ) ° Fineness dropped rapidly for bothcultivars at the last harvest indicating immature, fiber o

The same significant interactions were found for / .

the Causticaire fineness test as in the Micronaire test(Table 3)® The,interactions included fertilizer by cultivar, irrigation by cultivar9 and cultivar by harvest week o Harvesting periods 9 designated as "harvest week" were also significantly different o

The response was similar with the Causticaire fine­ness values to that found with the Micronaire test (Figures 3 and 6 )o There was less difference between cultivars with no fertilizer than the treatments with N added» The average fineness values of Hopicala obtained from the Causticaire fineness test were higher than those obtained from the Micronaire test 9 but it was reverse for DpSL (Appendix C )0 This variation between the alternative measurements of the same samples apparently resulted from the swelling effect of NaOH, This swelling depends on the ratio of thickness of the fiber wall to its lumen size* Thick-walled fibers swell more than thin-walled fibers * Swelling eliminates fiber convolutions and the fiber

MIC

RO

NA

IRE

IN

DE

X29

5

PlL4

3

W E E KTH A R V

Fig. 5. Micronaire indexes of cotton fiber harvested from two cultivars and 11 harvest weeks over three fertilizer, two irrigation and spacing treatments.

30Table 3• Least square analysis of variance for the

C aus tic air e fineness test.

Source D'.F. M.S.

F ertilization (F) " 2 . .076Irrigation (I) • 1 .000Spacing (s) ‘ 1 .009Cultivar (C) 1 . 000Harvest week '(H) 10 .808*F x I ■ 2 .207F x S 2 .173F x C ' 2 1 .600*F x H 19 .109I x S 1 .122I x C ■ 1 1.427*I x H 10 .100 .S x C - 1 .022S x II 10 .063C x H 10 .379*

Error 80 .186

*Significant at the 5% level.

31

u_

DP<u

CO

^ 3.50-rsu <

216.2108.1

N FERTILIZER ( kg/ha )Fig. 6 . Causticaire fineness indexes of cotton fiber from

two cultivars grown under three fertilizer levelsover two irrigation and spacing treatments and 11harvest weeks.

becomes more tube-like which allows faster air flow through the sample» A fiber with a relatively small fiber peri­meter could have a well developed wall, and may be both fine and mature» However, a fiber with a large perimeter could have a poorly developed wall and would be fine and immatureo The same characteristics may be found in comparing the average CaUsticaire values of the two cultivars with Micronaire values (34).

A sample of very coarse fibers in a mixture with very fine fibers per-unit-weight (50 g r .) may show greater differences between the Causticaire and Micronaire values than a sample with more uniform fibers. Thus, two samples (each with uniform fibers) treated with NaOH may show no difference between their fineness measured by the Causticaire test. However, very immature fibers present in the sample with mature fibers will not swell and resist air flow with the normal Micronaire measurement. Another possibility to explain the difference between the Micronaire and Causticaire fineness is that the number of fiber con­volutions of both cuTtivars might be different. This difference may not be effective with Causticaire testing since swelling eliminates fiber convolutions, but it may effect the Micronaire measurement resulting in different test values for different cultivars.

' : 0 ' , : ■ ■ .t; ■■■ 33Causticaire fineness between the two cultivars with

medium.irrigation was greater than with the wet treatment (Figure 7)0

Late harvested fiber of both varieties gave lower values than early or mid-season cotton (Figure 8 ),Hopicala generally had higher values than DpSL with the Causticaire testo It is of interest that Causticaire fine­ness values of Hopicala are higher than the fineness values obtained from the Micronaire test, except the last harvestweek o However, the fineness values of DpSL obtained from

• s . the Causticaire test are lower than the fineness valuesobtained from the Micronaire test except for the first andsixth week (Appendix E )0 It indicates that DpSL had moreimmature fibers within the sample which gave a lowerCausticaire reading due to little swelling of fibers ®Whereas, Hopicala had less immature or very fine fibersduring the growing season except the last week of harvest oIf a sample has a higher percentage of mature fibers thanimmature, the fineness measurement of that sample by theCausticaire test will give a higher value than theMicronaire which, therefore, is not a true indication offineness•

The relationship between the Micronaire and Causticaire fineness tests was compared« All values ob­tained between the two methods were very close (Table 4)«,

\ .

34>

5.00 "

xLUQZ

totoLUZLUz

LUo;<Ut—to3<U

KX>/

M e d i u m We t

I R R IGAT IO N

F ig. 7 . Causticaire fineness indexes of cotton fiber from two cultivars grown under two irrigation levels over three fertilizer and two spacing treatments and 11 harvest weeks.

5.00

xuu

COCO 4.00LU

LU

<u 3.25

^ 2.50-< 2.40̂ -v ?

H A R V E S T W E E K

Fig. 8 . Causticaire fineness indexes of cotton fiber from two cultivars and 11 harvest weeks over three fertilizer, two irrigation and spacing treatments.

36Table 4. Comparative values of fiber fineness obtained

from the Micronaire and the Causticaire tests.

Test ' MeanStandardDeviation Minimum Maximum Range.

Micronaire 4 .31 0 519 2.55 5-55 Co 6 0

Causticaire 4.25 .560 2 .42 5.47 3-05

Difference .06 -. 04l .13 .OS -.05

The correlation coefficient, r = O 089I? indicated a good relationship between the Micronaire and the Causticaire tests e The covariance of 0.827 also shows a good relation­ship between the tests (Table 5 ) °

Table Correlation coefficient and covariance for fiber fineness obtained from the Micronaire and the Causticaire fineness tests.

TestCorrelationcoefficient Covariance

Micronaireversus 0.891 0.827

Causticaire

; ' .. . ; 37The least square analysis involves the calculation

of the effect of interaction between treatments as well as the effect of treatments„ There were differences between the average fineness values of both cultivars resulting from interactions (Figures 3 through 8 ) » However 9 the statistical values and the correlation coefficient which involved the fineness values over all cotton samples ob­tained from all treatments showed that there was a good relation between the Micronaire and Causticaire fineness tests o . ,

Webb and Burley (49) compared Causticaire and Micronaire fineness values «, They found a relatively high correlation coefficient but this value was somewhat lower than the coefficient of correlation obtained from compari­sons between other fineness measurements»

The correlation value found in this study was only slightly higher than that found by Webb and Burley (49)* They used samples from different cultivars with no treat­ment effects involved o Whereas, the samples used in this Study provided fiber?, with a wide range of maturity and fineness possibilities because of the variables used and the weekly harvests*

Lee and Hernandez (32) reported that the Micronaire test gave more reliable results for the evaluation of fiber fineness in comparison with two other fineness tests *

38The Micronaire fineness values of all 1$4 samples

were plotted against the corresponding fineness values obtained from the Causticaire test (Figure 9)0 The 45- degree equality line almost divides these paired fineness values into two groups„ However 9 the lower fineness values are scattered on the Micronaire side of the equality line» Each paired value (plus values) represents a good relation­ship between these two methods for the average and coarse . fiber measurements^ The lower paired values which are scattered on the Micronaire side show slightly greater values than their alternative measurement with the Causticaire test* The Causticaire test eliminates fiber convolutions in mature fibero Thus^ the Causticaire fine­ness reading for immature fibers may not provide a good basis for the calculation of fiber weight per unit-length or the degree of cell wall development*

. s ' -

Du Bo is and Van De Riet (l8 ) found no relationship in scatter diagrams of measures obtained from the Micronaire and the Causticaire tests*

A number of researchers 9 as mentioned in the literature review^ favored the Causticaire test® Lord (36) criticized it ̂ and concluded that since the Micronaire test gave biased results for the readings 9 the Causticaire test may not be reliable» He favored the Microscopical method 9 although it was more expensive and time-consuming» L o r d ’s objection to the Causticaire fineness test was due to

39

X

LU

U_

LU

OC

u

V )

u3.0 4.0 5.0

M I C R O N A I R E I N D E X

Fig. 9. Scatter diagram of .paired fineness values of fiber tested by the Micronaire and Causticaire methods.

:.v / ■ ; . ■ / ■ : ; ; ; : f 40.improper determination of the degree of cell wall develop­ment in comparison to fiber lumen*, .

Fiber MaturityResults of the analysis of variance by the least

square method for the C aus tic air e maturity values showedthat the main treatments were not significant except harvestweek (Table 6 )* This difference was expected since lateseason cotton is generally less mature than mid- or early-season sampleso The actual maturity values are shown inAppendix B . Two interactions were significant at the 5%level9 fertilizer by cultivar and cultivar by harvest we e k »

■ ' : 1 ■ :

The interaction between fertilizer and cultivarshowed Hopicala had the highest maturity value and DpSL thelowest with 108.1 kg. N fertilizer (Figure 10). With noadded nitrogen, the average maturity of DpSL was greater

L . " _

than Hopicala o However 9 both cultivars had nearly identical maturity at the high N rate (Appendix C ) e

Fiber maturity index of Hopicala was near 80 the first two weeks9 then dropped for two weeks before raising (Figure 11). Deltapine Smooth Leaf was high the first week: then dropped for two weeks; Other differences can be observed between the two cultivars in the 8th, $th, and 10th harvest week. Hopicala fiber maturity was lower than DpSL during this period* The last harvest week of both cultivars showed a sharp decrease in fiber maturity * ̂

Table 6 o Analysis of variance by the least square method of fiber maturity values as determined by the Causticaire testo

Source D.Fo M.S.

F ertilization (F) 2 3-458Irrigation (I) 1 . 000Spacing (s) 1 1.472Cultivar (c) 1 .000Harvest week (H)- 10 38.344*F x I 2 4.592F x S' 2 6.844F x C 2 67.457*F x H 19 5.868I x S 1 1.589I x C . 1 •; 7.010I x H, 10 8.4iiS x C 1 1.362S x H 10 7.152C x H 10 38.591*

Error 80 9.580

*Significant at the 5% level•

'12

80.0

/\XLU

QZ

>-•— 79.0

i—<

LUOd< / u 78.0;Lh-

0 108.1 216 2

N F E R T I L I Z ER ( k g / h a )

F i g . 10. Average Causticaire maturity indexes of DpSL and Hopicala from three fertilizer levels over two irrigation and spacing treatments, and 11 harvest weeks.

81

80

79

78

77

76

75

74,59

58o -

. ]

zi3

I_______ I_______I______ I______J_____ I i i i i2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11H A R V E S T W E E K

Average Causticaire maturity indexes of DpSL and Hopicala obtained from 11 harvest weeks over three fertilizer, two irrigation and spacing treatments.

44The second method for determining maturity values

was the Micronaire test with a 0.5-inch spacer (spacer test). The analysis of variance by the least square method for the spacer maturity values showed that the significant treatments were the same ones as found in the Causticaire maturity test (Table 7)° The significant main treatment was harvest week 9 and the interactions were fertilizer by cultivar and cultivar by harvest week» Fiber maturity of both cultivars was closer with no fertilization than with 108.1 or 216 o 2 kg o N/ha (Figure 12) . Average maturityvalues of DpSL samples showed larger variation between the11 harvest weeks than Hopicala (Figure 13)° Average maturity values of DpSL were lower than Hopicala except for three weeks*

The relationship between the Causticaire maturity test and the spacer test was determined by the correlation analysis (Table 8)* A correlation coefficient of r = 0*781 was found between the Causticaire and spacer maturity values * This was not an accepted association because of the low covariance (0.477) found between these two tester

The evaluation of the amount of immature fibers ina sample is important in the dyeing process9 yarn appear— ance9 yarn strength^ and the spinning and finishing pro­cesses ■ - . % - . .;

Chapman and Staten (l6) found a high cor relation^ coefficient 9 r = 0 * 90 r in comparing the Causticaire maturity

45Table 7° Analysis of variance by fhe least square method

of fiber maturity values as determined by the spacer test„

Source D . F „ M.S.

F ertllization (F) 2 .06?Irrigation (I) 1 .000Spacing (s) 1 .149Cultivar (c) 1 .000Harvest week (H). 10 63.062*F x I 2 2.022F x S 2 10.396F x C 2 43.639*F x II 19 3°4o8I x S 1 .o4oI x C , 1 2.191I x H 10 5.864S x C 1 - .463S x H 10 2.161C x H 10 22.171*

Error 8o 4.183

^Significant at the 5% level»

46

QZ

tx3l—<

<xLU

U<O.CO

74

72

71

70

0216.2108,1

N F E R T I L I Z E R ( k g / H a )

F i g . 12. Spacer maturity indexes of cotton fiber from twocultivars grown under three fertilizer levels over two irrigation and spacing treatments, and 11 harvest weeks.

SP

AC

ER

M

AT

UR

ITY

'*7

z \

\ y

XLU

Qz

53 -

W E E KH A R V E S TF ig. 13. Spacer maturity indexes of DpSL and Hopicala

obtained from 11 harvest weeks over three fertilizer, two irrigation and spacing treat ments.

48Table 8 „ Correlation coefficient and covariance of fiber

maturity values obtained from the Causticaire and spacer testso

TestCorrelationcoefficient Covariance

Causticaireversus 0.781 0.477

Spacer

and the spacer test <> The cotton samples, they used had been produced under irrigated conditions® Whereas 9 the cotton samples used in this study were obtained from two cultivars grown under various fertilization? irrigation? and spacing treatments ? and 11 harvest weeks® Sundaram and Iyengar (46) obtained a low r-value from their study® They con­cluded that the low r-value was due to different types of cotton® However ? they reported that a 3/8-inch spacer was more suitable than a 0®5-inch spacer in testing cotton cultivars®

Webb and Burley (49.) compared the Causticaire test to the other maturity tests ? and found different results - They obtained a high r-value ? 0*895) between the Causticaire method and the standard maturity method (percentage of mature fiber) ® However ? they obtained a low r-value for the same comparison in another test® -

. .v::, ^Burley and Bartmess ClO) reported that when fiber

maturity was expressed as maturity index with the Causticaire method instead of percentage mature fibers by the present method 9 the r-value was increased*

The relationship between maturity values obtained from the two tests in this study was analyzed for mean value 9 standard deviation 9 minimum 9 maximum, and range values (Table 9 ) ° All values were higher with the Causticaire method than the spacer test *

obtained from the Causticaire and spacer tests.

Test MeanStandardDeviation Minimum Maximum Range

Causticaire 78.78 3.32 58.73 . 89.89 31.16Spacer 72.10 3.29 53-06 75-69 22.63

Difference 6.68 O O V) 5 -67 14.20 8.53

Webb and Burley (49) obtained relatively similar* standard deviations from the comparison of the Causiticairer test to the standard test (percentage of mature fiber)^

A scatter diagram of the Causticaire and spacer tests indexes shows that all maturity values were plotted

on the Gausticaire side of the 4$ degree equality line except two samples (Figure 14) e Thus 9 the average paired values do not show a good relationship between the Gausticaire and the spacer methods o Maturity values from the spacer test were not as high as the sample tested by the Gausticaire method. However 9 the only agreement between these two methods is the presence of the positive correlation between them. Fluctuation of the maturity values for the lowest and highest readings obtained from the spacer test showed agreement with the values obtained from the Gausticaire test 9 therefore 9 both tests may agree very closely in measurement of fiber maturity except the Gausticaire values are higher than the spacer test® If another equation was used in the calculation of the maturity index with the spacer tes19 the values would be similar to those of the Gausticaire values. The spacer test is much faster than the Gausticaire method which is important in testing a large number of samples„

It is of interest to note from the results for fiber fineness (Table 4) and maturity (Table 9) that the Gausticaire maturity index seems to show more significance in classification of the test samples for their maturity . characteristics than the spacer test with the two fineness tests o

CA

US

TIC

AIR

E

MA

TU

RIT

Y

IN

DE

X51

x

\ t f i y

60S P A C E R M A T U R I T Y I N D E X

F i g . l4. Scatter diagram of paired values of maturityindexes of fiber tested by the Causticaire and the 0.5-inch spacer methods.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS "

In this study^ cotton samples obtained fromseveral environmental conditions and weekly harvests were used to compare two methods for the determination of fiber fineness and maturity* Fiber fineness was measured with the Micronaire and Causticaire tests * Results indicated that the treatments and interactions were similar in both tests * The standard deviation of both tests were almost the same* A high correlation coefficient and covariance value indicated that both tests were similar for measuring fiber fineness *

Fiber maturity was compared by the Causticaire maturity test and the Micronaire with a 0*5-inch spacer*The same interactions were significant in both tests* The statistical values and the correlation coefficient indicated that these two tests were not highly correlated for measure­ment of fiber maturity * The spacer test gave lower maturity Values for 152 samples than the Causticaire test *

. To determine maturity^ the Causticaire test is excellent9 however 9 it is a time-consuming test which limits its•usev With'further 1 -effort"with the Micronaire using various spacer sizes 9 it would appear that a formula might be developed which would result in a valid maturity test * A rapid cotton fiber maturity test for any cultivar would

not only be useful for industrial purposes but to cotton research personnel also o

APPENDIX A

AVERAGE TEST VALUES OF TWO SAMPLES OF DpSL AND HOPICALA OVER ALL FERTILIZATION, IRRIGATION, SPACING, AND

HARVESTING VARIABLES

Plot Noo Harvest Week Micronaire Causticaire

DpSL1 3 3.65 3.591 4 3 o 95 3.80l 5 4-73 4.4?1 7 4.o8 3-981 8 4.45 4.28l 9 4 ,,6 3 4.321 11 3-38 3-382 2 4-45 4.312 4 4.20 4.052 5 4.55 4.312 6 4.03 4.852 8 4.55 4.312 9 4.45 4.332 10 ... 4.0.3'. 4.82

Hopicala3 2 4.18 . 4:943 3 4.35 ■ 4-543 4 4.50 4.803 5 5-20 5.213 6 5.08 5-023 8 4.55 ' 4.764 2 4.48 4.674 3 4.83 . 4.864 4 3-88 5.474 5 5-55 5-284 7 ■ 5-10 5.174 8 ' 4.93 4.83

54

55

Plot No e Harvest Week Micronaire Causticaxre

.. PpSL ' . .

5 2 4.53 4.295 3 4.20 4.295 4 4.15 4.o65 7 4.2? 4.165 8 4.45 4.316 2 3.90 4.i46 5 3 4.io 1 3-976 4 4.35 4.246 5 4.65 4.596 6 4.15 5-006 7 4.18 4.226 8 ' 4.43 4.296 10 4.4o 4.27

Hopicala7 1 4.18 4.097 2 4.18 4.447 3 3-50 3-617 4 3 - 38 3-657 5 4.18 4.077 6 4.18 4.317 7 4.00 4.218 1 3,-90 3-958 2 3-65 3 - 558 3 3-80 3-958 4 4.05 4.198 5 4.48 4.338 6 4.48 4.338 7 4.48 4.339 2 5.08 5-069 . 3 4.25 4.579 ’*4 3-75 4.159 5 4.75 4.159 8 , 4.88 4.789 9 V . 5-15 5 -169 10 4.43 4.269 11 2.55 - 2.42%

10 ■ 2 5-05 5»lS10 3 4.75 . 4.7010 4 4.68 4.62s10 5 4.50 4.2610 6 4.8o 4.66®10 8 .4.75. : 4.8o«

c 56

Plot No. Harvest Week Micronaire Causticaire

DpSL11 , 2 4.18 4.0511 3 3-50 3-4811 4 , 4.00 ' 3.7311 7 4.48 4.271.1 8 4.75 4.2611 9 4.33 3.9711 10 4.4o 4.0511 11 3.28 2.9712 2 3.88 3.6712 3 : ' 3.45 3.3312 / 4 • 3.60 3.3412 5 4.35 . 3.9612 6 4.65 4.1612 7 • 4.35 4„i412 8 4.6o 4.2112 9 4.70 4.5112 10 4.20 3.85

Hopicala

13 2 4.78 4.7813 3 4.55 4.6213 4 4.55 4.7213 5 5.30 5.12 .13 9 3.98 4.0814 1 4.98 4.8814 2 4.73 4.84l4 3 4.55 4.98l4 4 4.43 4.3814 ' 8 4.23 4.48

<\ DpSL " -15 2 3.43 3.2515 3 3.55 3.49

, 15 5 . 3.70 3.53 .15 6 3.93 3-9915 7 4.15 3.9615 , 8 4.30 4.1516 2 3.25 3.3116 6 3.95 3.8716 7 4.28 4,2316 . . ' 8;;.".'., 4.63 4.38

57

Plot N o « Harvest Week Micronaire Gausticaire

D£SL16 9 4.53 4.3516 10 4.53 4.1616 11 3 .68 3.4517 1 4.85 4.8517 7 2.85 2.7717 8 3.45 3.4018 2 3.95 3.8l18 3 3.68 3.4218 4 3.98 3.7118 5 4.50 3.9918 7 4.18 3.6518 8 4.28 4.02 .

Hopicala19 2 4.78 4,6:3 .19 3 4.65 4.7019 4 4.63 , 4.6719 5 4.65 4.6719 7 3.78 3.5719 8 4.35 4.4720 2 4.83 4.9520 3 4.75 4.7420 4 4.63 4.8l20 5 4.88 4.8420 6 4.88 4.8l20 , 7 4.25 4.6o20 8 3.80 4.1321 1 5.28 5»31'21 2 5.35 5*3221 3 5.05 5.1421 4 4.35 4.7721 8 4.35 4.7721 • 9 3.95 4.22:22 2 , 4.80 4.9622 3 4.90 4.90s:22 4 4.48 4.4422 8 4.85 4.8722 10 4.40 4.53

58

Plot N o „ Harvest Week Micronaire Causticaire

DpSL23 2 3 85 3 -6523 3 3 -13 ' 3 . 2 223 4 4 . 2 0 3 o i l23 6 3 .9 0 3 . 9 223 7 3 .9 8 3 08723 8 4 .1 3 4 .0 023 9 4 .1 3 3 -7924 2 4 .0 3 3 -7224 4 4 .0 0 - 3 . 8 024 5 3 .8 3 3 -5324 6 3 . 9 8 3 . 7 724 7 4 . 0 0 3 - 7 024 8 4 .6 3 4 . 2 924 9 " 5 - 03 4 .6 7

APPENDIX B

AVERAGE MATURITY INDEX OF TWO TEST SAMPLES OF DpSL AND HOPICALA OBTAINED FROM THE CAUSTICAIRE MATURITY AND

THE 1/2-INCH SPACER TESTS OVER ALL TREATMENTS

Plot N o . Harvest Date Causticaire 1/2-inch Spacer

1 : 3

DpSL68.90 75.60

1 , 4 70.41 78.371 5 74.56 82.59i :": 7 71.54 78.16i . • 8 74.19 81.62i 9 73.05 82.62i 11 66.64 73.372 2 73 . 43 80.292 4 72.30 79.222 5 73.05 81.382 6 72.68 78.512 8 73.43 81.382 9 72.68 80.262 10 71.17 78.74

3 2Hoplcala

74.94 83.693 3 74.94 77.6-53 4 73.81 77.53-3 5 74.19 82.153 . 6 75.32 82,053 8 74.56 78.4i4 2 74.19 78.064 3 74.56 80.4?4 4 71.92 66 . 24:4 5 73.43 84.954 7 74.94 81.42S4 8 74.94 8 l.8m

59

f

60

Plot No. Harvest Date Causticaire 1/2-inch Spacer

5 V 2DpSL

73.05 8.1.33. 5 ■ 3 72.30 80.26

5 4 72 .68 78.515 7 73.81 79.555 8 73.05 80.296 2 69.66 74.74

‘ 6 3 70.41 78.566 4 72.68 79.686 5 73.81 80.566 6 71.92 80.446 7 71.92 77.646 8 73.43 80.186 10 72.30 80.00

Hopicala

7 1 72.68 78.647 2 73.05 78.007 3 68.90 72.841 4 68.15 68.137 : 5 72.68 78.18

. 7 . : . 6 72.30 76.447 ' ; - 7 70.79 75 .508 1 72.68 76.128 2 68.53 75.528 3 69.29 74.838 4 71.92 76 .278 5 74.18 8 0 .448 , 6 73.81 80.448 7 74.19 83.009 2 74.56 81.819 • 3 73.43 76.219 4 70.79 72.719 ■ 5 73.81 79.879 8 73.O5 81.679 9 74.94 82.029 10 74.19 80.389 11 53.06 58.73

10 2 75.69 80.8110 3 74.19 80.8510 4 72.68 80.5610 5 72.30 81.1910 6 73.81 81.6710 8 73.80 80.14

61

Plot No. . Harvest Date C aus tic air e 1/2-inch Spacer

DpSL11 2 72.30 78.9011 3 68.15 ' 73.7111 4 - ' 71.18 79.1111 7 . 72.30 80.8711 8 73.81 84.0211 9 73.43 81.4311 10 73.05 81.6111 11 64.75 74.1312 2 70.41 77.9612 3 ;■ 65.89 74.3012 67.77 76.5512 ■ 5 71.92 81.7512 6 74.19 83.5612 7 ' 73.81 80.3812 8 74.19 82.7812 9 73.06 81.6212 10 72.30 80.69

Hopicala

13 2 73.03 80.0013 3 74.19 79.2213 ' 4 73:81 78.6413 5 73.43 83.5313 9 71.54 76.0914 1 74.19 81.98l4 '■ 2 73.81 79.57l4 3 74.19 76.8214 4 73.43 79.00.14 8 73.05 76.63

DpSL

15 ■ ...: 2 ; 66.64 74.4915 3 67.39 74.45:15 5 . ■ 69«66 76.5015 6 71.55 76.12:15 7 72.68 79.2815 8 72.68 79.81l6 2 64.75 70.72l6 6 70.79 77.3816 ’ \ 7 72.30 79.0416 8 - 73.05 81.08l6 9 ,. . 73.05 80.90

62

Plot No. Harvest Date. Causticaire 1/2-inch Spacer

' PpSL16 10 7^.56 82.2916 11 68.53 76.7817 1 74.19 80.9317 7 5 9 •84 66.0217 8 66.39 73.5618 2 69.91 77.7818 3 69.28 77.0318 4 70.04 78.9518 5 72.30 83.2418 7 71.54 82.1218 8 71.92 80.58

Hopicala19 2 74.56 81.5919 3 74.94 79.8519 4 74.56 79.7119 5 74.56 79.9519 7 71.18 89.8919 8 73.81 77.9920 2 74.56 79.9920 3 74.56 80.5420 4 73.81 78.8020 5 74.56 83.8220 6 74.94 81.4520 7 72.30 75.9920 8 70.41 73.4921 1 73.81 82.1821 2 73.81 82.82 .21 3 73.43 81-04'.21 4 73.81 76.0421 8 73.05 76.0421 9 71=54 74.7922 . 2 74.19 79.7022 3 74.56 81.0922 4 73=05 79.0922 8 75.69 80.7422 10 73=05 78.12 .

63

Plot No. Harvest Date Caus ticaire 1/2-inch Spacer

DpSL

23 ; 2 69.66 77.8223 3 64.75 68.5523 4 64.38 71.4523 6 .71.18 76.4223 7 71.18 77.7123 8 72.68 78.6923 9 72.68 80.3524 2 70.79 79.5124 4 - 71.92 78.5824 ; 5 69.66 78.4824 6 , 71.18 78.4424 7 71.54 79.3524 ■ 8 73.80 82.3924 9 74.19 83.92

APPENDIX C

AVERAGE TEST VALUES OF COTTON FIBER FROM 2 CULTIVARS ' GROWN UNDER 3 FERTILIZATION LEVELS OVER 2

IRRIGATION AND SPACING TREATMENTS AND 11 HARVEST WEEKS

64

Fertilizer CultivarNormal

MicronaireCausticaireFineness

1/2-inch Spacer

CausticaireMaturity

DpSL 4.25 4.16 72.19 79.400 kg/ha

Hopicala 4.35 4.48 72.88 78.03

DpSL 3.98 3.77 70.22 77.91 ;108.1 kg/ha ..Hopicala 4.61 4.70 73.70 79.80

216.2 kg/haDpSL 4.09 3.87 71.00 78.74Hopicala 4 <,56 4.60 72. 71 78.75

VJ1

APPENDIX D

AVERAGE TEST VALUES OF COTTON FIBER FROM 2 CULTIVARS GROWN UNDER 2 IRRIGATION LEVELS OVER 3 FERTILIZER

AND 2 SPACING TREATMENTS,AND 11 HARVEST WEEKS

Irrigation CultivarNormal

MicronaireCausticaire Fineness

1/2-inch Spacer

Causticaire Index

MediumDpSL 4.13 3-91 71.34 79.05Hopicala 4.64 4.76 73.30 79.06

WetDpSL - 4 . 1 0 4.00 70.79 78.31Hopicala 4 .36 4.42 - 72.88 78.82

r

i

d\SJ

APPENDIX E

AVERAGE TEST VALUES OF, 2 CULT I VARS FROM 11 HARVEST WEEKS OVER 3 FERTILIZER, 2 IRRIGATION AND SPACING TREATMENTS

HarvestWeeks

Normal Micronaire

Causticaire Fineness

1/2-inch Spacer

CausticaireIndex

1 4.85DpSL

4.85 74.19 80.932 3.95 3.82 70.10 77.353 3.66 3.55 68.38 75.314 3-94 3.76 70.37 . 77.825 4.33 4.05 72.14 80.646 . 4.08 4.08 71.93 78.707 4.0? 3.92 71.13 78.198 4.39 4.16 72.72 80.539 4.54 4.28 73.16 81.59

10 4.31 4.03 72.68 80.6711 3.50 3.27 66.63 74.76

l 4.59Hopicala4.56 73.34 79.73

2 4.66 4.78 73.74 80.133 4.49 4.61 73.40 78.684 4.28 4.56 72.65 76.115 4.83 4.74 73.68 81.56 -6 4.68 4.63 74.04 80. 4i

.7 4.32 4.38 72.68 81.168 4.52 4.65 73.60 78.559 4.36 4.49 72.67 77.63

10 4.42 4.4o 73.62 79.2511 2.28 2.97 53.06 ' 58.73

<58

LITERATURE CITED

1 .

2.

3.

4.

5.

6 .

7»

8.

9.;

10 .

11.

Anderson, B ., and T . K err. 1938. Growth andstructure of fiber. Ind. Eng. Chem. 30:45-48.

ASTM Standards. 1966. American Society for Testing and Materials. Part 25« Philadelphia, Pa.628 p.

Balls9 Wo L » 19280 Studies of quality in cotton*Macmillan and Co » 9 London« 376 p «

Berriman9 L » Pv. 1966, The role of gnowth rings incotton fiber propertieso Texto Reso J, 36:272-

\ " 279U. . ... .Berriman9 Lo P.®. ? " and Ho Mo Benedict» T 963«» Growth

rings in cotton > Text o Res » Jo 3 3 »10 26 -102 7 <>Booth9 Jo Eo 1964 o Principle of textile testing*

Temple Press Book Ltd o 9 London» 512 p ®Brown? H » Bo? and Jo 0 o Ware o 19 5 8 « Cotton*

McGraw-Hill Book Company ? Inc o ? New Yo r k « _ 566 p *Brown? Ho M « ? and J » S o Grahamo 1950o Measurement of

fineness of cotton by air flow methods® Text. Res* J. 20:418-425e

Brown? H . M .? and T . C « Graham 0 1952b Measurementsof fineness of cotton fiber by air flow® Text*Res® J. 22:248-255.

Burley? S. T .? Jr.? and E® S® Bartmess. 1952 ® The<Causticaire^method for determining cotton—fiber^ maturity and fineness® Preliminary Report *U . S® Dept o Agr® Prod ® and Market ® Admin® Cottom Branch® Washington? D ® C . 20 p ®

Calvert ? M® A® ? and F. Summers® 1962® The swelTihgF of raw cotton hairs during mereerization without tension® J® Text® Inst® 16 : T 2 3 3 6 8 ®

69

12 o

13 o

l4o

15 o

16 o

17 o

18 o

19.

20 o

2 1 o

22 o

23.

Carpenter 9 F , 1953 ® An evaluation of various ratiosfor classification of cotton fibers fof maturityo.U o So Dept o Agr o Prod« Market o Admin o Cotton Brancho Washington 9 D« C « 11 p o

Carpent er 9 F 0 9 and R » L« Lee 9 Jr o 1950 e A modifiedtechnique for making cotton fiber maturity tests0 U o So Dept o Agr o Prod o and Market* Admin o Cotton Brancho Washington 9 D * C * 17 P®

Cassie 9 A * E* D* 1924* The porous plug and fiberdiameter measurement* I * A practical method of wool fiber diameter measurement * J * Text * Inst * 45 -T195-T204o

Chapman 9 W* E 0 ? Jr * 196.1 * Cotton fiber maturity and fineness: Both predicted separately9 accurately9and rapidly* Text * Res * J* 31- 429-433 °

Chapman, W* E * , Jor * , and G« Staten * 1957 . Cotton fiber maturity rapidly predicted with variable volume of sample in Micronaire* Text o Reso J *27:991-992.

Clegg, Go G*, and So C* Harland® 1924o A study of convolutions in the cotton hair o J * Text« Inst» 15sTi4-T26o ;■/.

Du Bo is, Wo F * , and D o F * Van De Rieto 1954* The relationship between Micronaire fineness and Causticaire*maturity for various cotton sampleso Text• Reso J * 24:265-266o

Eaton, F* M * 1955« Physiology of the cotton plantoAnn * Rev * Plant Physiol* 6:299-328®

Elting, J * P o, and J * C * Barness * 1948 0 A pre­liminary method for determining fiber fineness*Text * Res * J * 18 :358-366 *

Fowler, J * L ® , and K* L * Bertel* 1940 * Flow of a gas through porous media* J » Appl* Physics 11:496-502.

Freston, J * M * 1949® Fiber science * The TextileInstitute® Manchester, England* 34! p *

Gates, F . R ® , and E * J * Jennings * 1953» The effectof relative humidity on Micronaire readings*Text. Res. J. 23 :942-944* _

7124.

25.

2 6 .

27 o

28.

2 9 .

3 0 .

310

32 O

33.

34.

Gaus 9 G . E . 9 and So T 0 Burley 9 Jr. Apparatus for the Causticaire method of measuring cotton fibers maturity and fineness. U . S. Dept. A g r . Market » Service Market. Res . Division AMS - 3 2 7 <>Washington 9 D . C.

Gibson? G . R . 1965 » Influence of night temperatureon cotton fiber development and maturity. Prod.17th Ann. Cotton Improvement Conf. 94-95 P®

Goldthwait9 C . F . 1965® Shrinkage of cotton fiberIn NaOH solution and resulting elastic properties» Text. Res. J. 35:986-9920

Grant9 J. N .9 and R* S. O r r . 1966. Cotton fiberstructure and physical properties altered by environment. T ext. Res. J . 36:432-440.

Grover 9 E. B . 9 and D . S Hamby. i960. Textile testing and quality control. Textile Book Publishers 9 Inc.? New York. 6l4 p.

Hearle? J. W. S.? and R. H . Peters. 196 3 ® Fiber structure. The Textile Institute. Manchester? London. 667 p®

Her.tel9.K0 L . ? and C . J. Craven. 1951® Cottonfineness and immaturity as measured by the Arealometer. Text. R e s . J. 21:765-774»

Hopper? T. H. 1952. Check sample testing of physical properties of cotton with instrument. Text. R e s »J. 22:472-475®

Lee ? R. L .? and C . J. Hernandez. 1948. Performances and adaptability of three types of air permeability instruments for measuring fineness of fiber in cotton samples. Preliminary Report. U . S. Dept» Agr. Prod, and Market. Admin. Cotton Branch Washington? D » C «,

Leitgeb? D . J.? and H. Wackham. 1956. Cotton qualityand fiber properties— effect of fiber fineness o., Text. R e s . J . 26 :543-551®

Lord? E. 1956. Air flow through plugs of textile^ fibers - -Part I I . The Micronaire test for cotton*,J. Text. Inst o 47:Tl6-T47.

, ' v • •' 7 2

35 o Lord 9 E o 19560 4 Relations between different measuresof maturity and fineness of cotton\ Jo Text» Inst» 47:T209-T221o

360 Lord, E o 1956o Air flow through plugs of textilefibers— -Part IT 0 The Causticaire test for cotton®J o Text o Insto 4?:T635-T649o

3 7 o Mathews, Jo M o 19^7 » Textile fiberso John Wiley andSons, Inc*, New York o 1133 P®

380 Morton, Wo E o , and Jo W e S 0 Hearle o 19 6 2«, Physicalproperties of textile fibers » Butterworth and Co® Ltd o and The Textile Institute» London® 608 p®

39 o Peirce, F® To, and E » Lord ® 1939» The fineness andmaturity of cot ton ® J® Text® Inst® 30:T173~T210 ®

40® Peters, R® H 0 1963° Textile chemistry® Vol® 2®Elsevier Publishing Com® London® 374 p®

4lo Pfeiffenberger, G® W® 1946 ® Determining fiber fine­ness by means of the air permeameter® Text® Res®j. 16:338-343. r

42. Raes, G. , and T . Fransen. 1954. The Micronaire fine­ness and Causticaire maturity relationship. Text. Res. J . 24:1000-1001.

4 3o Simpson 9 D . M., C. B. Landstreet, and E. N . Duncan.1955 <> Effect of fiber irregularity on spinning performance. Agron. J . 4?:423-429 °

44. Skinkle9 J . H . 1949° Textile testing. ChemicalPublishing Co., Inc, New York. 353 p •

45. Sullivan,’ R. R. , and K. L. Her tel. 1940. Surface peargram of cotton fibers as a measure of fiber fine­ness. Text % Res . J . 11:30-38.

46. Sundaram, V . , and Iyengar, R. L. N. 1958° Cottonsfiber-maturity rapidly predicted with variable volume of sample in Micronaire. Text. Res. J. 28: 1045-1046.

47• U. S. Department of Agriculture Prod, and MarketsAdmin. Cotton Branch. 1953° The Causticaire scale* for determination of cotton fiber fineness and maturity. 4 p.

7348 p Ward 9 K o 9 Jr o 1955® Chemistry and chemical

technology of cotton. Interscience Publishers 9 Inco? New York, 782 p®

49 o Webb 9 Ro Wo 9 and S, To Burley9 Jr 0 1953® TheCausticaire method for measuring cotton-fiber maturity and fineness: Improvement and evaluation ®U o So Pepto Agro Market® Serv® Rept ® No® 57 o Washington, D 0 C ®

50® Webb, R® W ® , and H® B® Richardson® 19^5° Comparativesignificance of alternative cotton fiber length and strength measures in relation to yarn strength® Proc ® U o S ® Dept ® Agr® Washington, D ® C®

51 o Zylinski, T® 1964® Fiber science® (Translated from Polish)o Office of Tech® Service® U® S® Dept® of Commerce® Washington, D® C® 68l p®