'4 504» 14pm‘! I955 5w. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS. DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study was undertaken to learn something 0f the effect‘ of cotton fiber properties on the ser viceability of garments. ‘ Acala and Rowden cotton were grown at Temple and Lubbock in 1940 and 1941. Each variet“ was hand-picked at each location and half of each crop at Lubbock was snapped. Fiber and yarn an alyses were made for each cotton. Each cotton was used alone or in combination by seasons in th manufacture of broadcloth which was made into shirts and worn by men. Following fiber analyses and spinning tests, some combinations were made of the cotton of th two seasons. The cottons used for each of the seven shirts were: (1) Rowden grown and snapped a Lubbock in 1940; (2) the two crops of Acala grown and hand-picked at Lubbock; (3) Acala grow and snapped at Lubbock in 1940; (4) Acala grown and snapped at Lubbock in 1941; (5') Acala grow and picked at Temple in 1940 and 1941; (6) Rowden grown and snapped at Lubbock in 1941; and (7 Rowden grown and picked at Lubbock in 1940 and 1941. ' In general, the fibers and yarns of the 1940 crop were better than those of the 1941 crop, a seaso of excessive rainfall. Generally, Acala was better than Rowden and cotton grown at Temple bette than the same variety grown at Lubbock the same season. " Some of the sets of shirts were used as controls and were laundered to determine the effect 0 laundering on dimensions, strength and cellulose. The remainder were subjected to actual service. ' Fifty-three men each wore a set of seven shirts. Shirts were rotated during wear and records kep of date and hours worn, date of laundering and type of activity during wear. Each shirt within a se was laundered by the same method throughout the study. Thirty-four sets were laundered by com mercial laundries and 19 by household methods. " When returned to the laboratory either on request, when worn out or for other reasons, each shi v was judged on the basis of appearance, loss in breaking strength and cellulose degradation. The men differed widely in their judgment as to when the shirts were worn out. For example, f0 i’ the household-laundered sets, the range was from 21 launderings with 404 hours of wear to 64 lau derings with 1,068 hours. The average number of launderings ‘and number of hours worn differed little between the se laundered by commercial and by household methods. However, shirts laundered by commercial lau .. dries remained soiled longer than those laundered at home. Statistical analyses showed that the nu I. ber of days the shirts remained soiled had slightly more effect on the loss in strength than the nu I- ber of hours worn when commercially laundered and nearly as much effect when home laundered. T obtain the maximum wear from shirts, they should be laundered as soon as possible after wear. The shirts which lost the most strength during service also lost the most strength when lau. dered only. There is a high correlation between loss in breaking strength and chemical degradation of the ce_ lulose. a The shirts which had the greater visible signs of wear were not always the ones that had lost thi most in strength. For example, the shirts of Acala from Temple had less visible wear than five otheg but had lost more strength. Of the two shirts that appeared most worn, one had lost the least and t » other the most strength of the seven shirts. Apparently there is little relationship between visib signs of wear and loss in breaking strength. There were greater differences between fabrics in original strength than in worn strength. The fabrics which were the strongest before wear were not always the strongest after wear. T_ strongest fabrics lost the highest percentage of strength when worn, but they could lose more strengt . and yet maintain the same worn strength as the fabrics originally weaker. Often the shirts which hi the most visible signs of wear were those which had lost the least strength. Therefore, for the broadcloths, neither the original strength of fiber, yarn and fabric nor the visible signs of wear we found entirely satisfactory for predicting the loss in strength during service. t Further study is needed to determine the fiber, yarn and fabric properties which affect loss l. strength during service. i a THE COVER PICTURE Some of the 53 men who each wore a set of seven shirts in the serviceability study reported in this bulletin. _ senior author is in the front center. ' ‘ , x _ ARE DIFFERENCES IN COTTON FIBERS WHICH f1 attributed to the region Where grown, to p: on of growth and t0 variety. The method esting affects the grade of the cotton fithrough the trash content. However, lit- :1 own of the effect these differences have a serviceability of the article made from the The effect of the differences in the fiber, are caused by these factors, on the use- 1;. the end-product has had little study. Vis study was undertaken to add to the it knowledge of the effect of varietal, reg- ieasonal differences and method of harvest- ~the wearing quality of men’s white broad- hirts. The life of the cotton was traced he seed through the growth of the fiber, nufacture of the yarn and fabric and i the life of the shirts. COTTON VARIETIES varieties of cotton, Roger’s Acala and ¢ROWd€1l, which differ in their physical ies, were chosen for this study on the rec- pdation of agronomists dealing with cotton s. Three regions, Lubbock on the High Temple in the Blacklands and Angleton Gulf region were selected for growing the x The varieties were grown in 1940 and v Temple and Lubbock. A drouth in 1940 urricane in 1941 prevented the growing of l‘ ton in the Gulf region. All cotton was .;.Without irrigation, and was harvested at al period at each location. A cotton was hand-picked at Temple. Since p»; is a common method of harvesting on g Plains, both snapping and hand-picking g; at Lubbock. All cotton was ginned on .| saw gin and classed by the same class- ANALYSES OF FIBER 4 array method was used to determine the 10f the fiber and the fineness was deter- -by the Weight-per-inch method, weighing rom the length groups in the array. The 1h was measured with the Pressley strength . Maturity of the fibers was determined by ‘: ‘zed light method. 1- 'vely, professor and technician, Department of omeResearch. I ' viceability ofSlairts Madefrom Cotton of W0 Varieties, Regions and Seasons of Growth MARY ANNA GRIMES and CAROLYN A. WERMAN* The amount of waste or trash content with- in each lot of cotton was determined by the Shir- ley analyzer. The results of the fiber analyses with the classer’s grade and staple are given in Table 1. Varietal Differences Irrespective of region, season or method of harvesting, Rowden had a higher average per- centage of mature fibers and contained less trash than Acala. Acala fibers were longer, stronger and finer than Rowden fibers. CONTENTS Page Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Cotton Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Analyses of Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Varietal Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Effect of Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Effect of Seasons at Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Effect of Seasons at Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Spinning Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Strength of Skeins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Yarn Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Appearance Grade of Yarns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Yarns for Broadcloths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Manufacture of Broadcloths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Analyses of Broadcloths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Yarns per Inch and Weight per Yard . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Breaking Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Resistance to Abrasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Flat Abrasion with Taber Abraser . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Flat Abrasion with Universal Weartester . . . . .. 9 Flex Abrasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Fold Abrasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Manufacture of Shirts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l2 Effect of Laundering on Shirts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..12 Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Cellulose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Distribution of Shirts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Wearers of the Shirts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Comments of Wearers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Relationhip between Fiber Properties and Wear. . . .15 Effect of Wear on Appearance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Effect of Manufacture and Wear on Cellulose . . . . . .19 Differences between Methods of Laundering . . . . . . .19 Strength in Relation to Wear and Laundry Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H21 Differences among Wearers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Relationship between the Fiber, Yarn and Fabric Strength and Serviceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 TABLE 1. FIBER ANALYSES FOR THE 1940 AND 1941 CROPS Method Clfisefs Length- inches Fineness. Maturity Strenqth F222‘ Cotton oi Season staple Upper 257 micrograms , ‘ Pressley shin . harvesting Grade‘ in 3211 d in. Mean point ° per inch ° index n“ Lubbock Acala Hand-picked 1940 4.5 34 .89 1.22 4.28 71 7.4 Acala Hand-picked 1941 6.0 34 .91 1.16 3.30 50 8.2 2 Acala Snapped 1940 7.0 31 .84 1.16 4.14 7'2 8.0 3 i Acala Snapped 1941 7.0 33 .89 1.17 3.20 65 6.8 4 Rowden Hand-picked 1940 4.5 32 .82 1.12 6.02 81 7.2 . Rowden Hand-picked 1941 6.0 32 .84 1.03 4.83 61 7.3 7 Rowden Snapped 1940 6.0 30 .81 1.12 6.04 81 7.0 1 Rowden Snapped 1941 6.5 32 .84 1.04 5.19 65 6.8 6 Temple Acala Hand-picked 1940 4.0 31 .84 1.20 4.03 79 8.7 Acala Hand-picked 1941 4.0 31 .82 1.05 3.95 67 9.4 5 Rowden Hand-picked 1940 4.0 30 .69 1.02 6.16 77 8.4 Rowden Hand-picked 1941 4.0 30 .82 1.04 5.17 65 8.8 ‘4.0 Strict middling 4.5 Middling plus 5.0 Middling 5.5 Strict low middling plus 6.0 Strict low middling 6.5 Low middling plus 7.0 Low middling Effect of Regions Cotton grown at Temple was of higher grade than that grown at Lubbock, regardless of va- riety or season. The difference for each variety was one-half grade in 1940 and two grades in 1941. The classer always gave the picked cotton a higher grade than the same cotton snapped. In three of the four cases, the classer judged the picked cotton to be of longer staple than the snap- ped, and in one case of equal length. The staple was longer when grown at Lub- bock than at Temple. The strength was greater for the Temple than for the Lubbock cotton. In three of the four comparisons, the Lub- bock cotton was slightly finer and less mature than that grown at Temple. Effect oi Seasons at Lubbock Acala cotton grown and hand-picked at Lu bock in 1940 was of higher grade, of approxima ly equal length, weaker, coarser, more mat and contained less trash than the same varie in 1941. Snapped Acala was the same grade both s sons. It was slightly shorter, stronger, coars more mature and contained less trash in 19 than in 1941. Hand-picked Rowden was 0f higher gr i of approximately the same length and stren was coarser, more mature and had less trash 1940 than in 1941. Snapped Rowden was given a slightly hig grade and shorter staple by the classer in 1 than in 1941. The 1940 crop was coarser more mature than the 1941 crop. The trash‘ the same for the 2 years. TABLE 2. RAINFALL AT LUBBOCK AND TEMPLE IN 1940 AND 1941 Lubbock Temple 1940 1941 1940 1941 _ Month Departure Departure Departure Dep Inches ngiml, Inches nggzl, Inches nfiilzl, Inches nfo inches inches inches inch Ian. .23 -.2a .55 .09 1.0a -1.4s 4.ss 2. i Feb. 1.97 1.20 .61 —.l5 2.73 .55 3.69 1 Mar. Trace -—.85 3.56 2.62 .92 — 1.23 3.69 1 Apr. 1.84 .42 2.23 .79 2.50 —l.50 6.21 2. May 1.74 -—.59 12.69 10.03 2.44 -2.05 4.15 — lune 2.06 —.41 4.13 1.61 8.51 5.82 6.25 3 Iuly Trace —-1.97 3.68 1.65 3.09 1.10 3.80 1. Aug. 1.57 —.37 1.85 —-.08 .28 —1.68 2.70 . Sept. .73 —2.01 4.47 1.67 1.29 —2.3l. .44 —3 Oct. 1.07 --1.19 5.89 3.51 4.09 1.07 4.64 1 Nov. ' 2.35 1.67 .17 -—.50 8.42 5.33 1.54 -1 Dec. .20 —.46 .72 .05 5.67 2.60 2.49 — Total 13.76 -4.79 40.55 +2l.29 41.02 +6.24 44.29 ' -|- i} he rainfall for Lubbock and for Temple is K in Table 2. e annual rainfall at Lubbock was 4.79 in- "eelow normal in 1940 and 21.29 inches above ll in 1941. From March through October, infall was approximately 7 inches below 1 in 1940 and 22 inches above normal in a difference of 29 inches between the two ns. The greater rainfall in 1941 over 1940 bly accounts for the greater trash content, _ grade, finer and less mature fibers of the crop. Effect of Seasons at Temple leThere was no difference due to season in the erls grade and staple for the two varieties at Temple. _;~Laboratory analyses showed that Acala in 1940 was slightly longer, weaker, coar- i; more mature and contained slightly more l than that grown in 1941. iRowden was longer in mean length, slightly -~ ger, finer, less mature and contained slight- V; trash in 1941 than in 1940. ‘gThe rainfall at Temple for both years ex- the normal annual rainfall, in 1940 by 6.24 and in 1941 by 9.21 inches. However, from “uary through September, the rainfall in 1940 ' 1.30 inches below normal and in 1941 it was inches above normal. The greater rainfall '1? g the growing season in 1941 may account the greater fineness and immaturity found in .1941 cotton. SPINNING TESTS e When the fiber analyses were completed, the fcultural Marketing Service of the U. S. De- ent of Agriculture made spinning tests and »'-= analyses in their spinning laboratory at Tex- &M College. These analyses were completed in September 1941 for the 1940 crop and in Feb- ruary 1942 for the 1941 crop. The spinning tests included the determina- tion of the picker and card waste, skein breaking strength and appearance grade of the yarns. For the spinning tests, each cotton was spun into three counts, 22s and two of the following, 36s, 40s, 50s and 60s, chosen according to the classer’s length. The twist multipliers were 4.10, 4.25, 4.35 and 4.45, respectively according to the length of the cotton from the longest to the short- est. Waste The Shirley analyzer and spinning wastes are given in Table 3. Generally there was greater waste in the 1941 than in the 1940 cotton. This difference probably was caused by the higher rainfall which caused greater vegetative growth and more im- mature fibers in 1941 than in 1940. The picked cotton contained less waste than the snapped cotton. The average difference be- tween picked and snapped cotton was nearly 3 percent in picker and card waste. In only two cottons did the waste differ by three times the standard error of the amount found to be average for cotton of these grades and staples as given by the AMS of the USDA (3). In one of the two cottons the waste was greater and in the other less than the average. Thus all but two, the Acala grown and snapped at Lubbock both seasons, may be considered nor- mal in the amount of waste for the grade and staple. Strength of Skeins In every yarn size, the picked cotton made skeins of greater average strength than the snap- ped cotton, as shown in the last part of Table TABLE 3. WASTE AND SKEIN STRENGTH AND INDEX Waste weighted Corrected skein strength . Difien Corrected average skein a“ skein indexes based on regional AYemge p. n1 Shirley picker Card Picker ence strength in pounds strength variety data with an index Index shifl v anaolyzer .7 g 7 & 2 from ef 22s, of 100 as average °f 3t O O ' 4» “"1 average“ 22s | 36s 1 44s | 50s | s05 lbs- 22s | 36s | 44s | 50s | s05 “u” s 1940 3.27 2.44 5.29 7.60 0 108.7 29.4 108.2 103.6 104.1 108.9 105.5 2 J 941 6.55 4.20 6.63 10.55 +1.2 117.7 31.4 110.6 106.4 106.9 116.5 109.9 2 V1940 5.80 3.64 6.25 9.66 -2.9 106.3 58.7 39.3 105.7 110.9 114.0 122.9 115.9 3 1941 11.39 7.25 10.19 16.70 +4.2 104.0 29.8 103.5 102.0 106.6 115.4 108.0 4 .1940 2.97 2.34 5.59 7.80 .. +0.2 100.9 51.3 33.6 99.3 102.0 96.2 100.7 99.6 7 .1941 4.90 4.60 5.50 9.85 +0.6 97.8 49.3 31.3 96.5 98.9 92.4 93.8 95.0 7 1940 5.15 3.65 6.27 9.70 —0.4 97.5 50.6 32.4 96.6 105.1 101.9 105.6 104.2 1 e .1941 5.13 3.60 7.40 10.73 +0.3 92.2 47.6 28.9 91.8 93.2 89.2 86.7 89.7 6 v 1940 3.79 2.67 4.10 6.66 —0.5 116.6 64.4 42.7 116.1 121.7 125.0 133.5 v l, \ 126.7 5 _ 1941 3.15 2.00 4.18 6.88 —0.3 110.8 58.9 39.5 109.5 115.7 114.4 123.5 117.8 5 .1940 3.43 3.00 5.91 8.73 +1.5' 104.3 52.7 31.8 103.6 112.5 106.2 103.8 107.5 .1941 2.50 1.40 6.44 7.75 —-0.6 105.2 51.1 31.8 103.6 113.4 103.0 103.6 106.7 - ubbock T—Temple A-—Aca1a R-Rowden P—Hand-picked S-Snapped 1- ted to net weight fed first process picker. i rence from average for this grade and staple. Acala was stronger than Rowden in the aver- age skein strength of the several counts and in the weighted average skein strength of 22s. In five of the eight possible comparisons 0f skein strength, the cotton grown at Temple was slightly stronger than that grown at Lubbock; in two cases that at Lubbock was slightly strong- er than that at Temple and in one case there was no difference. The weighted average skein strength of 22s shows that in three out of four cases the cotton grown at Temple made stronger yarn than the same cotton grown at Lubbock. In 10 cases the cotton grown at Lubbock was stronger in 1940 than in 1941; in one case that grown in 1941 was stronger and in one case there was no difference. When converted to weighted averages for 22s, the 1940 crop was stronger three times and in 1941 once. At Temple in four of six cases, the 1940 crop was stronger, in one the 1941 was stronger and in one case there was no difference. The 1940 crop was stronger for one case, and the strength was the same for the other case in weighted aver- age skein strength of 22s. Yarn Indexes The skein strength indexes were calculated on the basis of the regional variety data (3). These indexes are given in Table 3. An indfex of 100 indicates that the yarn strength was that expected of a cotton of that staple and spun into that count. Above 100 indi- cates that the strength was above the average for that staple, and below 100 that it was below average. In 1940, snapped cotton had a higher yarn strength index than picked cotton. In 1941, the index was slightly higher for picked cotton. Acala always had a higher index than Row- den for the different counts and for the average of the three counts. Acala and Rowden were stronger both sea- sons when grown at Temple than when grown at Lubbock. In seven of nine comparisons, the cotton grown at Lubbock in 1940 had a higher index than in 1941. The strength indexes for three counts were higher in three of four cases for the 1940 cotton. For the cotton grown at Temple, the index was higher for five of six cases in 1940 and the index of three counts was higher for both cottons in 1940 than in 1941. In general, the yarn made of cotton grown at Temple was stronger than yarn of the same cotton grown at Lubbock. Usually the cotton grown in 1940 made stronger yarn than that grown in 1941 in both regions. Acala made strong- er yarn than Rowden. Appearance Grade of Yarns Yarns are judged on appearance by compar- ing the yarns wrapped on a board with standards 6 which have been assigned a grade and an ind (3% I An index of 100 or a grade of C+ is consi ered average in appearance. Those above I. are better than average in appearance and tho below 100 are below average. The grades and indexes for the yarns a given in Table 4. Of the 24 lots of yarn, 20 were above ave age, 2 were average and 2 below average in a pearance. The two yarns below average we made from Acala grown and snapped at Lubb in 1941. The yarns with the highest grade, 125, we 22s from 1940 picked cotton, Rowden from Lu bock and Acala from Temple. Rowden 22s a 50s yarns had a better appearance than Aca from Lubbock in 1940. Acala 22s yarn was jud ed five points higher than Rowden from Tem in 1940 but there was no difference in the 50 For the 1941 season at Lubbock, Rowden w better in appearance than Acala. The varieti from Temple were the same grade for 22s b Rowden was slightly better than Acala for 50s YARNS FOR BROADCLOTHS The cotton was ready late in 1941 for man facture into yarns for the broadcloths. Howev the firm which had agreed to make the ya and the broadcloths went into 24-hour prod tion of textiles for the armed services. The l. ton was held in storage until 1946 when the spi ning laboratory of the AMS of the USDA, whi had made the spinning tests, spun the yarns f the broadcloths. The time which the spinning laborato“ could spend on the manufacture of the yarns f, the broadcloths was limited; therefore, it w, necessary to combine certain Icrops. Because t differences in the fiber and yarn properties f the two seasons sometimes were small, combi p‘ tions were made on the basis of seasons. T TABLE 4. APPEARANCE GRADE FOR EACH YARN SI’ Grades for each yarn size Cotton‘ 22s I 50s I - so; a LAP 1940 3+ 12o c+ ~- LAP1941 B 110 C-f- ll LAS 1940 B 110 B— 105 LAS 1941 C 90 C— LRP 1940 A— 125 B 110 LRP1941 B+ 120 B 110 LRS1940 3+ 1Z0 B 110 1.1151941 B 110 B—— 105 TAP 1940 A— 125 B- 105 TAP 1941 _ B-l- 120 B 110 TRP 1940 B-l- 120 B— 105 TRP1941 B+ 120 B+ 120 ‘L-Lubbock T-Temple A-Acala R-Rowden P—Hand-picked S-Snapped crops of Acala grown at Lubbock and hand- ked were combined as were the Rowden grown _‘ Lubbock and hand-picked. The two "crops of cala and the two crops of Rowden grown at emple were each combined. This combination crops reduced the number of fabrics to be wo- ven from 12 to 8. V The cotton classer’s staple was used to de- Armine the twist multiplier for each cotton. It possible, when the mean length of .69 inch Rowden grown at Temple in 1940 and the "‘-=sser’s staple of 15/16 inch are considered, that ye twist multiplier may have been too low for 1% cotton, which may account for the difficulty ‘countered in weaving. The cotton was spun into 36s warp and fill- y: The twist multiplier for the filling was 0.50 than for the warp. Z twist was used for both f: and filling. The staple length on which the Est was based, the twist multipliers and the jmber assigned each broadcloth or shirt are giv- in Table 5. MANUFACTURE OF BROADCLOTHS , The yarns were woven into broadcloth by the xas Cotton Research Committee at the Texas echnological College at Lubbock. _ The yarns were sized with a 10 percent stand- size containing starch and a sizing compound. . e warper contained 4,800 ends. A number 30 w. drawing 4 ends per dent was used to give count of 126-127 ends per inch after weaving i. an estimated 130-136 ends per inch after fin- ing‘. The cloth was drawn 4O inches in the to allow 4 inches contraction in weaving and ‘shing. When woven but before finishing, re was an average of 115 warp and 59 filling s per inch. After finishing, the average was 1 warp and 60 filling yarns per inch. i; Two identical Compton-Knowles eight-har- s. looms were used, half of the broadcloth be- Woven on each loom. A The finishing of the broadcloth was done by g American Finishing Company of Memphis, essee. TABLE 5. DATA FOR MANUFACTURE OF YARN FOR BROADCLOTHS Shirt or Cgtzzsferls Twist multiplier broadcloth Cottonl in agnd number inch 36s warp 36s filling 1 LRS 1940 30 4.45 3.95 2 LAP 1940-41 34 4.10 3.60 3 LAS 1940 31 4.35 3.85 4 LAS 1941 33 4.20 3.70 5 TAP 1940-41 31 4.35 3.85 6 LRS 1941 32 4.25 3.75 7 LRP 1940-41 32 4.25 3.75 8 TRP 1940-41 30 4.45 3.95 ‘L-Lubbock T—Temp1e A—Aca1a R-Rowden P—Hand-picked S—Snapped The fabrics were singed, desized, mercerized, boiled in a kier with caustic soda and given a per- oxide bleach. The finishing company stated that the treatment given these fabrics was somewhat less severe than usual because they contained col- ored yarns in the selvages used for identification which might have bleached under more severe treatment. The finishing process used gave the broadcloths a satisfactory appearance. After bleaching, the fabrics were run over a tenter frame to get the proper width and then were san- forized. ' ANALYSES OF BROADCLOTHS The yarns per inch, weight per yard, the breaking strength and resistance to abrasion of each broadcloth were determined. The breaking strength was measured by both the raveled strip and the grab methods. The strips were broken when wet and when dry. Resistance to abrasion was measured with two instruments. Yamsiper Inch and Weight per Yard Yarns per inch, weight per square yard and breaking strength are given in Table 6. Five of the seven broadcloths had the same average num- ber of warp yarns per inch, 122. Fabric 1, Row- den for 1940, had the most, 124; and fabric 2, Acala 1940 and 1941 picked, had the least. 120. The filling yarns ranged from 58 to 62 per inch. Statistical analysis showed that these differences in number of yarns per inch had no significant effect on the breaking strength of the fabrics. TABLE 6. YARNS PER INCH. WEIGHT AND BREAKING STRENGTH OF BROADCLOTHS Yams per inch w u ht Breaking strength. lbs. C 1 pggq Raveled strips—1 inch Grab otton ' . . yard, Warp I Filling Warp Filling ozs- w .11. Dry Wet I Dry Wet cup F! mg LRS 1940 124 59 3.6 58.7 71.8 25.2 31.8 75.2 28.0 LRS 1941 122 58 3.6 53.6 61.3 23.9 28.4 65.9 28.5 LAS 1940 122 60 3.6 64.4 85.5 30.0 35.8 80.2 30.2 LAS 1941 122 62 3.5 60.4 70.8 27.4 31.6 70.4 31.5 LRP 1940-41 122 58 3.6 60.6 70.6 22.4 28.4 69.3 27.3 LAP 1940-41 120 62 3.6 55.9 75.2 28.0 34.7 73.8 31.6 _ TAP 1940-41 122 62 3. 66.4 84.5 29.8 38.8 79.0 31.6 it ubbock T—Temp1e A—Acala R-Rowden P-Hand-picked S—Snapped The Weight in ounces per square yard varied from 3.5 to 3.8. Fabric 4, Acala from Lubbock in 1941, was the lightest and fabric 5, Acala from Temple for 1940 and 1941, was the heaviest. The Weight of the other five broadcloths was approxi- mately the same, 3.6 ounces. Breaking Strength The dry breaking strength of 1-inch raveled strips ranged from 53.6 pounds in the warp for fabric 6, Rowden from Lubbock in 1941, to 66.4 pounds for fabric 5, Acala from Temple for 1940 and 1941. Wlzen wet, the breaking strength of the warp was 61.3 to 85.5 pounds. In general, the fabrics which were strongest when dry also were strongest when wet. The gain in strength when . wet over dry ranged from approximately 13 to 26 percent. The grab breaking strength was somewhat higher than for the raveled strips, especially in the warp. However, those fabrics which were strong by one method also were strong by the other method. The significance of the differ- ences between the broadcloths by each method of measuring strength is shown in Table 7. The broadcloths made from Rowden and Acala grown at Lubbock in 1940, fabrics 1 and 3, were significantly stronger by both the grab and strip methods than the broadcloths made of the 1941 crop, fabrics 6 and 4. This difference prob- ably was due to the much higher rainfall in 1941 which caused the fibers to be less mature and weaker than those grown in 1940. The fiber dif- ferences were reflected in the strength of the yarns (Table 3). Acala cotton made stronger broadcloth than Rowden, as shown by the comparison of fabrics 3 with 1, and 4 with 6. Fabric 2 was significantly stronger than fabric 7 by the grab method but fabric 7 was slightly stronger than 2 by the strip method. When wet, fabric 2 was stronger than 7 in warp and filling. The broadcloth made from Acala grown at Temple in 1940 and 1941, fabric 5, was stronger than Acala grown at Lubbock the same seasons, fabric 2. The fibers and yarns included in fabric 5 also were stronger than those in fabric 2 (Ta- bles 1 and 3). Fabrics of 1940 cotton were stronger th those of 1941, fabrics of Acala were stronger tha, those of Rowden and fabrics of cotton grown . Temple were stronger than those made of cotto grown at Lubbock. ~ Resistance to Abrasion Each of the seven broadcloths was subject to abrasion by the Taber abraser and the Stoll u i iversal weartester. In addition to flat abrasi with both instruments, the fabrics also were su j ected to fold abrasion and to flexing on the wea tester. ‘ Flat Abrasion with Taber Abraser The broadcloths were abraded 50, 100, 1 and 200 cycles with the Taber abraser, using C 10 calibrase wheels. Eighteen specimens for ea series of cycles for each fabric were used, maki a total of 72 specimens per fabric. Strength tes were made on three-fourths inch strips. The p centage loss in strength for each fabric, arrang for comparison of variety, season and region, given in Table 8. The broadcl.oths had lost approximately 3 11 percent of the original strength of the wa after 50 cycles. After 100 cycles they had l from nearly one-fourth to over one-third of th original strength. After 150 cycles the lost were approximately one-half and after 200 cycl were two-thirds of the original strength. Abrasion had much less effect on the filli than on the warp since the filling yarns were p tected by the warp yarns. After 200 cycles t filling had lost approximately 5 to 16 percent the original strength. Both varieties grown in 1940 had greater 1 sistance to abrasion, were shorter, coarser, m mature and stronger and made stronger yarn a fabric than those grown in 1941. , Grown in the same region, Rowden was w‘ resistant to abrasion both seasons than Ac Thus fabric 1 was more resistant than fabric and fabric 6 1nore resistant than fabric 4. _ both seasons, the Rowden fibers were sho coarser and more mature than the Acala but n Rowden fibers were weaker or of the sa TABLE 7. DIFFERENCES IN POUNDS BETWEEN BROADCLOTHS IN ‘BREAKING STRENGTH DETERMINED BY TWO METH 6 3 7 Z 5 ’ Shirt Cotton“ LRS 1941 LAS 1940 LAS 1941 LRP 1940-1941 LAP 1940-1941 TAP 1940-l A Strip I Grab Strip I Grab Strip I Grab Strip I Grab Strip I Grab Strip I ' 1 LRS 1940 5.15m 9.95"" 5.15"” 4.95“ 1.95” 4.951“ 0.94m 5.959” 2.90m 1.40m 7.15m 9. 6 LRS 1941 10.902“) 14.30%) 6.802“) 4.501(4) 7.002(7) 2.05m 2.35m 7.95m) 12.902“) l3. 9 LAS 1940 4.10"” 9.90m’ 9.90"” 10.90% 9.5529“ 9.95"” 2.009 1. 4 LAS 1941 0.20m 1.10m 4.45“) 3.451(2) 6.102(5) 8 i’ 7 LRP 1940-41 4.65m 4.551(2) 5.902(5) 5. Z LAP 1940-41 10.552“) 5. ‘Difference is significant at .05 level. “L-Lubbock T—Temple 3 A-Acala R-Rowden ’Difference is significant at .01 level. ‘ ’Number of the stronger of two broadcloths. P-Hand-piclzcd S—Snapped ' i gth and made weaker yarns and fabrics than Acala. Rowden also was more resistant to 1 ion than Acala when both crops of each va- _were combined, since fabric 7 of Rowden :.m0re resistant t0 abrasion than fabric 2 of T1,: The Rowden fibers were shorter, coarser, mature, slightly weaker, made slightly weak- s but a slightly stronger fabric than Acala. ‘The cotton from Temple was more resistant brasion than that from Lubbock, fabrics 2 Acala grown at Temple was shorter, of ap- "v ately the same fineness, more mature, fnger and made stronger yarn and fabric than grown at Lubbock. . Fabric 7 of the combined picked crops of Row- _ lost slightly less strength by abrasion than 6,_of 1941 snapped Rowden. Fibers in the i" fabrics were the same length, of approxi- ply the same fineness, but the combined crops T- stronger in fiber, yarn and fabric. The fiber rties show that the differences in effect of 'ion were caused by seasonal differences and ii. method of harvesting. _;Fabric 2 of the combined crops of picked h: grown at Lubbock lost slightly less strength ,1 abrasion than fabric 3 of the 1940 snap- ‘Acala. Fibers of fabric 2 were longer, finer, mature and of approximately the same ,= gth but made weaker yarns and fabric than _ s in fabric 3. TlFabric 1 of Rowden snapped in 1940 lost {tly less strength during abrasion than the combined crops picked, fabric 7. Likewise, fabric 2 of the combined crops picked lost less strength than fabric 4 of 1941 snapped Acala. The com- bination of 1941 cotton with 1940 lowered the re- sistence below that of 1940 used alone. In the above comparisons of the strength lost during abrasion, the fibers of the fabric which lost less of the pair were always coarser, in 9 of 11 cases shorter. and in 9 cases more mature than in the fabric losing more strength. In 5 cases, the fibers were weaker and in 5 cases stronger for the more resistant fabric. In 7 cases, the yarn was stronger and in 8 cases the original fab- ric strength was greater for the more resistant fabric. Flat Abrasion with Universal Weartester The fabrics were tested for flat abrasion on the universal weartester. The diaphragm beneath the specimen was inflated with an air pressure of 4 pounds per square inch. A dead weight of 1 pound was placed on the balance head. The abra- dant was 0 emery paper. Abrasion was con- tinued until a hole was worn in the fabric mak- ing possible electrical contact which stopped the abrasion. The cycles required to abrade the fab- ric until the electrical contact was made were re- corded. Thirty-six specimens of each broadcloth were abraded and the average number of cycles calculated. It is assumed that the higher the number of cycles required to wear sufficiently to permit electrical contact, the greater the resist- ance of the fabric to abrasion. TABLE 8. THE EFFECT OF FLAT ABRASION ON BREAKING STRENGTH OF FABRIC (TABER ABRASER) _, Tlumber oi cycles AVJOSS in Variable Cotton‘ Fabric I »' 100 I 150 | 200 strength for 4 V. Loss in strength‘ 9A series of cycles. "/0 1.11s 1940 1 4.9 22.9 41.1 62.9 34.6 ‘ 1.11s 1941 6 3.2 21.5 49.0 10.9 31.4 ins 1.As 1940 3 9.1 33.4 53.5 69.9 41.5 " _ 1.11s 1941 4 10.6 35.1 54.6 12.9 43.3 and harvesting LAP 1940-41 2 9.3 26.9 52.1 69.3 39.3 1.As 1940 3 9.1 33.4 53.5 69.9 41.5 and 1151119411116; 1.11s 1941 6 3.2 21.5 49.0 10.9 31.4 I LRP1940-41 1 9.9 24.5 46.3 62.9 35.6 1 and harvesting 1.11s 1940 1 4.9 22.9 41.1 62.9 34.6 _ LRP 1940-41 1 9.9 24.5 46.3 62.9 35.6 ins and harvesting LAP 1940-41 2 9.3 26.9 52.1 69.3 39.3 1 1.11s 1941 4 10.6 35.1 54.6 12.9 43.3 ins 1.AP 1940-41 2 9.3 26.9 52.1 69.3 39.3 ; TAP 1940-41 5 1.9 21.1 49.2 63.0 36.9 i, 1164 LAP 1940-41 2 9.3 26.9 52.1 69.3 39.3 = LRP 1940-41 1 9.9 24.5 46.3 62.9 35.6 lies 1.11s 1940 1 4.9 22.9 41.1 62.9 34.6 A 1.As 1940 3 9.1 33.4 53.5 69.9 41.5 u» 1.As 1941 4 10.6 35.1 54.6 12.9 43.3 f 1.11s 1941 6 3.2 21.5 49.0 10.9 31.4 l, lies and harvesting LBS 194D 1 4.8 22.9 47.7 62.8 34.6 y LAP 1940-41 2 9.3 26.9 52.1 69.3 39.3 q Lubbock T—Temple A-—Acala R—Rowden P-Hand-picked S-Snapped The effect of abrasion also may be measur- ed by the loss in weight which occurs during abra- sion. This loss was measured by determining for each specimen the weight of 1 square inch each of unbraded and of abraded fabric. The 1-inch squares were cut with a die. The loss in weight in milligrams and the percentage of weight 10st were calculated. These results and the cycles re- quired to abrade each fabric are given in Table 9. Cycles required to abrade a hole in the fabric ranged from 80 to 107. The losses in Weight dur- ing flat abrasion were from 5.1 to 7.8 milligrams. The losses were 6.4 to 9.8 percent of the original weight. In general, as the number of cycles in- creased, the loss in weight increased. In only 4 of 11 cases was there a statistically significant difference in the number of cycles re- quired to wear a hole in the fabrics. The fabrics of Rowden for both seasons, fabrics 1 and ‘6, were more resistant than the fabrics of Acala, fabrics 3 and 4. The differences were significant at the .01 level. The more resistant fabric of the 1940 crop had shorter, coarser, more mature and stronger fibers, yarns and fabric than the less resistant. The fabric of the Acala from Temple was more resistant than the Acala from Lubbock, fab- rics 5 and 2. The difference was significant at the .05 level. The Temple Acala was coarser, shorter, more mature and had stronger fiber, yarn and fabric than the Lubbock Acala. The fabric of th. combined crops of Rowden "was significant] more resistant than the fabric of the combin crops of Acala. In five cases, there was a significant diffe ence between fabrics in the percentage weigh lost during abrasion. The fabric of 1940 Rowde lost less weight than the fabric of 1941 Rowde but there was no difference between the fabri of Acala the two seasons. The fabrics of Aca lost a lower percentage of weight than the fabri of Rowden. In three cases, the difference w_ significant at the .01 level, and in one case at tli .05 level. I In 18 of 21 possible comparisons of two fa rics, there was agreement between the Tab abraser and the Stoll universal weartester as r which fabrics were more resistant to flat abr sion. For the three other cases, the differenc between the two fabrics with the weartester we; not significant. Flex Abrasion The resistance of each broadcloth to f1 abrasion was determined by placing a 1-inch st ' of the broadcloth across the bar of the weartes » with 11/2 pounds of pressure on the balance he and subjecting the fabric to continuous flexi until the strip broke. The number of cycles quired to break each fabric was recorded. TABLE 9. THE EFFECT OF FLAT AND FLEX ABRASION ON BROADCLOTHS WITH WEARTESTER Flat abrasion Flex abrasion cottons Fabric Cycles to Loss in Cycles to break Loss in strengthffl, rupture weight. ‘X, Warp Filling loxillglges zgléggfges LRS 1940 1 103 7.8’ 380 110 44.8 29.2, LBS 1941 6 101 9.8 416 89 35.1” 24.8 LAS 1940 3 84 6.4 465 120 36.3 21.7 LAS 1941 4 80 6.5 380 83 41.6 24.0- LAP 1940-41 2 94 6.4 489 121 32.6 19.6 LAS 1940 3 84 6.4 465 120 36.3 21.7 LRS 1941 6 101 9.8 416 89 35.1 24.8 LRP 1940-41 7 105 9.1 461 127 35.6 18.0 1.11s 1940 1 10a 1.9 s90 11o 44.9 29.2 LRP 1940-41 7 105 9.1 461 127 35.62 18.0 LAP 1940-41 2 94* 6.4 499 121 92.62 ‘ 19.9 LAs 1941 4 so 6.5 990 as 41.6 24.0 LAP 1940-41 2 94 6.4‘ 489 121 32.6‘ 19.1 TAP 1940-41 5 107‘ 7.8 525 123 40.7 22. . LAP 1940-41 2 94 6.42 499 121 92.9 19. LRP 1940-41 7 105 9.1 461 127 35.6 18 ‘f, LBS 1940 1 ' 103” 7.8 380 110 44.8 29. LAS 1940 3 84 6.4‘ 465 120 36.32 21. ’ LAS 1941 4 80 6.52 380 83 41.6 24. LBS 1941 6 1012 9.8 416 89 35.1‘ 24. LRS 1940 1 103 7.8 380 110 ‘ 44.8 29 LAP 1940-41 2 v 94 6.4 489 121 32.6’ 191 ‘Difference is significant at the .05 level. ’Diiierence is significant at the .01 level. ' “L-Lubbock T—Temp1e A-Acala R—Rowden P-Hand-picked S—Snapped 10 Yg Each broadcloth also was subjected to 100 les of flex abrasion in the warp and 25 cycles the filling. Each strip to be flex abraded was long enough for four breaking strength de- inations in a fabric strength machine, two _, he unabraded _and two in the abraded portions lthe strip. The averages of the two breaks for ed and unflexed were used in determining the iect 0f flex abrasion of that strip. Thus, the he yarns were tested before and after abrasion. is‘. such strips were used for each broadcloth. loss in-strength caused by abrasion was con- M ed to percentage. The number of cycles required to break each Jdcloth by flex abrasion and the percentage j: in strength when abraded 100 and 25 cyc- I are given in Table 9. The broadcloth which required more cycles f break and lost a lower percentage of strength en abraded is said t0 have greater resistance Qabrasion by flexing than the broadcloth which fuired fewer cycles and 10st a higher percent- of strength. The fabric which required the greater num- ‘ of cycles to break also lost the higher per- tage of strength when flexed 100 cycles, with exception. The loss in warp strength after »I cycles ranged from approximately 33 to 45 ent. s- Differences in the filling were not statisti- ly significant. There was a statistically sig- icant-"difference in the resistance of the warp Yflex abrasion in 7 of the 11 pairs compared in - lble 9. j Broadcloth 6 of 1941 Rowden was signifi- [n more resistant to flex abrasion than broad- th 1 of the 1940 crop. Broadcloth 2 of Acala grown at Lubbock both ons was significantly more resistant to flex- than broadcloth 5 of the same cotton grown same season at Temple. For 1940, fabric 3 of Acala was more resist- "T; than fabric 1 of Rowden but for 1941, fabric 5+ Rowden was more resistant than fabric 4 of Fabric 7 of the combined crops of picked wden was significantly more resistant to flex , asion than fabric 1 of 1940 snapped Rowden. wever, there was no difference between the lbric of combined crops, fabric 7, and the 1941 Qp of Rowden, fabric 6. l; Fabric 2 of the combined crops of picked , la also was significantly more resistant to _ ing than fabric 4 of the 1941 snapped crop. ,3 In 10 of the 11 comparisons shown, the fab- which lost less strength by flexing was long- T‘ in 8 cases was finer and in 9 cases less mature g the fabric which lost more strength. In five l» s, the fabric that lost less strength had weak- ‘and in five cases had stronger fiber and yarn the fabric which lost more strength. In six cases the more resistant fabric was stronger and in five cases weaker than the fabric which lost more strength. For these broadcloths, the longer, finer, less mature fibers lost less strength when flexed than the shorter, coarser, more mature fibers. The strength of the fibers, yarns and fabrics appar- ently had little effect on resistance to flex abra- s1on. Fold Abrasion The resistance of the fabrics to abrasion along the folds was determined with the wear- tester. This treatment resembles the abrasion given the fold of shirt collars. The specimen was clamped over a bar and abraded a selected number of cycles. Each broad- cloth was subjected to 10, 20, 30 and 40 cycles. The visible effect of abrasion on each fabric strip was judged independently by the authors. The average rating for the four series of cycles and for the two observers was used at a measure of the resistance of each fabric to fold abrasion. Ranked in this manner, in order of greatest to least resistance, were fabrics 5, 2, 7, 1, 3, 4 and 6 with numerical scores of 35, 31, 25, 21', 21, 20 and 16, respectively. The scores showed little o no difference among fabrics 1, 3 and 4. I The two fabrics most resistant to fold abra- sion were from combined crops of Acala, one from Temple and one from Lubbock. Fabric 7, which ranked third in resistance, was from combined crops of Rowden grown at Lubbock. The three fabrics of highest resistance were from hand- picked cotton. Fabrics 1 and 3 with identical scores were from the 1940 crop of Rowden and Acala. Fabric 4, with approximately the same score as 1 and 3, was from Acala grown at Lubbock in 1941. Fab- ric 6 with the lowest rating was the Rowden grown at Lubbock in 1941. Comparisons of fiber properties indicate that length, fineness and maturity had little effect on resistance to fold abrasion. In eight of nine cases where there was a difference in resistance to fold abrasion, the more resistant fabric had stronger fiber, in six cases stronger yarn and in seven cases stronger fabric than the less resistant fab- r1c. The results obtained with the two instru- ments and three methods of abrasion, show that each variety grown in 1940 was more resistant than when grown in 1941. Fabrics of the com- bined crops of a variety were superior to one crop of the variety used alone. Rowden was more re- sistant to abrasion than Acala. Acala grown at Temple was superior, except for flex abrasion, to Acala grown at Lubbock. The fiber properties which make a fabric re- sistant to flat abrasion may not be the properties which make it resistant to flex abrasion. 11 MANUFACTURE OF SHIRTS Each of the seven broadcloths was made into dress shirts, a total of 483 shirts, by the Pool Manufacturing Company of Sherman, Texas. The collars were fused. Each shirt had one pocket with a small compartment for a pencil or pen. Each button had four holes. The manufacturer sewed woven numbers from 1 to 7 on the shirts to identify the broadcloth from which each was made. Sizes were made to fit the men who had agreed to wear the shirts. EFFECT OF LAUNDERING ON SHIRTS Sets of shirts which were laundered but not worn were laundered by household methods and commercial laundries. One commercial laundry laundered four sets: one set 15 times, one set 25 times and two sets 68 times. Two other commercial laundries each laundered one set 68 times. Three sets were laundered in the laboratory with an automatic washer of the agitator type and ironed with a rotary ironer. Three sets were laundered in the same way in the laboratory but ironed with a hand iron. Details of the methods used are given in an earlier report (2). When the launderings were completed, each shirt was tested to determine changes in dimen- sions, strength and cellulose. Shrinkage Measurements were taken at 14 places in each shirt before the first laundering and after each laundering through at least the 20th, and thereafter at intervals of five launderings through the 68th. As shown in Table 10, there was slightly greater shrinkage when the shirts were launder- ed by commercial laundries than when done by household methods. There was little difference in shrinkage among the three commercial laun- dries. Maximum shrinkage occurred sooner when commercially laundered than when household TABLE 10. PERCENTAGE SHRINKAGE WHICH OCCURRED AFTER SELECTED LAUNDERINGS BY THREE METHODS _ laundered. There was less shrinkage when irone with a rotary ironer than with a hand iron. Shirt 4 shrank more than any other shi » when laundered by each of the three commercia laundries, but there was less difference amon the shirts when laundered by household meth ods. By the 68th laundering, the fabric appar ently had relaxed somewhat and the shrinkag often appeared to be less than after the 25t laundering. By each method of laundering, each shi shrank much more than the usual 1 percent ex pected of sanforized fabric. The shrinkage wa more than one-half inch in the collar bands i many instances. ‘ Strength The strength of the original fabrics diffe ed, therefore, the percentage of strength lost du ing laundering was used as a basis for compa ison. However, the fabrics which lost the mo strength in poundsalso lost the most in percen age. The changes in strength which occurred d l. ing laundering by each method are given in Tab 11 and the strength after 68 launderings by ea method is shown in Figure 1. " When laundered 15 times by household met ods and hand ironed, only one shirt, number showed a significant change in strength and th‘ was a gain. No doubt most of the gains strength which occurred during laundering we caused by shrinkage which increased the nu ber of yarns per inch of fabric. A When laundered 15 times by household met ods and ironed with a rotary ironer, four of t seven shirts had significant gains in stren Fort three shirts, the changes were not sign’ can . Fifteen launderings in the commercial la dry resulted in a significant loss of strength» four of the seven shirts. LAUNDERING No. of launderings Shut 1 | 2 1 a | 4 | s | 6 | 1 Aw 15 launderings g Commercial No. 1 2.9 3.2 3.0 4.5 3.2 2.9 2.7 3.20 Household-hand iron 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.51 Household-rotary ironer 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.6 1.44 25 launderings A Commercial No. 1 2.3 3.1 3.5 5.0 4.4 3.8 4.3 3. Household-hand iron 2.9 1.9 2.2 2.4 1.8 2.0 2.8 2. ll Household-rotary ironer 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.3 1.6 1.6 68 launderings Commercial No. 1 Set 1 3.2 2.8 3.6 3.8 3.8 2.8 3.5 3. I Commercial No. 1 Set 2 2.5 3.9 2.6 4.7 2.7 3.7 3.2 3. '* Commercial No. 2 3.0 3.5 3.3 5.5 lost 3.9 3.7 3. Commercial No. 3 3.0 4.0 3.7 4.4 3.5 3.0 3.1 3.5 Household-hand iron 1.5 1.4 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.4 2.4 1.7 Household-rotary ironer 1.5 1.3 2.1 2.4 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.7 12. 7 W22 2 7 03 0. .0 1T Z34 .72 / Llffl. H e O0 hfmv V26 0 FH 4 5 50o 7.4”]. H r5 S d“ 024-0. 1n u 02 C zT/T no. .5 t m2 m 272 a. g 1 0 /, I. £5.52 10 S f» B + 4 A + 2w .2.” $2. w m7 r ++ aid. s m4. m m. 5 2 S m ~ 00 1 t € e m w. F4 wM a m 0 0 m /m + x4.” .../......r Wmwhfl 0w 1 .. 2 3...”... w 622...? H ll H 00 5 d u T h e H 0% H H H s a 4 m .. 2h w... 2 2 O 9 M2 . 2 1 bb 1 f. 6 N . 3 a + 36w. n a s e 0 w 1 % /.m M46. M172 4.~%0%.W@.@.€S Ssm-m r. e + 255MB... s slnw 42w t R F» 0029a 2 LL LL] Oh 0% A e E e 2 4 F.1.1 S a 3 T m P 01tt 21 t 0 W hoooob m M 0 2 w d 1 I m. a m4? . $66M mfm 1 M m L 15a ..1_1 2 m/VwddH St H e ++ Z37 e md s P. I70. y... H F W.» S O H F W O / M. MMWZU Okfifl c wpm h Z om . .1 , w 2+”. Mmwzm pm 2 w t E 3.2.22 a S0 O 5 m b M 4,4... 2 p 4 m. D .d F +1 @237. 2 m M n O / 1T 1w 3PM... L H Hd 3 S H 3 . ++ name”. 2 .2... v. L. s r. 121.. . v h a r e . 2 M e 12 9 e 1H V . .1 m +w u. s w 2mm I w 2 P. I. U 6H 6 O Fa H w w... .2 mtm 2... w mwa .57? an.“ f WVTM M w H M + Mm-Tm VFW. m 0 m t 0h 7 m w + m 2222mm .. .. .... a ++ .2. 0 nmt m A n. H ffm 0 n n 5 s m. m .1 g g V0.1 0 4 W Pv F. 21 e c h R C e q. .5 hfld nfi m . 5 s E e m t... a 2 m3 m m 2 £M»........ .. M m 2 2220w 00 00 000000 m 1. .2 ..... m m 2 1mm h mam .,..§a»~2....... 1 2 m d NO M W 1 H“ fi L u T” e S w . .2.»v».mwwwvn2f M» 2 S 1 a m O2 1O V. 1 2 % O e Fa H H h na fi 220o0n0n0wmnm0m00000 0 9 db 0 N n m . 3.1.x V .3 3 W 4b.] :...v~v~..... S N H .1 . J- a t 2 1 e 1. 220200000000 g .1 cud S In O O 2 1. h Sd S H F 2202000000000 f. Y. 0-1 00d x 0d Y 5 t V O g WOJ 22020n0m00000000 2n G G O H .1 . . N H r. a e p]. 2 2020200000000 I 10 1400b .fl “@112 G m . 5d V. fl l. . 22020~00n0022000 7 r. 2 n s é Av e 0d n-m Gib 0 e 2 € e d S y 2202020m0wu0m0 e H 6 1G .0u5dm|fl1fl. C.1.a.f 1H n4 1/. 22 .2... H U n e n f. C 11a - 0| e21 1 2 n Z2... MSEGGIC-ld Hnahna .....4H.... W USdMEHO-l f. hndl.c .n.la. 5 L H l.......u...a.flfl 1H0 G 410001.] LL SA 3 . m b r1 9 C f I .1 Um G f. kilns 4>hru g2kfl mse n F10 0F hR .2222 6 H016 ,. 3558 .22.... U... 2.2.2.2.... m M 6 ..7;._.; . A M S n na m WAAn/r/ 2 M P. ,. . S 6 10 2 H 0 "v a».-~w“mw~vvv... I 00v 2w 22 s m a S c .....vv~v~wmm.v.¢. M ; i! n d .0 00v000m0mw0wm0mn0n0n0204 4 v 22.24! 0v _w ...avvwwwmwwn.w. ,. 4W... . I 00000 00 00 0301x411 .. .. 21 ... .9 0 0000%0000000w00w010( 1. In _ 0 000000m00m00m00w0w04040 s 2 2202n0n00w2u0nnw0n2. . 4 w _ ......».H~wwmmmww¢. 7 2m w 000040 6 I w ._ 5 M f. w m a o 2 “WW2 g _ 2 M H 0 w 6 Z _ I 2U m. S o I 6 r U l. After 68 launderings the strength of shirts 1, 2 and 6 had decreased the least. Shirts 1 and 6 were of Rowden and shirt 2 was of Acala grown at Lubbock for two seasons. Shirts 4 and 5 of Acala lost the most strength. Shirt 5 of Acala grown at Temple the two seasons 10st more strength during laundering than shirt 2 of Acala grown the same season at Lubbock. Shirt 3 of 1940 Acala lost less strength than shirt 4 of 1940 Acala. Shirt 6 of 1941 Rowden lost slightly less than shirt 1 of 1940 Rowden. Rowden picked in 1940 and 1941 and the two crops combined, shirt 7, lost more than the snap- ped of either season alone,,shirts 1 and 6. Acala picked and the two seasons combined, shirt 2, lost less than the snapped of either season alone, shirts 3 and 4. Shirt 4 was exceeded only by shirt 5 in the amount of strength lost. Shirt 2 lost the least strength by each of the three methods of laun- dering. Shirts 2 and 4 were of Acala grown at Lubbock but 4 was of the 1941 crop and 2 con- tained both the 1940 and 1941 crops. The three commercial laundries differed in their effect on the breaking strength. After 68 launderings, the shirts laundered by number 2 were significantly higher in strength than those laundered by number 1. The strength was greater when laundered by laundry 3 than by laundry 1. The differences were highly significant for five shirts, significant for shirt 4 and not significant for shirt 6. For four shirts, the difference in strength was highly significant and in two cases signifi- cant between laundries 2 and 3, being in favor of laundry 2. The highest strength remained after 68 laun- derings in laundry 2 and the lowest after launder- ing in laundry 1. ~ Shirt 4 of 1941 Acala lost more strength than shirt 6 of 1941 Rowden. Shirt 1 of 1940 Rowden was slightly better than shirt 3 of 1940 Acala. Although both 1940 and 1941 Rowden lost less TABLE 12. VISCOSITY IN CENTIPOISES OF EACH SHIRT AFTER LAUNDERING than Acala grown the same seasons, when the tw, crops were combined Acala lost less than Rowden shirts 2 and 7. When the seven shirts are ranked in orde of the least strength lost during laundering, shi 1 2 of the 1940 and 1941 Acala from Lubbock los the least, followed in order by shirts 6 of 194 Rowden, 1 of 1940 Rowden, 3 of 1940 Acala an 7 of 1940 and 1941 Rowd:en, 4 of 1941 Acala an 5 of 1940 and 1941 Acala from Temple. In general, the fabrics of 1940 cotton los less strength than those of 1941. Fabrics of Row den lost less than those of Acala. The one fabri of cotton grown at Temple lost more than the fa ric of the same variety grown at Lubbock th same seasons, shirts 5 and 2. Although a portion of the gain in stren probably was caused by shrinkage which increa, ed the number of yarns per inch, there are ind cations shrinkage was not the only cause. A Cellulose Samples of each fabric or shirt were grou 1 in a Wiley mill with a 20-mesh screen. The che é ical degradation of the cellulose was measured 1 the cupriethylene diamine method as recommen ed in ASTM (1). All determinations were ma, in triplicate and the average used for that fabr" The viscosity in centipoises of each sh' laundered by each method is given in Table 12. I There was no significant difference in the v0 cosity between shirts after any method of laund ing. However, there was a lower viscosity a greater degradation ‘of the cellulose for shi laundered by the commercial methods than by t household methods. . After 15 launderings, there was less degr ation for the household-laundered shirts wh hand ironed than when ironed with a rotary ir er. However, after 25 launderings, the ha ironed shirts were slightly more degraded t the rotary-ironed. There was no significant 1 ference between the two methods of ironing 1 ter 68 launderings. N f 1 a ' s shi" o. o aun erm g 1 1 2 1 s 1 4 1 s 1 s 1 1 1 Aver 15 launderings Commercial 1 10.4 13.0 15.4 13.0 12.8 10.0 16.9 13. p Household-hand iron 22.7 21.7 23.2 30.3 27.8 28.6 24.4 25 ' Household-rotary ironer 15.4 17.5 13.5 16.7 16.9 14.5 14.1 15 " 25 launderings 1 Commercial 1 11.6 15.2 14.5 13.7 14.9 8.9 13.9 l3 Household-hand iron 27.0 31.2 22.7 22.7 30.3 33.3 30.3 28 ' Household-rotary ironer 14.7 16.9 16.1 15.2 16.4 15.4 16.7 15., 68 launderings Commercial 1 7.4 8.2 7.8 7.6 7.8 7 9 7.6 7 _ Commercial 2 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.7 — 6.6 6.8 - Commercial 3 6.7 6.7 7.2 6.8 7.4 6.2 7.2 Household-hand iron 13.0 14.3 14.1 14.3 13.2 13.0 10.6 Household-rotary ironer 14.7 14.3 14.3 15.6 14.7 14 3 16.7 14 1* Commercial laundering had a greater adverse ton the fabrics than household laundering. w chemical changes agree with the losses in ngth which occurred during laundering by y’ various methods. DISTRIBUTION OF SHIRTS , In December 1947, the 55 men who were to erate in the study by wearing 385 shirts re- __ed the shirts and instructions for their wear. l Each man was given a set of seven shirts. f was asked to wear the shirts in order, begin- i; with number 1 and to continue through num- a 7, then begin again with number 1. They '1 to be treated as shirts purchased from a ‘re. No restriction was placed on the number days each shirt could be worn between laun- "ngs. Each man was asked to have his set of en shirts laundered by the same method ughout the study. The shirts were-to be re- q ed on request or when the wearer thought y were worn out. Each wearer was given forms containing A es for the number of the shirt, date of wear, l s worn each day, date of laundering and for I ments concerning the shirt, such as stains, ‘ , signs of wear and activity of the wearer. y h record form was to be returned on comple- r“ Each wearer gave information concerning his , height, weight and opinion as to whether he q pired slightly. moderately or excessively, the ‘1 ee of his activity and the part of his shirt ich commonly showed first signs of wear. In October 1951, the last set of shirts was re- gned aslready to discard. WEARERS OF THE SHIRTS l; Fifty-three of the 55 men given shirts kept ilisfactory records. All but two were engaged “research or teaching which probably accounts “ the unusually high percentage of usable re- ds. 1- The activity of the men ranged from desk rk to heavy manual labor such as working in y field. Many men combined these activities. Q The men ranged in age from 21 to 62 with average age of 43. In height, they ranged '1,» 5 feet 5 inches to 6 feet 6 inches. Twenty- o of the 53 men were 6 feet or over. The range ‘weight was from 130 to 270 pounds with an erage weight of 172 pounds. Thirty-six of the 53 men thought they were I erately active, 14 very active and 3 not active. p. y-five of the men thought they perspired essively, 18 moderately and none little. , Thirty of the men wore size 15 or 151/; shirts. qve lengths ranged from 32 to 37 inches. All gthe-men preferred long shirts. The men differed widely in their judgment as to when the shirts were worn out. Some thought the shirts were worn out when the collars show- ed only slight wear; others thought they were not worn out until they were quite ragged. Their judgment was no doubt influenced by the type of work they were doing. COMMENTS OF WEARERS Each man was requested to give his opinion on each of the shirts with respect to each other and to shirts of similar quality, and to keep a re- cord of first signs of wear, shrinkage and mis- haps in laundering. These opinions were checked against laboratory tests. Most of the wearers thought the shirts were of approximately the same quality as the average white broadcloth shirts. A few men thought the fabrics were not quite so fine in weave and a few thought they were superior to similar commercial shirts. That there was little difference between the shirts in appearance is evidenced by the men’s statements thatthey either noticed no difference or there were wide differences in opinions as to which had the best appearance. The men were asked to state where their shirts normally wore out first. The locations and number of times mentioned were: collar fold 51, cuff 17, split shoulder 5, sleeve 4, elbow 4, front shoulder seam 3, split back 3 and collar point 2. The first report of appearance of wear of collar bands was after the 15th and 16th launder- ings but most wearers did not record noticeable wear before the 20th laundering. All wearers re- ported signs of wear between the 20th and 30th launderings. According to the men’s records, shirt 4 show- ed signs of wear and wore out before the other shirts in 14 of 24 cases. ‘Shirt 6 was second and 1 and 3 were last in showing signs ;of wear. Many of the men thought these shirts shrank more than other shirts. Judged by the men’s re- cords, shirt 4 shrank most, followed. in order by 1 and 6, with 2, 3, 5 and 7 of approximately the same shrinkage. By actual measurement in the laboratory, shirt 4 shrank most, 5.5 percent, and shirt 1 the least, 3.2 percent. There was little dif- ference among the other shirts. Complaints of mishaps during commercial laundering were frequent. These included stains, tears and buttons off or broken. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FIBER PROPERTIES AND WEAR The breaking strength of the warp and of the filling was determined for each worn shirt. The specimens were taken from the back of the shirt just below and on a line with the armhole. Ten specimens were broken for the warp and 10 for the filling. The average of the 10 breaks was considered the breaking strength of the warp or 15 0f the filling. Loss in breaking strength was de- termined by calculating the difference in strength of the unworn and the worn fabric and express- ing the difference as a percentage of the unworn shirt. The average loss 0f each set, of each shirt in all the sets and of the shirts laundered by each method were calculated from these data. The cor- relation between the strength of the Warp and of the filling is high, .946; therefore, changes in strength are given only for the Warp. Fifty-three sets of shirts were worn. Thirty- seven of the sets were returned because they were Worn out. Sixteen sets were returnd because they were requested, shrank too much for fit, the wearer moved away or for other reasons. Thir- teen of the sets whch were worn out had been laundered by household methods and 24 by com- ‘mercial laundries. Three methods were used to compare the wearing quality of the fabrics. These were break- ing strength, the loss in breaking strength in pounds and the percentage of original strength lost during wear. These data for 53 sets are given in Table 13 for 10 comparisons, based on season, season and harvesting, region and variety. There was frequent difference between two fabrics in the relation between original fabric, worn appearance and strength lost. For example, fabric 5 had the highest original strength and best-appearance but was second in strength lost. Fabric 6 was seventh in original strength but sec- ond in worn appearance and in strength lost. Only fabric 3 held the same position for all three meas- urements. TABLE 13. LOSS IN WARP BREAKING STRENGTH AND VISCOSITY DURING WEAR OF 53 SETS OF SHIRTS There were significant differences betwee the strength of the original fabrics in 7 of the 1 paired fabrics but the differences in strengt were significant in only 2 of the 10 pairs Whe worn. In five cases, the difference in pounds 10s and in four cases the difference in percentage 0 strength lost was significant. The difference I the original strength was not significant betwee Acala and Rowden when the two seasons we combined, fabrics 2 and 7. There was no signifr cant difference between 1941 Acala and the tw seasons combined, fabrics 4 and 2, nor betwee 1940 Rowden and the two seasons combined. In the two cases where the only differen in the cotton was seasonal, the fabrics of the 194 crop of Acala and Rowden were significantl stronger originally than those of the 1941 cro The worn fabric of 1940 Acala, shirt 3, was sig 2 ficantly stronger than that of the 1941 Acal shirt 4. However, there was no significant di ference in the strength of the worn fabrics w, of Rowden for the two seasons, shirts 1 and 6. * The maximum difference in the strength ~ paired fabrics was approximately 13 pounds l. the unworn fabrics but only 6 pounds for j worn. In all but 1 of the 10 cases, fabrics 3 a J 4 where the difference was insignificant, t stronger fabric of the pair lost more both ' pounds and in percentage of the original stren v than the Weaker fabric. In 5 of the 10 cases of paired fabrics, t difference in the number of pounds lost, and A 4 cases the dfference in percentage lost was s _ tistically significant. 1 - 5 Days Shirt no. v Warp breaking strength for a coerzrsu Viscosity Hours betwee and cotton“ I Qriginal. Worn. Loss. Loss, pp _nce loss. ‘Z, worn wear - ~ lbs. lbs. lbs. °/., Qi We"! Shuts launde ' 1 LRS 1940 58.7‘ 44.7 14.0 23.8 68 60.4 489 8.21 ' 6 LRS 1941 53.6 41.6 12.0 22.4 76 65.4 487 7.00 3 LAS 1940 64.4‘ 47.62 16.8 26.1 69 62.4 487 7.48 4 LAS 1941 60.4 42.0 18.4 30.5 51 68.6 475 7.37 ‘ 2 LAP 1940-41 55.92 44.22 11.7 20.9 52 71.22 487 7.61 2 3 LAS 1940 64.4 47.6 16.8 26.1 69 62.4 487 7.48 . 6 LRS 1941 53.62 41.6 12.02 22.41 76 65.4 487 7.00 2 7 LRP 1940-41 60.6 43.4 17.2 28.4 72 61.3 483 6.36 2 LAP 1940-41 55.92 44.2 11.72 20.92 52 71.2 487 ~' 7.61 5 TAP 1940-41 66.4 47.0 19.4 29.2 100 65.1 486 7.26 2 2 LAP 1940-41 55.9 44.2 11.72 20.9 52 71.22 487 7.61 I 7 LRP 1940-41 60.6 43.4 17.2 28.4 72 61.3 483 6.36 I 1 LRS 1940 58.7‘ 44.7 14.0 23.8 68 60.4 489 8.21 ' 3 LAS 1940 64.4 47.6 16.8 26.1 69 “ 62.4 487 7.48 4 LAS 1941 60.42 42.0 18.42 30.52 51 68.6 475 7.37 2 2 6 LRS 1941 53.6 41.6 12.0 22.4 76 65.4 487 7.00 2 LAP 1940-41 55.9 44.2 11.72 20.92 52 71.2 487 7.61 4 LAS 1941 60.4 42.0 18.4 30.5 51 68.6 475 7.37 1 LRS 1940 58.7 44.7 14.0 23.8 68 60.4 489 8.21 7 LRP 1940-41 60.6 43.4 17.2 28.4 72 61.3 483 6.36, ‘Difference is significant at the .05 level. 2Diflerence is significant at the .01 level. ‘L-Lubbock T-Temple A—Acala lit-Rowden P—Hand-picked S-Snapped 16 r-Changes in strength for each of the seven pics are shown in Figure 2. The slope of the shows that there were differences in the 1 of loss in strength. Fabrics 4 and 5 lost Qgth more rapidly than the other fabrics. were greater differences in strength be- n fabrics when unworn than when worn. When other factors were the same for both “ties, the fabrics of Acala were stronger orig- 1a than those of Rowden—3 was stronger than 1.. 4 was stronger than 6. However, the fab- t- Acala lost more strength during wear than of Rowden so that the difference in the 1.; h of the worn fabrics was not significant. fFabrics made of combined crops did not al- i‘ have the strength which might be expected ew of the strength of the fabric of each crop alone. Although fabric 7 of the combined fed crops of Rowden was slightly stronger A ally than fabric 1 of the 1940 snapped crop significantly stronger than fabric 6 of the I snapped crop, there was no significant dif- i ce between the strength of the worn fabrics. F r» Fabric 2 of the combined crops of picked Acala was weaker than each crop of the snapped Acala, fabric 3 of 1940 and 4 of 1941. The dif- ference between fabrics 2 and 3 was highly sig- nificant for both the original and worn fabrics but the differences between 2 and 4 were not sig- nificant. The strongest fibers usually made the strong- est yarns and fabrics. However, when worn, the strongest fabrics with the strongest fibers freq- uently lost the most strength, measured both in pounds and percentage of the original strength lost. The differences in strength between the un- worn fabrics usually can be accounted for by the differences in the fiber properties. However, there seems to be no one fiber property or combi- nation of properties which accounts for the dif- ferences in the strength lost by the fabrics. Fib- er, yarn or fabric properties do not seem to ac- count for the fact that the stronger of two fab- rics lost a higher percentage of strength during wear. -— 7O qoug Jéd spunod ‘uabwls fiumvwe ~45 Wear Period After Figure 2. Strength of each fabric before and after wear. 17 Fabrics 4 of Acala and 6 of Rowden had identical fiber strength and maturity but differ- ed slightly in length and greatly in fineness. The finer Acala made a yarn and fabric of higher strength but 10st more strength during wear than the coarser Rowden. The difference in wear prob- ably was caused by the difference in fineness, a varietal characteristic. Although there were too few samples t0 per- mit statistical analysis of the fiber properties in relation to loss in strength, the coarser fibers ap- peared more resistant to wear than the finer fib- ers. Of 21 possible comparisons between the two fabrics, the one which originally was the weaker, but which lost a lower percentage of strength, had a fiber that was longer in 10 and shorter in 9 cases, was finer in 5 and coarser in 12 cases, I was more mature in 7 c-and less mature in 10 and was stronger in 8 and weaker in 9 cases. The yarn of the fabric losing more strength was stronger in '6 but weaker in 12 cases, and the fab- ric was stronger in 4 and weaker in 12 cases. The results indicate that the breaking strength of an unworn fabric may not be a satis- factory measure for predicting the serviceability or wearing quality of that fabric. EFFECT OF WEAR ON APPEARANCE After all shirts had been returned, the effect of wear was determined by appearance. Each shirt was examined for visible signs of wear, particularly of the collar. The shirts with- in each set were ranked in order of wear and giv- en a score to represent their rank in the set. The shirt with the best appearance received the high- est score (Table 13). Fabric 5 had the fewest signs of wear, with a score of 100, followed by 6 with a score of 76 and 7 with a score of 72. Fabrics 3 and 1 had approximately the same scores, 69 and 68. Two and 4 were approximately equal with scores of 52 and 51. Fabric 5, which was the best on the basis of fiber, yarn and fabric properties when unworn, received the highest score for appearance when worn. For several of the fabrics, the relative po- sitions were changed when worn. For example, shirt 6 was the poorest when unworn, but was second when worn and shirt 2 which was secon when unworn was sixth when worn. There .; little difference in rank of some of the unwo 1 and worn fabrics. Judged by appearance, fabric 1 of 1940 Row: den was slightly less resistant to wear than fa ric 6 of 1941 Rowden. However, fabric 3 of 194 Acala had higher resistance than fabric 4 of th 1941 crop. Probably the greater wear of fabri 4 over fabric 3 was caused in part by the greate number of neps and by greater shrinkage whic resulted in a tighter fit and greater abrasion 0 the collar. Fabric 2 of the combined 1940 an 1941 picked crops of Acala had lower resistan than fabric 3 of the 1940 crop snapped. Appa ently, the lower resistance of the 1941 crop whe combined with the 1940 crop brought the resis ance down to the 1941 level. The resistance o» fabric 6 of Rowden snapped in 1941 was slightl higher than the combined 1940 and 1941 crops ' fabric 7. However, the combined crops gave fa ric 7 higher resistance than the 1940 crop a_ lower than the 1941 crop, fabrics 1 and 6. '- f The appearance score for the resistance v wear of fabric 5 of Acala grown and picked a Temple in 1940 and 1941 was the highest of ._ fabrics and was nearly twice that for fabric of the same variety and season at Lubbock. The fabric of the combined crops of Rowd was more resistant to wear than the fabric y the combined crops of Acala, fabrics 7 and There was no difference between Rowden a Acala in 1940, fabrics 1 and 3. In 1941 Rowd was more resistant to wear than Acala. I The data suggest that there was no diff ence in wear that can be attributed to the meth of harvesting. I In general, fabrics of Rowden showed le' wear than those of Acala, the 1940 crop was b ter thanithe 1941 and the fabric of Acala groy at Temple showed less wear than the fabric I Acala grown at Lubbock. - In approximately half of the compariso i the fabric which showed less visible wear was a the more resistant to abrasion by the two inst ments, measured by cycles required to break t fabric and by loss in strength. The compariso where agreement was unanimous included fabri TABLE 14. VISCOSITY OF COTTON AND FABRICS Viscosity p . 1 _ _ _ Change from w°m fabric Change Fab?" C°11°11 Raw_ cotton Original fabric raw cotton (53 sets duringwe. centipoises centipoises _ o of shirts) o 1°1“bnC' A» centipoises A 1 LRS 1940 45.5 23.7 47.9 9.4 60.3 '7 2 LAP 1940-41 34.9 30.4 12.9 8.7 71.4 3 LAS 1940 37.3 25.1 32.7 9.4 62.5 .. 4 LAS 1941 35.4 29.3 17.2 9.2 68.6 T 5 TAP 1940-41 41.3 26.3 36.3 9.2 65.0 _ 6 LBS 1941 43.6 27.8 36.2 9.6 65.5 . 7 LRP 1940-41 41.4 24.6 40.6 9.5 61.4 _ ‘L-Lubbock T-Temple A—Aca1a R—Rowden P-Hand-picked S—Snapped 18 er 4, 3 over 1, 3 over 4 and 6 over 1. By three he four methods of judging the resistance t0 i , fabric 5 was better than fabric 2. In only '1 case was there complete disagreement be- the appearance of wear and the results ob- “d with the abrasers. This was for fabrics 'd 3 where 3 was judged to have less visible Ir than 2 but 2 was better as measured by the sers. ‘flEFFECT OF MANUFACTURE AND WEAR ‘I ON CELLULOSE The effect of wear was determined by vis- A y measurements. The viscosity of the raw ns ranged from 34.9 centipoises for the Acala j at Lubbock the two seasons to 45.5 for iden grown at Lubbock in 1940. The viscosity i’ he manufactured fabric ranged from 23.7 to -- centipoises, a change of 13 to 48 from the a cotton (Table 14). '~ The viscosity was further lowered by wear. i viscosity of the shirts that were judged worn ranged from 4.0 to 13.0 centipoises. This was p rease of from 48 to 86 percent from the un- ‘ fabric. The significance of the difference between I» fabrics is shown in Table 13. l The fabric of 1941 Rowden lost significantly he than that of the 1940 Rowden. The fabric ‘the combined 1-940 and 1941 Acala lost more ‘ng wear than the fabric of 1940 Acala used _ e, fabrics 2 and 3. The 1941 Rowden lost {re than the 1940 and 1941 combined. There X no significant difference between the Acala emple and at Lubbock, 5 and 2. When the ;. were combined, Acala lost significantly re than Rowden, fabrics 2 and 7. Fabrics 2 l 5 of Acala lost more than fabric 1 of 1940 Rowden and fabric 6 of 1941 Rowden more than 3 of 1940 Acala. In general, fabrics of 1940 cotton lost less during wear than fabrics of 1941 and Rowden less than Acala. The correlation coefficient between percent- age losses in breaking strength and viscosity was .855 for the 53 worn sets and ranged from ap- proximately .74 for fabric 6 to .88 for fabric 3, all of which are highly significant. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN METHODS OF LAUNDERING The 53 sets of shirts which were worn were divided into two groups, one for those laundered by household methods and the other for those laundered by commercial laundries. Data for the wearers and the shirts grouped according to method of laundering are given in Tables 15 and 16. There are a number of factors in which the home launderingof the worn shirts differed from the method of laundering used in the laboratory. The water supply was the same for all household laundering. The washing machines used in the home usually were fully automatic but differed in type of action. Most of the home-laundered shirts were dried on outside clotheslines. The type and amount of detergents varied. In some cases bleach and starch were used. Regardless of these differences in methods of household laundering, comparisons of shirts which were laundered and those which were both worn and laundered may give some indication of the change in strength caused by wear and by laundering. When laundered 15, 25 and 68 times by household methods in the laboratory, there was a TABLE 15. PERSONAL DATA AND EFFECT OF WEAR AND HOME LAUNDERING ON 19 SETS OF SHIRTS Av. no. of Breqkin . . . Number Av" hours a - g . . Age. Height. Weight, Shirt 1aunder_ Hours Worn per “Sag: 32m sluenfh Viscosity Reflfim! years inches pounds size ings worn launder- and hum 055' /<> loss. ‘X, returning mg dering Warp I Filling 36 73 200 15-34 2 41 20.5 5.4 0.7 —|-3.7 31.3 Shrunk 4 42 73 165 15-34 4 88 22.0 8.0 3.6 +3.7 6.2 " 51 68 156 151/2 -33 5 125 25.0 10.5 7.6 1.5 32.3 Ldry. changed 28 68 160 15-33 10 125 12.5 7.7 11.5 6.4 42.4 Called in 62 69 182 151/2-33 15 306 20.4 7.7 9.5 5.2 55.8 " " 35 72 160 151/2 -33 16 272 17.0 4.3 22.7 16.8 62.1 Worn out 50 72 220 161/2 -33 20 495 24.8 6.0 11.6 2.6 56.2 Disliked 31 72 155 15-34 21 404 19.2 5.6 16.9 14.6 74.1 Worn out 32 72 200 17-34 25 324 13.0 9.1 25.3 16.5 73.5 " " 39 67 150 141/2-32 26 514 19.8 6.3 33.4 39.7 78.8 31 68 145 141/2 -33 29 372 12.8 4.7 21.1 11.6 61.9 35 69 175 151/2-32 33 743 22.5 5.4 48.7 40.1 77.2 32 75 270 17-34 36 516 14.3 3.2 44.2 36.3 84.3 57 69 192 161/2 -33 36 863 24.0 6.1 41.5 39.3 76.6 47 66 180 161/2-33 36 828 23.0 5.8 28.1 20.6 68.9 21 73 160 151/2-34 38 462 12.2 4.3 40.0 10.9 78.8 54 69 172 151/2-34 42 713 17.0 6.0 28.7 20.2 72.6 39 69 230 161/2-33 52 765 14.7 4.7 26.7 11.6 78.4 33 78 185 16-37 64 1068 16.7 4.8 36.6 29.2 64.1 39 7 70.7 181.9 15.7-33.47 26.8 474.9 18.49 6.08 25.18 14.98 61.86 19 gain in strength, probably caused by shrinkage which increased strength sufficiently to offset any wear by the laundering process. When worn and laundered 15 times by household methods, set 5 had lost 9.5 percent strength in the warp. After 25 launderings, set 32 had- lost 25 percent. After '64 launderings, set 19 had lost 37 percent. Since there was no loss in strength when only laundered, it seems probable that these losses were caused by wear. Shirts which were laundered 15 times in a commercial laundry lost 8 percent. When worn and laundered 15 times, sets 6 and 7 lost 25 and 24 percent, suggesting that wear may account for approximately two-thirds of the total loss in strength. After 25 launderings shirts had lost 9 per- cent but when both worn and laundered, sets 15, 16 and 17 had lost from 34 to 48 percent. Shirts lost 31 percent after 68 commercial launderings. When worn and laundered 58 times, one set of shirts lost 42.5 percent, approximately 12 percent more than when only laundered 68 times. These losses suggest that for the commer- cially-laundered shirts, wear may have caused two-thirds to three-fourths of the total loss i strength and more than that amount for t home-laundered shirts. Of the 24 commercially-laundered sets i shirts, 14 were laundered in laundry number 10 in number 2, 2 in number 3 and 7 in oth commercial laundries. Excluding the three se laundered by laundry number 1, which were r turned after two and three launderings becau of shrinkage, the number of launderings, ho worn, loss in strength and viscosity were av_ aged for each laundry. The losses in strength and viscosity for lau, dries 1 and 2 agree with the losses when the shi , were laundered only. The 11 shirts laundered laundry 1 were laundered fewer times, worn fe er hours and fewer hours per laundering, but A mained soiled longer than the 11 sets launder in laundry 2. However, those for number 1 had higher average number of days between wear i laundering because one wearer kept his shirts : average of 22 days between wearing and laund ing. There is no significant difference betwe these two laundries in their average effect i strength and viscosity. The laundries includ in number 4 appear to have had approximate the same effect as laundries 1 and 2. TABLE 16. PERSONAL DATA AND EFFECT OF WEAR AND COMMERCIAL LAUNDERING ON 34 SETS OF SHIRTS Av‘ hours Av. no. of Breaking i Set Age. Height. Weight. Shirt lgful‘: Hours worn per i353: vgzzxr 51591191511 Viscosity Reigion lag‘? no. years inches pounds size derings worn launder- and hum loss. "/0 returning use ,2 1119 dering Warp I Filling 1 44 66 155 15-32 2 27 13.5 4.9 0 +8.6 16.6 Shrank 1 2 30 69 182 151/2-33 2 34 16.8 13.6 2.3 +11.6 24.4 " 1 3 60 71 183, 16-34 3 44 14.7 5.2 1.5 +8.2 24.9 " 1 ’ 4 59 74 190 17-35 6 155 25.9 8.3 6.0 +9.5 43.5 " 3 ' 5 45 72 165 141/2-34 9 110 12.1 6.3 1.3 +8.2 38.9 Called in 2 6 38 71 170 16-33 15 314 20.9 15.1 25.3 14.2 72.1 " " 1 7 51 68 156 151/2-33 15 401 26.7 10.8 23.5 24.7 59.7 " 3 8 44 66 155 151/2-32 18 230 12.8 5.8 16.8 9.4 61.4 Worn out 1 9 49 70 180 16-34 18 226 12.6 5.1 3.3 +16.1 52.8 Called in 2, 10 32 72 160 151/2-33 20 332 16.6 5.7 28.0 12.4 74.1 Worn out 1 ‘ 11 49 70 185 151/2-33 23 502 21.8 15.6 47.8 41.2 77.5 " " 1 ; 12 46 72 132 141/2-34 23 744 32.3 22.0 25.0 18.7 68.7 " " é 13 57 68 133 141/2-32 24 661 27.5 7.4 18.5 3.7 63.8 Moved ' 14 30 70 145 15-33 24 692 28.8 13.8 29.2 25.8 69.8 Worn out 4 15 37 73 175 15-34 25 490 19.6 6.7 39.0 21.7 73.7 Called in 1 16 52 72 176 151/2 -33 25 562 22.5 10.0 47.7 37.4 84.0 Worn out 2 17 40 72 190 151/2-33 25 672 26.8 8.6 34.2 32.2 71.9 " " l p 18 34 70 175 15-33 26 332 12.8 4.7 26.7 19.8 70.5 " " l 19 35 67 150 15-32 28 372 13.2 4.3 34.8 41.6 70.7 " " 4 20 56 70 150 151/2-33 28 720 25.7 5.7 45.7 35.6 75.4 " .5 4 21 37 72 175 151/2 -33 29 251 8.6 6.9 47.3 46.8 82.4 " 1 22 45 66 165 151/2 -32 30 631 21.0 5.0 29.2 21.7 76.7 " 1 a 23 56 66 151 15-32 31 874 28.2 6.3 25.5 20.2 74.2 " 2 ‘ 24 45 74 197 16-35 35 730 20.8 8.8 28.5 25.8 75.0 " 2 25 60 70 152 15-33 36 812 22.5 6.2 24.0 15.7 73.8 2 ‘ 26 44 69 135 141/2-33 38 343 9.0 4.3 32.5 25.8 75.3 l 27 54 69 190 16-33 38 1014 26.7 6.4 32.8 14.2 72.4 2 28 43 73 165 15-34 40 471 11.8 4.8 29.7 21.7 66.7 4 29 54 71 150 151/2 -32 40 821 20.5 10.7 41.7 25.1 76.6 " 4, 30 30 72 185 151/2-33 41 836 20.4 5.1 36.8 35.6 81.2 " 2 31 40 72 160 16-33 42 640 15.2 3.9 26.2 21.3 79.3 " 4 1 32 37 69 165 161/2-32 44 510 11.6 7.5 31.5 18.0 75.0 " 4 33 40 68 198 161/2-34 46 658 14.3 6.1 44.5 43.8 78.2 " 2 34 53 66 140 141/2-32 58 953 16.4 5.6 42.5 35.2 83.3 " 2‘ Av. 44.9 70.0 164.8 15.4-33.06 26.7 504.8 19.13 7.86 26.92 19.03 66.60 Av. for 53 sets 43.0 70.3 171.5 15.55-33.21 26.7 494.1 18.90 7.22 26.30 17.49 64.90 20 STRENGTH IN RELATION TO WEAR AND LAUNDRY PROCEDURE ;The number of hours each set of shirts was J ranged from 41 to 1,068, with an average 75 hours for the 19 home-laundered sets and » 27 to 1,014, with an average of 505 hours he 34 commercially-laundered sets. The num- of hours worn per laundering ranged from 13 ~» with an average of 18.5 hours for the home- dered sets, and for the commercially-launder- rom 9 to 32 hours, an average of 19 hours. ty-one of the commercially-laundered and 13 ~| home-laundered sets had 15 or more hours ear per laundering. There was little differ- ; between the two methods of laundering in total number of hours the shirts were worn the number of hours worn per laundering. ;, There was considerable difference between sets in the number of days the shirts remain- "iled before laundering. For the home-laun- z- sets, the range was 3 to 10.5 days, an aver- {of 6 days. For the commercially-laundered, jrange was 4 to 22 days, with an average of 8 ,. When shirts were laundered at home with {utomatic washers, washing usually was done - often than once each week. Shirts were to the commercial laundry less often. In ses, an average of 1 week to over 3 weeks 'd between the last wearing and laundering f» commercial laundry. The number of days . shirts remained soiled indicates that the | ercially-laundered shirts often were held un- e entire seven were soiled, then sent to the :1 ry, Statistical analyses were used to measure the , tof the number of launderings, the number ‘urs worn and the number of days the shirts _ 'ned soiled on the loss in breaking strength. correlation coefficients for these factors are in Table 17. ‘The multiple correlation coefficients between loss in breaking strength and the three fac- measured are 0.750 for the 53 sets, 0.751 for 34 commercially-laundered and 0.974 for the ome-laundered sets. The difference between coefficients for the two laundry methods sug- i that more factors affecting the loss in ing strength were accounted for in the home- idered than in the commercially-laundered ~For the 53 sets and the 34 commercially- ered sets, more of the loss in strength is ac- ted for by the number of launderings than e hours worn, but the effect was equal for A ome-laundered sets. For the 53 sets and for 19 sets which were home-laundered, the ef- of hours worn was greater than the days be- gn wear and laundering, but for the 34 sets ercially-laundered the days between wear laundering had more effect on the loss in gth than the number of hours worn. This ence may have been caused partly by the > r number of days the commercially-laun- dered shirts remained soiled. When worn in hot weather and left soiled for several days, perspira- tion was probably a factor in decreasing the strength of the fabric. The high correlation be- tween loss in strength and the time the shirts re- mained soiled suggests that for maximum service shirts should be laundered as soon as possible af- ter soiling. The 24 sets of commercially-laundered shirts which were returned because the men thought them worn out had been laundered an average of 33 times and worn 613 hours. The 13 sets of household-laundered shirts which were judged worn out had been laundered 35 times and worn 603 hours. The commercially-laundered shirts had lost slightly more in strength than the home- laundered. DIFFERENCES AMONG WEARERS The men who wore the shirts that were home- laundered averaged approximately 5 years young- er, 17 pounds heavier and .7 inch taller than the 34 men who wore the sets that were laundered in commercial laundries. There was little difference between the two groups in the averages for the number of laun- derings, hours worn per laundering or strength lost. There was a difference of nearly 2 days be- tween the two groups in the average number of days the shirts remained soiled—6.1 days for the home-laundered and 7.9 days for the commer- cially-laundered sets. There was a slightly great- er difference between groups in the loss in filling strength, 4 percent, than in the warp. In a number of instances, the data suggest that personal differences between the wearers may account for the differences in the loss in breaking strength which occurred during wear. For example, there were three sets of shirts each laundered 36 times by household methods, sets TABLE 17. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN VARIABLES FOR WORN SHIRTS N°_ of Days Loss in Loss in v . bl h r between warp vis- an“ es o“ s wear and strength, cosity, w°m laundering ‘X, °, 53 sets Number of launderings .825 .644 .713 .753 Number of hours worn .727 A .651 .699 Days between wear and laundering .638 .660 34 sets commercially-laundered Number of launderings .767 .583 .693 .797 Number of hours worn .695 .588 .719 Days between wear and laundering .636 .665 19 sets home-laundered Number of launderings .914 .908 .762 .713 Number of hours worn .884 .761 .671 Days between wear and laundering .675 .691 21 13, 14 and 15. Sets 14 and 15 were worn approxi- mately the same number 0f hours and remained soiled the same number of days, but set 14 lost more in strength than set 15 and approximately the same amount as set 13, which was not worn and did not remain soiled as long as sets 14 and 15. The wearer of set 13 was a younger, much larger man who did more strenuous work than the wearers of sets 14 and 15, which probably ac- counts for the differences. Sets 10 and 19 of the household-laundered shirts 10st approximately the same percentage warp strength, yet set 10 was laundered 26 times and worn 514 hours while set 19 was laundered 64 times and worn 1,068 hours. Both men held desk jobs. Each thought he was not very active and perspired moderately. It is not known what difference, if any, there was between the home- laundering methods. Sets 11 and 12 of the commercially-laundered shirts were each laundered 23 times by the same laundry but set 11 lost more strength, although set 12 was worn more hours and the shirts re- mained soiled longer than those of set 11. Prob- ably the difference in this case was caused by dif- ference in activity, as the wearer of set 12 did desk work while the wearer of set 11 carried on rather strenuous laboratory work. No doubt such factors as tightness of fit of the shirts, amount and degree of alkalinity of the perspiration, degree of activity, body build and size, as well as care given the shirts during wear, affected their durability. However, it seems rea- sonable to assume that the shirts within a set re- ceived the same treatment and care. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FIBER. YARN AND FABRIC STRENGTH AND SERVICEABILITY In general, the stronger the fibers the strong- er the yarns, and the stronger the yarns the stronger the fabrics. Therefore, it would be ex- pected that the cotton with the strongest fibers, yarns and fabrics would be the most resistant to wear and, therefore, lose less strength than weak- er fabrics. This was not always true for the fab- rics of this study. For example, Acala grown at Temple had stronger fibers, made stronger yarns and fabrics and looked less worn than the other cottons but it lost more strength than all but one fabric where the difference was not significant. However, the fabric remained strong in comparison with most 22 of the other fabrics, as shown in Figure 2. T I three fabrics which lost the least strength wed originally the three weakest fabrics. The thr fabrics that lost the most strength were originall the strongest fabrics. Although, the fabrics whic were originally the strongest were also the stron est after wear, they had lost a higher percenta of strength than weaker fabrics. In general, t 7 stronger the fabrics the greater was the loss ' strength both in pounds and percentage duri wear. This also was true when laundered onl When laundered, four fabrics of the highe ’ strength lost an average of nearly 7 percent mo strength than the average of the three weake fabrics. Strength of a fabric is the most importa property used to predict its serviceability. F these broadcloths, the assumption that the stron est fabrics would lose the least strength wh worn, did not hold. If this is true for other fa rics as well as for these broadcloths, breaki strength should not be interpreted to mean t the serviceability always will be in direct re tionship to the original strength. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are grateful to: D. L. Jon superintendent of Substation No. 8 at Lubbo and H. O. Hill, formerly superintendent of t Blackland Experiment Station at Temple, l, superintendent of Bluebonnet Farm at McGreg for growing the cottons used in this study; t Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA ' making the spinning tests and spinning the ya for the broadcloths; the Cotton Research C0 mittee for weaving the fabrics in their spinni laboratory at the Texas Technological Colle Lubbock; the American Finishing Company, Me phis, Tennessee, for finishing the fabrics; American Laundry, Bryan, Texas, for launderi, some of the shirts: and the 53 men who woret shirts and faithfully kept records. LITERATURE CITED 1. American Society for Testing Materials. A.S.T Standards on Textile Materials, Oct. 1951. A.S. ' Philadelphia, Pa. i 2. Grimes, Mary Anna and Werman, Carolyn A. Effect of Laundering on Shirts. Texas Agricult Experiment Station. Progress Report 1504'. Oct. '6 3. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Cotton Testing ‘ vice. Revised 1952. Cotton Division of Agricult Marketing Service. USDA.