The Hairiness of Worsted Wool and Cashmere Yarns and the Impact of Fiber Curvature on Hairiness

Abstract

In this study, a range of carefully selected wool and cashmere yarns as well as their blends were used to examine the effects of fibre curvature and blend ratio on yarn hairiness. The results indicate that yarns spun from wool fibres with a higher curvature have lower yarn hairiness than yarns spun from similar wool of a lower curvature. For blend yarns made from wool and cashmere of similar diameter, yarn hairiness increases with the increase in the cashmere content in the yarn. This is likely due to the presence of increased proportion of the shorter cashmere fibres in the surface regions of the yarn, leading to increased yarn hairiness. A modified hairiness composition model is used to explain these results and the likely origin of leading and trailing hairs. This model highlights the importance of yarn surface composition on yarn hairiness.

Effect of fibre, yarn and knitted fabric attributes associated with wool comfort properties

“…Yarns were tested for 13 attributes as described in previous studies (McGregor, 2001;McGregor & Postle, 2007;Wang, Chang, & McGregor, 2006). In brief: linear density (tex); yarn evenness (CVm); yarn thick places (+50%); yarn thin places (À50%); neps (+200%); yarn hairiness (Uster Tester 3 v2.50); yarn elongation (%); yarn tenacity (cN/tex); total number of hairs protruding more than 1 mm (T p , hairs/100 m); number of hairs exceeding 3 mm (S 3, hairs/100 m); S 3 as a percentage of T p (100S 3 /T p ,%); total length of hairs (K', mm/cm); yarn friction (coefficient).…”

Ultrafine wools: comfort and handle properties for next-to-skin knitwear and manufacturing performance

“…44 The yarns made from the lower curvature wools exhibited greater hairiness (6.1 versus 5.8 Uster units), a finding reported previously for lower curvature wool yarns. 45 The fabrics were knitted with no noticeable difference in the knitting performance as commented upon by the knitter. This comment is reasonable given the similar characteristics measured on the yarns.…”

Fabric handle properties of superfine wool fabrics with different fibre curvature, cashmere content and knitting tightness

“…Resistance to compression was measured (AS 3535, 1988 Rovings were tested on the Uster Tester 1-B v5.08 at a test speed of 50 m/min for 2.5 min to determine CVm. Yarns were tested for 13 attributes as described in previous studies (McGregor & Postle, 2007;Wang, Chang, & McGregor, 2006). In brief: linear density (tex); yarn evenness (CVm); yarn thick places (+50%); yarn thin places (−50%); neps (+200%); yarn hairiness (Uster Tester 3 v2.50); yarn elongation (%); yarn tenacity (cN/tex); total number of hairs protruding more than 1 mm (T p , hairs/100 m; the Zweigle G565 Hairiness Meter); number of hairs exceeding 3 mm (S 3, hairs/ 100 m); S 3 as a percentage of T p (100S 3 /T p , %); total length of hairs (K′, mm/cm); yarn friction (coefficient).…”

“…It is surprising that there were no effects on fabric clean/hairy handle as the yarns composed of lower curvature superfine wool have been shown to have higher hairiness attributes compared with yarn of the higher curvature wool (McGregor & Postle, 2007;Wang et al, 2006) and that these differences in yarn hairiness have been shown to be associated with other fabric properties (McGregor & Postle, 2007) and wearer assessments of fabrics composed of these yarns (McGregor, Doughty, et al, 2015). Previous research has shown a negative linear response to fabric density, where increasing fabric density was associated with reduced hairiness , and this result was also found in the present work at TF's 15.5 and 17.0 (Table 5).…”