The primary talking point of global warming denial essentially boils down to little more than a reminder that the global climate has always existed.  Self-described skeptics tend to use the world “cyclical” with monotonous regularity when describing the overall character of climatic changes.  Weather patterns, they say, have always changed in every time and every place, and if the climate is warming here and now, it will cool later or somewhere else.  Of course, it is distinctly faulty reasoning to draw conclusions about what will happen simply from one’s understanding of what always has happened before.  Our planet has always kept the world at a livable temperature.  But odds are that your refrigerator has always kept your food cool; that doesn’t mean the motor can never break down.

Global warming deniers have many true things to say about the history of the global climate.  Most of those correct observations should actually lead one toward acknowledging the scientific consensus, because an awareness of global warming relies on understanding that the situation now is different from what the planet has faced historically.  We’re not asking you to be concerned about climate change simply on the basis that the climate is actually changing.  The problem is that it’s changing in one direction.  Yes, it has gotten warmer during other planetary periods since the dawn of man, but those changes have been more gradual and generally more localized.  Global warming is dangerous because it truly is a global phenomenon affecting the entire planet in unnatural ways.  New research now helps to make clearer the distinction between the current reality and the trend that have been lost to time.

Professor Svante Björck of Lund University in Sweden has investigated the climate record of the last 20,000 years and has determined that simultaneous warming events in the northern and southern hemispheres have simply not occurred prior to the modern day.  Every reference that global warming deniers make to the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period as proof that this sort of thing has happened before really do the opposite at a closer level of scrutiny, because events like these describe periods during which the change in one hemisphere contributed to a significant global net gain or loss, given the stability or modest change in the opposite direction occurring in the other hemisphere.  This is neither global warming nor global cooling.  It is not what we are facing now.

Professor Björck draws the further conclusion that only factors external to the natural cycles of the climate have led to simultaneous warming of both hemispheres.  “This could be, for example, at the time of a meteorite crash, when an asteroid hits the earth or after a violent volcanic eruption when ash is spread across the globe,” he says.

In other words, the Earth’s thermostat compensates when natural forces cause spikes in particular regions.  Warming and cooling events can occur on a localized basis without severe global effects, but true global warming occurs when the thermostat begins to break down altogether.  Pointing that out, however, will likely not sway anyone against global warming denial, as much of the skeptics’ resistance to the scientific consensus seems to be couched in the belief that such a breakdown can never happen.  They apparently believe that the world decides for itself how the climate will change, and that nothing mankind does can influence this decision.

It is plainly ignorant to think that we do not change the face of our world in dramatic ways, or that those changes cannot influence ecological processes.  An Earth speckled with large cities is much different from an Earth untouched by industrialization.  A post-industrialized world in which we allow the effects of our growth to go unchecked is powerfully different from one in which we recognize the reality of the changes we have lived to see and strive to safeguard the effects of those changes.

The threat of global warming is one that confronts every geographic region, both north and south of the equator, and one that will remain present for the foreseeable future, especially if nothing is done.  But in the same sense that the problem is present universally, so is the potential for a solution.  Technological innovation is not limited to northern or southern hemisphere or to any regions within them.  Trees grow most everywhere, and better still bamboo can be grown in all of those places and more, opening the way for widespread carbon sequestration programs.

The entire world must be willing to contribute to the changes and safeguards that will help the world to reset its natural thermostat.  The warning sounds that we’re hearing from it are not the sorts of things that we can respond to by simply waiting and seeing if they stop over time.  Some of us may wish to believe that we’ve heard it all before and that nothing’s broken down so far, but the fact is that the situation we face now is different from everything that has come before.  The difference is subtle to a layman’s observation, but we’ve heard the input of professionals, and we should know by now that we face a problem that cannot be ignored.

Global Warming Means Global Warming is a post from: Green Earth News

In a development that should come as a surprise to absolutely no one who’s paying any attention, Richard Muller of UC Berkley, in testimony before House Republicans at the end of March, stated that his preliminary findings upheld the scientific consensus that the surface temperature of the Earth has risen about 0.8 of a degree Celsius since the start of the twentieth century.  This finding comes in spite of the fact that Muller had set out specifically to challenge the dominant views, leaving Republican members of the Science and Technology committee eagerly awaiting his dissenting conclusions powerfully disappointed when they did not come.

What is the likelihood that this will convince any of the climate change deniers who held their breath waiting for data that supports their pre-set narrative?  Muller has foolishly described prominent bloggers from that camp as “heroes,” and was prompted to begin his investigation largely because of their concerns about such things as atmospheric temperature stations being located in urban heat islands.  But now his exhaustive survey of such temperature stations is showing that there is no statistical difference between those that he considers well placed and those that are near to supposed sources of data-contamination.

I’ve encountered this argument before, usually in the form of pictures of weather stations with giant red arrows pointing to heat outlets nearby, accompanied by a one-word objection like “duh!” or “hello??”  Now, I am of course no scientist, but I am confident that most people who are scientists know what they’re doing.  The conspiratorial mindset that crafts these sorts of arguments against the science of global warming must make one of two assumptions:  Either that the vast majority of scientists are too stupid to have considered what kinds of effects an urban environment could have on their data, or that the vast majority of scientists are conspiring to set up their data collection in places that will skew the information for the sake of an ideological end.  Not being a scientist, I can’t say for certain that the persons monitoring such temperature stations have controlled for the effects of urban heat sources.  However, having a background in philosophy, I can cite reductio ad absurdum in concluding that it’s far more likely that they did than that they are all part of an evil cabal conspiring to force you to drive electric cars, install solar panels, and wear bamboo clothing.

Though it is my sense that Richard Muller was led to his skeptical outlook by a handful of people engaged in an active campaign against factual evidence, I still believe his was a genuine skepticism.  That is, he encountered the heat-source objections, and read the so-called ClimateGate e-mails, and was disturbed by what he saw, and so, having the resources to go gather and analyze the evidence himself, he did just that.  But now that the project is coming to a close, he acknowledges that, whatever the causes of his skepticism, they were not indicative of flawed science.  That is the nature of skepticism, which the media seems to forget when discussing climate change issues.  Skepticism means not taking what you’re told at face value, but instead looking into the matter on your own, and drawing a conclusion based on the evidence, even if it’s not what you wanted to believe in the first place.

That is why I refuse to call most of those who object to the accepted climatological science skeptics.  They are not; they’re global warming deniers.  The impulse in them is not to explore the evidence and draw an unbiased conclusion, but to take the stance that is in opposition to the consensus and then find or manufacture objections to that dominant view.  For these people, no amount of consensus, no uniformity of scientific evidence, no high-profile conversion from the skeptical viewpoint will ever be enough to convince them to stop fighting to refute what is increasingly irrefutable.

And so they look at pictures of temperature monitoring stations and yell “aha!” evidently believing that they have some special access to a common sense that virtually all climate scientists across the globe are lacking.  Or they take a different tact, and dispute any one of the numerous clear indicators of the rising temperature of the Earth and its effects.  I’ll concede, for instance, that I’ve seen some great evidence that arctic ice is actually expanding – in the winter.  And when it’s winter in one’s own region of the globe, it doesn’t take long to find someone who will triumphantly point at the snow and say “See, it’s all a scam!”  But you can’t claim that it’s common sense that refutes accepted science if you don’t even have the common sense to understand the difference between climate and weather.

As far as I’m concerned, if you’re still a global warming denier, it’s for one of two reasons.  Either you are the sort that believes there are massively organized, top-secret campaigns of disinformation surrounding you every day, or you are just really earnestly committed to not changing your lifestyle, and believe that the things I mentioned above – less fuel consumption, emphasis on more sustainable resources – are just too inconvenient to be worthy sacrifices for the good of the entire planet.

If you’re still on the fence about climate change, you probably just haven’t looked closely enough at the subject.  There really isn’t a debate left to be had about it.  Or if there is still room for legitimate debate, it’s on particular points of contention within the broader understanding that the phenomenon is in fact taking place, and that human action is a major driving force in it.  There never should have been as much discussion on that basic point as there has been, and if you haven’t been paying attention to the evidence, I can make that point very simple.  If you took elementary Earth Science, you know about the greenhouse effect – the Earth is made warmer than it otherwise would be by gases in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide chief among them, that trap in some of the sun’s radiant energy.  And if you’ve studied recent history, or have simply been alive for more than ten years, you should know that industrial processes and consumption of fossil fuels has increased the volumes of these gases in the atmosphere.  That is all you need to know.  Carbon dioxide warms the Earth and there’s more of it than there used to be.  If you’re going to dispute global warming you have to dispute one of those points.  You have to contend that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, or that human activity hasn’t produced carbon dioxide as a waste product, or you must claim that somehow more greenhouse gases doesn’t mean more greenhouse warming.  And if you can’t do that, it doesn’t matter if all the world’s temperature monitoring stations are physically on fire, because it doesn’t change the fact that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

That’s one simple way of looking at the issue.  Another simple view can be found in this video, which may be a bit more effective, in that it looks not to facts but to risks, and uses a game theoretic model to analyze what the consequences of inaction are in the face of even an uncertain threat from global warming.  The video was posted nearly four years ago, and yet it still seems that we’ve come to no public consensus in favor of taking serious measures to counteract climate change.  Even if you’re not sure of where you stand, you need to make up your mind to promote that consensus, considering what might be at stake.

Is Muller’s testimony going to end the debate?  There’s not a chance of that, is there?  But we really need to start asking when it’s going to be enough.  How many times do the same facts have to be reiterated before we stop asking what the facts are?  How much longer does a settled debate have to be kept on life support before we start acting in accordance with the conclusions of the winning side?  When it comes to political issues in this country, it seems as though as long as there is one loud voice on the side of the status quo, no matter how solitary and uninformed, it is enough to keep the media, government, and public dubious about the notion of change.  But let’s be clear on this:  Politics has no business splitting citizens into partisan teams where the welfare of the planet is concerned.

This dialogue is like a trial in the public consciousness, but we’ve gone on presuming our outdated lifestyles innocent long enough.  Their guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the tactics of the defense have long since become ridiculous.  It is time for those lifestyles to be locked away in history.  Every reasonable person has a responsibility to change their ways of doing things, and invest in a better future for everyone.  But the necessary first step towards that transition is to stop inviting new inquiries, seeking out non-existent scandals, falsely reporting that the verdict is not in, and gratifying the claims of those with a vested interest in not changing a damn thing.

There has to come a time when enough is enough, and talk finally turns to action.  That time should have come and gone by now.  There is no justifiable excuse for not cutting carbon emissions and changing the way we consume.  And there is no reason to not take those measures, other than the reason you might find in simply being threatened by change.  But even if established science eventually turns out to be wrong, all the green movement is asking you to do is to improve the quality of the world in which we live, as well as the quality of the products you may use.  Greenhouse effect or no greenhouse effect, we will live more happily with less pollution and a greater diversity of consumer goods.

Am I missing something?  What reason could there be not to drive more fuel efficient vehicles, or cut your in-home energy consumption, or support industries that encourage the use and cultivation of underutilized, ecologically beneficial resources like bamboo, which produces thirty per cent more oxygen than equivalent numbers of trees?  If you see a good reason why we should go on arguing and convening congressional hearings about global warming before we actually do something about it, let me know in the comments.  But as far as I can see, if you’re in the opposition on this, it’s not on account of a genuine skepticism, but rather a staunch unwillingness to change the way we’ve always done things.  If there’s any argument that can bring you around, I’m sure you’ll then find that that stubbornness was not only bad for the planet, but it was bad for you as a consumer.

Skepticism vs. Denial: Global Warming Science Confirmed Again! is a post from: Green Earth News

From a childhood fascination to an emerging research study, PhD candidate Tarannum Afrin of Deakin’s Center for Materials and Fibre Innovation in Australia is working to discover the property that gives bamboo it’s UV protective properties. Growing up, Afrin was surrounded by bamboo gardens and heard much about the medicinal properties of bamboo used in traditional medicine.  Now she’s working hard to pin down exactly what gives bamboo fibres their moisture-controlling and antibacterial properties.

Afrin’s credentials are certainly enough to make this study impressive – a degree in textile technology from Dhaka University in Bangladesh, a Master’s degree at Manchester Metropolitan University in Britain, a former textile engineer in Britain followed by work at a Sydney garment manufacturer.  With a strong knowledge of textiles and a love of bamboo, Afrin is posed to bring bamboo from an emerging fabric to THE fabric that manufacturers will want for its eco-friendliness and protective qualities.

Much of this goal is aimed at offering bamboo clothes that protect its wearer from the sun’s harmful UV rays to help prevent melanoma. In the United States, melanoma is currently the 6^th most common cancer for men and the 7^th most common for women.  According to the American Cancer Society, the incidence rate for melanoma has more than doubled in the past 20 years.  And according to the Melanoma Center, the world’s highest incidence of melanoma is in Afrin’s homeland of Australia where 1200 Australians every year die from the skin cancer.  Risk factors include a proximity to the equator, areas of ozone layer depletion and a fair-skinned immigrant population.  Afrin’s research could make protective fabrics more widely available and more readily endorsed.

“We know bamboo is 60 per cent better than cotton at blocking the sun’s UV rays and my research has identified the component in bamboo which gives it these qualities,” Ms Afrin says.

While the FTC and other regulators need more proof of these qualities, Afrin is set on providing concrete evidence to back up manufacturers and to help develop new processing techniques for bamboo fibers.

Conducted using Asian-originated bamboo grown in Queensland, Afrin claims that her research has identified the component that gives bamboo its UV-protection quality.  Comparing raw bamboo with common fibers such as cotton, 100% cellulose and commercially available bamboo yarns, she found that bamboo had the best UV-blocking ability among the samples and was at least 60% more effective than cotton.

“We are now working to develop an eco-friendly manufacturing model to process bamboo plants into fibre without losing their unique properties,” she says. “We are using bio-enzymes and mechanical force to disintegrate the lignin and hemicellulose from the cellulose, which is a big challenge because our bamboo species is nearly 30 per cent lignin, a cement-like gummy material.”

Afrin is also excited about the many environmental benefits that come from simply growing bamboo. It requires no pesticides, little irrigation, and is hearty enough to grow in poor soil.  Bamboo crops could also aid in the fight against skin cancer by helping keep harmful Carbon Dioxide out of the air.  A hectare of bamboo can absorb up to 100 tons of C02!

Visit Green Earth News section on Bamboo & The Environment for more information on this amazingly green crop!

Bamboo As Sunscreen: Australian Research Study Investigates UV Protection and Bamboo Fiber! is a post from: Green Earth News

Who’s misleading who in this “environmentally friendly” game of cat and mouse?
While the Federal Trade Commission and other such agencies focus their efforts on exploiting companies for “alleged” misleading environmental claims, it might shock you to know that in the world of textiles…the consumer is, in fact, the energy consumption machine.

So get ready to grease up those wheels because it’s time to air out your dirty laundry – quite literally.

For years consumers have been lead to believe that the processing of textiles such as cotton, polyester, rayon, and even viscose from bamboo are the culprits in destroying our planet. Whereas pesticides, soil erosion and releasing chemicals into the atmosphere are enough to make you gasp, The American Fiber Manufacturers Association and Danish Environmental Protection Agency will prove the largest environmental impact is in fact YOU – the Consumer. Shocking, but true.

The Lifecycle of a Cotton T-shirt & Polyester Blouse from Cradle to Grave

From seedling to growing and harvesting, to ginning and processing, to distribution and transportation, to your closet, on your person and into the trash is what is referred to as the “lifecycle” in a nutshell. Now let’s get to the facts of where the true energy consumption stems from – creating the biggest environmental impact.

Research from the Netherlands shows that the average piece of clothing remains in a Dutch person’s wardrobe for 3 years 5 months, is on the body for 44 days during this time and is worn for between 2.4 and 3.1 days between washings.¹ Yet even though the typical garment is only washed and dried around 20 times in its life, most of its environmental impact comes from laundering and NOT from growing, processing and producing the fabric or disposing of it at the end of its life. For example, the washing and drying of a polyester blouse uses as much as six times as much energy as that needed to make it in the first place.² Just by washing the blouse half as often, the product’s overall energy consumption can be cut by almost 50 per cent.

Whether you’re concerned about the environment or not, it’s at least worth looking at your bottom dollar when it comes to energy consumption with electricity, gas, water usage and laundry detergent.

To break this down into US dollars per T-shirt for the environmental cost of each stage in the lifecycle of a cotton T-shirt, let’s take a look at how this translates:

Growing:                     0.67
Ginning:                      0.02
Processing:                  0.02
Distribution:                0.08
Transportation:            0.32
Consumer Care:          2.69

In 1993 Franklin Associates conducted an overall lifecycle performance of a polyester blouse for the American Fiber Manufacturers Association.² The study uses an established LCA methodology and its results show unequivocally that the major part of environmental impact in the lifecycle of a blouse arises from the consumer use phase. It concludes that as much as 82 per cent of energy use, 66 per cent of solid waste, over half of the emissions to air (for carbon dioxide) and large quantities of waterborne effluents (96 per cent if measured by Biological Oxygen Demand alone) are amassed during washing and drying. Cotton and polyester account for over 80 per cent of world fibre demand, both of which reflect that the highest impact phase is attributed to the choices consumers make after purchasing the garmets.  The main issues at hand include energy, water, and detergent use in washing, and energy use in drying and ironing. If a garment were washed on cold temperatures and dried on a line instead of in a tumble dryer, then the total lifecycle energy consumption could be reduced by a factor of four according to data for polyester² and a factor of two for cotton.³ If you were to wash your garments at a lower temperature it would reduce energy consumption by about 10 per cent for every 10°C reduction.⁴ Eliminating tumble drying (which accounts for 60 per cent of the use phase) and ironing, in combination with a lower washing temperature, has been calculated to lead to around 50 per cent reduction in total energy consumption of the product.³ More recently, consumers have more choices in fibres which can also impact the type of care needed.  Studies reveal that different fibre types are laundered on different temperatures when it comes to the wash cycle. Cotton items are most commonly washed on warm temperatures (50°C or 60°C), whereas synthetics are washed cooler (at 30°C or 40°C). Therefore, synthetic or natural fibres have a far less impact associated with the use phase of the lifecycle than cotton.

Although it is clear that the consumer use phase of garments has the largest environmental impact, the textile and fashion industries can assist in reducing the use phase.  Some designers have tested crazy methods of designing clothes that require no laundering, but with little success.  So far it is just not possible to create a piece of clothing that can dispel our bodily odors and food stains without the occasional wash cycle.  However, one such material that has made leaps and bounds over cotton and other materials, when it comes to several phases of the lifecycle, is viscose from bamboo. Not only is organic bamboo grown without pesticides and herbicides, it requires no water irrigation to grow and it removes CO2 from the atmosphere and produces over 30% more oxygen than an equivalent stand of trees. But most importantly, viscose from bamboo plays a significant role in the consumer use phase due to its high level absorption properties and odoriferous qualities. Garments can be worn several times between washes, should be washed on cold temperatures and can be line dried. It’s materials like this that the fashion industry needs to focus on when keeping the end user and our environment in mind.

So the next time you go shopping, think about your environmental impact, your bottom dollar and most importantly…your “dirty laundry”.

References:
1. Uitdenbogerd, D. E. Brouwer, N. M. and Groot-Marcus, J. P. (1998), Domestic Energy Saving Potentials for Food and Textiles: An Empirical Study. Wageningen, NL: Wageningen Agricultural University.
2. Franklin Associates (1993), Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of a Manufactured Apparel Product: Woman’s knit polyester blouse, Washington DC: American Fiber Manufacturers Association, pp3-4.
3. Allwood, J. M., Laursen, S. E., Malvido de Rodriguez, C. and Bocken, N. M. P. (2006), Well Dressed? Cambridge: University of Cambridge Institute of Manufacturing, p40.
4. ENDS Report (2001) M&S recommends cooler clothes wash to save energy, No. 319, p32.

Environmental Impact: Consumers’ “Dirty Laundry” is a post from: Green Earth News

As many of you are aware, the Federal Trade Commission has made the allegation that bamboo fabric (viscose from bamboo) does not retain any antimicrobial properties that are prevalent in the plant itself. They state this without providing any scientific evidence to back it up. However, there have been numerous studies, scientific test results and claims from China, Japan, India and the U.S. stating that bamboo fabric is in fact antimicrobial.

Furthermore, anyone who has had the pleasure of wearing bamboo clothing, bamboo socks or sleeping on bamboo sheets will verify that they wick away sweat and do not retain or emit odors as other fabrics do. Not only that, you can wear a shirt several days in a row without washing in between wearings. So even if this fabric has bionic super powers when it comes to its absorbency qualities, how is it possible that your body does not produce an odor if there are no antimicrobial properties?

We’ll leave that hypothesis to science and continue to provide you with actual scientific test results and case studies until the FTC concludes either they must be mistaken or they have in fact come up with their own scientific evidence to prove their theory.

Study of antimicrobial behavior of socks from bamboo fibers

by C. Gomathi

Study of Antimicrobial Behavior of Socks from Bamboo Fibers is a post from: Green Earth News

What is fabric hand? Fabric hand is one of the essential parameters characterizing garments’ appearance and quality. Or, to put it in lay terms, you know that favorite t-shirt of yours that you have had for years and washed over 100 times to make it super, ultra soft? That soft touch you so love is found in bamboo clothes and bamboo blended garments without even a single washing. That my friends is exceptional fabric hand, also known as “textile hand”.  And that exceptional fabric hand translates into luxuriously soft textiles for consumers including bamboo bedding.

Every year, professors, scientists, and chemists gather at symposiums around the world to discuss their latest findings in the textile industry. They compile all of their research, data and lab test results on various fibers and fabrics to share their new found knowledge and how it might impact the textile industry.

The Baltic Polymer Symposium was held in Lithuania in 2007 and was attended by well known scientists and professors from Lithuania, Germany, France, Sweden, Spain, and Poland, just to name a few. There were 115 participants from 11 countries that took part in the Symposium, presenting 9 invited, 22 oral and 75 poster presentations.

One such presentation, selected by the scientific committee, was one of several chosen to be published. This presentation was the “Influence of Bamboo Fiber on Fabric Hand” by D. Grinevičiūtė, G. Kazakevičiūtė , M. Gutauskas, R. Rimkutė, and A. Abraitienė from the Lithuanian Textile Institute, Kuanas, Lithuania and Kaunas University of Technology – Department of Clothing and Polymer Products Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania.

Not that it’s any secret as to how I feel about bamboo, but rather than putting this in my own words, I felt it best to directly quote their findings, so as to not come across as biased. We at Green Earth News are all about researching, documenting, going to the source, and reporting to you our findings so you can draw your own conclusions. Of course we have our opinions as well, but science doesn’t lie folks.

INFLUENCE OF BAMBOO FIBRE ON FABRIC HAND

Abstract

The aim of this research was to perform quantitative evaluation and comparison of hand parameters of bamboo, cotton and cotton/bamboo blended fabrics of various structures and finishing. The evaluation of fabric hand was performed using method based on the principle of specimen biaxial punching deformation when a disc-shaped specimen is extracted through a round nozzle. Analysing test results into two groups of raw and finished bamboo, cotton and cotton/bamboo blended fabrics of the same structure, area density and thickness, it was established that in all cases bamboo fibre improved fabric hand. Additionally, the softeners improve hand of bamboo containing fabrics to much greater extent than hand of pure cotton fabrics. To sum up the research results, it may be concluded that hand parameters of blended fabrics can be alternated to different degree by adding bamboo fibre.

Introduction

Bamboo fibre is a new regenerated cellulose fibre produced from bamboo plant. This polymeric material is characterized by its good soft feel, air permeability, antibacterial and hygroscopic properties, exceptional eco friendliness. First commercially produced in 21st century it has wide prospects in different fields of textile industry. The consumption of bamboo fibre in textile industry is constantly growing all over the world beginning from the country of its origin China and ranging to the famous textile companies in the USA and Europe. The main garments produced from bamboo fibre are T-shirts, terry towels, socks, bed linen, knitted materials for sports and leisure wear, etc. Research is carried out in the area of bamboo fibre processing, properties of textile materials and widening of the application areas. However, the majority of publications dealing with bamboo textiles are in Chinese and only a few publications are published in other languages [1-3].

Textile hand is one of the essential parameters characterizing garments’ appearance and quality. It could be expected that inclusion of bamboo fiber into textile materials made from mixed fibres can positively improve their hand. The goal of this research was to carry out quantitative evaluation and comparison of hand parameters of bamboo, cotton and cotton/bamboo blended fabrics of various structures and finishing solutions.

Experimental

Experiments were carried out for two groups of cotton, bamboo and cotton/bamboo blended fabrics – raw and treated (scoured, dyed, dried). Weaving process was performed using unsized warp, bamboo fiber was inserted only in the weft system.

Evaluating the influence of softeners on different structure fabric hand, part of investigated objects was treated with industrial softeners: non-ionogenic “Viskosil PSN” (“BOME”) and cationogenic “Belfasin SI” (“COGNIS”). Textile  fabrics’ treatment was performed periodically using 5 % of softener from fabric weight, modulus 1:50, temperature 40 ºC, duration – 20 min. After treatment, fabrics were squeezed and dried. In comparison, fabrics of the same structure were soaked in the pure water in the same conditions, then squeezed and dried.

Fabric hand was determined using a method based on the principle of specimen biaxial punching deformation when a disc-shaped specimen is extracted through a round nozzle. Tests were carried out using KTU – Griff – Tester fitted to universal tensile testing device [4]. During the test, extraction curve H – P (deflection – force) was registered and on its basis primary hand parameters were determined: Pmax – maximal extraction force, tgα – initial slope angle, A – pulling work. The primary hand parameters were expressed by one numeric value – the complex hand parameter Q – area of a polygon in a polar chart [5, 6].

Results and Discussion

Analysis of the influence that the quantity of bamboo fiber had on plain weave raw fabric hand showed that hand of pure bamboo fabric (3U) was 28 %, and fabric interblended with 45 % bamboo (2U) was 15 % superior to pure cotton fabric (1U) hand (Fig. 1, a). Hand of treated twill weave cotton/bamboo fabric of the same density and similar area density varied depending on bamboo quantity: increase of bamboo fiber from 15 to 55 % led to decrease of complex hand rate Q from 20 to 28 % (Fig. 1, b).

(Basically folks, the shorter the bar, the better the fabric hand in these graphs below.)

Fig. 1. Influence of bamboo fiber on raw (a) and finished of different density and area density (b, c) fabrics’ hand

Fig. 1, c) presents a comparison of fabric hand results for pure cotton fabrics (6T, 8T, 10T) of different density and area density, and for analogous cotton/bamboo blended fabrics (7T, 9T, 11T). It can be noted that in all cases interblending fabric composition with bamboo fiber improved fabric hand from 22,0 to 41,4 %.

Analysis of influence that soaking in the water and softeners had on fabric hand showed that the decrease of complex hand rate Q of raw fabrics 1U (100 % cotton) and 3U (100 % bamboo) was unequal (Fig. 2, a). It was determined that the influence of water and softeners was more significant on bamboo fiber: Q decreased (hand improved) by 19,7 % and 45,7 % respectively. Analogous test results of finished fabrics (Fig. 2, b) revealed similar influence of water and softeners on fabric hand. Soaking in the water improved softness of both fabrics by approximately 20 %, whereas after industrial softening, hand improved up to 69,6 % (1T – 100 % cotton) and up to 82,1 % (5T – 45 % cotton, 55 % bamboo). It was noticed that absorption properties of treated fabrics are considerably significant if compared to the raw ones and this implies that softening of finished fabrics is much more efficient. To sum up the results of the present investigation, it may be stated that significant influence that softeners have on hand of fabric interblended with bamboo seems to be coherent with superior absorption properties of bamboo fiber (if compared to cotton fiber).

Fig. 2. Influence of soaking in the water and softeners on raw (a) and finished (b) fabrics’ hand. (notation: 1U, 3U, 1T, 5T – initial fabric, H2O – fabric soaked in water; B – fabric soaked in the softener “Belfasin SI”; V – fabric soaked in the softener “Viskozil PSN”)

The research results show that the influence which bamboo fiber has on fabric hand is evident: bamboo fiber in fabric composition in all cases enhances fabric hand. Comparing different composition fabrics of the same density and area density it has been noticed that bamboo blended fabrics are notably softer. Additional softness could be achieved using softeners, the efficiency of which is much more significant on blended bamboo fabrics than on those of pure cotton. Therefore, bamboo fiber can extend the assortment of natural fabricsand improve their softness and hygienic properties.

Conclusions

1. Results established using a method of restricted extraction for hand evaluation of pure cotton and blended cotton/bamboo fabrics show that interblending bamboo fiber into cotton fabric composition significantly improves fabrics’ hand (for investigated objects 20 – 41 %).

2. Additional softness could be achieved using softeners, the efficiency of which is much more significant (45 – 82 %) to finished as well as raw fabrics interblended with bamboo fibers, if compared to those of pure cotton.

3. Interblending bamboo fibre into cotton fabric weft gives an opportunity to increase the softness of the fabric and to extend the assortment of natural fabrics.

References
1. M. Ozturk, In Proceedings of 3rd International Textile, Clothing & Design Conference – Magic World of Textiles, (2006).
2. Xiangyu Xu, Yueping Wang, Xiaodan Zhang , Guangyin Jing, Dapeng Yu , Shouguo Wang, Surface and Interface Analyses, 38 (8), 1211 – 1217, (2006).
3. Zhao Bo, In The Fibre Society 2007 Spring Conference, (USA, Clemson University), (2007).
4. D. Truncytė, M. Gutauskas, Lithuanian Patent Nr. 5293, G01B 5/20, G01B 13/16, (2005).
5. D. Grinevičiūtė, M. Gutauskas, Materials Science, 10 (1), 97 – 100, (2004).
6. D. Grinevičiūtė, L. Papreckienė, M. Gutauskas, Materials Science, 12 (1), 79 – 83, (2006)

Bamboo Fabric Hand Outdoes Cotton: Science Tells All is a post from: Green Earth News

Can Rayon Really Save Your Life?

The FTC would have you believe that “rayon from bamboo” is the same quality fabric as “traditional rayon” due to its similar process. The FTC would also have you believe that companies have been misrepresenting this fabric by calling it bamboo or fiber from bamboo rather than rayon from bamboo.

What you may not realize is that bamboo fabric is so new to the industry that it has not been given a true textile classification and until it has, the FTC has recently decided it must be called “rayon from bamboo” because it is processed in a similar manner. What they don’t tell you is that rayon is a process and when that process is applied to different source materials, the finished products are not identical.

The FTC fails to mention that rayon is merely the process and when bamboo fabric is looked at under a microscope it proves to be far superior than your typical wood-derived rayon. After all, can rayon really save your life?

The Research Behind The Science

This particular topic is one we find to be incredibly fascinating and our plan is to provide you with as much scientific information as we can get our hands on. So be sure to grab an rss feed to this blog for future posts on this topic. In the mean time we will begin with the first aspect that clearly sets wood-derived rayon and bamboo-derived rayon apart from one another.

First, we would like to take a brief moment to thank Stan Eskridge, Jr., the CEO of Entegrion, Inc. for providing us with scientific data they have published in the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials 91B(1), 381-389, June, 2009 (1).  As some of you may know from our previous posts, Entegrion is a company located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, that has been contracted by the U.S. Navy for the development of products to control bleeding that are critically needed.

Entegrion has studied the characteristics of bamboo rayon at great length for purposes of finding a material that can transport blood in a manner that far surpasses that of any other material. With their discoveries, the Stasilon® dressing was born with the use of bamboo rayon and glass materials. This unique bandage, with all its scientific data, has been cleared for market by the FDA.

Throughout his research, Dr. Tom Fischer, Entegrion’s founder and Chief Science Officer, discovered remarkable qualities in bamboo rayon he has have never seen before in any other fiber. Because of this, Entegrion’s research is ongoing and continues to uncover amazing characteristics of bamboo rayon…one of which we will share with you here.

Scientific Results That Indicate “Rayon” and “Bamboo Rayon” are Entirely Different Animals

Entegrion’s quest for developing a unique dressing to be used for the military and civilian medicine to help save lives, led them to test approximately 70 textile fibers to determine which ones could literally make the difference in saving one’s life because of the fiber’s coagulation characteristics.

“The design and testing of a dual fiber textile matrix for accelerating surface hemostasis.”

Below is a graph indicating how “specialty rayon” (Bamboo rayon) surpasses that of every other textile in terms of thrombin generation (a key measure of coagulation prowess), with wood-derived rayon being near the far end of the spectrum (Regular Rayon).

“But the FTC told us that rayon from bamboo is the same as any other rayon?”
Far from it…

Taking a closer look at these test results, Entegrion concluded the following:

1)    The crystallinity of bamboo viscose is lower than that of standard viscose or lyocell.  However, the chemical and structural aspects of specialty rayon (bamboo) that make this fiber more prothrombogenic than other cellulosic fibers, such as wood-derived rayon and cotton gauze, are not yet fully understood.

2)    Test results revealed that the dual fiber Stasilon® textile bound approximately three times as many red blood cells (RBCs) per unit weight as gauze, and that the RBC binding to the dual fiber matrix is due primarily to the specialty rayon (bamboo) content.

It should also be noted that Stasilon® received clearance by the United States Food and Drug Administration for broad-based use in surgical and emergency medicine in December of 2007 (United States Food and Drug Administration 510(k) number K072890). Based on comparison with existing products and based on data from porcine hemorrhage studies, the FDA cleared Stasilon® with an indication as a hemostatic wound dressing.  Subsequent clinical studies with human burn patients validated these findings and also demonstrated unique properties for non-adherence of the textile to the wound bed.  Such non-adherence (which minimizes clot disruption and rebleeding upon removal of the device from the wound), is completely unique and is believed to result from the unique interaction of the bamboo rayon component of Stasilon® with RBCs.

We will be bringing you more scientific data on the remarkable qualities of bamboo fiber or “bamboo rayon” as it comes available to us. Whether it’s bamboo bandages or bamboo clothing, it’s important to be accurate so be sure to pass this important data on to everyone you feel has been “bamboozled” by the FTC.

A special thanks to Entegrion for allowing us to publish this information. Please visit Entegrion to learn more about their incredible success in developing products that can literally save someone’s life.

(1) Thomas H. Fischer,  John N. Vournakis, James E. Manning, Shane L. McCurdy, Preston B. Rich, Timothy C. Nichols, Christopher M. Scull, Marian G. McCord, Joseph A. Decorta, Peter C. Johnson, and Carr J. Smith (2009). “The design and testing of a dual fiber textile matrix for accelerating surface hemostasis.” Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials 91B(1), 381-389. Abstract available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.31413.

FTC Claims Bamboo and Rayon Are One in The Same is a post from: Green Earth News