STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ULTRAVIOLET PROTECTION AND KNITTED FABRIC STRUCTURE

CHAN YAN YI BA (Hons) Scheme in Fashion and Textiles (Fashion Technology Specialism)

INSTITUTE OF TEXTILES & CLOTHING From THE HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY 2012

STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ULTRAVIOLET PROTECTION AND KNITTED FABRIC STRUCTURE

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Fashion & Textiles (Fashion Technology Specialism) under the Supervision of Dr. C.W. KAN by Yan Yi CHAN

Institute of Textiles & Clothing The Hong Kong Polytechnic University March 2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. C.W. Kan of the Institute of Textiles & Clothing in the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, not only for his kind guidance and invaluable advice, but also for his generous support and patience throughout my preparation of the project work.

I would also like to express my appreciation to Mr. Stephen Chong. and Mr. Eddie Yim for his constant and generous assistance to provide experimental support and guidance. Special thanks should also be given to the technicians of the ITC laboratories including Ms. Susan Liu and Mr. Zhou in knitting workshop who gave me generous guidance and experimental advice on the laboratory work.

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it reproduces no material previously published or written, nor material that has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma, except where due acknowledgement had been made in the text.

_____________________________________________________________(Signed) ______________________________________________________(Name of student)

ABSTRACT Over the past few decades, the increasing number of worldwide skin cancer cases raises the public concerns about ultraviolet light protection by means of textile clothing. This study was aimed at studying the relationship between the lightweight knitted fabric structures and Ultraviolet (UV) protection by analyzing various types of knitting structures after the scouring process. In this project, the effect of different kinds of the knitted fabric structure in relation to the UV protection was studied. Different knitting structures were investigated which included single jersey such as plain, pineapple, lacoste and other combinations of different knitting stitches of knit, tuck and miss as well as double jersey fabrics of half Milano, full Milano, half cardigan, full cardigan, 1x1 rib and interlock. The results showed that double knit fabrics had better UV protection due to the heavier and thicker nature. The relationship with type of the stitch, fabric openness and UV protection was studied as well as the effect of different weights, thicknesses, stitch density and bursting strength of knitted fabric in UV protection was studied. It was found the type of stitches and porosity affected the UPF significantly. Weight was the most important factor that affected UPF while thickness and stitch density were not the leading factor in determining UPF. The correlation between bursting strength and UPF was moderate.

CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGRURES

CHAPTER 1
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1

INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1

Background of Study ..................................................................... 1 Research objective ...................................................................... 3 Research methodology ................................................................... 3 Research significant ..................................................................... 4 Chapter Summary ........................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................. 6

Introduction on Ultraviolet radiation .................................................... 6

2.1.1 Three groups of UVR: UVA, UVB and UVC ..................................... 7 2.1.2 Effect of UVR on human health ........................................................ 8 2.2 Quantitative methods of assessing UV Protection of textiles ...................... 10 2.2.1 In vitro test method ...................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Determination of the Ultraviolet Protective Factor (UPF) ........................ 12 2.2.2.1 Spectral transmittance ................................................................ 12 2.2.2.2 Solar spectral irradiance ............................................................... 13 2.2.2.3 Erythemal action spectrum ............................................................ 14 2.2.3 In vivo test method ....................................................................... 14 2.3 Characteristics of knitting elements and structures ................................. 15

2.3.1 Fundamentals elements of knitting .................................................... 15 2.3.1.1 Knit stitch ................................................................................ 16 2.3.1.2 Tuck stitch ............................................................................... 16 2.3.1.3 Miss stitch ............................................................................... 17 2.3.1.4 Course and Wale ....................................................................... 18 2.3.2 Knitting structures ........................................................................ 18 2.3.2.1 Single knit ............................................................................... 18 2.3.2.2 Double knit .............................................................................. 20

2.3.2.2.1 Half Milano ............................................................. 21 2.3.2.2.2 Full Milano ............................................................. 21 2.3.2.2.3 Half Cardigan .......................................................... 22 2.3.2.2.4 Full Cardigan ........................................................... 23 2.3.2.2.5 1x1 Rib .................................................................. 24 2.3.2.2.6 Interlock ................................................................. 24 2.4 3.1 3.2 Summary of literature review .......................................................... 26

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 27

Introduction............................................................................... 27 Fabric sample preparation .............................................................. 27

3.2.1 Yarn preparation ......................................................................... 27 3.2.2 Knitting fabric samples .................................................................. 29 3.2.3 Knitting structures ........................................................................ 30 3.2.4 Cotton scouring ........................................................................... 33 3.3 UV Transmission Test .................................................................. 35

3.3.1 Standardized Test Methods ............................................................. 36 3.3.2 Calculation of Ultraviolet Protective Factor (UPF) ................................ 37 3.3.3 Test procedures ........................................................................... 38 3.4 Test on other fabric parameters........................................................ 39

3.4.1 Test on fabric weight per unit area .................................................... 39 3.4.2 Test on fabric thickness ................................................................. 40 3.4.3 Test on stitch density .................................................................... 40 3.4.4 Test on bursting strength ................................................................ 41 3.5 4.1 4.2 Summary of methodology .............................................................. 42 RESULT AND DISCUSSION ................................................ 43 Introduction ................................................................................. 43 General review of testing results ...................................................... 43

CHAPTER 4

4.2.1 Single knit structure...................................................................... 44 4.2.2 Double knit structure .................................................................... 47 4.3 Effect of knitting structure on UPF ................................................... 49

4.3.1 Result on single knit structures ........................................................ 49 4.3.2 Discussion on single knit structures ................................................... 54 4.3.3 Result on double knit structures ....................................................... 56 4.3.4 Discussion on double knit structures .................................................. 60 4.3.5 Comparison on both knitting structures .............................................. 63 4.4 Effect of fabric weight, thickness and weight-to-thickness ratio on UPF ...... 66

4.4.1 Effect of fabric weight on UPF ........................................................ 67

4.4.1.1 Relationship between fabric weight and UPF among individual structures .......... 67 4.4.1.2 Relationship between mean fabric weight and mean UPF on different structures .. 72

4.4.2 Effect of fabric thickness on UPF ..................................................... 77

4.4.2.1 Relationship between fabric thickness and UPF among individual structures ....... 77 4.4.2.2 Relationship between mean fabric thickness and mean UPF on different structures 80 4.4.3 Effect of weight-to-thickness ratio on UPF ................................................. 85

4.4.3.1 Relationship between weight-to-thickness ratio among individual structures ........ 85 4.4.3.2 Relationship between mean weight-to-thickness ratio and mean UPF on different structures ....................................................................................... 88 4.4.4 4.4.5 Conclusion on the effect of weight, thickness, W/T ratio in different knit structures 93 Comparison between the effect of weight, thickness and W/T ratio .................... 96

4.5
4.5.1 4.5.2

Effect of stitch density on UPF ........................................................ 98

Relationship between stitch density and UPF among individual structures ............ 99 Relationship between mean stitch density and mean UPF on different structures ... 102

4.6
4.6.1 4.6.2

Effect of bursting strength on UPF ................................................. 108

Relationship between bursting strength and UPF among individual structures ....... 108 Relationship between mean bursting strength and mean UPF on different structures ................................................................................................... 111

4.7 5.1 5.2

Summary of result and discussion ................................................... 118 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 119 Conclusion .............................................................................. 119 Recommendation....................................................................... 122

CHAPTER 5

REFERENCES .................................................................................. 125

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 Page 28 29 31 32 34 37 45 47 47 49 50 51 53 54 57 58 59 61 62 64 65 67 69 72 76 79 80

Typical fabric mass and yarn requirements to manufacture specific garments Specifications of the 10 types of 100% cotton yarns used Notations and types of stitches of the 9 single knitting structures Notations and types of stitches of the 6 double knitting structures Recipe of the scouring bath Rating system of UPF Result of UV transmission tests of single knit structures Result of mean UPFs and other physical properties of single knit fabric Result of UV transmission tests of double knit structures Result of mean UPFs and other physical properties of double knit fabric Result of mean UPFs of different cotton fibers in single knit structures Result of mean UPFs of different yarn counts in single knit structures Table of mean UPFs and type of stitches in single knit structures Summary of maximum and minimum mean UPFs in single knit structures Result of mean UPFs of different cotton fibers in double knit structures Result of mean UPFs of different yarn count in double knit structures Table of mean UPFs and type of stitches in double knit structures Summary of maximum and minimum mean UPFs in double knit structures Table of the ratio of tuck or miss stitch to knit stitch of milanos and cardigans Table of mean UPFs of both single and double knit structures Summary of maximum and minimum mean UPFs in single knit structures Interpretation of Correlation Coefcient Table of regression statistics of UPF against fabric weight Table of the relationship between mean fabric weight and mean UPFs Table of regression statistics of mean UPF against mean fabric weights Table of regression statistics of UPF against fabric thickness Table of the relationship between mean fabric thickness and mean UPFs

4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34

Table of regression statistics of mean UPF against mean fabric thickness Table of regression statistics of UPF against weight-to-thickness ratio Table of the relationship between mean weight-to-thickness ratio and mean UPF Table of regression statistics of mean weight-to-thickness ratio against mean UPF Summary of the regression statistics of the effect within same knit structures Summary of the regression statistics of weight, thickness and W/T ratio Table of regression statistics of UPF against stitch density Table of the relationship between mean weight-to-thickness ratio and mean UPF Table of regression statistics of mean stitch density against mean UPF Table of regression statistics of UPF against stitch density Table of the relationship between mean weight-to-thickness ratio and mean UPF

84 87 88 92 93 96 101 103 107 110 111

Table of the ratio of tuck stich to knit stitch of knit-and-tuck single knit 113 Table of regression statistics of mean bursting strength against mean 116 UPF

LIST OF FIGURES Figures 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Page 6 9 11 13 16 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 35 39 41 45 48 50 52

Wavelength and energy level of electromagnetic spectrum Statitics of non-melanoma skin cancer in Hong Kong Illustration of total transmittance with an integrating sphere Reflection, absorption and transmittion of UV radiation on textile material Diagram of a knit stitch on technical face (a) Diagram of a knit stitch, (b) Photograph of backside of a plain knitted (a) Diagram of a miss stitch, (b) Photograph of backside of a plain knitted (a) Diagram of a wale, (b) Diagram of a course Model of (a) front and (b) back views of plain knit Model of (a) front and (b) back views of lacoste structure Photograph of pineapple structure Yarn path diagram of half Milano structure Yarn path diagram of full Milano structure Yarn path diagram of half cardigan structure Model of (a) front and (b) back views of half cardigan structure Yarn path diagram of full cardigan structure Model of (a) front and (b) back views of full cardigan structure Yarn path diagram of 1x1 rib structure Model of (a) front and (b) back views of 1x1 structure) Yarn path diagram of interlock structure Model of interlock structure Photograph of the Varian Cary 300 UV-visible spectrophotometer Photograph of measuring the fabric weight Photograph of measuring the stitch density Graph of the average UPFs of each type of yarn used and mean UPF of single knit structure. Graph of the average UPFs of each type of yarn used and mean UPF of double knit structures Compound bar chart of mean UPFs of different cotton fibers in single knit structures Compound bar chart of mean UPFs of different yarn counts in single knit structures

4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27

Bar chart of mean UPFs of different single knit structures Illustration of geometry of (a) knit stitch, (b) miss stitch and (c) tuck stitch Compound bar chart of mean UPFs of different cotton fibers in double knit structures Compound bar chart of mean UPFs of different yarn count in double knit structures Bar chart of mean UPFs of different double knit structures Bar chart of mean UPFs of all knitting structures Linear regression diagram of UPF against fabric weight of single knit Linear regression diagram of UPF against fabric weight of double knit Graph of mean fabric weights and mean UPFs in ascending order of single knit structures Graph of mean fabric weights and mean UPFs in ascending order of double knit structures Linear regression diagram between mean fabric weights and mean UPF Linear regression diagram of UPF against fabric thinckess of single knit Linear regression diagram of UPF against fabric thinckess of double knit Graph of mean fabric thickness and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures Graph of mean fabric thickness and mean UPF in ascending order of double knit structures Linear regression diagram between mean fabric thickness and mean UPF Linear regression diagram of UPF against W/T ratio of single knit Linear regression diagram of UPF against W/T ratio of double knit Graph of mean weight-to-thickness ratio and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures Graph of mean weight-to-thickness ratio and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures Linear regression diagram between mean W/T ratio and mean UPF Compound bar chart of the correlation coefficient of weight of weight, thickness and W/T ratio Compound bar chart of the coefficient of determination of weight of weight, thickness and W/T ratio

53 55 57 58 60 64 68 69 73 75 76 78 78 81 82 84 86 86 89 91 92 94 95

4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.38 4.39

Compound bar chart of the correlation coefficient of weight, thickness 97 and W/T ratio Compound bar chart of the coefficient of determination of weight, thickness and W/T ratio Linear regression diagram of UPF against stitch density of single knit Linear regression diagram of UPF against stitch density of double knit Graph of mean stitch density and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures Graph of mean stitch density and mean UPF in ascending order of double knit structures Linear regression diagram between mean stitch density and mean UPF Linear regression diagram of UPF against stitch density of single knit Linear regression diagram of UPF against stitch density of double knit Graph of mean bursting strength and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures Graph of mean bursting strength and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures Linear regression diagram between mean bursting strength and mean UPF 98 100 100 104 106 107 109 109 112 115 117

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of Study Among the solar radiations, the sun emits ultraviolet radiation (UVR) which is an electromagnetic radiation with a shorter wavelength but higher energy than that of visible light. The electromagnetic spectrum of UVR is mainly classified into three classes according to the wavelength which includes UVA, UVB and UVC. It is a unique and important process for a human to be exposed to adequate amount of ultraviolet radiation in sunlight as a natural source to trigger the production of vital nutrient, vitamin D3. However, long-term exposure of ultraviolet light is harmful and carcinogenic to human and leads to damage to skins, eyes, immune system (MacKie, 2000) and even DNA damage as well as genetic mutations (Narayanan et al., 2010). Moreover, it is proved that UVR from the Sun is the primary cause of skin cancer by the previous researches (Saladi & Persaud, 2005; Narayanan et al., 2010) The number of skin cancer cases found has been increasing around the world in the recent years, including both non-melanoma and melanoma skin cancers. There are about 2 to 3 million non-melanoma skin cancers and 132,000 melanoma skin cancers found in the globe annually (World Health Organization, 2011). The Skin Cancer Foundation (2011) also points out that actually the possibilities of skin cancers of America is high
1

one in every five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime. In terms of local health issue, the number of non-melanoma skin cancers found was also increased according to the statistics from the Hong Kong Cancer Registry of Hospital Authority. Non-melanoma skin cancer was ranked at eighth among the top ten cancer cases found in Hong Kong in terms of incidence (Hong Kong Cancer Registry, 2011). The risk of UVR cannot be neglected since it brings bad impact to the health of Hong Kong citizens and well as worldwide populations. Indeed, skin cancer is a worth-concerning international problem and hence UV protection is very important for mankind to prevent the harmful effect of overexposure under sunlight. Apart from sunscreen and shading, wearing textile garments is also a practical precaution to avoid the contact of skin and UVR so as to prevent the symptoms of sun exposure like sunburn or even more serious diseases including and skin cancers. Although it has been published that apparel textiles is recommended as a means of sun protection (Gies et al., 1998), the supply of suitable clothing which offers simple and effective UV protection is still inadequate. There is a worldwide consumer demand for lightweight summer clothing which is comfortable to wear and offers good UV protection (Pailthorpe, 1997). In summer times, there is a higher chance of UVR exposure in terms of intensity and duration while light weight knitted garment is much more popular in that season.
2

1.2 Research objective This project is aimed at investigating the ability of UV protection of light weight knitted fabric in terms of knitting structure. The objectives of this study are summarized as follows: i. To study the effect of different kinds of knitted fabric structures in relation to the UV protection ii. iii. To study the relationship with type of the stitch, cover factor and UV protection To study the effect of different weights, thicknesses, stitch density and bursting strength of knitted fabric with different structures in UV protection

1.3 Research methodology In this research study, different characteristics of light weight knitted cotton fabric were examined for the relationship of UV protection. The dependent variable, the index of UV protection Ultraviolet Protective Factor (UPF), was measured by

spectrophotometer, an integrating sphere and detector. Different fabric parameters were tested to see if they were the independent variables to determine UVR transmission and could be used to predict the UV protective capabilities of light weight cotton knitted fabric.

1.4 Research significant It is known that textile clothing can provide substantial protection against UVR and is able to reduce the harmful effect. Thus it is essential to understand the relationship of UV protection ability and other parameters of textile clothing, especially the lightweight knitted summer clothing. Quantifying the amount of UVR protection of textile materials can have useful applications from manufacturing to daily use. However, studies and research on the ability of UV protection and light weight knitted fabric are still insufficient. This study can provide a comprehensive database to the manufacturers and designers for considerations during the production of UV protective knitted fabric and enhance the development of functional knitted garments for UV protection.

1.5 Chapter Summary In chapter 1, a general review on the background of the research was given. The research objective, methodology and significant was also shown. In chapter 2, introduction on UVR was told including the three classes of UVR and the effect on UVR on human health. The two quantitative methods of assessing UV protection of textiles, in vitro test and in vivo test were studied. Also, the characteristics of different knitting elements (stitch, course and wale) were told. The construction methods and properties on both single and double knitting structures were also studied.
4

In chapter 3, the methodology of this research including how to prepare the fabric samples and testing methods were given. The structures investigated in this research were listed. The detail information of the materials, apparatus, equipments, testing procedures used in the research was written down. In chapter 4, the result of all tests including UV transmission, fabric weight, thickness, stitch density and bursting strength were listed in tables. The data was also grouped and plotted in different graphs for further analysis. Linear regression was used to investigate the correlation between different fabric parameter and UPFs. The effects of different fabric parameters on UPF were discussed with the aid of graphs and tables. In chapter 5, conclusion on all results in this research was drawn and further recommendations to enhance this research were suggested.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Introduction on Ultraviolet radiation Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is one of the radiations among the electromagnetic spectrum and the major source is the sun. According to figure 2.1, the sun emits electromagnetic radiation which ranges from short wavelength but high energy Gamma rays to long wavelength but low energy radio waves. Ultraviolet has a shorter wavelength but higher energy level than visible light since wavelength is inversely proportional to energy. UVR bring great influence to all living organisms and affect the biological metabolism. Since the wavelength of UVR is beyond visible light, it is also not visible to human eyes.

Figure 2.1 Wavelength and energy level of electromagnetic spectrum

6

2.1.1. Three groups of UVR: UVA, UVB and UVC Ultraviolet radiation is normally divided to three classes by wavelengths, which are UVA, UVB and UVC. UVA is the ultraviolet radiation of wavelength from 315 nanometers (nm) to 400nm. UVB means the ultraviolet radiation with wavelength from 280nm to 315nm and UVC is the ultraviolet radiation of wavelength from 100nm to 280nm. (Akaydin, 2010; World Health Organization, 2011) Approximately 9099% of the UVA reaches the surface of the earth and is not filtered by the ozone layer (Narayanan et al., 2010). UVA has longer wavelength and lower energy than the other UVR but it can penetrate into the skin deeper. Over expousure of UVA also triggers premature ageing of protein bres, elastin and collagen of skin and is carcinogenic to the stem cells of the skin. (Benjamin & Ananthaswamy, 2007) For UVB, only about 110% reaches the earths surface and is filtered by the stratospheric ozone layer in the atmosphere. (Narayanan et al., 2010) The thickness of ozone layer is not uniform and the concentration tends to increase toward the poles. (Kullavanijaya & Lim, 2005) The intensity of UVB radiation varies from season, time and location, however, ozone depletion has a significant effect on the increase amount of UVB that reaches the earth. UVB has shorter wavelength and stronger energy than UVA and is still able to penetrate the upper layers of the skin epidermis. Photoageing which
7

means the degradation of exposed skin including wrinkling, loss of elasticity, and accumulation of yellowish pigments is mainly caused by UVB (Juzeniene et al, 2011) UVB radiation induces DNA damage, which causes inflammatory responses, formation of tumor (Meeran et al., 2008) . UVB is the main cause of skin cancer and increase risk on cataracts. UVC is extremely dangerous but most of it is absorbed by the ozone layer in the atmosphere and does not reach the surface of the earth normally but it can sill burn the skin. (Narayanan et al., 2010) If it can arrive the surface of the earth, it would be the most harmful radiation to eyes and skin (Palacin, 1997; Akaydin et al., 2009). 2.1.2. Effect of UVR on human health The intensity of UVR is reduced by clouds but not to the same extent of infrared. It would diminish the feel of heat and leads to potential of overexposure of UVR. Exposure to UVR may result in immunosuppression, genetic mutations and is harmful to different human organs like eyes and especially the one with largest surface area, integumentary system by erythema, sunburn, tanning, skin ageing and skin cancer (Keybus et al, 2006). UVR also affect the eye and lead to pterygium and corneal degenerative changes. (Balk, 2011) UVR also contributed to the development of cataracts, a disease that develops clouding in the crystalline lens of the eye or in its envelope and can cause blindness. It is suggested that wrap-around sunglasses should be wear to block both UVA
8

and UVB radiation. UVR can cause damage to all types of skin, both for light or dark brown skin. Excessive exposures of UVR would cause cumulative damage to skin and hence UVR is also the major etiologic agent of developing skin cancers. (Saladi, 2005) The International Agency for Research on Cancer (1992) proved that UVR exposure would lead to two types of dangerous cancer including non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and cutaneous malignant melanoma.

Incidence of non-melanoma skin cancer cases in Hong Kong from 2000 to 2009
900 800

Number of cases found

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2000 503 2001 536 2002 602 2003 526 2004 594 2005 569 2006 624 2007 762 2008 717 2009 811

No. of cases

Figure 2.2 Statitics of non-melanoma skin cancer in Hong Kong Source: Data complied by the Cancer Statistics Query System (CanSQS), Hong Kong Cancer Registry

In addition, in terms of local health issue, the number of non-melanoma skin cancers
9

found was also increased from 2000 to 2009 according to the statistics from the Hong Kong Cancer Registry (HKCR) of Hospital Authority (figure 2.2). It is obvious that the risk of UVR induced skin cancers is hazardous to the health of Hong Kong citizens and continuously growing. In order to prevent skin cancer, it is suggested that protective clothing and hats should be wear (Glanz et al, 2002) Therefore, it is necessary to understand the UV protection ability of textile garments and even an emerging market exists and people have demand for special UV protective clothing (Osterwalder et al, 2000). 2.2. Quantitative methods of assessing UV Protection of textiles In general, there were two approaches of quantitative methods to assess the UV protection ability of textile products. One approach is in vitro which is direct while another approach, in vivo, is indirect. (Gambichler et al., 2001) Theoretically, both in vitro method and in vivo method measure the relative ability of textile to protect against minimal sunburn compared to skin that is not protected. 2.2.1. In vitro test method According to the previous researches (Stanford et al., 1997; Hoffmann et al, 2001; Algaba & Riva, 2002), in vitro approach is a direct method which measures the diffuse UV transmittance through a fabric to determine the UV protection ability by the ration Ultraviolet Protective Factor (UPF).
10

In vitro test method is a spectrophotometry method which mainly involves several equipments including a spectrophotometer, an integrating sphere, and a detector which responds similarly to human skin as well as the aids of PC computes. A spectrophotometer with an artificial UV light source, that matches the solar spectrum closely, irradiates fabric sample with radiation of varying wavelength. The spectrophotometric measurements are with wavelength of 5-nm interval from 290 to 400 nm. (Hoffmann et al., 2001) As fabric scatters the light, an integrating sphere is used to collect photons of light which are transmitted through the fabric sample and then measured by a photomultiplier (Davis et al, 1997). According to researches of Moss (2000) and Mohan et al. (2000), the integrating sphere is made of a highly reflective white matt material known as spectralon which diffusely reflects over 96% of the light.

Figure 2.3 Illustration of total transmittance with an integrating sphere (Moss, 2000)

The sphere is able to collect all the input optics of the measurement system,
11

including both the transmitted and the scattered UVR, and reflects the radiation round the sphere until a proportion reaches the photodiode detector. The working principle of an integrating sphere is shown on figure 2.3. 2.2.2. Determination of the Ultraviolet Protective Factor (UPF) Ultraviolet Protective Factor (UPF) is defined as the ratio of the average effective UVR calculated for unprotected skin to the average effective UVR calculated for skin protected by the test fabric (Hoffmann et al., 2001), i.e. the risk estimated of unprotected skin is divided by that of protected skin. Though the measurement of UV transmission is measured by instruments, Algaba and Riva (2002) pointed out that three correction factors are influential to the determination of the UPF. Thereore, the UVR exposure of fabric can be simulated much closer to the real situation. The three correction factors taken into account in the calculation of UPF were spectral transmittance (T), solar spectral irradiance (S) and erythema action (E) spectra. 2.2.2.1. Spectral transmittance When a UVR falls onto a textile material directly, three possibilities will be happened which included reflection, absorption or transmission (figure 2.4), i.e. the radiation will be reflected, absorbed by the textile or passed through it.

12

Figure 2.4 Reflection, absorption and transmittion of UV radiation on textile material (Alagaba & Riva, 2002)

For the transmission of UV radiation, the proportion of scattered radiation, that has different angle from the incoming radiation and goes to different direction, is generally much greater than the proportion of non-scattered one. However, no matter the radiation in transmission is scattered or not, it is deleterious to the skin and should be taken into the consideration of calculating the UPF. Therefore, spectral transmittance of textile which represents the proportion of the transmitted radiation throughout the entire wavelength ranges of UV radiation is taken as a correction factor. In general, higher transmittance of the UVR through the fabric will give a lower UPF. 2.2.2.2. Solar spectral irradiance Solar spectral irradiance is the amount of solar energy of the UVR which reaches the surface of the earth for each wavelength. The proportion of UVR of different
13

wavelengths which reaches the surface of the earth is not the same and depends on several factors including latitude, altitude, ozone layer, season, time of day and weather condition. (Algaba & Riva, 2002) Solar spectral irradiance is a representative of a noonday solar spectrum (Menter & Hatch, 2003) and taken account in the consideration of UPF. 2.2.2.3. Erythemal action spectrum Erythemal (sunburn) action spectrum is a weighting spectrum of the action of UV radiation on the skin for each wavelength. The capacity of UVR which is lead to erythema in the human skin depends to a great extent on the wavelength. It was known that UVR with lower wavelength and higher energy is more harmful so that the effect of UVC is greater than that of UVB and then UVA. (Algaba & Riva, 2002) Therefore, the UVR action on the skin is required to be express bt weighting depending on its erythemal effect, i.e. more weight would be given to the wavelength with more harmfulness and less weight would be given to the wavelength of less harmful effect. 2.2.3. In vivo test method In vivo test method, the sun is used as the UV source and impracticable to test the UV transmission through fabrics with the aid of human volunteers. Generally xenon arc is used as solar simulations, with filters to absorb wavelengths below 290nm and to
14

reduce visible and infrared radiation. (Hoffmann et al, 2001) The fabric sample is produced to justperceptible erythema in UVR-irradiated test subjects with and without the fabric in position. The result is determined by calculating the ratio of the erythemally weighted solar UVR dose required to cause minimal erythema in a human rest subject with the fabric sample in place to that measured with no fabric present. (International Commission on Illumination, 2006) Sun Protection Factor (SPF) for the fabric is used as the rating of in vivo test method. The SPF measures the protection provided by sunscreens to the skin of a volunteer by taking the time used before the occurrence of sunburn when exposed to an artificial sunlight source and compared with unprotected skin levels. The meaning of UPF is interpreted in same way with SPF (Kim et al., 2004), higher value of SPF means that the UV protection is better.. However, there are limitations of in vivo test methods due to cost and impracticability. 2.3. Characteristics of knitting elements and structures In this research, different types of knitting structures were used to analyze the effect on UV protection ability. The characteristics of different knitting elements and structures are hence studied. 2.3.1. Fundamentals elements of knitting The loop is the fundamental element of all knitted fabrics. It is a basic unit consisting of a loop of yarn meshed at its base with previously formed basic units (stitches).
15

2.3.1.1. Knit stitch

Figure 2.5 Diagram of a knit stitch on technical face

Knit stitch is the Basic stitch of majority of fabrics. A knit stitch on technical face has V-shape appearance where the shanks are shown in figure 2.5 and the feet are below the head of the preceding stitch. 2.3.1.2. Tuck stitch

(a) (b) Figure 2.6 (a) Diagram of a knit stitch, (b) Photograph of backside of a plain knitted (Kurbak & Kayacan, 2008)

Tuck stitch is formed by old stitch staying on needle in forming new stitch, i.e. a
16

needle rises to take a new loop without casting off the old.(figure 2.6). It consists of a held loop and a tuck loop, both of which are intermeshed in the same course. The yarn is tucked into the structure by the needle, instead of being formed into a loop. It is an effect created by stretched loop with a segment of yarn tucked behind it. And, there is an important element of the tuck stitch, what gives a big difference to the Miss Stitch, is the tucked yarn is placed behind the stretched face loop (Raz, 1993). Tuck stitch would lead to the fabric become thicker, wider but less likely to elongate than knit stitch. 2.3.1.3. Miss stitch

(a) (b) Figure 2.7 (a) Diagram of a miss stitch, (b) Photograph of backside of a plain knitted fabric with a miss stitch (Kurbak & Kayacan, 2008)

Miss stitch (figure 2.7) is an effect created by the missing of knitted loop in the loop formation sequence. The main elements of the stitch are included an enlarged knitted loop and a straight element of yarn. A length of yarn not received by a needle and connecting two loops of the same course that is not in adjacent wales. At the back side, there is a long yarn floating across wale when miss stitch is formed. It is the result of a
17

needle has not participated in one sequence of loop formation (Raz, 1993). Fabrics with miss stitches would become narrower, thinner and more likely to elongate than knit stitch. 2.3.1.4. Course and Wale

(a) (b) Figure 2.8 (a) Diagram of a wale, (b) Diagram of a course

The definition of a course is a row of loops either across the width of a flat fabric or around the circumference of a circular fabric (Savci et al., 2000) and the loops that are inter-connected widthwise. Wale is a column of loops along the length of a fabric (Savci et al., 2000) and the series of loops that intermesh in a vertical direction. Generally speaking, wale is the vertical column of stitches while course is the horizontal row of stitches. 2.3.2. Knitting structures 2.3.2.1. Single knit Single knit fabric or single jersey was the knitted fabric that produced by only one
18

needle bed. The production speed is relatively faster than that of double knit fabric.

(a) (b) Figure 2.9 Model of (a) front and (b) back views of plain knit (Kurbak & Ekmen, 2008)

Plain (figure 2.9) is simplest of single knitted structures and formed by the inter-meshing of a number of loops from side to side and top to bottom. It is also known as plain knit or stocking stitch. The characteristics of single jersey fabrics are single sided, light-weighted. It has disadvantages of edges curl, difficult to handle due to partially unstable, stitch distortion. Other single knit structures are also common in different textile products including lacoste and pineapple structure.

(a) (b) Figure 2.10 Model of (a) front and (b) back views of lacoste structure (Alpyidiz & Kurbak, 2006)
19

Lacoste (Figure2.10) is a single knit structure formed by alternating tuck and knit stitches creat the mesh-like fabric.

Figure 2.11 Photograph of pineapple structure

Structure in figure 2.11 has uneven in surface like the fruit pineapple and hence named as pineapple structure. The strength of pineapple structure is low: when stretching, the force received by the loops is not even and easily concentrated in the tighter loops. Thus, the yarn is easily to be broken when external force applied. 2.3.2.2. Double knit Technically, two set of needles are required to produce double knit fabrics while each set of needles works individually to form loops on the particular side of fabric. Double knit fabrics have more stable structure than single knit fabrics since loops are formed on the both sides. Fabric weight and thickness will also be higher because there are the face of fabric is double and the number of loops per unit area is higher. Altogether, there are six types of double knit structure used in this study which are half Milano, full Milano, half cardigan, full cardigan, 1x1 rib and interlock. The
20

characteristics of each structure are discussed respectively. 2.3.2.2.1. Half Milano

Figure 2.12 Yarn path diagram of half Milano structure

Half Milano (figure 2.12) is knitted by two courses per repeat, with first course knits on both front and back needles and the second course on front needles only. Half milano is made of 1 rib course followed by 1 plain course which is always facing the face side. Half Milano is hence an unbalanced structure and with different appearance on both sides. 2.3.2.2.2. Full Milano

Figure 2.13 Yarn path diagram of full Milano structure Full Milano (figure 2.13) structure is knitted in three courses per repeat. The first course is a rib course and the second and third courses are knit courses in front and one
21

knit in back plain courses. (Chiu & Lam, 2009) The second and third plain courses of full milano reduce most of the width way elasticity and thus full Milano has better dimensional stability than half milano. 2.3.2.2.3. Half Cardigan

Figure 2.14 Yarn path diagram of half cardigan structure

(a) (b) Figure 2.15 Model of (a) front and (b) back views of half cardigan structure (Alpyidiz & Kurbak, 2006)

Half cardigan (Figure 2.14-2.15) was knitted two courses per repeat, with one course of 1x1 rib and the other course of all needles knit one side and all needles tuck of the other side of the fabric. Half cardigan has high width and large amount of tuck loops reduce side way contraction. The structure is not balance since the number of courses per unit length is different on both sides of the fabric.
22

2.3.2.2.4.

Full Cardigan

Figure 2.16 Yarn path diagram of full cardigan structure

(a) (b) Figure 2.17 Model of (a) front and (b) back views of full cardigan structure (Alpyidiz & Kurbak, 2006)

Full cardigan (Figure 2.16-2.17) is knitted two courses per unit: one course of knit stitches on face but tuck on back and then one course of tuck on the face but knit on the back. (Chiu & Lam, 2009) The face and back views of the fabric with this structure are the same and hence it is a balanced structure. The excessive tuck loops make the fabric become bulk and heavy.
23

2.3.2.2.5.

1x1 Rib

Figure 2.18 Yarn path diagram of 1x1 rib structure

(a) (b) Figure 2.19 Model of (a) front and (b) back views of 1x1 structure (Kurbak, 2009)

In the rib structure (figure 2.18-2.19), the fabrics is produced by two sets of needles where the needle heads were not directly facing each other with a zig-zag shape. The horizontal agnitude between the opposite needles is just half of a needle space. The sequence of technical face and technical back knit stitches is 1:1 along the course direction, so that 1x1 is balanced and quite stable. Curling is not easy to be found on the edge and the elasticity of horizontal direction is very high. 2.3.2.2.6. Interlock

24

Figure 2.20 Yarn path diagram of interlock structure

Figure 2.21 Model of interlock structure

The knitting method of interlock structure (figure 2.20) can be regarded as knitting two 1x1 rib concurrently since it requires two set of needles to complete one row by knitting on opposite needles alternately. Therefore, interlock has a balanced structure (figure 2.21) and will not curl easily. Both the technical face and back of interlock structure are similar to plain knit. Curling or stretching out is not easy to be occurred in interlock structure since this stable structure was locked together on both sides. Thus, the reverse meshed loops were not easily to be revealed. Generally, interlock fabrics have higher thickness and weight but lower weight when compared to 1x1 rib structure. The handle of interlock fabric is also good as the surface is smooth.
25

2.4. Summary of literature review In chapter 2, literature review was done on introducing the nature of electromagnetic wave and ultraviolet radiation (UVR). The characteristics of three classes of UVR were also introduced. The descending order of energy level is UVC>UVB>UVC but UVA and UVB should be paid more attention since they are able to reach the surface of the earth and lead to many hazardous effect on eyes and skin. Moreover, the effect of UVR on human health was investigated, especially the effect on skin cancer. Overexposure of UVR would bring potential risk of DNA damage and skin cancer, thus, protective clothing is suggested to be wear. Moreover, two different kinds of quantitative methods which are used to measure the UV protection ability of textiles are studied, including in intro and in vivo method. In vitro method is a more straight forward method and easy to be performed and UPF was used as the rating of UVR transmission. The three major factors in calculating UPF was discussed. Different knitting elements, single and double knit structures were studied. It gave a better understanding on the formation method of particular knitting structures and hence its characteristics.

26

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1. Introduction In this chapter, the processes of producing the lightweight knitted cotton fabrics in different structures and preparation of the testing samples will be shown. Experiments conducted on the samples will also be described in details, including the equipments and apparatus used, testing procedures as well as calculation methods. Ten types of cotton yarns with different properties and yarn counts were knitted into fifteen different knitting structures in this study, including nine single knit structures and six double knit structures. The cotton knitted fabrics were followed by the scouring process in order to remove the impurities in its raw state while the non-scoured parts were also kept. Further tests were conducted in order to investigate the fabric parameters and analyze how the change of knitting structure would affect the UPFs which represent the UV protection abilities. 3.2. Fabric sample preparation 3.2.1. Yarn preparation Since this study was focused on the properties of knitting structures, only 100% cotton, the most common yarn for summer knitted clothing, was selected for the comparison of results. In total, ten different types of commercially manufactured cotton
27

yarns were used in producing the sample fabrics. According to the information of Australian textile industry (Bange, et al., 2009), most common yarns produced from Australian Upland type cottons were from Ne 20 to Ne 50 which were used to produce a wide range of reasonably high-end knitted fabrics. In addition, the typical yarn requirement for producing knitted T-shirts and hosiery was from Ne 20 to Ne 40. (Table 3.1)

Table 3.1 Typical fabric mass and yarn requirements to manufacture specific garments (Bange et al., 2009) Garment Fabric Mass (gsm*) Yarn Count Indirect system (Ne) Jeans (woven) Business shirt (woven) T-shirts and hosiery (knit) Bed sheets (woven) Towels (woven) 200-400 < 100 120-180 150-250 >500 6-10 40-120 20-40 17-30 7-15 Direct system (tex) 60-100 5-15 15-30 20-35 40-80

*gsm=grams per square meter

Therefore, the yarn counts of the selected yarns in this study were Ne 30, Ne 40, Ne 50 and Ne 60 since they were commonly used for producing casual summer knitted garments. Further details and codes used to represent each specific yarn and were listed in the Table 3.2.

28

Table 3.2 Specifications of the 10 types of 100% cotton yarns used Code CH30 CH40 F30 F40 F50 F60 MF30 MF40 MF50 MF60 Type of cotton fibers Combed Cotton Combed Cotton Combed Supima Cotton Combed Supima Cotton Combed Supima Cotton Combed Supima Cotton Combed Supima Cotton ESTex Combed Supima Cotton ESTex Combed Supima Cotton ESTex Combed Supima Cotton ESTex Yarn count (Ne) 30 40 30 40 50 60 30 40 50 60 Ring spinning method Conventional combing Conventional combing Conventional combing Conventional combing Conventional combing Conventional combing Torque-free Torque-free Torque-free Torque-free

3.2.2. Knitting fabric samples The ten types of cotton yarns were knitted by a flat knitting machine, the STOLL CMS 822 HP knit & wear tandem machine (Germany) with fourteen gauges, which means there were fourteen needles per inch. This flat knitting machine was capable to knit both single and double knit with two needles beds. It also had a maximum working width of 213 cm or 84 inch so that large sizes of light weight knitted fabric was able to be produced for UV transmission and other tests. The fabric samples were knitted into fifteen different knitting structures respectively by weft knitting method. Altogether one hundred and fifty kinds of knitted fabric samples were knitted in terms of yarns and structures variations and acted as fundamental resources for examination of UPFs, knitting structures and other fabric parameters. In order to avoid the slackness of the knitted fabric become too serious in a
29

fourteen-gauge flat knitting machine, especially on single knit structure, single yarn would not be used in knitting the fabric samples. Instead, yarns with yarn count Ne 30 and 40 were knitted with two yarns together concurrently, while yarns with yarn count Ne 50 and 60 were knitted with three yarns together. By this means, it was ensured that the fabrics produced would have stable and firm constructions for the further investigation. 3.2.3. Knitting structures For the nine single knit structures, three of them were general types including plain knit (single jersey), pineapple and lacoste; while the other six of them were different combinations of knit, tuck and miss stitches including 1) knit and tuck with ratio 1:1, 2) knit and miss with ratio 1:1, 3) knit and tuck with ratio 2:2 along the wale direction, 4) knit and miss with ratio 2:2 along the wale direction, 5) knit and tuck with ratio 2:2 along the course direction and 6) knit and miss with ratio 2:2 along the course direction. The notations of the nine single knitting structures which represent different types of loops were shown in Table 3.3.

30

Table 3.3 Notations and types of stitches of the 9 single knitting structures Knitting structure/ code Plain Notation diagram Types of stitches Only knit stitches

Pineapple

Knit and tuck stitches

Lacoste

Knit and tuck stitches

KT11

Knit and tuck stitches with ratio 1:1

KM11

Knit and miss stitches with ratio 1:1

KT22W

Knit and tuck stitches with ratio 2:2 along the wale direction

KM22W

Knit and miss stitches with ratio 2:2 along the wale direction

KT22C

Knit and tuck stitches with ratio 2:2 along the course direction

31

Table 3.3 (continued) KM22C Knit and miss stitches with ratio 2:2 along the course direction

= knit stitch = tuck stitch = miss stitch

For the double knit, the six structures chosen were half Milano, full Milano, half cardigan, full cardigan, 1x1 rib and interlock.

Table 3.4 Notations and types of stitches of the 6 double knitting structures Knitting structure Half Milano Notation diagram Types of stitches Knit and miss stitches

Full Milano

Knit and miss stitches

Half Cardigan

Knit and tuck stitches

Full Cardigan

Knit and tuck stitches

32

Table 3.4 (continued) 1x1 Rib All knit stitches

Interlock

All knit stitches

= knit stitch (technical face) = knit stitch (technical back) = tuck stitch = miss stitch

3.2.4. Cotton scouring Scouring was an important process to remove the impurities, such as waxes, proteins, oils and pectin, on the surface of cotton yarns or fibers during the manufacturing process. (Karmakar, 1999) Scouring also allowed the cotton fabric to be prepared for further treatment since absorbent textiles were produced for uniform dyeing or finishing. (Polaina & MacCabe, 2007) Standard procedures of cotton scouring involved boiling of alkaline solutions such as Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) under mild concentration and detergent. In this study, the scouring process was conducted in laboratory scale by a Batch type washing machine and the procedures were followed by the of bath of Associated
33

Professional Engineers Ltd. The recipe of the scouring bath was listed in the table 3.4. For the sake of preventing the detached dirt back to the fabric surface, a builder Sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) which acted as an anti-redeposition agent was also added into the scouring bath. For the scouring procedure, the knitted cotton fabrics were weighted by a balance first and the total fabric weight (g) were obtained. The total volume (L) of liquor in scouring was twentyfold of the total fabric weigh since the Liquor-to-goods Ratio is 20:1. The volume of chemicals to be taken from stock solution is then calculated according to the required concentration. The calculation process was listed as below: Liquor-to-goods Ratio = 20:1 Total volume of liquor (L) = 20 Total fabric weight (g)

Table 3.5 Recipe of the scouring bath Chemical Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) Sodium Silicate (Na2SiO3) Sodium Sulphite (Na2SO3) Detergent Dilute Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) Stock Concentration 10% 10% 10% 10% 0.5% Required concentration 20 g/L 2 g/L 2 g/L 2 g/L N/A Volume of chemicals to be taken from stock solution 20 Total volume of water 2 Total volume of water 2 Total volume of water 2 Total volume of water Depends on the neutralization process

After the calculation from table 3.5, suitable volume of sodium hydroxide, sodium
34

silicate, sodium sulphite and detergent were added into the batch washing machine and water were also added till the total liquor volume. All the cotton knitted fabrics were put into the scouring bath at boil for 60 minutes. The volume of the bath was maintained by frequent addition of hot water or steam throughout the whole process. Any part of fabrics floating on the surface of the liquor should be avoided during boiling. The knitted cotton fabrics were then rinsed thorouaghly with hot water first and then cold water. The fabrics were neutralized with appropriate amount of cold dilute sulphuric acid with the aid of pH test papers and then rinsed with cold running water again, until they were free from acid. All of the fabric samples were squeezed gently to remove the excess water and dried completely by a centrifuge and laying flat. 3.3. UV Transmission Test In this study, in vitro approach was used to measure the cotton knitted fabric instead of in vivo one since it was able to provide a simple method of rating the UV protective abilities of fabrics by using relatively low-cost procedures.

Figure 3.1 Photograph of the Varian Cary 300 UV-visible spectrophotometer

35

As literature review mentioned, the in vitro UV protection measurement system used the spectrophotometer to measure the UVR transmittance through the fabric and then personal computer (PC) was responsible for the calculation of UPFs which depended on the requirement of the standard used. The spectrophotometer used in this research was the Varian Cary 300 UV-visible spectrophotometer (Figure 3.1) which was used for cost-effective laboratory based spectral measurements for research purpose. This spectrophotometer was labeled as ultraviolet (UV) visible because it was capable to analyze electromagnetic radiations both in the UV and visible regions. 3.3.1. Standardized Test Methods In textile clothing industry, more than one test standards can be applied for rating of UPF. These standards are developed and set by different countries which include Australian and New Zealand, United States, British, Canadian, etc. as well as other multinational organizations such as Commission on Illumination and International Organization for Standardization. The process of determination of the UVR transmission through the fabric and the method of UPF calculation are given in these standards. However, they have difference from each other in terms of erythemal action spectrum used, wavelength range to be measured, and requirements on the fabric samples, etc. In this study, the most common standard from Australia and New Zealand AS/NZS 4399:1996 (Gies, 2007) was used. In AS/NZS 4399 standard, the spectral measurement
36

of UVR transmission is within the wavelength range from 290 to 400nm. The erythemal action spectrum to be used is from CIE (1987). Moreover, a classification system of UPF was developed by the standard AS/NZS 4399:1996. This system (Table 3.) can be used as the rating scheme for public to understand the UV protective abilities not just by UPF but also descriptions. The table 3.6 is the UPF classification system.

Table 3.6 Rating system of UPF (Akgun et al., 2010) UV Protection Category Good UV Protection Very Good UV Protection Excellent UV Protection UPF Fabric Value 15 - 24 25 - 39 40-50, 50+ % of effective UVR transmission 6.7 - 4.2 4.1 - 2.6 < or = 5.2 UPF ratings 15, 20 25, 30, 35 40, 45, 50, 50+

3.3.2. Calculation of Ultraviolet Protective Factor (UPF) Ultraviolet Protective Factor (UPF) was used in this study as a quantitative indicator to represent the UV protective capabilities of textile fabrics from sunburn. Therefore, the wavelength range in the standard only includes UVA and UVB. UPF is defined as the ratio of risk estimates for unprotected skin (the erythemally effective intensity without the fabric) to that for protected skin by the fabric (the intensity with the fabric in position) and is calculated by the following equation (Gies et al., 2003; Khazova et al, 2007):
37

where S is the solar spectral irradiance (in Wm-2Nm-1), E is the erythemal spectral effectiveness from CIE (1987), T is the spectral transmission through the textile, is the bandwidth (in nm), and is the wavelength (in nm). 3.3.3. Test procedures In order to determine the UPF of a textile sample, at least four textile samples must be taken from a garment while two in the machine direction and two in the cross-machine direction. (Hoffmann et al., 2001) The UV transmission test was done by the following testing procedures. First of all, all samples were placed in the condition room of temperature 21 1C and relative humidity of 65 2% for more than 24 hours. All the testing samples were cut into swatches with 3cm 4 cm. The UV testing programmer in the computer was run and did the calibration to set a baseline before doing the test. The samples were put into the clip and then insert the clip into the spectrophotometer. The standard AS/NZS 4399 was chosen and four scans were done per each sample where two times followed the machine direction of the fabric and the other two times were turned 90 degree. After the scanning,
38

the UPF and other relevant data would be calculated and a report would be generated automatically by the software. 3.4. Test on other fabric parameters Apart from the UV transmission, other fabric parameters including weight, thickness, stitch density and bursting strength were also tested by the following methods. Before all the testing on paramters, all the fabric samples were put into the condition room of temperature 21 1C and relative humidity of 65 2% for more than 24 hours. 3.4.1. Test on fabric weight per unit area

Figure 3.2 Photograph of measuring the fabric weight

Fabric weight per unit area is defined as the areal mass of fabric in grams per area in square metres (g/m2) (Savci et al., 2000) and was measure by the ASTM D3776-1996 (Standard Test Methods for Mass per Unit Area [Weight] of Fabric). The knitted fabric
39

samples was placed on a flat surface and allowed to relax. The fabric sample was then put on a insulating mat and cut the designated area by a circular die cutter of 100cm2. The fabric cut was then put in an electronic balance to measure the weight of the fabric (figure 3.2). The fabric weight per unit area was then calculated by multiplying the result by 100 since the unit used was gram per square meter. 3.4.2. Test on fabric thickness Fabric thickness was measured by the fabric thickness tester, Hans Baer AG CH-Zurich Telex 57767. The fabric sample was placed on a flat surface to allow natural relaxation before the test and the thickness tester was calibrated by setting zero without fabric placed between the metal plates. Thickness of each sample was then tested by placing it between the metal plates with a pressure of 10 g/cm2 for 4 times. Different positions were used for measuring the same fabrics in order to take more samples. 3.4.3. Test on stitch density Course density is the number of visible loops per unit length measured along a wale and the while the wale density is the number of visible loops per unit length measured along a course (Savci et al., 2000) Stitch density is the multiple of course density and wale density.

40

Figure 3.3 Photograph of measuring the stitch density

Both the course density and wale density was measured by human observation .The number of courses and wales were counted in a 1 inch length fixed area under a agnifying glass with a aid a pointed metal needles. (Figure 3.3) 3.4.4. Test on bursting strength This bursting test was used to determine the force that must be exerted to cause a fabric to burst from the inside. The bursting test was performed in diaphragm bursting method by the bursting strength testers (Mullen type). This test takes a small tube of the material and clamps it over a machine that slowly fills the material with oil. The machine tested the resistance of textile fabrics to bursting by the pressure exerted by the oil. Before the test, it was made sure that both the pointer in the meter was set zero and no oil addition was performed. Fabric sample was then clamped above the diagram firmly by the metal ring. Oil was added continuously and the diagram would go up due to the increase in pressure. Once the fabric was burst and noticed by a significant pop sound, the addition of oil was stopped immediately. The maximum pressure before
41

bursting and pressure just after bursting were shown by the two pointers in the meter and recorded. All the oil was then returned back to the original position after the test. The actual bursting strength of the knitted fabric was then calculated by the following equation: Bursting strength (psi) = Maximum pressure before bursting pressure just after bursting. For each fabric samples, the bursting test was done for five times to obtain a more accurate value on average. 3.5. Summary of methodology In chapter 3, the methodology of this research was given including the preparation of fabric samples. The materials used were three different types of cotton yarns with yarn count from Ne30 to Ne60 and knitted by a 14 gauge knitted machine. The structures investigated in this research were nine single knit structures including plain, pineapple, lacoste, KT11, KM11, KT22W, KM22W, KT22C and KM22C as well as six double knit structures including half Milano, full Milano, half cardigan, full cardigan, 1x1 rib and interlock. The detail procedure of scouring process of cotton knitted fabric was written. The materials, apparatus, equipments, testing procedures of UV transmission test, fabric weight, thickness, stitch density and bursting strength were also given in details. The calculation methods of the UPF and other fabric parameters were also explained.

42

CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Introduction In this study, fabric samples of fifteen different structures were investigated. The structures chosen were divided into two groups: single knit structures which are plain, pineapple, lacoste, KT11, KM11, KT22W, KM22W, KT22C, KM22C as well as double knit structures which are half Milano, full Milano, half cardigan, full cardigan, 1x1 rib and interlock. Ten different cotton yarns were used to knit fabric samples for a boarder view while the yarns used could be classified into four different yarn count and three different types of cotton fibers. Different parameters of knitted fabrics are influential to the ration of UV protection abilities of in vitro testing method which is called the Ultraviolet Protection Factor (UPF). In this chapter, the experimental results were shown and the relationship between different parameters and UPFs were analyzed. The testing was done on scoured knitted fabrics only since scouring was a necessary process for treating cotton fabrics. 4.2. General review of testing results In order to obtain a more objective result, some of the tests were conducted by more than one time. The UVR transmission test was conducted by four times for each fabric samples since both machine direction and cross-machine direction should be covered.
43

The fabric thickness test was also conducted four times and also the bursting test was repeated five times for each fabric samples in order to maximize the area of fabric samples being tested. Therefore, for the test records which were taken in more than one time, average value was required to be calculated first for each kind of fabric samples. For example, the results of the four times of UV transmission tests were averaged in terms of each yarn and each structure first. And then in order to have a general concept of the test results in terms of knitting structure, mean values of UPF were calculated for each structure but not yarn type and used in the comparison of the UV protection abilities and other fabric parameters. The results of fabric thickness and bursting test would also be averaged first which were same as that of UV transmission test result. However, data of fabric weight and stitch density (cpi and wpi) were just record in one time, thus no average value was required to be taken. As the constructions of single knit fabrics and double knit fabrics had great difference, the results were hence divided into two groups first for better analysis. Further discussion and comparisons of the two groups of knit structures were then elaborated and analyzed by graphs and charts. 4.2.1. Single knit structure The averaged values of UV transmission tests for the ten types of yarn and nine types of single knit structures were listed in Table 4.1. The mean UPFs for each single knit
44

structure were also calculated.

Table 4.1 Result of UV transmission tests of single knit structures

Yarn
Structure

CH 30
7.77 6.77 7.82 12.46 16.44 8.29 19.73 10.52 20.00

CH 40
7.63 7.56 7.95 7.97 11.35 5.33 10.67 6.24 14.88

F30
6.31 8.92 16.82 8.10 17.83 6.96 25.96 9.56 20.59

F40
6.53 6.42 8.12 6.03 10.06 4.47 9.59 7.25 12.64

F50
10.11 10.43 9.23 8.71 18.53 6.11 22.00 9.20 16.93

F60
8.99 9.26 8.34 5.94 13.73 5.28 14.43 5.96 14.43

MF 30
7.49 9.38 8.87 9.77 25.72 7.86 40.03 10.43 17.63

MF 40
4.77 4.99 5.95 5.57 10.08 4.97 9.67 9.67 7.81

MF 50
9.59 9.24 11.01 8.19 10.32 8.52 17.03 8.56 16.26

MF 60
6.31 7.72 7.45 5.84 10.10 5.09 12.07 6.28 11.35

Mean UPF
7.55 8.07 9.16 7.86 14.42 6.29 18.12 8.37 15.25

Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C

45 40 35 Mean UPF 30 CH30 CH40 F30 20 15 10 5 0 F40 F50 F60 MF30 MF40 MF50 MF60

UPF values

25

Single Knit structures

Figure 4.1 Graph of the average UPFs of each type of yarn used and mean UPF of single knit structure

45

A graph (Figure 4.1) was plotted to show the average UPFs of each type of yarn used and mean UPFs of each single knit structure. It was shown in Figure 4.1 that though generally each type of yarn had similar trend, some of the yarn types had some exceptional result, such as the unexpected high average UPF of lacoste structure of F30 yarn, the unexpected low average UPF for KM22C structure of MF40 yarn, etc. These variations were due to the change of the nature and fabric parameters of yarn used. However, in this research, only the effect of the knit structures would be investigated. Thus, the mean value of UV transmisson test in terms of knit structure were be used in for further data comparison and discussion instead of individual result of each yarn. Among the fabric samples of single knit structures, the mean values of UPF and other fabric parameters were varied in the ten different types of yarns. Thus, summary of the results of single knit structures on UV transmission test and other physical tests was listed in Table 4.2.

46

Table 4.2 Result of mean UPFs and other physical properties of single knit fabric Mean value Single Knit Structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C Fabric Weight (g/m2) 152.95 159.46 157.06 146.53 181.64 133.25 191.32 153.50 177.11 Fabric Thickness (mm) 0.99 1.21 1.34 1.11 1.32 1.26
2

UPF 7.55 8.07 9.16 7.86 6.29 8.37

cpi (courses per inch) 29 29.5 32.4 19.4 20.9 16.7 22.7 21.6 20.9

wpi (Wales per inch) 21.5 18 15.8 15.7 26.9 17.3 27.2 14.6 27

Bursting strength (psi) 54 49.4 53.7 57.6 79.2 49.6 75.9 59.5 90.6

1.31 14.42 1.43 18.12 1.34 15.25

psi= pound-force per square inch (lbf/in )

4.2.2. Double knit structure The averaged values of UV transmission tests for the ten types of yarn and six types of double knit structures were listed in Table 4.3. The mean UPFs for each double knit structure were also calculated.

Table 4.3 Result of UV transmission tests of double knit structures

Yarn
Structure

CH 30
24.84

CH 40
13.88

F30
39.96

F40
31.88

F50
29.78

F60
32.66

MF 30
16.86

MF 40
10.76

MF 50
22.89

MF 60
18.60

Mean UPF
24.21

Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock

37.49

26.81

51.23

17.80

52.43

37.49

73.70

10.30

58.26

26.99

39.25

31.38

13.48

39.96

11.82

29.35

11.17

41.58

11.48

17.42

19.93

22.76

12.40 15.99 128.63

18.20 16.22 53.01

20.39 46.78 133.36

9.15 17.85 76.27

17.22 11.83 139.43

10.82 13.87 125.35

18.45 23.15 129.23

9.08 8.71 62.38

23.30 21.86 164.67

13.74 23.70 73.34

15.27 20.00 108.57

47

180 160 140 120 Mean UPF CH30 CH40 100 80 60 40 20 0 Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock F30 F40 F50 F60 MF30 MF40 MF50 MF60

UPF values

Double Knit structures Figure 4.2 Graph of the average UPFs of each type of yarn used and mean UPF of double knit structures

Another graph (figure 4.2) was also plotted to show the average UPFs of each type of yarn and mean UPFs of each double knit structures. Similar to the result in single knit structures, there were similar trends on the average UPFs of each double knit structures with some variation due to the different natures of yarn. However, as mentioned in section 4.2.1, further data comparison and discussion would be done according to the mean UPFs in terms of different knitting structures instead of each individual yarn. Apart from the UV transmission test, the mean values of other test results were also varied in different yarns types for the double knit structures. Therefore, in Table 4.4, summary of the test results on UV transmission test and other physical tests of double
48

knit fabric was shown.

Table 4.4 Result of mean UPFs and other physical properties of double knit fabric Mean value Double Knit Structure Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock Fabric Weight (g/m2) 211.85 263.44 232.06 203.68 197.95 316.44 Fabric Thickness (mm) 1.52 1.56 1.68 1.64 1.46
2

UPF

cpi (courses per inch) 30 30.5 26.8 26.1 30.6 31.7

wpi (Wales per inch) 16.8 19 10.8 9.9 13.6 22.6

Bursting strength (psi) 69.5 75 49.8 66.2 52.1 115.3

24.21 39.25 22.76 15.27 20.00

1.66 108.57

psi= pound-force per square inch (lbf/in )

4.3. Effect of knitting structure on UPF 4.3.1. Result on single knit structures Since there were ten different types of yarns was used, the mean UPFs of single knit structures in terms of different cotton fibers and different yarn counts were analyzed first. The mean UPFs in terms of different cotton fibers were shown in Table 4.5.

49

Table 4.5 Result of mean UPFs of different cotton fibers in single knit structures Yarn types Combed Cotton Structure (CH Yarn) Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C 7.70 7.17 7.89 10.22 13.90 6.81 15.20 8.38 17.44 Combed Supima Cotton (F Yarn) 7.99 8.76 10.63 7.20 15.04 5.71 18.00 7.99 16.15 Combed Supima Cotton ESTex (MF Yarn) 7.04 7.84 8.32 7.34 14.06 6.61 19.70 8.74 13.26

20 18 16 14 Mean UPF 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
CH Yarn F Yarn MF Yarn

Single knit structure

Figure 4.3 Compound bar chart of mean UPFs of different cotton fibers in single knit structures

In figure 4.3, the mean UPFs were shown for three types of cotton yarns used in the
50

research including Combed Cotton (CH yarn), Combed Supima Cotton (F yarn) and Combed Supima Cotton ESTex (MF yarn). It was proved that KM22W was the most UV protective structure for F yarn and combed MF yarn while KM22C was the most UV protective structure for CH yarn. However, no matter which type of cotton yarn was used, KT22W was the most ineffective structure in UV protection.

Table 4.6 Result of mean UPFs of different yarn counts in single knit structures Structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C
Yarn count

Ne 30 7.19 8.36 11.17 10.11 20.00 7.70 28.57 10.17 19.40

Ne 40 6.31 6.32 7.34 6.52 10.49 4.92 9.98 7.72 11.78

Ne50 9.85 9.84 10.12 8.45 14.42 7.31 19.52 8.88 16.59

Ne 60 8.21 9.08 8.34 7.27 14.31 5.60 17.04 7.74 14.14

51

35

30
25

Mean UPF

20
Ne30

15 10 5 0

Ne40 Ne50 Ne60

Single knit structure

Figure 4.4 Compound bar chart of mean UPFs of different yarn counts in single knit structures From figure4.4, the minimum mean UPF, the result of different yarn count was also similar to that of cotton fibers. Thus, the mean UPF of KT22W was the lowest ones for all yarn counts from Ne 30 to Ne60. And for the maximum one, the structure KM22W has the highest mean UPF in the groups of yarn count Ne 30, Ne50 and Ne60 while KM22C obtained the highest value of mean UPF in the group of yarn count Ne40.

52

Table 4.7 Table of mean UPFs and type of stitches in single knit structures Structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C Types of stitches Only knit Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss UPF 7.55 8.07 9.16 7.86 14.42 6.29 18.12 8.37 15.25

20 18 16 14

18.12 14.42 15.25

Mean UPF

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

7.55

8.07

9.16 7.86 6.29

8.37

Single Knit Structure Figure 4.5 Bar chart of mean UPFs of different single knit structures

From the figure 4.5, it was summarized that the structure KT22W had the lowest mean UPF while KM22W had the greatest UPF. This result agreed with the previous comparison in terms of yarn count and fiber type. Apart from the most powerful UV protective structure KM22W, KM22C was also able to provide a good UV protection.
53

Plain structure (single jersey) and KT11 were also not able to provide good UV protection since the mean UPF is very low. And for the pineapple and lacoste structures, they were also not able to as good protection as the knit-and-miss structure. The mean UPF of lacoste is slighter higher than pineapple and plain structure. 4.3.2. Discussion on single knit structures In Table 4.7, it listed the summary of the single knit structures with maximum and minimum values in different cotton fiber, yarn count and overall performance.

Table 4.8 Summary of maximum and minimum mean UPFs in single knit structures Single Knit Yarn Cotton Fiber CH Yarn F Yarn MF Yarn Ne30 Yarn count Overall Ne40 Ne50 Ne60 Structure KM22C KM22W KM22W KM22W KM22C KM22W KM22W KM22W Maximum Mean UPF Type of stitches Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and miss Structure KT22W KT22W KT22W Plain KT22W KT22W KT22W KT22W Minimum Mean UPF Type of stitches Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Only knit Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and tuck

It was confirmed that the type of stitch would alter the geometry of the knitting structure (Alpyildiz et al., 2009) and the effects had been illustrated on figure 4.6. As the loop stitches provided space and allow the yarn to move, it is known that knitted fabric is more extensible then woven fabric. The alternation of the stitch type would affect knitted

54

fabric in terms of not only extensibility but also other fabric parameters including fabric openness and density. The appearance of tuck and miss stitch would bring great difference to the fabric openness. The effect of stitch density (number of courses and inches per unit area) on UPF would be further elaborated in section 4.4.

Figure 4.6 Illustration of geometry of (a) knit stitch, (b) miss stitch and (c) tuck stitch (Alpyildiz et al., 2009)

Tuck stitch would increase the distance between each wale and the fabric width and openness would be eventually increased. (Chiu & Lam, 2009) It was known that UPF is dependent on the fabric porosity (UPF = 100 / porosity). (Saravanan, 2007) Therefore, the increase in fabric openness would lead to greater proportional of UVR to be passed through the fabric. As a result, plain and other single knit structures with only knit and tuck stitches (Pineapple, Lacoste, KT11, KT22W and KT22C) had relatively low mean UPFs which are all below 10. The result in the Table 4.8 proved the effect of knit and tuck stitches since all the structures with minimum mean UPF were either knit-and-tuck structure or only knit structure. KT22W was the most common and overall structure with
55

minimum mean UPF in single knit structure, except plain structure was the minimum one in the group of yarn count Ne30. On the other hand, from the result in Table 4.8, all the structures with maximum mean UPFs are knit-and-miss structures (KM22W and KM22C). Among all single knit structures, KM22W was the most UV protective structures because the long float yarns of miss stitches would tighten the fabric and the fabric openness was hence reduced. (Chiu & Lam, 2009) The UVR transmittance would become higher and result in low UPFs. Therefore, those single knit structures with stitches of combination of knit and miss (KM11, KM22W and KM22C) generally had greater mean UPFs above 10. Nevertheless, long floats of yarn due to miss stitches along the course were not good for UV protection since more space were found which would eventually assist the transmission of UVR. It explained that KM22C had a lower UPF then KM22W. The large tuck loops along the wale was also not favorable to UV protection since it created a large pore in the long tuck stitch. Therefore, KT22W had a lower UPF then KT22C. In conclusion, the result was able to prove that the combinations ad characteristics of the three loop stitches (knit, tuck and miss) were predominant factors which were able to affect the UV protective abilities in single knitted fabrics. 4.3.3. Result on double knit structures For the mean UPFs of different cotton fibers in double knitting structures, the result
56

was listed in Table 4.9 and bar chart of the result wase plotted in figure 4.7

Table 4.9 Result of mean UPFs of different cotton fibers in double knit structures Yarn types Combed Cotton Structure (CH Yarn) Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock 19.36 32.15 22.43 15.30 16.10 90.82 Combed Supima Cotton (F Yarn) 33.57 39.74 23.07 14.39 22.58 118.60 Combed Supima Cotton ESTex (MF Yarn) 17.28 42.31 22.60 16.14 19.36 107.40

Mean UPFs of different cotton fibers in double knit structures

140 120 100 Mean UPF 80 60 40 20 0 Half Milano Full Half Full 1x1 rib Interlock Milano Cardigan Cardigan
CH Yarn F Yarn MF Yarn

Double knit structure

Figure 4.7 Compound bar chart of mean UPFs of different cotton fibers in double knit structures

Among all double knit structures, it was very obvious in Figure 4.7 that the interlock structure has the highest mean UPFs for all types of cotton yarn. The second best
57

sttucture was full milano. Also no matter which cotton fiber was used, full cardigan was the poorest UV protective structure in double knit. The second worst structures for CH yarn group and F yarn group was 1x1 rib while that of MF yarn group was half milano.

Table 4.10 Result of mean UPFs of different yarn count in double knit structures Yarn count Ne30 Structure Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock 27.22 54.14 37.64 17.08 28.64 130.41 18.84 18.30 12.26 12.14 14.26 63.88 26.34 55.35 23.38 20.26 16.85 152.05 24.19 39.71 24.64 15.48 17.77 106.38 Ne40 Ne50 Ne60

160 140 120 Mean UPF 100 80 60 40 20

Ne30 Ne40 Ne50 Ne60

0
Half Milano Full Half Full 1x1 rib Interlock Milano Cardigan Cardigan Double knit structure Figure 4.8 Compound bar chart of mean UPFs of different yarn count in double knit structures
58

For the mean UPFs of different yarn count in double knitting structures, the result was listed in Table 4.10 and bar chart of the result wase plotted in figure 4.8 In terms of yarn count, once again interlock obtained the highest mean UPF among all doube knit structure in all yarn count groups. Generally full milano also offer quite good protecion since it had the second hightest mean UPF except in the group Ne40. Full cardigan was still with the lowest mean UPF except in the group Ne50. In group Ne 50, 1x1 rib had the lowest UPF mean value that was even worser than full cardigan. The performance of half milano was flucturate in different yarn count groups since it was the second best UV protective structure in the group Ne40 while the second worst one in the group Ne 30. For the mean UPFs and type of stitches in double knitting structures, the result was listed in Table 4.11 and bar chart of the result wase plotted in figure 4.9

Table 4.11 Table of mean UPFs and type of stitches in double knit structures Knitting structure Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock Types of stitches Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Only knit Only knit Mean UPF 24.21 39.25 22.76 15.27 20.00 108.57

59

120

108.57
100

80

Mean UPF

60

40

39.25 24.21 22.76 15.27 20.00

20

Half Full Milano Half Milano Cardigan

Full Cardigan

1x1 rib

Interlock

Double Knit Structure Figure 4.9 Bar chart of mean UPFs of different double knit structures

From figure 4.9 and table 4.11, it was able to conclude that the overall performance of all double knit structures. The interlock structure had the ultimately high mean UPF which was up to 108 and interlock was the only structure with a mean UPF over 100. The result also agreed that full cardigan had the worst UV protection ability since it got the least mean UPF 15.274, which represented that the UV protection offered by full cardigan was even worse than some single knit structures (knit-and-miss types). The 1x1 rib structure also had a low mean UPF below 20 but still greater than that of all single knit structures. 4.3.4. Discussion on double knit structures
60

Table 4.12 Summary of maximum and minimum mean UPFs in double knit structures Double Knit Yarn Cotton Fiber CH Yarn F Yarn Ne30 Yarn count Overall Ne40 Ne50 Ne60 Maximum Mean UPF Structure Interlock Interlock Interlock Interlock Interlock Interlock Interlock Type of stitches All knit All knit All knit All knit All knit All knit All knit All knit Structure Full Cardigan Full Cardigan Full Cardigan Full Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Full Cardigan Full Cardigan Minimum Mean UPF Type of stitches Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and tuck All knit Knit and tuck Knit and tuck

MF Yarn Interlock

From table 4.12, the poor UV performance of full cardigan was related to the types of stitch in the construction. Only knit and tuck stitches were used in knitting full cardigan and the tuck loops were responsible for the increase in width of the knitted fabric. As mentioned in section 4.3.3, the presence of tuck stitches would widen the fabric and hence result in increase in fabric width as well as fabric openness. Both half and full Milano structures provide moderate UV protective ability since the compositions of the stitches are knit and miss. As formation stitches included miss stitches, instead of tuck stitches, the fabric became tighter and heavier than that of cardigan. When comparing the two Milano structures, the fabric structure of full Milano was tighter, more stable and the fabric weight per unit area was higher. Thus, full Milano offered a better UV protection than half Milano. Moreover, the UPF of Milano and cardigan structures could be explained by the
61

ratio of tuck or miss stitch to knit stitch.

Table 4.13 Table of the ratio of tuck or miss stitch to knit stitch of milanos and cardigans Knitting structure Half Milano Notation diagram No. of tuck/miss stitches 4 No. of knit stitches 12 Ratio Index

1:3

0.33

Full Milano

16

1:2

0.5

Half Cardigan

12

1:3

0.33

Full Cardigan

From table 4.13, the ratio of tuck to knit stitches of full cardigan (1) was greater than that of half cardigan (0.33). The effect of tuck stitches which lead to lower UV protection ability would be more serious in full cardigan. Therefore, full cardigan would have a lower UPF than half cardigan. The ratio of miss to tuck stitches of full Milano (0.5) was greater than that of half Milano (0.33) and the effect of miss stitches which lead to higher UV protection would be more serious in full Milano. Thus, full Milano would have a higher UPF then half Milano.
62

However, the effect of miss and tuck stitches may not be applied in double knit fabrics since other structural properties would also affect the UV protection ability. The low mean UPF of 1x1 rib structure was because of the high fabric openness. The openness of 1x1 rib structure was not come from tuck stitch since there was no tuck stitch. Instead, it was due to fabric characteristics: high elasticity, stretch-and-recover ability along the width direction. This would also lead to the decrease in fabric thickness and eventually the UV protective ability is not good among the double knit. Although Interlock and 1x1 rib were all knit structure, interlock had greater UPF than 1x1 rib. Interlock was able to provide excellent UV protection because of the nature of interlock discussed in the literature review: high fabric thickness, weight, density and tightness. The characteristics of interlock structure were able to minimize the fabric openness and UV transmittance. Hence, it was resulted in the high mean UPF in interlock structure. To conclude, the type of formation of stitches was part of the factors that affected the UPF of double knit fabrics, but different from the effect on single knit fabrics. The effect of tuck stitches was responsible for the low UV protection in half and full cardigan structures, however, the high mean UPFs of interlock structure was not due to the type of stitches but other characteristics like bulkiness and openness. 4.3.5. Comparison on both knitting structures
63

Table 4.14 Table of mean UPFs of both single and double knit structures Knitting structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock Nature of knit structure Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Types of stitches Only knit Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Only knit Only knit Mean UPF 7.55 8.07 9.16 7.86 14.42 6.29 18.12 8.37 15.25 24.21 39.25 22.76 15.27 20.00 108.57

120 108.57 100

80

Mean UPF

60 39.25 24.21 20 7.55 8.07 9.16 7.86 14.42 6.29 18.12 8.37 15.25 22.76 15.27 20.00

40

Knit structure Figure 4.10 Bar chart of mean UPFs of all knitting structures
64

As mentioned before, single knit structures and double knit structures had different performance in the UV transmisson test, an overall comparison was also made in figure 4.10 adnt able 4.14. By comparing the result in both single and double knit, it was found that the mean UPFs of double knit were comparatively higher than that of single knits, except for full cardigan. Full cardigan was the only exception in the double knit structures, since it had a mean UPF lower than some single knit structures (KM22W and KM22C).

Table 4.15 Summary of maximum and minimum mean UPFs in single knit structures Maximum Mean UPF Yarn Structure CH Yarn F Yarn MF Yarn Ne30 Yarn count Overall Ne40 Ne50 Ne60 Interlock Interlock Interlock Interlock Interlock Interlock Interlock Interlock Nature of knit structure Cotton Fiber Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit KT22W KT22W KT22W Plain KT22W KT22W KT22W KT22W Structure Minimum Mean UPF Nature of knit structure Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit

To summarize the effect of knitting structure on UPF, interlock was still the most effective structure for protection against UVR in all knitting structure since it had the smallest fabric openness. On the other hand, KT22W which had the lowest result in all knitting structures and was the most ineffective structure for UV protection because the
65

tuck stitches resulted in increase of fabrics openness. From table 4.14 and table 4.15, it could be concluded that double knit fabrics had much greater UV protective capabilities than single knit fabrics due to the difference of nature in these two structures. As the knitting process of double knit involved two set of needles, loops were formed on both sides of the fabric and the material used was double. This would also lead to the increase in fabric weight, thickness which were all contribute to the better UV protection of double knit fabrics. The effect of these parameters would be further discussed. 4.4. Effect of fabric weight, thickness and weight-to-thickness ratio on UPF From the literature review part, it was assumed that thickness and weight are the factors contributed in the determination of UPFs of knitted fabric. (Achwal, 1997; Das, 2010) The value of UPF increases with increase in fabric density and thickness for similar construction. In order to investigate the relationship between UPF, wight, thickness and W/T ratio, two apparoch would be used, either the change of UPF within same structure or on different knitting structures. In this part, the weight, thickness, weight-to-thickness ratio for single and double knitting structures are shown in different graphs in order to analyze the relationship of them and UPF respectively. Correlation analysis was used and the purpose was to
66

evaluate the relative impact of a predictor variable on a particular outcome. (Zou et al., 2003) The correlation coefcient (R)was used to measure the monotonic relationship between two variables by increasing the value of the other variable. The relationship of the two variables could be exaplained by correlation coefcient (R) according to table 4.16.

Table 4.16 Interpretation of Correlation Coefcient (Zou et al., 2003) Correlation coefcient value (R) -1.0 -0.8 -0.5 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.0 Direction and strength of correlation Perfectly negative Strongly negative Moderately negative Weakly negative No association Weakly positive Moderately positive Strongly positive Perfectly positive

Moreover, the coffeicient of determination (R) with a range of 0-1 was also used in the correlation analysis. Coffeicient of determination (R) was the fraction of the variability in one variable that can be explained by the variability in other varible through their linear relationship, or vice versa. (Zou et al., 2003) It could be used to determine how well the future outcomes would be likely to be predicted by the model. 4.4.1. Effect of fabric weight on UPF 4.4.1.1. Relationship between fabric weight and UPF among individual structures The UPFs of each yarn and each sample were plotted against the fabric weight first,
67

a linear regression line was then added by grouping the same structure with different color to indicate and to see the relationship between these two variables. For better readibility, linear regression diagrams of UPFs against fabric weight for the single knit structures was combined in figure 4.11 and that for double knit structure was combined in figure 4.12.

30 Plain 25 Pineapple Lacoste 20

UPF values

KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C 0 0 50 100 150 200 250

15

10

Fabric weight(g/m2)

Figure 4.11 Linear regression diagram of UPF against fabric weight of single knit

68

160 140 120 100 Half Milano Full Milano

UPF values

Half Cardigan 80 60 40 20 0 0 100 200 300 400 Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock

Fabric weight(g/m2)

Figure 4.12 Linear regression diagram of UPF against fabric weight of double knit

The regression statistics were also calculated and shown in Table 4.17. The multiple R and coffeicient of determination (R) gave the overall goodness of fit measures of the linear regression model between fabric weight and UPFs in single knit structures.

Table 4.17 Table of regression statistics of UPF against fabric weight Structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C Half Milano Nature of knit structure Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Double Knit
69

Correlation coefcient (R) 0.28 0.16 0.58 0.83 0.72 0.67 0.70 0.72 0.97 -0.15

Coffeicient of determination (R) 0.08 0.02 0.33 0.70 0.52 0.45 0.49 0.52 0.94 0.02

Table 4.17 (continued) Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit 0.76 0.94 0.53 0.44 0.67 0.58 0.89 0.28 0.19 0.45

For single knit, it could be found that all of the R values of single knit were positive which meant the relationship of fabric weight was postively related to the UPF in table 4.17. However, the magnitude of R value varied greatly among different single knit structures. For example, the R values of pineapple and plains structures were very low, only 0.16 and 0.28 respeectivly. It meant the relationship of fabric weight and UPF in pineapple and plain structures was only weakly positive. The low positive R value also showed in figure 4.11 by the flat slope of the linear regression line. On the other hand, the R value of KM22C was extremely high which was ver close to 1. It meant that the relationship between fabric weight and UPF of KM22C structure was nearly perfectly positive. Moreover, the R of KM22C structure between UPF and fabric weight is 0.94 which meant about 94% of UPF of KM22C structure could be explained by fabric weight. Like the result in R value, pineapple structure had the least R value, only 0.02, while KM22C had the greatest R value 0.94. In pineapple structure, fabric weight could not be used to predict the UPF since only 2% of the data of UPF could be explained by fabric weight. It was found that the knit-tuck-miss structures including KT11, KM11, KT22C, KM22C,
70

KT22W and KM22W, generally had higher R values and R values that the plain, pineapple structures. For the double knit structures, the UPFs per each yarn and each structure were also plotted against the fabric weight in figure 4.12. From figure 4.12 and table 4.17, it was found that the correlation of UPF and fabric weight of double knit structures varied very greatly. Among all knitting structures, half milano was the only structure which showed the result of slightly negative relationship between the fabric weight and UPF since it has a negative R value(-0.15) and the slope of linear regression line was also negative. Moreover, the correlation between the two variables of half milano was also very weak since the R value was also extremely small, only 0.02. Only 2% of the UPF data in half Milano structure could be explained by fabric weight. The other double knit structures except half Milano were found that the relationships between fabric weights and UPFs were positively related. Half cardigan has a the highest R value, 0.94, which meant the correlation between the two variables was strongly positive. The R value of half cardigan was also the highest while all the others were comparatively quite low. In conclusion, the great variations of R values and R values in both single and double knit meant that weight was not the only dominant factor affecting UPF among individual structures. Other predominant factors like yarn parameters and knit structures
71

were also possible to affect the UPF. 4.4.1.2. Relationship between mean fabric weight and mean UPF on different structures In orfer to have a more general review on the effect of fabric weight on UPF in terms of knit structure, the relationship between mean fabric weights and mean UPFs of all yarn types in terms of knit structures was also investigated. The result of mean fabric weight and mean UPFs was shown in table 4.18

Table 4.18 Table of the relationship between mean fabric weight and mean UPFs Structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock Nature of knit structure Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Types of stitches Only knit Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Only knit Only knit Mean fabric weight (g/m2) 152.95 159.46 157.06 146.53 181.64 133.25 191.32 153.50 177.11 211.85 263.44 232.06 203.68 197.95 316.44 Mean UPF 7.55 8.07 9.16 7.86 14.42 6.29 18.12 8.37 15.25 24.21 39.25 22.76 15.27 20.00 108.57

From table 4.18, it was found that all the mean fabric weight of double knit

72

structures were greater than that of that of single knit structures. As mentioned in the literature reivew, double knit fabrics were knitted by two needle beds and thus two layers were formed together. Therefore, the double knit fabric generally had a greater mean fabric weight. At the same time, the mean UPFs of all double knit structure were also greater than that of single knit structures. It showed that the fabric weight was one of the factors that affected the difference of the UPF between single and double knit structure. The Graph of mean fabric thickness and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures and double knit structures were plotted in figure 4.13 and figure 4.14 respectively.

250

20 18

200

16 14

Mean Fabric Weight (g/m2)

150

12 10

100

8 6

50

4 2

KT22 Pinea KT22 Lacos KM22 KM22 Plain KT11 KM11 W pple C te C W 6.29 7.55 7.86 8.07 8.37 9.16 14.42 15.25 18.12

Mean Weight 133.2 152.9 146.5 159.4 153.5 157.0 181.6 177.1 191.3 Mean UPF

Figure 4.13 Graph of mean fabric weights and mean UPFs in ascending order of single knit structures
73

Mean UPF

The result of mean fabric weight and mean UPF of single knit structures was shown in figure 4.12. For the maximim and minimim points, the KT22W structure had the lowest mean fabric weight and mean UPF while KM22W had the greatest mean fabric weight and mean UPF. In general, there was a incresing trend of the fabric weight with increasing UPF but the trend was not not exactly the same. Exception case like plain, pineapple and KM22C structure were found. Plain structure had a slightly heavier mean fabric weight but low mean UPF when compare to the KT22W. Pineapple structure also had similar situtation when compared to KT11. KM22C had a higher mean UPF than KM11 while the mean fabric weight was lower. It was obvious that the knit-and-miss strucutres (KM11, KM22W, KM22C) had generally greater mean fabric weight that the other single knit structures. It was due to the effect of miss stitches which would lead to the fabric bacome narrower and bulkier.

74

350 300

120

100

Mean Fabric Weight (g/m2)

250 80 200 150 40 100 50 0 20

Full Cardigan 203.68 15.27

1x1 rib 197.95 20.00

Half Cardigan 232.06 22.76

Half Milano 211.85 24.21

Full Milano 263.44 39.25

0 Interlock 316.44 108.57

Mean Weight Mean UPF

Figure 4.14 Graph of mean fabric weights and mean UPFs in ascending order of double knit structures

For double knit structures, there was a general but not a perfect incresing treand of UPF with the increasing fabric weight from half milano to interlock. Interlock had the greastest mean fabric weight as well as mean UPF. However, the UPF of some double knit structures could not fully be explained by the fabric weight. Full cardigan had the lowesr mean UPFs but the mean fabric weight of full cardigan was greater than that of 1x1 rib. Half Cardigan also had a higher fabric weigth than 1x1 rib, but the UPF was lower. In order to further investigate the relationship of mean fabric weight and mean UPFs, a scatter diagram of mean UPFs against mean fabric weight was plotted in figure 4.13.
75

UPF value

60

The regression staticis table of single, double and overall knit structures was also listed in table 4.19.

100

R = 0.879

R = 0.796

80

Mean UPF

60 R = 0.909 40 Overall Single Knit Double 20

0 0 100 200 300

Mean Fabric Weight (g/m2) Figure 4.15 Linear regression diagram between mean fabric weights and mean UPF Table 4.19 Table of regression statistics of mean UPF against mean fabric weights Structure Single Knit Double Knit Overall Correlation coefcient (R) 0.95 0.94 0.89 Coffeicient of determination (R) 0.91 0.88 0.80

From figure 4.15 and table 4.19, it was found that there was a strongly positive correlationship between the mean fabric weights and mean UPFs for single, double knit and overall structures as well. Both the R values of single, double knit structures were very high and greater that 0.8. Accoding the the table 4.19, the correlations between mean fabric weight and mean UPF of both single and double knit were strongly positive.
76

Moreover, the R values of single and double structure were also quite high which were 0.91 and 0.88 respectively. It meant that 91% and 88% of mean UPF of single and double knit structures can be represented by the mean fabric weight respectively. Overall, then mean UPFs of different knit structures was also strongly positive-correlated with the mean fabric weights since the R value is 0.89 which is greater than 0.8. 80% of the mean UPF can be explained by the mean fabric weight as the R value was 0.80. Fabric with higher weight would provide more fibers and yarns to penetrate when compared with lighter ones, therefore UVR was scattered and more difficult to penetrate through the fabric and directly to the skin. In conclusion, fabric weight was one of the factors that were able to affect the UPF. 4.4.2. Effect of fabric thickness on UPF 4.4.2.1. Relationship between fabric thickness and UPF among individual structures Correlation analysis was also used.to investigate the relationship between fabric thickness and UPFs, the graph of linear regression diagrams of UPFs against fabric thickness were plotted against the fabric weight in figure 4.16 and figure 4.17 for single knit and double knit respectively. The regression statistics were also calculated and shown in Table 4.20.

77

30

25

Plain Pineapple

20

Lacoste KT11

UPF values

15

KM11 KT22W

10

KM22W KT22C

KM22C

0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Fabric thickness (mm)

Figure 4.16 Linear regression diagram of UPF against fabric thinckess of single knit

160 140 120 100 Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 60 1x1 rib 40 20 0 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Interlock

UPF values

80

Fabric thickness (mm)

Figure 4.17 Linear regression diagram of UPF against fabric thinckess of double knit

78

Table 4.20 Table of regression statistics of UPF against fabric thickness Structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock Nature of knit structure Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Correlation coefcient (R) 0.23 0.00 0.42 0.64 0.59 0.59 0.63 0.55 0.71 0.41 0.27 0.60 0.54 0.57 0.13 Coffeicient of determination (R) 0.05 0.00 0.18 0.40 0.35 0.34 0.39 0.30 0.51 0.16 0.07 0.36 0.29 0.32 0.02

From figure 4.16 and figure 4.18, it was found that all structures had different degree of positive relationship between the fabric thickness and UPF except for the pineapple structure. Pineapple had a horizontal regression line in figure 4.16 and in table 4.20 both the R and R values were 0.00, which meant there were no association between this two variables in pineapple structure. The R and R values of the other structures varied as well. Only KT22M had a relatively higher R value (0.71) but the R value was only 0.51, which meant only around half of the UPF data in KM22C structure

79

was correlated with the fabric thickness. All the R values in other structures were smaller than 0.5 and thus fabric thickness could be to explain the UPF of knit fabric. 4.4.2.2. Relationship between mean fabric thickness and mean UPF on different structures The relationship between mean fabric thickness and mean UPF of different knitting structures was also investigated and the result was listed in the table 4.21.

Table 4.21 Table of the relationship between mean fabric thickness and mean UPFs Structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock Nature of knit structure Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Types of stitches Only knit Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Only knit Only knit Fabric Thickness (mm) 0.99 1.21 1.34 1.11 1.31 1.32 1.43 1.26 1.34 1.52 1.56 1.68 1.64 1.46 1.66 Mean UPF 7.55 8.07 9.16 7.86 14.42 6.29 18.12 8.37 15.25 24.21 39.25 22.76 15.27 20.00 108.57

From table 4.21, it was found that all the mean thickness of double knit structures

80

were greater than that of that of single knit structures. It was because the double knit fabrics was composed of two layers which were formed by two needle beds in the knitting process. Moreover, all the mean UPFs of double knit structure were also greater than that of single knit structures. Similar to the effect of weight, it proved that the mean fabric thickneass was one of the factors that affected the difference of the mean UPF between single and double knit structure. The Graph of mean fabric thickness and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures and double knit structures were plotted in figure 4.18 and figure 4.19 respectively.

1.60 1.40 1.20

20 18 16 14

Mean thickness (mm)

1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00

12

8 6 4 2 KT22 Pinea KT22 Lacos KM22 KM22 Plain KT11 KM11 W pple C te C W 0.99 7.55 1.11 7.86 1.21 8.07 1.25 8.37 1.34 1.31 1.34 1.43 6.29 9.16 14.42 15.25 18.12 0

Mean thickness 1.32 Mean UPF

Figure 4.18 Graph of mean fabric thickness and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures
81

Mean UPF

10

From the above Figure 4.18, there was a general trend that thicker fabric had higher UPF. All the knit and knit-with-tuck structures had increasing thickness with increasing UPF except for KT22W. KT22W had a high mean thickness but the lowest mean UPF. The knit-with-miss structures (KM11, KM22W, and KM22C) also followed the trend that mean UPF increased with mean thickness. However, lacoste has a higher thickness than KM11 but lower UPF. There were slight differences in mean thickness but large differences in mean UPF between knit-with-miss structure and that of knit or knit-and-tuck structures. Therefore, the effect of miss stitches was a more dominant factor than mean thickness and mean thickness was not applicable to explain the mean.UPF of single knit structures.

1.70 1.65 1.60 1.55

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Half Milano 1.52 24.21 Full Interloc Milano k 1.56 39.25 1.66 108.57

Mean thickness (mm)

1.45 1.40 1.35 1.30 Full Cardiga n 1.64 15.27 Half Cardiga n 1.68 22.76

1x1 rib 1.46 20.00

Mean thickness Mean UPF

Figure 4.19 Graph of mean fabric thickness and mean UPF in ascending order of double knit structures
82

Mean UPF

1.50

From the figure 4.19, the mean thicknesses of the half milano, full milano, 1x1 rib and interlock structres were increased with the increasing mean UPFs. Interlock structure had the high thickness and highest mean UPF. 1x1 rib had a the second low mean UPF and mean thickness. However, the cardigan strucutures were once again the exceptions since they had sigifcantly high mean thickness but very low mean UPF, especially for half cardigan. Full cardigan had a very high mean thickness but the mean UPF was very low; half cardigan was also had the highest mean thickness, but the mean UPF was quite low. The situtaion of cardigans was similar and even more more significant when compared to that of the mean weight. It was found that mean thickness was not the dominant factor that affect the mean UPF in double knit structure, too. Structure and type of stitches played a more important role in determination of the UPF in double knit structure. Moreover, linear regression method was also used to find the relationship of mean thickness and mean UPF of single, double and all knit structures.

83

100 R = 0.326 R = 0.134

80

Mean UPF

60 Overall Single Knit 40 Double

20 R = 0.381 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Mean Fabric thickness (mm) Figure 4.20 Linear regression diagram between mean fabric thickness and mean UPF Table 4.22 Table of regression statistics of mean UPF against mean fabric thickness Structure Single Knit Double Knit Overall Correlation coefcient (R) 0.62 0.37 0.57 Coffeicient of determination (R) 0.38 0.13 0.33

From figure 4.20 and table 4.22, it was found that the correlationship between the mean fabric thickness and mean UPF for single, double knit and all structures were positive since the R value and slope of regression lines were positive. The R values of single, double knit structures were very high and greater that 0.8. Accoding the the table 4.16, the R value of single knit was 0.62 which meant fabric thickness was moderately positive to the mean UPF in single knit. In double knit, the R value was lower (0.37) which meant the correlation between mean fabric thickness and mean UPF in double knit
84

was only slightly positive. Moreover, the R values of single and double structure were also quite low which were 0.38 and 0.13 respectively. Overall, then mean UPF of knit fabric was also moderately positively correlated with the mean fabric weight since the R value is 0.57. Only 33% of the mean UPF can be explained by the mean fabric weight as the R value was 0.33. Therefore, fabric weight was only able to explain the difference of mean UPF between single and double knit structures. 4.4.3. Effect of weight-to-thickness ratio on UPF Apart from the weight and thickness themselves, the ratio between these two parameters was also taken in consideration. The weight-to-thickness parameter represented the relative weight of each structure and can be calculated by the following equation: Weight to thickness (W/T) ratio = Fabric weight (g/m2) Fabric thickness (mm)

In this section, the effect of weight-to-thickness (W/T) ratio on UPFs was investigated. 4.4.3.1. Relationship between weight-to-thickness ratio and UPF among individual structures Correlation analysis was also used.to investigate the relationship between fabric thickness and UPFs, the linear regression diagrams of UPFs against fabric thickness were plotted against the fabric weight in figure 4.21 and figure 4.22 for single knit and
85

double knit respectively. The regression statistics were also calculated and shown in Table 4.23.

30 Plain Pineapple 20 Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W 5 KT22C KM22C 0 50 100 150 200

25

UPF values
10 0

15

Weight-to-thickness (W/T) ratio

Figure 4.21 Linear regression diagram of UPF against W/T ratio of single knit

160 140 Half Milano 120 Full Milano

UPF values

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250

Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock

Weight-to-thickness (W/T) ratio

Figure 4.22 Linear regression diagram of UPF against W/T ratio of double knit
86

Table 4.23 Table of regression statistics of UPF against weight-to-thickness ratio Structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock Nature of knit structure Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Correlation coefcient (R) 0.22 0.30 0.44 0.42 0.53 0.44 0.59 0.55 0.82 0.38 0.82 0.70 0.21 -0.19 0.73 Coffeicient of determination (R) 0.05 0.09 0.19 0.17 0.28 0.19 0.35 0.30 0.68 0.14 0.67 0.48 0.04 0.03 0.53

From figure 4.21 and the R value of single knit structures in table 4.23, except KM11, all the single knit structure are have positively correlation between the mean W/T ration and mean UPF. For double knit structures (figure 4.22 and table 4.23), only 1x1 rib structure had slightly negative correlation between the two variable, all the other double knit structures had different degree of positive correlation. Nevertheless, most of the R2 values (Table 4.23) of all structures were quite low. Seven out of eleven structures had a R2 value less than 0.2 and only three structures

87

KM22C, full Milano and interlock structures had R2 values which were greater than 0.5. Therefore, it was not able to draw conclusion on the correlation between W/T ratio and UPF among individual structures. 4.4.3.2. Relationship between mean weight-to-thickness ratio and mean UPF on different structures The relationship between mean fabric thickness and mean UPF of different knitting structures was also investigated and the result was listed in the table 4.24.

Table 4.24 Table of the relationship between mean weight-to-thickness ratio and mean UPF Structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock Nature of knit structure Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Types of stitches Only knit Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Only knit Only knit
88

Weight-to-thickness (W/T) ratio 154.75 132.04 117.35 132.84 138.67 100.51 133.11 122.09 132.34 139.08 168.44 137.56 124.17 135.44 190.73

Mean UPF 7.55 8.07 9.16 7.86 14.42 6.29 18.12 8.37 15.25 24.21 39.25 22.76 15.27 20.00 108.57

From table 4.24, it was found that similiar to the result of mean weight and mean thickness, most of the mean weight-to-thickness ratio of double knit structures were greater than that of that of single knit structures, except full cardigan had lower mean W/T ratio than KM22W. The Graph of mean fabric thickness and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures and double knit structures were plotted in figure 4.23 and figure 4.24 respectively.

180 160 140 120

20 18 16 14 12

Mean W/T ratio

100 80 8 60 40 20 0 6 4 2 KT22 Pinea Lacos KM22 KM22 Plain KT11 KT22C KM11 W pple te C W 6.29 7.55 7.86 8.07 8.37 9.16 14.42 15.25 18.12 0

Mean W/T ratio 100.51 154.75 132.84 132.04 122.09 117.35 138.67 132.34 133.11 Mean UPF

Figure 4.23 Graph of mean weight-to-thickness ratio and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures

From the figure 4.23, part of the structures had gradually negative proportion
89

Mean UPF

10

relationship between the mean W/T ratio and mean UPF. The UPF increased with the decreasing UPF from plain to lacoste and then from KM11 to KM22W. However, the negatively proportion was not continued from KT22W to plain and from lacoste to KM11. Plain knit had the highest mean W/T ratio but the mean UPF was the second lowest one. Some exception cases were found. KM22W had the highest mean UPF while the W/T ratio was the moderate. KT22W was a special case since it had the lowest UPF and the lowest W/T ratio and the relationship was not inversely related. Moreover, the W/T ratio of KM11 was larger than that of lacoste yet the UPF is higher. This could be explained by difference of stitches formation, the use of miss stitches, for KM11, KM22C and KM22W. Thus, no concrete conclusion could be drawn for the relationship of single knit structures yet because other parameters like effect of miss stitch also was more dominant than the weight-to-thickness ratio on the influence on UPF.

90

250

120

200

100

80

Mean (W/T) ratio

150 60 100 40 50

20

Full Cardigan 124.17 15.27

1x1 rib 135.44 20.00

Half Cardigan 137.56 22.76

Half Milano 139.08 24.21

Full Milano 168.44 39.25

0 Interlock 190.73 108.57

Mean W/T ratio Mean UPF

Figure 4.24 Graph of mean weight-to-thickness ratio and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures

From figure 4.24, it was found that the mean weigh-to-thickness (W/T) ratio for double knit structures had true positive relationship with the mean UPF, i.e. the mean UPF increased with the increasing mean W/T ratio. Full cardigan structure had the smallest mean W/T ratio and the least mean UPF while interlock had the largest W/T ratio and the highest mean UPF. In order to further invesgiate, the linear regression method was also used to find the relationship of mean thickness and mean UPF on single, double and all knit structures.

91

Mean UPF

100 R = 0.850 R = 0.662 80

Mean UPF

60 Overall 40 Single Knit Double Knit

20 R = 0.078 0 0 50 100 150 200

Mean W/T ratio Figure 4.25 Linear regression diagram between mean W/T ratio and mean UPF Table 4.25 Table of regression statistics of mean weight-to-thickness ratio against mean UPF Structure Single Knit Double Knit Overall Correlation coefcient (R) 0.28 0.92 0.81 Coffeicient of determination (R) 0.08 0.85 0.66

From figure 4.25 and table 4.25, it was found that the correlationship between the mean thickness-to-weight ratio and mean UPF for single, double knit and all structures were positive since the R values and slope of regression lines were positive. The R values of double knit structures were very high which was 0.92 and greater than 0.8. Accoding the the table 4.16, it was highly positively correlated within the two variables in double knit structures. Moreover, the R values of single and double structure were also quite
92

high which was 0.85 which meant 85% of the data was found to be related to mean W/T ratio. For single knit, both the R and R2 values were low which meant the correlation between mean W/T and mean UPF in single knit was only slightly positive and there was no determination between these two varibles since the R2 value was 8.08 and close to zero. Overall, although the R and R2 values of double knit was high which proved that there were significant determination of mean W/T ratio in double knit, the low single knit structures did not show similar result. In conclusion, mean W/T ratio was one of the determination factor of UPF on double knit only but not single knit. 4.4.4. Conclusion on the effect of weight, thickness and W/T ratio in different knit structures The effect of weight, thickness and W/T ratio varied differently even on the same knit structures. The summary of the regression statistics of these parameters was listed in table 4.26 and figure 4.26

Table 4.26 Summary of the regression statistics of the effect within same knit structures
Index Structure

Correlation coefcient (R) Weight 0.28 0.16 0.58 0.83 0.72 0.67 Thickness 0.23 0.00 0.42 0.64 0.59 0.59 W/T ratio 0.22 0.30 0.44 0.42 0.53 0.44
93

Coffeicient of determination (R) Weight 0.08 0.02 0.33 0.70 0.52 0.45 Thickness 0.05 0.00 0.18 0.40 0.35 0.34 W/T ratio 0.05 0.09 0.19 0.17 0.28 0.19

Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W

Table 4.26 (continued) KM22W KT22C KM22C Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock 0.70 0.72 0.97 -0.15 0.76 0.94 0.53 0.44 0.67 0.63 0.55 0.71 0.41 0.27 0.60 0.54 0.57 0.13 0.59 0.55 0.82 0.38 0.82 0.70 0.21 -0.19 0.73 0.49 0.52 0.94 0.02 0.58 0.89 0.28 0.19 0.45 0.39 0.30 0.51 0.16 0.07 0.36 0.29 0.32 0.02 0.35 0.30 0.68 0.14 0.67 0.48 0.04 0.03 0.53

1.2 1 0.8 Correlation coefcient(R) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4

Weight Thickness W/T ratio

Structure

Figure 4.26 Compound bar chart of the correlation coefficient of weight of weight, thickness and W/T ratio

From figure 4.26, it was found that although generally most of the relationship between weight, thickness and W/T ratio on UPF were positively related, some exceptions were also found. The assumption that heavier or thicker fabric with the same
94

structures had the greater UPF and provided better UV protection was not true. It was concluded that even with the same knitting structure, the UPF may not increased with increasing weight, thickness or W/T ratio and other fabric parameters may also affect the UPF

1 0.9 Coefficient of determination (R2) 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Weight Thickness W/T ratio

Structure

Figure 4.27 Compound bar chart of the coefficient of determination of weight of weight, thickness and W/T ratio

From figure 4.27, it was found that weight was the only parameter that would affect the determination of UPF among all knitting structures while thickness and W/T ratio was not able to explain the all the change of UPF even with the same knit structure. The effect of these parameters varied very largely in different knitting structures, too. For example, the effect of weight on KM22C was very significant while that on pineapple and
95

half Milano was extremely low. In conclusion, knit structure was a more predominant factor than weight, thickness or W/T ratio in affecting UPF ratings though thickness and weight of knitted fabrics had its characteristic values related to the UPF when comparing the double knit and single knit. 4.4.5. Comparison between the effect of weight, thickness and W/T ratio The regression statistics of single knit, double knit and all knitting structures were used to compare the effect of weight, thickness and W/T ratio with UPF and were listed in table 4.27.

Table 4.27 Summary of the regression statistics of weight, thickness and W/T ratio
Index
Parameter

Correlation coefcient (R) Single Knit 0.95 0.62 0.28 Double Knit 0.94 0.37 0.92 All structure 0.89 0.57 0.81

Coffeicient of determination (R) Single Knit 0.91 0.38 0.08 Double Knit 0.88 0.13 0.85 All structure 0.80 0.33 0.66

Weight Thickness W/T ratio

96

1.2

Correlation coefcient(R)

1 0.8 Single Knit 0.6 Double Knit 0.4 0.2 0 Weight All structure

Paramter

Thickness

W/T ratio

Figure 4.28 Compound bar chart of the correlation coefficient of weight, thickness and W/T ratio

From figure 4.28, it was concluded that weight, thickness and W/T ratio had positive relationship with UPF in all knitting structures. The positive correlation of weight was the most significant while that of thickness was the least significant in all structures. W/T ratio also had significant positively relationship in double knit but not in single knit.

97

Coefficient of determination (R2)

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Weight Thickness W/T ratio Single Knit Double Knit All structure

Paramter

Figure 4.29 Compound bar chart of the coefficient of determination of weight, thickness and W/T ratio

From figure 4.29, it was found that weight was the most important factor which was able to determine the UPF of single, double and all knit structures since the R values were the highest. Thickness was not a significant parameter in determining UPF for double knit and all structures since it did not show large change in different knit structures. The relationship between W/T and UPF was also close in double knit and similar to the effect of weight. However, in single knit W/T ratio was not practical to determine UPF and even thickness played a better role than W/T ratio. In conclusion, among these three fabric parameters, weight was the most significant factor in determining the UPF in fabrics with different knit structures. Apart from weight, W/T ratio also played an important role in determining the UPF of double knit structures. 4.5. Effect of stitch density on UPF The parameter which can indicate the change of courses and wales per unit area was
98

called stitch density. Stitch density was the multiple of wale density and course density and in this research calculated by the following equation: Stitch density (N) = Course per inch (cpi) Wales per inch (wpi) The stitch density was mainly affected by the machine gauge, yarn parameters like yarn count and the nature of knitting structure. Ogulata and Mavruz (2010) had mentioned that the increase of stitch density would result in the decrease pore size values. Since UPF is dependent on porosity where UPF = 100 / porosity, stitch density should also be taken account in the factor that affected UPFs and this section would investigate the relationship between change of stitch density and the subsequent change of the transmission of UVR. 4.5.1. Relationship between stitch density and UPF among individual structures Correlation analysis was used.agian to investigate the relationship between stitch density and UPFs, the graphs of linear regression of UPF against stitch density were plotted in figure 4.30 and figure 4.31 for single knit and double knit respectively. The Regression statistics table were also calculated and shown in table 4.28.

99

30 Plain 25 Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C 0 0 200 400 600 800

20

UPF values

15

10

Stitch density

Figure 4.30 Linear regression diagram of UPF against stitch density of single knit

160 140 120 100 Half Milano Full Milano 80 60 40 20 0 0 200 400 600 800 Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock

UPF values

Stitch density

Figure 4.31 Linear regression diagram of UPF against stitch density of double knit

100

Table 4.28 Table of regression statistics of UPF against stitch density Structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock Nature of knit structure Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Correlation coefcient (R) 0.19 0.71 0.23 0.37 0.23 0.06 0.12 -0.06 0.36 0.38 0.13 0.80 0.29 -0.53 0.23 Coffeicient of determination (R) 0.04 0.50 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.14 0.02 0.63 0.09 0.28 0.05

From the figure 4.30, it was found that stitch densities of all single knit structures had positive correlation with UPF except KT22C. Also, stitch densities of all the double knit structures also had positive correlation with UPF, except 1x1 rib. For the other structures except 1x1 rib and KT22C, the UPFs would increase with increasing stitch densities. Therefore, the value of UPF would was dependent on fabric porosity on most knit structures and this result proved that the increase in stitch density in most structures investigated would result in an increase of UPF.

101

However, the result was not ideal. The R values in table 4.28 and the slopes of the linear regression equation (figure 4.30-4.31) was negative in KT22C and 1x1 rib structure which represented that the UPF of samples in these two structures increased with decreasing stitch density. It meant that stitch density was not the only and most determinant factor that affected the correlation with the two variables within 1x1 rib and KM22C structure. Moreover in table 4.28, the R values of most knitting structures were comparatively low and eleven out of fifteen structures had a R value smaller than 0.2. Only pineapple and half cardigan had a coefficient of determination greater than or equal to 0.5. Thus, there was not much correlation between stitch density and UPF among individual structures. The change of stitch density among individual structures was not obvious as much as the change of UPF. Other factors may play more important roles than stitch density in affecting the change of UPF among individual structures when comparing the same knit structure. 4.5.2. Relationship between mean stitch density and mean UPF on different structures The results of mean value of course per inch, wales per inch, stitch density and mean UPF of different knitting structures were listed in the table 4.29. It was noted that the mean stitch density was calculated by mean cpi times mean wpi, but the mean value of individual multiple of cpi and wpi for each structures.
102

Table 4.29 Table of the relationship between mean weight-to-thickness ratio and mean UPF Structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C Half Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock Types of stitches Only knit Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and miss Nature of knit structure Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Mean cpi 29 29.5 32.4 19.4 20.9 16.7 22.7 21.6 20.9 30 30.5 26.8 26.1 30.6 31.7 Mean wpi 21.5 18 15.8 15.7 26.9 17.3 27.2 14.6 27 16.8 19 10.8 9.9 13.6 22.6 Mean stitch density 621.1 529 506.2 303.7 553.7 287.4 618 315.7 563.1 505.9 579.6 288.3 255.4 413.8 717 Mean UPF 7.55 8.07 9.16 7.86 14.42 6.29 18.12 8.37 15.25 24.21 39.25 22.76 15.27 20.00 108.57

Full Milano Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Only knit Only knit

From table 4.29, when comparing the single knit structures and double knit structures, the result of mean stitch density was not like that of weight, thickness or W/T ratio. It was found that the mean stitch densities of double knit and single knit were varied dramatically. Even single knitting structures like plain were able to have high stitch density while double knits such as cardigan structures also had results of low stitch density. To investigate the relationship between stitch density and UPF on different knit

103

structure, graph of mean stitch density and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures and double knit structures were plotted in figure 4.32 and figure 4.33 respectively.

700

20 18

600 16 500 14 12

Mean stitch density

400

300

8 6 4

200

100 2 0 KT22 W 6.29 Pineap Lacost KM22 KM22 KT22C KM11 ple e C W 529 8.07 315.7 506.2 553.7 563.1 8.37 9.16 618 14.42 15.25 18.12 0

Plain

KT11

Mean density 287.4 621.1 303.7 Mean UPF 7.55 7.86

Figure 4.32 Graph of mean stitch density and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures

From figure 4.32, there was a trend of increasing mean UPF with mean increasing stitch density in single knit fabric except for plain and pineapple structures. KT22W had the least mean stitch density and least UPF. KM22W had the highest mean UPF and the second high stitch density. It showed that the UPF was dependent to stitch density in general. It was due to the increase of stitch density would lead to smaller pore sizes. The
104

Mean UPF

10

decrease in pore sizes would result in decrease in of porosity and hence UPF would increase. Moreover, when comparing single knit structures with miss stitches, it was found that the one with miss stitches had a higher UPF. It was due to the effect of miss stitches which would narrower and tighter the fabrics and hence result in higher UPF. For example when comparing KT22W and KM22W, although they had the same tuck or miss ratio and the tuck or miss stitches were located in the same position, it was found that the structure with miss stitches would give a higher UPF. However, exception were found since plain and pineapple structures had a high mean stitch density but low mean UPFs. Plain structure was a regular structure that stitches were packed close together tightly and hence the stitch density was high. Pineapple structure also has high stitch density because large tuck loops across three course were knitted.

105

800 700

120

100 600 80 500 400 300 40 200 20 100 0 0 Interlock 717 108.57 60

Mean stitch density

Full Cardigan 255.4 15.27

1x1 rib 413.8 20.00

Half Cardigan 288.3 22.76

Half Milano 505.9 24.21

Full Milano 579.6 39.25

Mean density Mean UPF

Figure 4.33 Graph of mean stitch density and mean UPF in ascending order of double knit structures

From figure 4.33, a trend similar to the single knit structures was found and the mean UPFs increased with the increasing mean stitch density except 1x1 rib. Full cardigan had the least mean stitch density and mean UPF while interlock had the greatest mean stitch density and mean UPF. The throey that ncrease in stitch density would result in smaller porosity and high UPF also applied to most of the double knit structures except 1x1 rib. 1x1 rib had a higher mean stitch density but lower mean UPF chen compared to those of half cardgian. The reason why 1x1 rib had high stitch density was it had all knit structure and similar to plain knit. Therefore, the exception cases of plain, pineapple and 1x1 structures meant that
106

Mean UPF

although some structures had high stitch density but not high UV protection abilities. Other factors may play a more important role than stich density in determining the UPF. In order to look into the relationship between mean stitch density and mean UPF on single, double and all knit structures, linear regression method was used.

100 R = 0.681 80

Mean UPF

60

R = 0.255

Overall Single Knit

40

Double Knit

20 R = 0.368 0 0 200 400 600 800

Mean stitch density Figure 4.34 Linear regression diagram between mean stitch density and mean UPF Table 4.30 Table of regression statistics of mean stitch density against mean UPF Structure Single Knit Double Knit Overall Correlation coefcient (R) 0.61 0.83 0.51 Coffeicient of determination (R) 0.37 0.68 0.26

From figure 4.34 and R values in table 4.30, it proved that all knit structres had positive correlation between stitch density and UPF, so that when comparing different
107

knit structures, those with higher stitch density may have higher UPF. However, the R values in single knit and all structures were low which were 0.37 and 0.26 respectively. Only double knit had a higher R value 0.68 but still less than 0.8. Therefore, the correlation of stitch density and UPF was low in single knit and moderate in double knit. 4.6. Effect of bursting strength on UPF The bursting strength of knitted fabric was an important parameter since the fabric obtain sufficient strength against forces acting upon it during the maunfacturing process, such as dying, finishing and end use. However, it was hard to predict the bursting strength of knitted fabrics before performing bursting strength tests. (Ertugrul & Ucar, 2000) In this section, the relationship between bursting strength and UPF was investigated. 4.6.1. Relationship between bursting strength and UPF among individual structures Correlation analysis was used.agian to investigate the relationship between burst test and UPFs, the linear regression diagrams of UPF against burst test were plotted figure 4.35 and figure 4.36 for single knit and double knit respectively. The Regression statistics table were also calculated and shown in table 4.31.

108

30

25

Plain Pineapple

20

Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C

UPF values

15

10

KM22C

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Bursting strength (psi)

Figure 4.35 Linear regression diagram of UPF against stitch density of single knit

160 140 Half Milano 120 100 Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock

UPF values

80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Bursting strength (psi)

Figure 4.36 Linear regression diagram of UPF against stitch density of double knit

109

Table 4.31 Table of regression statistics of UPF against stitch density Structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C Half Milano Full Milano Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock Nature of knit structure Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Correlation coefcient (R) 0.52 0.74 0.05 0.07 -0.06 -0.22 -0.27 -0.09 -0.02 0.05 0.42 0.38 0.26 -0.20 0.52 Coffeicient of determination (R) 0.27 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.14 0.07 0.04 0.27

From the table 4.31 and figure 4.35, 5 single structures including KM11, KT22W, KM22W, KT22C and KM22C had a negative correlation while 4 single structure including plain, pineapple, lacoste and KM11 had a positive correlation. The R values of single knit also varied largely and most of them had a very low magnitude. Thus, when comaring the single knit structures, there was no conclusion on the correlation between the UPF and bursting strength. For the double knit structures, except 1x1 rib, the other double knit had a positive correlation between bursting strength and UPF (table 4.31).

110

The result in figure 4.36 showed that the double knit structures tested except 1x1 rib, the increase of UPF would increase with bursting strength in general. However, most of the knitting structures had a very low R value and only that of pineapple structure was greater than 0.5. Twelve out of fifteen structures investigated even had R value less than 0.2. It was concluded that among the same structures, the correlation of burst strength and UPF was weak and the change of UPF was not related to the change of bursting strength. 4.6.2. Relationship between mean bursting strength and mean UPF on different structures The results of mean burst strength and mean UPF of different knitting structures were listed in the table 4.32.

Table 4.32 Table of the relationship between mean weight-to-thickness ratio and mean UPF Structure Plain Pineapple Lacoste KT11 KM11 KT22W KM22W KT22C KM22C Half Milano Full Milano Types of stitches Only knit Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and tuck Knit and miss Knit and miss Knit and miss Nature of knit structure Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Single Knit Double Knit Double Knit
111

Mean bursting strength (psi) 54 49.4 53.7 57.6 79.2 49.6 75.9 59.5 90.6 69.5 75

Mean UPF 7.55 8.07 9.16 7.86 14.42 6.29 18.12 8.37 15.25 24.21 39.25

Table 4.32 (continued) Half Cardigan Full Cardigan 1x1 rib Interlock Knit and tuck Knit and tuck Only knit Only knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit Double Knit 49.8 66.2 52.1 115.3 22.76 15.27 20.00 108.57

From table 4.32, the mean bursting strength of single and double knit varied in a certain degree. Some single knit fabric had greater mean bursting strength greater than that of double knit. In order to find out the relationship between bursting strength and mean UPF on different knit structures, graphs for single knit structures and double knit structures were plotted in figure 4.37 and figure 4.38 respectively.

100 90 80

20 18 16 14 12

Mean bursting strength (psi)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 KT22 Pinea Lacost KM22 KM22 Plain KT11 KT22C KM11 W pple e C W 54 7.55 57.6 7.86 49.4 8.07 59.5 8.37 53.7 79.2 90.6 75.9 6.29 9.16 14.42 15.25 18.12

8 6 4 2 0

Mean strength 49.6 Mean UPF

Figure 4.37 Graph of mean bursting strength and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures

112

Mean UPF

10

From figure 4.37,. KT22W had the least mean UPF and the second lowest mean bursting strength; KM22W had the second highest mean UPF and third bighest mean bursting strength. Generally speaking, the knit-and-miss single knit had greater bursting strengths than the others due to the effect of miss stitches. Miss stutch was able to tighter the knitted fabric and hence the elongation ability increased and result in a higher bursting strength. The reason why pineapple and lacoste had a low mean bursting strength because of the uniformness of tuck stitches. The ratio of tuck stich to knit stitch of knit-and-tuck single knit structures was shown in table 4.33.

Table 4.33 Table of the ratio of tuck stich to knit stitch of knit-and-tuck single knit Knitting structure Pineapple Notation diagram No. of tuck stitches 6 No. of knit stitches 26 Ratio 3:13 Index 0.23

Lacoste

12

1:3

0.33

KT11

1:1

113

Table 4.33 (continued) KT22W 8 8 1:1 1

KT22C

1:1

When compare to other knit-and-tuck single knit, pineapple and lacoste structure had a lower tuck: knit stitch ratio (0.23 and 0.33) and therefore their structures were less unifrom than the others knit-and-tuck structures. It explained the low bursting strengths of pineapple and lacoste. Moreover, pineapple and KT22W have a large tuck loops along the wales when compare to other knit-and-tuck single knit. KM22W also had larges miss loops along the wale when compared to other knit-and-miss structures. The large tuck loop would lead to lower bursting strength since the yarn was more easily to be broken. On the other hand, the tuck or miss stitches located along the course would bring to increase in both bursting strength and UPF since KT22C and KM22C had a greater bursting strength than KT11 and KM11. All in all, in single knit structures there was a trend of increasing mean bursting strength with the increasing mean UPF except for pineapple, lacoste and KM22W structures. The increasing trend was because the apperence of knit and miss stitches
114

brought similar effect to bursting strength and UPF. However, some of the structure characterists such as uniformness and apperence of large tuck or miss loops along the wales affected UPF and bursting at different degree.

140

120

120

100

Mean bursting strength (psi)

100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20

20

Full Cardigan 66.2 15.27

1x1 rib 52.1 20.00

Half Cardigan 49.8 22.76

Half Milano 69.5 24.21

Full Milano 75 39.25

0 Interlock 115.3 108.57

Mean strength Mean UPF

Figure 4.38Graph of mean bursting strength and mean UPF in ascending order of single knit structures

From figure 4.38, interlock had the maximum mean bursting strength and mean UPF while full cardigan had the minimum mean bursting strength and third lowest mean bursting stregnth. In table 4.32 It was found that the double knit with miss stitches had greater bursting strength than those with tuck stitches. This was due to the effect of knit stitches and miss stitches which was similar in single knit. Miss stitches would allow the
115

Mean UPF

knit fabric to become more closely packed, easier to be elongated and higher bursting strength. Tuck stitches would give large stitch and longer stitch length, thus the knit fabric was more easily to be broken and the bursting strength was lower. As mentioned beforehold in section 4.3.4, milano structures also had a greater UPF due to the apperence of miss stitches while cardigan structures had a lower UPF due to the effect of tuck stithces. Thus, when comparing milano to cardigan, tthe result of UPF agreed with that of burst strength, i.e. milano structures had greater bursting strength than cardigan structures. 1x1 rib structure also had a low bursting strength and was due to the low thickness of its nature. This thin structure would be more easy to be broekn since less yarns content were available to resit the external force. Interlock had the highest thickness, weight, smallest fabric openness and thus was the most stable structures to resist force and UVR. Therefore it had the most highest UPF and highest bursting strength. In order to analyse the correlation between mean bursting strength and mean UPF on single, double and all knit structures, linear regression method was used. The regression graph was plotted in figure 4.38 and the regression statistics was in table 4.34.

Table 4.34 Table of regression statistics of mean bursting strength against mean UPF Structure Single Knit Double Knit Overall
116

Correlation coefcient (R) 0.89 0.94 0.78

Coffeicient of determination (R) 0.79 0.88 0.61

100

R = 0.877

80

R = 0.607

Mean UPF

60

Overall Single Knit Double Knit

40

20

R = 0.785

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Mean bursting strength (psi) Figure 4.39 Linear regression diagram between mean bursting strength and mean UPF

From figure 4.39, mean bursting strength was strongly positively correlated with mena UPF since both the R value of single knit and double knit in table 4.34 were greater than 0.8. The overall R value also indicated a positive correlation of mean bursting strength and mean UPF which means generally the increas of UPF would also resulted in increase in bursting strength. The effect of knit structure on the dimensional properties of fabric is highly significant, and thus the effect on bursting strength is also significant (Emirhanova & Kavusturan, 2008). In this resarch, the R of both single knit and double knit (0.79 and 0.88 were high though the overall R value 0.61 was a little bit lower. It indicated that the correlation between bursting strength and UPF among single knit or double knit was
117

quite strong. 4.7. Summary of result and discussion In chater 4, the results of the tests were listed in table and presented in different kinds of garphs respectively. General review of results of UPF as well as mean values of other physical properties in single and double knits was given in section 4.2. In section 4.3, the effect of knitting structures on UPF was discussed on single knit, double knit and then all structures. The result of mean UPFs among different yarn type, yarn count and strucutres were shown in different tables and graphs. The effect of structures on UPF which was mainly due to effect of tuck or miss stitches on fabric openness was discussed in single and double knit. Charaterists of double knit was also examied since it had a generally greater UPF than singer knit. From section 4.4 to 4.6, effects of different fabric parameters on UPF were discussed from two aspect: among individual structures and on different structures. Linear regression modeal was used to examine their correlation. In section 4.4, the effect of fabric weight, thickness weight-to-thickness ratio on UPF was found and comparision was made among these three fabric parameters. In section 4.6 and 4.7, the effects of stitch density and bursting strengthon UPF were discussed respectively. It was found that weight was the most dominant factor that affect the UPF on different structures while other parameters did not show strong correlation.
118

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1. Conclusion The purpose of this research was to study the relationship between UVR protection ability and structure of knitted fabrics. As the relationship of different knitting structures to the UV protection capabilities was the major objective, the effect of knitting structures of fifteen different structures were investigated on UVF was studied. To summarize the effect of knitting structure on UPF, double knit had much greater UPFs than single knit because double the material used would lead to the increase in fabric weight and thickness which were contribute to the better UV protection. Among single knits, knit-and-miss structures had better UV protection than the knit-and-tuck and only knit structures. The knit, tuck and miss stitches bring different effect on fabric openness and UV protective abilities. Among double knit structures, interlock structure had the high mean UPFs due to the characteristics like heavy weight and small fabric openness. The stitch types also affected the UPF of double knit fabrics since the effect of tuck stitches was responsible for the increase in fabric openness and low UV protection in cardigan structures. Moreover, the relationship between different fabric parameters and UPF was studied
119

in two aspects, either among individual structures or on different knitting structures. Comparison among individual structures was able to look into how UPF was changed with the different fabric parameters when the knit structures were the same. The correlations of fabric parameter and UPF between different structures were compared. Comparison on different structures was able to find out how the change of structure affected the fabric parameter and hence UPF. The correlations of fabric parameters and UPF between single knit, double knit and overall was found. The Fabric parameters investigated included weight, thickness, weight-to-thickness ratio, stitch density and bursting strength. For fabric weight, it was concluded among individual structures, correlation of fabric weight on UPF was not strong except KM22C and half cardigan. Fabric with same structures but heavier weight did not imply that the UPF was higher. Among different structures, UPF of different knit structures was also strongly positive-correlated with fabric weights. Fabric with higher weight would provide more fibers and yarns to penetrate when compared with lighter ones and thus higher UV protection abilities. In conclusion, fabric weight was one of the leading factors that were able to affect the UPF on different knitting structures. For fabric thickness and W/T ratio, both of them could not be used to explain the change of UPF among individual structures. When comparing different knitting
120

structures, thickness was moderately positive-correlated with UPF. However, thickness was not a determination factor to UPF in different structures while W/T ratio was one of the determination factor of UPF on double knit only. Correlation of W/T ratio and UPF in double knit was strong which means the increase of W/T ratio in double knits would result in increase of UPF. Moreover, the effect of weight, thickness and W/T ratio on UPF of different knitting structures was compared. Weight was influential to UPF on all structures while W/T ratio was influential to UPF on double knit only. However, thickness was not influential to UPF on all structures. For stitch density, there was not much correlation between it and UPF among individual structures. Stitch density was not a factor affecting the UPF when comparing the same structures. The change of stitch density among individual structures with different yarns was not obvious, but the change of UPF was in a larger degree. When comparing different knitting structures, the correlation between stitch density and UPF was moderate in double knit but low in single knit and overall. For bursting strength, there was nearly no correlation of it and UPF among individual structures. However, when comparing different structures, the change of bursting strength with UPF was more significant. The correlation of UPF and bursting strength in single and double knit was quite high. It was concluded that the change of
121

bursting strength when comparing among single knits or double knits was applicable. But in overall, the correlation was just moderate. In conclusion, different fabric structure would lead to great change of UV protection ability since the formation of stitch was different. The effect of tuck and knit stitches brought great effect in the change of fabric openness and hence the UPF. When comparing different knitting structures, fabric weight was a dominant fabric parameter that contributed to the change of UPF. The effect of thickness, W/T ratio, stitch density and bursting was not that important. When only comparing double knit, W/T ratio, stitch density and bursting strength were moderately influential to the change of UPF; in single knit, bursting strength also had a moderate correlation with UPF. When comparison was done among individual structures, only KM22C and half cardigan showed a strong correlation between fabric weight and UPF. There was no strong correlation between on other fabric parameters with UPF when comparing among individual structures. 5.2. Recommendation The relationship between UVR protection ability and structure of knitted fabrics was studied in this study, but still some recommendations were suggested for enhancing this research and further study. In this research, only cotton yarns were used for analysis but in daily life, there
122

were more different kinds of yarns were used to produce garments with different purposes. For example, viscose, coolmax, polyester and nylon fibers were also very common in producing knitted garment. These yarns could also be used to investigate the effect of structures on UPF. Moreover, all the fabric samples were only knitted by a 14 gauge flat knitting machine. When producing daily knitted wear, especially for summer knitted wear, knitting machines with higher machine gauge would also be used in order to produce thinner and more comfortable fabrics. The knitted fabrics were also produced in mass production by circular knitting machines. Thus, different kinds of knitting machines with different gauge were also suggested to be used for further research. Only weight was concluded as the most dominant factor which affected the UPF on different structures in this research. Investigation were only done on weight, thickness, W/T ratio, stitch density and bursting strength, there were still more fabric parameters, such as porosity, loop length, tightness factor and cover factor which may contributed to the change of UPF. Testing on these fabric parameters was suggested to be done in order to understand their effect on UPF apart from fabric weight. In daily life, the knitted garments were laundered repeatedly in order to remove dirt and sweat during wearing, especially in summer times. This experiment was only focus on the scoured fabric which was laundered once. More fabric samples after different
123

times of laundering cycles were also suggested to be tested in order to know whether the laundering process would alter the structure and affect the UPF. Interlock was concluded to be the most powerful structure in preventing UVR exposure due to its heavy and stable characteristics. However, the effect of heavy weight and stable structure may also affect other fabric parameters which related to its comfortability in daily wear, such as the handle, water vapor permeability, etc. was not tested. These factors should also be taken in account for the manufactures and consumers since UV protective structures may not be suitable to be used as daily knitted wear. All in all, there were still limitations in this research and these recommendations could be able to use for further study.

124

REFERENCES Achwal, W. B. (1997). Sun protection properties of textile substrates. Colorage, 44(5), 31-32. Akaydin, M. (2010). Research of UV permeability properties of basic weft knitted structures. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(16), 2169-2178. Akaydn, M., Ikiz, Y., & Seyrek, K. N. (2009). Measurement and evaluation of permeability of UV rays in cotton knitted fabrics. Tekstil Ve Konfeksiyon, 3, 212-217. AKGUN, M., BECERR, B., & ALPAY, H. R. (2010). Ultraviolet (UV) protection of textiles: A review. Acta Facultatis Medicae Naissensis, 27(4) Algaba, I., & Riva, A. (2002). In vitro measurement of the ultraviolet protection factor of apparel textiles. Coloration Technology, 118(2), 52-58. Alpyidiz, T., & Kurbak, A. (2006). A geometrical model for the single pique (lacoste) knits. Textile Research Journal, 76(11), 861-867. Alpyildiz, T., & Kurbak, A. (2006). Geometrical models for cardigan structures part II: Half cardigan. Textile Research Journal, 79(18), 1635-1648. Alpyildiz, T., Icten, B. M., Karakuzu, R., & Kurbak, A. (2009). The effect of tuck stitches on the mechanical performance of knitted fabric reinforced composites.

Composite Structures, 89(3), 391-398.

125

Balk, S. J. (2011). Ultraviolet radiation: A hazard to children and adolescents. Pediatrics,

127(3), 588-97.
Bange, M. P., Constable, G. A., Gordon, S. G., Long, R. L., Naylor, G. R. S., & van der Slus, M. H. J. (2009). FIBREpak, from seeds to good shirts, A guide to

improving australian cotton fibre quality. P.O. Box 59 Narrabri, 2390, NSW,
Australia: The Cotton Catchment Communities Cooperative Research Centre. Benjamin, C. L., & Ananthaswamy, H. N. (2007). p53 and the pathogenesis of skin cancer. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 224(3), 241-248. Benltoufa, S., Fayala, F., Cheikhrouhou, M., & Ben Nasrallah, S. (2007). Porosity determination of jersey structure. AUTEX Research Journal, 7(1), 63-69. Chiu, P., & Lam, J. K. C. (2009). Engineering approach on knitwear fabric for ultraviolet protection. The 38th Textile Research Symposium at Mt. Fuji, CIE Research Note (1987). A reference action spectrum for ultraviolet induced erythema in human skin. CIE J 6, 1722. Das, B. R. (2010). UV radiation protective clothing. The Open Textile Journal, 3, 14-21. Davis, S., Capjack, L., Kerr, N., & Fedosejevs, R. (1997). Clothing as protection from ultraviolet radiation: Which fabric is most effective? International Journal of

Dermatology, 36(5), 374-379.

Emirhanova, N., & Kavusturan, Y. (2008). Effects of knit structure on the dimensional
126

and physical properties of winter outerwear knitted fabrics. Fibres & Textiles in

Eastern Europe, 16(2), 67.

Ertugrul, S., & Ucar, N. (2000). Predicting bursting strength of cotton plain knitted fabrics using intelligent techniques. Textile Research Journal, 70(10), 845-851. Gambichler, T., Avermaete, A., Bader, A., Altmeyer, P., & Hoffmann, K. (2001). Ultraviolet protection by summer textiles. ultraviolet transmission measurements verified by determination of the minimal erythema dose with solarsimulated radiation. British Journal of Dermatology, 144(3), 484-489. Gies, P. (2007). Photoprotection by clothing. Photodermatology, Photoimmunology &

Photomedicine, 23(6), 264-274.

Gies, P., Roy, C., McLennan, A., Pailthorpe, M., Hilfiker, R., Osterwalder, U., et al. (2003). Ultraviolet protection factors for clothing: An intercomparison of measurement systems. Photochemistry and Photobiology, 77(1), 58. Gies, P. H., Roy, C. R., Toomey, S., & McLennan, A. (1998). Protection against solar ultraviolet radiation. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of

Mutagenesis, 422(1), 15-22.

Glanz, K., Sarniya, M., & Wechsler, H. (2002). Guidelines for school programs to prevent skin cancer. NASN School Nurse, 51(RR-4), 1-18. Hoffmann, K., Laperre, J., Avermaete, A., Altmeyer, P., & Gambichler, T. (2001).
127

Defined UV protection by apparel textiles. Archives of Dermatology, 137(8), 1089-1094. Juzeniene, A., Brekke, P., Dahlback, A., Andersson-Engels, S., Reichrath, J., Moan, K., et al. (2011). Solar radiation and human health. Reports on Progress in Physics,

74(6), 066701.
Karmakar, S. R. (1999). Chemical technology in the pre-treatment processes of textiles. Burlington: Burlington : Elsevier. Kayacan, O., & Kurbak, A. (2008). Basic studies for modeling complex weft knitted fabric structures part IV: Geometrical modeling of miss stitches. Textile Research

Journal, 78(8), 659-663.

Khazova, M., O'Hagan, J., & Grainger, K. J. L. (2007). Radiation and chemical degradation of UVR protection characteristics of fabrics. Radiation Protection

Dosimetry, 123(3), 369-377.

Kim, J., Stone, J., Crews, P., Shelley II, M., & Hatch, K. L. (2004). Improving knit fabric UPF using consumer laundry products: A comparison of results using two instruments. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 33(2), 141-158. Kullavanijaya, P., & Lim, H. W. (2005). Photoprotection. Journal of the American

Academy of Dermatology, 52(6), 937-958.

Kurbak, A., & Alpyildiz, T. (2009). Geometrical models for cardigan structures part I:
128

Full cardigan. Textile Research Journal, 79(14), 1281-1300. Kurbak, A., & Ekmen, O. (2008). Basic studies for modeling complex weft knitted fabric structures part 1: A geometrical model for widthwise curlings of plain knitted fabrics. Textile Research Journal, 78(3), 198-208. Kurbak, A. (2009). Geometrical models for balanced rib knitted fabrics part I: Conventionally knitted 1 x 1 rib fabrics. Textile Research Journal, 79(5), 418-435. Kurbak, A., & Kayacan, O. (2008). Basic studies for modeling complex weft knitted fabric structures. part V: Geometrical modeling of tuck stitches. Textile Research

Journal, 78(7), 577-582.

MacKie, R. M. (2000). Effects of ultraviolet radiation on human health. Radiation

Protection Dosimetry, 91(1-3), 15-18.

Meeran, S. M., Punathil, T., & Katiyar, S. K. (2008). IL-12 deficiency exacerbates inflammatory responses in UV- irradiated skin and skin tumors. JOURNAL OF

INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY, 128(11), 2716-2727.

Menter, J. M., & Hatch, K. L. (2003). Clothing as solar radiation protection. Textiles

and the Skin, 31, 50-63.

Mohan, D., Singh, K. P., & Singh, V. K. (2000). Error correction and calibration of a sun protection measurement system for textile fabrics. Radiation Protection

Dosimetry, 91(1-3), 261-264.

129

Narayanan, D. L., Saladi, R. N., & Fox, J. L. (2010). Ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer. International Journal of Dermatology, 49(9), 978. Ogulata, R. T., & Mavruz, S. (2010). Investigation of porosity and air permeability values of plain knitted fabrics. FIBRES & TEXTILES IN EASTERN EUROPE,

18(5), 71-75.
Osterwalder, U., Schlenker, W., Rohwer, H., Martin, E., & Schuh, S. (2000). Facts and ficton on ultraviolet protection by clothing. Radiation Protection Dosimetry,

91(1-3), 255-259.
Pailthorpe, M. (1998). Apparel textiles and sun protection: A marketing opportunity or a quality control nightmare? Mutation Research - Fundamental and Molecular

Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, 422(1), 175-183.

Palacin, F. (1997). Textile finish protects against UV radiation. MELLIAND

TEXTILBERICHTE INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE REPORTS, 78, 519-522.

Polaina, J., & MacCabe, A. P. (2007). Industrial enzymes: Structure, function and

applications Springer.
Raz, S. (1993). Flat knitting technology. Westhausen: Westhausen : Universal Maschienfabrik. Saladi, R. N., & Persaud, A. N. (1998). The causes of skin cancer: A comprehensive review. Drugs of Today, 41(1), 37.
130

Savci, S., Curiskis, J. I., & Pailthorpe, M. T. (2000). A study of the deformation of weft-knit preforms for advanced composite structures - part 1: Dry preform properties. Composites Science and Technology, 60(10), 1931-1942. Skin Cancer Foundation. Skin cancer facts. Retrieved November 27, 2011, from http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts#general Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand (1996). Sun Protective ClothingEvaluation and Classification. AS/NZS 4399, Standards Australia, Sydney and Standards New Zealand, Wellington. Stanford, D. G., Georgouras, K. E., & Pailthorpe, M. T. (1997). Rating clothing for sun protection: Current status in australia. Journal of the European Academy of

Dermatology and Venereology, 8(1), 12-17. UV protection and clothing(2006). (Technical Report CIE 172International Commission
on Illumination (CIE). Van den Keybus, C., Laperre, J., & Roelandts, R. (2006). Protection from visible light by commonly used textiles is not predicted by ultraviolet protection. Journal of the

American Academy of Dermatology, 54(1), 86-93.

World Health Organization. Ultraviolet radiation and health. Retrieved November 14, 2011, from http://www.who.int/uv/uv_and_health/en/index.html Zou, K. H., Tuncali, K., & Silverman, S. G. (2003). Correlation and simple linear
131

regression. Radiology, 227(3), 617-628.

132