APRIL 2005 293

Hand-Related Mechanical Behavior of Enzyme-Treated Yarns

Part II: Influence of Fiber Disposition

P. RADHAKRISHNAIAH, JINGWU HE, AND FRED L. COOK

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, U.S.A.

GISELA BUSCHLE-DILLER
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT
In the second part of our two-part study, we attempt to understand the influence of
enzyme treatment on the properties of bicomponent yarns that exhibit systematic differ-
ences in fiber arrangement within the yarn. Our results show that the treatment alters the
properties of a ring spun, random blended, polyester-cotton yarn more than it alters the
properties of a corresponding sheath-core yarn. Results also reveal that the treatment has
a different influence on the properties of two friction spun cotton-polyester yarns, one
made with a staple polyester core and the other with a multifilament polyester core. The
weight losses suffered by the treated yarns are also influenced by the fiber arrangements
within the yarn.

In Part I of this work [6], we compared the bending
and compression properties of treated and untreated
yarns representing ring, rotor, air-jet, and friction
spinning systems, and we concluded that the treatment
produced desirable property changes in yarns repre-
senting all four spinning systems. Thus, Part I looked
at the inherent differences in the hand-related mechan-
ical behavior of spun yarns corresponding to different
spinning systems, and how these differences are mod-
erated by a cellulase enzyme treatment. In Part II, we
attempt to evaluate the impact of enzyme treatment on
the hand-related properties of spun yarns exhibiting
different fiber arrangements within the yarns. Specif-
ically, we look at the influence of the treatment on the
properties of bicomponent yarns representing random
fiber disposition and core-sheath construction. We also
investigate the effect of using continuous filaments as
opposed to cut staple fibers in the core of bicomponent
yarns.
Materials and Methods
Particulars of the experimental yarns are given in
Table I. The two medium count ring yarns (yarns 1 and
2) were made from the same fiber stock with the same
amount of twist. They both were knitting yarns with
about 18% less twist than that of corresponding warp
yarns. Yarns 3, 4, and 5 represented coarse counts (above
60 tex) with twist levels considered appropriate for use
as warp yarns on high speed shuttleless looms. A DREF-III
friction spinning machine was used to produce yarns 4
and 5, where as yarn 3 was made on a rotor spinning
machine, mainly because it is not feasible to make a
100% cotton yarn on the DREF-III machine. Yarn 3 was
included in the group to understand how the treatment
influences the properties of a 100% cotton yarn with
approximately the same count as the two friction yarns.
All conditions of enzyme treatment except the treat-
ment duration were identical to those described in Part I
[6] of this study. The treatment time was 30 minutes for
all yarns.
We used the Kawabata compression and bending
testers to measure the compression and bending proper-
ties of the treated and untreated yarns. The test proce-
dures employed and the property parameters measured
for the compression and bending tests were identical to
those described in Part I.
The average breaking load and breaking elongation of
the treated and untreated yarns were measured on the
Instron tester. Average values were computed on the
basis of 30 tests for each yarn. Other test conditions were
similar to those described in Part I.
We used a scanning electron microscope to observe
surface changes in treated yarns and fibers. A Hitachi
S-800 scanning electron microscope captured the mag-
nified images of individual fibers on the surface of
treated and untreated yarns.

Textile Res. J. 75(4), 293–296 (2005) DOI:10.1177/0040517505054841 © 2005 Sage Publications www.sagepublications.com
294
TABLE I. Experimental yarns.
No. Description of yarn sample
1 Ring spun intimate blend (35P:65C)
2 Ring spun polyester staple core/cotton sheath (35P:65C)
3 100% Cotton rotor spun
4 Friction spun polyester staple core/cotton sheath (35P:65C)
5 Friction spun polyester filament core/cotton sheath (35P:65C)
Results and Discussion
WEIGHT LOSS OF TREATED YARNS
The weight losses of the five different yarns are shown
in Table I. Of the two ring yarns, one would expect the
core-sheath yarn to show a higher weight loss compared
to the intimate blend yarn, because of the preferential
positioning of the cotton fibers on the surface of the yarn.
However, the results indicate that the weight loss of the
core-sheath yarn is less than that of the intimate blend
yarn. We used the USDA patented ring frame attachment
[8, 9] to produce the core-sheath yarn. This attachment
wraps a well aligned and compacted ribbon of sheath
fibers on the polyester core, thereby forcing the sheath
fibers to remain fully extended and in close contact with
each other as they are incorporated into the yarn. The
sheath fiber wrapping conditions therefore create a very
compact sheath with fewer fibers protruding from yarn
surface. The close packing of surface fibers and the low
hairiness of the yarn appear to be responsible for the
lower weight loss shown by the core-sheath yarn. Com-
paring the weight loss of the ring spun staple-core yarn
with that of the friction spun staple-core yarn, we see that
the friction yarn accounts for roughly 2.2 times the
weight loss of the ring yarn, despite the fact that the
friction yarn is much coarser than the ring yarn. While
we don’t have any measured data to support the conten-
tion that the excess weight loss of the friction yarn may
be due to fiber separation, the lack of conditions for
effective interlocking of fibers in the friction yarn [5,
1–3] as well as the greater likelihood of fiber breakage in
the friction spinning process [2, 3, 5] can be considered
to contribute to the greater weight loss of the friction
yarn.
Comparing the weight losses of the staple-core and
filament-core friction yarns, we see that the percent loss
suffered by the staple-core yarn is roughly four times that
suffered by the filament-core yarn. When we planned this
work, we attempted to keep the count and twist of the
two friction yarns the same. We managed to keep the
wrapping twist of the two yarns the same, but the staple-
core yarn turned out to be slightly finer than the filament-
core yarn. While finer yarns can be expected to show a
higher percent weight loss, the small difference in fine-
TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL
Yarn count, tex Treatment time, hours % Weight loss
21.1 0.5 1.03
21.1 0.5 0.85
101.8 0.5 1.0
83.2 0.5 1.9
90.8 0.5 0.51
ness of the two friction yarns cannot explain the four
times higher weight loss of the staple-core yarn. Thus,
substituting cut staple fibers with a twistless multifila-
ment yarn in the core of the bicomponent friction yarn
appears to improve its structural integrity, especially the
tangling between the sheath fibers and the core yarn. The
ends of the sheath fibers trapped between filaments of the
core yarn can be expected to be held more firmly than the
ends of the sheath fibers held between staple fibers of the
core yarn. Also, substituting the staple-fiber core with a
multifilament core may be associated with a significant
change in the sheath-core contact area. It is not clear
from this work which factor or factors contribute to the
improved sheath fiber integrity of the filament-core yarn.
INFLUENCE OF ENZYME TREATMENT ON
COMPRESSION PROPERTIES
The compression properties listed in Table II suggest
that enzyme treatment increases compression energy
(WC) and percent thickness compression (EMC%), while
reducing the compressive resilience (RC%). This trend in
compression properties is in complete agreement with
that observed in Part I. Also, past work [4, 7] involving
correlations between subjective and objective measures
suggests that this trend in compression properties corre-
sponds to an improvement in softness perception. Thus,
the measured compression parameters provide a clear
indication that enzyme treatment improves the softness
of all five yarns. Considering the extent of change in
compression properties shown by different yarns, the
maximum change, and hence maximum improvement, in
compression behavior is associated with the ring spun
random blend yarn. Before enzyme treatment, the core-
spun yarn showed properties indicating greater softness.
However, the two yarns showed almost identical com-
pression properties after enzyme treatment, suggesting
that the treatment had a greater influence on the softness
of the random blended yarn.
INFLUENCE OF ENZYME TREATMENT ON
BENDING BEHAVIOR
Table III shows the measured bending rigidity values
of the experimental yarns. We have seen that the treat-
APRIL 2005 295

TABLE II. Comparison of compression properties of treated and untreated yarns.

PET staple Friction spun Friction spun

Intimate core/cotton Rotor spun PET staple PET filament
Property blend P/C sheath P/C 100% cotton core/cotton sheath core/cotton sheath

LC, linearity of load versus

thickness curve
Untreated 0.3897 0.39185 0.42485 0.4237 0.37075
Treated 0.37725 0.36275 0.4387 0.4157 0.3622
95% Sig. no yes no no no
WC, g/cm, compression energy
(work of compression)
Untreated 0.1424 0.160 0.2639 0.2162 0.2307
Treated 0.1999 0.1941 0.3379 0.2720 0.2676
95% Sig. yes yes yes yes yes
RC%, percent compressive resilience
Untreated 39.69 35.82 42.51 41.08 38.96
Treated 32.93 32.71 39.58 38.21 35.07
95% Sig. yes yes yes yes yes
EMC%, percent thickness reduction
Untreated 39.37 44.58 38.13 38.54 37.23
Treated 52.47 54.00 42.02 41.01 43.47
95% Sig. yes yes yes yes yes

ment accounts for a reduction in bending rigidity of all
five yarns, and that the magnitude of change is larger
than that observed in Part I. The bending hysteresis value
(2HB) does not show a clear trend with respect to en-
zyme treatment, thus agreeing with the trend in Part I.
The reasons for the absence of a consistent trend are the
same as those described in Part I. If anything, the yarn
surfaces of the treated experimental yarns show more
disturbance than seen in Part I yarns.
INFLUENCE OF ENZYME TREATMENT ON YARN
TENSILE PROPERTIES
Measured yarn properties (Table IV) provide an oppor-
tunity to arrive at some preliminary conclusions on the
applicability of the treatment conditions for different yarns.
A comparison of the properties of the treated and
untreated yarns reveals the following: First, based on
strength loss, the treatment conditions used on the two
medium count ring yarns appear to be a little more severe
than needed for optimal yarn properties. Second, under
identical treatment conditions, the ring yarn representing
random fiber distribution shows a greater change in com-
pression, bending, and tensile properties compared to the
core-sheath yarn. Therefore, the random blend yarn re-
quires less severe treatment conditions compared to the
sheath-core yarn. Third, the rotor spun 100% cotton yarn
shows significant improvement in bending and compres-
sion properties with a strength loss of less than 10%. The
treatment conditions therefore appear to be appropriate
for the cotton yarn. Fourth, between the two friction
yarns, the staple-core yarn shows more than 10%
strength loss, while the strength loss of the filament-core
yarn is not statistically significant. This implies that the
treatment conditions should be less severe than that used in
our study for the staple-core yarn, but they can be more
severe for the filament-core yarn. Fifth, the treatment con-
ditions do not lead to a significant drop in the breaking
elongation of any of the five experimental yarns. In fact, the
breaking elongation of the enzyme-treated cotton yarn
shows a 12% increase, and we have no clues at this stage as
to what specific factors may be responsible for this in-
creased yarn elongation. Further investigations are needed
to understand the factors contributing to the improved
breaking elongation of the cotton yarn.

TABLE III. Comparison of bending properties of treated and untreated yarns.

PET staple Friction spun Friction spun

Intimate core/cotton Rotor spun PET staple PET filament
Property blend P/C sheath P/C 100% cotton core/cotton sheath core/cotton sheath

B, g.cm, bending rigidity

Untreated 0.0061 0.0278 0.0088 0.0157 0.1379
Treated 0.0046 0.0248 0.0059 0.0138 0.1275
95% Sig. yes yes yes yes yes
296 TEXTILE RESEARCH JOURNAL

TABLE IV. Comparison of the tensile properties of treated and untreated yarns.

PET staple Friction spun Friction spun

Intimate core/cotton Rotor spun PET staple core/ PET filament
Property blend P/C sheath P/C 100% cotton cotton sheath core/cotton sheath

B L, lb, breaking load

Untreated 0.98607 1.079 2.2287 1.874 3.974
Treated 0.7552 0.9219 2.0245 1.531 3.8165
% Change ⫺23.41 ⫺14.56 ⫺9.16 ⫺18.17 ⫺3.97
95% Sig. yes yes yes yes no
B E, %, percent breaking elongation
Untreated 11.23 11.55 11.19 12.27 17.99
Treated 11.29 11.33 12.61 12.11 17.89
% Change 0.54 ⫺1.8 12.67 ⫺1.27 ⫺0.55
95% Sig. no no yes no no

MICROGRAPHS OF TREATED AND UNTREATED FIBERS Literature Cited

To ensure that the treatment conditions in this study
produce significant surface changes in the cotton fibers,
we examined the treated and untreated cotton yarns un-
der a scanning electron microscope. A comparison of
micrographs of treated and untreated fibers reveals that
the treatment conditions used in Parts I and II of this
work cause noticeable changes in the surface condition
of the cotton fibers.
Conclusions
The direction of change in the compression and bend-
ing properties of the treated yarns is similar to that of Part
I of this study, with the observed trends being clearer in
Part II. The treated yarns show increased compression
energy (WC), increased thickness compression (EMC%),
and reduced compressive resilience (RC%), all of which
indicate an improvement in the compressive softness of
the yarns [7]. The treated yarns also show a reduction in
bending rigidity (B), which implies that they can be bent
with less effort. As expected, finer yarns show larger
percent changes in bending, compression, and tensile
properties compared to coarser yarns. Between the two
ring yarns representing random fiber distribution and
core-sheath construction, the yarn with the random fiber
disposition is more sensitive to the treatment than the
core-sheath yarn. Between the staple-fiber core and fila-
ment-core friction yarns, the one with the staple-fiber
core loses more strength, suggesting that this yarn may
require a less severe treatment compared to the filament-
core yarn.
1. Klein, W., “The Technology of Short-Staple Spinning,
Short-staple Spinning Series,” vol. 4, The Textile Institute,
Manchester, U.K., 1987.
2. Klein, W., “New Spinning Systems, Short-staple Spinning
Series,” vol. 5, The Textile Institute, Manchester, U.K.,
1993.
3. Krause, H. W., Staple-Fiber Spinning Systems, J. Textile
Inst. 76(3), 185–195 (1985).
4. Lord, P.R., and Radhakrishnaiah, P., Assessment of the
Tactile Properties of Woven Fabrics Made from Various
Types of Staple Fiber Yarn, J. Textile Inst. 79(1), 32–52
(1988).
5. Lunenschloss, F. T. I. J., and Brockmanns, K., Mechanism
of OE-friction Spinning, Int. Textile Bull. Yarn Form. 31(3),
29 –59 (1985).
6. Radhakrishnaiah, P., He, J., Cook, F. L., and Buschle-Diller,
G., Hand-Related Mechanical Behavior of Enzyme Treated
Yarns, Part I: Role of the Spinning System, Textile Res. J.
75, 265–273 (2005).
7. Radhakrishnaiah, P., and Sawhney, A. P. S., Low Stress
Mechanical Behavior of Cotton/Polyester Yarns and Fabrics
in Relation to Fiber Distribution Within the Yarn, Textile
Res. J. 66(2), 99 –103 (1996).
8. Sawhney, A. P. S., Robert, K.Q., Ruppenicker, G. F., and
Kimmel, L. B., Improved Method of Producing a Cotton
Covered/Polyester Staple-Core Yarn on a Ring Spinning
Frame, Textile Res. J. 62, 21–25 (1992).
9. Sawhney, A. P. S., Robert, K. Q., and Ruppenicker, G. F.,
Device for Producing Staple-Core/Cotton-Wrap Ring Spun
Yarns, Textile Res. J. 59(9), 519 –524 (1984).
Manuscript received August 25, 2003; accepted April 16, 2004.