CURRENT AND FUTURE FIBER QUALITY DEMAND: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COTTON PRODUCTION SECTOR E.F. HEQUET Plant and Soil Science Department Texas Tech University
Main Research Interests Develop new measuring methods for fibers, yarns, and fabrics. Improve the measurement and understanding of cotton fiber properties and contaminants; Study the impacts of these on textile processing performance; Work collaboratively with the cotton breeding and cotton biotechnology community to develop improved properties in cotton fibers;
The textile industry relocates: Impact on research objectives
Yield, kg/ha 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Cotton yield evolution (average world) Yield = 9.11 Year - 17,560 R 2 = 0.95 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Crop year Source: ICAC
Production, 1000 metric ton Cotton production evolution (world) 30.000 25.000 20.000 15.000 10.000 5.000 Production = 308.8 Year 595,792 R 2 = 0.92 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Crop year Source: ICAC
Consumption, kg/capita Market share, % Cotton: Consumption per capita and market share 4,5 4,0 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2015 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Source: ICAC Consumption Market share
Market share, % Cotton in % of total fiber available for home use by region 50 45 40 35 30 25 Source: FAO-ICAC 20 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Year Total World North America Far East
Market share, % Source: FAO-ICAC Cotton in % of total fiber available for home use by region 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Year Total World Brazil
1997 Cotton Sales (millions) 11.3 7.5 Domestic Foreign
2014/15 Cotton Sales (millions) 75.3% 9.8 24.7% 11.0 3.6 Domestic Foreign
Rotor spun yarn Ring spun yarn Rank Rotor 1 Strength 2 Fineness 3 Length 4 Cleanliness Rank Ring 1 Length 2 Strength 3 Fineness 4
Installed Spinning Capacities (short staple) 1984 1994 2004 2007 2010 Rotor US 300,000 1,008,000 569,000 364,000 303,000 China 100,000 550,000 1,160,000 2,037,000 2,260,000 Ring US 14,330,000 6,261,000 1,602,000 1,043,000 670,000 China 22,000,000 41,585,000 67,000,000 99,000,000 120,000,000 Source ITMF
2010 Installed Spinning Capacities Spindles Short staple Spindles Long staple OE Rotors Africa 2.3% 1.7% 2.2% America, North 2.3% 6.2% 6.2% America, South 3.9% 4.8% 6.7% Asia & Oceania 86.0% 44.9% 54.9% Europe, East 1.5% 8.8% 18.6% Europe, West 1.3% 28.5% 3.4% Europe, Turkey 2.7% 5.1% 7.9% World 243,573,557 14,663,468 7,566,164 Source ITMF
Cumulative Shipments 2002-2011 Spindles Short staple Spindles Long staple OE Rotors Africa 0.9% 2.1% 1.0% America, North 0.4% 1.8% 4.4% America, South 0.7% 4.7% 5.0% Asia & Oceania 94.0% 59.5% 76.2% Europe, East 0.1% 5.0% 1.8% Europe, West 0.4% 8.0% 2.0% Europe, Turkey 3.4% 18.9% 9.6% World 99,299,614 1,670,226 3,791,350 Source ITMF
2010 Installed Weaving Capacities* Shuttle-less Shuttle Africa America, North America, South Asia & Oceania Europe, East Europe, West Europe, Others World 1.2% 4.3% 5.6% 73.2% 9.4% 3.0% 3.4% 1,168,666 4.1% 3.2% 4.9% 85.3% 0.6% 0.4% 1.3% 1,484,116 * Looms primarily for weaving yarns spun on the cotton system Source ITMF
Weaving Machinery Cumulative Shipments 2002-2011 Shuttle-less Shuttle Africa America, North America, South Asia & Oceania Europe, East Europe, West Europe, Others World 0.8% 0.6% 1.1% 91.4% 0.5% 2.9% 2.8% 734,885 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 99.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 67,057 Source ITMF
Cotton Fiber Maturity
15 DPA fiber cross section Thin primary walls are adhering to each other Picture: R. Goynes
Developing fiber bundle cross section showing better developed primary walls Picture: R. Goynes
Secondary cell wall development begins As the secondary wall development begins, fibers separate to show individual walls. Picture: R. Goynes
Young individual fibers Fiber bundle cross section at stage of development where fibers are individual entities Picture: R. Goynes
25 DPA fiber cross sections Picture: R. Goynes
36 DPA fiber cross sections Picture: R. Goynes
49 DPA fiber cross sections Picture: R. Goynes
Mature, field dried fiber cross sections Picture: R. Goynes
Typical cotton fiber cross-sections
Immature cotton fiber cross-sections
Percentage Bivariate distributions: Perimeter and θ Two cottons having the same micronaire (4.3) 3,0 3,0 2,5 2,5 2,0 2,0 1,5 1,5 1,0 1,0 0,5 0,5 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 4 44 84 0,0 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 4 44 84 0,0 Theta Theta
Relationship MR-H-Micronaire-Diameter Fineness - millitex 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 Micronaire reading 19 3.0 18 17 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Fiber Diameter 16 15 14 13 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 Maturity Ratio
Fiber maturity is essential to evaluate the fiber propensity to break during mechanical handling. It should be therefore directly related to fiber length distribution.
Percentage Within-sample force-to-break distribution vs. length (bale 3175) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Force-to-break, cn < 0.750 inch 0.750 inch
Cotton Fiber Length
Length Histogram Long staple Short staple
HVI Fiber Length Parameters Upper Half Mean Length (UHML) Mean Length 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 Length, inch
AFIS: fiber individualizer
Schematic of a cotton fiber with crimp Length of the signal
Relative Frequency 0,09 0,08 0,07 0,06 0,05 0,04 0,03 0,02 0,01 0 AFIS Fiber Length Parameters 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 Length (in) UQL(w) [in] L(n) [in] L5%(n) [in] SFC(n) [%]
0,03 0,22 0,41 0,59 0,78 0,97 1,16 1,34 1,53 1,72 1,91 2,09 2,28 2,47 Relative Frequency Length Distribution Comparison Bales with UHML of 1.10 in 0,08 0,07 0,06 0,05 0,04 0,03 0,02 0,01 0,00 Bale 1 Bale 2 Bale 3 Length (in)
AFIS ML(n), inch HVI UHML vs. AFIS Length-by-Number (3,129 commercial bales) 1,00 0,95 0,90 0,85 0,80 0,75 0,70 0,65 0,60 0,90 1,00 1,10 1,20 1,30 HVI UHML, inch
AFIS SFC(w), % AFIS Maturity Ratio vs. AFIS SFC(w) 16 14 12 10 8 6 R² = 0,8586 4 0,76 0,78 0,80 0,82 0,84 0,86 0,88 0,90 0,92 AFIS Maturity Ratio, no unit
Combing
Noils, % AFIS SFC(w) vs. Noils 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 R² = 0,8565 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 AFIS SFC(w), %
Percentage 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Cotton 3457 H = 165 mtex MR = 0.86 Ln = 0.73 0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 Length, inch Raw
Percentage Cotton 3457 (20% noils) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 H = 145 mtex MR = 0.71 Ln = 0.38 41% by number H = 183 mtex MR = 0.94 Ln = 0.84 59% by number 0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 Length, inch Noils DII
Within-sample force-to-break vs. length
Cotton Fiber Tensile Properties: Focus on Elongation
Load, N Typical Load Elongation curve 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 l 0 Area under curve = Work-to-break 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 Elongation, mm
Elongation @ break, % 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 Single fiber tensile properties of developing cotton fibers 15 25 35 45 55 DPA TX55 TX19
Force-to-break, g 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Single fiber tensile properties of developing cotton fibers 15 25 35 45 55 DPA TX55 TX19
Background The contribution of fiber bundle elongation in the work of rupture of fiber bundles is critically important to processing performance.
Hypothesis New cultivars with improved work of rupture should result in lower fiber breakage when the cotton fibers are submitted to different mechanical stresses (ginning, carding, spinning, and weaving).
High Heritability May et al. reported that heritability of fiber tenacity is generally high. Among eighteen studies undertaken between 1954 and 1994, the narrow sense heritability for fiber tenacity was ranging from 0.10 to 0.86 while for fiber elongation the narrow sense heritability was ranging from 0.36 to 0.90.
Negative correlation But, May also reported negative correlations between fiber elongation and fiber tenacity.
Elongation, % 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Elongation vs. HVI tenacity 547 wild-type cotton samples R 2 = 0.131 *** 15 20 25 30 35 40 Tenacity, cn/tex
Force-to-break, g.cm FAVIMAT: Elongation-at-break vs. Force-to-break 6,2 5,8 5,4 5,0 4,6 4,2 3,8 3,4 y = 3.632 + 0.143 x R 2 = 0.162 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Elongation-at-break, %
Stdev Elongation-at-break, % FAVIMAT Elongation-at-break vs. FAVIMAT Stdev Elongation-at-break (among fibers) 4,0 3,8 3,6 3,4 3,2 3,0 2,8 2,6 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 y = 0.5804 + 0.2561 x R 2 = 0.689 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 FAVIMAT Elongation-at-break, %
Background Because of the lack of HVI calibration for elongation and the negative correlation with strength most of the breeders simply ignore fiber elongation. However, this level of correlation does not preclude simultaneous improvement of fiber tenacity and fiber elongation.
Conclusion Is it possible to improve the work-to-break (quantity of energy necessary to break a fiber or a bundle of fibers) of cotton using HVI?
Tensile Strength Tester
Load, N Load vs. Elongation 70 l 0 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 Elongation, mm
Load, N Work of rupture calculations We cannot record the curves load-elongation for the HVI. Nevertheless, the HVI work of rupture should be related to the product tenacity * elongation. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0 Elongation, mm
W, cn/tex 1,2 1,1 Work of rupture (Instron) W vs. HVI Tenacity * Elongation R 2 = 0.894 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Tenacity * Elongation (HVI)
W: (x-base)/base*100 Estimated HVI work of rupture W vs. HVI Tenacity for selected elongations 120 100 80 60 40 20 0-20 -40-60 Base: 24 cn/tex 6% El. 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 HVI Tenacity, cn/tex
Conclusion There is a strong relationship between work of rupture measured with an Instron and the product tenacity elongation measured with HVI. With the current marketing system the variety with a higher strength and a lower elongation would receive a premium while its performance in spinning and weaving (all other parameters being equal) would be probably lower.
Breeding for elongation to improve fiber and yarn quality
25 crosses An example (J. Dever program) Divergent selection based on HVI elongation For each cross, divergent elongations (high low) keeping everything else as constant as possible. 3 couples (High Low elongation) in 2 locations with 4 replications.
HVI Elongation, % HVI Elongation, % HVI Elongation 11 12 10 9 8 7 6 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 5 A Low A High B Low B High Entry C Low C High Control A Low A High B Low B High Entry C Low C High Control Year: 2011 Year: 2012 Light color = Halfway - Dark color = Lubbock
HVI Strength, g/tex HVI Strength, g/tex HVI Strength 36 36 34 34 32 32 30 30 28 28 26 26 24 24 A Low A High B Low B High Entry C Low C High Control A Low A High B Low B High Entry C Low C High Control Year: 2011 Year: 2012 Light color = Halfway - Dark color = Lubbock
Yarn elongation, % Yarn elongation, % Yarn elongation (RS 18Ne carded) 7,0 7,0 6,5 6,5 6,0 6,0 5,5 5,5 5,0 5,0 4,5 4,5 4,0 4,0 3,5 3,5 A Low A High B Low B High Entry C Low C High Control A Low A High B Low B High Entry C Low C High Control Year: 2011 Year: 2012 Light color = Halfway - Dark color = Lubbock
Yarn tenacity, cn/tex Yarn tenacity, cn/tex Yarn tenacity (RS 18Ne carded) 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11 A Low A High B Low B High Entry C Low C High Control A Low A High B Low B High Entry C Low C High Control Year: 2011 Year: 2012 Light color = Halfway - Dark color = Lubbock
Yarn work-to-break, gf.cm Yarn work-to-break, gf.cm Yarn work-to-break (RS 18Ne carded) 1.100 1.100 1.000 1.000 900 900 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 A Low A High B Low B High Entry C Low C High Control A Low A High B Low B High Entry C Low C High Control Year: 2011 Year: 2012 Light color = Halfway - Dark color = Lubbock Best entry (C High): + 62.1% in 2011 and +50.2% in 2012 versus control
Conclusion Better elongation translates into better workto-break. Therefore, less fiber breakage when fibers are submitted to mechanical stress is likely. Less fiber breakage should translate into better fiber length distribution and less yarn defects.
Short Fiber content (n), % AFIS Short Fiber Content by number 29,0 28,5 28,0 27,5 27,0 26,5 26,0 25,5 25,0 24,5 24,0 A Low A High B Low B High C Low C High Control Entry
Yarn thick places, count/km Yarn elongation vs. Thick places +50% (RS 18Ne carded) 140 120 R² = 0,5465 100 80 60 40 Uster 50% Uster 25% 20 0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5 6,0 6,5 7,0 Yarn elongation, %
Conclusion It is possible to improve bundle elongation with HVI. Better HVI elongation translates into less fiber breakage when fibers are submitted to mechanical stress. Less fiber breakage means better fiber length distribution. Better HVI elongation translates into better yarn elongation, better work-to-break, less yarn defects.
It is critically important to estimate the propensity to break of cotton fibers. Propensity to break is related to: Conclusion fiber length (longer fibers tend to break more and need to be processed more gently) Maturity (poor fiber micro-structure leads to weak fibers) elongation-to-break (brittle fibers do not process well), force-to-break (weak fibers tend to break when submitted to mechanical processing).
Fiber production, 1,000 tons General Conclusion Cotton production in Brazil is on the rise. 2.500 2.000 Production = 28.2 year - 55439 R² = 0.527 1.500 1.000 500-1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Crop year A significant part of the production is exported.
General Conclusion A large part of the exports from Brazil is directed to Asia where ring spinning is dominant.
General Conclusion The ring spinning market needs fiber that are: Long (at least 35 staple) Uniform in length (low short fiber content*) Strong Fine and mature * Short fibers are mostly immature fibers that have been broken when submitted to mechanical processing. Therefore, fiber maturity is of the utmost importance.
General Conclusion Due to the demand of the ring spinning market cotton breeders, agronomists, and plant protection specialists need to concentrate their efforts on improving both yield and fiber quality. The biggest threat to our industry is producing a mediocre cotton fiber that cannot compete with man-made fibers in terms of cost, productivity in the field and in the textile mills, and quality of the end-product.