Neps, Seed-Coat Fragments, And Non-Seed Impurities In .
53The Journal of Cotton Science 5:53-67 (2001)http://journal.cotton.org, The Cotton Foundation 2001TEXTILE TECHNOLOGYNeps, Seed-Coat Fragments, and Non-Seed Impurities in Processed CottonKarin R. Jacobsen, Yaffa L. Grossman, You-Lo Hsieh, Richard E. Plant,William F. Lalor, and Judith A. JernstedtINTERPRETIVE SUMMARYMuch research has been done to identify theorigin of non-dyeing fibers in textiles. Cottoncontaminants that could appear as white and lightcolored specks in dyed textiles and fabrics are asource of great concern for the textile industry.There is experimental evidence that mechanicalprocessing procedures contribute to the presence ofdefects in cotton. Deltapine (DPL) 50 cotton(Gossypium hirsutum L.) samples from fourdifferent ginning (cage, saw) and lint-cleaning(zero, one) combinations were microscopicallyexamined (i) to study the presence of neps (clumpsof immature fibers), seed-coat fragments, and nonseed impurities in processed cotton and (ii) toanalyze how effectively specific fiber-processingsteps reduce or remove impurities from cottonsamples.Neps were the major source of impurities,followed by seed-coat fragments and non-seedimpurities in all four gin-type/lint-cleaningcombinations. The numbers of neps detected withmicroscopy were higher than the numbers obtainedusing the AFIS (Advanced Fiber InformationSystem) test method. Microscopic imagesdemonstrate the distinct differences in size andappearance between neps observed in cage-ginnedversus saw-ginned lint. These differences in sizewere not reflected in the AFIS data. We found thatcarding significantly reduced neps in cageginned/zero-lint cleaned cotton. Overall (from lintto combed finisher), combing significantlyK.R. Jacobsen, R.E. Plant, and J.A. Jernstedt, Dep. ofAgronomy and Range Science, 1 Shields Ave., Univ. ofCalifornia, Davis, CA 95616; Y.L. Grossman, Biology Dep.,Beloit College, 700 College St., Beloit, WI 53511; Y.-L. Hsieh,Dep. of Textiles and Clothing, Univ. of California, Davis, CA95616; W.F. Lalor, Agricultural Res. Div., Cotton Incorporated,Cary, NC 27513. Received 18 Aug. 2000. *Correspondingauthor (jjernstedt@ucdavis.edu).decreased most types of impurities in each of thefour gin-type/lint-cleaning combinations.ABSTRACTWe studied the effect of mechanical-processingprocedures on the presence of defects in cotton.Deltapine (DPL) 50 cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)samples collected from four different ginning (cage,saw) and lint-cleaning (zero, one) combinations andcollected after carding and combing were examinedmicroscopically for neps, seed-coat fragments, andnon-seed impurities. In all four gin-type/lint-cleaningcombinations, the numbers of neps were highest,followed by seed-coat fragments and non-seedimpurities. Microscopically obtained numbers of nepsand seed-coat fragments were higher than numbersobtained with AFIS. Differences in size andappearance between neps in cage-ginned and in sawginned lint were documented with microscopy;however, AFIS data did not reflect this difference.Fiber processing, such as carding, significantlyaffected the number and the size of neps in cotton.Combing significantly decreased most types ofimpurities in each of the four gin-type/lint-cleaningcombinations.The production of high-quality fiber and textilesthat meet the highest standards of the cottonindustry has been a central and ongoing challengein cotton research. Neps and white specks areimperfections that severely decrease textile qualityat the consumer level and, therefore, have immenseeconomic consequences. Neps are entanglements orclumps of immature fibers that produceimperfections when woven into fabric (Clegg andHarland, 1923; Pearson, 1933). Frequently, nepstake up dye poorly and appear as light spots orAbbreviations: AFIS, Advanced Fiber Information System;AFIS-F&M, Advanced Fiber Information System with Finenessand Maturity module; DPL, Deltapine; HVI, high-volumeinstrumentation; SCF, seed or mote coat fragments; NSI, nonseed impurities.
54JACOBSEN ET AL.: IMPURITIES IN PROCESSED COTTONwhite specks scattered randomly throughout dyedfabrics (Pearson, 1933; Watson and Jones, 1985;Smith, 1991). Seed-coat fragments are pieces ofseed or mote (underdeveloped or aborted ovules)coats with fibers (mostly immature) attached thatwere broken or crushed during cotton processing(Brown and Ware, 1958). Motes are the mainsource of immature fibers, fiber clusters, and/orseed-coat fragments (Palmer [1924], Rea [1928]both cited in Pearson, 1933). Immature fibers arecharacterized by retarded fiber-wall growth withvarious degrees of secondary wall thickening.Immature fibers with little if any secondary wallaccept dyes poorly (Smith, 1991). Consequently,fiber maturity is considered an important qualityfactor. Standard test methods, such as AFIS-F&M(Advanced Fiber Information System with Finenessand Maturity module), quantify physical fibermaturity in terms of fineness and circularity. Inaddition to maturity, factors such as strength,length, fineness, and uniformity determine thequality of cotton fibers (Bradow and Davidonis,2000).Mechanical processing procedures apparentlycontribute to the presence of defects in cotton fibers(Pearson, 1933). Neps or fiber clusters caused byseed-coat fragments are primarily formed duringcotton processing or “manufacture” (Clegg andHarland, 1923; Hebert et al., 1986; Hughs et al.,1988; Mangialardi, 1992; Mangialardi andAnthony, 1998), but the ultimate origin of manyneps and specks is thought to be in the biology ofcotton seed development. It is preferable toeliminate neps before the fabric is made (Watsonand Jones, 1985), but mechanical removal isdifficult and frequently impossible to accomplish(Pearson, 1933).Cotton processing begins with the handling ofseed cotton at the gin stand. Damage occurs whenfibers are separated from the cotton seed (Bargeronand Garner, 1989; W.F. Lalor, unpublished data,1989; Wilkes et al., 1990). Modifications to ginstands have improved (i) fiber cleaning andseedcotton (Chapman et al., 1968; Baker andGriffin, 1984); (ii) lint removal and turnout (LePoriet al., 1991; Cabrera Sixto and LePori, 1994); (iii)purity of ginned lint (e.g. reduced neps and seedcoat fragments which interfere with furtherprocessing of lint and yarn) (Bargeron and Garner,1989). A variety of gin types (saw, roller, cage)have been developed and tested for effectiveness(Hughs et al., 1988; LePori et al., 1991; Lalor et al.,1992).In the 1980s, a new ginning concept developed:the selective removal of long fibers (W.F. Lalor,unpublished data, 1990; Cabrera Sixto and LePori,1994). The fibers removed by the selective gin werefound to be longer, more uniform in length, andfiner than lint removed by saw ginning. Laterexperiments showed that the selective gin couldremove all fibers (long and short), and the gin wasrenamed “cage gin” (L.H. Wilkes, personalcommunication, 1990). Although fibers from a cagegin were usually higher quality fibers (L.H. Wilkes,personal communication, 1989; Wilkes et al., 1990;Cabrera Sixto and LePori, 1994), the lint turnoutwas 6 to 12% less than the turnout from the rollergin and the saw gin (L.H. Wilkes, personalcommunication, 1990). Fiber-quality measurementsof saw-ginned and cage-ginned cotton werecomparable, but consistently fewer neps were incage-ginned lint than in saw-ginned lint and in mostvarieties (e.g. DPL 50) that were tested (L.H.Wilkes, unpublished data, 1989; Wilkes et al.,1990; Lalor et al., 1992).The present study was performed on DPL 50grown in Northern California. The objective was toexamine the effects of individual steps of cottonprocessing (e.g., carding, combing) on the contentof neps, seed-coat fragments, and non-seedimpurities in cage-ginned and saw-ginned fibersamples with or without lint cleaning by the use ofmicroscopy and the Advanced Fiber InformationSystem (AFIS).MATERIAL AND METHODSCotton Fiber SamplesFour samples of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.var. Deltapine 50), each consisting of .1 bale (.250kg), were removed from the central portion of asingle cotton module harvested from a field nearChico, CA, in 1997. Each of the four cotton baleswas processed differently at Cotton Incorporated(Raleigh, NC). Ginning was performed at Lummus(Savannah, GA) gin stands with “700” feeders. Twobales were cage-ginned using the LummusPrototype gin stand and two bales were saw-ginnedusing the 118-saw Lummus “Super 800” gin stand.
JOURNAL OF COTTON SCIENCE, Volume 5, Issue 1, 200155Fig. 1. Neps (n), seed-coat fragments (SCF), and non-seed impurities (NSI) found in lint fiber samples were spread about 1.5 cm2on a petri dish. Non-overlapping areas were chosen randomly and photographed at low (1X) magnification: (a-c) cageginned/zero-lint cleaning, (d-f) cage-ginned/one-lint cleaning, (g-i) saw-ginned/zero-lint cleaning, (k-m) saw-ginned/one-lintcleaning. Bar: 2 mm, for all images.One bale from each gin type was lint-cleaned (1 lintcleaning) employing the Lummus “86” lint cleanerand one was not (0 lint cleaning). The raw cotton orlint of each of the four fiber-treatment conditionswas passed through several opening and cleaningmachines. The following textile equipment wasused for the mechanical processing steps: openinghopper fiber controls, Rieter B1 coarse cleaner(Rieter, Spartanburg, SC), Rieter B60 fine opener,Hollingsworth Card 2000 (Hollingsworth,Greenville, SC), Rieter DO/5 draw frame, RieterE7/4 comber, Rieter DO/5 draw frame (for breakerdraw and finisher draw), and Rieter G5/1D ringspinning frame (for combed and carded yarnsamples). After specific cotton processing steps(Fig. 1a-d), 20 cotton fiber samples were extracted.
JACOBSEN ET AL.: IMPURITIES IN PROCESSED COTTON56Fig. 1. (Continued). Neps (n), seed-coat fragments (SCF), and non-seed impurities (NSI) found in lint fiber samples were spreadabout 1.5 cm2 on a petri dish. Non-overlapping areas were chosen randomly and photographed at low (1X) magnification: (a-c)cage-ginned/zero-lint cleaning, (d-f) cage-ginned/one-lint cleaning, (g-i) saw-ginned/zero-lint cleaning, (k-m) saw-ginned/onelint cleaning.Fiber Property TestsTwenty lint fiber samples of each bale wereextracted for fiber property tests with high-volumeinstrumentation (HVI) systems and the advancedfiber information system (AFIS, Zellweger Uster,ser. no. 1094-283) at Cotton Incorporated, Cary,NC. The fiber tests included various measurements,of which we used the nep and seed-coat fragmentcounts for statistical analyses and comparison withthe data obtained with the microscope. The AFISmeasurements of non-seed impurities (trash anddust particles) were categorized differently than themicroscopically counted non-seed impurities and,therefore, were not included in the comparison.
57JOURNAL OF COTTON SCIENCE, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2001From the samples extracted after eachprocessing step, five subsamples of 80 to 160 mgwere selected, weighed, and examined with astereo-dissecting microscope. To detect impurities,individual fibers were separated manually using twopairs of forceps. We detected and counted threetypes of impurities (Hebert et al., 1986, 1988):entangled fibers (neps), seed or mote coatfragments, and non-seed impurities. The impuritieswere removed from the samples and photographed.Microscopic examinations were carried out ona stereo-dissecting microscope (Olympus SZ H10,Olympus Corp., Precision Instruments Div., LakeSuccess, NY) and a compound microscope(Olympus BH-2; Southern Micro Instruments,Atlanta, GA), both with a standard film cameraattachment. Micrographs were made using Kodak(Kodak, Rochester, NY) Ektachrome 160 T andKodak Elite II 400 slide film. The photographicslides were scanned and converted to digital imagesusing the Kodak Professional RFS2035 Plus FilmScanner and Adobe Photoshop 5.5 software (AdobeSystems, San Jose, CA).carded, combed, and finished through several steps.We analyzed multiple parameters at several steps inthis sequence using the statistical analysis programSAS (SAS, Cary, NC). These parameters are thenumbers of impurities in cotton samples afterspecific processing.For the impurity analysis, we used two-factoranalysis of variance (ANOVA) with impurity typeand processing step as fixed factors. Beforeperforming the ANOVAs, we tested the assumptionof normal distribution with the Shapiro-Wilk W testand the assumption of homogeneity of variancewith Bartlett’s test for homogeneity. When the datadid not conform to these assumptions, the valueswere ranked and analysis of variance wasperformed using the ranks rather than the originalvalues (Zar, 1999). ANOVAs detected significantdifferences. Tukey’s studentized range test wasused to perform means comparisons of the numberand weight of impurities in samples from sequentialsteps of cotton processing (lint to carded sliver,carded sliver to carded finisher or to combed sliver,combed sliver to combed finisher) and the overallprocesses (lint to carded finisher, lint to combedfinisher).Statistical AnalysesRESULTSWe report the results of the analysis ofprocessing four cotton bales through two gins withand without lint cleaning. Because only one balewas processed through each one of the four gintype/lint-cleaning combinations, we could notcompare the effects of these treatments statistically.Cotton from each of the four fiber conditions wasNeps, Seed-Coat Fragments,and Non-Seed ImpuritiesMicroscopyWe found and counted three types of impurities(neps [Fig. 2a], seed-coat fragments [Fig. 2b], andnon-seed impurities [Fig. 2c]) in the cotton samplesTable 1. The effect of processing step and impurity type on the number of impurities. ANOVA was performed on rankedvalues.Gin-type/lint-cleaningcombinationCage gin/zeroCage gin/oneSaw gin/zeroSaw ErrorStepImpurityStep*impurityErrorMean 412564548137810908df42860428604286042860F valueP value13.71127.539.04 0.0001 0.0001 0.00015.7882.262.920.0005 0.00010.008116.9038.892.25 0.0001 0.00010.035714.1030.152.08 0.0001 0.00010.0519
58JACOBSEN ET AL.: IMPURITIES IN PROCESSED COTTONTable 2. The effect of impurity type on the number ofimpurities within the processing steps of each gintype/lint-cleaning (G/LC) combination. For all analyses,the numerator df was 2 and the denominator df was 12.ANOVA was performed on ranked values.G/LCcombinationCage gin/zeroCage gin/zeroCage gin/zeroCage gin/zeroCage gin/zeroCage gin/oneCage gin/oneCage gin/oneCage gin/oneCage gin/oneSaw gin/zeroSaw gin/zeroSaw gin/zeroSaw gin/zeroSaw gin/zeroSaw gin/oneSaw gin/oneSaw gin/oneSaw gin/oneSaw gin/oneFig. 2. Impurities in cotton: (a) fiber entanglement (nep), (b)seed-coat fragment with fibers attached to it, (c)unidentified non-seed impurity. Bars: 0.5 mm.that we examined using a stereo-dissectingmicroscope. The numbers of each type of impurityper sample weight were statistically analyzed. TheShapiro-Wilk W test indicated that some of thecounts of the nep, seed-coat fragment, and non-seedimpurity samples were not normally distributed. Forthis reason, the values for the numbers of impuritieswere ranked, and analysis of variance wasperformed on the ranks. There were significantinteractions (p 0.05) between the processing stepand type of impurity for three of the four gintype/lint-cleaning combinations, and the interactionProcessing stepF valueP valueLintCard sliverCard finisherComb sliverComb finisherLintCard sliverCard finisherComb sliverComb finisherLintCard sliverCard finisherComb sliverComb finisherLintCard sliverCard finisherComb sliverComb 0.00090.00090.01280.00100.0010 0.00010.00020.00680.00020.00440.39880.00090.0063 0.0001 0.00010.5679 0.00010.07040.21120.0002was significant at the level of 0.0519 for the fourthcombination (Table 1). For this reason, meanscomparisons for the effects of processing step andimpurity were examined for each of the gintype/lint-cleaning combinations separately, usingthe Tukey studentized range test.Significant differences among the numbers ofthe three types of impurities were found in allprocessed cotton samples of each gin-type/lintcleaning combination (Fig. 3a-d; Table 2), except insaw-gin/0-lint cleaning lint samples and in sawgin/one-lint cleaning lint, carded finisher, andcombed sliver samples (Fig. 3a-d; Table 2). In allother cases, the number of neps exceeded thenumber of non-seed impurities. The number ofseed-coat fragments was generally intermediatebetween the number of neps and non-seedimpurities.The counts of neps (Fig. 4a) and seed-coatfragments (Fig. 4b) obtained by examining lintfibers using the stereo-dissecting microscope werecompared with measurements using AFIS tests.Some of the samples were not normally distributed.For this reason, the numbers of neps and seed-coatfragments were ranked within each gin-type/lintcleaning combination, and analysis of variance wasperformed on these ranks. We found significantdifferences between the microscopic and AFIScounts of neps and seed-coat fragments for all of the
JOURNAL OF COTTON SCIENCE, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2001gin-type/lint-cleaning combinations except neps inthe saw-gin/one-lint cleaning combination (Fig. 4;Table 3). Where there were significant differences,the microscopic counts were substantially higherthan the counts obtained with AFIS analysis.In cage-ginned lint with zero-lint cleaning,AFIS detected about 230 neps per g of 760.3-:maverage size; microscopic analysis resulted in about800 neps per g of 1- to 2-mm size (Fig. 1a-c; Table4). In cage-ginned lint plus one-lint cleaning, AFIS59counted 302.3 neps per g of 751.7-:m size;microscopically about 829 neps per g of 1- to 2-mmsize were counted (Fig. 1d-f; Table 4). Microscopicstudies of saw-ginned/zero-lint cleaning lint fibersshowed that most neps consisted of big clumps orfiber aggregates of 2 to 6 (or more) mm in size (Fig.1g-i); however, the average nep size measured usingAFIS was 761.7 :m (Table 4). In saw-ginned/zerolint cleaning fiber samples, 264.3 neps per g werecounted using AFIS and 198.8 neps per g using theFig. 3. Numbers of neps, seed-coat fragments (SCF), and non-seed impurities (NSI) within each gin-type/lint-cleaning combinationdetermined microscopically: (a) cage-ginned/zero-lint cleaning, (b) cage-ginned/one-lint cleaning, (c) saw-ginned/zero-lintcleaning, (d) saw-ginned/one-lint cleaning. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. Carded sliver (CrdS), cardedfinisher (CrdF), combed sliver (CmbS), combed finisher (CmbF).
60JACOBSEN ET AL.: IMPURITIES IN PROCESSED COTTONTable 3. The effect of microscope counts and AFIS analysison the number of neps and seed-coat fragments (SCF)in lint. For all analyses, the numerator df was 1 and thedenominator df was 23. ANOVA was performed onranked values.Gin-type/lintcleaningcombinationCage gin/zeroCage gin/zeroCage gin/oneCage gin/oneSaw gin/zeroSaw gin/zeroSaw gin/oneSaw gin/oneType ofimpurityF valueP 2214.7021.490.6621.57 0.0001 0.00010.03830.00040.0008 0.00010.4266 0.0001Table 5. ANOVA table for the effect of processing step onthe number of neps, see-coat fragments (SCF), and nonseed impurities (NSI) within gin-type/lint-cleaning(G/LC) combinations and types of impurities. For allanalyses, the numerator df was 4 and the denominatordf was 20. ANOVA was performed on ranked values.Fig. 4. Counts of neps and seed-coat fragments in lintdetermined by the advanced fiber information system(AFIS) and microscopically (Scope) for all gin-type/lintcleaning combinations. (a) neps, (b) seed-coat fragments(SCF). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.microscope (Table 4). In lint samples of the sawgin/one-lint cleaning combination, AFIS detected302.3 neps per g versus 265.3 neps per g foundusing the microscope (Table 4). The nep sizes were758.3 :m when measured with AFIS and 1 to 4 mmusing the microscope (Fig. 1k-m).Fiber ProcessingStatistical analysis of the microscopic counts ofneps, seed-coat fragments, and non-seed impuritiesfound that there were significant differences for allimpurities in all gin-type/lint-cleaningcombinations, except for neps in the combinationsaw-gin/one-lint cleaning and for non-seedG/LCcombinationType ofimpurityF valueP valueCage gin/zeroCage gin/zeroCage gin/zeroCage gin/oneCage gin/oneCage gin/oneSaw gin/zeroSaw gin/zeroSaw gin/zeroSaw gin/oneSaw gin/oneSaw 399.8615.963.186.612.173.9514.133.931.809.686.68 0.00010.0001 0.00010.03550.00150.10890.0161 0.00010.01640.16860.00020.0014impurities in the combination cage-gin/one-lintcleaning (Table 5). Generally, neps found in lint(Fig. 1a-i, k-m) were larger than neps found incarded sliver samples (Fig. 5a-i, k-m) in all fourgin-type/lint-cleaning combinations. Within thecage-gin/one-lint cleaning (Fig. 6b) and sawgin/zero-lint cleaning (Fig. 6c) combinations,carding did not significantly affect the numbers ofneps or the other types of impurities. Within thesaw-gin/one-lint cleaning combination (Figs. 3d,6d), carding reduced the numbers of non-seedimpurities. When card sliver was combed, thenumbers of each type of impurities were affectedTable 4. Means (and standard error of means) of the sizes and numbers of neps per g obtained using AFIS and microscope.Size of nepsCage-zeroCage-oneSaw-zeroSaw-oneNumbers of neps per g sampleAFIS (:m)Images (mm)AFISMicroscope760.3 (2.2)751.7 (1.9)761.7 (2.1)758.3 (1.8)1 to 2 (Fig. 1a-c)1 to 2 (Fig. 1d-f)2 to 6 (Fig. 1g-i)1 to 4 (Fig. 1k-m)230.9 (8.5)302.3 (6.4)264.3 (6.4)302.3 (6.7)800.0 (141.7)829.7 (146.9)198.8 (16.6)265.3 (42.7)
JOURNAL OF COTTON SCIENCE, Volume 5, Issue 1, 200161Fig. 5. Neps (n), seed-coat fragments (SCF), and non-seed impurities (NSI) found in card sliver samples were spread about 1.5 cm2on a petri dish. Non-overlapping areas were randomly chosen and photographed at low (1X) magnification: (a-c) cageginned/zero-lint cleaning, (d-f) cage-ginned/one-lint cleaning, (g-i) saw-ginned/zero-lint cleaning, (k-m) saw-ginned/one-lintcleaning. Bar: 2 mm, for all images.differently within each gin-type/lint-cleaningcombination. Within the cage-gin/zero lint cleaningcombination, combing significantly increased thenumbers of neps and significantly decreased thenumbers of seed-coat fragments and non-seedimpurities (Figs. 3a, 6a). Combing significantlydecreased the number of seed-coat fragments in thesaw-gin/zero-lint cleaning combination (Figs. 3c,6c). However, combing had no significant effect onthe numbers of impurities within the cage-gin/one-lint cleaning and saw-gin/one-lint cleaningcombinations. The processing step from carded orcombed sliver to carded or combed finisher sliver,respectively, is also known as the second drawingprocess and had no significant effect on thenumbers of any type of impurities in any of the gintype/lint-cleaning combinations (Figs. 3a-d, 6a-d).The sizes of neps observed in combed sliversamples appeared somewhat smaller (0.3 to 0.5 mm;
JACOBSEN ET AL.: IMPURITIES IN PROCESSED COTTON62Fig. 5. (Continued). Neps (n), seed-coat fragments (SCF), and non-seed impurities (NSI) found in card sliver samples were spreadabout 1.5 cm2 on a petri dish. Non-overlapping areas were randomly chosen and photographed at low (1X) magnification: (a-c)cage-ginned/zero-lint cleaning, (d-f) cage-ginned/one-lint cleaning, (g-i) saw-ginned/zero-lint cleaning, (k-m) saw-ginned/onelint cleaning.Fig. 7a-i, k-m) than most neps found in card sliversamples (about 0.5 mm; Fig. 5a-i, k-m).DISCUSSIONNeps, Seed-Coat Fragments, and Non-SeedImpurities in CottonOur analysis of the frequency of neps, seed-coatfragments, and non-seed impurities in cottonconfirmed that neps are the major source ofimpurities in cotton (Mangialardi, 1992), followedby seed-coat fragments and non-seed impurities.Our microscope counts resulted in relatively highnumbers of neps in cage-ginned lint, which werenot confirmed by AFIS measurements on fibers ofthe same sample or by the literature (Wilkes,personal communication, 1990; Wilkes et al.,1990). The numbers of neps were consistentlylower when cage-ginning performance was
JOURNAL OF COTTON SCIENCE, Volume 5, Issue 1, 200163Fig. 6. Pair-wise comparison of means of the number of impurities from sequential processing steps (lint to carded sliver, cardedsliver to carded finisher or to combed sliver, combed sliver to combed finisher) and the overall processes (lint to carded finisher,lint to combed finisher). Significant increases ( ), decreases (-), or insignificant (0) changes in the numbers of impurities within(a) cage-ginned/zero-lint cleaning, (b) cage-ginned/one-lint cleaning, (c) saw-ginned/zero-lint cleaning, (d) saw-ginned/one-lintcleaning.compared with saw-gin and/or roller-ginperformance (Wilkes et al., 1990, 1991). Mostcotton varieties that were used to test cage-ginperformance produced relatively low numbers ofneps, including the DPL 50 (Wilkes et al., 1990)variety used in our study. The gin effect on the sizeand morphology of neps presents a possibleexplanation for the discrepancy between themicroscopically obtained data and AFISmeasurements (and/or literature reports). The nepsin cage-ginned lint were much smaller (2 mm) thanneps in saw-ginned lint ( 6 mm). In addition, thetwo gin types produce neps of distinctly differentmorphology: small fiber entanglements in cageginned lint versus large, dense clumps of fibers insaw-ginned lint.We detected more neps than any other type ofimpurities in all four gin-type/lint-cleaning
JACOBSEN ET AL.: IMPURITIES IN PROCESSED COTTON64Fig. 7. Neps (n), seed-coat fragments (SCF), and non-seed impurities (NSI) found in combed sliver samples were spread about 1.5cm2 on a petri dish, non-overlapping areas were chosen randomly and photographed at low (1X) magnification: (a-c) cageginned/zero-lint cleaning, (d-f) cage-ginned/one-lint cleaning, (g-i) saw-ginned/zero-lint cleaning, (k-m) saw-ginned/one-lintcleaning. Bar: 2 mm, for all images.combinations, which was consistent withMangialardi (1992), who found three times moreneps than seed-coat fragments per 645-cm2 cardweb. The microscopically obtained numbers of nepswere significantly higher than the AFIS counts forboth cage-ginned combinations, significantly lowerfor saw-gin/zero-lint cleaning, and not significantlydifferent for saw-gin/one-lint cleaning. Thenumbers of seed-coat fragments countedmicroscopically (105.3 to 187.2 seed-coatfragments per g) were significantly higher than theAFIS counts (18.4 to 23.6 seed-coat fragments perg), in all four gin-type/lint-cleaning combinations.Our AFIS data are consistent with othermeasurements of 25 and 36 seed-coat fragments perg sample (Mangialardi and Anthony, 2000). Thelow instrument counts suggest that either theelectro-optical particle sizer of the AFIS does not
JOURNAL OF COTTON SCIENCE, Volume 5, Issue 1, 200165Fig. 7. (Continued). Neps (n), seed-coat fragments (SCF), and non-seed impurities (NSI) found in combed sliver samples werespread about 1.5 cm2 on a petri dish, non-overlapping areas were chosen randomly and photographed at low (1X) magnification:(a-c) cage-ginned/zero-lint cleaning, (d-f) cage-ginned/one-lint cleaning, (g-i) saw-ginned/zero-lint cleaning, (k-m) sawginned/one-lint cleaning.detect the same impurities counted by theexperimenter or, more likely, the particles arecategorized differently (e.g., trash instead of nep orseed-coat fragments).Fiber ProcessingThis study analyzes the effects of fiberprocessing on the numbers of impurities within eachgin-type/lint-cleaning combination. Previously wepresented a statistical analysis of the effects ofginning and lint cleaning on impurities in cotton(Jacobsen et al., 2000), but this analysis wasstatistically flawed because only one cotton balewas used for each one of the four gin-type/lintcleaning combinations.There are multiple ways of processing andenormous variations in instrument settings that are
66JACOBSEN ET AL.: IMPURITIES IN PROCESSED COTTONmore or less efficient in removing impurities(Watson and Jones, 1985). At carding, lint fibersare separated from one another and remainingimpurities are removed (Brown and Ware, 1958;Perkins et al., 1984). In our study, however, theonly significant decrease that we found in any typeof impurities in cotton through the overall processfrom lint to carded finisher was in the number ofneps in the cage-gin/zero-lint cleaning combination.In cotton processing, a combing step is includedwhen uniform and very fine yarns are required(Brown and Ware, 1958). Our analysis showed thatimpurities were successfully removed during thecombing process. When the carded sliver wascombed, the seed-coat fragments in thecombinations cage-gin/zero-lint cleaning and sawgin/zero-lint cleaning and the non-seed impurities incage-gin/zero-lint cleaning were reducedsignificantly. Overall (lint to combed finisher),combing decreased most of the impurities in each ofthe gin-type/lint-cleaning combinations.CONCLUSIONSFiber entanglements or neps are the mainsource of impurities in cotton, followed by seedcoat fragments and non-seed impurities. Highernumbers of neps were detected in cage-ginned lintusing the microscope versus AFIS measurements,probably because cage-ginned lint neps consisted ofsmall fiber entanglements. Neps found in sawginned lint consisted of big clumps of fibers.Carding and combing affected the numbers ofimpurities in cotton; the second drawing process(finishing) did not. Card sliver neps were smallerthan lint neps but of uniform size in all gintype/lint-cleaning combinations. Neps found incombed sliver samples appeared to be slightlysmaller than card neps and uniform in size in allgin-type/lint-cleaning combinations.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSSupported by Cotton Incorporated (#97-491).We thank Lynda Keys. We are grateful for theanonymous reviewers’ comment
a stereo-dissecting microscope (Olympus SZ H10, Olympus Corp., Precision Instruments Div., Lake Success, NY) and a compound microscope (Olympus BH-2; Southern Micro Instru
Notes: “Brown-coat” is a traditional plastering term to denote a coat of plaster directly beneath the finish coat. In two-coat work, “brown-coat” refers to the basecoat plaster applied over the lath. In the three-coat work, the “brown-coat” refers to the second coat applied over the first “scratch coat” plaster.
Five seed treatment practices used for controlling seed-borne infection of the target pathogenic fungi were - seed treatment with hot water; seed treatment with plant extracts (a) garlic tablet and (b) neem leaf extract; seed treatment with BAU bio-fungicide; and seed treatments with Vitavax-200. The modified method of hot water
Corn Seed Testing . Seed-Testing Laboratories. Seed tests can be conducted at the SDSU Seed Testing Lab. Seed sample envelopes may be obtained from Extension Service offices or by contacting the SDSU Seed Testing Lab. Samples being submitted to SDSU should be sent to: SDSU Seed Testing Lab Box 2207-A Brookings, SD 57007 (U.S. Postal Service) or
Excess fragments 2,394 0 Fragments per file 2.18 1 Low-performing files 616 0 Test 4 Fragmented files 117 0 30 seconds Excess fragments 2,210 0 Fragments per file 18.13 1 Low-performing files 117 0 The speed at which Diskeeper eliminates new fragments
Sonoguard Top Coat Tint Base (Form No. 1017936). Shelf Life SONOGUARD BASE COAT AND SONOGUARD TOP COAT: 5 gallon pails, 1 year when properly stored. SONOGUARD BASE COAT AND SONOGUARD TOP COAT: 55 gallon drums, 9 months when properly stored. TOP COAT ACCELERATOR, PINT CANS: 2 years whe
Table 1 Painting Specifications for Suspender Rope Position of painted rope Surface treatment 1st coat 2nd coat 3rd coat 4th coat 5th coat Total dry coat thickness 1A - 3P (Brush-painted) Chloroplane rubber calcium plumbate primer 35μ（180g/ ） Chloroplane rubber calcium plumbate primer 35μ（180g/ ） Chloroplane rubber calcium .
2. setting the seed-rate handle, 3. positioning the feed-cup door, and 4. checking the seed rate. Refer to the seed rate charts beginning on page 4. These charts list the proper drive type and seed-rate-handle settings for various seeds and seeding rates. The seed rate charts are based on cleaned, untreated seed of average size and test weight.
Software development is a source of security vulnerabilities. Software-developing organizations therefore need to pay at-tention to security and apply secure development practices. However, managing software development is a challenge in itself even without the added complexity of security work. Agile methodologies like Scrum are commonly .
