Effect of Recycled PET Fibers on the Performance Properties of

Transkript

Effect of Recycled PET Fibers on the Performance
Properties of Knitted Fabrics
Abdurrahman Telli1, Nilgün Özdil2
1
Cukurova University, Department of Textile Engineering, Adana TURKEY
2
Ege University, Department of Textile Engineering TURKEY
Correspondence to:
Abdurrahman Telli email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
PET (polyethylene terephthalate) is mostly used in
textile and packaging industries. PET Bottle wastes
are separated from other wastes and after that some
processes are applied to obtain PET flakes, such as
breaking, washing, drying and etc. r-PET fibers are
produced by melt spinning method from these
recycled PET flakes. r-PET fibers have already been
used for secondary textile products like as carpet
bottoms, sleeping bags and insulation materials. In
this study usability of recycled PET fibers in apparel
industry were researched. Comparative investigations
of bursting strength, abrasion resistance, air
permeability, surface friction, circular bending
rigidity and dimensional stability properties were
done to knitted fabrics produced from r-PET and
blends with PET and cotton fibers. It was found that,
instead of PET, r-PET fibers can be blended in
certain amounts without compromising fabrics
performance.
to be carried out without causing economic and
ecological problems. When the lifecycle analysis of
plastics is investigated it is found that PET is rarely
used in composites and because of this, they can be
recycled easier. Society of Plastics Industry gave
PET based products the code “1” because they
believe recycling of PET should be prioritized [1-2].
PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) contains ester
groups [3]. This polymer is mostly used in textile and
packaging industries. About 60% of world’s PET
polymer production is used in textile industry for
fiber production and about 30% of its production is
used in PET bottles industry [4-5]. In textile industry
PET fibers are generally used in blends, recycle of
PET polymers from them is not possible. Therefore
to use PET bottle wastes are the best way to obtain
pure PET polymers [6].
PET flakes are gained from PET bottles after a series
of processes like breaking, washing, drying and etc.
[7]. Recycling wastes into new products is essential
in an ecological approach. PET bottle wastes are
valuable for environment if they are used as PET
bottles again. Because this way, material gets primary
raw material status and it will have a longer lifecycle.
But because of the contamination content and low
intrinsic viscosity values of PET flakes, PET bottle
wastes are not used for PET bottle production again.
These restrictions do not prevent to usage of PET
flakes as a raw material for fiber production,
therefore PET flakes are generally utilized in textile
industry [8-12].
Keywords: PET bottle, r-PET fibers, recycling,
cotton, PET, interlock fabric
INTRODUCTION
Plastics are divided into two groups as thermosets
and thermoplastics. Thermosets become softer
structure when heated but they don’t get into liquid
form. Because of this, they can’t be used again by
simply process. However, thermoplastics can be
softened and hardened again. In 1987, Society of
Plastics Industry developed descriptive codes for
thermoplastics to increase their reusable for a
sustainable future. In this way, they have aimed to
classify thermoplastics from thermosets and other
waste. Plastics have similar densities which changes
in a narrow range and they have the same or very
similar electrical and magnetic properties. There are
too many types of plastic wastes, so separation of
them is a difficult process and they are usually used
as composites. Plastics can be separated with various
chemical and technological processes but they have
Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics
Volume 10, Issue 2 – 2015
In 2007, PET bottle consumption in the world was 15
million tons and it is only 8% of the whole plastics
consumption. Besides, in 2007 4.5 million tons of
PET bottle were recollected and 3.6 million tons of
them were broken into PET flakes. 8% of the whole
PET fiber production was supplied from PET flakes
[12]. 10%-20% increase is expected for upcoming 5-
47
http://www.jeffjournal.org
10 years in these values [13]. Furthermore, according
to new market predicts, global consumption of PET
bottle will grow to almost 19.1 million tons by 2017
[14]. PET flakes are converted to PET fibers using
chemical or mechanical methods. In mechanical
method the filaments are spun from melted PET
flakes. PET is degraded into oligomer or monomer
form and again a polymerization happens in chemical
method. Glycolysis, methanolysis, hydrolysis,
ammonoylsis and aminolysis are some of the
commercial chemical methods. However, chemical
methods do not seem to have economical value for
recycling PET wastes at this time [9, 11-12, 15-16].
Most of the studies about PET bottle and its recycling
are related with PET flake production phase.
Especially, there are a number of studies about
classifying PET and PVC wastes [2, 6, 11]. Another
topic which gets much attention is comparing
ecological effects of recycled PET and raw PET
productions [12]. Additionally, there are not many
studies about r-PET spinning parameters and yarn
production [7, 17-19]. There is no study about fabric
properties produced from r-PET and r-PET blended
yarns. It is thought that this study can contribute to
knowledge about r-PET fiber.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
r-PET, PET and cotton fibers were used in this study.
r-PET fibers were supplied from one of the company
(Bozoglu Textile Inc.) that is produced r-PET fibers
using PET flakes by mechanical method in Turkey.
Fiber properties used in experimental were given in
Table I.
r-PET fibers are produced by melt spinning process
of the PET flakes which obtained from recycled PET
wastes. These fibers have economic advantages due
to the lower raw material cost. They also have lower
energy consumption in production stage and low
carbon emission. Because of these factors, it can be
said that r-PET fibers are environmentally friendly
fibers. However, in mechanical cycling method, PET
flakes include too much contamination and during reheating process molecular weight of the polymer
changes. So, it is quite clear that pure PET fibers and
recycled PET fibers have different properties [7-8,
17].
TABLE I. Fiber properties.
Fiber Properties
Fineness (dtex)
Mean length (mm)
Tenacity (cN/tex)
Elongation at break (%)
The aim of this study to determine the advantage of
usage r-PET fibers which have different features
from PET fibers, on the product quality in textile and
apparel industry without taking into consideration of
the cost and environmental factors. r-PET fibers
produced low viscosity polymer have different
crystalline/amorphous region ratio and there are
differences in fiber matrix because of contamination.
So, it is thought that, using of r-PET fibers in
blending could create advantages for fiber/fiber
cohesion and covering capacity. From this point of
view, knitted fabrics were produced from r-PET and
r-PET blended with PET and cotton yarns and
comparative investigations for fabric properties were
done.
Cotton
(Co)
Polyester
(PET)
1.78
26.51
27.30
7.0
1.57
28.77
50.66
25.74
Recycled
PET
Bottle
(r-PET)
1.85
32.62
26.92
39.13
Three different types of 100% PET, 100% r-PET and
100% cotton slivers were produced on carding
machine. Then two draw frame passages were used.
Blending operations were designated on the first
draw-frame machine in different ratios as shown in
Table II. The blended slivers were regulated using
second draw-frame machine. After that the rovings
were produced in roving frame and using ring
spinning system nine different type of Ne 20 carded
yarns in different fiber blending ratio in the twist
coefficient of αe= 3.6 were produced. Knitted fabrics
in interlock structure were produced using 30 inch
circular knitting machine with 16 E gauge and 36
systems.
48
TABLE II. Properties of the yarns and fabrics produced in experimental.
Blending Ratio
Yarn
diameter
(mm)
Yarn
tenacity
(cN/tex)
Yarn
hairiness (H)
Fabric
weight
(g/m2)
Fabric
thickness
(mm)
Fabric
porosity
(%)
100%Co
0.258
12.77
5.59
355
1.30
0.82
70% Co / 30% r-PET
0.260
13.57
5.40
392
1.34
0.80
50% Co / 50% r-PET
0.257
13.42
5.45
359
1.36
0.82
30% Co / 70% r-PET
0.255
12.28
5.64
364
1.34
0.81
100% r-PET
0.246
14.91
5.80
350
1.26
0.80
100% PET
0.227
28.66
4.77
369
1.32
0.80
70% PET / 30% r-PET
0.235
23.30
5.09
365
1.35
0.80
50% PET / 50% r-PET
0.243
21.08
5.18
373
1.29
0.79
30% PET / 70% r-PET
0.241
18.60
5.49
356
1.28
0.80
Because of the more stable fabric structure that
provides constituent results for laboratory tests, the
interlock structure preferred. The same tightness
factor was used all type of the fabrics. The properties
of the fabrics were given in Table II. All fabrics were
applied soda and oil solvents at 90 ºC in 1/20 liquor
ratio to remove paraffin and then the fabrics were
washed at 40 ºC for one hour, and dried by laying.
During the production process of the yarn and
fabrics, no important problem was encountered as
compared to the production of ordinary product.
Performance tests were carried out after all the
fabrics were conditioned at standard atmospheric
conditions (20±2 ºC temperature and %65±4 relative
humidity) according to TS EN ISO 139 [20-22].
related standard gives the pilling values of the fabrics
as 1-5 from the worse to the best numeric. Air
permeability tests of the fabrics were carried out with
“Textest AG FX 3300 Air Permeability Tester”
according to TS 391 EN ISO 9237. 20 cm2
measurement area and 100Pa air pressure were used
and average value of the 10 tests was taken as a test
result [28]. Friction coefficient of fabric surface was
tested using Frictorq (Fabric Friction Tester)
instrument. In this instrument, a square-like contact
sensor which has 3 contact points covered by a
number of calibrated steel needles and creates a 3.5
kPa pressure is set on fabric surface. The kinetic
friction coefficient (μkin) which is measured via
differentiating rotating forces during the complete
movement of the sensor was determined [29].
According to ASTM D 4032 standard “SDL Atlas
Digital Pneumatic Stiffness Tester” was used to
measure fabrics’ circular bending rigidity values [30].
TS 5720 EN ISO 6330 used for testing dimensional
stability of the fabrics. Unwashed fabrics were
marked 15 cm inside from the edges using a 50cm x
50 cm template. This marking process was repeated 3
times on both lengthwise and widthwise directions
and after that, fabrics were washed and dried
according to the standard. Percentage changes on the
dimensions of the fabrics after drying were
determined [31].
Uster Tester 5 S800 was used to determine the yarn
evenness, yarn diameter and hairiness values.
Thickness values of the fabrics were measured
according to TS 7128 EN ISO 5084 by SDL ATLAS
Digital Thickness Gauge [19, 23]. Bursting strength
values of the fabrics were tested by “Lawson
Hemphill Bursting Strength Tester” instrument
according to TS 393 EN ISO 13938-1 [24]. Abrasion
resistance values of the fabrics were obtained using
“Martindale Abrasion Tester” with 9kPa weights
according to ISO 12947-3 standard. For observing
the first break on the fabric, machine was used up to
20000 rubs but no breakage on fabric surface was
encountered. For this reason, results were based on
the weight loss at 2500, 5000, 10000, 12500, 15000,
17500 and 20000 rubs [25]. “Nu-Martindale Test
Instrument” was chosen to evaluate pilling resistance
of the fabrics in compliance with ISO 12945-2 [26].
The tests were carried out at 2000 turns. After this
procedure, pilling degrees of the fabrics were
determined using with “Pillgrade-3 Dimensional
Pilling and Hair grading” instrument [27]. The
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Mean values of bursting strength, pilling resistance,
air permeability, surface roughness, circular bending
rigidity and dimensional stability of the fabrics with
different blending ratios were summarized in Table
III. Test results were statistically evaluated with PostHoc techniques and in order to determine the
calculation method for comparison of the mean
values, firstly whether the variances of the
49
parameters are equal or not is checked by using
“Levene Homogenity Test” For the situation of equal
variances “LSD (Least Significant Difference)” test
and for unequal situation “Tamhane T2” method was
used.
(p=0.508), dimensional stability in wale direction
(p=0.080) and other multi-comparison test called
Tamhane T2 was performed for bursting strength
(p=0.0002), circular bending rigidity (p=0.002),
dimensional stability in course direction (p=0.042).
All the statistical analysis was performed on a
computer using the SPSS (Statistical Package of
Social Science) program. The result (p values) of
multiple comparisons of the fabric properties were
given in Tables IV-IX.
The analysis was carried out according to 95%
confidence level. Therefore if the p value is less than
0.05, it means that the difference is statistically
significant. A multi-comparison test called LSD was
performed for pilling resistance (p=0.102), air
permeability
(p=0.0504),
friction
coefficient
TABLE III. Test results of the fabrics.
Bursting Strength
Fabric Surface Roughness
Air Permeability
(kPa)
(µkinetic)
(lt/m²/s)
Material
Mean
value
Max
value
Min
value
CV%
Mean
value
Max
value
Min
value
CV%
Mean
value
Max
value
Min
value
CV%
1287
1482
1133
13.9
0.362
0.367
0.355
1.2
162
179
148
8.1
1379
1508
1283
6.9
0.349
0.358
0.338
2.1
141
154
132
6.9
50%Co
50%r-PET
1230
1325
1151
5.2
0.359
0.368
0.348
2.5
156
171
147
5.7
30%Co
70%r-PET
1232
1280
1129
4.9
0.352
0.359
0.346
1.5
184
202
173
6.2
100%r-PET
1279
1363
1168
5.5
0.360
0.365
0.355
1.3
376
398
349
4.7
100%PET
70%PET
30%r-PET
50%PET
50%r-PET
30%PET
70%r-PET
2110
2387
1902
9.4
0.345
0.353
0.338
1.7
560
600
533
4.9
1765
1916
1701
5.0
0.356
0.364
0.353
1.3
404
442
366
7.5
1694
1810
1556
5.4
0.354
0.361
0.348
1.8
291
326
263
8.3
1475
1547
1382
4.5
0.364
0.369
0.357
1.2
325
362
285
8.8
100%Co
70%Co
30%r-PET
Pilling (Grade)
Material
Circular
Shrinkage in wale
Bending Rigidity (Newton)
direction (%)
Shrinkage in course
direction
(%)
Min
value
CV%
Mean
value
Max
value
Min
value
CV%
Mean
value
Max
value
Min
value
CV%
Mean
value
Max
value
Min
value
CV%
Mean
value
Max
value
100%Co
4.0
4.1
3.9
2.4
5.9
6.6
5.4
7.5
11.6
12.5
10
12.4
11.8
12.5
11
6.5
70%Co
30%r-PET
4.3
4.4
4.2
2.3
7.7
8.4
6.6
10.5
5.2
5.5
5
5.6
10.7
11.5
9.5
9.7
50%Co
50%r-PET
4.3
4.7
4.1
7.2
6.7
7.4
5.9
10.4
4.2
5
4
15.7
10.5
11
10
4.8
30%Co
70%r-PET
3.5
3.6
3.4
2.4
5.8
6.5
5.4
7.5
2.8
3
2.5
10.2
6.5
6.5
6.5
0
100% r-PET
2.5
2.8
2.4
8.8
3.7
4.2
3.1
11.0
3.8
4.0
3
15.7
5.2
5.5
5
5.9
100%PET
2.7
3
2.4
11.6
2.4
2.6
2.2
7.5
3.0
3.5
2
18.2
6.8
7.5
5.5
16.9
2.8
3.3
2.5
9.7
3.0
3.2
2.7
6.7
5.8
6.5
5.5
9.9
5.5
6.5
5
15.7
2.8
3.1
2.5
10.5
4.9
5.4
4.1
14.4
2.3
3.0
2.5
12.8
7.0
7.5
6.5
7.1
2.6
2.7
2.4
3.2
3.2
3.4
2.6
10.8
0.8
1.0
0.5
43.3
6.3
7
5.5
12.1
70%PET
30%r-PET
50%PET
50%r-PET
30%PET
70%r-PET
50
Bursting Strength
Figure 1 shows bursting strength results of the
fabrics. Table IV provides the result of multiple
comparisons for bursting strength. According to the
results 100% PET fabrics have the highest value and
the PET/r-PET blended fabrics have higher bursting
strength than 100% cotton and r-PET/Co blended
fabrics. Differences between r-PET fabrics blended
with PET and cotton are statistically significant. As
shown in Figure 1, 100% r-PET fabrics have lower
bursting strength than 100% PET fabrics. The
increase of r-PET content cause decrease in bursting
strength of the PET/r-PET blended fabrics, but this
change is not significant as compared with 100%
PET fabrics according to Table IV. All of the PET/rPET blended fabrics have higher bursting strength
than 100% r-PET fabrics. This result is mainly
because of the higher fiber and yarn strength values
of the PET fibers (Table I and Table II) as compared
with r-PET fibers and yarns. Moreover, in cotton/rPET blended fabrics, the amount of the r-PET content
have not affected bursting strength of the fabrics.
TABLE IV. The result of multiple comparisons for bursting strength.
100%
70%Co
50% Co
30% Co
100%
100%
70% PET
50% PET
30% PET
Co
30%r-PET
50%r-PET
70%r-PET
r-PET
PET
30%r-PET
50%r-PET
70%r-PET
100%Co
-----
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.013*
0.067
0.139
0.948
70%Co
30%r-PET
1.000
-----
0.572
0.577
0.977
0.041*
0.006*
0.025*
0.983
50%Co
50%r-PET
1.000
0.572
-----
1.000
1.000
0.026*
0.000*
0.001*
0.013*
30%Co
70%r-PET
1.000
0.577
1.000
-----
1.000
0.028*
0.000*
0.001*
0.011*
100%r-PET
1.000
0.977
1.000
1.000
-----
0.031*
0.001*
0.002*
0.068*
100%PET
0.013*
0.041*
0.026*
0.028*
0.031*
-----
0.643
0.399
0.099
70%PET
30%r-PET
0.067
0.006*
0.000*
0.000*
0.001*
0.643
-----
1.000
0.019*
0.001*
0.002*
0.399
1.000
-----
0.103
0.011*
0.068
0.099
0.019*
0.103
-----
50%PET
0.139
0.025*
0.001*
50%r-PET
30%PET
0.948
0.983
0.013*
70%r-PET
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level
FIGURE 1. Bursting strength results.
Abrasion Resistance
51
Abrasion resistance test results of the fabrics can be
seen in Figure 2. At the lower number of rubs, the
weight values of the all synthetic fabrics increased
because of the static electricity of the these fibers that
causes collecting the fuses from abradant fabric and
environment. For all of the fabrics, as the number of
rubs increase the mass loss increases. 100% cotton
fabrics have the highest mass loss for every rubs
whereas the 100% PET fabrics have the lowest
values. This result is attributed to the higher tenacity
values of the PET fibers than cotton and r-PET fibers.
Co/r-PET blended fabrics have the lower mass loss
values for each number of rubs than pure cotton
fabrics and as the r-PET ratio increase the mass loss
decrease. Results of the fabrics produced from
blended yarns revealed that, cotton blends have
higher mass loss than PET blends and the result of
100% r-PET fabrics is in between them. But for the
higher than 10000 rubs, 100% r-PET fabrics
displayed higher tendency to be abraded as compared
with Co/r-PET blended fabrics. When the abrasion
resistance of the r-PET/PET blended fabrics
examined 70% PET / 30% r-PET fabrics have the
lowest mass loss comparing to the other blended
fabrics up to 17500 rubs and 50% PET / 50% r-PET
fabrics have the highest (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2. Abrasion resistance- % mass loss chart.
Pilling Resistance
Figure 3 displays the pilling resistance results of the
fabrics and Table V presents the result of multiple
comparisons for pilling properties. According to test
results 100% r-PET fabrics have the lowest pilling
degree that means higher pilling tendency and there
were no significant differences between 100% r-PET,
100% PET and r-PET/PET fabrics (Table V). This
study produced results which corroborate the findings
of a great deal of the previous work in this field.
form pills [33] and high tensile strength causes
difficulty of the pills do not wear away quickly [32].
The results, as shown in Table V, indicate that the
differences between 100% Co and Co / r-PET
blended fabrics and between 100% PET and PET / rPET blended fabrics were found statistically
insignificant. The most important finding was that all
cotton / r-PET blended fabrics have similar results to
100% Co fabrics and these pilling results are in
“merely pilling” category.
The pilling tendency of the fabrics knitted 100% rPET, 100% PET and r-PET/PET blended fibers are
higher than the fabrics produced cotton and blends. It
is a well-known fact that the reason of that circular
cross section with a smooth surface of the synthetic
fibers allows the fiber to come to the surface and
It was noticed that the lower blending ratio of the rPET fibers to the yarn does not cause any significant
differences on the pilling degree of fabrics. But the
ratio is increased (%70) the pilling tendency of the
fabric increases for both cotton and polyester fabrics.
52
TABLE V. The result of multiple comparisons for pilling properties.
100%
70%Co
50% Co
30% Co
100%
100%
70% PET
50% PET
30% PET
Co
30%r-PET
50%r-PET
70%r-PET
r-PET
PET
30%r-PET
50%r-PET
70%r-PET
100%Co
-----
0.162
0.091
0.026*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
70%Co
30%r-PET
50%Co
50%r-PET
0.162
-----
0.749
0.001*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.091
0.749
-----
0.001*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
30%Co
70%r-PET
0.026*
0.001*
0.001*
-----
0.000*
0.002*
0.006*
0.006*
0.000*
100%r-PET
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
-----
0.271
0.122
0.122
0.873
0.632
0.632
0.343
100%PET
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.002*
0.271
-----
70%PET
30%r-PET
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.006*
0.122
0.632
-----
1.000
0.162
50%PET
50%r-PET
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.006*
0.122
0.632
1.000
-----
0.162
0.000*
0.873
0.343
0.162
0.162
-----
30%PET
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
70%r-PET
FIGURE 3. Pilling Resistance Results.
Air Permeability
As the Figure 4 and Table VI examined, it was
noticed that 100% PET fabrics displayed the highest
air permeability result among the nine different
fabrics.
diameter values of the 100% PET yarns (Table II).
Air permeability differences between 100% cotton
and cotton/r-PET blended fabrics are statically
insignificant (Table VI). But it was explored that
increased r-PET ratio caused increased air
permeability. Cotton blended yarns have higher
hairiness and the fabrics have slightly higher
thickness values, so fabrics produced from them have
lower air permeability than PET blended fabrics.
Because of the similar fabric thickness and porosity
values of the PET fabrics with the others, this result
can be attributed to the lower cover factor of the PET
fabrics which is caused by lower hairiness and yarn
53
TABLE VI. The result of multiple comparisons for air permeability.
100%
70%Co
50% Co
30% Co
100%
100%
70% PET
50% PET
30% PET
Co
30%r-PET
50%r-PET
70%r-PET
r-PET
PET
30%r-PET
50%r-PET
70%r-PET
100%Co
-----
0.122
0.640
0.112
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
70%Co
30%r-PET
50%Co
50%r-PET
30%Co
70%r-PET
0.122
-----
0.274
0.003*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.640
0.274
-----
0.043*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.112
0.003*
0.043*
-----
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
100%r-PET
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
-----
0.036*
0.000*
0.000*
100%PET
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
-----
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.036*
0.000*
-----
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
-----
0.015*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.015*
-----
70%PET
30%r-PET
50%PET
50%r-PET
30%PET
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
70%r-PET
FIGURE 4. Air permeability results.
Fabric Surface Friction
Fabric surface friction coefficient results of the
fabrics can be observed in Figure 5.
fabrics influenced surface friction properties
negatively as compared with 100% PET fabrics
(Figure 5). This result is related to the higher yarn
hairiness values of the r-PET blended yarns that
cause to increase protruding fibers from yarn and
fabric surface. The 100% cotton fabrics gave the
highest kinetic friction coefficient among the rPET/cotton blended fabrics. But it was found that the
presence of the r-PET fibers in the structure caused
lower friction values.
It can be seen from Table VII and Figure 5 that
difference between the groups of cotton / r-PET
blended fabrics and PET / r-PET blended fabrics
have been found statically insignificant. In terms of
surface friction coefficient, there is no significant
difference between PET / r-PET blends and 100% rPET fabrics. r-PET fiber presence in PET / r-PET
54
TABLE VII. The result of multiple comparisons for fabric surface friction.
100%
70%Co
50% Co
30% Co
100%
100%
70% PET
50% PET
30% PET
Co
30%r-PET
50%r-PET
70%r-PET
r-PET
PET
30%r-PET
50%r-PET
70%r-PET
100%Co
-----
0.001*
0.411
0.017*
0.674
0.000*
0.137
0.057
0.519
70%Co
30%r-PET
50%Co
50%r-PET
30%Co
70%r-PET
0.001*
-----
0.011*
0.331
0.004*
0.377
0.055
0.135
0.000*
0.411
0.011*
-----
0.101
0.686
0.001*
0.496
0.263
0.147
0.017*
0.331
0.101
-----
0.044*
0.068
0.326
0.589
0.003*
100%r-PET
0.674
0.004*
0.686
0.044*
-----
0.131
0.290
0.000*
0.377
0.001*
0.068
0.000*
0.000*
-----
0.280
100%PET
0.007*
0.020*
0.000*
0.326
0.280
0.007*
-----
0.655
0.037*
0.589
0.131
0.020*
0.655
-----
0.013*
0.003*
0.290
0.000*
0.037*
0.013*
-----
70%PET
0.137
0.055
0.496
30%r-PET
50%PET
0.057
0.135
0.263
50%r-PET
30%PET
0.519
0.000*
0.147
70%r-PET
FIGURE 5. Fabric surface friction coefficient results.
Circular Bending Rigidity
As it can be seen Figure 6, PET and PET blends tend
to have lower bending rigidity than cotton and cotton
blended fabrics. The present findings seem to be
consistent with other research which found that
cotton fibers have higher flexural rigidity than PET
fibers [34]. From the figures it is apparent that 100%
PET and 100% r-PET fabrics have significantly
different bending rigidity results. The r-PET blended
fabrics have higher bending rigidity than 100% PET
fabrics. It was observed that there were no significant
differences between PET / r-PET blended fabrics and
100% r-PET fabrics.
Furthermore, 100% Co and cotton / r-PET blends
have statistically insignificant difference in terms of
bending rigidity results (Figure 6, Table VIII). Cotton
/ r-PET blends have higher bending rigidity results
than 100% r-PET fabrics. Because of the lower
bending rigidity of the r-PET fibers than cotton
fibers, the increase of the r-PET fiber content cause
decrease in bending rigidity for cotton / r-PET
blended fabrics.
55
TABLE VIII. The result of multiple comparisons for circular bending rigidity
100%
70%Co
50% Co
30% Co
100%
100%
70% PET
50% PET
30% PET
Co
30%r-PET
50%r-PET
70%r-PET
r-PET
PET
30%r-PET
50%r-PET
70%r-PET
100%Co
-----
0.397
0.898
1.000
0.002*
0.000*
0.001*
0.875
0.001*
70%Co
30%r-PET
0.397
-----
0.995
0.328
0.013*
0.008*
0.013*
0.060
0.004*
50%Co
50%r-PET
0.898
0.995
-----
0.765
0.004*
0.003*
0.005*
0.197
0.001*
30%Co
70%r-PET
1.000
0.328
0.765
-----
0.002*
0.000*
0.001*
0.949
0.001*
100%r-PET
0.002*
0.013*
0.004*
0.002*
-----
0.717
0.989
0.000*
0.008*
0.003*
0.000*
0.028*
0.028*
-----
0.400
100%PET
0.027*
0.075
0.557
70%PET
30%r-PET
0.001*
0.013*
0.005*
0.001*
0.400
0.027*
-----
0.213
1.000
0.949
0.717
0.075
0.213
-----
0.236
0.001*
0.989
0.557
1.000
0.236
-----
50%PET
0.875
0.060
0.197
50%r-PET
30%PET
0.001*
0.004*
0.001*
70%r-PET
FIGURE 6. Circular bending rigidity test results.
Dimensional Stability
Dimensional stability was investigated as %
shrinkage in both course and wale directions. Lowest
shrinkage percent in wale direction belongs to 30%
PET / 70% r-PET fabrics and the highest value of this
parameter belongs to 100% cotton fabrics as
expected. Difference between 100% r-PET and 100%
PET fabrics was found statistically insignificant
(Table IX).
The test results and statistical evaluations revealed
that as the amount of r-PET fibers increase in the
fabric, the wale direction dimensional change of the
fabrics decrease for cotton/r-PET blended fabrics and
it is statistically significant. The differences between
the 100% r-PET and r-PET-cotton blended fabrics
were found statistically insignificant (Table IX).
56
In course direction, 100% cotton fabrics displayed
the highest shrinkage percent same as wale direction.
But 100% r-PET fabrics have lower shrinkage values
than 100% PET fabrics and this fabric type have the
lowest value among the all fabrics. The differences
between 100% r-PET and cotton / r-PET blended
fabrics were found statistically insignificant. Also,
similarly to the wale direction results, it was found
that as the amount of r-PET fibers increase, the
dimensional change of the fabrics decreased for Co/rPET blended fabrics. The differences between 100%
r-PET and 100% PET fabrics and between 100% rPET and PET / r-PET blended fabrics were found
statistically insignificant (Table IX).
TABLE IX. The result of multiple comparisons for dimensional stability in wale and course direction.
100%Co
70%Co
30%r-PET
50%Co
50%r-PET
30%Co
70%r-PET
100%rPET
100%PET
70% PET
30% PET
100%
70%Co
50% Co
30% Co
100%
100%
Co
30%r-PET
50%r-PET
70%r-PET
r-PET
PET
w:0.000*
w:0.000*
w:0.000*
w:0.000*
w:0.000*
w:0.000*
w:0.000*
c:1.000
c:0.939
c:0.217
c:0.059
c:0.174
c:0.026*
c:0.054
c:0.032*
w:0.164
w:0.003*
w:0.069
w: 0.006*
w:0.346
w:0.001*
w:0.000*
c:1.000
c:0.520
c:0.250
c:0.381
c:0.104
c:0.380
c:0.185
w:0.069
w:0.635
w:0.108
w:0.026*
w:0.016*
w:0.000*
c:0.170
c:0.013*
c:0.496
c:0.087
c:0.036*
c:0.087
w:0.164
w:0.812
w:0.000*
w:0.478
w:0.010*
----w:0.000*
c:1.000
-----
w:0.000*
w:0.164
c:0.939
c:1.000
w:0.000*
w:0.003*
w:0.069
c:0.217
c:0.520
c:0.170
-----
-----
c:0.425
w:0.000*
w:0.069
w:0.635
w:0.164
c:0.059
c:0.250
c:0.013*
c:0.425
w:0.000*
w: 0.006*
w:0.108
w:0.812
----w:0.242
30%r-
50% PET
50%r-PET
PET
70%rPET
w:0.000*
c: 1.000
c:0.999
c:1.000
c:1.000
w:0.242
w:0.010*
w:0.043*
w:0.000*
c: 0.991
c:1.000
c:0.303
c: 0.981
w:0.001*
w:0.346
w:0.000*
c:1.000
c:1.000
c:1.000
w:0.000*
w:0.000*
c:0.940
c:1.000
-----
c:0.174
c:0.381
c:0.496
c: 1.000
c: 0.991
70%PET
30%r-PET
w:0.000*
w:0.346
w:0.026*
w:0.000*
w:0.010*
w:0.001*
c:0.026*
c:0.104
c:0.087
c:0.999
c:1.000
c:1.000
50%PET
50%r-PET
w:0.000*
w:0.001*
w:0.016*
w:0.478
w:0.043*
w:0.346
w:0.000*
c:0.054
c:0.380
c:0.036*
c:1.000
c:0.303
c:1.000
c:0.940
30%PET
70%r-PET
w:0.000*
w:0.000*
w:0.000*
w:0.010*
w:0.000*
w:0.000*
w:0.000*
w:0.043*
c:0.032*
c:0.185
c:0.087
c:1.000
c: 0.981
c:1.000
c:1.000
c:1.000
-----
-----
w:0.043*
c:1.000
-----
w: wale direction, c: course direction
57
FIGURE 7. % Shrinkage results in wale direction.
FIGURE 8. % Shrinkage results in course direction
CONCLUSION
Important data have been obtained in this study
which was focused on r-PET fibers used in textile
and apparel industry. The arguments given above
prove that fabrics produced with r-PET fibers have
not the same properties as well as the fabrics
produced with PET fibers. However, these fibers can
be blended with primary raw material (especially
cotton) without hardly noticeable changes in quality
for textile and apparel industry. For example, adding
of % 30 r-PET fibers to the cotton fibers, higher
pilling degree and bursting strength can be obtained.
Instead of using PET fibers, r-PET fibers can be
58
blended in small amounts without compromising
fabrics performance. Significant point here is
choosing suitable r-PET ratio in the fabric according
to usage area. Furthermore, starting from the results
of this paper, producers may gain more advantage
from r-PET fiber with a blending at blow-room in
place of draw-frame blending. We feel that our study
serves as a window to an academic understanding of
the r-PET blended fabrics. Nowadays, r-PET fiber
have lower price by 20% compared to other fibers
(Co and PET) for the same physical characters. It is
clear that cost advantage and being ecologically
friendly of the fiber is impetus for increasing r-PET
fiber consumption. Improvements in PET bottle
recycling technology, increase in quality of the
recycled polymer because of the waste pureness and
performance of cleaning processes will enable high
quality r-PET fiber production and also “high
quality” products in the future.
[11] Mancini, S,D, Schwartzman J,A,S, Nogueira,
A,R, Kagohara D,A and Zanin, M,
“Additional Steps in Mechanical Recycling
of Pet”, Journal of Cleaner Production,18:
92-100,2009.
[12] Shen, L, Worrell, E and Patel, M, “Open-Loop
Recycling: A LCA Case Study of Pet Bottle
to-Fibre Recycling”, Resources Concervation
and Recycling Journal, 55: 34-52, 2010
[13] Napcor: National Association for Pet Container
Resources, “Comprehensive Information
about
the
PET
package”,
http://www.napcor.com/pdf/v411_NAPCOR_PET_Interactive.pdf
(2009,
accessed 01 May 2013)
[14] Smithers Pira Market Intelligence, “The Future
of Global PET Packaging to 2017”,
https://www.smitherspira.com/future-ofglobal-pet-packaging-to-2017.aspx,
(2012,
accessed 13 March 2013)
[15] Al-Salem, S,M, Lettieri, P and Baeyens, J,
“Recycling of Recovery Routes of Plastic
Solid Waste”, Waste Management, 29: 26252643, 2009.
[16] Goodship, V, “Introduction to Plastic
Recycling”, Smithers Rapra Technology
Limited, 2007, p.174.
[17] Mannhart, M, “Pet Siselerden Filament İplik”,
Melliand Türkiye Sayısı, 3: 166-169, 1998.
[18] Abbasi, M, Mojtahedi M,R,M and Khosroshahi,
A, “Effect of Spinning Speed on the Structure
and Physical Properties of Filament Yarns
Produced from Used Pet Bottles, Journal of
Applied Polymer Science, 103: 3972-3975,
2007.
[19] Telli, A and Ozdil, N, “Properties of the yarns
produced from r-PET fibers and their
blends”, Tekstil ve Konfeksiyon, 23(1): 3-10,
2013.
[20] Telli, A, “ A Study on comparison of yarn and
fabric properties which are produce from
conventional PES and recycled PET bottle
fibers”, MSc Thesis, Ege University, Turkey,
2011.
[21] Ozdil, N, “Kumaslarda Fiziksel Kalite Kontrol
Yöntemleri”, E.U. TEKAUM Yayini, 2003,
p.136. ISBN No: 975-483-579-9
[22] TS EN ISO 139. Textiles- Standard
atmospheres for conditioning and testing.
[23] TS 7128 EN ISO 5084. Textiles-Determination
of thickness of textiles and textile products.
[24] TS 393 EN ISO 13938-1. Textiles- Bursting
properties of fabrics- Part 1: Hydraulic
method for determination of bursting strength
and bursting distension.
REFERENCES
[1] Sevencan, F and Vaizoglu, S, ”Pet ve Geri
Donusumu”, TSK Koruyucu Hekim Bulteni,
6: 307-312, 2007.
[2] Kucukgul, E and Kırsen, D, S, “Pet Sisenin
Yasamsal Dongu Analizi”, 7.Uluslararası
Cevre Muhendisligi Kongresi, Izmir, Turkey,
24-27 October 2007, pp. 490-501.
[3] Seventekin, N, “Kimyasal Lifler”, E.U.
TEKAUM Yayini, 2003, p.129.
[4] Davies, B, “Polyester and Nylon: What does the
future hold?”, 46th Man Made Fiber
Congress,
Dornbirn,
Austria,
19-21
September 2007.
[5] Anne, P, ”Why is recycled polyester considered
a
sustainable
textile?”,
http://oecotextiles.wordpress.com/2009/07/14
/why-is-recycled-polyester-considered-asustainable- textile/ (2009, accessed 01 May
2013)
[6] Anabal,
F,Y,”PET
atiklarin
endustride
degerlendirilmesi” MSc Thesis, Gazi
University, Turkey, 2007.
[7] Telli, A and Ozdil, N, “Lint Generation of the
Yarns Produced PET Fibers”, International
Congress of Innovative Textiles, Corlu,
Turkey, 20-22 October 2011, pp. 32-35.
[8] Oktem,
T,
“Polyester
Atiklarin
Degerlendirilmesi”, Tekstil ve Konfeksiyon, 6:
396-400, 1998.
[9] Aguado, J and Serrano, D, “Feedstock
Recycling of Plastic Wastes, RSC Clean
Technology Monographs, 1999, p.192.
[10] Awaja, F and Pavel, D, “Recycling of Pet”,
European Polimer Journal, 41: 1453-1477,
2005.
59
[25] ISO 12947-3. Textiles- Determination of the
abrasion resistance of fabrics by the
Martindale method- Part 3: Determination of
mass loss.
[26] TS EN ISO 12945-2. Textiles- Determination
of fabric propensity to surface fuzzing and to
pilling- Part 2: Modified Martindale method.
[27] SDL Atlas, “PillGrade Automated Pilling
Grading
System”,
http://www.sdlatlas.com/product/114/PillGra
de-Automated-Pilling-Grading-System#
(2012, accessed 01 May 2013)
[28] TS 391 EN ISO 9237. Textiles-Determination
of permeability of fabrics to air.
[29] Lima, M, Hes, L, Vasconcelos, R and Martins J,
“Frictorq-Accessing Fabric Friction with a
Novel Fabric Surface Tester”, Autex
Research Journal, 5: 194-201, 2005.
[30] ASTM D 4032. Standard test method for
stiffness of fabric by the circular bend
procedure.
[31] TS EN ISO 6330:2012. Textiles - Domestic
washing and drying procedures for textile
testing.
[32] Ukponmwan, J, O, Mukhopadhyay, A and
Chatterjee, K, N, “Pilling”, The Textile
Institute: Textile Progress, 1998, p.60. as
cited in CD Gintis and E J Mead. The
Mechanism of Pilling, Textile Research
Journal, 29: 578-585, 1959.
[33] Ukponmwan, J, O, Mukhopadhyay, A and
Chatterjee, K, N, “Pilling”, The Textile
Institute: Textile Progress, 1998
[34] Morton,W, E and Hearle, J,W,S,”Physical
Properties of Textile Fibers”, The Textile
Institute and Woodhead Publishing, 2008,
p:421.
AUTHORS’ ADDRESSES
Abdurrahman Telli
Cukurova University
Department of Textile Engineering
Adana 01330
TURKEY
Nilgün Özdil
Ege University
Department of Textile Engineering
TURKEY
60

Effect of Recycled PET Fibers on the Performance Properties of

Transkript

Benzer belgeler

Genel Ek Bilgi - Flynax Pets Classifieds Software Demo

printable pdf brochure

Kuma Oturan Yüzeysel Temellerde Temel Boyutunun Taşıma

Untitled

Global Home Show - Progressivebusinessmedia

underwear design