Physical and Mechanical Properties of Chiengora Fibers

Peer reviewed
Physical and Mechanical
Properties of Chiengora Fibers
By S. Greer, AATCC; and P. Banks-Lee and M. Jones, North Carolina State University
ABSTRACT
Natural protein fibers, such as wool, mohair, and siik, currentiy used in textiie production can be very costiy, Altliough
non-traditionai, a protein fiber, such as chiengora (dog hair), can prove to be a cheaper, environmentaiiy friendiy, and
suitabie substitute. However, very iittie information on the properties of these fibers can be found in the iiterature. Here,
the physicai and mechanical properties of hair combed from 18 dog breeds were measured and compared to those of
traditionai animai hair fibers. Unwashed dog hair was coiiected, bagged and iabeied by professionai pet groomers. Resuits
show that iength, iinear density, tenacity, strain, and elastic moduius of chiengora fibers are all simiiar to those of traditionai
protein fibers. Results also show that hairs from some breeds may be suitabie for short- or long-staple processing.
Key Terms: Chiengora, Natural Fibers, Non-traditional Fibers, Fiber Properties
' Physical Properties for Tradiriona] Animal Fibers'
Fiber
Tenacity
(g/denier)
Linear Density
(denier)
Strain
Modulus
(denier)
Length
{%)
10.IR
(cm)
Wool
1.59
12 0
42 9
?4 1
Mohair
1.44
10.9
30.0
39.4
11,5
Cashmere
1 55
2.84
35 6
36 3
39
Camel hair
1.79
9.55
39.4
33.3
12,5
Producers of textile goods are always in search of new and
innovative fibets for use in consumer products. Fibers that will
meet consumer needs, while heing environ men tally-ftiendly,
are in demand. Commercial products containing wool,
mohair, cashmere, and camelhair fibers have been produced
I'or himdreds of years. The properties ot these fibers that promote their successful conversion to yarns are given in Table I.
Another fiber that meets both criteria is "chiengora," or
dog hair. Ihe name comes from "chien"—the French word for
dog, and "gora"-—from the word Angora; which has origins
in Greece, Turkey, and France; the traditional fiber that dog
hair most closely resembles.- Chiengora has been used in
textile products for centuries by individual artisans, but never
commercialized. Dog hair was the one fiber spun in North
America before sheep were introduced.-' Traces of dog hair
have been found in yarns of pre-historic Scandinavia and
among the North American Navajo Indians.' In fact, garments
made ot dog hair have been worn proudly by the rich and
famous tor generations."
Chiengora is considered by some to be a luxury fiber similar to mohair, cashmere (goat hair), and angora (rabbit hair).-'
Items made of chiengora yarn are soft and fluffy like angora.
42 AATCC Re\
warm, shed water well, and have good color and luster.^
Chiengora yarn has a "halo" of fuzz, much like mohair or
angora, and though it is not as elastic, it is warmer than wool."
Although yarns are being produced from dog hair, little
has been reported on the properties of these fibers and their
suitability for commercial yarn production. The quality of the
yarn produced varies with the type of hair used. The objectives ofthe current research were
to determine the properties of dog
TABLE II.
hair atid to pinpoint which chienDog Breeds Sampled
gora fibers could be considered for
commercial production of yarns
Mo. of
Breed
Dogs
and fabrics. If chiengora {100%
American Eskimo Dog
3
or blended) can be commercially
Austraiian Sfiepherd
2
converted to yarn and suitable
Bichon Fuse
2
applications found for the yarns,
Cocha-Poo
2
the authors suggest that fibers be
German Shepherd
2
acquired by a system centered on
Golden Retriever
4
collecting fibers from pet grooming
Labrador Retriever
facilities.
L.
Lhasa Apso
2
Maltese
2
Pekingese
2
Pomeranian
2
Poodle (Poodie mix &
Sad Poodle)
3
Schnauzer
4
Sheepdog [type not
specified!
3
Shih T^if
4
Springer Spaniel
2
Westie
2
Yorkie
2
Experimental
Dog hair was solicited from several
pet-grooming salons. Groomers
were asked to label each sample
stating the specific breed ofthe
source, and whether the sample was
"clean" or "dirty." Samples of dog
hair (45 total) were collected from
a total of 18 dog breeds. The breeds
sampled are listed in Table II. To
ensure consistent treatment of all
MAY 2007
Peer reviewed
TABLE I I I .
Physical Properties of Hair From All Dog Breeds
Dog Breed
Fiber Diameter"
Linear Density
(microns)
(denier)
Length
(cm)
Mean
%CV
Clean
Dirty
Clean
Dirty
Ail Bteecjs
33.71
60.92
29.7
28.2
5-8
5.6
American Eskimo Dog
28.13
50.79
26.9
31.2
5.3
4.5
Biciion Frise
29.56
37.34
29.0
27,5
5.2
5.5
Cocka-Poi)
24.88
29.14
28.7
24 2
53
5.1
German Stiepherd
28.08
21.80
30.3
29.3
7.3
7.4
Lhasa ApsD
44 79
31.83
38.4
32.2
7.1
6.3
Maltese
26.81
44.40
25.9
23.9
7,3
7.4
Pnnrtie
18.45
28.15
25.7
23.1
4.9
4.4
Sheepdog
23.58
20.24
32.6
27.6
5.4
4.9
Shitzu
43 07
64.65
24.7
24.7
5.3
3.9
Springer Spaniel
32.68
31.09
32.7
27.7
7.9
8.3
Yorkie
35.02
25.92
31.3
27.3
9.4
8.9
Golden Retriever
62.52
44.47
32.3
30.4
6.5
7.0
Scnnauzer
15 98
24.46
28 9
27 1
3.9
4 1
Pomeranian
30.93
27.35
24.6
24.3
6.7
6.7
Labrador Re I never
39.94
31.14
33.8
31.6
4.1
40
Pekingese
24.47
62.56
27.6
26.5
4.4
4.6
Westie
31.26
40.47
23.1
26.6
3.9
3.6
Australian Shepfierd
^.63
56,70
42.3
46.1
6.3
6.3
•'Fibe( ilianieter reported for clean clog haii cniy
hair samples, only those samples that were iabeied as dirty
were used in this research. Bags labeled as dirty were split into
two equal portions. One portion was tested in its dirty state.
I h e other portion was scoured before testing. The scoured
portion was considered the clean sample for testing.
To prepare for scouring, each sample was put into a
pantyhose sleeve secured at both ends with a knot and labeled
to prevent sample mixing. The scouring was performed in
a Gaston County laboratory package dyeing machine. The
scouring bath contained Keirlon NB-MFB as the cleaning
agent and sodium carbonate (soda ash) dissolved in water
to reduce the amount of foam. I h e temperature in the bath
ranged trom 160F to 212F depending on the stage ofthe
scouring bath. The sleeve containing the fibers was transferred
from the scouring bath to a dryer (Blue M Lab Oven) operating at 60C (140F) for 24 hr, or until all moisture was removed
from the fibers. Samples were allowed to recondition for
1 hr under standard conditions of 2 l C (70F) and 6 5 %
relative humidity.
Length measurements (25 total) were taken from each
sample of clean and dirty hair according to ASTM 0 3 1 0 3 01 .^ This data was used to determine an average fiber length
for each dog breed, and to evaluate the change in length after
scotiring. The linear densities (denier) of ten random fibers
from each clean and dirty sample were determined using
a Vibromat and ASTM D1 577-01 .^' The fibers were then
mounted on cards in preparation tor tensile testing.
Tensile tests were performed on the same fibers used to
measure linear density. Fiber tensile tests were run according to
ASTM 03822-01,°' using a Sintech tester with a gauge length
MAY 2 0 0 7
of 1.27 cm (0.5 in),
and a 2.27 kg (5
Ib) load cell. Tensile
test data included
tenacity, modulus,
and strain (%).
Fiber diameter
was measured in
microns using a
Motic Microscope
(B3 Professional
Fig. 1. Microscopic view of Sheepdog hair (40x).
Series) with 40x
objective and equipped with a Motic Images Plus 2.0 software
system.
Five readings were taken trom each of five randomly-selected
fibers. Fig. 1 is a microscopic view of Sheepdog hair at
40x magnification.
Statistical Analysis Software (SAS)'' was used to anal)'ze the
data. The t-test procedure was used to determine if there was a
significant difference in tenacitj; iinear density, strain, modulus, and lengtii of clean and dirty fibers in general. I h e t-test
was aiso used to determine if there was a significant change
in the fiber properties after cieaning, based on dog breed.
The means procedure was run to obtain the average and standard deviation of individual properties for ail dogs, and
for each breed.
Results and Discussion
The average vaiues for the physical properties ofthe fibers are
reported in Table III. Tensile data are reported in Table IV.
The effect of laundering on the physical properties ofthe fibers
was also assessed.
TABLE rV.
Tensile Properties of Hair From All Dog Breeds
Dog Breed
Tenacity (g/denier)
Strain (%)
Modulus (g/denisr)
Clean
Dirty
Clean
Dirty
Clean
Dirty
All Breeds
1.9
2.1
64,1
72.5
15.3
15.7
American Eskimo Dog
1.7
2.2
fiOS
80.1
14,5
14,8
Bichon Frise
1.5
1.9
57,8
68.4
13.7
13.4
Cocka-Poo
1 7
2 1
66.n
67 9
138
16 1
German Shepherd
2.0
2,3
66,2
76.2
15.1
15.7
Lhasa Apso
1 8
2.1
63.0
74.2
15.0
154
Maltese
1.9
1.9
70.7
66.6
13.5
14.1
Poodle
2.0
1 9
71 6
73.5
14,0
13,5
Sheepdoe
1.8
2.1
65.0
68.2
14.3
15.4
StiiL'u
1.8
1 9
58 2
Springer Spaniel
2.1
2,7
72.5
Yorkie
1.5
2.1
53.6
Golden Retriever
22
2.2
n.i
Sctinauzer
1.8
2.3
563
Pom^anian
1.7
2.1
Labrador Retriever
17
2.3
Peklngrae
2.2
Wesiie
Australian Shepherd
16.2
14,8
16.0
14.3
74 2
14.7
14,5
72.2
14.7
15.8
59.9
16.5
21.5
62.6
68.3
14.4
17.2
57 7
701
151
174
2.2
68.7
69.1
16,4
16.5
2.D
2.2
fi4fi
76 4
152
139
2.3
2.5
60,0
96.6
22.7
13.9
96.4
AATCC Review 4 3
Peer reviewed
Significance Between Clean and Dirty Chiengora (All Breeds Tested)
VaHable
Tenacity
Linear Density
Condition
Length
T-Value
Pr>ltl
Clean
1,886
0,586
-
-
2.147
0.639
—
—
0,613
-6 390
<0.0001
Ditference
-0,261
Clean
29.66
12,14
—
28.19
11,71
_
—
1.47
11,93
1,84
0,07
Clean
64,149
18 083
-
-
Dirty
72,500
18,007
-
-
Difference
-8.352
18.045
Clean
15,315
5.093
Difty
15661
6.352
—
—
Difference
Difference
Modulus
Standard Deviation
Dirty
Dirty
Strain
Mean
-6,940
-
<0.0001
—
-0.345
5.757
-0,900
0.369
Clean
5,76
1.40
—
—
Dirty
5.55
1.55
—
—
Difference
0.22
1.48
2 31
0.03
Effect of Cleaning Hair
As seen in Table V, statistical results showed a significant difference between clean and dirty chiengora for tenacity, sttain,
and length witb greater tban 95% confidence, (Pr > |t| less
tban 0.05) and clean and dirty density witb greater than 90%
confidence (Pt > |tj less tban 0.10). There was no significant
difference between the modulus of clean and dirty hair.
There was a 3.9% average increase in the length of dog hair
due to the cleaning procedures. This implied that washing and
drying removed some ot all ofthe natural crimp in the fibers.
Tbere was also a 12.0% reduction in strengtb due to cleaning. Tbis was not surprising since wool fibers are also weaker
wben wet. Two different explanations for tbis pbenoinenon
have been presented. One scenario is tbat moisture reduces
the binding force between the salt linkages after introducing
a dielectric film between tbe positive and negative cbarges.""
A second explanation for the decrease in the wet strength
of wool is tbe greater swelling of the fiber at a bigb pH.'
According to Trotman, "the cystine link also has a profound
effect on the mechanical properties of tbe fiber. Tbe disulfide
bond is covalent and not very sensitive to pH, but tbere are a
number of reagents, wbich can break it down. Water can bring
about bydrolysis, especially wben in the form of steam with
the formation of sulfenic acid groups, therefore, the action of
alkalis on tbe disulfide bond is complex and accompanied by
the formation of inorganic sulfides. The bond is severed, hut
new crosslinks are formed."^
Tbere was a 5.2% increase in linear density after wasbing,
implying tbat the fibers were made coarser. Possible explanations for tbis are swelling in tbe medulla, or core, during the
scouring batb due to tbe presence of soda ash; or moisture
retention after washing. Cotton and wool react in this manner
to soda ash scouring. However, moisture retention would be
expected to increase strain, not create an 11.5% decrease.
44 AATCC Review
Moisture acts as a lubricant and would cause the fiber to be
more flexible. Tbe slight decrease in modulus was not enough
to indicate tbat the clean fibers were more fiexible than the
dirty fibers.
Table VI shows that fibers from all dog breeds were not
equally affected hy cleaning. The difference in length of clean
and dirty fibers was significant for all dog breeds. However, for
eight ofthe 18 breeds, or 44.4%, length was the only property
significantly affected. Fibers from some dog breeds were mildly
affected, having only one property other than length significantly affected with 95% or better certainty. This was the case
for four ofthe 18 breeds, or 22.0%, of tbe dog breeds. Oniy
six of tbe 18 breds, or 33.0%, appeared to be bighly-affected,
having more than two ofthe properties affected by cleaning.
The Yorkshire Tetrier (Yorkie), Pomeranian, American Eskimo
Dog, and Australian Shepherd breeds had three properties
which were affected. The Springer Spaniel and Labrador
Retriever breeds bad four ofthe five properties affected
by cleaning.
The significant change in some critical properties due to the
cleaning procedures suggests that special care should be taken
in cieaning cbiengora, and products made from chiengora.
Since properties like strength and length affect tbe processibility of fibers, consideration sbouid be given to wbetber
laundering sbould occur before or after processing into a yarn
or fabric. The increased length after cleaning may make better
yarns; however, if tbe increase was due to a decrease in crimp,
tbe ciean fiher would have less cohesion and be barder to
process. Weaker fibers are also barder to process. Tbe environment in whicb empioyees would be asked to v/ork must also
TABLE V I .
Significance Between Clean and Dirty Chiengora (Breed Specific)
Dog Breed
Pr>ltl
Tenacity
(O/denier]
Linear
Density
(denier)
Strain
Modulus
Length
(%)
(g/denier)
(cm)
American Eskimo Dog ^
<0 000!
n '2
0,0004
0 777
<0,0001
Bichon Frise *
0,078
0,65
0.094
0.805
<0.0001
Cocha-Poo"
0 0/4
0 12
0,748
0,178
<0,0001
German Shepherd^
0,126
0,76
0,109
0.597
<0.0001
Ltiasa Apso"'
0148
0.11
0,046
0.833
<0,0001
Maltese'
0,959
0,54
0,352
0,672
<0,0001
Poodle"
0 42
0.29
0 685
0 479
<:0,0001
Sfisepdog"
0,15
0.22
0,46
0,406
<0,0001
Sliih Tzu'
0 408
0 97
0,029
0 158
<0.0001
Springer Spaniel^
0,002
0,01
0,001
0.215
<0.0001
Yorkie •'
0 001
0.35
0.001
0,93
<0,0001
Golden Retriever"
0.571
0.5
0.14
0.103
<0,0001
Sciinauzer '^'
0,013
0.59
0,257
0,064
<0,0001
Pomeranian"
0,005
0,91
0.264
0,034
—
Labradot Retriever
0.0001
0.6
0.029
0 06
<0,0001
Pekingese"
0,823
0,57
0,904
0.942
<0,0001
Weslie'
0 068
0.16
0.004
0124
<0,0001
Auslraiian Shepherd''
0,201
0.22
<0.0001
0-001
—
•"More than Iwo properties significantly affected by laundering.
"Oniy length significanliy affected by laundenng,
•^Length and one other property significantly affected by iaundering.
MAY 2007
Peer reviewed
be considered. Tbe quaiity of tbe cbiengora, tbe affect on
air quaiity. and overall employee working conditions must
be considered in deciding wbetber to process tbe bair in its
clean or dirty state. Thougb there was a significant difference
between clean and dirty fibers, comparisons with traditionai
hair fiiiers were based on ciean cbiengora oniy.
ofthe traditional animal fibers, but the breed had the lowest
linear density, 23.10 denier, much courser than wooi. Finer
fibers are more easiiy converted into yarn because they require
iess twist. The coarseness of dog fibers couid be a cbaiienge to
commerciaiiy converting tbem into yarns.
Lengtii
Strength
The overall tenacity for chiengora was 1.886 g/denier
(Table IV). This was 5.0% greater than that ofthe strongest
traditional animai bair fiber, camelhair (Table 1). The dog
breeds having hair witb the highest tenacity were Austraiian
Shepherd, Pei^ingese, Golden Retriever, Springer Spaniel, and
Poodle. The tenacities ranged from 2.342 g/denier (Australian
Shepherd) to 2.016 g/denier (Poodle). Ofthe i8 breeds
tested, 10 (56.0%) bad fiber tenacities that exceeded tbat of
camelhair. Ihe average fiber tenacity for the top 10 dog breeds
was 2.04 g/denier, 14.0% stronger than camelhair. Sixteen of
tbe 18 breeds tested (or 89.0%) had bair that was stronger
tban casbmere (1.55 g/denier) or wool (1.59 g/denier). Ail
dog breeds bad hair stronger than mohair (1.44 g/denier). Of
the breeds tested. Tbe Yorkie breed bad bair witb the iowest
tenacity (1.5 g/denier).
Diameter and Density
Table ill lists the fiber diameter (microns) and linear density
(denier) of fibers from ail dog breeds included in tbis study. It
is important to note that as witb otber animal hair fibers, the
variation in fiber size is bigb botb within breeds and between
breeds. It is aiso known tbat animal hair varies with its fleece
location. Only the Schnauzer breed was determined to have
hair similar to super-fine Merino wooi. Tbe Maitese, Poodie
and Sheepdog breeds were determined to bave bair similar
to fine Merino wool. Tiie hair of tbe Laiirador Retriever and
WestHigkand White Terrier (Westie) breeds are similar to
coarse wools. The Lhasa Apso, Sbih Tzu, Golden Retriever,
and Australian Sbepherd breeds had bair similar in diameter
range to carpet or mixed wools. The remaining eigbt dogs had
bair similar to medium grade wool witb American Esicimo
Dog, Gocka-Poo, German Shepherd and i'ekingese breeds
baving hair that would be considered to be medium-fine.
in general, a larger fiber size indicates higher tenacity. This
is true for mohair and camelbair, as well as about 50.0% of
tbe dog breeds tested. 'Ilie average linear density for chiengora
as reported in Table iii was 29.66 denier, whicb was 59.5%
greater tban that of wool, 'lliis meant that dog hairs were
much coarser than traditional animal bair fibers.
Of tbe 18 breeds tested, ali bad hair with linear densities tbat exceeded that ot wool. Tlic five breeds having tbe
lowest linear density were the Maitese, Poodle, Shih Tzu,
Pomeranian, and Westie. The average iinear density for these
five breeds was 24.81 denier. Ibese fibers were 52.0% coarser
tban wool, tbe coarsest traditional animal hair fiber. However,
tbcse breeds also had strengths that were equal to, or better
tban, traditional bair fibers used in textile products. IVie
Westie had a tenacity of 1.97 g/denier, higher than that of any
MAY 2007
Fiber Icngtb is a very important factor when choosing the
processing and production method tor yarns. Fibers tbat are
too short, less tban 2.54 cm, are very difficult to convert into
yarns; bowever, fibers tbat are too iong also present conversion
cballenges. Short fibers are used mainly for short staple fiber
production and nonwoven production. Table Hi iists the fiber
lengtbs of all dog breeds tested. The average fiber iengtb tor
chiengora was 5.76 cm, 56.0% lower than that of camelhair,
the longest traditional fiber at 12.5 cm. Tbe breeds with tbe
longest fiber lengths were Yorkie, Springer Spaniel, Maitese,
German Sbepherd, and Lbasa Apso. These fiber lengths ranged
from 9.4 cm (Yorlcie) to 7.1 cm (Lhasa Apso). Ali dog breeds
had hair ionger than casbmere (3.9 cm). Despite cashmere's
relatively sbort fiber length of 3.9 cm, it is commerciaiiy processed with no major problems. Today's variety of processing
methods means that fiber length is less of an issue tban it was
severai years ago.
Tbe fibers from some dog breeds wouid fit well witb sbort
staple fiber production methods wbere tbe typical processing
length ranges from 2.5 to 5.1 cm. The Poodle, Schnauzer,
Labrador Retriever, Pekingese, and Westie breeds had an
average length of 4.0 cm, whicb wouid process weii as sbort
staple fibers. Yorkie, tbe breed with tbe iongest fibers (9.4 cm)
should be processabie as easily as any ofthe traditional
animal fibers.
Sbort fibers may also be used in nonwoven fabric production, where suitable fibers range from less tban 1 mm to as
much as 15.2 cm. Ali dog fibers wouid process weii into a
nonwoven product.
In textiie processing, it is generaliy desirable to have fibers
with a bigb aspect ratio (i.e., iiigh length to width ratio).
Fibers with a high aspect ratio tend to be more flexible and
thus bend more easily. Dog fibers, on tbe average, were shorter
and mucb coarser tban wooi. This lower aspect ratio may present a probiem during conversion to yarn, but these fibers are
currently being handspun into yarns and made into fabrics.
Strain
The average strain for cbiengora was 64.149% (Table IV).
This was 20.3% greater than that of wool, tbe traditional fiber
having the highest percent strain (42.9%). The bair from ali
of tbe 18 breeds tested bad strain vaiues tbat exceeded tbat
of wool. Therefore, dog hair fibers eiongate mucb more tban
traditional animal fibers before breaking. The breeds witb
bair having tbe bigbest percent strain were Goiden Retriever,
Springer Spaniel, Poodie, Maitese, and Pekingese, ranging
from 77.186% (Goiden Retriever) to 68.708% (Pekingese).
These high extension vaiues as well as high tenacity values
show tbat dog fibers can absorb a large amount of energy.
AATCC Review 4 5
Peer reviewed
which is important wheti considering abrasion resistance,
crease recovery, and resilience.' Strain values also become
important during the processing of fibers inco yarns, 'lhe
conversion puts stress on each fiber; but those that AK more
extensible will process with less difficulty.
fiber. However, based on diameter, there is evidence that dog
hairs can be classed using the fine, medium, coarse, and carpet
categories used to classify wool fibers. The high linear density
of chiengora fibers, whicb leads to a low aspect ratio, could
pose a problem during the processing stages. To overcome this,
the dog fibers could be processed as short staple yarns.
Modulus
The average modulus for the dog fibers, 15.3 g/denier, was
considerably lower than the modulus of the traditional animal
fibers. The importance of this factor is situational because
some circumstances demand a high modulus, whereas, in
other circumstances, a low modulus is acceptable. Finally, the
average percent strain of the dog fibers was 61.1%, which
was 20.3% greater than that of wool. This factor is important
in establishing that dog fibers are more extensible than the
traditionally-used animal fibers.
Modulus describes tbe force needed to deform a fiber. Values
for chiengora fibers are listed in Table IV. Compared to traditional animal fibers, chiengora fibers have much lower moduli,
meaning that they deform at a quicker rate than do wool,
mohair, cashmere, and camelhair fibers. The average chiengora
modulus was 15.315 g/denier. The modulus of wool, the
lowest among the traditional fibers, was 36.5% greater than
that of the average dog hair.
The breeds with the highest moduli were Australian
Shepherd, Schnauzer, Pekingese, Shih Tzu, and Springer
Spaniel. These ranged from 22.716 g/denier (Australian
Shepherd) to 16.009 g/denier (Springer Spaniel). Of the 18
dog breeds tested, none had moduli within 10.0% of the
modulus of mohair, cashmere, or camelhair. Wool's modulus,
24.10 g/denier, was very similar to the Australian Shepherd
breed's modulus of 22.716 g/denier. The Maltese breed had
the lowest modulus value, 13.462 g/denier, of the dog breeds
tested. Ihis data showed that dog fibers are not as stiff as the
traditional animal fibers, therefore, they have a lower resistance to deformation.
The desired fiber modtilus is dependent upon the intended
end-use for the fiber or yarn. In some instances, a fiber with
a low modulus is acceptable; cotton fibers, with an average
modulus cii about 4.0 g/denier, are commonly used in apparel
applications.^ Conversely, for a protective garment, such as a
bulletproof vest, a fiber with a high modulus is unquestionably
preferred. With an average modulus of 15.0 g/denier, the dog
fiber should perform as well as cotton during processing and
prove to be adequate for certain applications.
Conclusions
The main objective of this research was to determine the
feasibility of using dog hair in conventional textile products.
The properties of tenacity, linear density, modulus, and percent strain of dog hair were studied.
Results showed that dog hair, with a tenacity of 1.89
g/denier, was at least 5% stronger than traditionally-used
animal fibers. Ihus, the strength ot chiengora fibers shouid
present no problem in the commercial conversion of fibers to
yarns. The length of chiengora ranged from 3.9 cm to 9.4 cm.
Tiiis indicated that all chiengora fibers had lengths suitable
for either shon or long staple production methods. However,
the mean length of 5-8 cm was 45.4% shorter than that of the
traditional animal fibers.
The average fiber diameter of chiengora fibers was 33.71
microns and the average linear density was 29.7 denier. It
was determined that the linear density oi the dog hairs tested
was 59.5% higher than wool, the coarsest traditional animal
46 AATCC Revie\
Based on the properties discussed, it would be reasonable to
consider dog fiber for commercial conversion into staple yarns.
With strength, length, percent strain, and modulus, as a basis,
dog fibers would perform as well as traditionally-used animal
fibers, and possibly better in certain instances. The American
Eskimo Dog, Poodle, Sheepdog, Shih Tzu, Schnauzer,
Labrador Retriever, Pekingese, and Westie breeds should be
considered as candidates for short staple processing. Hair from
the Bichon Frise, Cocka-Poo, Lhasa Apso, Pomeranian, and
Australian Shepherd dog breeds would be appropriate for long
staple processing. Future research will attempt to produce
staple yarns from blends of chiengora fibers as grouped above.
Yarn properties will be studied for strength, elongation, evenness, and abrasion resistance. Yarns will then be fabricated and
fabric properties assessed for strength, elongation, abrasion
resistance, air permeability, and moisture absorption.
References
L
Kaswcll, Ernest. Textile Fibers, Yarns, and Fabrics., Reirihold
Publishing Corporation, New York, N.Y.. U.S.A., 1953, pp3-30.
2. Croiius, Kendall, and Anne Montgomery, Knitting With Dog
Hair, Sr. Martins Griffin, New York, N.Y., U.S.A., 1994,
pp]-34.
3. Merry Spinster Presents Chiengora Chic, http:llwivw.mdnpd.
comlpdldefault.htm, accessed January 2002.
4. www.freeriet.edmonton.ab.ca/wcavers/dog.html, accessed
January 2002.
5. Annual Book of ASTM Standards.yoh. 7.01-02, Philadelphia,
Pa.,U.S.A.,2001.
6. Statistical Analysis Sofiware, SAS Institute Inc., Box 8000, Cary,
N.C, 27512, U.S.A.
7. Trocman, E. R., Jlye Dyeing and Chemical Technology of Textile
Fibres, 5''' edition, Charles Griffin & Co. Ltd, London, England,
1975, pp92-94.
8. Koo, Hyiin-Jin, PhD Thesis, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, N.C. U.S.A., 1993.
Author's Address
Suzanne Greer Holmes, Technical Associate, AATCC,
One Davis Drive, PO Box 12215, Research Triangle Park,
N C 27709-2215, USA; telephone -HI 919 549 3537;
fax -HI 919 569 8933; e-mail [email protected].
MAY 2007