Evaluation of Brassica fibre for textile and spinning properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brassica napus L., which is commonly known as canola, is the largest sources of edible oil in Canada. The remaining plant material, such as the stem, remains unused for any immediate application and is returned to the soil for decomposition. An investigation has been conducted to extract, characterize and modify the fibre materials from B. napus stems for textile and apparel applications. In order to find the optimum retting conditions for retting time, four different retting parameters were evaluated including, retting temperature, material liquor ratio, water exchange and the reuse of retted water. It was discovered that the virgin-retted fibres from Brassica plants exhibit most of the required textile properties including dye absorbency, strength, and thermal behaviour. However, the virgin-retted fibres do not exhibit the required spinning (yarn transformation) properties (softness, flexibility and individual fibre entity). In order to modify the Brassica fibres for spinnability, three treatment methods were applied: 1) alkali, acid and softener treatment; 2) pectinase enzyme treatment; and 3) enhanced enzyme treatment. According to Method 5 of the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC), Brassica fibers obtained from treatments 2 and 3 showed similar spinning properties, and demonstrated superior spinning properties to Brassica fibres obtained from treatment one. To determine the variability of the cultivars upon textile and spinning properties, seeds from twenty different Brassica cultivars consisting of three different species, B. napus, B. juncea L. and B. rapa L., were collected, planted, and harvested upon reaching physiological maturity. The virgin water-retted fibre samples were then treated with pectinase enzyme, and different spinning properties (stiffness, softness, individual fibre entity) and textile properties (fibre decomposition temperature, tenacity and dye absorbency) of enzyme-treated samples were evaluated. The current research suggests that producing fibers from canola stubble and stems could be an additional income source for canola growers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".