4.7 Article

Cotton/alginate blended knitted fabrics: flame retardancy, flame-retardant mechanism, water absorption and mechanical properties

期刊

CELLULOSE
卷 28, 期 7, 页码 4495-4510

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10570-021-03772-3

关键词

Cotton; alginate blended knitted fabrics; Flame retardancy; Flame‐ retardant mechanism; Water absorption properties; Mechanical properties

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51673153, 51973098]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the flame retardancy of cotton/alginate blended knitted fabrics showed improvement in thermal stability, flame-retardant mechanism, mechanical properties, and water absorption. The introduction of alginate fibers enhanced water absorption but reduced mechanical properties.
The influence of the weaving method on the flame retardancy of the fabrics prepared cannot be ignored. In this work, the thermal stability, flame retardancy, flame-retardant mechanism, mechanical properties and water absorption of cotton/alginate blended knitted fabrics were investigated. Thermogravimetric analysis results showed that the char residues at 700 degrees C of cotton/alginate blended knitted fabrics increased both in N-2 and air. In the cone calorimetry test, compared with cotton knitted fabrics, the fire growth rate index of cotton5/alginate5 decreased from 2.63 to 1.40 kW m(-2) s. Thermogravimetric analysis coupled with Fourier transform infrared analysis indicated that the cotton/alginate blended knitted fabrics released more non-flammable gases and fewer inflammable products containing carbonyl and ether groups. Analysis of Raman spectra showed that the char residues of cotton5/alginate5 had a higher degree of graphitization. The analysis of X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy spectra proved the existence of CaCO3 and CaO in the char residues. Moreover, the introduction of alginate fibers improved the water absorption and water retention properties of cotton knitted fabrics, but reduced its mechanical properties.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据