Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Textile Research Journal
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Montalvo, J.G.
Right arrow Articles by Mangialardi, G.J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Systematic Errors in Shirley Analyzer Measurements

J.G. Montalvo, JR

Southern Regional Research Center,1 New Orleans, LA 70179, U.S.A.

G.J. Mangialardi, JR

U.S. Cotton Ginning Laboratory,1 Stoneville, MS 38776, U.S.A.

Lint in the ASTM Shirley analyzer method of testing for visible waste results in a positive bias when measuring the trash content of cotton and a negative bias in the lint cleaning efficiency calculation. An experimental protocol was designed and demonstrated on major grades of ginned cotton to isolate the "true" trash content from Shirley analyzer visible waste. Due to the lint in the visible waste, trash contents were too high by 44.9% for Good Ordinary cotton to 429% for Strict Middling cotton. An equation was derived to predict the cleaning efficiency (E) systematic error, E(%) = (n/m - 1)102/( Wb/Wa- 1), where m and Wb are the trash coefficient and visible waste content, respectively, before lint cleaning and n and Wa are the corresponding values after lint cleaning. The error in E(%) is always negatively biased because the operational limit of n/m is < 1 and that of Wb/Wa is > 1. E(%) increases with a decrease in the efficiency and the n/m value. The magnitude of E(%) is greater for successive stages of cleaning than for the cumulative efficiency over several cleaning operations.

Textile Research Journal, Vol. 53, No. 7, 408-414 (1983)
DOI: 10.1177/004051758305300703
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?