On mercerization, moisture regain of cotton fiber \(\underline{\hspace{2cm}}\)
Step 1: Define Mercerization. Mercerization is a treatment for cotton fabric or yarn with a cold, concentrated solution of caustic soda (sodium hydroxide).
Step 2: Understand the structural changes caused by mercerization. The strong alkali causes the cotton fibers to swell. This swelling changes the fiber's cross-section from a kidney-bean shape to a more circular shape. Crucially, it also changes the internal polymer structure. The treatment transforms the native crystal structure (Cellulose I) to a different, more accessible form (Cellulose II). This process increases the proportion of amorphous regions relative to crystalline regions and makes the hydroxyl groups in the amorphous regions more accessible.
Step 3: Relate structural changes to moisture regain. Moisture regain is the weight of water in a material expressed as a percentage of its oven-dry weight. Water molecules are primarily absorbed in the amorphous regions of a fiber, where they can form hydrogen bonds with the polymer's hydroxyl groups. Since mercerization increases the accessibility of these amorphous regions, the fiber is able to absorb more water molecules.
Conclusion: Mercerization increases the amorphousness and accessibility of hydroxyl groups in cotton, which leads to an increase in its moisture regain. The typical regain of cotton increases from about 7-8% to about 9-10%.
Match the LIST-I (Spectroscopy) with LIST-II (Application)
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Visible light spectroscopy | III. Identification on the basis of color |
B. Fluorescence spectroscopy | IV. Identification on the basis of fluorophore present |
C. FTIR spectroscopy | I. Identification on the basis of absorption in infrared region |
D. Mass Spectroscopy | II. Identification on the basis of m/z ion |
Match the LIST-I with LIST-II
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Forensic Psychiatry | III. Behavioural pattern of criminal |
B. Forensic Engineering | IV. Origin of metallic fracture |
C. Forensic Odontology | I. Bite marks analysis |
D. Computer Forensics | II. Information derived from digital devices |
Match the LIST-I with LIST-II
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Calvin Goddard | II. Forensic Ballistics |
B. Karl Landsteiner | III. Blood Grouping |
C. Albert Osborn | IV. Document examination |
D. Mathieu Orfila | I. Forensic Toxicology |
Match the LIST-I (Evidence, etc.) with LIST-II (Example, Construction etc.)
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Biological evidence | IV. Blood |
B. Latent print evidence | III. Fingerprints |
C. Trace evidence | II. Soil |
D. Digital evidence | I. Cell phone records |
Match the LIST-I with LIST-II
LIST-I | LIST-II |
---|---|
A. Ridges | III. The raised portion of the friction skin of the fingers |
B. Type Lines | I. Two most inner ridges which start parallel, diverge and surround or tend to surround the pattern area |
C. Delta | IV. The ridge characteristics nearest to the point of divergence of type lines |
D. Enclosure | II. A single ridge bifurcates and reunites to enclose some space |