This article was downloaded by: [University of Delaware]

On: 03 October 2014, At: 07:04

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of The Textile Institute

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjti20

Static generation and dissipation of polyester

continuous filament yarn
a a a a
M. Suh , A. M. Seyam , W. Oxenham & T. Theyson
a
College of Textiles , NC State University , Raleigh, NC, USA
Published online: 14 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: M. Suh , A. M. Seyam , W. Oxenham & T. Theyson (2010) Static generation and dissipation of polyester
continuous filament yarn, The Journal of The Textile Institute, 101:3, 261-269, DOI: 10.1080/00405000802377250

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405000802377250

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 The Journal of The Textile Institute
Vol. 101, No. 3, March 2010, 261–269

Static generation and dissipation of polyester continuous filament yarn

M. Suh, A.M. Seyam∗ , W. Oxenham and T. Theyson
College of Textiles, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
(Received 10 June 2008; final version received 29 July 2008)

The effect of environmental conditions (temperature and relative humidity) and contact conditions (yarn tension and speed)
on static generation and dissipation of polyester flat continuous filament yarn, when rubbed against stainless steel was
analyzed. A newly developed device, housed in an environmental room, was used to charge the yarn while moving un-
der desired tension. The charge potentials were measured at two different positions in real time. These measurements
and previously established exponential relationship permitted the calculation of the initial potential (at the generation
point) and a ‘characteristic decay time’, which is a measure of static dissipation. Experimental data showed that temper-
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 07:04 03 October 2014

ature, humidity, yarn tension, and yarn speed have significant effects on static generation; while temperature, humidity,
and yarn speed yielded statistically significant changes on static dissipation. Anomalous behavior of static charge when
measured at a temperature of 35◦ C, provided a meaningful clue to control the environmental conditions in the textile
industry.
Keywords: electrostatics; static charge generation; static charge dissipation; static charge measurement; coefficient of friction

Introduction fibers such as nylon or polyester are more hydrophobic

Low energy surfaces such as polymeric materials are char-
acterized by their tendency to collect electrostatic charge
when rubbed against themselves, other polymeric surfaces,
or metals (Ohara, Nakamura, & Kinoshita, 2001). Static
shock occurs when a relatively large charge is built up on
a person or a low surface energy material. Static charge
generated by friction may detract from the other properties
of textile products, for example, it may cause garments to
cling to the body resulting in discomfort and create poor
aesthetics and furthermore the charge attracts dust from
the air spoiling the appearance of garments. Static shock,
as a result of discharge, is commonly experienced, espe-
cially in dry conditions when walking on a carpet, touching
a door knob, and putting on or taking off clothes. This
can be a matter of life and death when a parachute fails
to open due to clinging as a result of static generation
or spark generation at a gas station that may cause fire
(Sweeney, 1955).
Static has been a major source of problems for the
textile industry as well as for consumers, and there is
often a possibility of static charge generation when fibers
are handled. During processing, fibers, yarns, or fabrics
are rubbed against guides, rollers, or tension devices and
this operation of contact and separation is frequently
repeated. The static problems in the textile industry have
become more serious with the greater adoption of synthetic
fibers and use of higher processing speeds. Synthetic
than natural fibers (like cotton and wool) and easier to
collect and maintain electrostatic charges for long time
(slow charge dissipation). Polyester is the most widely
used man-made fibers throughout the world and it has
bad reputation for generating and accumulating static
charges.
There is no universally agreed explanation regarding the
mechanism of static generation and dissipation and this is
in part due to the low reproducibility of tribo-electrification
experiments. According to Henry (1953), there are equilib-
rium effects and kinetic effects, and tribo-electrification is
caused by the combination of these two effects. Equilibrium
effects refer to charge transfer due to contact alone (with-
out any friction), while kinetic effect is associated with
a rubbing motion. Because kinetic motion creates many
possible variables such as rubbing asymmetry and charge
back flow, static experiments are difficult to control. Diaz
and Felix-Navarro (2004) pointed out that the contradic-
tions reported in the literature may be explained by the
complexity of measurement and the numerous parameters
affecting the static generation/dissipation such as chemical
composition, surface characteristics, nature of contact, and
experimental conditions. Additionally, the charge transfer
mechanism of insulators is still debatable. The contradiction
of results and the discrepancy between different methods
and devices are the reasons behind the current research be-
ing undertaken. It is believed that the combined effects of

∗
Corresponding author. Email: aseyam@tx.ncsu.edu
ISSN 0040-5000 print / ISSN 1754-2340 online
Copyright 
C 2010 The Textile Institute
DOI: 10.1080/00405000802377250
http://www.informaworld.com
 262 M. Suh et al.

advances in instrumentation, improved data acquisition sys-

tems, better control systems, implementation of predefined
and strictly controlled procedures provide the contempo-
rary tools needed to carry out research in the area of static
generation/dissipation of polymeric materials.
The overall goal of this research is to obtain a better
understanding of the mechanism of static generation and
dissipation on polymeric surfaces and to relate these find-
ings to the static charge issues in textile material processing.
In a previous publication (Seyam, Cai, & Oxenham, 2009),
we described newly developed devices for testing the elec-
trostatic generation/dissipation properties of polymer sur-
faces. These devices include a tester for assessing moving
yarns, a high-resistance system to measure the yarn’s lin-
ear resistance, a tester for evaluating stationary fabrics or
films while rubbing against a moving surface, and a con-
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 07:04 03 October 2014

tact charge tester for investigating charge generated by the

contact of two surfaces. The devices were designed us-
ing the latest electronic measurement equipment and auto-
matic data acquisition with noncontact sensors to avoid the
problems associated with the previously developed methods
(Seyam et al., 2009). This paper focuses on the influence Figure 1. Linear Tester.
of ambient conditions (temperature and relative humidity)
and processing parameters on the static charge generation
The yarn package was left in the environmental room
and dissipation on polyester multifilament yarn. The static
under desired temperature and relative humidity for at least
charge was generated by passing the yarn over a stainless
12 hr before running tests. Using the CCT controller, the
steel pin, which is the most commonly used material (for
yarn speed and tension were adjusted to the desired levels
yarn guides, tension devices, and feed and delivery rollers)
before testing. The angle of wrap of the yarn on the charg-
in processing and handling yarns. Our future papers will
ing pin was kept constant at 120◦ . Two voltmeters collect
address studies of static behavior in terms of fiber type,
potential signals from the first and second probes located
yarn type, and charge pin material.
25 mm and 420 mm away from the charge pin (Figure 2).
The data from the two probes were acquired at a sampling
rate of 100 data points/seconds for at least 15 s. Spectrum
Experimental analysis was done on the raw signals collected from the
Equipment potential probes. Potential signal and its periodogram are
The equipment used to generate and measure static gen- given in Figure 3, and it indicates that potential signals
eration and dissipation on yarns is known as a “Linear were fairly stable without any periodical peak. Therefore,
Tester” that is housed inside an environmental room. The
tester is shown in Figure 1. It consists of a CTT (con-
stant tension transport) machine, a charge pin, two potential
probes connected to two voltmeters, and a computer system
for automatically acquiring the output of the two potential
probes. The dimensions given in Figure 2 were used to
calculate charge generation on the yarn surface right after
the charge pin and the static dissipation. More details on
the Linear Tester can be found elsewhere (Seyam et al.,
2009).

Materials and test protocol

As mentioned earlier the material assessed is flat polyester
yarn with linear density of 1000 denier and comprised of
140 filaments. The yarn was supplied with a “commercial
finish” at 0.625%. Figure 2. Dimensions between charge pin and probes.
 The Journal of The Textile Institute
Figure 3. Potential signal and periodogram.
the average over the signals was selected to represent the
potential signal observed during 15 s.
Experimental design
Full experimental design was utilized to reveal the influ-
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 07:04 03 October 2014
ence of independent parameters on the measured responses
and this is shown in Table 1. The temperature and relative
humidity levels were selected to include a broad range of
environmental conditions, including those used in industry,
and standard atmospheric conditions were also included.
Two environmental conditions (21◦ C, 30% relative humid-
ity [RH] and 25◦ C, 30% RH) were excluded because rel-
ative humidity as low as 30% was not attainable with the
low temperatures (21◦ C and 25◦ C).
Friction measurements
Yarn friction is known to vary with yarn speed, yarn tension,
and ambient conditions (Nikonova, Pakshver, & Yagudina,
1971). The frictional forces between the charge pin and
the moving yarn influence the nature of contact between
the two surfaces and consequently impact the static charge
behavior. The incoming tension (tension before the charge
pin) is a controlled parameter, as seen from Table 1. The
output tension (tension after the charge pin) varies as a result
of change in the coefficient of friction between the yarn and
the charge pin. The coefficient of friction was determined by
measuring the incoming and output tensions using a digital
tension meter. Equation (1) was implemented to determine
the coefficient of friction (Morton & Hearle, 1997).
T2
eµθ = (1)
T1
where µ, coefficient of friction; θ , angle of contact (rad);
T1 incoming tension (gf); T2 , output tension (gf).
Table 1. Design of experiments.
Parameters Levels
Temperature (◦ C) 21, 25, 30, 35
Humidity (%) 30, 40, 50, 65
Yarn tension (gf) 50, 75, 100, 150
Yarn speed (m/min) 10, 50, 100, 300
263
Calculation of responses
The responses of interest in this study are the initial poten-
tial (the charge generated on the yarn right after the yarn
separates from the charge pin) and characteristic decay time
(defined as the time needed for the potential to reduce to
the 1/e of initial potential). Equation (2) was utilized for
deducing the initial potential and the characteristic decay
time. The equation was derived empirically to express the
residual potential on a charged surface after certain time
in terms of the initial potential and time (Taylor & Secker,
1994).
Vt = V0 × e− t ∗ .
t
(2)
In Equation (2), Vt is the potential at time t (V), V0
is the initial potential (V), t is time at certain point (s),
and t ∗ is the characteristic decay time (s). With two poten-
tial measurements along the moving yarn, and values for
the yarn speed and the dimensions between the charge pin
and the two probes (Figures 1 and 2), V0 and t∗ can be
determined.
It is thought that the ratio Vt /V0 (residual potential) in
terms of t provides a standard value by which different runs
can be fairly compared. Equation (3) expresses the residual
potential in terms of time.
Vt
× 100 = e− t ∗ × 100.
t
(3)
V0
ANOVA using SAS 9.1 software was used to assess
whether the responses (initial potential and decay time)
are significantly impacted by the controlled parameters
and their interactions. For further investigation, multiple
mean comparison analyses were conducted using Scheffe’s
method.
Results
Static generation (initial potential)
ANOVA analysis for the initial potential as a response is
shown in Tables 2 and 3. Some data were excluded from the
analysis because there was no charge generated with 10 m/
min yarn speed, and the measured charge increased with
time at 35◦ C temperature (which obviously would result
 264 M. Suh et al.

Table 2. Overall ANOVA of initial potential.

Source DF Sum of squares Mean square F-value Pr > F

Model 45 16, 601, 649.45 368, 925.54 58.99 <0.0001

Error 73 456, 528.93 6, 253.82
Corrected 118 17, 058, 178.38
Total

DF, degree of freedom. Pr > F, probability greater than F-value.

in conditions for using Equation (2) to be invalid). As can

be seen from Table 3, all independent parameters and first-
order interactions have significant influence on the initial
charge.
Figures 4–7 show graphical representations of the re-
Figure 4. Effect of temperature on initial potential.
sults of static generation represented by initial charge. The
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 07:04 03 October 2014

effect of temperature on initial potential or charge is shown

in Figure 4. In general, the initial potential decreased as
temperature went up. There is no significant difference be-
tween temperatures of 21◦ C and 25◦ C. However, the initial
potential at 30◦ C was significantly lower. This tendency is
also supported by Scheffe’s multiple mean comparison. The
data generated by conducting Scheffe’s analysis is published
elsewhere (Suh, 2008).
It must be emphasized that the effect of temperature
is confounded by the effect of humidity because, theo-
retically, the amount of moisture existing in the air is
more under higher temperature than lower temperature at
a given relative humidity. In general, potential fell down
as humidity increased (Figure 5). The fact that high hu-
midity reduced the static generation was clearly distin-
guished and this is in agreement with previous works
(Abdurakhmanova, Dzhalilov, & Tushkova, 1987; Coletti,
Guastavino, & Torello, 2003; Guastavino, Coletti, Dardano,
& Torello, 2004).
Figure 6 shows the effect of yarn tension on initial po-
tential at different temperature, humidity, and speed. The
yarn tension and its interactions with temperature, humid-
ity, and yarn speed can be seen clearly from the graphs
of Figure 6. Higher yarn tension resulted in more po-
tential, and the magnitude of this effect was systemati-
cally influenced by the temperature, humidity, and speed.
Effect of yarn tension was more pronounced when tem-
perature and humidity were lower, and yarn speed was
higher.
These findings are supported by previous work. Contact
area is known to be proportional to the normal contact force
(Morton & Hearle, 1997). Increase in yarn tension enlarged
the contact area between the charge pin and the yarn due to
yarn flattening as a result of spreading the filaments on the
charge pin. Minor flattening of individual filament may also
have taken place by increase in tension. The degree of yarn
flattening increases with yarn tension. Increased contact
area gives the yarn more chance to exchange charges since
more charge sites are available to change electrons between
the two surfaces (yarn and charge pin). Elsdon and Mitchell
(1976), who worked on charge of polymeric surfaces, found
that transferred charge was proportional to the real area of
contact and the normal force.

Table 3. ANOVA Type III error of initial potential.

Source DF Type III SS Mean square F-value Pr > F

Temperature 2 1, 772, 779.175 886, 389.588 141.74 <0.0001

Humidity 3 2, 181, 573.892 727, 191.297 116.28 <0.0001
Tension 3 6, 849, 127.224 2, 283, 042.408 365.06 <0.0001
Speed 2 3, 834, 316.491 1, 917, 158.246 306.56 <0.0001
Temperature × humidity 4 440, 107.719 110, 026.930 17.59 <0.0001
Tension × speed 6 482, 982.508 80, 497.085 12.87 <0.0001
Temperature × tension 6 435, 044.461 72, 507.410 11.59 <0.0001
Temperature × speed 4 86, 706.806 21, 676.701 3.47 0.0120
Humidity × tension 9 354, 613.248 39, 401.472 6.30 <0.0001
Humidity × speed 6 164, 397.924 27, 399.654 4.38 0.0008

SS, sum of square.

 The Journal of The Textile Institute
Figure 5. Effect of humidity on initial potential.
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 07:04 03 October 2014
Initial potential increased with yarn speed, and there
were interactions with temperature, humidity, and yarn
tension. The effect of yarn speed was larger at the low tem-
perature and humidity and smaller at the high temperature
and humidity (Figure 7). Also, the initial charge was larger
with high tension, and smaller with low tension (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Effect of yarn tension on initial potential and interactions.
265
The effect of yarn speed could be explained by the frictional
behavior between the yarn and the charge pin. Increasing
friction coefficient depends on yarn speed. The trends of
the effect of speed on friction coefficient and the effect
of speed on initial potential are very similar (Figure 8),
and their correlation is shown in Figure 9.
 266 M. Suh et al.

Figure 7. Effect of yarn speed on initial potential and interactions.

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 07:04 03 October 2014

Figure 8. Friction coefficient at different yarn speeds.

Static dissipation
Statistical analysis of static dissipation measured by the
characteristic decay time is shown in Tables 4 and 5. Figure 9. Friction coefficient and potential.
ANOVA results for the decay time indicate that the tem-
perature, humidity, and speed have significant effect on the
decay time. Additionally, the first-order interactions temper-
ature × humidity and humidity × tension have significant
influence on the decay time.
Figures 10–14 show graphical presentation of the re-
sults of static dissipation. Figures 10 and 12–14 were
plotted using data generated by Equation (3) after de-
termining the initial charge and the characteristic time
using the average measurements from the two probes.

Table 4. Overall ANOVA of decay time.

Source DF Sum of squares Mean square F-value Pr > F

Model 45 37.35549421 0.83012209 16.17 <0.0001

Error 73 3.74798468 0.05134226
Corrected 118 41.10347889
Total
Figure 10. Effect of temperature on decay time.
 The Journal of The Textile Institute 267

Table 5. ANOVA Type III error of decay time.

Source DF Type III SS Mean square F-value Pr > F

Temperature 2 1.38034473 0.69017237 13.44 <0.0001

Humidity 3 1.67846046 0.55948682 10.90 <0.0001
Tension 3 0.13511829 0.04503943 0.88 0.4570
Speed 2 17.51274489 8.75637245 170.55 <0.0001
Temperature × humidity 4 2.64484017 0.66121004 12.88 <0.0001
Tension × speed 6 0.13550374 0.02258396 0.44 0.8498
Temperature × tension 6 0.14937032 0.02489505 0.48 0.8176
Temperature × speed 4 0.23652580 0.05913145 1.15 0.3393
Humidity × tension 9 0.54497517 0.06055280 1.18 0.3210
Humidity × speed 6 3.44591429 0.57431905 11.19 <0.0001

SS, sum of square.

35◦ C. Higher voltages were observed at the second probe

than those at the first probe, which meant potential did not
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 07:04 03 October 2014

decrease with time but increased. It was thought that the

Figure 11. Steady yarn observation from second probe.
The effect of temperature on decay time was signif-
icant, but not gradual. Generally, decay time was the
longest at 25◦ C, and shortest at 30◦ C (Figure 10).
However, charge decay behavior did not follow the trend at
runs with this temperature are related to hidden reason. The
runs were repeated twice at different times and the results
were consistently same. Figure 11 resulted from the data
(acquired by a second probe) generated at different speeds
with constant temperature and relative humidity (35◦ C and
50%) in order to check the decay behavior trend of a stopped
yarn. Observation on the stationary yarn (Figure 11)
indicated that the charge decayed with time as expected.
It seems that at temperature of 35◦ C the moving yarn is
charged as a result of contacting the surrounding air. Fur-
ther investigation is required to understand such unexpected
behavior.
The effect of temperature is also confounded by the
effect of humidity for static dissipation. Generally, decay
time was the shortest at 30% RH, but there was no sig-
nificant difference between 40% RH and 50% RH (Fig-
ure 12) and Schefffe’s analysis supports these facts. The
data of Scheffe’s analysis is published elsewhere (Suh,
2008).

Figure 12. Effect of humidity on decay time.

 268 M. Suh et al.
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 07:04 03 October 2014
Figure 13. Effect of yarn tension on decay time.
Figure 14. Effect of yarn speed on decay time.
Figure 13 shows that yarn tension did not have any
effect on decay time. It can be assumed that tension applied
to the yarn enlarged the contact area between the yarn and
a charge pin, generating more static charge, but it lost its
effect soon after the yarn left the pin. Larger yarn area due
to flattening is subjected to larger surrounding environment
and the rate of charge loss is larger than the unflattened
yarn. The percentage of potential retained on the yarn to
the initial potential remained the same regardless of the
yarn tension level.
It took approximately 1 s for the yarn moving with
300 m/min to loose charges completely, and characteristic
decay time was shorter than 0.5 s (Figure 14). Decay time
was shorter when the yarn was moving faster, and this meant
static charge decayed faster. The effect of yarn speed for
static generation seems to be only caused by the change in
contact between a yarn and the surrounding air. This indi-
cates that static charge was diffused effectively throughout
the air as the yarn ran faster. This is a point that obviously
warrants further investigation, but was beyond the scope of
the current research.
Conclusion
Polyester multifilament yarn with linear density of 1000
denier (g/9 km) and 140 filament was rubbed against a
stainless steel charge pin in order to investigate static gen-
eration and dissipation on the yarn surface while moving.
The Linear Tester enabled the acquisition of charge po-
tential measurements at two different points so that initial
potential and characteristic decay time can be calculated.
Statistical analyses were conducted on the initial potential
and decay time for studying effect of temperature, rela-
tive humidity, yarn tension, and speed and their first-order
interactions.
For static generation, temperature, humidity, yarn ten-
sion, and speed, had significant effects on initial potential.
Higher temperature and humidity led to less charge gen-
eration, while higher yarn tension and speed caused more
charge generation. The effect of yarn tension was caused
by the increased contact area between the sample yarn and
the charge pin. As yarn speed went up, more static charge
was created due to increased friction between the yarn and
charge pin.
For static dissipation, temperature, humidity, and yarn
speed, were proved to have significant effects on decay time.
Longer decay time was observed in the middle level of tem-
perature (25◦ C) and humidity (40% RH and 50% RH). Un-
expectedly, yarns experienced negative decay times (charge
at the second probe is higher than the charge at the first
probe) at 35◦ C. This implies that high temperature around
35◦ C should be avoided. In practice, this temperature level
may be reached as a result of friction between yarn and
different machine parts especially when processing at high
speed for long time. This work suggests that yarn should
not reach such temperature.
Yarn speed affected static dissipation, and this effect
is potentially due to the contact between the yarn and the
surrounding air. More investigation would be necessary for
exact explanation, but this has obvious implications for
industry.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by National Textile Center and the State of
North Carolina. The authors would like to thank Dr Peter Castle of
Western Ontario University, Canada for his invaluable discussion
and suggestions. Additionally, the authors extend their thanks to
Dr Yiyun Cai of USDA and Lu Liu of NCSU for training Miny-
oung Suh on the use of the equipment.
References
Abdurakhmanova, Sh. G., Dzhalilov, Sh. S., & Tushkova, R. Ya.
(1987). Use of calcium salts as antistatic preparations. Fibre
Chemistry, 18(4), 274–275.
 The Journal of The Textile Institute
Coletti, G., Guastavino, F., & Torello, E. (2003). A Comparison
Between the Static Performances of Two Different Families of
Composite Dielectric Fabrics Used in ESD Protective Cloth-
ing (pp. 100–103). Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on
Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena.
Diaz, A.F., & Felix-Navarro, R.M. (2004). A semi-quantitative
tribo-electric series for polymeric materials: The influence of
chemical structure and properties. Journal of Electrostatics,
62(4), 277–290.
Elsdon, R., & Mitchell, F.R.G. (1976). Contact electrification of
polymers. Journal of Physics, Part D: Applied Physics, 9,
1445–1460.
Guastavino, F., Coletti, G., Dardano, A., & Torello, E. (2004).
Some Experiments About the Triboelectric Performances
of Composite Textiles (pp. 85–88). Proceedings of the
2004 Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric
Phenomena.
Henry, P.S.H. (1953). The role of asymmetric rubbing in the gen-
eration of static electricity. British Journal of Applied Physics,
4(2), S31–S36.
Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 07:04 03 October 2014
269
Morton, W.E., & Hearle, J.W.S. (1997). Physical properties of
textile fibres. Bath: The Textile Institute.
Nikonova, E.A., Pakshver, A.B., & Yagudina, R.S. (1971). The
frictional and electrostatic properties of synthetic fibres. Fibre
Chemistry, 2(3), 253–256.
Ohara, K., Nakamura, I., & Kinoshita, M. (2001). Frictional elec-
trification between flat surfaces of polymers and of Langmuir–
Blodgett layers. Journal of Electrostatics, 51–52, 351–358.
Seyam, A.M., Cai, Y., & Oxenham, W. (2009). Devices for mea-
suring electrostatic generation and dissipation on the surfaces
of polymeric materials. Journal of Textile Institute, 100(4),
338–349.
Suh, M. (2008). Static generation and dissipation on textiles. Un-
published master’s thesis, Raleigh, NC, North Carolina State
University.
Sweeney, J. (1955). Evaluation of antistatic agents on nylon
parachute cloth. Wright Air Development Center Technical
Report, 54(513), 1–64.
Taylor, D.M., & Secker, P.E. (1994). Industrial electrostatics: Fun-
damentals and measurements. New York: John Wiley & Sons.