ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effect of weave, structural parameters and ultraviolet absorbers on

in vitro protection factor of bleached cotton woven fabrics
Abhijit Majumdar, Vijay Kumar Kothari, Achintya Kumar Mondal & Piyali Hatua
Department of Textile Technology, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India

Summary

Key words: Introduction: The weave, fabric cover, areal density and ultraviolet (UV) absorbers are some of
cotton fabrics; fabric cover; ultraviolet the factors which influence the ultraviolet protection factor (UPF) of cotton fabrics. It will be
protection; UV absorbers; weave of interest to know whether fabric cover or fabric areal density is a better predictor of cotton
fabric UPF. It will also be of interest to know whether the UV absorbers are equally effective
Correspondence: for all kinds of cotton fabric.
Dr Abhijit Majumdar, Indian Institute of Objectives: To understand the role of weave, fabric cover, areal density and UV absorbers on
Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110016 the UPF of cotton fabrics. To establish quantitative relationships between the fabric cover,
Delhi, India. areal density and UPF for cotton fabrics.
Tel: +91 11 26591405 Methods: Sixty-four woven fabrics were manufactured using different weaves, cotton yarn
Fax: +91 11 26581103 count and picks per centimetre values. Nonlinear regression models were developed to relate
e-mail: abhitextile@rediffmail.com the fabric cover and areal density with the UPF. The role of UV absorbers at different levels
of cover has been analysed.
Accepted for publication: Results: In case of bleached cotton fabrics woven with 40 Ne warp yarn count, 40 ends per
21 September 2011 cm, different weft yarn count (20–40 Ne) and picks per centimetre (15–27), weave does not
have a statistically significant effect on the UPF. Fabric areal density is a better predictor of
Conflicts of interest: UPF than the fabric cover.The UV absorbers are more effective when the fabric cover is high.
None declared. Conclusions: The developed equations relating fabric cover and UPF can be used as a primary
guideline while selecting fabrics for UV protection.

S kin cancer is one of the most prevalent forms of cancer. More

than 1 million cases of basal cell and squamous cell skin cancer
and around 50 000 cases of melanoma were expected to be newly
diagnosed in 2007 (1).The main reason of skin cancer is excessive
exposure to solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation as a result of too much
time spent under the sun.Athletes of outdoor sports such as skiing,
mountaineering, cycling or triathlon receive considerable doses of
solar UV radiation during training and competition and, there-
fore, they are highly susceptible to skin cancer (2).The exposure of
children to direct sunlight is even more dangerous as the protec-
tion system of human skin develops up to the age of 15. Ozone
depletion in the earth’s atmosphere has aggravated the problem of
solar UV radiation. The extraterrestrial solar spectrum contains
UVC (100 nm to 280 nm), UVB (280 nm to 315 nm) and UVA
(315 nm to 400 nm) radiation. However, UVC cannot reach the
earth as it is absorbed by the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere
if there is no ozone depletion.
Textiles and sunscreens are the two most popular and conven-
ient means to protect human bodies from solar UV radiation
(3, 4). UV protection ability of a textile fabric is expressed by the
ultraviolet protection factor (UPF). There are two ways to deter-
mine the UPF of textiles namely in vitro and in vivo. In vitro method is
based on spectrophotometric measurement of UV transmission
thorough fabrics and the UPF calculation is done by using two
weighting factors namely solar spectral irradiance and erythemal
effectiveness. In contrast, in vivo method is based on living subjects
and the UPF calculation is done based on the minimal erythemal
dose with and without textiles (5). Although the results of in vitro
testing often differs with that of in vivo testing (6–11), the former
is less time consuming, easy and cost-effective.A fabric having UPF
more than 40 is considered to give excellent protection against
solar UV radiation (AS/NZ 4399: 1996), whereas a value between
25 and 40 is considered to be very good. Unfortunately, some of
the summer clothing does not even provide good protection (UPF
less than 15) against UV radiation (12, 13).
UPF of textile fabrics is strongly dependent on the chemical
nature of the fibres (14–16). Natural fibres like cotton, silk and
wool have lower level of UV absorption capability than synthetic
fibres like polyester as the latter has conjugate structure. Fabric
cover %, weight or areal density and thickness are the important
structural parameters which influence the UPF of fabrics (17–23).
Fabric cover indicates the percentage of fabric area which is
actually covered by the constituent yarns. High cover and areal
density of fabrics facilitates the blocking and absorption of inci-
dent UV rays. Darker shades (black, navy blue) absorb large
amount of UV radiation resulting in good protection (24–26).
Application of UV absorbers (Rayosan C,Thiotan R,Tinuvin, etc.)
and UV blocking agents (TiO2, ZnO) also improve the UPF of

58 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S

Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine 2012, 28, 58–67
 Effect of weave and structural parameters on UPF

x x O x x O O x O O x x
O x x O x x O O x x O O x x
x O O x x x O x x O x x O O
x x x O x x O O x x O O

Plain weave 3×1 twill weave 2×2 twill weave 2×2 matt weave Fig. 1. Different weaves for cotton fabrics.

fabrics significantly (27–29). Stretching reduces the UPF of the Table 1. Sample preparation details
fabric during wear, as the effective fabric cover % is reduced (30).
Level of
Wetting, washing and laundering of fabrics also influence the UPF
Parameter parameter Details
of fabrics (31, 32). Most of the reported literature deal with fabrics
taken from the market and, therefore, the difference in manufac- Weave 4 Plain, 3 ¥ 1 Twill, 2 ¥ 2 Twill
turing process can not be ruled out. The quantitative analysis on and 2 ¥ 2 matt
Weft count (Ne) 4 20, 25, 30 and 40
the role of various structural parameters of fabrics is also lacking. Picks per cm 4 15, 19, 23 and 27
In this work, an attempt has been made to systematically
investigate the influence of weave, weft yarn linear density or
count, number of weft yarns per centimetre, fabric cover %, areal
density (g/m2) and UV protective finish on the UPF of woven absorbers, the fabric samples were treated with 4% Thiotan R
paste (Clariant Chemicals Ltd, Thane, India) following the pro-
fabrics. Predictive equations have been developed to predict the
cedure stated by the manufacturer.
UPF of bleached cotton fabrics from cover % and areal density.

Materials and methods
Fabric sample preparation
A woven fabric is made up of two groups of orthogonal (mutu-
ally perpendicular) yarns. The longitudinal yarns are termed as
warp (singular: end) and transverse yarns are termed as weft
(singular: pick). In this study 100% cotton yarns were used in
both directions for the sample preparation using a modern airjet
loom. Four different linear densities (count) of yarn were used in
the weft (20, 25, 30 and 40 Ne). Ne is the unit of yarn count,
which indicates the number of hanks (840 yd) that can be pro-
duced from 1 lb of yarn. Higher Ne value indicates lower yarn
diameter and vice versa.The cotton yarn diameter and yarn count
(Ne) are approximately related by the following expression (33).
2.54
Yarn diamater ( cm ) =
28 Ne
The relative closeness of the yarns in the fabric is expressed in
terms of ends per centimetre (for longitudinal yarns) and picks
per centimetre (for transverse yarns). Woven fabric samples of
different weaves, namely plain, 3 ¥ 1 twill, 2 ¥ 2 twill and 2 ¥ 2
matt were prepared using four levels of picks per centimetre (15,
19, 23 and 27) in the fabric. Warp yarn count (40 Ne) and ends
per centimetre (40) were the same for all the fabric samples.
Testing of samples
All the fabric samples were tested for their ends and picks per
centimetre value using pick counting glass. For measuring the
flattened diameter, yarns were unravelled from the fabric, and
their diameter was measured under the Projectina microscope
(Projectina, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) with 100 ¥ magnification.
Fabric cover % was calculated using the following expression
(33).
Fabric cover % = [ d1n1 + d2 n2 - d1d2 n1n2 ]100 (2)
where d1 and d2 are the warp and weft yarn diameter (cm),
respectively, and n1 and n2 are ends per centimetre and picks per
centimetre values, respectively.
The detailed results of calculated yarn diameter, flattened yarn
diameter, fabric cover % and areal density have been presented in
Table 2.The in vitro UPF of the fabrics was measured by American
(1)
Association of Textile Chemist and Colorists (AATCC) 183–1998
method by SDL measurement system after conditioning the
samples in standard conditions.The test was performed by expos-
ing the fabric to UV radiation (280 nm to 400 nm) and meas-
uring the transmission through the fabric. The instrument takes
three readings from a sample in three different directions. The
expression for the calculation of UPF is as follows (34).
400

Weave indicates the pattern of interlacement between warp and ∑ E S Δλ λ λ

weft yarns. The schematic representation of different weaves is UPF = λ =280

400
(3)
shown in Fig. 1.The ‘x’ indicates that the longitudinal yarn or end ∑ E S T Δλ
λ =280
λ λ λ

is passing over the transverse yarn or pick. The ‘O’ signifies that
the pick is passing over the end. The scheme of sample prepara- where El is solar spectral irradiance [W m-2 nm-1], Sl is relative
tion is shown in Table 1. The grey fabric samples were finally erythemal spectral effectiveness, Dl is measured wavelength inter-
scoured, bleached and calendered. To study the effect of UV val [nm] and Tl is average spectral transmittance of the specimen.

© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S 59

Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine 2012, 28, 58–67
Majumdar et al.

According to the AATCC standard, the rated UPF is the lowest
value of measured UPF rounded to the nearest multiple of 5.
However, the exact UPF values obtained from the equipment
have been used in this research so that the influence of various
parameters can be understood properly.
Results and discussion
Effect of weave on UPF
the UPF of fabrics at different levels of picks per centimetre value
for 20, 25, 30 and 40 Ne weft yarns. In general, for a given value
of picks per centimetre, the UPF does not vary much with the
weave. This is due to the fact that UPF is primarily influenced by
the fabric cover which remains almost at the same level, for
different weave, as the fabric construction parameters are same.
The UPF values are very close for all the weaves for picks per
centimetre values of 15, 19 and 23. Statistical analysis has been
done subsequently to verify the significance of weave on the UPF.

The UPF values of fabrics for different weaves, peaks per centi-
Effect of picks per centimetre and weft yarn count on UPF
metre and weft count are shown in Table 3. The calculated UPF
values based on Equation 4 are also shown in Table 3 within Figure 6 depicts the influence of pick density and weft yarn
parenthesis. Figures 2–5 show the effect of different weaves on count on UPF of plain woven fabrics. It is observed that the UPF
increases as the picks per centimetre value increases, irrespective
of weft yarn count. A similar observation has been made from
Table 2. Detailed fabric parameters for plain woven fabrics Fig. 7 for 3/1 twill weave also. Figures 6 and 7 also show that for
a given level of picks per centimetre, UPF is maximum for 20 Ne
Weft Calculated Flattened Fabric Areal weft count followed by 25 Ne, 30 Ne and 40 Ne. This is quite
count pick diameter pick diameter Picks/ cover density
obvious because increase in picks per centimetre and weft yarn
(Ne) (cm) (cm) cm (%) (g/m2)
diameter (lower value of Ne) lead to higher fabric cover and areal
20 0.0203 0.0263 15 76.1 108.7 density resulting in higher UV radiation protection. It is also
19 81.7 124.0 observed that as the yarn count changes from 25 Ne to 20 Ne, the
23 86.1 139.5
27 89.9 153.9
corresponding change in UPF occurs very rapidly, and the effect
25 0.0181 0.0233 15 76.2 104.4 is very prominent when picks per centimetre value is 27. Similar
19 79.5 112.8 observations have also been made for 2 ¥ 2 twill and 2 ¥ 2 matt
23 84.2 123.4 weaves. This is due to the fact that the cover % of the fabric is
27 87.2 133.9 attaining the highest value when the yarn diameter is maximum
30 0.0166 0.0216 15 74.6 97.1
19 77.6 105.1
(20 Ne) and picks per centimetre value is also maximum (27).
23 81.5 114.1 The theoretical UPF value of fabrics made by complete opaque
27 84.6 123.6 yarns is expressed by the following equation (35).
40 0.0143 0.0191 15 72.9 89.0
19 75.8 95.2 100
23 79.5 102.1 UPF = (4)
100 − Fabric cover %
27 82.3 109.5

Table 3. UPF of cotton fabrics at different levels of weft count and picks per centimetre

Weft count

Weave Picks/cm 20 Ne 25 Ne 30 Ne 40 Ne

Plain 15 13.1 (3.9) 13.8 (4.0) 10.6 (3.7) 9.7 (3.4)

19 26.9 (4.8) 18.7 (4.5) 12.1 (4.0) 12.7 (3.6)
23 42.3 (5.9) 23.3 (5.6) 19.0 (4.7) 14.7 (4.1)
27 68.3 (7.4) 30.8 (6.6) 22.6 (5.4) 17.8 (4.5)
3 ¥ 1 Twill 15 17.8 (4.0) 15.5 (4.1) 11.4 (4.0) 10.8 (4.1)
19 26.1 (4.6) 22.9 (4.7) 17.4 (4.6) 12.3 (4.7)
23 45.2 (5.3) 32.6 (5.5) 24.0 (5.3) 16.5 (5.5)
27 79.2 (6.7) 54.6 (6.3) 29.0 (6.7) 19.6 (6.3)
2 ¥ 2 Twill 15 15.0 (4.1) 13.6 (3.8) 11.0 (3.5) 8.5 (3.1)
19 22.1 (4.8) 16.7 (4.4) 15.3 (4.0) 11.6 (3.5)
23 35.6 (5.7) 24.1 (5.1) 21.7 (4.4) 14.6 (3.9)
27 60.7 (7.2) 32.1 (6.1) 27.2 (5.2) 17.7 (4.4)
2 ¥ 2 Matt 15 16.0 (4.0) 15.7 (3.8) 11.5 (3.7) 10.0 (3.4)
19 19.8 (4.6) 16.7 (4.5) 15.6 (4.2) 10.2 (3.6)
23 33.5 (5.5) 21.4 (5.1) 16.8 (4.7) 13.7 (4.0)
27 40.0 (6.9) 26.0 (6.1) 21.3 (5.2) 14.8 (4.3)

Values in parentheses are calculated UPF based on Equation 4.

60 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S

Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine 2012, 28, 58–67
 Effect of weave and structural parameters on UPF

90

75

60
UPF

45

30

15

0
11 15 19 23 27
Picks/cm
Fig. 2. Effect of weave on ultraviolet
Plain 3×1 Twill 2×2 Twill 2×2 Matt
protection factor (UPF) for 20 Ne yarn.

70

60

50

40
UPF

30

20

10

0
11 15 19 23 27
Picks/cm
Fig. 3. Effect of weave on ultraviolet
Plain 3×1 Twill 2×2 Twill 2×2 Matt
protection factor (UPF) for 25 Ne yarn.

40

30
UPF

20

10

0
11 15 19 23 27
Picks/cm
Fig. 4. Effect of weave on ultraviolet
Plain 3×1 Twill 2×2 Twill 2×2 Matt
protection factor (UPF) for 30 Ne yarn.

© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S 61

Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine 2012, 28, 58–67
Majumdar et al.

30

25

20

UPF
15

10

0
11 15 19 23 27
Picks/cm
Fig. 5. Effect of weave on ultraviolet
Plain 3×1 Twill 2×2 Twill 2×2 Matt
protection factor (UPF) for 40 Ne yarn

90

75

60
UPF

45

30

15

0
11 15 19 23 27 31

Fig. 6. Effect of picks per centimetre and

Picks/ cm
weft count on ultraviolet protection factor
20 Ne 25 Ne 30 Ne 40 Ne
(UPF) of plain fabrics.

90

75

60
UPF

45

30

15

0
11 15 19 23 27 31

Fig. 7. Effect of picks per centimetre and

Picks/ cm
weft count on ultraviolet protection factor
20 Ne 25 Ne 30 Ne 40 Ne
(UPF) of 3 ¥ 1 twill fabrics.

62 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S

Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine 2012, 28, 58–67
 Effect of weave and structural parameters on UPF

Table 4. ANOVA for weave and yarn count (picks per cm = 27) Table 7. Tabulated F and calculated F at 0.01 significant level

Sum of Degrees Mean of Parameter Value of F from table F calculated

Sources of variation squares of freedom square F
Weave F3, 9, 0.01 =7 2.95
Between weaves 806.23 3 268.74 4.37 Picks per cm F3, 9, 0.01 =7 31.23
Between counts 4547.29 3 1515.76 24.63
Residual (error) 553.82 9 61.54
Total 5907.30 15
can be inferred that the effect of picks per centimetre on UPF is
statistically significant (P < 0.01). Similar observations were
Table 5. Tabulated and calculated F values at 0.01 significant level
made when the analysis was done for the weft counts of 25, 30
and 40 Ne also.
Tabulated Calculated
Parameter F values F values
Effect of fabric cover % on UPF
Weave F3, 9, 0.01 =7 4.37
Weft count F3, 9, 0.01 = 7 24.63 Figure 8 shows the effect of fabric cover % on measured UPF of
all the 64 fabrics. Exponential incriment of UPF has been
observed with the increase of fabric cover %. For plain, 3 ¥ 1
twill, 2 ¥ 2 twill and 2 ¥ 2 matt weaves, the following relation-
Table 6. ANOVA table for weave and picks per centimetre (weft
ships were obtained between fabric cover % and UPF:
count = 20 Ne)

Sum of Degree of Mean of Plain UPF = 0.0054e0.1048x [ R 2 = 0.875]

Sources of variation squares freedom square F

Between weaves 475.37 3 158.46 2.95

Between picks per cm 5025.83 3 1675.28 31.23 3 ×1 Twill UPF = 0.0009e0.13x [ R 2 = 0.913]
Residual (error) 482.81 9 53.65
Total 5984.0 15

2 × 2 Twill UPF = 0.0087e0.0998x [R 2 = 0.952]

From the Equation 4, it is understandable that UPF changes very

rapidly when the fabric cover reaches near 100. The change in
fabric cover % from 70 to 75 will change the UPF from 3.3 to 4.
However, the change in fabric cover from 90 to 95 will change
the UPF from 10 to 20.
Statistical analysis with ANOVA
To analyse the effect of weave, picks per centimetre and weft
count on UPF, two-way ANOVA tests were conducted. The first
ANOVA was formulated to analyse the statistical significance of
weave and weft count on UPF for a constant picks per centi-
metre value of 27. The results are shown in Table 4 and Table 5.
For the weave, the tabulated F value is much higher than cal-
culated F value. Therefore, it can be inferred that the effect of
weave on UPF is insignificant for picks per centimetre value of
27. However, for weft yarn count, tabulated F value is less than
the calculated F value, implying that weft yarn count has a
significant influence on UPF (P < 0.01). Similar results were
obtained for the picks per centimetre values of 15, 19 and 23
also.
The second ANOVA was formulated to analyse the statistical
significance of picks per centimetre value on UPF for a constant
weft yarn count of 20 Ne. The results are shown in Table 6 and
Table 7. It is observed, again, that the effect of weave on UPF is
statistically insignificant. However, for picks per centimetre, the
tabulated F value is less than the calculated F value. Therefore, it
2 × 2 matt UPF = 0.0174e0.0892x [ R 2 = 0.899]
The overall relationship between fabric cover and UPF was deter-
mined using the results of 64 fabrics as given below.
UPF = 0.0054e0.1056 x [ R 2 = 0.865]
The above relationship holds quiet good up to fabric cover of
80%. However, beyond that value of fabric cover, the UPF seems
to be rather unpredictable from the best fit equation. This can be
attributed to the fact that when fabric cover becomes very high,
the UV transmittance becomes very low as the macropores are
reduced. This low level of transmittance may lead to higher level
of measurement error. Even little variation in the test sample may
lead to very high deviation of UPF. Figure 8 also shows the effect
of fabric cover % on the calculated UPF of fabrics. It is observed
that calculated values are far apart from the measured values
which implies that Equation 4 does not hold well in practice for
predicting UPF of fabrics.
Effect of fabric areal density on UPF
Figure 9 depicts the effect of fabric areal density or weight
(g/m2) on UPF of all the 64 fabrics. As the areal density of fabric

© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S 63

Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine 2012, 28, 58–67
Majumdar et al.

90
y = 0.0054e
0.1056x Measured Calculated
80
2
R = 0.865
70
60
50

UPF
40
30
20
10
0
Fig. 8. Effect of fabric cover % on measured 65 70 75 80 85 90
and calculated ultraviolet protection factor
(UPF) of fabrics. Fabric cover (%)

90
80 y = e0.0258x
2
70 R = 0.891
60
50
UPF

40
30
20
10
0
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Fig. 9. Effect of areal density on ultraviolet
protection factor (UPF) of fabrics. Area density (g/sq. m)

increases, the UPF also increases exponentially due to higher UV signifies that the relationship between the UPF and fabric areal
blockage and absorption. The equations relating the fabric areal density is independent of the weave. The overall relationship
density (x) and UPF are given below. between fabric areal density and UPF is found to be as follows.

Plain UPF = e0.0258x [ R 2 = 0.942]

UPF = e0.0258x [ R 2 = 0.891]

3 ×1 Twill UPF = e0.0273x [ R 2 = 0.936]
2 × 2 Twill UPF = e0.0257x [ R 2 = 0.948]
2 × 2 Matt UPF = e0.0246 x [ R 2 = 0.954]
It is interesting to note that the coefficients of all four
equations lie within a very small range (0.0246–0.0273). This
From Fig. 9, it can be seen that the best fit equation is able to
predict the UPF value of the fabrics quite efficiently up to fabric
areal density of 135 g/m2. However, beyond the fabric areal
density of 135 g/m2, the UPF shows high variability. From the
values of coefficient of regression (R2), it can be inferred that, in
general, fabric areal density is a better predictor of UPF than
fabric cover % as the former yields better values than the latter.
This is probably due to the fact that fabric cover, which indicates
the % of fabric area covered by the yarns, refers to a woven fabric
in two-dimensional formations. However, areal density considers
the fabric in three-dimensional formations by incorporating the
thickness. For a given level of cover %, the ratio of yarn diameter

64 © 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S

Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine 2012, 28, 58–67
 Effect of weave and structural parameters on UPF

140
0.1141x
y = 0.0069e
120 2
R = 0.935
100

80
UPF

60

40
0.1048x
20 y = 0.0054e
2
R = 0.875
0
65 70 75 80 85 90

Fabric cover (%) Fig. 10. Ultraviolet protection factor (UPF)

and fabric cover for UV absorber-treated and
UV absorber treated Untreated
-untreated plain fabrics.

12

10
UVA transmission %

0
65 70 75 80 85 90
Fabric cover (%)
Fig. 11. Ultraviolet A (UVA) transmission
through ultraviolet (UV) absorber-treated
UV absorber treated Untreated and -untreated plain fabrics.

to yarn spacing is same. However, the UPF will definitely be
higher for the fabric having higher areal density i.e. the fabric
made from coarser yarn, as the UV rays will have to pass through
greater fabric thickness and therefore they may be absorbed.
Effect of UV absorbers
Figure 10 depicts the effect of UV absorber on the UPF of plain-
woven fabrics. The UV absorber (Thiotan R)-treated fabrics also
show nonlinear increment of UPF with the increase of fabric
cover %.The difference of UPF between the UV absorber- treated
and -untreated fabrics is lower when the fabric cover % is low.
However, this difference shows concomitant increase with the
increase in fabric cover %. When fabric cover is low, the domi-
nant mode of UV transmission is through the inter yarn fabric
(macro) pores. Therefore, the effect of the UV absorber is less
pronounced as inter-yarn fabric pores still exist even after UV
absorber treatment. However, when fabric cover is very high, the
inter-yarn fabric pores are almost absent and, therefore, the direct
transmission of UV through fabric pores is not possible. Besides,
the yarns have also become almost opaque due to the treatment
with UV absorber.Therefore, the UPF increases drastically at high
cover after UV absorber treatment. Similar observations have also
been made for other weaves. Figures 11 and 12 depict that the
linear relationship fits well between the transmission of UVA and
UVB rays and fabric cover % for both UV absorber-treated and
-untreated plain-woven fabrics. The transmission of UVA and
UVB is reduced almost equally after the treatment with UV
absorber.Therefore, it can be said that the applied UV absorber is
equally effective for both the UV rays.

© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S 65

Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine 2012, 28, 58–67
Majumdar et al.
12
10
UVB transmission %
8
0
65
Fig. 12. Ultraviolet B (UVB) transmission
through ultraviolet (UV) absorber-treated
UV absorber treated
and -untreated plain fabrics.
Conclusions
The effect of weave, weft count, picks per centimetre, fabric cover
% and fabrics areal density on the UPF of 100% cotton woven
fabrics has been investigated.The influence of weave on the UPF of
woven fabrics is found to be statistically insignificant for bleached
cotton fabrics woven with 40 Ne warp yarn count, 40 ends
per centimetre, different weft yarn count (20–40 Ne) and picks
per centimetre (15–27). The UPF of fabrics increases as the
picks per centimetre value increases and weft count (Ne) reduces.
The rate of increase in UPF is higher when fabric is woven with
higher picks per centimetre value using coarser yarns.The UPF of
fabric is exponentially related with the fabric cover % and fabric
areal density.The fabric areal density seems to be a better predictor
of UPF as compared to fabric cover % for the same set of fabrics.
The simple equations have been derived for predicting the UPF of
bleached cotton fabrics from the areal density values.These expres-
sions are found to be almost independent of the weave and,
therefore, can be used as a primary guideline for the fabric
selection to attain a specified level of UPF. The application UV
absorber increases the UPF value, and the enhancement is more
prominent at high fabric cover %.The UV absorber can reduce the
UVA and UVB transmission almost equally.
References
1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer
statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57: 43–66.
2. Moerhle M. Outdoor sports and skin cancer. Clin Dermatol 2008;
26: 12–15.
3. Roy CR, Gies HP. Protective measures against solar UV expo-
sures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1997; 72: 231–240.
4. Gambichler T, Altmeyer P, Hoffmann K. Role of cloths in sun
protection. Recent Results Cancer Res 2002; 160: 15–25.
5. Stanford DG, Georgouras KE, Pailthorpe MT. Rating clothing for
sun protection: current status in Australia. J Eur Acad Dermatol
Venereol 1997; 8: 12–17.
66
70 75 80 85 90
Fabric cover (%)
Untreated
6. Gies PH, Roy CR, Holmes G. Ultraviolet radiation protection by
clothing: comparison of in vivo and in vitro measurements. Radiat
Prot Dosimetry 2000; 91: 247–250.
7. Menzies SW, Lukins PB, Greenoak GE, Walter PJ, Philthorpe MT,
Martin JM. A comparative study of fabric protection against
ultraviolet induced erythema determined by spectrophotometric
and human skin measurements. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed
1991; 8: 157–163.
8. Ravishankar J, Diffey B. Laboratory testing of UV transmission
through fabrics may underestimate protection. Photodermatol
Photoimmunol Photomed 1997; 13: 202–203.
9. Hoffmann K, Kasper K, Gambichler T, Almeyer P. In vitro and in
vivo determination of the UV protection factor for lightweight
cotton and viscose summer fabrics: a preliminary study. J Am Acad
Dermatol 2000; 43: 1009–1016.
10. Gambichler T, Hatch KL, Avermaete A, Altmeyer P, Hoffmann K.
Influence of wetness on the ultraviolet protection factor (UPF)
of textiles: in vitro and in vivo measurements. Photodermatol Photoim-
munol Photomed 2002; 18: 29–35.
11. Gambichler T, Hatch KL, Avermaete A et al. Ultraviolet protection
factors of fabrics: comparison of laboratory and field based
measurements. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2002; 18: 135–
140.
12. Gambichler T, Rotterdam S, Altmeyer P, Hoffman K. Protection
against ultraviolet radiation by commercial summer clothing:
need for standardized testing and labeling. BMC Dermatol 2001; 1:
6.
13. Khazova M, Hagan JBO, Grainger KJL. Assessment of sun pro-
tection for children’s summer 2005 clothing collection. Radiat
Prot Dosimetry 2006; 123: 288–294.
14. Hoffmann K, Laperre J, Avermaete A, Altmeyer P, Gambichler T.
Defined UV protection. Arch Dermatol 2001; 137: 1089–1094.
15. Hatch KL, Osterwalder U. Garments as solar ultraviolet radiation
screening materials. Dermatol Clin 2006; 25: 85–100.
16. Pailthrope M. Apparel textiles and sun protection: a marketing
opportunity or a quality control nightmare. Mutat Res 1998; 422:
175–183.
17. Gies PH, Roy CR, Toomey S, McLennan A. Protection against
solar ultraviolet radiation. Mutat Res 1998; 422: 15–22.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S
Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine 2012, 28, 58–67

18. Saravanan D. UV protection textile materials. AUTEX Res J 2007; 7:
53–62.
19. Algaba I, Riva A, Crews PC. Influence of fibre type and fabric
porosity on the UPF of summer fabrics. AATCC Rev 2004; 4:
26–31.
20. Riva A, Algaba I. Ultraviolet protection provided by woven
fabrics made with cellulose fibres: study of the influence of fibre
type and structural characteristics of the fabric. J Text Inst 2006;
97: 349–358.
21. Algaba IM, Pepió M, Riva A. Correlation between the ultraviolet
protection factor and the weight and thickness of undyed cellu-
losic woven fabrics. Fibres Text East Eur 2008; 16: 85–89.
22. Tarbuk A, GranCaric AM, Penava Z, Zampetakis A. The Influence
of yarn linear density on the UV protection of woven cotton
fabrics, 3rd International Textile, Clothing and Design Confer-
ence, Dubrovnik, Croatia, October 8–11, 2006.
23. Algaba I, Pepio M, Riva A. Modelization of the influence of
structural parameters on the ultraviolet protection factor
provided by cellulosic woven fabrics. J Text Inst 2007; 98: 293–
300.
24. Dubrovski PD, Golob D. Effects of woven fabric construction
and color on ultraviolet protection. Text Res J 2009; 79: 351–
359.
25. Sharma DK, Singh M. Effect of dyeing and finishing treatments
on sun protection of woven fabrics – a study. Colourage Annu 2001;
48: 69–74.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S
Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine 2012, 28, 58–67
Effect of weave and structural parameters on UPF
26. Srinivasan M, Gatewood BM. Relationship of dye characteristics
to UV protection provided by cotton fabric. Text Chem Colour Am
Dyest Rep 2000; 32: 36–43.
27. Hilfiker R, Kaufmann W, Reinert G, Schmidt E. Improving sun
protection factors of fabrics by applying UV absorbers. Text Res J
1996; 66: 61–70.
28. Xin JH, Daoud WA, Kong YY. A new approach to UV-blocking
treatment for cotton fabrics. Text Res J 2004; 74: 97–100.
29. Paul R, Bautista L, Varga MDL et al. Nano-cotton fabrics with high
ultraviolet protection. Text Res J 2010; 80: 454–462.
30. Clark IES, Grainger KJL, Agnew JL, Driscoll CMH. Clothing pro-
tection measurements. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000; 91: 279–281.
31. Wang SQ, Kopf AW, Marx J, Bogdan A, Polsky D, Bart RS.
Reduction of ultraviolet transmission through cotton T-shirt
fabrics with low ultraviolet protection by various laundering and
dyeing: clinical implications. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006; 44: 767–
774.
32. Osterwalder U, Schlenker W, Rohwer H, Martin E, Schuh S. Facts
and fiction on ultraviolet protection by clothing. Radiat Prot Dosim-
etry 2000; 91: 255–260.
33. Booth JE. Principles of textile testing. London: Butterworth-
Heinemann Publishers, 1984.
34. Transmittance or blocking of erythemally weighted ultraviolet
radiation through fabrics. AATCC Test Method: 183-1998.
35. Fan JT, Hunter L. Engineering of apparel fabrics and garments. Cambridge:
Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2009.
67
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy.
Users should refer to the original published version of the material.