See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/231131545

Comparison of different test methods for the measurement of fabric or

garment moisture transfer properties

Article  in  Measurement Science and Technology · May 2007

DOI: 10.1088/0957-0233/18/7/032

CITATIONS READS

13 4,994

3 authors, including:

Winnie Yu
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
75 PUBLICATIONS   832 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Winnie Yu on 08 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IOP PUBLISHING MEASUREMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Meas. Sci. Technol. 18 (2007) 2033–2038 doi:10.1088/0957-0233/18/7/032

Comparison of different test methods for

the measurement of fabric or garment
moisture transfer properties
F Kar, J Fan and W Yu
Institute of Textiles and Clothing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong
E-mail: [email protected]

Received 5 March 2007, in final form 3 April 2007

Published 21 May 2007
Online at stacks.iop.org/MST/18/2033
Abstract
Several test methods exist for determining the water vapour permeability or
resistance of textile fabrics or garments. The differences and
interrelationships between these methods are not always clear, which
presents a problem in comparing results from different test methods. This
study is aimed at investigating the relationships between the test results from
four typical test methods, including the moisture transmission test (Model
CS-141), ASTM E96 cup method, sweating guarded hot plate method
(ISO11092) and the sweating fabric manikin (Walter). For the range of air
permeable knitted fabrics tested, it was found that good interrelationships
exist between the results from the four types of test methods, although some
discrepancies exist between different tests due to differences in testing
conditions. Test results from different moisture transfer test methods can
therefore be convertible with due consideration.

Keywords: fabric, water vapour transmission rate, clothing comfort, water

vapour resistance
(Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)

1. Introduction Gibson [8] conducted an extensive investigation on the

relationship of the test results from the sweating guarded hot
Moisture transfer properties of textile fabrics and garments plate (ISO11092) and those from the ASTM E96 Cup Method.
are important to the thermal comfort of clothed persons. A In his work, permeable materials, hydrophobic and hydrophilic
number of test methods have been developed to evaluate the membrane laminates were tested and the results were
moisture transfer properties of textile fabrics and garments. standardized in the units of air resistance and water vapour
However, since the techniques and testing conditions of these transmission rate. It was found, except for the hydrophilic
tests are very different, results from these tests are not directly samples, there is a clear correlation between the results from
comparable. It is therefore necessary to investigate the the two tests. As the test condition in the guarded sweating
differences and interrelationships between the results from hot plate tests resulted in much higher equilibrium water
these different test methods. content in the hydrophilic polymer layer, which influences
Dolhan [3] compared two Canadian Standards (CAN2- the polymer’s permeability, the water vapour transmission rate
4.2-M77 and CAN/CGSB-4.2 No. 49-M91) and the ASTM through the hydrophilic membrane is greater when tested using
E96 test methods for measuring the water vapour transmission the sweating guarded hot plate. As pointed out by a number
properties and found that the results of these tests were not of previous researchers [7, 12], different relative humidity
directly comparable because of the differences in the water gradients present in the various test methods cause the intrinsic
vapour pressure gradients driving the moisture transmission in transport characteristics of hydrophilic polymers to change.
the different test methods. For such fabrics, there tend to be poor correlations between

0957-0233/07/072033+06$30.00 © 2007 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 2033

F Kar et al

Table 1. Characteristics of T-shirt fabric samples.

Thickness Mass per unit
Sample Compositions Construction (mm) area (g m−2)
1 55% 40S/2 polyester Single jersey 0.696 199.3
45% 40S/2 combed cotton jersey
2 63% 50S pima cotton Interlock 0.772 148.0
37% polyester rib
3 62% 40S combed cotton Single jersey 0.832 284.2
31% nylon
7% lycra jersey
4 59% 40S combed cotton Interlock 0.955 184.3
41% nylon rib
5 100% polyester Single jersey 0.644 193.4
6 100% polyester Interlock 0.555 121.8
7 44% 40S combed cotton Single jersey 0.704 200.9
45% 40S spun polyester
11% lycra jersey
8 50% 40S combed cotton Interlock 1.071 225.6
50% 30S spun polyester rib

different test methods that employ differing relative humidity

gradients, since the resistance is a function of the water
vapour concentration and temperature. Consequently, Lomax
[11] pointed out the need for investigating the correlations
of results from different test methods for different types of
fabrics.
Gretton et al [9] classified the fabric samples into four
categories, including air permeable fabrics, microporous
membrane laminated fabrics, hydrophilic membrane
laminated/coated fabrics and hybrid coated/laminated fabrics,
in investigating the correlation between the test results of the
Figure 1. Construction of the moisture transmission tester.
sweating guarded hotplate (ISO 11092) and the evaporative
dish method (BS 7209). They showed that there is a good
correlation between the two test methods for all fabrics 2. Methods
except for the hydrophilic coated and laminated fabrics that
transmit water vapour without following the Fickian law of 2.1. Samples
diffusion. Four interlock and four single jersey functional T-shirt fabrics
Recently, Indushekar et al [10] compared the water vapour were chosen from commercial sources for the experiment.
transmission rates measured by a modulated differential The samples represent typical T-shirt fabrics in the market.
scanning calorimeter and those by the conventional dish The fabrics were sewn into long-sleeved T-shirts for the tests
technique as specified in BS7209 for a wide range of woven on the sweating fabric manikin (Walter) and the wearer trial
based fabrics used in cold weather protective clothing. The experiments. Table 1 lists the characteristics of the fabrics
study showed that results from these two test methods differ used in this study.
widely due to the differences in the water vapour gradients
which occurred in the two methods.
2.2. Objective physical measurements
With the development of novel techniques for the
measurement of moisture transmission properties of fabrics 2.2.1. Moisture transmission test (Model CS-141). The
and garments, it is necessary to further investigate the moisture transmission tester was developed by Ludlow Corp.
relationship between different test methods. The present study [1], which was claimed to be a fast and simple method to
was therefore aimed at investigating the correlations between measure the moisture transmission rate of the fabric materials.
the moisture vapour resistances/transmission rates measured It is based on the application of the gas permeability law
using the newly developed sweating fabric manikin (Walter) which proposes that the mass transfer rate is proportional to
[4, 6], the moisture transmission test (Model CS-141) [1], the the permeability of the barrier, the pressure differential across
ASTM E96 testing method [2] and the sweating guarded hot the barrier and the reciprocal of the barrier thickness. The
plate method [5]. Since the correlations between the moisture construction of the moisture transmission tester is shown in
vapour resistances/transmission rates tested using the different figure 1. Samples were clamped between two halves of a cell
test methods are generally different for different categories of with the lower half of the cell containing distilled water and
fabrics, the present investigation is focused on air permeable the upper half dried by a drying agent at the beginning of the
functional T-shirt type fabrics. test. The air gap between the water surface in the lower half

2034
 Comparison of different test methods for the measurement of moisture transfer properties

distilled water and placed in a controlled environment of

20 ◦ C and 65% relative humidity. By adjusting the initial
weight of water in the cup to 80 g, the air gap was set to
19 mm. The tests lasted for 5 days and the weight of each
cup was recorded daily. The water vapour transmission
rate (WVTR) in grams per hour and per square metre was
calculated by the following equation:
WVTR =G/tA (2)
where G is weight change of the cup with fabric sample in
Figure 2. The principle of the ASTM E96 water vapour grams, t is the time during which G occurred in hours and A is
transmission test. the testing area in square metres.

of the cell and the lower fabric surface was 10 mm. The cell 2.2.3. Sweating guarded hot plate. This instrument was
was placed in a controlled temperature and humidity chamber developed by Fan et al [5]. It meets the requirements
(20 ◦ C, 65% RH). Water vapour from the wet side transfers specified in the testing method of ISO 11092. Compared
through the sample to the dry side. The humidity sensor with conventional sweating guarded hot plates, it allows
detects the humidity changes in the upper half of the cell. The simultaneous measurement of evaporative heat loss and water
humidity rise was recorded every 3 min, when the humidity loss. The instrument can also be placed in subzero conditions
was from 50% to 60%. The moisture vapour transmission rate for testing. Figure 3 shows the schematic diagram and the
in grams per hour and per square metre was calculated by apparatus of the instrument.
T = (269 × 10−7 )(
%RH × 60/t)(H )/(100 × 0.02252 ) From the measurement of the evaporative heat loss, the
total moisture vapour resistance of the fabric sample on the
(1) plate together with the manmade skin and the surface air layer
where
%RH is the average of the differences of relative can be calculated by
humidity values between the lower and upper halves of the A(Pss − Psa Ha )
cell, t is the time between successive readings (t = 3 min) Ret = (3)
He
and H is the water content in the air at the cell temperature
(H = 45.74 g m−3). where Ret is the total moisture vapour resistance, A is the
sample covering area (A = 0.0444 m2), Pss is the saturated
2.2.2. ASTM E96 water vapour transmission test [2]. The vapour pressure at the skin temperature (controlled at 35 ◦ C),
ASTM E96 cup method is a very common method for testing Psa is the saturated vapour pressure at the ambient temperature
the moisture transfer ability of fabrics. It is used to measure and Ha is the ambient relative humidity (%).
the rate of water vapour transmission perpendicularly through During the testing, five layers of fabric samples were first
a known area of a fabric to a controlled atmosphere. In this placed on the instrument. After stabilization, the Ret value,
method, as shown in figure 2, a sample covers a cup containing when five layers of fabric samples were placed, was measured.

Figure 3. Sweating guarded hot plate.

2035
F Kar et al

Table 2. Testing results of the four different kinds of tests.

Water vapour transmission Estimated vapour vapour Water vapour
rate (g h−1 m−2) resistance (m2 Pa W−1) resistance (m2 Pa W−1)
Moisture ASTM E96 Moisture ASTM E96 Sweating Sweating
transmission test water vapour transmission Water vapour guarded fabric
Sample (Model CS 141) transmission test test (Model CS 141) transmission test hot plate manikin
1 3.82 ± 0.10 20.5 ± 0.9 413.5 22.1 3.27 ± 0.37 22.1 ± 0.5
2 3.82 ± 0.06 20.7 ± 1.1 413.6 21.3 2.93 ± 1.01 22.4 ± 0.7
3 3.06 ± 0.23 20.4 ± 0.9 520.6 22.3 4.06 ± 0.34 22.6 ± 0.3
4 3.73 ± 0.21 20.8 ± 0.7 423.4 21.2 1.97 ± 0.50 22.2 ± 0.2
5 4.76 ± 0.23 21.8 ± 0.9 327.4 18.3 1.66 ± 0.23 21.5 ± 0.4
6 4.80 ± 0.64 21.8 ± 2.7 324.6 18.3 1.45 ± 0.21 21.4 ± 0.2
7 3.48 ± 0.25 21.2 ± 1.1 456.0 20.1 2.75 ± 0.63 22.0 ± 0.5
8 3.21 ± 0.39 20.0 ± 0.8 496.4 23.6 4.64 ± 0.28 23.1 ± 0.4

vapour pressure at the ambient temperature and Ha is the

ambient relative humidity (%), and Res is the moisture vapour
resistance of the fabric skin which was calibrated in advance
(Res = 8.6 m2 Pa W−1), He is the evaporative heat loss. He
was calculated from the measurement of evaporative water
loss, He = λQ, where λ is the heat of evaporation of water at
the skin temperature (λ = 0.67 W h g−1 at 34 ◦ C), Q is the rate
of evaporative water loss per hour.

3. Results and analysis

The results of the four types of tests are listed in table 2.

The moisture transmission rates measured by the moisture
transmission test and the ASTM E96 cup method, expressed
in units of gram per hour per square metre, are also converted
to the moisture vapour resistance expressed in units of m2 Pa
W−1 so as to be comparable to the moisture vapour resistances
measured by the sweating hot plate and the sweating fabric
manikin.
Figure 4. Sweating fabric manikin (Walter). In the conversion, we assume that no natural convection
exists in the air gap under the fabric sample; we can have [8]:
Then one layer of fabric sample was taken off and the Ret


1
P
value, when four layers of fabric samples were placed, was ESSA = 2.165D − d sa (5)
measured. The experiment continued with the Ret value for ṁ/3600 T
one, two, three, four and five layers of samples being obtained. where ESSA is the fabric moisture vapour resistance
The Ret value was then plotted against the number of layers (including the outer boundary air layer) expressed in metres
in a graph. After fitting the data with a straight line by linear of still air, ṁ is the mass flux of water vapour in g m−2 h−1.
regression, the slope of the line is then the moisture vapour D is the diffusion coefficient of water vapour in air (D =
resistance of a single layer of the fabric sample. 2.56 × 10−5 m2 s−1 ), T is the absolute temperature (T =
293 K), A is the surface area, dsa is the thickness of the still air
2.2.4. Sweating fabric manikin (Walter). Sweating fabric layer in metres,
P is the difference in water vapour pressure
manikin (Walter) is the first sweating fabric manikin developed between the water surface and the environment.
by Fan and his co-workers [4, 6]. Figure 4 shows the manikin For the moisture transmission test, dsa is 0.01 m, the
wearing a T-shirt during the test. The experiment was carried average
P is 1052.3 Pa; for the ASTM E96 cup method
out in a climatic chamber at 20.0 ± 0.5 ◦ C and 65.0 ± 2% RH at 20 ◦ C and 65% RH, the average dsa is 0.019 m,
P is
with an air velocity of 0.5 ± 0.3 m s−1. 818.5 Pa.
The T-shirts made of the eight fabrics were all in the same From the value of ESSA, we can get the fabric moisture
size. During the tests, the pants were kept the same for all vapour resistance (including the boundary air layer above the
T-shirt samples. The total moisture vapour resistance was fabric sample) Re expressed in m2 Pa W−1 [13],
calculated using the following formula: Re = 2.16 × 103 × ESSA. (6)
A(Pss − Psa Ha )
Ret = − Res (4) Although the measured results of the moisture transmission
He test and ASTM E96 cup method are in the same units, the
where A is the surface area of the manikin, Pss is the saturated actual values are very different. This is because, in the former
vapour pressure at the skin temperature, Psa is the saturated test, moisture diffuses from the wet side to a closed area

2036
 Comparison of different test methods for the measurement of moisture transfer properties

7
4

Figure 5. Relationship between the moisture transmission test and Figure 6. Relationship between the ASTM E96 cup method and the
the ASTM E96 cup method. sweating hot plate.

without any air movement, whereas in the latter test, moisture

is transmitted to an open environment having a controlled
humidity of 65% RH and air movement. Thus, the moisture
transmission rate measured by the moisture transmission tester
is much smaller than that by the ASTM E96 cup method. 4

Comparing the water vapour resistance values estimated from

the direct measurements of moisture transmission rate, we
can see (referring to table 1) that the estimated water vapour
resistance from the moisture transmission test (Model 141) is
about 20 times greater than that estimated from the ASTM
E96 method.
It can also be observed, from table 1, that the values Figure 7. Relationship between the moisture transmission test and
of water vapour resistance measured by the sweating fabric sweating hot plate.
manikin are much greater than those by the sweating hot plate.
This is because the water vapour resistance measured by the
The result is a reduction of total moisture vapour resistance
sweating fabric manikin included the resistance of the air gap
and thus an increase in moisture transmission rate. Since the
between the skin and the garments (i.e. T-shirt and standard
moisture transmission test only lasts for 1 to 2 h, the effect
pants) and the still air layer at the outer surface of the garments,
of condensation is, on the other hand, not significant. For
whereas the value from the sweating hot plate is the resistance sample 8, the deviation from the trend line may be caused by
of a single layer of T-shirt fabric. It can also been seen that the the fact that it is relatively thick and therefore can absorb more
water vapour resistance estimated from the ASTM E96 method moisture during the ASTM E96 cup method. The moisture
is similar to that measured from the sweating manikin. Perhaps absorption results in the swelling of cotton fibres and hence
the resistance of the horizontal outer boundary air layer in the the reduction of the measured moisture transmission rate.
ASTM E96 method was similar to the resistance of the vertical Figure 6 and 7 plot the inverse of the moisture vapour
air gap between the skin and the T-shirt plus that of the outer resistance measured by the sweating hot plate against the
surface air layer of the T-shirt. moisture transmission rate measured by the ASTM E96 cup
As plotted by figure 5, there is generally good correlation method and that measured by the moisture transmission test,
between the results of the moisture transmission test and respectively. As can be seen, the correlations are very
those of the ASTM E96 cup method. It is observed that strong with the percentages of fit being 0.82. Moreover,
samples 7 and 8 tend to stray further away from the trend it is observed that the water vapour resistance for sample
line. Sample 7 is measured with a higher value by the 4 measured by the sweating guarded hot plate tends to be
ASTM E96 cup method and sample 8 is measured with a lower than predicted by the trend line. Sample 4 is a double
higher value by the moisture transmission tester. Sample layer moisture management fabric, in which the inner layer
7 is a single jersey fabric composed of 11% lycra (highest transfers moisture towards the outer layer where it evaporates
percentage of lycra among the eight samples). Due to the efficiently. As multiple layers of fabrics are tested on the
presence of lycra, the fabric is relatively dense when relaxed sweating guarded hot plate, fabrics with efficient moisture
and therefore moisture tends to condense on the lower side of absorption and transmission capability may decrease the water
the sample. When tested using the ASTM E96 Cup Method, vapour resistance value.
which lasted for 5 days, the accumulated condensation results The moisture vapour resistance of T-shirt fabrics tested
in a change in the moisture transmission process. Without the by the sweating hot plate is compared with the total moisture
condensation, moisture is transmitted from the water surface vapour resistance measured by the sweating fabric manikin
through the inner air gap, the fabric sample and the outer air (Walter) when it wears a T-shirt under test and standard
gap and finally to the environment. With the condensation, the pants in figure 8. It can been seen that there is a strong
condensation re-evaporates and transmits through the fabric correlation between the two. The high correlation may be due
and outer air gap only before going into the environment. to the fact that these two tests were conducted under similar

2037
F Kar et al

another test using the correlation trend lines found in this

study. Some deviations from the correlation trend lines can be
explained by the effect of the different testing conditions on
the different types of fabrics.
2
4
References
[1] Anon 1964 A faster method for measuring MVTR film and
foil converter
[2] ASTM E96 2005 Standard test method for water vapour
transmission of materials
[3] Dolhan P A 1987 A comparison of apparatus used to measure
water vapour resistance J. Coated Fabrics 17 96–109
Figure 8. Relationship between the sweating hot plate and sweating [4] Fan J and Chen Y S 2002 Measurement of clothing thermal
manikin. insulation and moisture vapour permeability using a novel
perspiring fabric thermal manikin Meas. Sci. Technol.
13 1115–23
environmental conditions. The deviations from the trend line [5] Fan J, Cheng X and Chen Y S 2003 An experimental
may be caused by the drape of the T-shirts when worn on the investigation of moisture absorption and condensation in
manikin in addition to the unavoidable experimental errors. fibrous insulations under low temperature Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 27/6 723–9
For example, sample 2 is the lightest fabric in weight, the [6] Fan J and Qian X 2004 New functions and applications of
T-shirt made from it would not drape down as much as those Walter, the sweating fabric manikin Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
T-shirts made of heavier fabrics. This results in greater air gap 92 641–4
between the skin and the garment and hence the higher value [7] Farnworth B and Lotens W A 1990 Variations of water vapour
of water vapour resistance measured by the sweating fabric resistance of microporous and hydrophilic films with
relative humidity Textile Res. J. 60 50–3
manikin. The very good correlation between the two tests [8] Gibson P W 1993 Factors influencing steady-state heat and
also confirms the accuracy of the sweating fabric manikin water vapour transfer measurements for clothing materials
(Walter) in differentiating the moisture permeability of the Textile Res. J. 63 749–64
fabrics. [9] Gretton J C, Brook D B, Dyson H M and Harlock S C 1996 A
correlation between test methods used to measure moisture
vapour transmission through fabrics J. Coated Fabrics 25
4. Conclusions 301–10
[10] Indushekar R, Awasthi P and Gupta R K 2005 Studies on test
In this study, four instruments were used to evaluate the water methods used to measure water vapour transmission of
fabrics by dsc and conventional dish techniques J. Ind.
vapour transmission rate or moisture vapour resistance of Textiles 34 223–42
air permeable functional T-shirt fabrics/garments. It can be [11] Lomax G R 1988 Hydrophilic polyurethane coatings J. Coated
concluded from this investigation that, for typical functional Fabrics 20 88–107
T-shirt fabrics, the test results from the four test methods, [12] Osczevski R J and Dolhan P A 1989 Anomalous diffusion in a
namely the moisture transmission test (Model CS-141), ASTM water-vapour-permeable, waterproof coating J. Coated
Fabrics 18 255–8
E96 cup method, novel sweating guarded hot plate and the [13] Zhou X, Fan J, Zhang J and Wang S 2007 A comparison on
sweating fabric manikin (Walter) correlate well. The results water vapor transport through fabrics under conventional
from each of these tests can be compared with those from and subzero climate Textile Res. J. at press

2038

View publication stats