Comfort, chemical, mechanical, and structural properties of natural and synthetic leathers used for apparel

Abstract

Natural leather is processed from hides and skins of animals. Synthetic leathers are becoming popular as an alternative material owing to limited availability and varying size of natural leathers. There is a need to understand the properties of natural and synthetic leathers to select proper material for an application. In this study, materials used for apparel application such as natural sheep nappa leather and synthetic polyurethane (PU)-based leather have been chosen and analyzed for comfort, chemical, physical, and structural properties. It was found that natural sheep nappa leather has enhanced water vapor permeability whereas other comfort properties such as softness and drape ability are comparable to synthetic PU leather. Whereas synthetic PU leather dominated most of the physical properties, especially percentage elongation and stitch tear strength, in specific directions on account of polyester knitted base fabric. Chemical properties of natural sheep nappa leather and synthetic PU leather depended on the individual material composition and characteristics. Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) analysis provided convincing evidence for some of the quantified comfort and physical properties. The results of this study would be useful in selection of proper material for apparel application as well as in providing directions for future research in synthetic leather manufacture.

Leather quality of some Sudan desert sheep and goats

“…Kabashi Sudan desert sheep subtype was reported the high tear load (54.47 ±10.5 kg cm -1 ) and this was statistically different (P ≥0.05) from which were recorded by Hamari (44.53 ±8.9 kg cm -1 ). These findings were similar to Ebrahiem et al (2015a);Sudha et al (2009);Salehi et al (2014) and Passman and Sumner (1983) estimation for tear load at 37.9 ±0.5 kg cm -1 on crust tanned sheep leather from different types.…”

“…The leather thickness was resulted in no statistically difference (P ≥0.05) between Hamari and Kabashi subtypes. This result was in line with Ebrahiem et al (2015a); Oliveira et al (2007) Sudha et al (2009Salehi et al (2014) and Passman and Sumner (1983) whom observed that, thickness of skin was not affected by sheep lamb breed and high degrees of homogeneity in thickness among different genotypes was obtained. Kabashi Sudan desert sheep subtype was reported the high tear load (54.47 ±10.5 kg cm -1 ) and this was statistically different (P ≥0.05) from which were recorded by Hamari (44.53 ±8.9 kg cm -1 ).…”

“…Ebrahiem et al (2015a); Teklebrhan et al (2012) and Oliveira et al (2007) mentioned that, significant difference in strength properties among sheep lamb breeds was not detected when they studied Ethiopian sheep. However, it is below the estimated value for the parameter (203.6 ±5.1 kg cm -2 ) which mentioned by Sudha et al (2009);Salehi et al (2014) and Passman and Sumner (1983). In addition, these results were in line with Teklebrhan et al (2012) Craig et al (1987) and Jacinto et al (2005) whom reported that, the native Ethiopian sheep lamb leathers had numerically higher tensile strength and percentage elongation at break.…”

“…Different result of insignificant difference in desert sheep leather was reported by Ebrahiem et al (2015a). However, the assessed values of ash % 2.88 and 2.54 for Hamri and Kabashi subtypes leather were below the estimated value for the parameter (6.2 ±0.4 %) that reported by Sudha et al (2009);Salehi et al (2014) and Passman and Sumner (1983).…”

“…Hamari Sudan desert sheep breed was reported the highest elongation percent (64.93 ±3.1). These results were exceeded the estimated value of elongation percentage of (60.6 ±0.9) which reported by Sudha et al (2009);Salehi et al (2014) and Passman and Sumner (1983). Otherwise, these findings were similar to Teklebrhan et al (2012) Craig et al (1987 and Jacinto et al (2005) reports on native Ethiopian sheep lamb leathers, which had numerically higher tensile strength and percentage elongation at break.…”