Bamboo textile received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A fact from Bamboo textile appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 July 2008, and was viewed approximately 0 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that in 2003, Chinese scientists invented a way of producing yarn from bamboo fibre? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/July.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Textile arts Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Textile artsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile artsTemplate:WikiProject Textile artsTextile arts Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

"Bamboo fabric requires handwashing, so it's impractical for items that are worn regularly." The citation for this seems to refer to yarn for hand knitting. I've been machine washing my bamboo towels for several years and they're quite intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.226.146 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo doesnot require handwashing, you may wash in a washer hoever 100% bamboo is very delicate and you should consider using a delicate bag.unsigned

Rayon has variable strength when wet, but it's often very weak. This applies to bamboo rayon, too. Since the rayon is made with fairly pure cellulose, it doesn't make much of a chemical difference what plant the cellulose comes from. So probably some bamboo rayon would need handwashing and some won't, just like rayon. I suggest reading the rayon article. HLHJ (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I'm in support of the proposed merger with Bamboo fibre. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I support that they be merged as well. Bamboo threads and fabric would be the textile, and the fiber should be a sub section as part of the overall. I also think that the controversy needs to be it's own section and not randomly thrown out. Fact should be well researched. The FTC has little to back up their case and is likely being influenced by the cotton industry lobbying. in the old days of "disinfopedia" controversial issues would be solved with facts and not allow the FTC to just say whatever without some counterargument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solight111 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems biased. Should include information on FTC's recent accusations of bamboo textile producers and marketers: [[1]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.133.214 (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be possible if the FTC had released any facts, but they didn't and this is supposed to be the place to resolve truth in controversy.

This article reads like an advertisement from the bamboo textile industry. Much of it has the tone of a press release and is probably lifted verbatim from a source of this type. Indeed, some of the "sources" of information cited are just links to online stores selling bamboo textile products. It also repeats the same points verbatim quite a bit (another hallmark of PR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.195.246 (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the two comments above. Every section ends with a very positive endorsement of the bamboo textile industry. Examples of the final sentence from each section starting at Manufacture of Bamboo Viscose:

• "The resulting bamboo viscose fibre is extremely soft to the touch."
• "The natural processing of litrax bamboo allows the fibre to remain strong to produce an extremely high quality product. This process gives a material that is very durable."
• "This means that every company working with bamboo starts with the same raw material and that this material is not contaminated."
• "...bamboo's organic and natural properties make it non-irritating so perfect for extra sensitive skin"
• "It is the main species for bamboo timber and plays an important role for the ecological environment"
• "This regular harvesting is actually of benefit to the health of the plant – studies have shown that felling of canes leads to vigorous re-growth and an increase in the amount of biomass the next year"
• "In a time when land use is under enormous pressure, bamboo’s high yield per hectare becomes very significant."
• "One hectare of bamboo sequesters 62 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year while one hectare of young forest only sequesters 15 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year"
• Etc.

I needn't go on. Also, the absence of periods in the above examples is not my doing. I would like to see someone with a better understanding of Bamboo textiles do some serious editing of this article. Can we add some sort of "this article is suspected of bias" banner? Boehrb (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to fix the many problems with this article. - PKM (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. Came to this article expecting education, not lobbying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gparshal (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, yes. There is absolutely no reason why bamboo viscose should have properties any better or different from viscose from any other source. It's all just reconstituted cellulose, after all. • TheBendster (talk) 23 August 2010, 12:04 (UTC) 12:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spent many years working with European Union colleagues, colleagues in ISO etc developing legislation and standards to protect consumers from this sort of misleading nomenclature. The essential test was simple - can you take a small specimen of material (fibre,yearn or fabric) and test it to establish precisely what it is and how much there is (in a blend). I doubt that is possible with this material- the term 'bamboo viscose' is an attempt to mislead the general public but more importantly is probably illegal (in Europe at least) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.8.206 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Most of the claims are untrue or suggestive at best. There are no reasonable studies that support these claims. As evidence only eco-friendly websites from the esoteric field are given. This is "fubar". Is this wanna-believe over real scientiffic evidence? For what I know, none of the experts of the textile industry or at universities involved in biomemetics or botany that I contacted have ever heard of Bamboo-Kun or most of the claims. They don't confirm the existence of 100% bamboo fabrics. Bamboo as a basis for the Viscose-process yes, but Viscose doesn't retain any of the qualities of the source material. The sad thing is, that people fall for it and wanna believe. So much in fact, that they fight critics. Amazing how easy one can spread lies and profit from it. Are there no questioning critical think people around anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.114.159.142 (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole concept of calling 'viscose' 'bamboo fibre' is a nonsense and is misleading for consumers as well as contravening EC Directives. Calling this product 'bamboo' is loke calling cow dung ' grass'. The input grass is dissolved in acid/ the input bamboo is dissolved in NaOH I assume. Both are then regenerated and exuded through a spinneret (of sorts).

Sorry but the whole idea of bamboo fibre is a marketing tool intended to confuse and mislead the consumer.

See EC Directive 96/74 on name for textile products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.8.206 (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny this discussion sounds like an anti-bamboo campaign without a "fact" to discuss. For instance, Entegrion adapted the fibers with glass for bandages. Approved by the FDA! (more details coming), also your argument on the break down and reassembly process of rayon isn't fact based at all. To suggest it isn't bamboo afterwords is like saying gold is only gold till you smelt out the impurities (shit is a lot more than just grass, it's opinion and not facts). Also Okeo Tex testing for residual chemicals haven't been entered or mentioned (#1 testing for textiles safety).

I would also like to see some investigation figures or test results(facts) from the FTC, before we throw the baby out! "I don't have the expertise to fix the many problems with this article -- All by unsigned editors!" The biggest problem with the actual article is that it needs to be further fact checked and have all opinion removed, replacing them with facts.

This article is little more than an ad leaflet at the moment, with biased language and a ton of unsubstantiated claims. Most of the "references" are also either straight up clothing stores, or affiliate farming blogs.

Any chance that someone is willing to rewrite it in a more appropriate vein, or (god help him) clean up this mess? pathanb (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to mark this article as needing to be checked for bias. If I get time I'll come back and try to make the language more neutral. If I get more time, I'll see about putting in some proper references and checking facts. Aidanomatic (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a stab at making it more neutral, and a bit less confusing. Comments very welcome. The article still seems to have more on fibers than textiles. HLHJ (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The stated conversions between the tons and tonnes are unnecessary and completely wrong! This is so blatant as to affect the perception of the entire article. The other criticisms pertaining to bias and contradiction also seem well founded. A bit of a shame because I believe Wikipedia to be a noble enterprise and the contributors generally to be of kind good intentions 1.132.106.105 (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've repositioned [2] the POV tag to the apparently non-neutral section on ecological benefits, now retitled [3]. (Another problematic subsection has already been tagged as an advertisement [4].) 86.131.2.149 (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the Pesticides and Fertilisers section focuses too much on cotton. Having a baseline to compare bamboo textiles to is fine, but half of the section is talking not about the article's topic, but about cotton, which seems excessive. Anybody else agree?Jetjaws (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of a response, I'll be making edits along the lines of what was specified above Jetjaws (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

212.114.159.142, I reverted your edits not because I disagree with the content or direction of the edits(in fact, I wholeheartedly agree with them and am glad that someone like you is interested in helping edit this article), but because they were both unsourced and created conflict within the article, where it should really only belong here. Since all the statements in the article that you did not disprove(pesticide use, CO2 consumption, etc..) are covered later in the article, I propose that the entire section simply be deleted. Jetjaws (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above comments. Also noted contradiction in article over antibacterial properties of fabric made from bamboo: "Anti-bacterial - bamboo actually kills germs and bacteria that accumulate in fabrics made of bamboo. This means that bamboo won't harbor bacteria as much as other fabrics."

"However, the finished bamboo fabric does not retain this antibacterial property; research is being conducted whereby antibacterial agents are being added to bamboo fabric to give it antibacterial properties." 82.41.6.241 (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first statement is the correct one. The sources provided for the first claim are simply links to retailer websites, which should almost never be cited as they have a huge conflict of interest. The source for the second one is a university paper. You can remove the first statement if you want, but as evidenced above, I was planning on deleting the entire section it was included in eventually if there weren't issues raised about that action. Jetjaws (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be leading to a .txt document but really just leads you to a baby clothing store and I think It should be removed and the status should be changed to reflect the lack of a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.228.204 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, 96.8.228.204. Thank you for the heads-up. If you'd like help to do it yourself next time, please feel free to contact me. HLHJ (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the Pesticides and fertilizers section has problems/criticism against bamboo like "finished bamboo fabric does not retain this antibacterial property" and that it lets UV pass through etc.

This could be an own section entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhaymate (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added this section, feel free to add information to it if you have any.Mayhaymate (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that another, smaller version of this article at Bamboo textile. Since both articles obviously cover the same subject, a merger is a no brainer. Therefore, I'm skipping a merger proposal, moving the content of that article below, and asking for your help to integrate any facts that are missing from this article. I have left a redirect behind. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo textiles are any type of cloth, garment or woven fabric that is made out of natural bamboo fibres. Natural fibres are identified by their air permeability, antibacterial properties, moisture release abilities, increased biodegradability, and apparent lack of release of any harmful substances, in comparison to many man-made fibres.^[1]

Bamboo (Bambuseae) is a perennial plant of the Poaceae grass family of the Bambusoideae subfamily.^[2] Bamboo grows in shoots and consists of a culm (the hollow shoot), the node (the connecting joint), and the internode (the section between the nodes). Bamboo is self-propagating because of ots underground storage stems, known as rhizomes.^[3] Bamboo is considered one of the fastest growing plants in the world; the plants are know to grow over 3 inches in one day, 30 days for a full height culm to grow, and it fully matures within 2 years.^[4] Some species have been known to grow up to 100 ft in height. The root system is relatively shallow, as the roots do not reach more than 30 cm below the surface.^[5] Thamnocalamus spathiflorus 'Nepalensis' is the most commonly used type of bamboo to create textiles.^[6]

Improved technology has turned the bamboo fabric into a resilient, soft fabric. The bamboo textile manufacturing process requires much less pesticides and fertilizers than traditional cotton processing; most bamboo textiles are considered “bamboo rayon,” which is made from dissolving the bamboo pulp into its cellulose component and then spun into viscous fibres.^[7] In addition to its environmental regeneration qualities of carbon sequestering, bamboo shoots can release up to 30% more oxygen than other trees.^[8] Textiles that are made entirely out of bamboo are labelled as having environmentally friendly or health-enhancing qualities.^[9]

This section seems to be verging on a sales pitch for a particular company. I can't get most of the references to expose content that supports the claims made and don't read chinese, so can't tell whether one of the references ties them all together. The claim that globally, all bamboo textiles come from a single source of raw material seems dubious. I don't really see how this section improves the explanatory value of the overall article, so my inclination is to delete it entirely.--Wcoole (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem odd, Wcoole. I found an English-language article mentioning them, not really all that positively, and I've added that info, but I've left the ad-like content in. My Mandarin is really not good enough, either, and if you'd like to look for a Mandarin-speaking editor, please do. HLHJ (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence: "However, the EPA noted: "Although the manufacturing process further purifies the cellulose, alters the physical form of the fiber, and modifies the molecular orientation within the fiber and its degree of polymerization, the product is essentially the same chemical as the raw material" seems to state an irrelevant fact. Just as a brick made of burnt clay is essentially chemically similar to a vase made from burnt clay, the two items' physical properties differ enough to make them uninterchangeable, incompatible in their use. In case of the fibres and textiles made from them it is exactly the physical properties that matter and the chemical similarity has no informational value in their description. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I totally agree, 80.98.114.70, and I've rewritten it. Please let me know what you think. Please also feel free to fix such problems yourself; you obviously have a better understanding of the subject matter than that conveyed by the text, so your contributions would improve the article. If you hit any snags, contact me through my user page, I'd be happy to help you. HLHJ (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the change away from "chemistry". There are nuances within fiber circles about regenerated cellulose vs polyolefins vs natural or bast fibers. The "positive" argument for regenerated cellulose is that it is the same chemistry as a plant (or as in nature), without chemical additions, though it is structurally different than as it grows in nature. This is similar to definition differences within ISO 16128, which defines natural and naturally derived - natural is as grown and naturally derived is same chemistry but modified. The regenerated cellulose industry, whether its bamboo or beech or other, push "the same chemistry", to make rayon sound natural like cotton. Indydog (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i removed "In superseding these other fibers in these various areas, supporters of bamboo fiber products and goods tout it as more eco-friendly than cotton and polyester." because this was presented as a conclusion of 1:better mechanical strength and 2:better moisture wicking capacity of the cotton fibres (before dissolved to make viscose/rayon) than cotton and polyester fibres. The deleted sentence is sleazy first of all, claiming that "supporters" claim something, and for second the claim for eco-friendliness (that is what the sentence reads like) is not proven by fibre strength and fibre moisture-wicking properties. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I rephrased the first sentence, to reflect that bamboo-originated cellulose fibers are indeed biodegradable but no different from all the other cellulose fibres in that.

Also deleted the last sentence "Synthetic fibres such as nylon and polyester are not biodegradable and remain in landfill for longer." because though it is true, it has nothing to do in the article about bamboo fibres, it belongs to the articles about those synthetic fibres. And because "longer" (and its ilk that populate this article from start to end) is really a far shot from encyclopedical "factualness" anyway. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

A note on biodegradeability: in landfill, nothing should biodegrade. This is by design, as a landfill is an anaerobic environment to prevent biodegradation. Many materials, if they were allowed to biodegrade in landfill, would offgas methane, which is an explosion hazard. This is why landfills are "sealed" to prevent any biodegradation. In the United States per the FTC Green Guide, it is illegal to claim a material is biodegradable if it is a) commonly disposed of in waste streams meant for landfill and b) not experimentally proven to degrade in anaerobic conditions. All cellulosic fibers do not degrade in anaerobic environments. So, in landfill, a cellulosic fiber like rayon, no matter what it is made from, would remain for roughly an equivalent amount of time as a polyolefin fiber like PE or nylon.Indydog (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to add rayon (https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Rayon) to the see also secton under the references. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Adding rayon would definitely be a good contribution, 80.98.114.70, so be bold! Editing Wikipedia is just like editing a talk page. You can copy-paste-edit the "see also" section from another page (click "edit" on the other page, and just read it and don't save any changes), or you can use the Visual Editor. Thank you for pointing it out, and please ask me if you are still not sure how to add the section. HLHJ (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rayon is already linked in the article; see also is for additional links, not repetitions. WP:SEEALSO says "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know what polysham is? I've seen it popping up in various things to do with bamboo fabric like that found in sheets and pillowcases. My best guess is that it is a fake polyester made from bamboo, possibly the rayon variety. Nothing here in this wikipage on Bamboo textiles. Samsbanned (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a typo on the bedding labels, Samsbanned. "Sham" is a name for a pillow cover/slipcase, and "poly" is commonly used as a abbreviation for "polyester", which would be a plausible material for a microfiber pillow sham. If this were a new fiber, I'd expect something on the internet about it apart from people asking what it is. I'd also expect the manufacturer to hire a marketing advisor who'd tell them that "sham" means "fake" in English and maybe another name would be better.

Making polyester from bamboo cellulose seems to me like it would probably be uneconomic, but Wikipedia:Reference desk could find you a synthetic chemist if you want to know. HLHJ (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HLHJ, Samsbanned - might it be a version of petersham ribbon made using polyester? Mabalu (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But then again, I just Googled and it doesn't make sense. Weird there aren't any news or book hits on it... Mabalu (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bamboo textile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214095301/http://www.geniaal.be/downloads/EBS4johangielis.doc to http://www.geniaal.be/downloads/EBS4johangielis.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510030851/http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/COTTON/crop.htm to http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/cotton/crop.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://events.earthhourcanada.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/commodities/cotton/better_management_practices/water_use/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414024630/http://www.ejfoundation.org/page332.html to http://www.ejfoundation.org/page332.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601093547/http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/1_arguments_for_oa/criticisms_misconceptions/misconceptions_no7.html to http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/1_arguments_for_oa/criticisms_misconceptions/misconceptions_no7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the tags I added as a result of discovering copyright issues during my recent peer review, here are the two links from which a good deal of content in this article was lifted:

Most of the "Ecological considerations" section

Most of the first graf of "Mechanically produced fine bamboo fiber". Never mind ... it looks now like they copied us and, at least in the first source's case, properly attributed it, and the second source seems to have just copied from the first.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "ecological considerations" section reads like marketing literature from a bamboo company.

Can we source some opposing views? Aliza250 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]