ArticleInterface focus2024
The biomechanics of splitting hairs.
Article in Interface focus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cyclic combing of untreated and bleached human hair: Analysis of the time-dependent breakage of hair through recording the formation of fibre fragments.International journal of cosmetic science · 2026Article
- The biomechanics of splitting hairs.Interface focus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Splitting of hair, creating 'split ends', is a very common problem which has been extensively documented. However, the mechanics underlying the splitting phenomenon are poorly understood. This is partly owing to the lack of a test in which splitting can be generated and quantified under laboratory conditions. We developed three new tests, known as 'loop tensile', 'moving loop' and 'moving loop fatigue', aiming to simulate the mechanical environment of tangles of hair strands during combing. We tested straight strands of human hair, comparing low-quality hair (from a subject who experienced split ends) with hair from a control (non-splitting) subject. Significant differences were found, especially in the moving loop fatigue test where the low-quality hair failed in fewer cycles. Splitting occurred in both types of hair, but with the crucial difference that in the low-quality hair, splits originated inside the hair strand and propagated longitudinally over considerable distances, while in the control hair, splits originated at the strand surface and remained short. Bleaching of the control hair changed its behaviour, making it similar to that of the low-quality hair. Some simple calculations emphasized the role of longitudinal shear stress and shear stress intensity in generating microcracks which could then propagate within the moving loop, paving the way for a future theoretical model of the splitting mechanism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.