ArticlePolymers2026
Microscopic and Microspectrophotometric Evaluation of Colour Changes in Cotton Fibres Exposed to Natural and Artificial Solar Radiation: Forensic Implications.
Article in Polymers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate colour changes in cotton fibres within knitted fabric structures under different light exposure conditions and to assess the applicability of forensic analytical methods for this purpose. Fabrics of three distinct colours were exposed to two types of irradiation: natural sunlight and artificial light in a controlled climatic chamber. A multi-scale analytical approach was applied, including visual inspection and stereomicroscopy for macro-level evaluation, followed by bright-field microscopy, fluorescence microscopy, and UV-Vis microspectrophotometry for single-fibre characterisation. Visual assessment of fabrics revealed perceptible colour differences between exposed and unexposed samples, whereas stereomicroscopy did not consistently enhance the detection of these alterations. Bright-field and fluorescence microscopy showed no visually perceptible differences between fibres from exposed and unexposed fabrics of the same colour. Microspectrophotometric measurements did not reliably capture colour changes in single cotton fibres, particularly in samples exposed to natural sunlight. Furthermore, total colour difference (ΔE) values, ranging from 0.248 to 6.652, were found to be unreliable at the single-fibre level due to significant spatial variability across different measurement sites. The findings indicate that, while light exposure may induce perceptible colour alterations in cotton knitted fabrics, the forensic examination of single fibres does not necessarily reflect these macro-scale changes. From a forensic perspective, the stability of microscopic and microspectrophotometric characteristics supports reliable fibre comparison, even after post-event exposure to sunlight.
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.