Talk:Rayon

Rayon synthesis picture

As of 15 November 2005 I've put this picture in the article, but if anyone who has a better knowledge of rayon could comment I'd greatly appreciate it: I don't have a very thorough knowledge of the synthesis of rayon, but I seem to understand that an important part of the process comprises the alkali treatment and "xanthation" with carbon disulfide of cellulose (which is what is drawn in the mentioned picture). Should the picture be left in the article? Is there any modification I should consider? TIA Berserker79 18:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Rayon is not synthetic, and it not synthesized, thus there is no synthesis of rayon. It is a regenerated cellosic fiber; it is no more synthetic than hemp rope or cotton cloth, both of which are commonly heavily processed and chemically treated during conversion from raw material into finished product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.23.13 (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Curent picture

Simplified view of the xanthation of cellulose.

The following picture illustrating the shift between cellulose and viscose is wrong. There should be an oxygen in the cycle, between the glycosidic bond and the carbon bearing CH2OH group of the cycle, instead of a carbon bearing an hydroxyl group. Wikichimiste (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional info on rayon synthesis by viscose process

see Chapter in: Regenerated cellulose fibresCalvin Woodings, Textile Institute (Manchester, England) 0 Reviewshttp://books.google.com/books/about/Regenerated_cellulose_fibres.html?id=tufL4gBjZ2UC Woodhead Publishing, 2001 - 336 pages

(1st time commenter here - appropriate to add to existing topic?)

Although the steps of the chemical process are described in good detail -- to the naïve reader it's not clear what is the purpose of performing steps 1-9? You begin with (C6H10O5)n and end up with seemingly the exact same material mixed in with: nCS2 + nNaOH. I assume this either purifies (probably not), or modifies some structural properties of the material, but I can't determine anything from the current text. Is it similar to Mercerisation of cotton for example ( which also involves treatment with alkali and acid )? I'm not a chemist or textile export and don't feel confident enough to edit the page. Jmonti824 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Cursory web-search reveals that around 1979 a way was found to "replace the chemically complex viscose route with a simple, pollution-free, physical cellulose dissolution route." ( With many environmental benefits. ) Actual process apparently discovered c1939 and refined c1969 years earlier. REF: DANGEROUS://www.lyocell-development.com/2012/09/the-genesis-of-sustainable-fibres-2012.html?m=1 This seems like important information to add especially if it is the process currently used and not the one currently described by the article. ( I would hope that it is, but that's off-topic. ) ( just noticed this process is also referred to as tencel in this article section: Producers. ) Jmonti824 (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I can try to attend to these comments. The problem is that your questions are indeed penetrating, and none of the usual editors is very expert in industrial polymer technology. So it is unclear to be also why the nCS2 + nNaOH treatment gives such wondrous transformation of materials properties aside from the fact that the cellulose can be made into threads by temporary dissolving and then reverting to insoluble fiber again. The description of Lyocell should be strengthened. The PR bit about "pollution free" of course really attracts editors here, many of whom do want to see Wikipedia advocate for "goodness". I think that the technology is struggling to be competitive. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Jmonti824, I've added some refs on lyocell, including a review and a PhD thesis which readily give the idea. I have nto attempted to disentangle the claims about history, but have stuck to the current tech. Also added similar info to Cellophane an Lyocell. HLHJ (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Merge from viscose

There is a lot of overlap between regenerated cellulose (an alt name for rayon), viscose (a generic name for solubilized cellulose), and rayon (which includes the xanthate method, lyocell, and cuprammonium method). I am familiar with the area and I can barely figure out these topics. Also these articles are highly redundant. Today, I redirected regenerated cellulose. Now I propose to merge viscose into rayon.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Rayon only comes in pink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.126.15.117 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Link to German Wiki

Hi, please someone add a language link to the German wikipedia article about Rayon (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viskosefaser). I don't find how to add it anymore. Thanks. -- 17:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Tauriel (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Tauriel. On Wikidata! If you go to the "Languages" sidebar section, at the bottom is an "Edit link" link. Follow it and you'll see how to add a language. Feel free to post on my talk page if you get stuck. HLHJ (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"Bamboo socks" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bamboo socks has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 15 § Bamboo socks until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 16:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have just proposed a new redirect. - Walter Ego 10:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Suggested name change: viscose

The name of the article should be changed to Viscose since it is the most used term worldwide for the material. Even the French (viscose was invented by the French) call it viscose. Most other English dialects use the term viscose as well. It ought to also be remembered that Rayon was deliberately coined as a commercial name in the United States in 1924, replacing artificial silk. ~2026-45722-64 (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

No, don't change. The current name covers both Lyocell and the viscose production processes, the proposal does not. - Walter Ego 10:07, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes I must admit I was surprised that the article title is rayon, which I thought of as an American genericised trademark, and not viscose which is the name everyone uses in every country I've lived in. We don't say viscose for lyocell but there is already a separate lyocell article. Missimack (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Disputed content

@Megustalastrufas: I see user Roxy the dog has reverted another of your edits on this page related to catcus silk/sabra/sabra silk and you have now placed it into the History section. I (Pentane5) reverted one previously and per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, we need to build consensus to include this in the article. Let's discuss it here rather than going back and forth in the article.

The dispute seems to center around whether sabra silk is worthy of mention in the Rayon article. Rayon is scientifically defined as fibers made from cellulose which has been dissolved and re-formed. From a couple scholarly sources (below), it seems that Sabra silk is made by taking the fibers directly from cacti. There is no dissolution and re-formation, so those fibers are not Rayon.

From my reading of a couple blog posts (see one below) it seems that some artisans are pretending to take fibers out of cacti and selling it as "Sabra silk" when really they have just purchased rayon and are using that instead. But they could have easily just used cotton or nylon as part of this scheme, and in those cases I don't think we would include sabra silk on those pages either.

2018 Blog: https://helloanou.wordpress.com/2018/03/05/the-truth-about-moroccan-sabra-everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-mythical-cactus-silk-agave-fiber/

Scholary sources explaining that sabra silk is fiber extracted from plants and is not dissolved and re-formulated:

"In this way, a new kind of natural cellulosic fibers is extracted from the leaves of Saharan Aloe Vera Cactus (SAC) plant, which is a member of the Agavoideae family. The SAC plant grows to a height of 1–2 m as shown in Fig. 1(a). It is abundantly available in Morocco country, which is part of the Sahara desert in the western tropical region of Africa. In this country, people use these plant fibers for weaving clothes, tablemats, window curtains etc. The world famous super fine Sabra silk sarees are manufactured in Morocco using these fibers. "

• 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.06.065 "Agave fibers are derived directly from agave leaves and the process involves crushing and cleaning the agave leaves to separate white fibers which are washed, brushed, and dyed as needed (138). Agave fibers are known for their high strength, durability, flexibility, elasticity, and absorption capacity, and are almost wrinkle-free (138). They have been used for the elaboration of extremely resistant textiles, such as rope, brushes, mats, rugs, and fillers. Twine blankets, cushions, and ornaments can also be made when they are blended with softer yarns. Sabra silk (also called Agave silk, cactus silk, and vegetable silk) is made in Morocco using vegetable dyes and the cacti hailed from the Aloe Vera species of the Agave family and are found in the desert of the Sahara (139)."
• https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/19551/1/Lan-S-20231010.pdf

History of of catcus skill/sabra silk being added to Rayon by Megustalastrufas:

- 28 August 2023 Edited into the lead by Megustalastrufas prev , 3 September 2023 Edited out by user Thumperward prev

- 12 November 2025 Edited into the Lead section by Megustalastrufas prev , 24 November 2025 edited out by user Pentane5 (me) prev

- 6 August 2026 Edited into the Lead section by Megustalastrufas prev , 12 August 2026 edited out by user Roxy the dog prev

- 24 August 2026 Edited into the History section by Megustalastrufas prev

Pentane5 (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I've just reverted the history section entry, and as this fibre appears to have been "invented" as part of a "criminal" enterprise to deceive the public of Maroc, I see no reason we should mention it in wikipedia. - Walter Ego 16:33, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for opening the discussion. I agree that WP:ONUS applies and that the material should not be placed in the lead or in the History section without consensus. However, the two sources cited above do not establish that the commercial Moroccan yarn sold as sabra or “cactus silk” is a mechanically extracted plant fibre.

The SLU document is identified by its own repository as a second-cycle degree project in the “Epsilon Archive for Student Projects”, rather than as a peer-reviewed scholarly publication. Under WP:SCHOLARSHIP, master's dissertations are considered reliable only when they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence; no such evidence has been presented here. More importantly, the statement about sabra is not a finding of the project. It is part of a literature review and relies on reference 139, Fibre2Fashion, which is a site I cannot even link here because it is registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. That webpage conflates aloe, agave and cactus, provides no analysis of Moroccan yarn, and cites only blogs and commercial websites. Fibre2Fashion itself states that it does not warrant the accuracy or reliability of the contributed material. Repetition of that claim in a student report does not turn the underlying commercial account into an independent scholarly source.

The Carbobots? article in Carbohydrate Polymers is peer reviewed, but it concerns a different subject. Its stated purpose is to characterize the physical, chemical, mechanical and thermal properties of natural fibres extracted from leaves for use as reinforcement in polymer composites. It does not analyse commercial sabra yarn, Moroccan textiles, product labels or the sabra supply chain, nor does it compare any commercial sample with rayon. The sentence about “Sabra silk sarees” is merely an introductory aside, not a result of the research. The anomalous reference to Moroccan “sarees” and the conflation of Aloe vera, agave and cactus are further reasons not to treat that aside as authoritative evidence about Moroccan textile terminology. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS specifically cautions that information mentioned in passing and unrelated to a publication's principal subject may not be reliable for that claim.

By contrast, sources concerned directly with Moroccan textile practice identify material called sabra as rayon. Claire Nicholas, writing from ethnographic fieldwork with a Moroccan weaving cooperative, describes artisans purchasing “silk or sabra (rayon in most cases)” (Claire Nicholas, “Keeping out of the Kitchen: Cooking and Power in a Moroccan Household”, in Leo Coleman (ed.), Food: Ethnographic Encounters, Berg, 2011, p. 87, ISBN 978-1-84788-907-2). A 2009 article in the specialist magazine Handwoven reports a Marrakesh weaver describing sabra as a type of rayon. Anthropologist Susan Schaefer Davis likewise identifies the yarn used by traditional Moroccan button makers as rayon and records that the artisans called it either hrir or sabra. These sources predate and are independent of Anou's 2018 investigation.

Anou's article should therefore not be treated as the sole basis for the statement. It provides additional primary evidence—packaging marked as rayon, supply-chain enquiries and testing of commercial samples—which is consistent with the earlier independent sources.

The proposed text does not claim that natural agave fibre is rayon, or that every material ever called sabra has the same composition. Natural Agave americana fibre has also been called sabra in materials-science literature, but that is a different use of an ambiguous term. The proposed text concerns the documented use of sabra as a name for lustrous manufactured yarn in Moroccan crafts. The hypothetical possibility that cotton or nylon might also be substituted is not relevant unless reliable sources document that practice; the available sources specifically and repeatedly identify rayon.

Nor is describing this usage an endorsement of misleading marketing. Calling it a “criminal enterprise” is an unsupported legal and value judgement and cannot determine encyclopaedic relevance. If rayon is documented as being sold and used under a particular commercial or vernacular name, that is relevant to an article discussing rayon's uses and trade names. A single neutrally worded sentence gives the matter proportionate weight.

I would therefore suggest the following wording under “Producers and brand names”, rather than under “History”:

In Moroccan textile crafts, lustrous yarn sold as sabra or “cactus silk” is commonly rayon; cellulose acetate filament has also been sold under the same name.

Megustalastrufas (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with megastrufas, He states that a single sentence detailed above gives the matter proportionate weight, and details the sentence above, without any associated source. I propose a similar outcome, but without the sentence detailed above. this would give proportionate weight. - Walter Ego 15:12, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

The sources were identified immediately before the proposed wording, but I accept that the sentence should have included its inline citations. Here is the narrower sentence with the sources attached:

In Moroccan textile crafts, lustrous yarn sold as sabra or "cactus silk" is commonly rayon.

Nicholas's published ethnographic account of a Moroccan weaving cooperative expressly identifies “sabra” as rayon in most cases. Davis states that the basic material used by the Moroccan artisans she studied was rayon thread and records that the same material was called sabra. Anou documents the use of the “cactus silk” marketing name and provides direct evidence from packaging, supply-chain enquiries and tested commercial samples. These sources therefore address the actual Moroccan textile usage, unlike the plant-fibre studies cited above.

Giving the subject no coverage at all is not “proportionate weight”; it is zero weight. Since several sources directly document this particular use of rayon, one factual sentence in the section dealing with trade names is already a minimal and proportionate treatment under WP:DUE. The detailed qualifications belong in the linked Sabra (textile) article.

Megustalastrufas (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Poor sources all round, and weight and notability unexamined. I remain unconvinced, particularly as we have an article already, we should not include this trivial content. - Walter Ego 16:09, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

“Poor sources all round” does not identify what reliability criterion the individual sources supposedly fail. The Berg/Bloomsbury volume is independently published academic work based on ethnographic fieldwork with Moroccan weavers. Davis is a named anthropologist writing in a specialist textile publication, in an extract from her published book on Moroccan artisans. Anou is a primary source and would not be sufficient by itself, but it is being used as corroboration for direct observations about packaging, suppliers and tested samples. These sources are independent of one another and directly address the Moroccan textile usage in question. If there is a specific objection to any source under WP:RS, it would be helpful to state it specifically.

Notability is not the applicable test for an individual sentence within an article. WP:NNC states explicitly that notability guidelines do not apply to article content; inclusion is instead governed by verifiability, relevance and due weight. The proposed sentence concerns a documented name and commercial use of rayon and is placed in the section covering producers and trade names, so its relevance to the subject is direct.

The existence of a separate Sabra (textile) article is not a reason to suppress all mention of the subject in related articles. Under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, the normal approach is precisely to provide a brief, proportionate summary and link to the more detailed article. One sourced sentence, without reproducing the controversy or its history, is already the minimum meaningful coverage.

To make the wording still narrower, I would accept:

In Morocco, rayon used in some textile crafts is sold as sabra or “cactus silk”.

(plus the sources as above, that I shall not repeat again and again)

This reports only the specific, multiply sourced relationship relevant to Rayon. Describing that single sentence as undue or trivial requires more than asserting that the sources are “poor”; it requires explaining why the directly supporting published sources are insufficient for this narrowly framed claim.

Megustalastrufas (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

No objection to my last proposal? Megustalastrufas (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

We should not even mention this stuff. - Walter Ego 17:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Could you explain why it should not be mentioned? Reliable sources document that rayon yarn is marketed in Morocco as sabra or “cactus silk”. A single neutral sentence is relevant because it records a documented commercial use of rayon and helps distinguish the product from an actual cactus-derived fibre. This seems proportionate. Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

it should not be mentioned per all my replies above. - Walter Ego 08:48, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The only concrete objection I can identify in your replies is that this appears to have been “invented” as part of a “criminal” enterprise. The cited sources instead document that the material being sold is rayon, and that sabra or “cactus silk” are established commercial names for rayon yarn in the Moroccan craft market. Whether that marketing is misleading does not make the documented usage encyclopaedically irrelevant.

A single, neutrally worded and reliably sourced sentence satisfies WP and gives the subject proportionate weight under WP. The existence of a separate article does not preclude a concise summary and link here (WP), while notability requirements do not apply to individual facts within an article (WP). What specific policy-based reason for excluding the sentence have I missed? Megustalastrufas (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

References