Wow! Cool site!

**Darkhorse1** · August 13th, 2009, 07:14 PM

http://www.hairscientists.org/the-hair-follicle.htm

This is pretty awesome! Very scientific though. It goes through what I figured out porisity of hair--that each person depending on exposure to sun/chemicals etc will have different porisity levels, hence, hair will absorb water at a different rate for saturation.

Have fun!

**danacc** · August 16th, 2009, 12:03 PM

What a wonderful site; thank you for sharing it!

**ktani** · August 16th, 2009, 12:37 PM

Yes, they have a great section on split ends.
http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/...postcount=1674

**ktani** · August 16th, 2009, 01:13 PM

What they are referring to with water and hair is humidity, not how long it takes for the maximum saturation of hair, when water is applied to it.

".... Water and hair .... Relative humidity .... measurement of water in the air at a certain temperature expressed as a percentage of the maximum amount of water the air can hold (saturation). .... With increased relative humidity .... hair shaft diameter may potentially increase by up to 14% - Increases in length along the axis can be up to 2 %."
http://www.hairscientists.org/the-hair-follicle.htm

**Darkhorse1** · August 16th, 2009, 03:07 PM

humidity is moisture, hence water. Hair will absorb water, no matter what the source, at different rates, relative to the porisity of the hair. To me, that makes sense.

I found another site that explained the hair that absorbs moisture quickly also loses it quickly. Hair that takes awhile for it to absorb, will take awhile for it to lose it. I don't have that link though...shucks!

**ktani** · August 16th, 2009, 03:34 PM

Unfortunately the book my original quoted source came from is not online. I do not like to speculate but they probably took a mean average to come up with the time given.

Without seeing the original material I cannot say for sure but that makes sense to me. And humidity is not the same to me, as applying water to my hair.

I did more reading on the topic and it has not just to do with the first amount of water absorbed by the hair but how the amount of water increases in other ways within the structure of the hair, as more water is added, to get to what is scientifically determined, as the complete saturation of hair, by applied water. It is not a simple calculation.

ETA: Parts of the book are online but not the pages required

**Darkhorse1** · August 16th, 2009, 05:10 PM

humditity is moisture/water in the air. That's why people get frizzies---it's the wate absorption in their hair. I would figure humidity would take longer to absorb into hair as it's not as direct to a freeflow of water.

In the swimming thread, it was stated that water absorbs quickly in dry hair. Again, the link here is showing it would depend on the level of porisity in your hair, in regards to absorb moisture. If hair can absorb moisture at different rates due to humidity, it can absorb at different rates for direct water. That's all I was pointing out. I'm not arguing about water saturation. I'm just supply the fact that 15 mins may not be the 'set time' for everyone.

**ktani** · August 16th, 2009, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Darkhorse1

humditity is moisture/water in the air. That's why people get frizzies---it's the wate absorption in their hair. I would figure humidity would take longer to absorb into hair as it's not as direct to a freeflow of water.

In the swimming thread, it was stated that water absorbs quickly in dry hair. Again, the link here is showing it would depend on the level of porisity in your hair, in regards to absorb moisture. If hair can absorb moisture at different rates due to humidity, it can absorb at different rates for direct water. That's all I was pointing out. I'm not arguing about water saturation. I'm just supply the fact that 15 mins may not be the 'set time' for everyone.

I would think that there is some variance. That was not the issue under discussion at the time though. That was about conditioner being absorbed into hair. Then it became water being absorbed into hair.

I do not think anyone, on their own, can say that their hair is completely saturated with water in the same sense as the quoted reference. That would need to be measured to be determined. I included the quote and reference in the swimming article, as a guide, so that full advantage of it could be used, to help protect the hair from chlorine.

It is how I am approached, as to how thoroughly I reply to questions, or end a discussion, or not reply at all. That is about my perception and my choice.

**ktani** · August 16th, 2009, 06:12 PM

Originally, in the swimming article, before the quote in question, I had stated that I think that it may be key information and that I had not seen it before. I took that statement out at one point, when editing.

I would be happy to put it back. ETA: Done! http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/...&articleid=115

Since we are on the subject of the reference, I did not include this in the swimming article but it addresses pre-conditioning hair before swimming, and is in the peroxide thread. http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/...&postcount=938. It is written by a scientist and is actually the same source for the quoted reference.

**Darkhorse1** · August 16th, 2009, 08:42 PM

I liked that swimming article because it gave a variation of options for those who swim. That way, for swimmers here, it was nice for them to have options--whether they use conditioner, soak in water, use a swim cap or oil, there was options.

I did also find an article about causes for discoloration of hair in pools. It has to do with PH levels and copper levels in public pools. I can't remember where I read that. Been a crazy week with more to come.