Skip to content
BY-NC-ND 3.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter September 15, 2016

Hybridization effect of coir fiber on physico-mechanical properties of polyethylene-banana/coir fiber hybrid composites

  • Nirupama Prasad EMAIL logo , Vijay Kumar Agarwal and Shishir Sinha

Abstract

In this paper, an attempt has been made to investigate the effect of coir fiber addition along with the banana fiber in low-density polyethylene (LDPE) to develop cost-effective and high-performance composite material. The composite samples were prepared at fixed fiber content (25 wt%) and with varying relative weight fraction of banana and coir fiber using compression molding technique. The effect of hybridization was analyzed through the mechanical properties (tensile, flexural, and impact), thermal stability, morphological behavior, and water absorption behavior. Additionally, scanning electron microscopy studies had been carried out on the tensile fractured surface for all composite samples to examine the fracture behavior of the composite samples. The results showed that the incorporation of coir fiber into the banana fiber composites of up to 50% by weight led to enhancement of the mechanical properties and thermal stability and to reduction of the water absorption capacity of the banana fiber/LDPE composites.

1 Introduction

The mounting environmental and sustainability issues and novel environmental policy have advocated the search for eco-friendly composite materials. The use of natural fibers such as sisal, kenaf, hemp, jute, banana, and coir as reinforcement in thermo and thermosetting plastics is quite popular in engineering markets, particularly in non-structural building materials and automotive components [1]. Natural fibers offer advantages such as low cost, low density, acceptable specific strength, less health risk, non-abrasive to equipment, renewability, and bio-degradability over the conventional synthetic reinforcing fibers. However, it has certain drawbacks such as poor water resistance, poor surface characteristics, low thermal degradation temperature, quality variations, etc. [2, 3]. A variety of chemical treatments, heat treatment, and coupling agents were performed for enhancing the properties of the composite materials [4, 5]. Chemical treatments such as alkalization and bleaching help to remove lignin and impurities from the fiber surface, which lead to induction of better interaction of the coir fiber in the low-density polyethylene (LDPE) matrix [6]. The maleated coupling agents have been widely reported in the literature to improve the compatibility between the fiber and the matrix. Coir and banana fiber-reinforced LDPE showed improved mechanical properties and reduced water absorption capacity when composites were prepared in the presence of maleated polyethylene (MA-g-LDPE) than that of the composites prepared with alkali and acrylic acid-treated fibers [7, 8]. The use of 3% maleic anhydride grafted polyethylene (MA-g-PE) based on the total composite weight with wood/polyethylene resulted in double the value of tensile strength and triple the value of impact strength compared to composite without coupling agent [9]. The compatibility and stability between the sisal fiber and the high-density polyethylene (HDPE) matrix improved after the MA-g-PE treatment [10].

In recent years, the development of the hybrid composites has gained great attention in the field of industrial applications as well as in fundamental research. Hybridization of two or more lingo-cellulosic fibers into a single polymer matrix offers another aspect of the potential versatility of natural fiber-based polymer composites. By hybridization, a balance in cost and reinforcing efficiency could be attained through the appropriate selection of reinforcing fibers and matrix. Various researchers have tried blending of natural fibers with natural/synthetic fibers in order to achieve the best utilization of the positive attribute of one fiber and to reduce its possible negative attributes [11]. The performance of hybrid composites is basically a weighted sum of the individual constituents in which there exists a more favorable balance between the inherent advantageous and disadvantageous properties of the components. Ramesh et al. [12] fabricated hybrid composites with sisal, jute, and glass fibers and observed that the addition of sisal and jute fiber with glass fiber improved the composite properties and can be used as an alternate material for glass fiber-reinforced polymer composites. Sathishkumar et al. [13] investigated the effect of the addition of banana and coir fiber into snake grass/polyester composites. They observed that the snake grass/banana and snake grass/coir fiber composites have higher tensile and flexural properties than those of the composite reinforced with pure snake grass fibers. Boopalan et al. [14] prepared the hybrid composite with banana and jute fiber and found out that the addition of banana fiber up to 50% by weight into jute/epoxy composites resulted in improved mechanical properties, thermal stability, and water resistance properties. Venkateshwaran et al. [15] reported that the addition of sisal fiber into banana/epoxy composites led to enhancement of the mechanical and water resistance properties of the banana/epoxy composites. Pérez-Fonseca et al. [16] prepared hybrid composite from HDPE matrix filled with pine and agave fibers. They observed that the incorporation of agave fibers led to improvement of the mechanical properties of the composites, while pine fibers improve the water resistance of the composites.

In this study, abundantly available coir and banana fibers (an agricultural waste) were selected as reinforcement for LDPE matrix in order to develop cost-effective and high-performance composite material. The inherent properties of coir and banana fibers are reported in Table 1 [13, 17, 18]. The banana fiber has a high cellulose content and low microfibrillar angle. Therefore, banana fiber possesses better inherent physico-mechanical properties than coir fibers. However, coir fiber has definite unique characteristics such as high lignin content and high failure strain. High lignin content in coir fiber contributes to high durability due to fungal and bacterial resistance. High failure strain of the coir fiber led to improvement of the toughness when they are used in the polymer matrix [19]. The objective of this investigation was to study the effect of coir fiber addition along with the banana fiber in LDPE matrix on the mechanical properties, thermal stability, and water absorption behavior of the LDPE-banana/coir fiber hybrid composites. Additionally, the fiber/matrix interfacial bonding was analyzed by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Table 1:

Physical properties of banana and coir fibers.

PropertiesBanana fiberCoir fiber
Density (g/cm3)1.351.2
Diameter (μm)80–250175–220
Cellulose content (%)56–6432–43
Hemicellulose content (%)20–250.15–0.25
Lignin content (%)7–940–45
Microfibrillar angle (°)1130–49
Lumen size (μm)511
Tensile strength (MPa)400175
Young’s Modulus (GPa)124–6
Elongation at break (%)3–1030

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Materials

Banana fiber was procured from M/s Resha Enterprises, Bihar, India, and coir fiber was collected from the local market of Roorkee, Uttrakhand, India. LDPE having melt flow index (MFI) of 34 g/10 min (2.16 kg at 230°C) and density of 0.930–0.945 g/cm3 was procured from M/s Rapid Engineering Company Private Limited, New Delhi, India, in the form of powder. The compatibilizer, LDPE functionalized with maleic anhydride (MA-g-LDPE, OPTIM-142® functionalized with 0.5–0.8% maleic anhydride) was supplied by M/s Pluss Polymers Private Limited, Gurgaon, India.

2.2 Composites fabrication

Banana and coir fibers were dried in the oven at 70°C for 24 h to avoid voids formation and to improve fiber-matrix adhesion. Banana fiber, coir fiber, LDPE matrix, and the compatibilizer (MA-g-LDPE) were weighed and bagged according to various formulations as indicated in Table 2. The fiber and matrix of each formulation were thoroughly mixed using mechanical stirrer for 15 min at the rotational speed of 2400 rpm to obtain the homogeneous mixture. The homogenized mixture was then arranged in a mold measuring 140 mm×140 mm×2.6 mm and pressed into a mat. For the easy removal of sample, the mat was arranged between two Teflon sheets. Composite sheets were prepared by placing the mold in the compression molding machine (Sant Engineering Company, Ambala city, Haryana, India) at around 180°C temperature and 20 MPa pressure for 10 min. Then samples were removed from the mold after complete cooling at room temperature.

Table 2:

Composition of the studied formulations.

Sample codeCompositesBanana fiber content (wt%)Coir fiber content (wt%)LDPE content (wt%)MA-g-LDPE content (wt%)
S1Banana250723
S2Banana:coir (3:1)18.756.25723
S3Banana:coir (1:1)12.512.5723
S4Banana:coir (1:3)6.2518.75723
S5Coir025723

2.3 Characterization

2.3.1 Mechanical properties

Tensile and flexural (three-point bending) properties of the composite samples were evaluated using a universal testing machine (Instron Model 5982, USA) having a capacity of 100 kN with 1:100 kN force ranges at room temperature. The machine uses the load cell to 1% of its capacity with no loss of its accuracy. The testing specimens of tensile (dimensions: 140 mm×15 mm×2.6 mm) and flexural (dimensions: 127 mm×12.7 mm×2.6 mm) tests were prepared according to ASTM D3039 [20] and ASTM D790 [21] standards, respectively. Specimens used for conducting tensile and flexural tests are presented in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. For the tensile tests, gauge length was set to 50 mm and crosshead speed used was 2 mm/min. Flexural tests were carried out by placing the specimen onto two supports having a span length of 50 mm between the supports, and the speed of the jaws was set to 2 mm/min [22]. The Izod impact strength was determined on unnotched specimens (dimensions: 64 mm×10 mm×2.6 mm) according to the ASTM D256 [23] standard using pendulum impact testing machine, TINIUS OLSEN Model impact 104. Specimens used for conducting impact test are presented in Figure 3. The average value was taken for test results of three specimens.

Figure 1: Tensile test specimens.
Figure 1:

Tensile test specimens.

Figure 2: Flexural test specimens.
Figure 2:

Flexural test specimens.

Figure 3: Impact test specimens.
Figure 3:

Impact test specimens.

2.3.2 Morphological behavior

Morphology micrographs of the fracture surface of the samples after the tensile tests were obtained by using scanning electron microscope (SEM) (Model LEO-435VP) with an acceleration voltage of 15 kV. Samples were sputter-coated with gold layer before the examination.

2.3.3 Thermogravimetric analysis

A thermogravimetric analyzer (EXSTAR TG/DTA 6300) instrument was used to study the thermal stability and decomposition of the composite samples. Samples of about 10 mg were heated steadily from ambient to 700°C at a heating rate of 10°C/min under the nitrogen atmosphere, and the corresponding percentage weight loss was recorded.

2.3.4 Water absorption behavior

The water absorption study of all the formulated composites was carried out according to ASTM D570-98 [24] standard. Specimens (dimensions: 76.2 mm×24.6 mm×2.6 mm) were oven dried at 50°C to obtain the weight of oven dry sample (mo). This oven dried specimen was dipped in distilled water, taken out after regular intervals of time, and weighed in a high-precision analytical balance (Shimadzu AUW220 Dual-range semi-micro balance, capacity: 220 g, readability: 0.1 mg/0.01 mg, and accuracy: 0.0001 mg) to obtain the weight of wet sample (m). The water absorption percentage was calculated using the following equation:

Water absorption (%)=mmomo×100

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Mechanical properties

Mechanical properties of the composite system give indirect information about the interfacial characteristics of the composite. The reinforcing efficiency of the composite system mainly depended on the fiber/matrix interfacial bonding. Therefore, in order to quantify the reinforcing efficiency of the hybrid and non-hybrid composite system, various formulated composite samples were subjected to tensile, flexural, and impact testing, and their results are illustrated in Figures 47.

Figure 4: Tensile and flexural strength of the composites.
Figure 4:

Tensile and flexural strength of the composites.

Figure 5: Tensile and flexural modulus of the composites.
Figure 5:

Tensile and flexural modulus of the composites.

Figure 6: Percent elongation at break of the composites.
Figure 6:

Percent elongation at break of the composites.

Figure 7: Impact strength of the composites.
Figure 7:

Impact strength of the composites.

Figures 4 and 5 show the tensile strength and modulus, respectively, of the randomly oriented short banana, coir, and banana/coir fibers hybrid composites. These figures reveal that the banana fiber-reinforced composite (sample S1) has better tensile strength and modulus values than coir fiber composite (sample S5). The banana fiber has higher inherent tensile properties than coir fibers (Table 1); this meant that the reinforcing efficiency of the banana fiber in the LDPE matrix is higher than that of the coir fiber. The banana fiber has lower diameter than that of the coir fiber as well. Therefore, the surface area of the fiber per unit area of the composite is higher in the case of the banana fiber-reinforced composite than that of the coir fiber-reinforced composite; this suggested that the physical interaction and the stress distribution between fiber and matrix is better in the case of banana fiber than that of coir fiber composites. However, it has been observed that the incorporation of coir fiber into the banana fiber composites of up to 50% by weight led to improvement of the tensile strength and modulus values of the banana fiber/LDPE composites. The hybrid composite (sample S3) shows an improvement of approximately 21% and 30.2% in the tensile strength and 19.9% and 97.4% in the tensile modulus when compared to that of the banana and coir fiber composites, respectively. The result shows that the percentage elongation at break (Figure 6) is maximum for coir fiber/LDPE composite and minimum for the hybrid composite having banana:coir fiber ratio of 1:1. In any hybrid composite system, the properties of the composite are mainly dependent on the modulus and percentage elongation at break of the individual fibers [25]. The tensile strength and modulus of banana fiber are comparatively higher than that of the coir fiber, whereas the percentage elongation at break of the banana fiber is lower than that of the coir fiber. Therefore, during the tensile test the main stress carried out by the banana fiber is transferred to the coir fiber without failure of the matrix. Once the banana fiber attained the maximum strain, multiple failures occur in it after which coir fiber effectively distributes the load, inducing better stress transfer and resulting in improved properties. It was reported that the dispersion of the fibers in the hybrid composite is higher than that of the non-hybridized composites [26]. The hybridization of jute [14] and sisal [15] fibers in banana/epoxy composite up to 50% by weight results in improved tensile properties, which is comparable with our obtained results. In comparison to the tensile strength of silk/coir/polyester composite, the present result shows 25.2% improved tensile strength [27].

The decrease in tensile strength and modulus is observed for the hybrid composite having banana:coir fiber ratio of 1:3 (sample S4) in comparison to individual banana fiber composite and other formulated hybrid composites. This decrease in tensile properties could be a result of poor interfacial interaction between the fibers and the matrix due to the formation of voids by uneven distribution of the fibers in the composite system [28]. On the contrary, the hybrid composite having banana:coir fiber ratio of 3:1 (sample S2) displayed better tensile properties in comparison to pure banana and coir fiber composites. It has been reported that the bonding between two or more fibers is highly affected by the chemical reaction occurring amongst them [29]. Thus, it can be inferred from the obtained results that the bonding between the coir and banana fiber improves on increasing coir fiber content up to 50% by weight, while bonding between them diminishes at higher loading of coir fiber into the banana fiber composite.

The flexural test results (shown in Figures 4 and 5) follow a similar trend as the tensile test results, where optimum flexural strength and modulus were reported for sample S3, which showed an increment in the flexural strength and modulus of approximately 42.2% and 59.4% of coir fiber/LDPE composite and 14.8% and 42.8% of banana fiber/LDPE composite, respectively. As explained earlier, a strong interfacial adhesion, as well as better fiber dispersion, can be achieved in hybrid composites, resulting in better stress transfer. In comparison to the flexural strength of banana/glass/polyester composite, the present result shows 63.98% improved flexural strength [30].

The impact strength of the composite materials is a measure of their overall toughness. Figure 7 shows the impact strength of the banana, coir, and banana/coir fibers hybrid composites. The trend of impact test results is slightly different from the tensile and flexural test results. It has been reported in the literature by Idicula et al. [31] that the impact strength is mainly dependent on the microfibrillar angle of the reinforcing fiber. Fibers having a high microfibrillar angle give higher impact strength value. Hence, coir fiber (microfibrillar angle 49°) based composite showed higher impact strength than that of the banana fiber (microfibrillar angle 11°) based composite. Also, the coir has higher lumen size than the banana fiber as well, which results in high impact strength. Thus, the addition of coir fiber into the banana/LDPE composite improves the impact strength. However, among the hybrid and pure banana fiber composites, the highest impact strength value has been recorded for sample S3. This increment in the impact strength of the hybrid composite might be observed due to the synergism occurring between the two fibers.

3.2 Morphological properties

Figures 812 display the micrographs of the tensile fractured specimen of non-hybrid and hybrid composites. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the SEM micrographs of the coir and banana fiber composites, respectively. In the micrographs (Figure 5), coir fibers appeared to be loosely bonded in the LDPE matrix, indicating poor interfacial adhesion between them. This poor interfacial adhesion causes easy fiber pullouts and results in lower tensile strength for the coir fiber composite than that of the banana fiber composite. On the contrary, the micrographs in Figure 6 show comparatively less void space between the banana fibers and LDPE matrix, indicating better fiber/matrix interaction, which results in better tensile properties than coir fiber composite. Figure 10 shows the micrographs of the tensile fractured surface of sample S3. The holes and fiber pullout traces can be seen in the micrographs. From the micrographs, the interfacial adhesion between the fibers and matrix appeared to be better, and this might be because of the synergism occurring between the two fibers that resulted from the optimum hybridization. It can also be inferred that the chemical reactions which occurred between the banana and coir fiber are optimum and have a positive effect on the fibers/matrix bonding which led to improved tensile strength. From the micrographs of sample S4, as shown in Figure 11, the fibers appeared to be loosely bonded with the polymer matrix, and gaps exist between the fiber and matrix, indicating poor interfacial bonding between the fibers and the LDPE matrix. The poor interfacial bonding is confirmed by the tensile strength which shows the lowest value compared to banana fiber composite and other hybrid formulated composites. Figure 12 indicates the micrographs of sample S2. From the micrographs, it is clear that the incorporation of 25% coir fiber into the banana fiber/LDPE composites reduces the fiber pullout and fiber protruding from the surface but has more number of fiber pullout traces than sample S3.

Figure 8: SEM micrograph of the tensile fracture surface of sample S5 at ×100 and ×200 magnification.
Figure 8:

SEM micrograph of the tensile fracture surface of sample S5 at ×100 and ×200 magnification.

Figure 9: SEM micrograph of the tensile fracture surface of sample S1 at ×100 and ×200 magnification.
Figure 9:

SEM micrograph of the tensile fracture surface of sample S1 at ×100 and ×200 magnification.

Figure 10: SEM micrograph of the tensile fracture surface of sample S3 at ×100 and ×200 magnification.
Figure 10:

SEM micrograph of the tensile fracture surface of sample S3 at ×100 and ×200 magnification.

Figure 11: SEM micrograph of the tensile fracture surface of sample S4 at ×100 and ×200 magnification.
Figure 11:

SEM micrograph of the tensile fracture surface of sample S4 at ×100 and ×200 magnification.

Figure 12: SEM micrograph of the tensile fracture surface of sample S2 at ×100 and ×200 magnification.
Figure 12:

SEM micrograph of the tensile fracture surface of sample S2 at ×100 and ×200 magnification.

3.3 Thermal analysis of composites

Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was used to study the effect of heating on the composite materials. TGA curves of different composite materials are shown in Figure 13, and the data are simplified in Table 3. Table 3 shows the comparison of percentage mass loss and percentage residue for hybrid and non-hybrid composite samples. All the composite samples show rapid degradation within a narrow temperature range of 250–480°C, which corresponds to the degradation of the natural fiber followed by the polymer matrix. The decomposition occurring within the temperature range of 480–550°C is attributed to the oxidative decomposition of the charred residue [32]. It can be noted from Table 3 that the degradation temperature for mass loss (5 and 25%) shifted slightly to the higher temperature range with the addition of coir fiber into the banana fiber/LDPE composites. However, sample S3 shows the highest decomposition temperature up to 50% mass loss and percent residue at 700°C than the other composite samples, which indicates a strong interfacial bonding between the two fibers and the LDPE matrix. This also ensures a higher thermal stability in the composites having banana:coir fiber ratio of 1:1. These results corroborated well with results obtained from the mechanical and SEM analysis.

Figure 13: TGA curves of the composites.
Figure 13:

TGA curves of the composites.

Table 3:

The peak temperature at various percentages weight loss for the thermal degradation of non-hybridized and hybridized fiber composites obtained from thermal analysis.

SamplesPeak temperature (°C)Residue at 700°C (%)
5% weight loss25% weight loss50% weight loss
S1293.2375.3445.80.10
S2297.9383.4439.2
S3301.3398.9446.61.52
S4296.5381.6437.11.17
S5285.4368.7436.5

3.4 Water absorption behavior

The water absorption test was carried out to calculate the amount of water absorbed by the composite samples under specified conditions. In general, the amount of water absorbed by the natural fiber based polymer composite mainly depends on factors such as fiber type, hydrogen bonding sites in the natural filler, volume fraction of the fiber, void spaces at the interfaces and the micro-cracks in the polymer matrix formed during the fabrication, and temperature [33, 34]. Figure 14 shows the water absorption behavior of all the formulated composites against the immersion time of 20 days. As expected, the water absorption capacity of all the composite samples is high in the early stages of the exposure; after that it decreases till it reaches saturation level.

Figure 14: Water absorption (%) of the composites.
Figure 14:

Water absorption (%) of the composites.

It can be seen in Figure 14 that the banana fiber-filled composite absorbed more water (9.62%) than the other formulated composite samples. The high water absorption capacity in the banana fiber-reinforced composites is ascribed to the high content of cellulose and hemicellulose and low content of lignin in the banana fiber than the coir fiber as indicated in Table 1. In the natural fibers, cellulose and hemicellulose are mainly responsible for the high water absorption capacity, since they contain maximum active hydrogen bonding sites [34]. On the other hand, coir fiber-filled composites show the lowest water absorption with the value of 3.57%. This is because of the high lignin content in the coir fiber, which has lesser number of hydrogen bonding sites [32]. Thus, incorporation of coir fiber into the banana fiber composites decreased the water absorption capacity. However, incorporation of 75% coir fiber into the banana fiber composite shows slightly higher water absorption value of 6% than that of the 50% added coir fiber hybrid composite of 5.78%. The increase in water absorption capacity by sample S4 is attributed to the poor fiber-matrix interfacial bonding which created micro-voids at the interface and causes more water to be absorbed. The composite sample S3 shows the lowest water absorption percentage among the other hybrid composites, indicating strong fiber-matrix interfacial bonding.

4 Conclusions

In this investigation, the effect of hybridization of coir fiber with banana fiber in LDPE matrix was studied in terms of mechanical properties, morphological behavior, and water absorption behavior. Hybrid composites were prepared by the compression molding technique by varying the relative weight fraction of banana and coir fibers. The results obtained in this study clearly showed that the addition of coir fiber into the banana fiber composites of up to 50% by weight led to improvement of the tensile properties, flexural properties, toughness, thermal stability, and water resistance of the banana fiber/LDPE composites. Hybrid composite with banana:coir fiber ratio of 1:1 has displayed the best mechanical properties in comparison with the other formulated hybrid composites. The incorporation of 50% coir fiber in the banana fiber composites results in the improvement of approximately 21%, 14.8%, and 6% in the tensile, flexural, and impact strength, respectively, than that of the banana fiber/LDPE composites. From the SEM studies, it was clear that the addition of coir fiber into the banana fiber composites reduced the fiber pullout and improved the fiber/matrix interfacial bonding. On the basis of the above investigation, it can be inferred that the hybridization made the materials cost effective due to the lower cost of coir fiber in comparison to banana fiber with better mechanical properties and thermal stability, and the material can be suitable for various low-cost engineering applications.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India, and the Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD), New Delhi, India.

References

[1] Ayrilmis N, Jarusombuti S, Fueangvivat V, Bauchongkol P, White RH. Fiber. Polym. 2011, 12, 919–926.10.1007/s12221-011-0919-1Search in Google Scholar

[2] NabiSaheb D, Jog JP. Adv. Polym. Tech. 1999, 8, 351–363.10.1002/(SICI)1098-2329(199924)18:4<351::AID-ADV6>3.0.CO;2-XSearch in Google Scholar

[3] Kumar V, Tyagi L, Sinha S. Rev. Chem. Eng. 2011, 27, 253–264.10.1515/REVCE.2011.006Search in Google Scholar

[4] Li X, Tabil LG, Panigrahi S. J. Polym. Environ. 2007, 15, 25–33.10.1007/s10924-006-0042-3Search in Google Scholar

[5] Kabir MM, Wang H, Lau KT, Cardona F. Compos. Part B-Eng. 2012, 43, 2883–2892.10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.04.053Search in Google Scholar

[6] Chollakup R, Smitthipong W, Kongtud W, Tantatherdtam R. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2013, 27, 1290–1300.10.1080/01694243.2012.694275Search in Google Scholar

[7] Prasad N, Agarwal VK, Sinha S. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2015, 32, 2534–2541.10.1007/s11814-015-0069-zSearch in Google Scholar

[8] Prasad N, Agarwal VK, Sinha S. Iran. Polym. J. 2016, 25, 229–241.10.1007/s13726-016-0416-xSearch in Google Scholar

[9] Keener T, Stuart R, Brown T. Compos. Part A-Apple S 2004, 3, 357–362.10.1016/j.compositesa.2003.09.014Search in Google Scholar

[10] Mohanty S, Nayak SK. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2006, 102, 3306–3315.10.1002/app.24799Search in Google Scholar

[11] Jawaid M, Abdul Khalil HPS. Carbohyd. Polym. 2011, 86, 1–18.10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.04.043Search in Google Scholar

[12] Ramesh M, Palanikumar K, Hemachandra Reddy K. Compos. Part B-Eng. 2013, 48, 1–9.10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.12.004Search in Google Scholar

[13] Sathishkumar TP, Navaneethakrishnan P, Shankar S, Kumar J. J. Compos. Mater. 2012, 47, 2181–2191.10.1177/0021998312454903Search in Google Scholar

[14] Boopalan M, Niranjanaa M, Umapathy MJ. Compos. Part B-Eng. 2013, 51, 54–57.10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.02.033Search in Google Scholar

[15] Venkateshwaran N, Elayaperumal A, Alavudeen A, Thiruchitrambalam M. Mater. Design 2011, 32, 4017–4021.10.1016/j.matdes.2011.03.002Search in Google Scholar

[16] Pérez-Fonseca AA, Robledo-Ortízb JR, Ramirez-Arreola DE, Ortega-Gudiño P, Rodrigue D, González-Núñez R. Mater. Design 2014, 64, 35–43.10.1016/j.matdes.2014.07.025Search in Google Scholar

[17] Faruk O, Bledzki AK, Fink HP, Sain M. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2012, 37, 1552–1596.10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2012.04.003Search in Google Scholar

[18] Saw SK, Sarkhel G, Choudhury A. Fiber. Polym. 2011, 12, 506–513.10.1007/s12221-011-0506-5Search in Google Scholar

[19] Tran LQN, Fuentes CA, Dupont-Gillain C, Van Vuure AW, Verpoest I. Colloid. Surface A 2011, 377, 251–260.10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.01.023Search in Google Scholar

[20] ASTM D3039. Standard test method for tensile properties of polymer matrix composite materials.Search in Google Scholar

[21] ASTM D790. Standard test methods for flexural properties of unreinforced and reinforced plastics and electrical insulating materials.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Harish S, Michael DP, Bensely A, Lal DM, Rajadurai A. Mater. Charact. 2009, 60, 44–49.10.1016/j.matchar.2008.07.001Search in Google Scholar

[23] ASTM D256. Standard test methods for determining the Izod pendulum impact resistance of plastics.Search in Google Scholar

[24] ASTM D570-98. Standard test method for water absorption of plastics.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Sreekala MS, George J, Kumaran MG, Thomas S. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2002, 62, 339–353.10.1016/S0266-3538(01)00219-6Search in Google Scholar

[26] Kretsis G. Composites 1987, 18, 13–23.10.1016/0010-4361(87)90003-6Search in Google Scholar

[27] Khanam PN, Reddy GR, Raghu K, Naidu SV. J. Reinf. Plast. Comp. 2010, 29, 2124–2127.10.1177/0731684409345413Search in Google Scholar

[28] Hill CAS, Abdul Khalil HP. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2000, 78, 1685–1697.10.1002/1097-4628(20001128)78:9<1685::AID-APP150>3.0.CO;2-USearch in Google Scholar

[29] Zainudin ES, Yan LH, Haniffah WH, Jawaid M, Alothman OY. Polym. Composite. 2014, 35, 1418–1425.10.1002/pc.22794Search in Google Scholar

[30] Haneefa A, Panampilly B, Indose A, Thomas S. J. Compos. Mater. 2008, 42, 1471–1489.10.1177/0021998308092194Search in Google Scholar

[31] Idicula M, Joseph K, Thomas S. J. Reinf. Plast. Comp. 2010, 29, 12–29.10.1177/0731684408095033Search in Google Scholar

[32] Ouajai S, Shanks RA. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 2005, 89, 327–335.10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2005.01.016Search in Google Scholar

[33] Saw SK, Akhtar K, Yadav N, Singh AK. J. Nat. Fibers 2014, 11, 39–53.10.1080/15440478.2013.825067Search in Google Scholar

[34] Zabihzadeh SM. BioResources 2010, 5, 316–323.10.15376/biores.5.1.316-323Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2015-12-7
Accepted: 2016-5-13
Published Online: 2016-9-15
Published in Print: 2018-1-26

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Downloaded on 28.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/secm-2015-0446/html
Scroll to top button