| Literature DB >> 35614305 |
Hajara Babayo1,2, Haruna Musa1, Mustapha D Garba3,4.
Abstract
An insect repellent composite containing tiger nut particulate fibre, waste low density polyethene (LDPE) and castor oil alkyd resin was fabricated. Canarium schweinfurthii gum was used as insect repellent compound and maleic anhydride as compatibilizer. The tiger nut chaff was subjected to benzoylation using benzoyl chloride to increase the fibre-matrix interaction. The compound and composition was then moulded with LDPE as dual matrices for excellent physico-mechanical properties (pressed for 5 min, 130 °C and 25 bar and cured). The 10 wt.% treated composite exhibited a minimum water absorption of ~ 0.085%, optimal chemical resistance for both acids (HCl and H2SO4) and bases (NaOH and KOH) and no effect on thickness. Density measurement showed the lowest value of ~ 0.0096 g/cm3 for the treated fibre composite. However, the tensile strength, flexural stress, hardness and impact load were improved up to 35.08 Mpa, 456.3 Mpa, 95 and 730 J/m respectively with treated composites. Insect repellent tests against termites and cockroaches show repellent activity with time intervals. FTIR and SEM analysis showed fibre modification achieved.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35614305 PMCID: PMC9132963 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-12876-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1(a) Extraction of FFA by saponification and acidification of crude castor oil. (b) General reaction for fatty acid alkyd resin.
Formulations of composites fabrication with the particulate fibre.
| Material | Part by hundreds of LDPE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 10% Fiber composition | 20% Fiber composition | 30% Fiber composition | |
| 60 | 50 | 40 | 30 | |
| Tiger nut particulate fibre | _ | 10 | 20 | 30 |
| Alkyd resin | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Maleic anhydride | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Results obtained for the physico-chemical analysis.
| Control | 10% fiber content | 20% fiber content | 30% fiber content | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treated | Untreated | Treated | Untreated | Treated | Untreated | ||
| Water absorption (wt.%) | 0 | 0.085 | 0.288 | 0.139 | 0.3000 | 0.179 | 0.415 |
| Density (g/cm3) | 0.0099 | 0.0092 | 0.0097 | 0.0094 | 0.0096 | 0.0096 | 0.01 |
| Tensile Strength (MPa) | 33.0 | 28.73 | 17.78 | 31.90 | 25.24 | 35.08 | 27.78 |
| Flexural strength (MPa) | 138.9 | 436.5 | 406.6 | 444.0 | 411.0 | 456.3 | 426.4 |
| Hardness (HV) | 97 | 93 | 94 | 94 | 95 | 95 | 96 |
| Impact load (J/m) | 850 | 781 | 820 | 744 | 801 | 730 | 779 |
Figure 2Acid chemical resistance test of the composite.
Figure 3Base chemical resistance test of the composite.
Figure 4SEM Micrograph of (A) Composite with no particulate fibre, (B) composite with untreated tiger nut particulate fibre, (C) composite with treated tiger nut particulate fibre.
Figure 5Mortality rate/repellent activity of termites towards the composites.
Figure 6Mortality rate/repellent activity of cockroach towards the composites.