| Literature DB >> 35683149 |
Muhammad Rizal Muhammad Asyraf1,2,3, Agusril Syamsir1, Abu Bakar Mohd Supian1, Fathoni Usman1, Rushdan Ahmad Ilyas3,4, Norizan Mohd Nurazzi5, Mohd Nor Faiz Norrrahim6, Muhammad Rizal Razman7, Sharifah Zarina Syed Zakaria8, Shubham Sharma9,10, Zarina Itam11, Mohamad Zakir Abd Rashid12.
Abstract
In the era of globalisation, decreasing synthetic resources, especially petroleum, have encouraged global communities to apply biomass waste as a substitute material for green technology development. The development of plastic products from lignocellulosic fibre-reinforced composites has been a hot topic among material scientists and engineers due to their abundance, sustainable in nature, and less toxic towards health. For the Malaysian scenario, sugar palm is a plant found in the wild and locally planted in certain areas in Malaysia and Indonesia. Generally, sugar palm can be harvested for traditional foods, fruits, starch sugar (gula kabung), and alcohol, whereas sugar palm fibre (SPF) is used in conventional products (brushes and brooms). Various researchers are working on the characterisation of fibre and its composites for engineering and packaging products. The main drawback of SPF is its hydrophilic behaviour, which leads to high moisture uptake and inhibits a good bond between the fibre and the matrix. Thus, a solution for this problem is by implementing chemical treatments on the fibre. From the literature review, no comprehensive review paper has been published on the influence of chemical treatment on the mechanical behaviour of SPF-reinforced polymer composites. Thus, the present review examines recent studies on the mechanical properties of sugar palm lignocellulosic fibres with various chemical treatments to evaluate their potential in structural applications.Entities:
Keywords: chemical treatments; lignocellulosic fibre; mechanical properties; natural fibre-composites; sugar palm; thermosetting and thermoplastic
Year: 2022 PMID: 35683149 PMCID: PMC9181418 DOI: 10.3390/ma15113852
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Comparison of natural fibres with synthetic fibres [54,55,56,57,58,59].
| Aspects | Synthetic Fibres | Natural Fibres |
|---|---|---|
| Examples | Glass fibres | Lignocellulosic fibre such as SPF |
| Density | High | Low |
| Biodegradability | Took long period for the material to be decomposed. | Highly biodegradable |
| Energy usage | Required huge amount of energy input during processing | Low energy consumption during its processing |
| Environmental effect | Huge negative impact toward environment if disposal is not handled properly | Environmentally friendly since it is extracted from bio-waste |
| Health effect | Serious issues toward respiratory diseases | No effect toward health |
| Recyclability | Cannot be recycled | Recyclable |
| Raw material cost | Relatively high price | Low price |
Figure 1Preparation of SPF from sugar palm tree: (a) locating suitable SPF at the trunk, (b) SPF bundle, (c) combed SPF, (d) SPF treatment by alkalisation, (e) fibre yarning, and (f) finalised SPF yarn. Adapted with permission from Ref. [71]. Copyright Elsevier.
Comparison of the mechanical performance of SPF with other lignocellulosic fibres. The data are adapted from Ref. [37]. Creative Common CC BY license.
| Fiber | Density (g/cm3) | Tensile Modulus (GPa) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Elongation at Break (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sugar Palm | 1.292 | 4.96 | 156.96 | 7.98 |
| Bagasse | 1.5 | 17 | 290 | - |
| Bamboo | 1.25 | 11 to 17 | 140 to 230 | - |
| Flax | 0.6 to 1.1 | 27.6 | 345 to 1035 | 2.7 to 3.2 |
| Hemp | 1.48 | 70 | 690 | 1.6 to 4 |
| Jute | 1.3 | 26.5 | 393 to 773 | 1.5 to 1.8 |
| Kenaf | 1.45 | 53 | 215.4 | 1.6 |
| Sisal | 1.5 | 9.4 to 22 | 511 to 535 | 2.0 to 2.5 |
| Pineapple | 0.8 to 1.6 | 1.44 | 400 to 627 | 14.5 |
| Coir | 1.2 | 4 to 6 | 138.7 | 30 |
Chemical compositions of SPF from different tree parts. Data extracted from Ref. [68]. Creative Common CC BY license.
| Chemical Composition (%) | Sugar Palm Tree Parts | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Trunk | Bunch | Frond | |
| Lignin | 31.5 | 46.4 | 23.5 | 18.9 |
| Hemicellulose | 65.6 | 61.1 | 71.8 | 81.2 |
| Cellulose | 52.3 | 40.6 | 61.8 | 66.5 |
| Extractive | 4.4 | 6.3 | 2.2 | 2.5 |
| Moisture | 7.4 | 1.5 | 2.7 | 2.7 |
| Ash | 4.0 | 2.4 | 3.4 | 3.1 |
Chemical composition of SPF obtained from various heights of the tree. Data are adapted from Ref. [53]. Copyright Elsevier.
| Chemical Composition (%) | Height (m) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 13 | 11 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 1 | |
| Lignin | 24.9 | 24.3 | 23.0 | 23.6 | 20.5 | 20.9 | 18.9 | 17.9 |
| Hemicellulose | 7.5 | 7.9 | 7.9 | 7.9 | 7.7 | 7.4 | 6.1 | 4.7 |
| Cellulose | 53.4 | 54.4 | 55.8 | 56.8 | 56.6 | 55.3 | 49.4 | 37.3 |
| Extractive | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 2.5 |
| Moisture | 8.7 | 8.1 | 7.7 | 8.2 | 8.4 | 7.9 | 8.6 | 5.4 |
| Ash | 4.3 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 2.1 | 4.2 | 5.8 | 14.0 | 30.9 |
Research on alkalisation of SPF with various concentrations and immersion times.
| Concentration of NaOH Solution | Immersion Time (Hours) | References |
|---|---|---|
| 4 and 6% | 1 | [ |
| 5 and 10% | 2 | [ |
| 6% | 3 | [ |
| 0.25 M and 0.5 M | 1, 4, and 8 | [ |
Figure 2SEM analysis of fractured SPF-reinforced propylene composites with (a) 10 wt%, (b) 20 wt%, (c) 30 wt% of untreated SPF; (d) 10 wt%, (e) 20 wt%, (f) 30 wt% of silane treated SPF. Adapted with permission from Ref. [148]. Copyright Elsevier.
Figure 3A possible reaction between cellulosic-OH groups and benzoyl chloride. Adapted from Ref. [152]. Creative Common CC BY license.
Figure 4SEM analysis of (a) untreated and (b) seawater treated SPF. Adapted with permission from Ref. [153]. Creative Common CC BY license.
Reported works on the mechanical properties of SPF-reinforced polymer composites.
| Fibre Condition | Matrix | Matrix Type | Chemical Treatments | Details | Flexural | Tensile | Impact | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strength (MPa) | Modulus (GPa) | Strength (MPa) | Modulus (GPa) | Strength | ||||||
| 10 wt% of SPF (long fibre) | Epoxy | Thermo-set | Alkali | 0.5 M of NaOH solution at 8 h | 90.68 | 4672 | 41.88 | 3780 | 6.0 | [ |
| 30 wt% of SPF (powder fibre) | Phenolic | Thermo-set | Alkali | 0.5% of NaOH solution at 4 h | 92.59 | 5.17 | - | - | 7.28 | [ |
| 10 wt% of SPF (Short fibre) | PLA | Bio-polymer | Alkali | 0.25% of NaOH solutions | - | - | 32.5 | 0.263 | - | [ |
| 30 wt% of SPF (powder fibre) | Poly-propylene | Thermo-plastics | Silane | 2 wt% of silane solution for 3 h | - | - | 23.00 | 1.096 | - | [ |
| SPF (long fibre) | Poly-urethane | Thermo-plastics | Silane | 2 wt% of silane solution for 3 h | - | - | 173.44 | 10.07 | - | [ |
| 30 wt% of SPF (mat fibre) | Poly-propylene | Thermo-plastics | Sodium bicarbonate | 10 wt% of sodium bicarbonate solution for 5 days | 60 | 2.47 | 58.76 | 2.06 | 17.61 | [ |
| 10 wt% of SPF (long fibre) | Epoxy | Thermo-set | Benzoy-lation | 18% NaOH solution for 30 min, 10% NaOH + Benzoyl chloride solution | - | - | 22.7 | 3.62 | - | [ |
| 30 wt% of SPF (long fibre) | Epoxy | Thermo-plastics | Seawater | Seawater 30 days | 54.22 | - | - | - | 18.46 | [ |
| 30 wt% of SPF (long fibre–15 cm) | Unsatu-rated polyester | Thermo-set | Seawater | Seawater 30 days from Port Klang, Selangor, Malaysia | 80.80 | - | 18.33 | 4.374 | - | [ |
| 30 wt% of SPF (Short fibre) | Poly-urethane | Thermo-plastics | Combine | 4% of NaOH solution and 70 °C microwave treatment | - | - | 18.42 | 1.307 | - | [ |
| SPF (long fibre) | Poly-urethane | Thermo-plastics | Combine | 6 wt% NaOH and 2 wt% of silane solutions for 3 h each | - | - | 142.09 | 7.75 | - | [ |
Figure 5Fabrication of SPF/glass fibre reinforced UPE composites fishing boat. Adapted with permission from Ref. [52]. Copyright Elsevier.