| Literature DB >> 35744121 |
Siti Humairah Kamarul Bahrain1, Nik Rozlin Nik Masdek1, Jamaluddin Mahmud1, M N Mohammed2, S M Sapuan3,4, R A Ilyas5,6, Abdullah Mohamed7, Mohamed A Shamseldin8, Anas Abdelrahman9, M R M Asyraf10.
Abstract
The development of environmentally benign silicone composites from sugar palm fibre and silicone rubber was carried out in this study. The mechanical, physical, and morphological properties of the composites with sugar palm (SP) filler contents ranging from 0% to 16% by weight (wt%) were investigated. Based on the uniaxial tensile tests, it was found that the increment in filler content led to higher stiffness. Via dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), the viscoelastic properties of the silicone biocomposite showed that the storage modulus and loss modulus increased with the increment in filler content. The physical properties also revealed that the density and moisture absorption rate increased as the filler content increased. Inversely, the swelling effect of the highest filler content (16 wt%) revealed that its swelling ratio possessed the lowest rate as compared to the lower filler addition and pure silicone rubber. The morphological analysis via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed that the sugar palm filler was evenly dispersed and no agglomeration could be seen. Thus, it can be concluded that the addition of sugar palm filler enhanced the stiffness property of silicone rubber. These new findings could contribute positively to the employment of natural fibres as reinforcements for greener biocomposite materials.Entities:
Keywords: mechanical properties; physical properties; silicone biocomposite; soft composite; sugar palm fibre
Year: 2022 PMID: 35744121 PMCID: PMC9228608 DOI: 10.3390/ma15124062
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1Engineering stress, σE, strain, ε, of pure silicone rubber (0 wt%) and sugar-palm-reinforced silicone rubber biocomposite.
Average maximum tensile strength, σE (MPa), and strain, ε, of pure silicone rubber (0 wt%) and sugar-palm-reinforced silicone rubber biocomposite.
| Specimens | Average Maximum Tensile Strength, σE (MPa) | Average Maximum Strain, ε |
|---|---|---|
| 0 wt% | 1.04 ± 0.05 | 13.15 ± 0.33 |
| 4 wt% | 0.89 ± 0.02 | 12.09 ± 0.13 |
| 8 wt% | 0.80 ± 0.02 | 10.81 ± 0.16 |
| 12 wt% | 0.79 ± 0.03 | 10.79 ± 0.22 |
| 16 wt% | 0.71 ± 0.02 | 9.49 ± 0.17 |
Figure 2SEM images of (a) pure silicone rubber (0 wt%), (b) 4 wt%, (c) 8 wt%, (d) 12 wt%, and (e) 16 wt% sugar-palm-reinforced silicone rubber biocomposite.
Figure 3(a) Storage modulus, (b) loss modulus, and (c) tan delta of pure silicone rubber and sugar -palm-reinforced silicone rubber biocomposite.
Figure 4Experimental density of pure silicone rubber, sugar palm filler, and sugar-palm-reinforced silicone rubber biocomposite.
Figure 5Moisture absorption of pure silicone rubber and sugar-palm-reinforced silicone rubber biocomposite.
Figure 6Swelling behaviour of both pure silicone rubber and sugar-palm-reinforced silicone rubber biocomposite with 4 wt%, 8 wt%, 12 wt%, and 16 wt% of filler content.