| Literature DB >> 35888456 |
Liyuan Guan1, Qiuzi Huang1, Xiaoju Wang1, Ning Qi2, Mingxing Wang3, Guohe Wang1,2,4, Zhong Wang1,2.
Abstract
During spinning, the chemical component content of natural fibers has a great influence on the mechanical properties. How to rapidly and accurately measure these properties has become the focus of the industry. In this work, a grey model (GM) for rapid and accurate prediction of the mechanical properties of windmill palm fiber (WPF) was established to explore the effect of chemical component content on the Young's modulus. The chemical component content of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin in WPF was studied using near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy, and an NIR prediction model was established, with the measured chemical values as the control. The value of RC and RCV were more than 0.9, while the values of RMSEC and RMSEP were less than 1, which reflected the excellent accuracy of the NIR model. External validation and a two-tailed t-test were used to evaluate the accuracy of the NIR model prediction results. The GM(1,4) model of WPF chemical components and the Young's modulus was established. The model indicated that the increase in cellulose and lignin content could promote the increase in the Young's modulus, while the increase in hemicellulose content inhibited it. The establishment of the two models provides a theoretical basis for evaluating whether WPF can be used in spinning, which is convenient for the selection of spinning fibers in practical application.Entities:
Keywords: Young’s modulus; chemical component; grey model; near infrared spectroscopy; windmill palm fiber
Year: 2022 PMID: 35888456 PMCID: PMC9323776 DOI: 10.3390/ma15144989
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
The chemical components of several common WPF.
| Chemical Component (%) | Component Content | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaf Sheaths | Trunks | Fruit Bunch | Mesocarp | |
| cellulose | 22.35 ± 0.31 | 44.25 ± 2.96 | 40.50 ± 0.37 | 32.00~60.00 |
| hemicellulose | 41.30 ± 2.80 | 33.94 ± 1.25 | 24.30 ± 0.14 | 9.80~31.00 |
| lignin | 36.35 ± 2.89 | 33.12 ± 2.16 | 35.20 ± 0.11 | 11.00~32.80 |
Chemical components of the windmill palm.
| Sample | Cellulose (%) | Hemicellulose (%) | Lignin (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.63 | 12.79 | 49.12 |
| 2 | 28.24 | 10.33 | 50.27 |
| 3 | 25.44 | 10.35 | 50.31 |
| 4 | 25.01 | 11.27 | 52.46 |
| 5 | 23.56 | 12.18 | 46.33 |
| 6 | 21.81 | 11.43 | 60.44 |
| 7 | 19.06 | 13.39 | 60.01 |
| 8 | 57.67 | 13.19 | 20.66 |
| 9 | 24.14 | 13.42 | 52.28 |
| 10 | 17.89 | 13.40 | 65.20 |
| 11 | 26.36 | 13.35 | 50.16 |
| 12 | 17.86 | 12.69 | 59.31 |
| 13 | 24.39 | 13.07 | 47.55 |
| 14 | 21.55 | 14.68 | 57.45 |
| 15 | 19.56 | 16.26 | 59.97 |
| 16 | 18.24 | 17.26 | 58.25 |
| 17 | 17.20 | 16.88 | 62.24 |
| 18 | 17.89 | 17.24 | 59.14 |
| 19 | 18.19 | 16.10 | 60.30 |
| 20 | 17.98 | 17.33 | 58.97 |
| 21 | 21.83 | 20.96 | 49.49 |
| 22 | 26.37 | 11.05 | 38.02 |
| 23 | 37.93 | 12.23 | 30.82 |
| 24 | 8.13 | 13.45 | 76.97 |
| 25 | 7.93 | 14.43 | 71.06 |
| 26 | 80.58 | 14.12 | 3.94 |
The correction model results.
| Chemical | PCs | RMSEC | Rc2 | RMSEP | Rcv2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cellulose | 5 | 0.25 | 0.99 | 0.9 | 0.98 |
| hemicellulose | 7 | 0.09 | 0.99 | 0.95 | 0.93 |
| lignin | 6 | 0.21 | 0.99 | 0.89 | 0.97 |
Figure 1The measured values and predicted values of the calibration set samples: (a) cellulose, (b) hemicellulose, (c) lignin.
Comparison between measured values and predicted values of validation set samples.
| Sample | Cellulose | Hemicellulose | Lignin | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Measured Values (%) | Predicted Values (%) | Absolute Error (%) | Measured Values (%) | Predicted Values (%) | Absolute Error (%) | Measured Values (%) | Predicted Values (%) | Absolute Error (%) | |
| 8 | 57.67 | 58.88 | 1.21 | 13.19 | 13.53 | 0.34 | 20.66 | 21.10 | 0.44 |
| 23 | 37.93 | 38.76 | 0.83 | 12.23 | 11.83 | 0.4 | 30.82 | 31.55 | 0.73 |
| 26 | 80.58 | 78.48 | 2.10 | 14.12 | 14.46 | 0.34 | 3.94 | 3.85 | 0.73 |
Results of two-tailed t-test.
| Cellulose | Hemicellulose | Lignin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |t| | 0.019 | 0.378 | 1.500 |
Figure 2System compliance method for sample No.1.
Young’s Modulus of windmill palm fiber using the system compliance method.
| Sample | Line Equation | R2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Δ | −0.22149 | 877.19 | 0.81 |
| 2 | Δ | 0.14939 | 1370.75 | 0.77 |
| 3 | Δ | 0.04912 | 1204.90 | 0.90 |
| 4 | Δ | 0.36164 | 1900.05 | 0.72 |
| 5 | Δ | 0.15288 | 1876.82 | 0.95 |
| 6 | Δ | 0.26701 | 1484.71 | 0.76 |
| 7 | Δ | 0.46724 | 2529.08 | 0.92 |
| 8 | Δ | 1.17335 | 1365.44 | 0.74 |
| 9 | Δ | 0.43854 | 1323.95 | 0.78 |
| 10 | Δ | 0.69731 | 2579.67 | 0.74 |
| 11 | Δ | 0.15684 | 1149.86 | 0.74 |
| 12 | Δ | −0.04913 | 1292.83 | 0.70 |
| 13 | Δ | −0.07606 | 912.71 | 0.79 |
| 14 | Δ | 0.13491 | 1840.59 | 0.86 |
| 15 | Δ | 0.21965 | 1824.32 | 0.75 |
The values of cumulative and mean generating sequences of samples 1–15.
| Sample | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | —— |
| 2 | 2.02 | 1.81 | 2.10 | 2.56 | 1.78 |
| 3 | 3.05 | 2.62 | 3.09 | 3.94 | 3.25 |
| 4 | 4.12 | 3.50 | 4.07 | 6.10 | 5.02 |
| 5 | 5.24 | 4.45 | 4.99 | 8.24 | 7.17 |
| 6 | 6.47 | 5.34 | 5.84 | 9.93 | 9.09 |
| 7 | 7.69 | 6.39 | 6.58 | 12.82 | 11.38 |
| 8 | 8.90 | 7.50 | 7.39 | 14.37 | 13.60 |
| 9 | 9.96 | 8.55 | 8.33 | 15.88 | 15.13 |
| 10 | 11.29 | 9.60 | 9.03 | 18.82 | 17.35 |
| 11 | 12.31 | 10.64 | 10.05 | 20.14 | 19.48 |
| 12 | 13.52 | 11.63 | 10.75 | 20.61 | 20.37 |
| 13 | 14.49 | 12.65 | 11.70 | 22.65 | 21.63 |
| 14 | 15.66 | 13.80 | 12.54 | 24.75 | 23.70 |
| 15 | 16.82 | 15.15 | 13.25 | 26.83 | 25.79 |
Error analysis of GM(1,4) model.
| Sample | Relative Error | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.18 | 1.56 | 0.24 |
| 2 | 1.63 | 1.37 | 0.18 |
| 3 | 1.91 | 2.17 | 0.12 |
| 4 | 1.97 | 2.14 | 0.08 |
| 5 | 2.14 | 1.69 | 0.26 |
| 6 | 1.92 | 2.88 | 0.33 |
| 7 | 1.72 | 1.56 | 0.10 |
| 8 | 1.87 | 1.51 | 0.24 |
| 9 | 1.67 | 2.94 | 0.43 |
| 10 | 1.73 | 1.31 | 0.32 |
| 11 | 1.93 | 1.47 | 0.31 |
| 12 | 2.16 | 1.04 | 1.08 |
| 13 | 1.99 | 2.10 | 0.05 |
| 14 | 1.48 | 2.08 | 0.29 |
| 15 | 1.18 | 1.56 | 0.24 |
| average relative error: 0.29 | |||