Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Summary
Natural fiber-reinforced polymer composite materials are rapidly growing both
in terms of their industrial applications and fundamental research as they are
renewable, low, completely or partially recyclable and biodegradable. In order
to produce cost effective polymer reinforced composites and to reduce the
destruction of ecosystem, researchers have come up with new manufacturing
trends for composite using natural fibers which are partially biodegradable, for
which plants such as flax, cotton, hemp, jute, sisal, kenaf, pineapple, banana,
wood etc., used from time immemorial as a rich source of lignocellulosic fibers
are more often applied as the reinforcement of composites. Their abundant
availability, low cost and density as well as satisfactory mechanical properties
make them an attractive ecological alternative for the manufacturing of
composites. The natural fiber based composites is more environmentally friendly
and has variety of applications in the field of transportation (automobiles, railway
coaches, aerospace) building and construction industries (ceiling paneling,
partition boards), packaging, consumer products, etc. The demand for wood
products is continuously rising in spite of rapid depletion of forest around the
world. Research in the area of green technology is being done to provide wood
substitutes which make use of wood materials mixed with a polymer to provide
a cost effective, improved performance and termite resistant material. The use
of wood flour filled polymer composites has been considerably studied from the
scientific and commercial point of view over the last decades. Wood flour is
an attractive filler for polymer due to their reduced environmental impact and
globally pleasant aesthetical properties. They are also low cost and low density
material and high specific, biodegradable and non abrasive during processing.
This article is a critical review of the most recent development natural fiber
composite and the summary of the result presented in literature.
INTRODUCTION
Natural fibers already have been used the first time 3000 years ago in composite
systems in the ancient Egypt, where straw and clay were mixed together to
build walls. Over the last decade, polymer composites reinforced with natural
fibers have received ever increasing attention, both from the academic world
and from various industries. The interest in natural fiber reinforced polymer
composite material is growing day by day [1, 2, 3]. There are a wide variety
of different natural fibers which can be applied as reinforcement or fillers. The
most important types of natural fibers used in composite materials are flax,
hemp, jute, kenaf, and sisal due to their properties and easy availability. Further
environmental suitability can be achieved by using post-consumer recycled
plastic in place of virgin polymer matrices [4]. Polymer used as a matrix material
for these composites are generally classified into two classes, thermoplastic
and thermosetting. Thermoplastic materials currently dominate, as matrices
for biofibers; the most commonly used thermoplastic for this purpose are
polypropylene, polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC); while phenolic, epoxy
and polyester resins are the most commonly used thermosetting matrices
[3]. Such composite are comparatively more environment friendly and also
has a wide range of applications in transportation industry that is in railway
coaches, automobile and aerospace sector. They have adequate use
applications, building and construction and tiles as well as in packaging,
sport and consumer products [1, 3, 5].
The major problem identified with natural fibers is the incompatibility between
the hydrophilic natural fibers and the hydrophilic thermoplastic matrices
during incorporation, which leads to undesirable properties of the resulting
composites. It is therefore necessary to alleviate this problem by various
fiber-polymer interface modification to improve the adhesion between fiber
and matrix, which results in an improvement of performance of the resulting
composite [3, 6].
Considering the ecological aspects in material selection, replacing synthetic
fibers with natural ones is only a first step. Restricting the emission of greenhouse
effect caused by gases such as CO2 into the atmosphere and an increasing
awareness of the finiteness of fossil energy resources are leading to develop
new materials that are entirely based on renewable resources.
Natural Fiber
The word natural implies a particular substance which exists naturally and
not manmade. The word fiber is defined as a hair-like or thread like structure
which has high aspect ratio. Fibers are a class of hair like materials that are
Reinforcing Fibers
An increasing awareness of non-renewable resources becoming scarce and our
inevitable dependence on renewable resources has arisen. This century could
be called the cellulosic century, because more renewable plant resources for
products are being discovered. The living plants are renewable and sustainable
from which the natural fibers are taken, but not the fibers themselves.
Fiber Source
The plants, which produce natural fibers, are classified as primary and
secondary depending on their utilization. Primary plants are those grown
for their fiber content while secondary plants are plants in which the fibers
are produced as a by-product. Jute, hemp, kenaf, and sisal are examples
of primary plants. Pineapple, oil palm and coir are examples of secondary
plants. Table 1 shows the fibers used commercially in composites which are
now produced throughout the world.
Fiber Types
There are six basic types of natural fibers. They are classified as follows:
bast fibers (jute, flax, hemp, ramie and kenaf), leaf fibers (abaca, sisal and
pineapple) seed fibers
(Coir, cotton and kapok), core fibers (kenaf, hemp and jute), grass and reed
fibers (wheat, corn and rice) and all other types (wood and roots).
Some of the important natural fibers are as follows:
Flax Fiber: Flax is one of the oldest fiber crops in the world which is grown
intemperate regions. Flax fiber-reinforced plastic composites have attracted
increasing interest because of the advantages of the flax fibers, such as
low density, relatively high toughness, high strength and stiffness, and
biodegradability. Flax fibers have specific tensile properties greater than those
of E glass fibers [11, 12, 13].
Kenaf Fiber: Kenaf is one of the natural (plant) fibers use as reinforcement
in polymer Matrix Composite (PMCs). Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus, L.family
Malvacea) has been found to be an important source of fiber for composites,
other industrial applications [14]. Kenaf has been as a crop to produce twine,
rope and sackcloth [15]. The kenaf plant is composed of many useful component
(e.g. stalk, leaves and seeds and within each of these there are various usable
portions e.g. fibers and fiber strands, proteins, oils and allopathic chemicals
[18]. The yield and composition of these plant components can be affected
by many factors, including cultivar, planting date, photosensitivity, length of
growing season, plant populations and plant maturity [19]. Kenaf filaments
consists of discrete individual fibers of generally 2-6 mm. Filaments and
individual fiber properties can vary depending on sources, age, separating
technique, and history of the fibers. The stem of kenaf plant is straight and
unbranched and is composed of an outer layer bark and core [20]. The bark
constitutes 30-40% of the stem dry weight and shows a rather dense structure.
On the other hand, the core is wood like and makes up the remaining 60-70%
of the stem [21]. Nowadays, there are various new application such as kenaf
including paper products, building materials, absorbents and animal feeds.
Kenaf exhibits low density, non-abrasiveness during processing, high specific
mechanical properties and biodegradability, and is also used as nonwoven
mats in the automotive industries and textiles [22].
Hemp Fiber: Another notable bast fiber crop is hemp, which belongs to the
cannabis family. It is an annual plant that grows in temperate climates. Hemp
is known to provide an excellent mechanical strength and young’s modulus,
consists of cellulose (55-72%), hemicelluloses (8-19%), lignin (2-5%), wax (<1%)
and minerals (4%). It is estimated that in recent years China has become the
world leader in hemp fiber production, nearly one third of total production [23].
However, the application of hemp fiber is still mainly listed to the textile industry.
Jute Fiber: Jute is produced from plants of the genus Corchorus, which
includes about 100 species. The fibers are extracted from the ribbon of the
stem. Among all natural fibers, jute fibers are easily available in fabric and fiber
forms with good mechanical and thermal properties [10]. Jute has wood-like
characteristics as it is a bast fiber. Jute fiber has a high aspect ratio, high
strength to weight ratio, good insulation properties. Jute fiber reinforced
polymer composite has tested for door, window, furniture, floor tiles [24, 25].
Ramie Fiber: Ramie belongs to the family Utricaceae (Boehmeria), which
includes about 100 species. The density is much less than that of synthetics
fibers and the specific strength and specific modulus of natural fibers are
comparable or even superior to E-glass fibers [26]. Ramie popularity as a
textile fiber has been limited largely by regions of production and a chemical
composition that has required more expensive pre-treatment than is required
of the other commercially important bast fibers [27].
Bamboo Fiber: Bamboo (Bambusa Shreb) is a perennial plant, which grows
up to 40 m in height in monsoon climates. A bamboo plant tends to reach its
mature size in six to eight months with some variation between species [28].
The diversity of bamboo is itself reflected by its number of species, there are
roughly 1000 species of bamboo found world wide. Bamboo grows very fast,
rather it is better to say extremely fast growing grass. Since ancient times
bamboo has been utilized in many Asian countries as well as South America
for centuries. Bamboo can be considered an ecological viable substitute for
takes almost more than 20 years [29].
Sisal Fiber: Sisal is an agave (Agave sisalana) and commercially produced in
Brazil and East Africa. Sisal fiber is one of the most widely used natural fibers
and is very easily cultivated, it has short renewal times and grows wild in the
hedges of fields and railway tracks. The sisal fibers have many advantages,
such as high tenacity and tensile intensity, abrasion resistance, acid and
alkali resistance, sea water resistance, corrosion resistance, and so on [30].
Abaca: The abaca/banana fiber, which comes from the banana plant, is
durable and resistant to seawater. Abaca, the strongest of the commercially
available cellulose fibers, is indigenous to the Philippines and is currently
produced there and in Ecuador. It was once the preferred cordage fiber for
marine applications [27].
Bagassase: Bagassase is the fibrous residue which remain after sugarcane
stalk are crushed to extract their juice. It is currently used as a renewable
natural fiber for the manufacture of composites materials [27].
or primary/elementary fiber [42]. The cell wall of a hollow tube with four different
layers; one primary cell wall, three secondary cell walls, and a lumen; which
is an open channel in the center of the microfibril.
Natural fibers can be considered as composites of hollow cellulose fibrils
held together by a lignin and hemicelluloses matrix [43]. The main component
of natural fibers are cellulose (α cellulose), hemicellulose, lignin, pectins,
and waxes. Cellulose is a natural linear crystalline polymer consisting of
people can be appointed for the production and extraction of natural fiber.
Some natural fibers (e.g. jute, coconut) can be extracted manually. Thus the
production and extraction of natural fibers involve huge human resources.
The new application of natural fibers may present an economic interest for the
whole agricultural sector as lot of employment opportunities in urban as well
as in rural sectors would be created by this natural fiber production project,
which in turn may enhance the poverty alleviation program for developing
and moderately developed countries.
The environmental impact, in fact can be improved mainly due to the reduction
in the use of fossil-based resources (especially petroleum). Furthermore,
if biodegradable polymers are used, fully biodegradable systems may be
obtained, thus significantly reducing the problems related to the everyday
production of solid, plastic-derived waste [61-64]. Natural fibers cultivation
depends mainly on solar energy, and relatively small amount of fossil fuel
energy may be required for the fiber production, processing and extractions.
While, on the other hand, the production of synthetic fiber production. Thus,
resulting in significantly higher amount of environmental pollution as compared
to natural fiber production [66, 67].
RESULTS
After the optimization all the sample were prepared in the ratio 60:40 and
found that the addition of metakaolin decreases the mechanical properties.
Conclusions
This review has provided a concise summary of the major material attributes
of natural fiber composites. These include: good specific – but variable –
mechanical properties, environmental credentials (renewable, biodegradable,
low embodied energy, non-toxic), Low cost, high water absorption, low durability
and biocompatibility. After reviewing the existing literature available on natural
fiber composite the particulate matter such as coconut coir, Lantana camara,
sisal have been already used.
References
1. T. Prakash, ”Processing and characterization of natural fiber reinforced
polymer composites,“ Bachelor’s Thesis, National Institute of Technology,
Rourkela, 2009.
2. Li X., Tabil L.G., Panigrahi Screrar W.J., Biocomposites. Can Biosyst. Eng.,
8-148, 2009, 1-10.
3. Malkapuram R., Kumar V., Yuvraj Sn. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos., 28, 2008,
1169-89.
5. Wambua P., Ivens J., Verpoest I., Composite Science Technology, 63, 2003,
1259-64.
6. Geethamma V.G., Kalaprasad G., Gabriel G., Sabu T., Composites, 36,
2005, 1499-506.
8. Rajesh Gunti and Ratna Prasad Atluri V., Advanced Materials Manufacturing
and Characterization, 3(1), 2013, 395-398.
9. Akil H.M., Omar M.F., Mazuki A.A.M., Safiee S., Ishak Z.A.M., Abu Bakar A.,
Material Design, 32, 2011, 4107-21.
11. Hassan E., Wei Y., Jiao H., Huo Y.M., International Journal Eng. Science
and Technology, 4, 2012, 4429-39.
14. H.S. Sankari, Industrial Crops and Products, 11, 2000, 73-84.
15. Karnani R., Krishnan M., Narayan R., Polymer Engineering Science, 37,
1997, 476-83.
16. A.M.M. Edeerozey, H.M. Akhil, A.B. Azhar, M.I.Z. Ariffin, Material Letters, 61,
2007, 2023.
17. Aziz S.H., Ansell M.P., Clarke S.J., Panteny Sr., Composite Science
Technology, 65, 2005, 525-35.
18. Nishino T., Green Composites: polymer composites and the environment.
United Kingdom, 2004.
19. Webber III C.L., Bledsoe V.K., Kenaf yield components and plant composition.
Trends in new crops and new uses. Alexandria, VA, EUA:ASHS Press; 2002.
p.348-57.
20. Ayerza R., Coates W., Industrial Crops Products, 5, 1996, 223-8.
21. Ogobonnaya C., Roy–Macauley H., Nwalozie M., Annerose D., Industrial
Crops Products, 7, 1997, 9-18.
22. Lee S.A., Eiteman M.A., Industrial Crops Production, 13, 2001, 155-61.
26. M.Q. Zhang, M.Z. Rong, and X. Lu, Composite Science and Technology,
65, 2005, 2514-2525.
28. Omar Faruk, Andrzej K. Bledzki, Hans–Peter Fink, Mohini Sain, Prog. in Poly.
Sci., 37, 2012, 1552-96.
29. X. Chen, Q. Guo and Y. Mi, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 69, 1998,
1891-1899.
30. Lobovikov M., Shyam P., Piazza M., Ren H., Wu J., Non wood Forest products
18 world bamboo resources. A thematic study prepared in the framework
of the global forest resources assessment. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations; 2007.
31. Y. Li, Y.W. Mai, and L. Ye, Composite Science Technology, 60, 2000, 2037-
2055.
32. Verma D., Gope P.C., Shandilya A., Gupta A., Maheshwari M.K., Journal of
Material Environment Science, 4, 2013, 263-276.
33. Khan Md Nuruzzaman, Roy K. Juganta, Akter Nousin, Zaman Haydar D.,
Islam Tuhidul, Open Journal of Composite Materials, 2, 2012, 40-47.
34. A.K. Mohanty, M. Misra, and L.T. Drzal, Natural fibers - Biopolymers and
Biocomposites, Boca Ranton, Taylor & Francis, 2005.
35. K.V. Rijswijk, W.D. Brouwer, and A. Beukers, ”Natural fiber Composites”, FAQ
Economic and Social Development Department, Rome, Italy, 2001.
36. R.N. Arancon, ”Natural fiber Production and Food Security: Coir in Asia and
the Pacific”, p.63, Asian and Pacific Coconut Community, Jakarta, 2007.
38. FAO, ”International Year of Natural Fibers, International year of Natural Fibers
Coordinating Unit, Trade and Markets Division, Rome, 2009.
39. Nabi Saheb D., Jog J.P., Natural fiber polymer composites: a review. Advance
Polymer Technology, 18, 1999, 351-63.
40. Ahmad I., Baharum A., Abdullah I., Effect of extrusion rate and fiber loading
on mechnanical properties of Twaron fiber-thermoplastic natural rubber
(TPNR) composites. Journal Reinforcement Plastic Composite, 25, 2006,
957-65.
42. Hajnalka H., Racz I., Anandjiwala R.D., Journal of Thermoplastic Composite
Material, 21, 2008, 165-74.
43. Rouison D., Sain M., Couturier M., Resin transfer molding of natural fiber
composites: cure simulation. Composite Science Technology. 64, 2004,
629-44.
45. Singha A.S., Thakur V.K., Mechanical properties of natural fiber reinforced
polymer composites. Bulletin of Material Science, 31, 2008, 791-99.
46. Hattallia S., Benaboura A., Ham–Pichavant F., Nourmamode A., Castellan A.,
Polymer Degradation and Stability, 86, 2004, 567-657.
47. Hoareau W., Rindade W.G., Siegmund B., Castellan A., Frollini E., Sugar
cane bagasse and curaua linens oxidized by chlorine di oxide and reacted
with furfuryl alcohol: characterization and stability. Polymer Degradation and
Stability, 86, 2004, 567-657.
48. Marti Ferrer F., Vilaplana F., Ribes–Greus A., Benedito-Borras A., Sanz–Box
C., Flour rice husk as filler in block copolymer polypropylene: effect of different
coupling agents. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 99, 2006, 1823-31.
49. Joseph K., Thomas S., Pavithran C., Effect of chemical treatment on the
tensile properties of short sisal fiber-reinforced polyethylene composites.
Polymer, 37, 1996, 5139-49.
50. Lovely M., Joseph K.U., Rani J., Isora fibers and their composites with natural
rubber. Prog Rubber Plastics Recycl. Technol., 20, 2004, 337-49.
51. Belgacem M.N., Bataille P., Sapieha S., J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 53, 1994, 379-
85.
52. Gassan J., Gutowski V.S., Compos. Sci. Technol., 60, 2000, 2857-63.
53. Khalil H.P.S.A., Ismail H., Rozman H.D., Ahmad M.N., European Polymer
Journal, 37, 2001, 1037-45.
55. Dipa R., Sarkar B.K., Rana A.K., Bose N.R. Bull. Mater. Sci., 24, 2001, 129-
35.
56. Samal R.K., Mohanty M., Panda B.B., J. Polym. Mater., 12, 1995, 235-40.
57. Raj R.G., Kokta B.V., Daneault C., Adhesive Science Technology, 3, 1989,
55-64.
58. Sapieha S., Allard P., Zhang Y.H., J. Applied Polymer Science, 41, 1990,
20339-48.
59. Dominkovics Z., Danyadi L., Pukanszky B., Composite Part A, 38, 2007,
1893-901.
60. Kalia S., Kaith B.S., Kaur I., Polymer Engineering Science, 49, 2009, 1253-
72.
61. Bledzki A.K., Mamun A.A., Jaszkiewicz A., Erdmann K., Composites Science
and Technology, 70, 2010, 854-60.
62. Biswas S., Kindo S. and Patnaik A., Fiber. Polym., 12, 2011, 73-78.
63. Maleque M.A., Belal F.Y. and Sapuan S.M, Arab. J. Sc. Eng., 32(2B), 359-
364 (2007).
65. Payae Y. and Lopattananon A., Journal of Science Technol., 31(2), 189-194
(2009).
66. Roe P.J. and Ansell M.P, J. Mater. Sci, 20, 4015-4020 (1985).
67. Devi L.U., Bhagawan S.S. and Thomas S., J. Appl. Polym. Sci, 64(9), 1739-
1748 (1997).
68. Srinivasababu N., Murali M.R.K. and Suresh K.J., Int. J. Eng. (IJE), 3(4),
2009, 403-412.
69. Rout J., Misra M., Tripathy S.S., Nayak S.K. and Mohanty A.K., J. Polym.
Compos, 22(4), 2001, 468-476.
70. Cao Y., Shibata S. and Fukumoto I., Compos. Part A-Appl. S, 37(3), 2006,
423-429.
71. Thielemans W., Can E., Morye S.S., and Wool R.P., J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 83,
2002, 323-331.
72. Joseph P.V., Kuruvilla J. and Thomas S, Compos. Sci. Technol., 59, 1625-
1640 (1999).
73. Kalaprasad G., Joseph K. and Thomas S., J. Mater. Sci., 32, 4261-4267.
74. Bing L. Yuhui H. and Guangmin C., J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 66, 1561-1568
(1997).