Silicon (2012) 4:145–149
DOI 10.1007/s12633-012-9110-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
A Comparative Study on the Mechanical Properties of Jute
and Sisal Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composites
M. Boopalan & M. J. Umapathy & P. Jenyfer
Received: 24 July 2011 / Accepted: 25 January 2012 / Published online: 25 March 2012
# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract The aim of the present study is to investigate and
compare the mechanical properties of raw jute and sisal fiber
reinforced epoxy composites with sodium hydroxide treated
jute and sisal fiber reinforced epoxy composites. This is
followed by comparisons of the sodium hydroxide treated jute
and sisal fiber reinforced composites. The jute and sisal fibers
were treated with 20% sodium hydroxide for 2 h and then
incorporated into the epoxy matrix by a molding technique to
form the composites. Similar techniques have been adopted
for the fabrication of raw jute and sisal fiber reinforced epoxy
composites. The raw jute and sisal fiber reinforced epoxy
composites and the sodium hydroxide treated jute and sisal
fiber reinforced epoxy composites were characterized by
FTIR. The mechanical properties (tensile and flexural
strength), water absorption and morphological changes were
investigated for the composite samples. It was found that the
sodium hydroxide treated jute and sisal fiber reinforced epoxy
composites exhibited better mechanical properties than the
raw jute and raw sisal fiber reinforced composites. When
comparing the sodium hydroxide treated jute and sisal fiber
reinforced epoxy composites, the sodium hydroxide treated
jute fiber reinforced composites exhibited better mechanical
properties than the latter.
Keywords Sisal fiber . Jute fiber . Mechanical properties .
Chemical treatment
M. Boopalan : M. J. Umapathy (*) : P. Jenyfer
Department of Chemistry, College of Engineering,
Anna University,
Chennai 600025, Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: mj_umapathy@yahoo.co.in
M. Boopalan
e-mail: boopalancm@yahoo.co.in
1 Introduction
Commercially important fibers that are based upon silicon
include glass fibers and silicon carbide fibers [1, 2]. Com-
posites are materials consisting of two or more chemically
distinct constituents, on a macro-scale, having a distinct
interface separating them. One or more discontinuous
phases are therefore embedded in a continuous phase to
form a composite. The discontinuous phase is usually harder
and stronger than the continuous phase and is called the
reinforcement, whereas the continuous phase is termed the
matrix. The matrix material can be metallic, polymeric or
ceramic. When the matrix is a polymer, the composite is
called a polymer matrix composite (PMC). The reinforcing
phase can either be fibrous or non-fibrous (particulates) in
nature and if the fibers are derived from plants or some other
living species, they are called natural fibers. Fiber rein-
forced polymers (FRP) consist of fibers of high strength
and modulus embedded in (or bonded to) a matrix with
a distinct interface between them. In this form, both the
fibers and the matrix retain their physical and chemical
identities. In general, fibers are the principal load carrying
members while the matrix keeps them at the desired
location and orientation, acts as a load transfer medium
between them, and protects them from environmental
damage [3, 4].
Natural fibers, such as jute, sisal, hemp, kenaf, and banana
fibers, are renewable resources which cause little concern in
terms of health and safety during handling [5, 6]. In addition,
they exhibit excellent mechanical properties, low density and
have low cost [7]. These good environmentally friendly fea-
tures have made the materials very popular in the fabrication
of composites for the automotive and construction industry
[8–10]. Although natural fibers have a lot of advantages, they
also have certain drawbacks such as an incompatibility with a
146
Fig. 1 FTIR analysis of the raw and treated (20% NaOH) jute and sisal
fibers. a Raw jute fiber b 20% NaOH treated jute fiber c Raw sisal fiber
d 20% NaOH treated sisal fiber
hydrophobic polymer matrix. To make them compatible with
a hydrophobic polymer matrix, various chemical treat-
ments such as silane, acetylation and acid have been
performed [11–14]. This idea has prompted us to inves-
tigate and compare the mechanical properties of raw
jute and sisal fiber reinforced composites with sodium
hydroxide treated jute and sisal fiber reinforced epoxy
composites followed by a comparison of sodium hy-
droxide treated jute and sisal fiber reinforced epoxy
composites.
2 Experimental
2.1 Materials and Methods
The natural sisal jute and sisal fiber were purchased from
Vibrent Nature Pvt Ltd, Chennai, India. The sodium hydroxide,
potassium hydroxide and acetic acid were procured from
Fig. 2 SEM image of the raw jute composite
Silicon (2012) 4:145–149
Fig. 3 SEM image of the 20% sodium hydroxide treated jute
composite
Merck and used as received. The epoxy resin (DGEBP-A)
and curing agent (poly amido phenol) were purchased from
Javanthee Enterprises Private Limited, Chennai, India.
2.2 Alkaline Treatment of the Fiber
In the alkaline treatment, jute mats of 30 cm length and 30 cm
breadth were taken and immersed in a 20% sodium hydroxide
(NaOH) solution for 2 h. Then they were washed well with
water in order to remove the soapy nature and then neutralized
with acetic acid. The fibers were washed with water once
again and then dried in an oven at 110 °C for 5 h.
2.3 Composite Fabrication
The low temperature curing epoxy resin and the
corresponding hardener (HY951) were mixed in a ratio of
10:1 by weight. The mixing was done thoroughly and then
the fiber mats were reinforced in the matrix body [14]. The
composite slabs were made by a conventional hand-lay-up
technique followed by a light compression molding tech-
nique. A stainless steel mould having dimensions of 210×
210×40 mm3 was used. A releasing agent (silicon spray)
was used to facilitate easy removal of the composite from
Fig. 4 SEM image of the raw sisal composite
Silicon (2012) 4:145–149 147

Table 2 Tensile strength of the jute and sisal epoxy composites

SI No Alkaline treatment Tensile strength Tensile strength

Jute, MPa Sisal, MPa

1 Raw 46.7 45.97

2 20% 97.5 76.4

specimens were weighed after cooling and then immersed

in water at room temperature for 24 h. The specimens
were removed, patted dry with a dry cloth and then
weighed.
Fig. 5 SEM image of the 20% sodium hydroxide treated sisal
composite

3 Results and Discussion

the mold after curing. The cast of each composite was cured
under a load of about 25 kg for 24 h and then post cured in 3.1 FTIR Analysis
air for another 24 h. Specimens of suitable dimension were
cut out using a diamond cutter for mechanical testing 3.1.1 FTIR Analysis of the Untreated Jute Fiber Reinforced
[15–17]. Composites

2.4 Fourier Transform Infrared Spectra (FTIR) Analysis
A Perkin-Elmer Spectrum RX1 instrument was used to
obtain spectra of the raw jute and sodium hydroxide treated
jute and sisal reinforced epoxy composites.
2.5 Scanning Electronic Microscopy (SEM)
The morphological structures of the raw and sodium hy-
droxide treated jute and sisal reinforced epoxy composites
were studied by using a DXS-10ACKT Scanning Electronic
Microscope.
The peak arising at 3,374 cm−1 corresponds to the OH
stretching vibration of the water and alcohol group. The
peaks at 2,900 cm−1 and 2,708 cm−1 indicate the existence
of CH2 vibration and aromatic CH stretching vibration,
respectively. The peaks around 1,731 cm−1, 1,603 cm−1
and 1,506 cm−1 can be attributed to stretching of the car-
bonyl group of lignin and aromatic ring skeleton vibration,
respectively. The peak appearing at 1,459 cm −1 and
1,355 cm−1 corresponds to bending of the CH2 group. The
peaks at 1,239 cm−1 and 1,067 cm−1 illustrate the presence
of the phenolic CO of lignin and C-O-C stretching vibration,
respectively (Table 4 and Fig. 1a).

2.6 Mechanical Studies
The mechanical studies of the raw and the sodium hydrox-
ide treated jute and sisal fiber reinforced epoxy composites
were performed by using a Universal Testing Machine
(TNUM-5900).
2.7 Water Absorption Tests
The specimens were dried in an oven for a specified time
and temperature and then placed in a desiccator to cool. The
3.1.2 FTIR Analysis of the Untreated Sisal Fiber Reinforced
Composites
The peak at 3,334 cm−1 depicts to the OH stretching vibra-
tion of the water and alcohol group. The peaks at
3,565 cm−1 and 3,298 cm−1 illustrate the existence of CH2
vibration and aromatic CH stretching vibration, respectively.
The peaks around 1,754 cm−1, 1,721 cm−1 and 1,456 cm−1
can be attributed to stretching of the carbonyl group of
lignin and aromatic ring skeleton vibration, respectively.
The peaks appearing at 1,552 cm −1 and 1,455 cm −1

Table 1 Water absorption of the jute and sisal epoxy composites Table 3 Flexural strength of the jute and sisal epoxy composites

SI No Alkaline treatment Water absorption Water absorption SI No Alkaline treatment Flexural strength Flexural strength
Jute (g) Sisal (g) Jute, MPa Sisal, MPa

1 Raw 2.03 1.82 1 Raw 62.4 63.1

2 20% 1.06 1.05 2 20% 80.1 82.3
148 Silicon (2012) 4:145–149

correspond to bending of the CH2 group. The peaks at
1,119 cm−1 and 1,135 cm−1 indicate the presence of the
phenolic CO of lignin and C-O-C stretching vibration, re-
spectively (Table 4 and Fig. 1c).
3.1.3 FTIR Analysis of the 20% Sodium Hydroxide Treated
Jute Fiber Reinforced Composites
The peak at 3,274 cm−1 corresponds to the OH stretching
vibration of the water and alcohol group. The peaks at
2,846 cm−1 and 2,654 cm−1 indicate the existence of CH2
vibration and aromatic CH stretching vibration, respectively.
The peaks around 1,463 cm−1, 1,534 cm−1 and 1,076 cm−1
can be attributed to stretching of the carbonyl group of
lignin and aromatic ring skeleton vibration, respectively.
The peak appearing at 1,253 cm−1 and 1,154 cm−1 corre-
sponds to bending of the CH 2 group. The peaks at
1,098 cm−1 and 1,031 cm−1 confirm the presence of the
phenolic CO of lignin and C-O-C stretching vibration,
respectively (Table 4 and Fig. 1b).
3.1.4 FTIR Analysis of the 20% Sodium Hydroxide Treated
Sisal Fiber Reinforced Composites
3.2 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
The SEM Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5 display the morphologies of the
raw jute and sisal fiber reinforced epoxy composites and
20% sodium hydroxide treated jute and sisal fiber reinforced
epoxy composites. Fiber pull-out phenomena were observed
for the raw jute and sisal fiber reinforced epoxy composites
(Figs. 2 and 4) but not for the sodium hydroxide treated jute
and sisal fiber reinforced epoxy composites [18, 19]. There
was a significant change in the morphology of the 20%
sodium hydroxide treated jute fiber reinforced composites
compared to the 20% sodium hydroxide sisal fiber rein-
forced epoxy composite indicating better bonding between
the jute fiber and the matrix (Figs. 3 and 5).
4 Conclusions
The present investigation deals with a comparison of the
mechanical properties of raw jute and sisal fiber reinforced
epoxy composites with 20% sodium hydroxide treated jute
and sisal fiber reinforced epoxy composites. The conclu-
sions from this study are as follows:

The peak arising at 3,254 cm−1 corresponds to the OH
stretching vibration of the water and alcohol group. The
peaks at 3,345 cm−1 and 2,898 cm−1 indicate the existence
of CH2 vibration and aromatic CH stretching vibration,
respectively. The peaks around 1,456 cm−1, 1,523 cm−1
and 1,056 cm−1 can be attributed to stretching of the
carbonyl group of lignin and aromatic ring skeleton vibra-
tion, respectively. The peak appearing at 1,459 cm−1 and
1,355 cm−1 corresponds to bending of the CH2 group. The
peaks at 1,079 cm−1 and 1,503 cm−1 illustrate the presence
of the phenolic CO of lignin and C-O-C stretching vibration,
respectively (Table 4 and Fig. 1d).
& The mechanical properties of the jute fiber reinforced
composites are higher than the sisal fiber reinforced
composites [20, 21].
& The water absorption studies reveal that the sisal fiber
absorbs more water than the jute fiber thereby decreasing
the mechanical properties (Table 1). The higher water
absorption of the sisal fiber reinforced composite can be
attributed to the presence of a high cellulose content [22, 23].
& On comparing the tensile strength, the 20% sodium
hydroxide treated jute composites give better results
than 20% sodium hydroxide treated sisal composites
(Table 2).

Table 4 Results from the FTIR analysis of raw and treated (20%NaOH) jute and sisal

Functional group Peak range [cm−1] Peak range [cm−1] Peak range [cm−1] Peak range [cm−1]
Raw jute (20% NaOH) Raw sisal (20%NaOH)
treated jute treated sisal

OH stretching vibration of the water, and alcohol group 3374 3274 3334 3254
CH2 vibration 2900 2846 3565 3345
Aromatic CH stretching vibration 2708 2654 3298 2898
C0O stretching of the carbonyl group of lignin 1731 1463 1754 1456
Aromatic ring skeletal vibration 1603, 1506 1534, 1076 1721, 1456 1523, 1056
CH2 bending 1459, 1355 1253, 1154 1552, 1455 1459, 1355
Phenolic CO of the lignin 1239 1098 1119 1079
C-O-C stretching vibration 1067 1031 1135 1053
Silicon (2012) 4:145–149
& On comparing the flexural strength, the 20% sodium
hydroxide treated sisal composites give somewhat
higher values than the 20% sodium hydroxide treated
jute composites (Tables 3 and 4).
Acknowledgements We thank the Department of Chemistry, College
of Engineering, Anna University, Chennai 600025 for providing the
laboratory and chemical facilities for this research work.
References
1. Thomas J (2002) Silicon. Benchmark Books, Marshall Cavendish,
New York, NY
2. Brook MA (2000) Silicon in organic, organometallic, and polymer
chemistry. Wiley, New York, NY
3. Hull D, Clyne TW (1996) An introduction to composite materials.
Cambridge University Press
4. Bledzki AK, Reinhmane S, Gassan J (1998) Thermoplastics rein-
forced with wood fillers. Polym Plast Technol Eng 37:451–468
5. Chawla KK (1987) Composite materials. Science and engineering.
Springer, New York, NY
6. Amar KM, Manjusri M, Lawrence TD (2005) Natural fibers,
biopolymers, and bio-composites. CRC Press, Tailor & Francis
7. Sinha R (2000) Outlines of polymer technology. Prentice-Hall by
India Private Ltd, New Delhi, 10001
8. Sharifah HA, Martin PA, Simon TC, Simon RP (2005) Modified
polyester resins for natural fiber composites. Compos Sci Technol
65:525–535
9. Roe P, Ansell M (1985) Jute reinforced polyester composites. J
Mater Sci 20:4015–4020
10. De Albuquerque A, Joseph K, Hecker de Carvalho L, Morais
d’Almedia J (1999) Effect of wet ability and ageing conditions
on the physical and mechanical properties of uniaxially oriented
149
jute-roving-reinforced polyester composites. Compos Sci Technol
60:833–844
11. Pal S, Mukhophadhyay D, Sanyal S, Mukherjea R (1998) Studies
on process variables for natural fiber composites–effect of PEAP
as interfacial agent. J Appl Polym Sci 35:973–985
12. Owolabi O, Czvikovszky T, Kovac I (1985) Coconut fiber rein-
forced thermosetting plastics. J Appl Polym Sci 30:1827–1836
13. Satyanarayana K, Kulkarni A, Sukumaran K, Pillai S, Cherian P,
Rohatgi P (1983) Performance of banana fabric-polyester resin
composites. In: Marshall IH (ed) Composit structures. Proceedings
of the International Conference, London. Applied Science, pp 535–
548
14. White N, Ansell M (1983) Straw-reinforced polyester composites.
J Mater Sci 18:1549–1556
15. Devi L, Bhagawan S, Thomas S (1997) Mechanical properties of
pineapple leaf fiber-reinforced polyester composites. J Appl Polym
Sci 64:1739–1748
16. Mwaikambo L, Bisanda E (1999) The performance of cotton/
kapok fabric-polyester composites. Polym Test 18:181–198
17. Maiti SN, Singh K (1986) Influence of wood flour on the mechan-
ical properties of polyethylene. J Appl Poym Sci 32:4285–4289
18. Woodhams RT, Thomas G, Rodgers DK (1984) Wood fibers as
reinforcing fillers for polyolefinnes. Polym Eng Sci 24:1166–1171
19. Raj RG, Kokta BV, Daneault CA (1990) A comparative study on
the effect of ageing on mechanical properties of LDPE-glass fiber,
mica, and wood fiber composites. J Appl Polym Sci 40:645–655
20. Raj RG, Kokta BV, Maldas D, Daneault C (1989) Use of wood
fibers in thermoplastics. VII. The effect of coupling agents in
polyethylene-wood fiber composites. J Appl Polym Sci 37:1089–
1103
21. Maldas D, Kokta BV (1985) Composites of chlorinated polyeth-
ylene wood fibers. J Reinf Plast Compos 14:458–470
22. Simpson R, Selke S (1991) Composite materials from recycled
multilayer polypropylene bottles and wood fibers. Polym Prepr
Am Chem Soc Div Polym Chem 32:148–149
23. Sain MM, Kokta BV (1994) Polyolefin-wood filler composite. I.
Performance of m-phenylenebismaleimide-modified wood fiber in
polypropylene composites. J Appl Polym Sci 14254:1545–1559