Original article

Journal of Reinforced Plastics and

Composites
Surface treatments of plant fibers and 2019, Vol. 38(1) 15–30
! The Author(s) 2018
their effects on mechanical properties of Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
fiber-reinforced composites: A review DOI: 10.1177/0731684418802022
journals.sagepub.com/home/jrp

Rashid Latif1 , Saif Wakeel2, Noor Zaman Khan1,

Arshad Noor Siddiquee1, Shyam Lal Verma3 and
Zahid Akhtar Khan1

Abstract
The need of natural fiber-reinforced composites is increasing at very fast rate because of their ecofriendly
production, decomposition, high specific strength, abundance, good physical and mechanical properties. Available liter-
ature reveals that past researchers have done a lot of work for the preparation and characterization of fiber-reinforced
composites. While developing natural fiber composites, researchers encountered various problems like
hydrophilic nature of natural fibers, incompatibility of natural fibers with matrix materials, thermal instability of
natural fibers, and poor interfacial bonding between reinforcing phase and matrix phase. However, some of
these problems can be solved to a greater extent by considering surface treatment of natural fibers before they
are used in the preparation of fiber-reinforced composites. Thus, there is a need for understanding the effect
of several surface treatments on the mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced composites. The aim of this paper is
to put forth a comprehensive review on the effects of different surface treatments on the mechanical properties such
as tensile strength, flexural strength, and impact strength and also interfacial shear strength of the fiber-
reinforced composites.

Keywords
Natural fibers, surface treatments, interfacial bonding, mechanical properties

Introduction commercial bio-composites, whereas other fibers such

Natural fibers (NFs) are used in various forms like as stalk, grass, and wood base fibers are only used to
rope, strands, and reinforcing agents for bio- fabricate research purpose bio-composites.5
composites and their application can be found in Plant fibers have very complicated structure (shown
many areas such as in aerospace, automobile, sports, in Figure 2) which is actually formed by central channel
home appliances, building and construction due to known as lumen and cell wall. Cell wall is divided in
their biodegradability, low cost, high specific strength, three parts: middle lamella, primary wall, and
and good physical properties.1 NFs are mainly classi-
fied (shown in Figure 1) as plant base fibers, animal
base fibers, and mineral base fibers.2 The research on 1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jamia Milia Islamia, New
mineral base fibers is not well explored because asbes- Delhi, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Aligarh Muslim University,
tos contents (main constituent of mineral base fibers)
Aligarh, India
are hazardous for health.3 Among all NFs, the 3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Noida Institute of Engineering
researchers mainly focus their work on plant base and Technology, Greater Noida, India
fibers due to their promising characteristics like low
Corresponding author:
cost, biodegradable nature, abundance, good physical Rashid Latif, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jamia Milia Islamia,
and mechanical properties.4 In plant fibers, bast, leaf, New Delhi 110025, India.
and seed base fibers are mainly used to fabricate Email: reach2rashid@gmail.com
16 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 38(1)

secondary wall. Primary wall consists of disordered cel-
lulose in pectin, hemicellulose, and lignin matrix while
middle wall is responsible for mechanical behavior,
whereas lumen is responsible for water transportation.
Secondary wall is divided into three parts: first is exter-
nal secondary wall (S1), middle wall (S2), and internal
wall (S3) and this wall also consists of crystal-
line cellulose.3
The chemical constituents of plant fibers are cellu-
lose, wax, lignin, hemicellulose, pectin, and wax which
are listed in Table 1. In plant fibers, cellulose microfi-
bril network acts as a reinforcing agent and hemicellu-
lose/lignin/pectin constituents work as matrix phase.
The hemicellulose constituents are connected to cellu-
lose by hydrogen bonding and work as a cementing
matrix between the cellulose microfibril which works
as the key structural component of the fiber.6
The percentage of constituents in plant fibers governs
their physical and mechanical properties.7
The physical properties of NFs that influence their
mechanical characteristics are listed in Table 2.
The density of NFs is a very important physical prop-
erty because the strength to weight ratio of NFCs is
inversely proportional to the density,8 whereas
mechanical properties of NFCs are directly proportion-
al to the aspect ratio and volume fraction of fibers
because higher aspect ratio and volume fraction pro-
vides large exposure area of fibers to matrix phase.9
Table 1. Chemical composition of plant fibers.7
Natural Cellulose Hemicellulose Lignin Pectin Waxes
fiber (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Flax 70.5 16.5 2.5 0.9 –

Hemp 81 20 4 0.9 0.8
Cotton Henequen 60 28 8 – 0.5
Seed
kapok
Coir 46 0.3 45 4 –
Flax, hemp, Bamboo 34.5 20.5 26 – –
Bast
jute
Abca 62.5 21 12 0.8 3.0
Sisal,
Vegetable Alfa 45.4 38.5 14.9 – 2.0
Leaf Abaca,
Fibers
henequen Bagasse 37 21 22 10 –
Wheat, Banana 62.4 12.5 7.5 4 –
Stalk
maize, rice
Cotton 89 4 0.75 6 0.6
Cane,grass, Bamboo, Curaua 73.6 5 7.5 – –
reed Bagasse
Natural Jute 67 16 9 0.2 0.4
Fibers Lamb, wool,
Wool goat and Kenaf 53.5 21 17 2 –
Animal horse hairs Kapok 13.16 – – – –
Fibers
Silk Mulberry
Isora 74 – 23 – 1.09
Sisal 60 11.5 8 1.2 –
Mineral Asbestos Pineapple 80.5 17.5 8.3 4 –
Fibers fibers Ramie 72 14 0.8 1.95 –
Piassava 28.6 25.8 45 – –
Figure 1. Classification of natural fibers.

Figure 2. Structure of natural fiber.

Latif et al. 17

Table 2. Physical properties of natural fibers.4 Table 3. Mechanical properties of natural fibers.12

Name of Length Density Moisture Tensile Young’s Specific

the fiber Diameter (l) (mm) (kg/mm3) gain (%) Natural strength Specific modulus Young’s Failure
fiber (MPa) strength (GPa) modulus strain (%)
Abca 18.2 4.9 1500 14
Alfa – – 890 – Abca 12 – 41 – 3.4
Bagasse 20 1.7 900 – Alfa 350 – 22 – 5.8
Banana – 2.9 1325 – Bagasse 290 – 17 – –
Bamboo 25 2 1500 – Banana 721.5 534.5 29 22 2
Coir 17.5 1.25 1250 13 Bamboo 575 383 27 18 –
Cotton 14.5 42 1550 8.59 Coir 140.5 122 6 5.2 27.5
Curaua – – 1400 – Cotton 500 323 8 5.25 7
Flax 20 31.75 1450 12 Curaua 825 – 9 – 7.5
Hemp 19.9 11.2 1200 – Flax 700 482.5 60 41 2.3
Isora – – 1200 1.2 Hemp 530 360 45 30.5 3
Jute 18.4 2.55 1400 17 Isora 550 – – – 5.5
Kapok 25 20 384 10.9 Jute 325 230 37.5 26.5 2.5
Kenaf 19.8 2.35 1300 17 Kapok 93.3 300 4 12.9 1.2
Piassava – – 1400 – Kenaf 743 – 41 – –
Pineapple 50 – 1540 – Piassava 138.5 – 2.83 – 5
Ramie 31.55 160 1550 8.5 Pineapple 1020 708.5 71 49.5 0.8
Sisal 21 2.5 1400 14 Ramie 925 590 23 15 3.7
Sisal 460 317.5 15.5 – –

It is necessary to become familiar with mechanical

properties of NFs because these properties govern the
mechanical properties of NFCs. Table 3 reveals that
the mechanical properties of NFs are lesser to synthetic
fibers although they possess comparable specific
strength.10 Mainly microfibril angle (MFA), cellulose,
and hemicellulose percentage govern the mechanical
properties of NFs.11
For making fiber-reinforced polymer composites,
generally synthetic and NFs are used. Thus, there is a
need to identify the most commonly used synthetic and
NFs and also to understand their relative merits and
demerits. Table 4 presents a list of the commonly used
synthetic and NFs and a comparison between them.2
Factors affecting the mechanical
properties of NFCs
Under the mechanical properties of NFCs, effects of
surface treatments on flexural, tensile and impact prop-
erties are studied. Mechanical properties of NFCs are
influenced by removal of noncellulosic compounds such
as hemicellulose, lignin, waxes, pectin, etc. because the
presence of these constituents on the surface of NFs
hinders the interfacial bonding between reinforcing
and matrix phase. Interfacial bonding and crystallinity
index (CI) are the major factors which govern the
mechanical properties of NFCs therefore, it is important
to discuss the terms interfacial bonding, crystallinity of
cellulose or CI, and surface treatments.
Interfacial bonding
The interaction of the reinforcing phase and matrix
phase at the interface is known as interfacial bonding.
The interfacial bonding mainly depends on the compat-
ibility of matrix phase with reinforcing phase and sur-
face conditions of reinforcing phase.
NFs and matrix materials have polar and nonpolar
nature respectively due to which incompatibility occurs
during the fabrication of NFCs, whereas smoothness of
NFs surface causes poor interlocking between matrix
and reinforcing phase.2 Consequently, surface treat-
ments of NFs are suggested to improve compatibility
of NFs with matrix phase and surface conditions of
NFs. There are four types of interfacial bonding: (i)
inter diffusion bonding, (ii) mechanical interlocking,
(iii) electrostatic bonding, and (iv) chemical bonding
as depicted in Figure 3.
Adhesion is governed by two interactions viz.
adsorption and diffusion which are governed by van-
derwall and hydrogen bonding. In adsorption both
fiber and matrix should have close contact which is
governed by penetration and proper spreading of
both. Good wettability will directly result in interdiffu-
sion of both fiber and matrix molecules.4 Electrostatic
bonding is the result of interaction between opposite
charges i.e. positive and negative acquired by fiber and
matrix which is necessary to make intimate contact due
to attraction. Chemical bonding is the result of cova-
lent and ionic bonding between atoms. Mechanical
interlocking occurs when matrix fills the lowest unfilled
18 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 38(1)

Table 4. Comparison between commonly used synthetic and natural fibers.

Name of Natural
Name of Synthetic Fibers Fibers Synthetic fibers Natural fibers

Nylon Flax  Synthetic fibers are mostly  Most of the natural fiber have
hydrophobic in nature hydrophilic nature
Acrylic Jute  Chemical solution and treatments are  No need of chemical solution for
required for yarn production yarn production
Polyester Hemp  It is very difficult to dye these fibers  It is easy to dye the fibers
Olefin Henequen  Their production and decomposition  These are environmental friendly.
both are not eco-friendly.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 3. (a) Molecular inter diffusion, (b) electrostatic bonding, (c) mechanical interlocking, and (d) chemical bonding.

space of fiber i.e. crust leading to higher roughness calculated by measuring the height ratio of crystalline
of composite.5 intensity ðI002  IAM Þ to total intensity I002 .

ðI002  IAM Þ
Crystallinity index (CI) CI ¼  100
I002
Cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and pectin are the
major constituents of any plant base fiber but for
enhancement of mechanical properties cellulose plays
a critical role and therefore, it is required to determine Physical treatment
the digestibility of cellulose.7 CI is relative amount of Common physical treatments include laser treatment,
crystalline material in cellulose and there are two meth- heat treatment, plasma, and argon treatment. Physical
ods to determine the CI viz. X-ray diffraction and treatments change the surface conditions of NFs with-
solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance spectra.13 out influencing their chemical composition.14
Most commonly used method is XRD in which CI is Advantages of these treatments over chemical
Latif et al.
treatment are enhanced mechanical, physical and ther-
mal properties of treated NFs. However, physical treat-
ments are costlier than the chemical treatments.15
Therefore, researchers are giving preference to chemi-
cal treatments over physical treatments.
Chemical treatment
Treatment of NFs with different chemicals such as
alkali, silane, oligomeric siloxane, TiO2, grafting etc.
changes the chemical composition, surface topography,
and morphology of NFs. Chemical treatments of NFs
are required to: (i) remove noncellulosic compounds
from NFs,15 (ii) improve compatibility of NFs with
matrix material,16 (iii) improve surface roughness of
NFs,17 (iv) improve thermal stability of NFs.18 Major
advantages of chemical treatments are relatively low
cost and easy to perform therefore, it is important to
review the effects of different chemical treatments on
the interfacial bonding of NFCs.
Effect of chemical treatments on
interfacial shear strength
The structure and surface properties of any plant fiber
solely depend upon the conditions and parameters used
for a certain surface treatment. It may be noted that
changing the test and environmental conditions may
lead to change in structure of the fiber surface even
though same chemical is used for treatment.19
Interfacial strength depends upon interfacial shear
stress (IFSS) which is estimated by maximum pulling
force required to pullout the fiber in single pull
out test.13
Fmax
FSS ¼
S:A
where Fmax ¼ maximum pull out force, S:A ¼ p  D 
L where D is fiber diameter and L is length of fiber.
Bledzki et al.14 conducted a study in which they
performed acetylation treatment for flax fibers to
explore the effects of acetylation on the properties of
the flax fiber and found that the degree of acetyl con-
tents up to 18% results in smooth surface of the fiber
but beyond this the fiber surface is damaged due to
hydrolysis of cellulose contents as portrayed in the
scanning electron microscope (SEM) images shown in
Figure 4.
Doan et al.19 reported that maleic anhydride (MA)
groups of maleic anhydride polyethylene (MAPE) form
ester linkages with hydroxyl group of cellulose and they
found that the interfacial shear strength increased only
upto1 wt% of MA grafting at surface of jute fibers
beyond which MA got self-entanglement leading to
19
reduction in the interfacial strength. Their study
revealed that chemical treatment of jute fibers with
MAPE reduced the surface energy of the jute fibers
which improves the wettability of the jute fibers with
high density polyethylene (HDPE) matrix. In addition,
morphology of fractured surface (shown in Figure 5(b))
revealed that treated jute fibers and matrix were
bonded by ester linkage and there were no gaps
between them at the interface, whereas interface of
untreated fibers and matrix had gaps (shown in
Figure 5(a)) which cause poor interfacial
shear strength.
Pichandi et al.10 explored the effects of microcrystal-
line cellulose (MCC) and multi-walled carbon nano-
tube (MWCNT) on the interfacial properties of jute
fiber/epoxy composites and found that MCC makes
hydrogen bonds with hydroxyl group of cellulose and
forms a strong linkage between matrix and fibers which
leads to improvement in interfacial properties of jute/
epoxy composites. Further, they observed that adding
MCC to epoxy matrix was more effective than adding
MWCNT. Komuraiah et al.15 evaluated the effects of
air plasma and argon plasma treatments on mechanical
and interfacial properties of flax fiber–HDPE and flax–
polyester composite. They observed that treated fiber
composites had better interfacial strength as compared
to untreated fiber composites due to: (i) increment in
coefficient of friction of fiber surface (ii) better mechan-
ical interlocking and increase in contact area between
matrix and fiber. Further, they observed that argon
plasma treatment has higher IFSS as compared to air
plasma treatment due to higher etching tendency of
argon plasma treatment which may lead to the forma-
tion of relatively large number of grains and grooves at
the fiber surface. Bledzki et al.14 explored the effects of
physical and chemical treatments on characteristics of
flax fibers. Their Fourier-transform infrared spectros-
copy (FTIR) analysis clearly showed sharper O–H
bands for plasma treated flax fiber as compared to
untreated flax fiber which might be attributed to
change of hydroxyl to ether group. In addition, FTIR
spectra of acetylated flax gave a clear indication of
improvement in O–H bands. They concluded that
both the treatments improve the interfacial strength
due to efficient O–H bonding.
Available literature showed that single surface treat-
ment of fibers had positive results for interfacial
strength but these treatments were not enough to
obtain higher interfacial strength therefore, researcher
shifted their work from single surface treatment to
hybrid surface treatment which involved two or more
treatments simultaneously/sequentially. Seki12 investi-
gated the effects of three different treatments: (i) alkali
treatment, (ii) oligomeric siloxane treatment,
(iii) combination of alkali and siloxane treatments on
20
Figure 4. (a) SEM image of untreated flax fiber, (b) 18% acetylation treated smoother flax fiber, (c) beyond 18% acetylation
damaged flax fiber.14
Figure 5. (a) SEM of untreated jute fiber at 100 lm and (b) SEM of treated jute fiber at 100 lm.19
the properties of jute fiber/thermoset composites and
found that hybrid treatment (combination of alkali
and oligomeric siloxane) had better results for interfa-
cial strength as compared to alkali and oligomeric
siloxane treatment. Doan et al.19 conducted a study
in which they treated jute fibers with three different
chemical treatments: (i) alkali (NaOH), (ii) alka-
li þ aminopropyl triethoxy silane þ epoxy dispersion
(NaOH þ APS þ ED), (iii) alkali þ phenyl aminopropyl
triethoxy silane (NaOH þ PAPS) and observed that
hybrid treatment (NaOH þ APS þ ED) had maximum
value of interfacial shear strength whereas alkali treat-
ment had least value for the same. Orue et al.20
explored the effects of three different treatments: (i)
alkali treatment, (ii) silane treatment, (iii) combination
of alkali and silane treatment on the properties of fiber-
reinforced composites and found that interfacial
strength of untreated, alkali-treated, and silane-
treated sisal fiber were 2.4 MPa, 5.3 MPa, and 5.8
MPa, respectively. Their study revealed that improve-
ment in IFSS of alkali-treated and silane-treated fibers
might be attributed to: (i) removal of noncellulosic
compounds such as wax, lignin, and hemicellulose,
(ii) better stability and wettability of the fibers with
matrix phase. Dayo et al.18 prepared natural hemp
fiber-reinforced polybenzo-oxazine composite and
observed the effects of alkali treatment on the mechan-
ical, thermal, and curing behavior. Their FTIR results
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 38(1)
for alkali-treated hemp fiber showed that peak of
hydroxyl group increased significantly from peak at
1000 cm1 while peak obtained at 1200 cm1 repre-
sented acetyl group (C¼O) of lignin was eliminated
partially which resulted in good fiber surface. In addi-
tion, shifting of peaks of C–H bonds suggested
improved interfacial bonding between fiber and
polybenzo-oxazine. Cai et al.21 observed the effects of
alkali treatment on the interfacial bonding of abaca-
reinforced epoxy composite and listed that IFSS of 5
wt% NaOH-treated fibers was maximum as compared
to 10 and 15 wt% NaOH-treated fibers. In addition,
the improvement in IFSS value can be attributed to: (i)
removal of waxy contents form fiber surface and (ii)
improvement in surface roughness of abaca fiber.22
Effects of surface treatments on the
tensile properties of NFCs
Major parameters affecting the tensile properties of
NFCs are: (i) interfacial bonding, (ii) presence of non-
cellulosic compounds at the fiber surface, (iii) surface
roughness of fibers, (iv) tensile strength of NFs, (v) CI
of NFs, (vi) toughness of matrix material.8,12,13,23
Tensile test is executed by using Universal testing
machine (UTM)8 with different ASTM standards
such as ASTM D256 10,19 ASTM D33795,24 ASTM
D303915 ASTM D3379-7517 and ASTM D3039-M.15
Latif et al.
Available literature revealed that untreated fibers
and their composites had poor tensile strength due to
the presence of noncellulosic compounds in NFs25
which causes poor wettability and incompatibility of
NFs with matrix phase.26 Therefore, it is necessary to
employ surface treatments for NFs so as to remove
noncellulosic compounds from NFs leading to
enhancement in the tensile properties of NFCs. Lee
et al.27 reported that alkali treatment of hemp fiber
with 8 wt% of NaOH concentration gave highest
improvement in the tensile strength of hemp fiber-
reinforced polyurethane composites whereas tensile
strength decreased after 8 wt% of NaOH in alkali
treatment due to the extraction of noncellulosic com-
pounds in excess amount which lead to strength degra-
dation of hemp fibers. Available literature revealed that
NaOH concentration in alkali treatment is not stan-
dardized to obtain optimum results for tensile strength
of NFCs.17,26,28 Prasad et al.29 and Nam et al.30 ana-
lyzed the SEM images of alkali-treated coir fibers
which revealed that alkali treatment with 5 wt%
NaOH and 72 h of soaking time improved the tensile
strength of the coir fiber-reinforced poly (butylene suc-
cinate) (PBS)/polyethylene (PE) composites due to the
removal of the cuticle and tyloses from fiber surface. In
addition, increasing the soaking time beyond 72 h in
alkali treatment showed reduction in tensile strength of
the coir fiber-reinforced PBS/PE composites due to
agglomeration of tyloses on the fiber surface.31
Bachtiar et al.28 reported that alkali treatment of
sugar palm fibers with 0.25 M alkali concentration
and 1 h soaking time enhanced the tensile strength of
sugar palm fiber-reinforced epoxy composites due to
the following reasons: (i) improvement in surface
roughness of fiber by removing noncellulosic contents,
(ii) improvement in mechanical interlocking between
fibers and matrix phase, (iii) increment in aspect
ratio/contact area of fiber to matrix, (iv) improved wet-
tability and stability of fiber with matrix materials,
whereas alkali treatment with 0.25 M NaOH concen-
tration and 4 h of soaking time reduced the tensile
strength of the same due to removal of lignin and hemi-
cellulose contents in excess amount which leads to
fibers degradation. Gomes et al.26 reported that alkali
treatment of curaua fiber with 10 wt% of NaOH did
not have significant effects on the tensile strength of the
curaua fiber-reinforced cornstarch composites, whereas
alkali treatment with 15 wt% of NaOH had adverse
effects on the tensile strength of the same due to partial
conversion of cellulose I to cellulose II in curaua
fibers.32 However, improvement in fracture strain of
curaua fiber composite was directly proportional to
concentration of NaOH in alkali treatment due to
increment in amount of amorphous cellulose in NFs.
21
Bledzki et al.14 investigated that acetylation treat-
ment with 18 wt% of acetyl group increased the tensile
strength of flax fiber-reinforced composites and beyond
18 wt% of acetyl group in acetylation treatment
decreased the tensile strength of the same. This study
revealed that improvement in tensile strength might be
credited to extraction of waxy contents and partial con-
version of hemicellulose to acetyl hemicellulose, where-
as reduction in tensile strength can be attributed to
degradation of cellulose contents and internal
cracks.33 Arbelaiz et al.34 conducted a study in which
they revealed that malaic anhydride poly propylene
(MAPP) treatment of flax fiber improved the tensile
strength of the flax fiber-reinforced composites whereas
adding MAPP in matrix material also improved the
tensile strength of the same. However, MAPP-treated
flax fiber-reinforced composites showed more improve-
ment in tensile strength as compared to flax fiber-
reinforced MAPP-modified matrix composites. In the
similar study, Felix and Gatenholm35 observed that
MAPP surface treatment of cellulose fiber improved
the tensile strength of cellulose/PP composites by
100% and adding 3 wt% of MAPP in matrix material
improved the tensile strength of cellulose/poly propyl-
ene (PP) composites by 80%. Chuai et al.36 disclosed
that adding MAPP in matrix material improved the
compatibility of polar flax fibers with nonpolar
matrix and also improved the dispersion of fibers in
matrix materials which resulted in the improvement
of tensile strength of conifer fiber-reinforced compo-
sites. Joseph et al.37 investigated the effects of four
treatments on sisal fiber-reinforced composite: (i)
alkali treatment, (ii) isocynate treatment, (iii) dicumyl
peroxide treatment, (iv) KMNO4 treatment and com-
pared their effects on tensile strength of sisal fiber com-
posites. They found that untreated, alkali-treated,
isocynate-treated, dicumyperoxide-treated, and
KMNO4-treated fiber-reinforced composite had 31.12
MPa, 34.27 MPa, 41.5 MPa, and 41.80 MPa of tensile
strength, respectively. In addition, the improvement in
tensile strength might be attributed to the increment in
IFSS value of treated fiber-reinforced composites.37,38
Herrera-Franco and Valadez-Gonzalez39 investigated
the effects of silane coupling agent on tensile properties
of henequen fiber-reinforced composites and found
that longitudinal tensile strength of untreated and
silane-treated henequen fiber-reinforced composites
were 71.8 MPa and 79.3 MPa, respectively whereas
transverse tensile strength of untreated and silane-
treated fiber composites were 2.7 MPa and 3.95 MPa
respectively so there was an increment of 10% and 46%
in longitudinal and transverse tensile strength respec-
tively. Demir et al.40 explored the effects of silane and
MAPP treatments on Luffa fiber-reinforced compo-
sites. They performed silane treatment for Luffa
22
fibers by using two silane agents i.e. amino functional
group and mercapto silane agent and found that silane
and MAPP treatments of luffa fibers improved the ten-
sile strength of luffa fiber-reinforced composite upto
33% and 11%, respectively. Hull and Clyne41
reported that untreated Luffa fiber-reinforced compo-
sites had interdiffusion bonding at the interface, where-
as silane-treated luffa fibers had hydroxyl group of
cellulose at the fiber surface which formed covalent
bonds with matrix material at the interface.42 Hill
and Abdul Khalil33 modified the Coir and oil palm
fibers with three surface treatments: (i) acetylation
treatment, (ii) silane treatment, (iii) titanate treatment
and found that acetylation treatment of oil palm and
coir fibers gave highest improvement in the tensile
strength of the coir/oil palm fiber composites due to
better mechanical interlocking and compatibility of
fibers with matrix. They observed that silane-treated
coir fiber composite had higher tensile strength as com-
pared to titanate-treated coir fiber composites, whereas
titanate-treated oil palm fiber composites had better
tensile strength as compared to silane-treated oil palm
fiber composite. Rong et al.43 studied the effects of five
treatments: (i) alkali treatment (ATSF), (ii) acetylation
treatment (ACSF), (iii) cyno ethylation treatment
(ANSF), (iv) organo silane coupling treatment
(SCSF), (v) heat treatment (HTSF) on the mechanical
properties of sisal fiber-reinforced composite and
observed that tensile strength of treated sisal fiber-
reinforced composites were improved by all treatments
except ACSF and ANSF. Their study revealed that
improvement in tensile strength by HTSF treatment
can be attributed to increment in crystallinity of cellu-
lose. Further, they observed that ATSF treatment of
sisal fibers gave highest value of tensile strength for
sisal fiber-reinforced composite as compared to other
four treatments. In addition, decrement in tensile
strength of ANSF-treated sisal fiber composite might
be attributed to low interaction between matrix and
reinforcement and improper mixing of fibers in
matrix. Rahman and Khan44 investigated the effect of
three different treatments on coir fibers: (i) NaOH
treatment, (ii) UV radiation treatment, (iii) grafting
with ethylene dimethacrylate (EMA) and observed
that on increasing the amount of UV radiation (for
125 passes) during UV treatment had positive effect
on the tensile strength of the coir fiber-reinforced com-
posite due to better inter crosslinking between the
neighbor cellulose molecules.15,44 They found that
maximum value of tensile strength for UV-treated
coir fiber-reinforced composites was 153 MPa which
was 33% higher than untreated coir fiber-reinforced
composite. Park et al.7 observed that tensile strength of
EMA-grafted coir fiber composite showed an incre-
ment for then decreased after a certain amount of
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 38(1)
grafting at fiber surface. Their study revealed that dec-
rement in tensile strength of coir fiber composite after a
certain amount of EMA grafting might be explained by
degradation of fiber.
Available literature revealed that performing MAPP
treatment for surface modification of NFs was complex
and expensive as compared to addition of MAPP in
matrix materials. MAPP had a positive effect on the
tensile characteristics due to making an interphase
between the Wood Floor and PP, but adverse effect
on the percentage elongation at failure.45 Arrakhiz
et al.46 observed that increasing alkali-treated doum
fibers content upto 30 wt% leads to improvement in
modulus which can be referred to stronger interactive
bonds between doum fibers and low density poly eth-
ylene (LDPE) matrix.47 Wu et al.48 reported that flax
fiber treatment with vnyl tri methoxisilane (VTMO)
and MAPP leads to improvement in tensile character-
istics of flax/PP composites which can be referred to
strong interfacial bonding at the interface.49 Manjula
et al.50 studied effects of temperature resistance aging
on mechanical characteristics of coir fibers and found
that keeping the fibers in oven at 50 C for five days
improved the tensile strength due to improvement in
cellulose cross linking during thermal aging.51
Brahmakumar et al.52 conducted study in which they
found the effects of waxy layer on the mechanical
behavior of coconut/LDPE composites and found
that waxy layered coconut fiber/LDPE composite had
better modulus and tensile characteristics compared to
non-waxy layered coconut fiber/LDPE composite.
Joseph et al.37 found that grafting of fiber of sisal
with cardanol derivative of polytoluene di isocyanate
(CTDIC) lead to improvement in tensile characteristics
of sisal/LDPE composite due to better wettability of
the treated fibers with LDPE. Waxy-layered coconut
fibers showed more improvement in tensile character-
istics of the coconut/LDPE composites as compared to
CTDIC grafted sisal fiber/LDPE composites. It has
been observed that grafting of lignocellulosic fibers
with polymers showed more enhancement in tensile
characteristics of biocomposites as compared to graft-
ing with simple molecules.53,54 Consequently, it can be
suggested to use polymeric waxy layer over CTDIC for
grafting of lignocellulosic fibers to get more improve-
ment in interfacial strength of the NFCs. Baiardo
et al.55 observed the effects of many chemical treat-
ments on flax fiber/PE composites and found that
valerylated flax fiber-reinforced PE composites had
greater value of modulus and tensile characteristics as
compared to untreated, acetylated, and PEG 350, 750
grafting treated flax fiber-reinforced PE composites,
whereas acetylation had adverse effects on modulus
and tensile characteristics of flax/PE composites.56
Vazquez et al.57 conducted a study in which they
Latif et al.
observed the effects of (i) mercerization treatment, (ii)
acrylation treatment, (iii) isocyanate treatment on the
tensile characteristic of bagasse fiber/PP composite and
observed that all treatments had positive effects on ten-
sile strength of bagasse/PP composites. In addition, iso-
cyanate treatment had highest improvement in tensile
strength as compared to remaining surface treatments.
Ichazo et al.58 reported that treatment of wood flour
with silane agents showed enhancement in tensile char-
acteristics of wood flour/PP composites as compared to
normal wood flour/PP composites. Benzoyl peroxide
treated short sisal/PE composites showed better tensile
modulus as compared to untreated short sisal fiber/PE
composite.59
Manjula et al.50 observed the effects of thermal
aging on mechanical characteristics of coir fibers and
found that keeping the fibers in oven at 50 C for five
days improved the tensile strength due to improvement
in cellulose cross linking during thermal aging.51 It is
observed that heat treatment of manila hemp fiber at
200 C showed decrement in tensile strength, whereas
heat treatment at 160 C did not show any change in
tensile strength of manila fiber.60 Therefore, 160 C
temperature is maximum suitable temperature for the
fabrication of manila fiber/thermoplastic composites.
Khondker et al.61 observed that fully bleached jute
fiber/PP composites showed more increment in tensile
characteristics as compared to non-bleached and semi-
bleached jute fiber/PP composites due to improvement
in wettability of fully bleached jute fibers. Pothan
et al.62 observed that alkali treated (0.5 wt% of
NaOH) banana fiber-reinforced PE composite showed
greater improvement in tensile strength as compared to
silane A151, silane A174, silane A1100, and
acetylation-treated banana fiber/PE composites. Sepe
et al.63 reported that hemp fibers treatment with
silane agent had higher improvement in tensile strength
of hemp fiber/thermoset composite as compared to
hemp fiber treatment with alkali solution. Bessa
et al.64 performed a study in which they observed the
effects of chemical and physical treatments: (i) clea-
ning þ alkali, (ii) cleaning þ alkali þ benzoyl silane cou-
pling, (iii) cleaning þ alkali þ amino silane coupling,
(iv) cleaning þ alkali þ epoxy silane coupling, (v)
corona, (vi) corona þ amino silane coupling, and (vii)
corona þ epoxy, on the tensile characteristics of flax/
thermoplastic composites and found that all the
applied treatments had adverse effects on the tensile
strength and modulus except corona treatment which
enhanced the tensile strength by 2% as compared to
untreated samples. Their study revealed that increment
in tensile strength of corona treated NFCs might be
attributed to enhancement in wettability and mechan-
ical interlocking between flax fiber and thermo-
set matrix.65,66
23
Akhtar et al.67 conducted a study in which they
observed that treatment of kenaf fibers with 6 wt%
NaOH solution enhanced the fiber surface roughness
(as shown by peaks in FTIR). In addition, treatment of
kenaf/PP composite with NaOH leads to increment in
tensile strength and modulus by 1.34% and 40%
respectively as compared to untreated Kenaf/PP com-
posite.68 Kovacevic et al.69 performed a study in which
they observed the effects of three different chemical
treatments: (i) alkali, (ii) alkali þ nanoclay, and (iii)
nanoclay þ citric acid on tensile strength of junceum
fibers/polylactide (PLA) composites and found that
tensile strength was maximum for nanoclay þ citric
acid–treated junceum/PLA biocomposite which was
160% greater than untreated PLA. In addition, the
enhancement in tensile strength can be attributed to
increment in wettability and compatibility between
fiber and matrix.22,70 Georgiopoulos et al.71 observed
the effects of three chemical treatments: (i) vinyl trie-
thoxy silane, (ii) MA, and (iii) tributyl citrate (plasti-
cizer) on the mechanical characteristics of three
different composites formed by one reinforcement i.e.
flax/PLA, flax/polycopolyester (EC flax), and flax/PBS
(BION flax) and found that silane, 4-tert-butylecate-
chol (TBC), and MA-treated BION flax had adverse
effect on the tensile characteristic of BION flax com-
posite. Further, the similar results were obtained in
treated EC flax composite. However, silane-treated
flax/PLA had enhancement in tensile strength therefore
out of all the treated composites only silane-treated
flax/PLA composite had increment in tensile
strength.72 Hu and Lim73 conducted an experiment in
which they use alkali solution for the treatment of
hemp fibers and observed that composite formed by
PLA matrix and 40 wt% of alkali treated hemp fibers
reinforcement gave higher enhancement in tensile
strength as compared to composite formed by PLA
matrix and untreated hemp fibers due to good interfa-
cial adhesion and improved fiber surface.74
Abdelmouleh et al.75 identified the effects of three
silane coupling agents: (i) methaacryloxypropyltrime-
thoxysilane (MPS), (ii) hexadecyltriméthoxysilane
(HDS), and (iii) mercaptoproyltrimethoxysilane
(MRPS) on the tensile strength of cellulose/LDPE
composite and observed that MPS-treated cellulose
reinforced LDPE composite had higher enhancement
for tensile loading resistance as compared to MRPS
and HDS-treated cellulose-reinforced composites
which might be attributed to better interfacial of
acryl group with cellulose. Haldar et al.76 prepared
sisal/epoxy composite and observed the effects of alu-
minium powder on the tensile properties. They found
that using aluminium powder in sisal/epoxy composites
enhanced the tensile properties by 19% as compared
24
to sisal fiber/epoxy composite which can be referred to
low porosity and good interfacial bonding.
Effects of surface treatments on flexural
properties of NFCs
Major factors affecting the flexural strength and modu-
lus of NFCs are: (i) interfacial adhesion between matrix
(M) and fiber (f),77 (ii) extent of tension transfer between
M and f.78 Unlike tensile strength, the flexural strength
of the NFCs is mainly depends on IFSS instead of fiber
strength. Generally three-point bending test is per-
formed to investigate flexural properties using
Universal Testing Machine (UTM) with standards:
JIS-7171, ASTM D-790 (specimen dimension 50 mm 
25 mm 2 mm),39,79,80 GB-1499–83 (specimen dimen-
sion 65 mm  10 mm 3.5 mm),81 D790-02 (154 mm
13 mm 4 mm),82 D790-07 (80 mm  10 mm 4
mm).83 From available literature, it has been observed
that D790 standard was most frequently used standard
among all ASTM standards for flexural testing and
NFCs fabricated from untreated fibers had low value
of flexural strength and modulus because IFSS was
poor for untreated fiber composites34,39,84 therefore it
was necessary to enhance the IFSS value of NFCs to
improve the flexural strength. Consequently, researchers
found some chemical and physical treatments for NFs
to improve IFSS of NFCs.
Alkali treatments with 1, 5, and 10 wt% of NaOH
were performed for alfa fibers and results revealed that
alkali treated alfa fibers had increment in flexural
strength of their composites.80 In addition, 24 h of
soaking time for 10 wt% NaOH and 5 wt% NaOH
alkali treatment of alfa fibers showed enhancement in
bending strength of the alfa fiber-reinforced compo-
sites, whereas 48 h of soaking time showed reduction
in the flexural strength. Their study revealed that incre-
ment by alkali treatment in flexural strength of alfa
fiber-reinforced composite can be attributed to removal
of waxy contents from the surface of alfa fiber which
lead to increment in the roughness of fiber surface and
compatibility of alfa fibers with matrix phase whereas
decrement in flexural strength might be attributed to
degradation of cellulosic microfibril.9,12 Weyenberg
et al.85 investigations revealed that 3 wt% of NaOH
concentration in mercerization treatment of flax fibers
gave highest improvement in longitudinal and trans-
verse bending strength of flax fiber composite which
might be attributed to enhancement of interfacial
bonding between matrix and fibers.6,17,19,86 Yan
et al.87 conducted a study in which epoxy is reinforced
with alkali-treated flax, linen, and bamboo fibers and
found that 5 wt% NaOH alkali treatment of flax, linen,
and bamboo fibers showed an increment of 16.1, 16.7,
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 38(1)
13.6% in flexural strength and 7.2, 9.1, 6.3% increment
in modulus respectively which might be attributed to
improvement in roughness of fiber surface88,89 and
good interfacial adhesion between matrix and rein-
forcement.20,90 Okubo et al.91 found that addition of
micro-fibrillated cellulose had significant positive
results for flexural strength of banana/PLA composites
due to the barrier in crack propagation. Yousif et al.83
found that 6 wt% NaOH-treated kenaf fiber-reinforced
composite had higher flexural strength as compared to
5 wt% NaOH-treated kenaf/epoxy composite. Cantero
et al.79 conducted a study in which they studied the
effects of Mercerized MAPP treatment (0, 2.5, and 5
wt% MAPP) on wood flour (20, 30, 40 wt%) rein-
forced composites and found that increasing the con-
tent of wood flour upto 20 wt% improved the flexural
strength. Further, they observed that treatment of
fibers with MAPP leads to enhancement in the flexural
strength by some extent due to the increment in tension
transference between matrix and fiber inter-
face.10,12,14,19,27 Herrera-Franco and Valadez-
Gonzalez39 performed an experiment in which they
treated hanquen fibers with silane agent followed by
NaOH and pre-impregnation treatments and observed
enhancement in longitudinal and transverse flexural
strength were 36% and 25% respectively due to
improvement in wettability and mechanical interlock-
ing between hanquen fiber and matrix.27
Available literature revealed that most of the surface
treatments had positive effects on the flexural strength
therefore it was necessary to identify best-suited surface
treatment for a particular plant fiber to obtain higher
improvement in the flexural behavior of plant fiber
composite. Consequently, Asumani et al.17 conducted
a study in which they identify the effects of alkali treat-
ment with different wt% of NaOH concentration (1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 wt% NaOH) and alkali–silane treatment
on the bending behavior of short kenaf fiber/PP com-
posites. They further identified that flexural strength
was increasing only upto 5 wt% of NaOH in alkali
treatments, whereas flexural strength was increased
upto 6 wt% of NaOH concentration in case of
silane–alkali treatment of fibers. In addition, enhance-
ment in the value of bending strength was 32% and
50% in alkali treatment and alkali–silane treatments
respectively therefore it was suggested to use alkali–
silane treatment for higher enhancement in bending
strength of the kenaf fiber-reinforced composites.92 In
a comparative study, it has been revealed that alkali-
treated ramie fiber composite had better flexural
strength as compared to silane-treated ramie fiber com-
posite81 which might be attributed to better IFSS in
NFCs which are reinforced with alkali-treated fibers
as compared to silane-treated fiber.93 Goriparthi
et al.25 selected four different chemical treatments: (i)
Latif et al.
alkali treatment, (2) permanganate treatment, (iii) per-
oxide treatment, (iv) silane 1 and silane 2 treatment on
flexural properties of Jute/PLA composite and found
that for silane 2 treatment flexural strength and mod-
ulus were maximum i.e. 24% and 41% greater than
untreated jute/PLA composite which might be referred
to enhancement in interfacial interaction between the
matrix and reinforcement.94 Sreekumar et al.78 selected
five different treatments: (i) alkali treatment (5 wt%
NaOH), (ii) heat treatment (keep samples in oven at
104 temperature for 4 h), (iii) permanganate treatment,
(iv) benzoylation treatment (v) silane treatment to treat
sisal fiber for the fabrication of sisal/polyester compos-
ite and found that composites having permanganate
treated sisal fiber reinforcement showed maximum
enhancement in flexural strength which was 25%
greater than untreated sisal fiber composites, whereas
enhancement in flexural modulus was maximum for
silane treatment of sisal fiber  38% higher as com-
pared to permanganate and non-treated sisal compo-
sites which might be attributed to chemical interaction
between matrix and reinforcement.10,12,86,88 The
results of this study were significant because perman-
ganate treatment of sisal fiber had no effects on its
tensile behavior whereas this treatment had significant
effect on flexural behavior of sisal fiber composites.
Weyenberg et al.85 performed a study in which they
observed the effects of many chemical treatments: (i)
1, 2, 3 wt% of NaOH treatment, (ii) epoxy impregna-
tion treatment, (iii) silanation treatment, (iv) acetone
treatment, (v) combination of NaOH and epoxy
impregnation on flax fiber-reinforced composites.
Further, their study revealed that interfacial and flex-
ural strength were enhanced by all these treatments,
but flax fibers treated with combination of NaOH
and epoxy (1% NaOH þ 2% Epoxy) showed greatest
increment in interfacial and flexural strength. In this
work, the only reason behind the enhancement of flex-
ural properties was good interfacial bonding between
matrix and fiber due to strong bonding linkage pro-
duced by treatment (1% NaOH þ 2% epoxy).33 Rong
et al.43 performed an experiment in which they study
the effects of (i) alkali treatment, (ii) acetylation treat-
ment, (iii) cynoethylation treatment, (iv) organosilane
treatment, (v) heat þ alkali treatment on interfacial
properties of sisal fiber/epoxy composite and showed
that the combination of heat treatment and alkaline
treatment gave maximum value for flexural modulus
of the NFCs due to enhancement in IFSS by 40–
50%, whereas acetylation treatment of sisal fiber gave
greater flexural strength as compared to the combina-
tion of alkaline and heat treatment which can be attrib-
uted to better bonding of sisal with acetyl group of
acetic anhydride.10,20,88 Biagiotti et al.95 performed a
series of chemical treatments: (i) MA, (ii) MAPP, (iii)
25
VTMO silane on the natural flax and flax pulp/poly-
propylene composites and found that all treatments
except MA showed increment in flexural strength of
flux pulp composites due to improvement in bonding
strength at the interface of reinforcing phase and
matrix phase.17,85,96 Aziz and Ansell97 performed a
study in which they found the value of flexural strength
for alkali-treated hemp and kenaf fiber-reinforced PE
composites. In this study, they use short and long fibers
to reinforce PE matrix. Their findings revealed that
alkali-treated long kenaf fiber-reinforced PE composite
had maximum flexural strength as compared to others.
In both the cases, long fibers gave highest improvement
in mechanical properties due to good fiber orientation
in long fiber-reinforced composite.98 Weyenberg et al.99
observed the effects of alkali treatment (1, 2, 3%
NaOH) on interface and mechanical response of unidi-
rectional flax/epoxy reinforced composite and revealed
that for 3 wt% NaOH-treated flax/epoxy had maxi-
mum flexural strength of 283 MPa which was 30%
greater than untreated flax/epoxy composite. In addi-
tion, the reason behind increase in flexural properties of
flax/epoxy composite can be attributed to improved
interface quality.100 Choudhury101 performed an exper-
iment in which they found that alkali treatment of sisal
fiber with 5 wt% of NaOH had a significant effect on
the flexural strength of sisal/HDPE due to improve-
ment in mechanical interlocking and compatibility
between fiber and matrix. Reddy et al.102 conducted a
study and identify the effects of alkali treatment on
kapok/sisal PE composite. They observed that alkali-
treated hybrid kapok/sisal PE composite had a greater
value of flexural strength as compared to no-treated
kapok/sisal PE composite which might be attributed
to greater strength of reinforcing phase and better
stress transfer between matrix and reinforce-
ment phase.103
Effect of surface treatment on impact
strength of NFCs
The impact strength of the NFCs can be measured by
using standard Charpy Impact test. Charpy impact test
is also used to analyze the brittle ductile transition in
NFCs.14,26 Available literature revealed that the impact
strength of NFCs was affected by many parameters
such as interfacial bonding, composition of NFs,
toughness of the matrix materials, etc. and most of
the surface treatments used for NFs improved the flex-
ural and tensile strength of the NFCs but reduced the
impact strength.
Acetylation of the NFs improved the interfacial
bonding strength of the NFCs leading to reduction in
the toughness and impact strength of the NFCs.14,104
26
Bledzki et al.14 reported that addition of MAPP in
matrix phase leading to reduction in impact strength
of composite material due to increment of brittleness in
matrix phase. Mehta et al.105 reported that acryloni-
trile, silane, and methyl ethyl ketone peroxide
(MEKP) treatments of hemp fiber improved the value
of impact strength for hemp NFCs as compared to the
value of impact strength for untreated hemp fiber com-
posite and among all treatments acrylonoitrile had best
results for impact strength improvement. From the
illustrated research work, it has been observed that
the value of impact strength for NFCs was not
completely governed by type of chemical treatment
used to treat NFs but also on type of natural fiber.
For Hemp fibers, fibers treated by silane agents had
improved value of impact strength for hemp/PE com-
posites, whereas sisal fibers treatment with silane agents
had adverse effect on impact strength of sisal/PE com-
posite.89,105 In a comparative study, it has been
observed that alkali treatment had highest adverse
effect on impact strength sisal/PE composite as com-
pared to silane treatment,78 whereas SLS treatment of
banana/kenaf fiber was better to improve the impact
strength of banana/kenaf hybrid composite as com-
pared to alkali treatment.106 Dayo et al.107 observed
the influence of chemical treatments on mechanical
properties of hemp/polybenzoxazine composites and
revealed that silane-treated hemp fiber-reinforced poly-
benzoxazine composite had greater value for impact
strength as compared to the impact strength value for
alkali-treated and untreated hemp fiber/polybenzoxa-
zine composite. Sreekala et al.108 conducted a study
in which they studied the effects of chemical treatments
on the impact strength of palm fiber/phenolic formal-
dehyde composites and found that latex treatment of
oil palm fiber had best results for impact strength
improvement and peroxide treatment had least
improvement. In jute/PALF hybrid composite, as per-
centage of jute fiber increased the value of impact
strength showed decrement due to improvement in
the transfer of stress from fiber to matrix.109 Further,
it was found that impact properties of jute/PALF
hybrid composite were comparable to natural fiber/
synthetic fiber hybrid composites. Venkateshwaran
et al.110 reported that 1 wt% of NaOH in alkali treat-
ment of banana fibers gave highest increment in the
value of impact strength of banana/epoxy composites
as compared to alkali treatments with 0.5, 2, 5, 10, 15,
and 20 wt% NaOH.
Concluding remarks and summary
This paper presented a detailed literature review on
effects of different surface treatments on several
mechanical properties of NFCs. Research papers
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 38(1)
available in the literature pertaining to different surface
treatments of NFs and their effects on the mechanical
properties of NFs. On the basis of the literature review
conducted and presented in this paper, the following
conclusions are made:
1. The chemical composition and structure of NFs
influence the physical and mechanical properties of
NFs. Among all constituents, cellulose and out of
several physical properties, MFA have major effect
on the mechanical properties of NFs.
2. The mechanical properties of NFCs are mainly gov-
erned by plant fiber selection, matrix material selec-
tion, surface treatments selection, and fabrication
techniques selection. Available literature revealed
that untreated plant fibers have noncellulosic com-
pounds and smooth surface due to which inferior
mechanical interlocking and incompatibility
between NFs and matrix material occurred there-
fore, chemical treatments of NFs have been sug-
gested to improve compatibility, hydrophobicity,
interfacial bonding, and surface roughness which
lead to better mechanical properties of NFCs.
3. It is observed that dissolution chemical treatments
like mercerization, acetylation removes the noncel-
lulosic compounds such as lignin, hemicellulose, and
pectin from the NF which leads to degradation in
tensile strength of NFs, whereas hydrophobicity and
surface roughness of fibers are improved by these
treatments which lead to improvement in wettability
and mechanical interlocking of fibers with matrix
material. However, coating and graft copolymeriza-
tion treatments such as silanation, oligomeric silox-
ane, MAPP do not have significant effect on surface
roughness of NFs, whereas hydrophobicity of NFs
and interfacial bond strength in NFCs are signifi-
cantly improved by these treatments. Therefore, it
is suggested to use combination of dissolution/coat-
ing/graft copolymerization chemical treatments to
get higher improvement in surface roughness of
NFs, compatibility of NFs with matrix material
and interfacial bond strength which lead to greater
increment in tensile and flexural strength of
the NFCs.
4. It has been found that most of the chemical treat-
ments have adverse effects on impact strength of
NFCs. Unlike tensile and flexural strength, improv-
ing interfacial shear strength in NFCs is not always
useful for the improvement of impact strength. It is
reported that most common chemical treatment i.e.,
mercerization has adverse effects on impact strength
of NFCs whereas very few chemical treatments such
as silanation, latex treatment, and MEKP treatment
are useful to improve the impact strength of NFCs.
Latif et al.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Rashid Latif http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7495-2379
References
1. Sanjay MR, Madhu P, Jawaid M, et al.
Characterization and properties of natural fiber polymer
composites: a comprehensive review. J Clean Prod 2018;
172: 566–581.
2. Pickering KL, Efendy MGA and Le TM. A review of
recent developments in natural fibre composites and
their mechanical performance. Compos Part A 2016;
83: 98–112.
3. Fidelis MEA, Pereira TVC, Gomes ODFM, et al. The
effect of fiber morphology on the tensile strength of nat-
ural fibers. J Mater Res Technol 2013; 2: 149–157.
4. Petroudy SRD. Physical and mechanical properties of
natural fibers. In: Fan M and Fu F (eds) Advanced High
Strength Natural Fiber Composites in Construction.
Wood Publishing, 2017, pp.59–83.
5. Ramamoorthy SK, Skirfvars M and Persson A. A
review of natural fibers used in biocomposites: plant,
animal and regenerated cellulose fibers. Polym Rev
2015; 55: 107–162.
6. Safinia L, Datan N, Honse M, et al. Towards a meth-
odology for the effective surface modification of porous
polymer scaffolds. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 7537–7547.
7. Park S, Baker JO and Himmel ME. Cellulose crystallin-
ity index: measurement techniques and their impact on
interpreting cellulase performance. Biotechnol Biofuels
2010; 3: 10.
8. Zhou Y, Fan M and Chen L. Interface and bonding
mechanisms of plant fibre composites: an overview.
Compos Part B Eng 2016; 101: 31–45.
9. Yilmaz ND. Agro-residual fibers as potential reinforce-
ment elements for biocomposites. In: Thakur VK
(ed) Lignocellulosic Polymer Composites Process
Characterization and Properties. John Willey and Sons
Inc., 2014, pp.231–270.
10. Pichandi S, Rana S, Parveen S, et al. A green approach
of improving interface and performance of plant fibre
composites using microcrystalline cellulose. Carbohydr
Polym 2018; 197: 137–146.
11. Mehta G, Mohanty AK and Thayer K. Novel biocom-
posites sheet molding compounds for low cost housing
panel applications. J Polym Environ 2005; 13: 169–175.
12. Seki Y. Innovative multifunctional siloxane treatment
of jute fiber surface and its effect on the mechanical
27
properties of jute/thermoset composites. Mater Sci
Eng 2009; 508: 247–252.
13. Sair S, Oushabi A and Kammouni A. Effect of surface
modification on morphological, mechanical and thermal
conductivity of hemp fiber: characterization of the inter-
face of hemp–polyurethane composite. Case Studies
Thermal Eng 2017; 10: 550–559.
14. Bledzki AK, Mamun AA and Lucka-Gabor M. The
effects of acetylation on properties of flax fibre and its
polypropylene composites. Express Polym Lett 2008;
2: 413–422.
15. Komuraiah A, Kumar NS and Prasad BD. Chemical
composition of natural fibers and its influence on their
mechanical properties. Mech Compos Mater 2014;
50: 359–376.
16. Amiri A, Ulven C and Huo S. Effect of chemical treat-
ment of flax fiber and resin manipulation on service life
of their composites using time-temperature superposi-
tion. Polymers 2015; 7: 1965–1978.
17. Asumani OML, Reid RG and Paskaramoorthy R. The
effects of alkali–silane treatment on the tensile and flex-
ural properties of short fibre non-woven kenaf rein-
forced polypropylene composites. Compos Part A
2012; 43: 1431–1440.
18. Dayo AQ, Gao B and Wang J. Natural hemp fiber
reinforced polybenzoxazine composites: curing behav-
ior, mechanical and thermal properties. Compos Sci
Technol 2017; 144: 114–124.
19. Doan T, Brodowsky H and M€ader E. Jute fibre/epoxy
composites: surface properties and interfacial adhesion.
Compos Sci Technol 2012; 72: 1160–1166.
20. Orue A, Jauregi A, Rodriguez P, et al. The effect of
surface modifications on sisal fiber properties and
sisal/poly (lactic acid) interface adhesion. Compos Part
B 2014; 73: 132–138.
21. Cai M, Takagi H and Nakagaito AN. Effect of alkali
treatment on interfacial bonding in abaca fiber-
reinforced composites. Compos Part A 2016; 90: 589–597.
22. Boopathi L, Sampath P and Mylsamy K. Investigation
of physical, chemical and mechanical properties of raw
and alkali treated Borassus fruit fiber. Compos Part B
Eng 2012; 43: 3044–3052.
23. Van Krevelen DW. Group contribution techniques for
correlating polymer properties and chemical structure.
New York: Marcel Dekker, 1992, pp. 55–123.
24. Harish S, Michael DP and Bensely A. Mechanical prop-
erty evaluation of natural fiber coir composite. Mater
Character 2009; 60: 44–49.
25. Goriparthi BK, Suman KNS and Rao NM. Effect of
fiber surface treatments on mechanical and abrasive
wear performance of polylactide/jute composites.
Compos Part A 2012; 43: 1800–1808.
26. Gomes A, Matsuo T, Goda K, et al. Development and
effect of alkali treatment on tensile properties of curaua
fiber green composites. Compos Part A 2007;
38: 1811–1820.
27. Lee B, Kim S and Yu W. Characterization of surface
modified flax fibers and their biocomposites with PHB.
Fibers Polym 2009; 10: 83–90.
28
28. Bachtiar D, Sapuan SM and Hamdan MM. The effect
of alkaline treatment on tensile properties of sugar palm
fibre reinforced epoxy composites. Mater Design 2008;
29: 1285–1290.
29. Prasad SV, Pavithran C and Rohatgi PK. Alkali treat-
ment of coir fibers for coir–polyester composites.
J Mater Sci 1983; 18: 1443–1454.
30. Nam TH, Ogihara S and Tung NH. Effect of alkali treat-
ment on interfacial and mechanical properties of coir
fiber reinforced poly (butylene succinate) biodegradable
composites. Compos Part B 2011; 42: 1648–1656.
31. Liu L, Yu J and Cheng L. Mechanical properties of poly
(butylene succinate) (PBS) biocomposites reinforced
with surface modified jute fibre. Compos Part A 2009;
40: 669–674.
32. Kalia S, Kaith BS and Kaur I. Pretreatments of natural
fibers and their application as reinforcing material in
polymer composites—a review. Polym Eng Sci 2009;
49: 1253–1272.
33. Hill CAS and Abdul Khalil HPS. Effect of fiber treat-
ments on mechanical properties of coir or oil palm fiber
reinforced polyester composites. J Appl Polym Sci 2000;
78: 1685–1697.
34. Arbelaiz A, Cantero G and Fernandez B. Mechanical
properties of short flax fibre bundle/polypropylene com-
posites: Influence of matrix/fibre modification, fibre
content, water uptake and recycling. Compos Sci Tech
2005; 65: 1582–1592.
35. Felix JM and Gatenholm P. The nature of adhesion in
composites of modified cellulose fibers and polypropyl-
ene. J Appl Polym Sci 1991; 42: 609–620.
36. Chuai C, Almdal K and Poulsen L. Conifer fibers as
reinforcing materials for polypropylene-based compo-
sites. J Appl Polym Sci 2001; 80: 2833–2841.
37. Joseph K, Thomas S and Pavithran C. Effect of chem-
ical treatment on the tensile properties of short sisal
fibre-reinforced polyethylene composites. Polymer
1996; 37: 5139–5149.
38. Li W, Meng L and Ma R. Effect of surface treatment
with potassium permanganate on ultra-high molecular
weight polyethylene fiber reinforced natural rubber
composites. Polym Test 2016; 55: 10–16.
39. Herrera-Franco PJ and Valadez-Gonzalez A.
Mechanical properties of continuous natural fibre-
reinforced polymer composites. Compos Part A 2004;
35: 339–345.
40. Demir H, Atikler U and Balkose D. The effect of fiber
surface treatments on the tensile and water sorption
properties of polypropylene–luffa fiber composites.
Compos Part A 2006; 37: 447–456.
41. Hull D and Clyne WT. An introduction to composite
material. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press; 1996.
42. Chen Y, Su N and Zhang K. Effect of fiber surface
treatment on structure, moisture absorption and
mechanical properties of luffa sponge fiber bundles.
Industr Crops Prod 2018; 123: 341–352.
43. Rong MZ, Zhang MQ and Liu Y. The effect of fiber
treatment on the mechanical properties of unidirectional
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 38(1)
sisal-reinforced epoxy composites. Compos Sci Tech
2001; 61: 1437–1447.
44. Rahman MM and Khan MA. Surface treatment of coir
(Cocos nucifera) fibers and its influence on the fibers
physico-mechanical properties. Compos Sci Tech 2007;
67: 2369–2376.
45. Oksman K and Clemons C. Mechanical properties and
morphology of impact modified polypropylene–wood
flour composites. J Appl Polym Sci 1998; 67: 1503–1513.
46. Arrakhiz FZ, Achaby ME and Malha M. Mechanical
and thermal properties of natural fibers reinforced poly-
mer composites: doum/low density polyethylene. Mater
Design 2013; 43: 200–205.
47. Malkapuram R, Kumar V and Negi YS. Recent devel-
opment in natural fiber reinforced polypropylene com-
posites. J Reinf Plast Compos 2009; 28: 1169.
48. Wu C, Lai C and Wang C. Effects of surface modifica-
tion on the mechanical properties of flax/b-polypropyl-
ene composites. Materials 2016; 9: 314.
49. Thakur VK and Thakur MK. Processing and character-
ization of natural cellulose fibers/thermoset polymer
composites. Carbohydr Polym 2014; 109: 102–117.
50. Manjula R, Raju NV and Chakradhar RPS. Effect of
thermal aging and chemical treatment on tensile prop-
erties of coir fiber. J Nat Fibers 2018; 15: 112–121.
51. Kato KL and Cameron RE. A review of the relationship
between thermally-accelerated ageing of paper and
hornication. Cellulose 1999; 6: 23–40.
52. Brahmakumar M, Pavithran C and Pillai R. Coconut
fibre reinforced polyethylene composites: effect of natu-
ral waxy surface layer of the fibre on fibre/matrix inter-
facial bonding and strength of composites. Compos Sci
Tech 2005; 65: 563–569.
53. Oksman K, Lindberg H and Holmgren A. The nature
and location of SERS-MA compatibilizer in
polyethylene-wood flour composites. J Appl Polym Sci
1998; 69: 201–209.
54. Oksman K and Lindberg H. Influence of thermoplastic
elastomers on adhesion in polyethylene–wood flour
composites. J Appl Polym Sci 1998; 68: 1845–1855.
55. Baiardo M, Zini E and Scandola M. Flax fibre–polyes-
ter composites. Compos Part A 2004; 35: 703–710.
56. Stuart T, McCall RD and Sharma HSS. Modelling of
wicking and moisture interactions of flax and viscose
fibres. Carbohydr Polym 2015; 123: 359–368.
57. Vazquez A, Dominguez VA and Kenny JM. Bagasse
fiber-polypropylene based composites. J Thermoplast
Compos Mater 1999; 12: 477–497.
58. Ichazo MN, Albano C and Gonzalez J. Polypropylene/
wood flour composites: treatments and properties.
Compos Struct 2001; 54: 207–214.
59. Gassan J and Bledzki AK. Alkali treatment of jute
fibers: relationship between structure and mechanical
properties. J Appl Polym Sci 1999; 71: 623–629.
60. Ochi S. Development of high strength biodegradable
composites using Manila hemp fiber and starch-based
biodegradable resin. Compos Part A 2006; 37: 1879–1883.
61. Khondker OA, Ishaku US and Nakal A. Tensile, flex-
ural and impact properties of jute fibre-based
Latif et al.
thermosetting composites. Plast Rubber Compos 2005;
34: 450–462.
62. Pothan LA, George J and Thomas S. Effect of fiber
surface treatments on the fiber–matrix interaction in
banana fiber reinforced polyester composites. Compos
Interf 2002; 9: 335–353.
63. Sepe R, Bollino F and Boccarusso L. Influence of chem-
ical treatments on mechanical properties of hemp fiber
reinforced composites. Compos Part B Eng 2018;
133: 210–217.
64. Bessa J, Matos J and Mota C. Influence of surface treat-
ments on the mechanical properties of fibre reinforced
thermoplastic composites. Procedia Eng 2017;
200: 465–471.
65. Hamid MRY, Ab Ghani MH and Ahmad S. Effect of
antioxidants and fire retardants as mineral fillers on the
physical and mechanical properties of high loading
hybrid biocomposites reinforced with rice husks and
sawdust. Ind Crops Prod 2012; 40: 96.
66. Rout J, Misra M and Tripathy SS. The influence of fibre
treatment on the performance of coir-polyester compo-
sites. Compos Sci Tech 2001; 61: 1303.
67. Akhtar MN, Sulong AB and Radzi MKF. Influence of
alkaline treatment and fiber loading on the physical and
mechanical properties of kenaf/polypropylene compo-
sites for variety of applications. Prog Nat Sci Mater
Int 2016; 26: 657–664.
68. Subasinghe ADL, Das R and Bhattacharya D. Fiber
dispersion during compounding/injection molding of
PP/kenaf composites: flammability and mechanical
properties. Mater Design 2015; 86: 500–507.
69. Kovacevic Z, Bischof S and Vujasinovic E. The influ-
ence of pre-treatment of Spartium junceum L. fibres on
the structure and mechanical properties of PLA biocom-
posites. Arab J Chem 2016.
70. Essabir H, Boujmal R and Bensal AH. Mechanical and
thermal properties of hybrid composites: oil-palm fiber/
clay reinforced high density polyethylene. Mech Mater
2016; 98: 36–43.
71. Georgiopoulos P, Christopoulos A and Koutsoumpis S.
The effect of surface treatment on the performance of
flax/biodegradable composites. Compos Part B 2016;
106: 88e98.
72. Kalia S, Kaith BS and Kaur I. Pretreatments of natural
Fibers and thier applications as reinforcing material in
polymer composites- a reiew. Polymer Engg and Sci
2009; 49: 1253–1272.
73. Hu R and Lim J. Fabrication and mechanical properties
of completely biodegradable hemp fiber reinforced
polylactic acid composites. J Compos Mater 2007;
41: 1655.
74. Wambua P, Ivens J and Verpoest I. Natural fibres: can
they replace glass in fibre reinforced plastics. Compos
Sci Technol 2003; 63: 1259–1264.
75. Abdelmouleh M, Boufi S and Belgacem MN. Short
natural-fibre reinforced polyethylene and natural
rubber composites: effect of silane coupling agents and
fibres loading. Compos Sci Technol 2007; 67: 1627–1639.
29
76. Haldar P, Modak N and Sutradhar G. Comparative
evaluation of mechanical properties of sisal-epoxy com-
posites with and without addition of aluminium powder.
Mater Today Proc 2017; 4: 3397–3406.
77. Huda MS, Drzal LT and Mohanty AK. Effect of fiber
surface-treatments on the properties of laminated bio-
composites from poly (lactic acid)(PLA) and kenaf
fibers. Compos Sci Tech 2008; 68: 424–432.
78. Sreekumar PA, Thomas SP and Saiter JM. Effect of
fiber surface modification on the mechanical and water
absorption characteristics of sisal/polyester composites
fabricated by resin transfer molding. Compos Part A
2009; 40: 1777–1784.
79. Cantero G, Arbelaiz A and Liano R. Effects of fibre
treatment on wettability and mechanical behaviour of
flax/polypropylene composites. Compos Sci Tech 2003;
63: 1247–1254.
80. Rokbi M, Osmani H and Imad A. Effect of chemical
treatment on flexure properties of natural fiber-
reinforced polyester composite. Procedia Eng 2011;
10: 2092–2097.
81. Yu T, Ren J and Li S. Effect of fiber surface-treatments
on the properties of poly (lactic acid)/ramie composites.
Compos Part A 2010; 41: 499–505.
82. ASTM D3039/D3039M-17. Standard test method for
tensile properties of polymer matrix composite materials.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2017,
www.astm.org (accessed 10 June 2018).
83. Yousif BF, Shalwan A and Chin CW. Flexural proper-
ties of treated and untreated kenaf/epoxy composites.
Mater Design 2012; 40: 378–385.
84. Han SO, Lee SM and Park WH. Mechanical and ther-
mal properties of waste silk fiber-reinforced poly(butyl-
ene succinate) biocomposites. J Appl Polym Sci 2006;
100: 4972–4980.
85. Weyenberg IVD, Truong TC and Vangrimde B.
Improving the properties of UD flax fibre reinforced
composites by applying an alkaline fibre treatment.
Compos Part A 2006; 37: 1368–1376.
86. Bozaci E, Kutlay S and Sarikanat M. Effects of the
atmospheric plasma treatments on surface and mechan-
ical properties of flax fiber and adhesion between fiber–
matrix for composite materials. Compos Part B 2013;
45: 565–572.
87. Yan L, Chouw N and Yuan X. Improving the mechan-
ical properties of natural fibre fabric reinforced epoxy
composites by alkali treatment. J Reinf Plastics Compos
2012; 31: 425–437.
88. Mwaikambo LY and Ansell MP. The effect of chemical
treatment on the properties of hemp, sisal, jute and
kapok for composite reinforcement. Angew Makromol
Chem 1999; 272: 108–116.
89. Chen X, Guo Q and Mi Y. Bamboo fiber-reinforced
polypropylene composites: a study of the mechanical
properties. J Appl Polym Sci 1998; 69: 1891–1899.
90. Flynn J, Ali A and Chad U. Hybridized carbon and flax
fiber composites for tailored performance. Mater Design
2016; 102: 21–29.
30
91. Okubo K, Fujii T and Yamashita N. Improvement of
interfacial adhesion in bamboo polymer composite
enhanced with micro-fibrillated cellulose. MPConf
2005; 48: 199–204.
92. Akil HM, Omar MF and Mazuki AAM. Kenaf fiber
reinforced composites: a review. Mater Design 2011;
32: 4107–4121.
93. Okano T and Nishiyama Y. Morphological changes of
ramie fiber during mercerization. J Wood Sci 1998;
44: 310–313.
94. Karmaker AC and Youngquist JA. Injection moulding
of polypropylene reinforced with short jute fibres. J Appl
Polym Sci 1996; 62: 1147–1151.
95. Biagiotti J, Puglia D and Torre L. A systematic investi-
gation on the influence of the chemical treatment of
natural fibers on the properties of their polymer
matrix composites. Polym Compos 2004; 25: 470–479.
96. Hornsby PR, Hinrichsen E and Tarverdi K. Preparation
and properties of polypropylene composites reinforced
with wheat and flax straw fibres: part II analysis of com-
posite microstructure and mechanical properties.
J Mater Sci 1997; 32: 1009–1015.
97. Aziz SH and Ansell MP. The effect of alkalization and
fibre alignment on the mechanical and thermal properties
of kenaf and hemp bast fibre composites: part 1–polyester
resin matrix. Compos Sci Technol 2004; 64: 1219–1230.
98. Harris B. Engineering composite materials. 2nd ed.
Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, 1999.
99. Weyenberg IVD, Ivens J and Coster AD. Influence of
processing and chemical treatment of flax fibres on their
composites. Compos Sci Tech 2003; 63: 1241–1246.
100. Truong Chi T. The effects of chemical treatment on the
mechanical properties of flax fibre reinforced epoxy com-
posites. Master thesis. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit
Leuven, 2000.
101. Choudhury A. Isothermal crystallization and mechani-
cal behavior of ionomer treated sisal/HDPE composites.
Mater Sci Eng 2008; 491: 492–500.
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 38(1)
102. Reddy GV, Naidu VS and Rani T. A study on hardness
and flexural properties of kapok/sisal composites.
J Reinf Plast Compos 2009; 28: 2035–2044.
103. Sabeel K, Vijayaranga S and Rajput C. Mechanical
behavior of isothalic polyester-based untreated woven
jute and glass fabric hybrid composites. J Reinf Plast
Compos 2006; 25: 1549–1569.
104. Fakirov S and Bhattacharyya D. Handbook of engineer-
ing biopolymers: homopolymers, blends and composites.
Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag, 2007.
105. Mehta G, Drzal L and Mohanty A. Effect of fiber sur-
face treatment on the properties of biocomposites from
nonwoven industrial hemp fiber mats and unsaturated
polyester resin. J Appl Polym Sci 2006; 99: 1055–1068.
106. Thiruchitrambalam M, Alavudeen A and Athijayamni
A. Improving mechanical properties of banana/kenaf
polyester hybrid composites using sodium laulryl sulfate
treatment. Mater Phys Mech 2009; 8: 165–173.
107. Dayo AQ, Zegaoui A and Nizamani AA. The influence
of different chemical treatments on the hemp fiber/poly-
benzoxazine based green composites: mechanical, ther-
mal and water absorption properties. Mater Chem Phys
2018; 217: 270–277.
108. Sreekala MS, Kumaran MG and Joseph S. Oil palm
fibre reinforced phenol formaldehyde composites: influ-
ence of fibre surface modifications on the mechanical
performance. Appl Compos Mater 2000; 7.5–6: 295–329.
109. Shanmugam D and Thiruchitrambalam M. Static and
dynamic mechanical properties of alkali treated unidi-
rectional continuous Palmyra palm leaf stalk fiber/jute
fiber reinforced hybrid polyester composites. Mater
Design 2013; 50: 533–542.
110. Venkateshwaran N, Perumal AE and
Arunsundaranayagam D. Fiber surface treatment and
its effect on mechanical and visco-elastic behaviour of
banana/epoxy composite. Mater Design 2013;
47: 151–159.