Improvement on the interfacial compatibility of jute fiber-reinforced polypropylene composites by different surface treatments
Source abstract
Abstract
The interfacial compatibility possessed critical effect on the performance of jute fiber-reinforced composites. In order to improve the interfacial compatibility of jute fiber-reinforced polypropylene composites, jute fibers were treated by alkali treatment, ethylenediamine/alkali treatment and acid/alkali treatment. Through analysis by scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy, Fourier transform infrared, X-ray diffraction, surface energy measurement, and tensile strength test, the acid/alkali treatment was deemed as the most efficient method for improving the surface properties of jute fibers among three kinds of surface treatments. The interfacial compatibility of treated fiber-reinforced composites was enhanced significantly, which attributed to the improvement of surface properties of jute fibers. Due to the acidic hydrolysis of acid treatment, the surface energy of acid/alkali treated fibers was increased by 45.58% compared with the control fibers. The tensile and bending strength of acid/alkali treated fiber-reinforced composites were enhanced by 34.80% and 22.53%, respectively. Therefore, the acid/alkali treatment was potential and competitive surface treatment to enhance the interfacial compatibility of jute fiber-reinforced composites.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Fiber-reinforced polymer composites
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
College of Materials Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, P. R. China
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.27610.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.276 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.04.01610.1016/j.compscitech.2018.04.016 ↗
3. Bujjibabu G · Constr Build Mater · 2018 · 174 · 71310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.143 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.03410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.034 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.11.06110.1016/j.compositesb.2017.11.061 ↗
6. Pereira AC · J Mater Res · 2017 · 6 · 312
7. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.04.05310.1016/j.compositesb.2012.04.053 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2013.02.08610.1016/j.apsusc.2013.02.086 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.21110.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.211 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2016.01.02110.1016/j.compositesa.2016.01.021 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.09.03010.1016/j.compositesb.2017.09.030 ↗
12. 10.1080/01694243.2016.127509510.1080/01694243.2016.1275095 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.11.04810.1016/j.indcrop.2014.11.048 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2017.06.02510.1016/j.compositesa.2017.06.025 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2016.08.02510.1016/j.compositesa.2016.08.025 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.12010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.120 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.18210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.182 ↗
18. 10.1007/s12034-009-0010-310.1007/s12034-009-0010-3 ↗
19. 10.1002/sia.534010.1002/sia.5340 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2017.10.02010.1016/j.compscitech.2017.10.020 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2017.11.00210.1016/j.compscitech.2017.11.002 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.09.01110.1016/j.indcrop.2016.09.011 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.05.02710.1016/j.compositesa.2015.05.027 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.03.03210.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.03.032 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.21110.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.211 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.13410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.04.134 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.12.00210.1016/j.compositesa.2015.12.002 ↗
28. 10.1007/s10853-014-8668-310.1007/s10853-014-8668-3 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.05.10310.1016/j.matdes.2016.05.103 ↗