Weathering of compatibilized poly(hydroxybutyrate)/agave fiber biocomposites produced by different mixing methods
Source abstract
Abstract
The continuous growth in the biopolymers market underscores the necessity to develop and characterize novel materials to replace conventional polymers. This study evaluated the effect of the processing method on the properties of poly(hydroxybutyrate)/agave fiber (PHB/AF) biocomposites with a coupling agent based on glycidyl methacrylate. The components were first blended using two methods (dry-blending and twin screw-extrusion) before being compression molded. Then, the biocomposites degradation was evaluated via accelerated weathering to determine its effect on the physico-mechanical properties. The results showed that adding AF to PHB increased the porosity (low density), but this effect was decreased by 60% for the extruded compatibilized biocomposites. Consequently, the level of degradation (loss of mechanical properties and dimensional stability) was less affected when a coupling agent was used. However, after weathering, the porosity similarly increased for both uncompatibilized biocomposites. Finally, the tensile, impact, and flexural strength were less affected by weathering when the compatibilizer was mixed via dry-blending.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites · biodegradable polymer synthesis and properties · Advanced Cellulose Research Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, México
Department of Chemical Engineering, Université Laval, 1065 Avenue de la Médecine, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
Departamento de Madera, Celulosa y Papel, Universidad de Guadalajara, Zapopan, México
Funding
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
References (32)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1080/09276440.2020.177317910.1080/09276440.2020.1773179 ↗
2. 10.1111/lam.1327210.1111/lam.13272 ↗
3. 10.1007/s10924-019-01392-410.1007/s10924-019-01392-4 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.02.26610.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.02.266 ↗
5. 10.1007/978-3-319-68255-6_7010.1007/978-3-319-68255-6_70 ↗
6. 10.1016/B978-0-12-823791-5.00007-710.1016/B978-0-12-823791-5.00007-7 ↗
7. 10.1007/s10924-020-01979-210.1007/s10924-020-01979-2 ↗
8. 10.1080/09276440.2020.182627410.1080/09276440.2020.1826274 ↗
9. 10.1080/09276440.2018.144483210.1080/09276440.2018.1444832 ↗
10. 10.1515/9783111067285-00210.1515/9783111067285-002 ↗
11. 10.1080/09276440.2021.193995110.1080/09276440.2021.1939951 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.01.03510.1016/j.indcrop.2017.01.035 ↗
13. 10.1080/09276440.2018.143962210.1080/09276440.2018.1439622 ↗
14. 10.3390/molecules2419353810.3390/molecules24193538 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.01.01110.1016/j.compositesa.2018.01.011 ↗
16. 10.1007/s10924-018-1291-710.1007/s10924-018-1291-7 ↗
17. 10.1002/app.5018210.1002/app.50182 ↗
18. 10.1007/s10924-013-0586-y10.1007/s10924-013-0586-y ↗
19. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.10.01410.1016/j.carbpol.2018.10.014 ↗
20. 10.1177/00219983780120020110.1177/002199837801200201 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2022.10999510.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2022.109995 ↗
22. 10.1007/s00289-017-1962-x10.1007/s00289-017-1962-x ↗
23. 10.1002/pc.2520410.1002/pc.25204 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2012.03.04010.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2012.03.040 ↗
25. 10.29298/rmcf.v12i63.80110.29298/rmcf.v12i63.801 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.11.02810.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.11.028 ↗
27. 10.1155/2015/52657010.1155/2015/526570 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2010.09.00310.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2010.09.003 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.04.01510.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.04.015 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2016.01.02310.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2016.01.023 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2020.10929010.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2020.109290 ↗
32. 10.1016/S0141-3910(98)00093-710.1016/S0141-3910(98)00093-7 ↗