Composites Science and Technology 72 (2012) 550–557

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Composites Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compscitech

Polypropylene composites with natural fibers and wood – General

mechanical property profiles
Lukas Sobczak a,⇑, Reinhold W. Lang b, Andreas Haider a
a
Kompetenzzentrum Holz GmbH, Division Wood Polymer Composites, Science Park 2/2. OG, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria
b
Johannes Kepler University Linz, Institute for Polymer Materials and Testing, Altenberger Straße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Natural Fiber Composites (NFCs) and Wood Polymer Composites (WPCs) based on polypropylene (PP)
Received 24 October 2011 have gained increasing interest over the past two decades, both in the scientific community and in indus-
Accepted 16 December 2011 try. Meanwhile, a large number of publications is available, but yet the actual market penetration of such
Available online 8 January 2012
materials is rather limited. To close the existing gap between scientific and technical knowledge, on the
one hand, and actual market applications, on the other, it is the purpose of this paper to analyze the cur-
Keywords: rent state of knowledge on mechanical performance profiles of injection molded NFCs and WPCs. As the
Natural Fiber Composites (NFCs)
composite properties are a result of the constituent properties and their interactions, special attention is
A. Wood
A. Short-fiber composites
also given to mechanical fiber/filler properties. Moreover, considering that NFCs and WPCs for a variety of
B. Mechanical properties potential applications compete with mineral reinforced (mr; represented in this study by talc), short glass
E. Injection molding fiber (sgf), long glass fiber (lgf) and short carbon fiber (scf) reinforced PP, property profiles of the latter
materials are included in the analysis. To visualize the performance characteristics of the various mate-
rials in a comparative manner, the data were compiled and illustrated in so-called Ashby plots. Based on
these comparisons, an assessment of the substitution potential of NFCs and WPCs is finally performed,
along with a discussion of still open issues, which may help in guiding future material development
and market application efforts.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
While polyolefins, in particular PP, have been reinforced
commercially with glass fibers and particle minerals (e.g. talc,
wollastonite) for several decades, more recently natural fibers
and wood have become of engineering and commercial interest
to produce novel classes of Natural Fiber Composites (NFCs; see
Table 0-1 for abbreviations) and Wood Polymer Composites
(WPCs) [1–3]. In terms of markets and applications, it is particu-
larly the automotive industry [4–6] and the building and construc-
tion industry [7–9] which have expressed interest in using such
materials. Along with cost saving aspects and expected ecological
benefits (e.g. improvement in CO2-balance [10, part III, 11,12]),
the main motivation driving these developments is related to the
mechanical property profiles of natural fibers and wood, which
indicate a substantial reinforcement potential. Combined with
the low density of natural fibers and wood (see Table 2-1), NFCs
and WPCs may result in lighter weight structures when compared
to mineral reinforced (mr), short glass fiber (sgf), long glass fiber
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 732 6911 4082; fax: +43 732 6911 2864.
E-mail address: l.sobczak@klus-wood.at (L. Sobczak).
(lgf) and short carbon fiber (scf) reinforced materials [13–15]. In
addition, NFCs and WPCs can be processed similar to these other
material classes, e.g. by injection molding and extrusion. In fact,
in terms of processing behavior, NFCs and WPCs may even offer
advantages with regard to equipment wear [13,15,16].
Despite the high industrial interest in NFCs and WPCs, and the
significant scientific efforts particularly over the past decade, no
comprehensive overview exists on mechanical property profiles
of various material grades that allows for a proper comparison
among these novel PP-based materials. Such a comparison is also
lacking with materials already used commercially, such as mr,
sgf, lgf and the more novel scf composites, with which NFCs and
WPCs are supposed to compete.
Hence, the overall objective of this paper is to provide a com-
prehensive overview of the mechanical property profiles of NFCs
and WPCs, and to compare these properties to those achieved by
existing commercial composites based on mineral, glass and car-
bon fiber reinforcements. For various reasons (cost and/or perfor-
mance), NFCs and WPCs are frequently produced with high fiber/
wood content, so that special emphasis was paid to cover the nat-
ural fiber or wood content range up to about 70 m%. This reinforce-
ment level also corresponds to the limit of adequate processability
of high quality products by injection molding [17].

0266-3538/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2011.12.013
 L. Sobczak et al. / Composites Science and Technology 72 (2012) 550–557 551

Table 0-1
Abbreviations used in the text.

Abbreviation Explanation
NFC Natural Fiber Composite, meaning a fiber/matrix composite that contains natural fibers or wood based cellulose fibers
WPC Wood Polymer Composite, meaning a filler/matrix composite that contains wood particles
Mw Weight average molecular mass
IS Impact strength
m% Mass percent
mr Mineral reinforced
sgf Short glass fiber, usually below 1 mm in length
lgf Long glass fiber, usually 5–10 mm in length
scf Short carbon fiber
PP-(x%)y Polypropylene reinforced with y (x m% of y)
unbl., bl. Bleached, unbleached (Figs. 4-1–4-3)
u.K.p., bl.K.p. Unbleached Kraft pulp, bleached Kraft pulp (Table 4-1)
Ten.Ò TencelÒ, wood based cellulose fiber (Table 4-1)

Table 2-1 The reinforcement prices range from about 0.2 €/kg for spruce at
Densities and prices of polypropylene and several conventional reinforcements plus the lower end to 20.0 €/kg for short carbon fibers at the upper end.
natural fibers and wood (spruce). For comparison, polypropylene typically has a price level of 1.0–
Material Density (g/cm3) Price (€/kg) Source 1.4 €/kg, depending on the specific grade and the order volume. In
PP 0.90 1.0–1.4 [18]
other words, from the reinforcements considered in this overview,
scf 1.70–1.77 10.0–20.0 [13,19,20] most are below the price level of the PP matrix, while in some cases,
sgf 2.50 0.9–1.6 [13,21] the reinforcement prices may exceed the PP matrix price.
Talc 2.75 0.3–1.0 [22] For the material property data of the reinforcement constitu-
TencelÒ 1.55 – [23]
ents and the respective PP compounds processed by injection
Flax 1.50 0.3–1.3 (upper [13,24, p. 12]
bound: pellets) [25, p. 119, 26] molding (Sections 3 and 4, respectively), the ‘‘ Ashby plot’’ [30]
Hemp 1.48 0.3–1.0 (upper [14,25, p. 119, was chosen as means of presentation. In terms of relevant proper-
bound: pellets) 26] ties, Ashby plots were generated as tensile strength vs. tensile
Jute 1.30 0.5–0.7 [13,25, p. 119] modulus for the reinforcement constituents, and as tensile
Kenaf – 0.4–1.5 [14,27]
Sisal 1.45 0.5–0.8 [13,25, p. 119,
strength vs. tensile modulus and impact strength vs. tensile mod-
27] ulus for PP and its various compounds (i.e., PP composites).
Spruce 0.45–0.50 0.2–0.4 [28,29] Due to the lack of data covering a wider range of test conditions,
(uncompressed)–1.30 for IS values room temperature data for unnotched Charpy speci-
(compressed)
mens were selected. To allow for a comparison of the material
property profiles in terms of the potential for lightweight struc-
tural design, the Ashby plots for tensile modulus and strength
are illustrated for absolute property values but also for specific
2. Materials and methods property values (i.e. absolute values divided by the respective
material density). For the latter representations, the proper mate-
All of the data presented here is taken from scientific literature rial density values were obtained from the literature when avail-
or from material data sheets provided by the suppliers. To ensure a able, or were calculated applying a simple rule-of-mixture model
sufficient comparability of the material property values given, only from the constituent volume contents and the constituent densi-
data generated utilizing injection molded specimens and applying ties in Table 2-1.
equivalent test procedures and conditions has been included.
Table 2-1 provides some general information on the densities
and current prices for the constituents of the various material 3. Fiber properties
grades included in this overview. Throughout this paper, the term
‘‘natural fibers’’ refers to plant-based fibers (like jute, hemp, kenaf, The tensile strength vs. modulus properties of various natural
sisal, flax) and wood based cellulose fibers (Kraft pulp, unbleached fibers are compared to those of conventional fibers for PP rein-
cellulose, regenerate cellulose such as TencelÒ). On the other hand, forcement (sgf/lgf, scf) in Figs. 3-1 and 3-2 in terms of absolute
the term ‘‘wood particles’’ as they are used in WPCs refers to the properties and specific properties, respectively. The data for the
grinded state of solid wood which lacks the characteristic of a high- various fiber types and grades were taken from the references indi-
er aspect ratio. cated in Table 3-1 and, in the case of the natural fibers, represent
One advantage of natural fibers clearly apparent from Table 2-1 dry fiber conditions.
is their lower density. While conventional reinforcements (scf, sgf, Before depicting the fiber properties in Ashby-plots, the follow-
talc) exhibit a density range from 1.7 to 2.8 g/cm3, the density ing aspect with regard to the variability of fiber strength and mod-
range for natural fibers and wood (compressed state as it occurs ulus values must be pointed out. While strength and modulus of
in WPCs as a result of processing) is from about 1.3 to 1.6 g/cm3. specific grades of conventional fibers usually meet quite narrow
The effects of the processing steps from solid wood to wood parti- tolerances, natural fibers are known to vary substantially [13,31].
cles, and of compression during WPC processing, are expected to For example, modulus and strength values of jute fibers may vary
result in a corresponding alteration in mechanical properties. Since from about 13 to 27 GPa and from about 390 to 770 MPa, respec-
no data for modulus and strength of wood fillers in the compressed tively. Similar variations are known for wood (e.g., European
state are available, the comparisons performed in chapter 3 with spruce: Young’s modulus range from about 7 to 21 GPa; tensile
regard to wood as reinforcement are perhaps of limited quantita- strength range from 20 to 250 MPa [28]). Kenaf has not yet been
tive value but were nevertheless included to provide an overall rel- investigated to an extent so that similar variations could be de-
ative picture. duced from the literature. In any case, the reported variability of
552 L. Sobczak et al. / Composites Science and Technology 72 (2012) 550–557

5000 Due to the density differences of the various fiber types and
4500
wood, the specific properties depicted in Fig. 3-2 are somewhat dif-
ferent to those in Fig. 3-1. First, as described above (Section 2), the
4000 data points for the wood type reinforcements are of limited rele-
Tensile Strength [MPa]

3500 vance for PP composites, as they correspond to an uncompressed

state with very low density which is not representative of the more
3000
highly compressed state in a PP compound. Second, the specific
2500 modulus data for glass fibers are shifted into the range of the cor-
Carbon E-glass
responding values of natural fibers, with hemp even exceeding the
2000 S-glass
specific modulus values of glass fibers. Third, the highest values for
1500 Tencel® Flax specific strength of natural fibers are achieved for flax, which is
1000
Hemp Jute now approaching the lower end of the specific strength range for
Kenaf Sisal glass fibers. Finally, carbon fibers, due to their low density, still re-
500 tain their superiority compared to all other fibers with regard to
European Spruce European Oak
0 specific modulus values. The lower density compared to glass fi-
0 50 100 150 200 250 bers now also translates into higher values for specific strength
Young's Modulus [GPa] of the carbon fibers.

Fig. 3-1. Ashby plot presenting the absolute tensile strength vs. the Young’s
modulus for various fiber types. 4. Composite properties

4.1. Tensile properties

2500
The tensile properties of various PP composites are depicted in
Figs. 4-1 and 4-2 in absolute and relative terms, respectively, as
Specific Tensile Strength [kJ/kg]

2000
1500
Carbon
1000
Tencel®
Hemp
500
European Spruce
0 ture considerations, several effects remain remarkable. To begin
0 50 100
Specific Young's Modulus [MJ/kg]
Fig. 3-2. Ashby plot presenting the specific tensile strength vs. the specific Young’s
modulus for various fiber types (property divided by density).
properties of a specific natural fiber type is accounted for by
including the reported upper and lower bound values in the Ashby
plots below. In terms of absolute properties, Young’s modulus val-
ues of natural fibers and wood range from about 7 to 70 GPa
[14,28], while modulus values for conventional fibers range from
about 70 GPa (sgf/lgf [13]) to 240 GPa (scf [19]). Alternatively,
the conventional fibers exhibit significantly higher strength values,
ranging from about 2000 MPa (E-type sgf/lgf [13]) to 4000–
4570 MPa (scf, S-type sgf/lgf [13]), compared to natural fibers
and wood ranging from about 20 to 1100 MPa [13,28]. In other
words, conventional fibers significantly outperform natural fibers
and wood in terms of strength, but in terms of modulus, some nat-
ural fibers such as hemp and kenaf nearly reach the values of at
least glass fibers. Of course, when comparing just the two groups
of natural reinforcements in Fig. 3-1, the fiber reinforcements are
seen to supersede the wood reinforcements both in terms of
strength and modulus.
strength vs. modulus diagrams. The data for the various materials
were taken from the references indicated in Table 4-1 and, in the
case of the natural fiber/filler composites, represent dry specimen
conditions. In both diagrams, the property range covered by neat
PP homopolymers is included for comparison.
E-glass
From the illustration of the absolute properties in Fig. 4-1 it be-
S-glass
comes apparent that the property regions covered by conventional
Flax fiber/filler composites and by the natural fiber/filler composites
Jute approach one another, although they are clearly separated in
Sisal Fig. 3-1, which depicts the absolute fiber/filler properties. While
the general tendency of this shift can be explained by rule of mix-
European Oak
150 with, the property areas covered by the NFCs and the WPCs overlap
to a greater extent than is the case just for the reinforcement con-
stituents in Fig. 3-1. This is at least partly due to the fact that the
WPCs included contain up to 70 m% wood particles while the NFCs
are limited to a fiber content of about 60 m% (in terms of fiber/filler
volume content the differences are slightly larger due to differ-
ences in density; see Table 2-1). Nevertheless, while with WPCs
modulus/strength combinations of up to about 7 GPa/55 MPa
[17,33] are obtained, for NFCs about 11 GPa/75 MPa may be
achieved [34].
When comparing the natural fiber/filler composite data to con-
ventional PP composite data, the following observations are made.
NFCs and WPCs exist that outperform PP–talc composites, which
exhibit modulus/strength values of about 4 GPa/35 MPa [35], both
in terms of modulus and tensile strength. Conversely, PP–sgf/lgf
composites cover a modulus/strength regime from about 5 GPa/
75 MPa [36] up to 13 GPa/135 MPa [37], which is clearly above
the property range covered by NFCs and WPCs. Interestingly, the
values achieved for PP–scf composites, both in scientific investiga-
tions [19] and for commercial products [38,39], fall significantly
short of rule of mixture based expectations. This is particularly
the case for the tensile strength values, where PP–scf composites
cover a range similar to NFCs and even overlap with WPCs. Merely,

Table 3-1
References for the tensile property data of the various reinforcement types presented in Figs. 3-1 and 3-2.

Carbon Glass Tencel Flax Hemp Jute Kenaf Sisal Spruce Oak
[13,19] [13] [23] [13,31] [14,31] [13] [14] [13] [28] [32]
 L. Sobczak et al. / Composites Science and Technology 72 (2012) 550–557 553

150 neat PP 120 neat PP

Carbon Carbon
20 20
140 27 27
40 110 40

130 Glass Glass

20 sgf 20 sgf
30 sgf 100 30 sgf
40 sgf 40 sgf
120
50 lgf 50 lgf

Talc 90 Talc
110 20 20
40 40

100 Flax 80 Flax

Specific Tensile Strength [kJ/kg]

25 25
30 30
Tensile Strength [MPa]

60 60
90
70
40 Hemp 40 Hemp

80 Jute Jute
40 40
50 60 50
70 60 60

Kenaf Kenaf
20 50 20
60 40 40
50 50
60 60
50 40
30 Sisal 30 Sisal
unbl. Kraft pulp unbl. Kraft pulp
40 30 30 30
45 45
30 40 bl. Kraft pulp 40 bl. Kraft pulp
33 Tencel® 20
33 Tencel®
20
Wood particles Wood particles
30 30
40 10 40
10 50 50
60 60
70 70
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Young's Modulus [GPa] Specific Young's Modulus [MJ/kg]
Fig. 4-1. Ashby plot presenting the tensile strength vs. the Young’s modulus of
Fig. 4-2. Ashby plot presenting the specific tensile strength vs. the specific Young’s
various PP compounds. The numbers in the legend give the fiber/filler content in
modulus of various PP compounds (property divided by density).
(m%).

the modulus values of PP–scf composites exceed those of the other 60 neat PP
material classes in Fig. 4-1, although in this case too, to a lesser de- Glass
gree than expected based on the respective fiber modulus data. 50
20 sgf
30 sgf
The specific modulus/strength diagram in Fig. 4-2 reveals simi-
IS Charpy unnotched [kJ/m2]

Talc
lar tendencies as discussed above for the absolute property ranges 20
40 40
of the various material types. Reflecting the density differences, the
NFCs and WPCs now appear further improved compared to PP/talc 30 Flax

composites, and the upper bound strength ratio between PP/lgf 30 unbl. Kraft pulp
30
and NFCs is now reduced from about 1.8:1 in terms of absolute 45
strength to 1.5:1 in terms of specific strength. In terms of specific 20 33 Tencel®
modulus, the upper bound values of these two material classes
Wood particles
now even approach one another. Similar ratios were found by 30
10 40
Wambua et al. in a comparison of glass fiber and natural fiber rein- 50
forced PP composites (i.e. 40 m% fiber content, prepared by a film 60
70
stacking method) [66]. Furthermore, the differences in the upper 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
bound values of specific modulus data between PP–scf and PP–
sgf are slightly enhanced. Young's Modulus [GPa]

Fig. 4-3. Ashby plot presenting the unnotched Charpy impact strength vs. the
Young’s modulus of various PP compounds. The numbers in the legend give the
4.2. Impact properties
fiber/filler content in (m%).

The impact properties of the various material classes are illus-

trated and compared in Fig. 4-3 as unnotched Charpy values vs.
Young’s modulus values. Most remarkably is the specific NFC grade
utilizing the commercial cellulose fiber TencelÒ. It is the only rein-
forcement type that allows for significant improvements in modu-
lus without sacrificing the impact properties when compared to
the lower bound range of neat PP which represents grades with
low weight average molecular mass, (Mw) [23]. However, higher
Mw PPs reach unnotched Charpy impact strength (IS) values reach-
ing 100 kJ/m2 and even higher, up to a point where unnotched
specimens do no longer break upon the impact [67]. Apart from
the TencelÒ reinforced PPs, unnotched impact strength values of
all other PP composites are reduced compared to neat PP, with
PP–sgf exhibiting the least reductions, followed by PP–talc
composites and NFCs, with WPCs revealing the most significant
554 L. Sobczak et al. / Composites Science and Technology 72 (2012) 550–557

Table 4-1
References for the mechanical property data of the various compounds presented in Figs. 4-1–4-3; neat PP data is taken from [64,65].

Filler Content [m%] Sources Filler Content [m%] Sources Filler Content [m%] Sources
scf 20 [39] Flax 25 [40] u.K.p. 30 [41]
27 [19] 30 [42–45] 45 [41]
40 [19,38] 60 [46] b.K.p. 40 [47]
sgf 20 [36] Hemp 40 [47–49] Ten.Ò 33 [23]
30 [50,51] Jute 40 [34] Wood 30 [52,53]
40 [35] 50 [34,54] 40 [53,55,56]
lgf 50 [37] 60 [34] 50 [17,33,53]
Talc 20 [57,58] Kenaf 20 [59] 60 [17,33]
40 [35,60] 40 [59,61] 70 [17,33]
50 [35,61]
60 [59]
Sisal 30 [62,63]

reductions. A study by Wambua et al. on compression molded
composites prepared by a film stacking method (cited already
above for tensile properties) also supports the data reviewed here
for injection molded composites in terms of material ranking and
property ratios. Thus, for a comparable fiber content, glass mat
reinforced PPs also exhibit about twice the unnotched Charpy IS
of natural fiber mat reinforced PPs [66].
Numerous studies exist on factors controlling the impact
strength of NFCs and WPCs. As to the influence of the particle size,
it is clear that this parameter may play an important role, however
no clear and unambiguous tendencies can be deducted from the
published literature as yet [52,68–71]. Conversely, for unnotched
specimens, IS is usually improved by enhanced coupling
[45,55,71,72], whereas for notched specimens, the improvement
is often not so significant, with even reductions in impact values
resulting from increased coupling having been reported
[56,68,73–77]. Furthermore, it is well proven that IS of NFCs and
WPCs can be enhanced significantly by rubber toughening of the
PP matrix, however in all cases at the cost of modulus reductions
[55,78–80].
Nevertheless, despite all the efforts to study impact properties
of NFCs and WPCs, no study is available that unambiguously ex-
plains the cause of the poor impact performance of these materials,
when compared to neat PP and PP–sgf and PP–talc composites.
Moreover, there is not a sufficient database for a comprehensive
comparison of impact properties for the material grades of interest
to this paper. Particularly, a more detailed analysis of the effects of
notches on impact strength and the influence of test temperature,
to deduce brittle–ductile transitions, is lacking. In this context, it is
known from preliminary investigations that notched impact prop-
erties of PP–sgf composites and PP composites with TencelÒ fibers
may even exceed the values obtained with neat PP [23,36,50,51].
Clearly, more work is needed to study and perhaps optimize the
impact behavior of NFCs and WPCs.
5. Open issues
As modern PP–NFCs and PP–WPCs still represent rather novel
classes of materials, and despite the fact that quite a lot is known
on the properties and on the behavior of these materials, it is also
not surprising that there are a number of issues that are as yet
unresolved and thus deserve further attention. These open issues
include aspects related to material property and performance pro-
files, to the processing behavior and adequate processing condi-
tions, and – last but not least – aspects in relation to the
ecological impact and life cycle assessment.
With regard to material and performance related issues, a par-
ticular problem in the case of polyolefin-based NFCs and WPCs is
the inherent incompatibility between the non-polar hydrocarbon
matrix and the usually hydrophilic ligno-cellulosic reinforcements.
While numerous scientific studies in recent years aimed at improv-
ing the interfacial adhesion in these materials, a detailed under-
standing of the mechanisms of bonding affecting and improving
the fracture properties and the failure behavior is still lacking
[14,81–84].
Another aspect of practical relevance that needs further study is
related to the effects of moisture on the material properties and
performance profiles of polyolefinic NFCs and WPCs. For example,
for WPCs with high filler levels (70–87 m%), Svoboda [10, p. 145 ff],
found that the tensile properties (strength and modulus) are re-
duced by up to 55% (70 m% wood) when the material has absorbed
more than 10% moisture upon water immersion. Viksne et al. re-
port significant reductions (up to 30%) in flexural properties for
PP-based WPCs with 50 m% filler content upon three water absorp-
tion/desorption cycles [85]. Similar effects on tensile properties
were found by Arbelaiz et al. [46] for PP reinforced with 20–
60 m% flax fibers. These studies provide a good indication of the
property reductions to be expected by moisture absorption, and
numerous other reports on the effects of moisture on the mechan-
ical behavior exist [71,86–100]. And yet, considering the pro-
nounced sensitivity to moisture uptake of these PP based NFCs
and WPCs, further investigations are needed to deduce guidelines
for component design and performance for applications under typ-
ical climatic conditions.
Other aspects not sufficiently addressed so far are related to
expected improvements in noise and vibration damping of PP based
NFCs and WPCs [6,101–103]. In this context, advantages of NFCs and
WPCs over conventional polymer composites are frequently argued,
however, quantitative data and information is rather scarce. Thus, to
our knowledge no article exists which compares the acoustic prop-
erties of, for instance, NFC or WPC based automotive interior panels
with PP–talc based panels. On the other hand, NFCs and WPCs are
used in several applications with proven positive results in terms
of acoustic performance (e.g. automotive interior [101], musical
instruments [104] loudspeaker-boxes etc. [105]).
As has been addressed above, and completing the list of open is-
sues related to NFC and WPC properties, natural fibers and wood are
known to exhibit substantial lot-to-lot variations in their properties
depending on plant growth and harvesting conditions [12,106, p. 8].
Moreover, although several studies exist [107–111], emission and
odor problems that may potentially arise particularly in indoor
building and automotive interior applications deserve further
attention and investigations.
Turning to open issues related to processing behavior and con-
ditions of NFCs and WPCs, reduced equipment wear is often argued
to be advantageous compared to PP–sgf/lgf or PP–mr [13,15,16].
While it seems likely that natural fibers or wood, containing
mostly cellulose and lignin, should cause less abrasion on the
surfaces of processing equipment than hard and sharp-edged glass
 L. Sobczak et al. / Composites Science and Technology 72 (2012) 550–557
fibers, for example, no published study exists supporting and quan-
tifying this assertion. In addition, more precise pre-conditioning
and processing conditions need to be defined to account for the
hydrophilicity of natural fibers/fillers, and for the degradation
sensitivity of NFC or WPC compounds when being processed at
elevated temperatures under simultaneous mechanical shear
[112–114].
Another processing-related problem that arises when natural fi-
bers are used as reinforcements is their inaptitude to metering via
usual dosing scales. Traditionally, such fibers are supplied as bales
or staple fibers, and are thus not free flowing. Basically, there are
two ways to overcome this drawback: First, by cutting or milling
the fibers down, until a sufficient ease of flow is achieved. Second,
pelletizing of the fibers is an option. Both of those technical solu-
tions increase costs. Furthermore, the first approach potentially
leads to a reduction of composite properties by a reduced fiber
length. The second approach, on the other hand, raises the issue
of re-dispersion of the fibers during the compounding step and
poses a problem when the pellets are well consolidated. A method
which avoids those issues is the long fiber granulate (LFG) process
developed by the Thuringian Institute of Textile and Plastics Re-
search (TITK) [115]. It is a pull-drill treatment by which strands
of fibers are coated with a thermoplastic matrix. Thus, granules
containing long fibers (of the length of the granule) can be pro-
duced. Despite appearing like a promising alternative, to our
knowledge the process has not yet been implemented on industrial
scale.
There are several other topics and problems that require atten-
tion when applying NFCs and WPCs in technical products. These
include the long-term performance of these materials and prod-
ucts, both in terms of mechanical properties but also concerning
visual appearance (e.g. color change). In fact, quite a few studies
are available on specific effects of weathering on optical and
mechanical properties, and thus on the long-term stability of these
materials. The most obvious consequence of weathering on WPCs
is whitening resulting from lignin degradation [116–120]. Of
course, weathering also affects mechanical properties, usually
leading to significant reductions [93,116,121,122]. However, anal-
ogous to the effect of moisture absorption, it is difficult here too to
provide general guidelines for component design and performance
for applications under typical long-term weathering conditions.
To complete the most important requirements as to material
properties and product performance profiles, flame retardance is
a prime prerequisite in certain applications. As PP-based NFCs
and WPCs per se are not improved over neat PP and in certain
properties are even inferior [123,124], large amounts (usually
10–30 m%) of flame retardant additives must be employed to
achieve significant improvements [125–127]. Of course, utilizing
such high amounts of additives may have pronounced effects on
the processing behavior and the remaining property profile of
these materials [124,128,129], which must be accounted for in spe-
cific applications.
Finally, and despite the fact that ecological considerations are
frequently used as selling argument [7130], only limited informa-
tion is available on validated eco-balances and life cycle assess-
ment (LCA) data of PP based NFCs and WPCs. Svoboda provides a
performance oriented assessment comparing several materials
based on renewable resources, including wood and highly filled
WPCs, and conventional materials like PE, PP, PVC and aluminum,
among others [10, p. 177 ff.]. Depending on the conditions applied,
WPCs may or may not be favorable in terms of ecological perfor-
mance. Furthermore, Michaud et al. performed LCA studies on
highly filled PE-based WPCs [131]. Also, hardly any LCA data exist
on NFCs, and the available data as to the actual ecological perfor-
mance are ambiguous [11,132,133]. Hence, as for the other issues
mentioned above, further studies are needed to unambiguously
555
provide information on the ecological performance of particularly
polyolefin and PP based NFCs ad WPCs compared to other
materials.
6. Summary and conclusions
As to the fiber properties, conventional fibers such as short/long
glass fibers (sgfs/lgfs) and short carbon fibers (scfs) exhibit signif-
icantly higher strength values than even the best natural fibers
(factor 2–4). In terms of modulus, some natural fibers, like, e.g.,
hemp and kenaf, show values similar to sgf/lgf, with scf modulus
values superseding these fibers by a factor of 3. Due to the lower
density of natural fibers compared to glass fibers, the specific prop-
erties of natural fibers, on the one hand, and sgf/lgf, on the other,
shift closer together. Particularly remarkable is that hemp even
supersedes sgf/lgf in the specific modulus, and flax approaches
sgf in specific strength.
For the resulting PP composites, in terms of absolute properties,
the picture is largely similar, with some remarkable exceptions.
First, the relative difference between NFCs and WPCs, on the one
hand, and PP–sgf/lgf on the other, is reduced due to rule of mixture
based effects. Second, WPCs supersede PP–talc composites, both in
modulus and strength, while NFCs largely overlap with the PP–sgf/
lgf range for modulus and approach its lower end for strength. In
terms of specific properties the position of NFCs and WPCs relative
to the conventional composites (except for PP–scf) is again some-
what improved, due to the aforementioned density differences.
The perhaps most significant drawback of NFCs and WPCs, com-
pared to the conventional PP composites, is related to their lower
IS. While NFCs at least partly overlap with the PP–talc range, all
WPCs exhibit inferior impact behavior. It should be pointed out,
however, that one NFC grade, i.e. PP–TencelÒ, performs remarkably
well, being the only PP composite presented which retains the
(unnotched Charpy) IS level of neat PP, thus even exceeding PP–
sgf composites.
Overall, NFCs may substitute PP–sgf composites when some
reduction in strength is accepted. WPCs, on the other hand, may re-
place PP–talc composites, in applications where impact strength is
not critical. Reflecting on the current state of knowledge and tech-
nology in the field of NFCs and WPCs, there are several open issues
and aspects yet to be addressed, These include the effects of tem-
perature and moisture uptake on mechanical properties and pro-
cessing behavior. Moreover, there is a large variability in
properties of natural fibers and wood, depending on growth and
harvesting conditions. Also, for a number of advantages usually
associated with NFCs and WPCs (i.e. reduced abrasiveness in pro-
cessing, improved noise damping behavior, improved overall eco-
balance compared to conventional composites) there is a need
for quantitative and reliable data in support of these reputed ben-
efits. Finally, based on constituent property considerations, the
performance potential of natural fiber and wood composites at this
stage may not yet be fully exploited. Hence, further research is
warranted on elucidating structure–property relationships for
these materials to overcome current weaknesses (e.g. impact
strength).
References
[1] Mohanty AK, Misra M, Drzal LT. Natural fibers, biopolymers, and
biocomposites. Taylor & Francis; 2005.
[2] Vogt D, Karus M, Ortmann S. Wood–plastic-composites (WPCs) –
studie. nova-Institut GmbH; 2005.
[3] Klyosov AA. Wood–plastic composites. John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2007.
[4] Klein Gudrun. Leichtbau wird immer wichtiger. Kunststoffe; 2010. p. 05.
[5] Karus M, Ortmann S, Vogt D. Naturfasereinsatz in Verbundwerkstoffen in
der deutschen Automobilproduktion 1996 bis 2003. nova-Institut GmbH;
2004.
556 L. Sobczak et al. / Composites Science and Technology 72 (2012) 550–557
[6] Schuh TG. Renewable materials for automotive applications. Stuttgart:
Daimler-Chrysler AG; 2000.
[7] Eder A, Strobl S, Schwarzbauer P. World wide market report on wood plastic
composites. Wood K plus; 2006.
[8] Hackwell Group. The European wood plastics composites market 2003 –
Construction, furniture and automotive applications. Research and markets;
2003.
[9] Anon. Venedigs boote legen an WPC an. K-Zeitung online; 2008.
[10] Svoboda MA. Werkstoffe aus nachwachsenden rohstoffen. Thesis/
dissertation, Montanuniversität Leoben; 2003.
[11] Joshi SV, Drzal LT, Mohanty AK, Arora S. Are natural fiber composites
environmentally superior to glass fiber reinforced composites? Composites
Part A 2004;35:371–6.
[12] Beckmann A, Kleinholz R. Anforderungen an naturfasern aus der sicht eines
kfz-zulieferers für innenraumteile. In: 2nd international wood and natural
fibre composite symposium, Kassel/Germany; 1999.
[13] Mohanty AK, Misra M, Hinrichsen G. Biofibres, biodegradable polymers and
biocomposites: an overview. Macromol Mater Eng 2000;276/277.
[14] Maya JJ, Anandjiwala RD. Recent developments in chemical modification and
characterization of natural fiber–reinforced composites. Polym Compos
2007;29(2):187–207.
[15] Zampaloni M, Pourboghrat F, Yankovich SA, Rodgers BN, Moore J, Drzal LT,
et al. Kenaf natural fiber reinforced polypropylene composites: a discussion
on manufacturing problems and solutions. Composites Part A
2007;38:1569–80.
[16] Nyström B. Natural fiber composites – optimization of microstructure and
processing parameters. Thesis/Dissertation, Lulea University of Technology;
2007.
[17] Radovanovic I. Verarbeitung und optimierung der rezeptur von wood plastic
composites (WPCs). Thesis/Dissertation, Universität Osnabrück; 2007.
[18] Naylor L. Europe polypropylene prices reach highs seen before 2008. Reed
Business Inform 2010.
[19] Fu SY, Lauke B, Mäder E, Yue CY, Hu X. Tensile properties of short-glass–fiber-
and short-carbon–fiber-reinforced polypropylene composites. Composites
Part A 2000;31(10):1117–25.
[20] Personal communcation, Schlarb AK, TU Kaiserslautern; 2010.
[21] Personal communcation, Corvino G, PPG; 2009.
[22] Personal communcation, Otte M, Borealis; 2010.
[23] Datasheet, Tencel. Lenzing AG; 2009.
[24] Karus M, Kaup M, Lohmeyer D. Studie zur markt- und preissituation bei
naturfasern (Deutschland und EU 2003). Fachagentur Nachwachsende
Rohstoffe 2003.
[25] Carus M, Gahle C, Pendarovski C, Vogt D, Ortmann S, Grotenhermen F, et al.
Studie zur markt- und konkurrenz-situation bei naturfasern und naturfaser-
werkstoffen (Deutschland und EU). Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe
2008.
[26] Personal communcation; Frank B, BAFA; 2009.
[27] Personal communcation; Clasen WG, WGC; 2009.
[28] Datasheet, European spruce. MATBASE; 2010.
[29] Personal communcation; Kampf A, JRS; 2009.
[30] Ashby M, Shercliff H, Cebon D. Materials – engineering, science, processing
and design. 2nd ed. Elsevier; 2010.
[31] Mueller DH, Krobjilowski A. New discovery in the properties of composites
reinforced with natural fibers. J Ind Text 2003;33(2):111.
[32] Datasheet, European oak. MATBASE; 2010.
[33] Bastian Martin, Radovanovic Itana, Kurda Kersten. Einfluss der haftvermittler.
Kunststoffe 2005;8:49–53.
[34] Rana AK, Mandal A, Mitra BC, Jacobson R, Rowell RM, Banerjee AN. Short jute
fiber reinforced polyproylene composites: effect of compatilbilizer. J Appl
Polym Sci 1998;69:329–38.
[35] Rowell RM, Sanadi AR, Jacobson R, Caulfield DF. Chapter 32 – properties of
kenaf polypropylene composites. Kenaf properties, processing and products.
Mississippi State University; 1999. p. 381–93.
[36] Datasheet, polypropylene compound GB205U. Borealis; 2008.
[37] Datasheet, polyram polytron P50B01 homopolymer polypropylene,
chemically coupled 50% lgf. Polyram; 2010.
[38] Datasheet, RTP Company RTP 187 polypropylene. RTP Company; 2010.
[39] Datasheet, RTP Company RTP 183 polypropylene. RTP Company; 2010.
[40] Hornsby PR, Hinrichsen E, Tarverdi K. Preparation and properties of
polypropylene composites reinforced with wheat and flax straw fibres –
Part II: analysis of composite microstructure and mechanical properties. J
Mater Sci 1997;32:1009–15.
[41] Burgstaller C, Ruf W, Stadlbauer W, Pilz G, Lang RW. Utilizing unbleached
cellulosic fibres in polypropylene matrix composites for injection moulding
applications. J Biobased Mater Bioenergy 2009;3(3):226–31.
[42] Biagiotti J, Puglia D, Torre L, Kenny JM. A systematic investigation on the
influence of the chemical treatment of natural fibers on the properties of their
polymer matrix composites. Polym Compos 2004;25:470–9.
[43] Bledzki AK, Mamun AA, Lucka-Gabor M, Gutowski VS. The effect of
acetylation on properties of flax fibre and its polypropylene composites.
Express Polym Lett 2008;2(6):413–22.
[44] Soleimani M, Tabil L, Panigrahi S, Opoku A. The effect of fiber pretreatment
and compatibilizer on mechanical and physical properties of flax fiber–
polypropylene composites. J Polym Environ 2008;16:74–82.
[45] Snijder MHB, Bos HL. Reinforcement of polypropylene by annual plant fibers:
optimisation of coupling agent efficiency. Compos Interf 2000;7(2):69–75.
[46] Arbelaiz A, Fernandez B, Ramos JA, Retegi A, Llano-Ponte R, Mondragon I.
Mechanical properties of short flax fibre bundle/polypropylene composites:
influence of matrix/fibre modification, fibre content, water uptake, and
recycling. Compos Sci Technol 2005;65:1582–92.
[47] Li H, Sain M. High stiffness natural fiber–reinforced hybrid PP composites.
Polymer Plast Tech Eng 2003;42(5):853–62.
[48] Panthapulakkal S, Sain M. Studies on the water absorption properties of short
hemp–glass fiber hybrid polypropylene composites. J Compos Mater
2007;41:1871–83.
[49] Sain M, Suhara P, Law S, Bouilloux A. Interface modification and mechanical
properties of natural fiber–polyolefin composite products. J Reinf Plast
Compos 2005;24(2):121–30.
[50] Datasheet, centroplast centrolen PP GF Polypropylene 30% glass fiber.
Centroplast; 2010.
[51] Datasheet, polypropylene compound GB311U. Borealis; 2008.
[52] Nourbakhsh A, Karegarfard A, Ashori A. Effects of particle size and coupling
agent concentration on mechanical properties of particulate-filled polymer
composites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2010;23(2):169–74.
[53] Bledzki AK, Faruk O, Huque M. Physico-mechanical studies of wood fiber
reinforced composites. Polymer Plast Tech Eng 2002;41(3):435–51.
[54] Karmaker AC, Youngquist JA. Injection molding of polypropylene reinforced
with short jute fibers. J Appl Polym Sci 1996;62:1147–51.
[55] Oksman K, Clemons CM. Mechanical properties and morphology of impact
modified polypropylene–wood flour composites. J Appl Polym Sci
1998;67:1503–13.
[56] Stark NM. Wood fiber derived from scrap pallets used in polypropylene
composites. Forest Prod J 1999;49(6):39–46.
[57] Datasheet, Arkema Group Appryl CWE 1020 polypropylene. Arkema Group;
2010.
[58] Datasheet, polypropylene compound ME212U. Borealis; 2008.
[59] Tou C. Biofiber–reinforced polypropylene composites. Polym Eng Sci
1999;37(2):476–83.
[60] Datasheet, Arkema Group Appryl HXN 1240 polypropylene. Arkema Group;
2010.
[61] Sanadi AR, Caulfield DF, Jacobson RE, Rowell RM. Renewable agricultural
fibers as reinforcing fillers in plastics: mechanical properties of kenaf fiber
polypropylene composites. Ind Eng Chem Res 1995;34(5):1889–96.
[62] Joseph PV, Mathew G, Joseph K, Thomas S, Pradeep P. Mechanical properties
of short sisal fiber reinforced polypropylene composites: comparison of
experimental data with theoretical predictions. J Appl Polym Sci
2003;88:602–11.
[63] Kalaprasad G, Joseph K, Thomas S, Pavithran C. Theoretical modelling of
tensile properties of short sisal fibre–reinforced low-density polyethylene
composites. J Mater Sci 1997;32:4261–7.
[64] Datasheet, polypropylene HB 600 TF. Borealis; 2008.
[65] Datasheet, polypropylene HK 060 AE. Borealis; 2008.
[66] Wambua P, Ivens J, Verpoest I. Natural fibres: can they replace glass in fibre
reinforced plastics? Compos Sci Technol 2003;63:1259–64.
[67] Datasheet, polypropylene HB601WG. Borealis; 2008.
[68] Stark NM, Rowlands RE. Effects of wood fiber characteristics on mechanical
properties of wood/polypropylene composites. Wood Fiber Sci
2003;35(2):167–74.
[69] Bledzki AK, Faruk O. Wood fibre reinforced polypropylene composites: effect
of fibre geometry and coupling agent on physico-mechanical properties. Appl
Compos Mater 2003;10(6):365–79.
[70] Stark NM, Berger MJ. Effect of particle size on properties of wood–flour
reinforced polypropylene composites. In: The fourth international conference
on woodfiber–plastic composites, USDA Forest Service; 1998.
[71] Bledzki AK, Faruk O. Creep and impact properties of wood fibre–
polypropylene composites: influence of temperature and moisture content.
Compos Sci Technol 2004;64:693–700.
[72] Burgstaller C, Stadlbauer W. Schlagzähmodifizierung von wood plastic
composites. Holztechnologie 2008;49(5):17–22.
[73] Myers GE, Chahyadi IS, Coberly CA, Ermer DS. Wood flour/polypropylene
composites: influence of maleated polypropylene and process and composition
variables on mechanical properties. Int J Polym Mater 1991;15(1):21–44.
[74] Sanadi AR, Caulfield DF, Stark NM, Clemons CM. Thermal and mechanical
analysis of lignocellulosic polypropylene composites. In: The fifth
international conference on woodfiber–plastic composites; 1999.
[75] La Mantia FP, Morreale M. Improving the properties of polypropylene–wood
flour composites by utilization of maleated adhesion promoters. Compos
Interf 2007;14(7–9):685–98.
[76] Spinace MAS, Fermoseli KKG, De Paoli MA. Recycled polypropylene reinforced
with curaua fibers by extrusion. J Appl Polym Sci 2009;112(6):3686–94.
[77] Huang HX, Zhang JJ. Effects of filler–filler and polymer–filler interactions on
rheological and mechanical properties of HDPE-wood composites. J Appl
Polym Sci 2009;111(6):2806–12.
[78] Wu J, Yu D, Chan C-M, Kim J, Mai Y-W. Effect of fiber pretreatment condition
on the interfacial strength and mechanical properties of wood fiber/PP
composites. J Appl Polym Sci 2000;76:1000–10.
[79] Lai SM, Yeh FC, Wang Y, Chan HC, Shen HF. Comparative study of maleated
polyolefins as compatibilizers for polyethylene/wood flour composites. J Appl
Polym Sci 2003;87:487–96.
[80] Hristov VN, Vasileva ST, Krumova N, Lach R, Michler GH. Deformation
mechanisms and mechanical properties of modified polypropylene/wood
fiber composites. Polym Compos 2004;25(5):521–6.
 L. Sobczak et al. / Composites Science and Technology 72 (2012) 550–557
[81] Bledzki AK, Reihmane S, Gassan J. Properties and modification methods for
vegetable fibers for natural fiber composites. J Appl Polym Sci
1996;59:1329–36.
[82] George J, Sreekala MS, Thomas S. A review on interface modification and
characterization of natural fiber reinforced plastic composites. Polym Eng Sci
2001;41(9):1471–85.
[83] Keener TJ, Stuart RK, Brown TK. Maleated coupling agents for natural fiber
composites. Composites Part A 2004;35:357–62.
[84] Zhang C, Li K, Simonsen J. Improvement of interfacial adhesion between wood
and polypropylene in wood–polypropylene composites. J Adhes Sci Technol
2004;18(14):1603–12.
[85] Viksne A, Bledzki AK, Rence L, Berzina R. Water uptake and mechanical
characteristics of wood fiber–polypropylene composites. Mech Compos
Mater 2006;42(1):73–82.
[86] Lin Q, Zhou X, Dai G. Effect of hydrothermal environment on moisture
absorption and mechanical properties of wood flour filled polypropylene
composites. J Appl Polym Sci 2002;85(14):2824–32.
[87] Wang W, Sain M, Cooper PA. Study of moisture absorption in natural fiber
plastic composites. Compos Sci Technol 2006;66(3–4):379–86.
[88] Bledzki AK, Letman M, Viksne A, Rence L. A comparison of compounding
processes and wood type for wood fibre – PP composites. Compos Part A-Appl
Sci Manuf 2005;36(6):789–97.
[89] Taib R, Ishak ZA, Rozman HD, Glasser WG. Effect of moisture absorption on
the tensile properties of steam-exploded acacia mangium fiber/
polypropylene composites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2006;19(5):
475–89.
[90] Cantero G, Arbelaiz A, Mugika F, Valea A, Mondragon I. Mechanical behavior
of wood/polypropylene composites: effects of fibre treatments and ageing
processes. J Reinf Plast Compos 2003;22(1):37–50.
[91] Pilarski JM, Matuana LM. Durability of wood flour–plastic composites
exposed to accelerated freeze-thaw cycling. II. High density polyethylene
matrix. J Appl Polym Sci 2006;100:35–9.
[92] Stark NM. Influence of moisture absorption on mechanical properties of
wood flour–PP composites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 2001;14:
421–32.
[93] Joseph PV, Rabello MS, Mattoso LHC, Joseph K, Thomas S. Environmental
effects on the degradation behaviour of sisal fibre reinforced polypropylene
composites. Compos Sci Technol 2002;62(10–11):1357–72.
[94] Thwe MM, Liao K. Durability of bamboo–glass fiber reinforced
polymer matrix hybrid composites. Compos Sci Technol 2003;63(3–4):
375–87.
[95] Doan TTL, Gao SL, Mader E. Jute/polypropylene composites I. Effect of matrix
modification. Compos Sci Technol 2006;66(7–8):952–63.
[96] Stamboulis A, Baillie CA, Garkhail SK, Van Melick HGH, Peijs T. Environmental
durability of flax fibres and their composites based on polypropylene matrix.
Appl Compos Mater 2000;7(5):273–94.
[97] George J, Bhagawan SS, Thomas S. Effects of environment on the properties of
low-density polyethylene composites reinforced with pineapple–leaf fibre.
Compos Sci Technol 1997;58(9):1471–85.
[98] Thwe MM, Liao K. Effects of environmental aging on the mechanical
properties of bamboo–glass fiber reinforced polymer matrix hybrid
composites. Composites Part A 2002;33(1):43–52.
[99] Chow CPL, Xing XS, Li RKY. Moisture absorption studies of sisal fibre
reinforced polypropylene composites. Compos Sci Technol
2007;67(2):306–13.
[100] Espert A, Vilaplana F, Karlsson S. Comparison of water absorption in natural
cellulosic fibres from wood and 1 year crops in polypropylene composites
and its influence on their mechanical properties. Composites Part A
2004;35(11):1267–76.
[101] Ashori A. Wood–plastic composites as promising green-composites for
automotive industries. Bioresour Technol 2008;99(11):4661–7.
[102] Brosius D. Natural fiber composites slowly take root. Compos Technol 2/2006.
<http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/natural-fiber-composites-
slowly-take-root>.
[103] Herrera-Franco PJ, Valadez-Gonzalez A. A study of the mechanical properties
of short natural-fiber reinforced composites. Composites Part B
2005;36(8):597–608.
[104] Stadlbauer W, Sehnal E, Weiermayer L. Wood plastic composites.
Bundesministerium für verkehr, Innovation und Technologie 2006 [Report
no.: 68/2006].
[105] Toloken S. China’s WPC makers urged to innovate. Plastic News.com 2010.
<http://plasticsnews.com/china/english/printer_en.html?id=1288753799>.
[106] Karus M, Kaup M. Naturfasern für die europäische automobilindustrie. nova-
Institut GmbH; 2001.
557
[107] Bledzki AK, Sperber VE, Wolff S. Möglichkeiten der geruchsmessung und -
minderung bei naturfaserverbunden. Mat -wiss u Werkstofftech
2003;34:272–5.
[108] Bledzki AK, Mamun AA, Faruk O. Abaca fibre reinforced PP composites and
comparison with jute and flax fibre PP composites. Express Polym Lett
2007;1:755–62.
[109] Espert A, de las Heras LA, Karlsson S. Emission of possible odourous low
molecular weight compounds in recycled biofibre/polypropylene composites
monitored by head-space SPME-GC-MS. Polym Degrad Stab 2005;90(3):
555–62.
[110] Bledzki AK, Faruk O. Microcellular wood fiber reinforced PP composites: cell
morphology, surface roughness, impact, and odor properties. J Cell Plast
2005;41(6):539.
[111] Kim HS, Kim HJ. Influence of the zeolite type on the mechanical–thermal
properties and volatile organic compound emissions of natural flour filled
polypropylene hybrid composites. J Appl Polym Sci 2008;110(5):3247–55.
[112] Jayaraman K. Manufacturing sisal–polypropylene composites with minimum
fibre degradation. Compos Sci Technol 2003;63:367–74.
[113] Burgstaller C. Processing of thermal sensitive materials – a case study for
wood plastic composites. Monatsh Chem 2007;138:343–6.
[114] Hunnicutt B. Injection molding wood–plastic composites. Plastics technology
online 12/2007. <http://www.ptonline.com/articles/200712fa2.html>.
[115] Nechwatal A, Mieck KP, Reußmann T. Developments in the characterisation
of natural fibre properties and in the use of natural fibres for composites.
Compos Sci Technol 2003;63:1273–9.
[116] Falk RH, Lundin T, Felton C. The effects of weathering on wood–thermoplastic
composites intended for outdoor applications; 1997.
[117] Kiguchi M, Kataoka Y, Matsunaga H, Yamamoto K, Evans PD. Surface
deterioration of wood – flour polypropylene composites by weathering
trials. J Wood Sci 2007;53(3):234–8.
[118] Fabiyi JS, McDonald AG, Wolcott MP, Griffiths PR. Wood plastic composites
weathering: visual appearance and chemical changes. Polym Degrad Stab
2008;93:1405–14.
[119] Adhikary KB, Pang S, Staiger MP. Accelerated ultraviolet weathering of
recycled polypropylene sawdust composites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater
2009;22(6):661.
[120] Ndiaye D, Fanton E, Morlat-Therias S, Vidal L, Tidjani A, Gardette JL.
Durability of wood polymer composites: Part 1. Influence of wood on the
photochemical properties. Compos Sci Technol 2008;68:2779–84.
[121] Adhikary KB, Pang S, Staiger MP. Durability of wood flour–recycled
thermoplastics composites under accelerated environmental conditions. In:
7th global WPC and natural fibre composites congress and exhibition; 2008.
[122] Beg MDH, Pickering KL. Accelerated weathering of unbleached and bleached
Kraft wood fibre reinforced polypropylene composites. Polym Degrad Stab
2008;93(10):1939–46.
[123] Kozlowski R, Wladyka-Przybylak, Maria. Flammability and fire resistance of
composites reinforced by natural fibers. Polym Adv Technol 2008.
[124] Sain M, Park SH, Suhara F, Law S. Flame retardant and mechanical properties
of natural fibre–PP composites containing magnesium hydroxide. Polym
Degrad Stab 2004;83:363–7.
[125] Bakar M, Ishak Z, Taib R, Rozman H, Jani S. Flammability and mechanical
properties of wood flour–filled polypropylene composites. J Appl Polym Sci
2010:2714–22.
[126] Garcia M, Hidalgo J, Garmendia I, Garcia-Jaca J. Wood–plastics composites
with better fire retardancy and durability performance. Composites Part A
2009;40(11):1772–6.
[127] Schartel B, Braun U, Schwarz U, Reinemann S. Fire retardancy of
polypropylene/flax blends. Polymer 2003;44(20):6241–50.
[128] Li B, He J. Investigation of mechanical property, flame retardancy and thermal
degradation of LLDPE–wood–fibre composites. Polym Degrad Stab
2004;83:241–6.
[129] Suppakarn N, Jarukumjorn K. Mechanical properties and flammability of
sisal/PP composites: effect of flame retardant type and content. Composites
Part B 2009;40(7):613–8.
[130] Markarian J. Outdoor living space drives growth in wood–plastic composites.
Plast Add Comp 2008;07(/08):20–5.
[131] Michaud F, Castera P, Fernandez C, Ndiaye A. Meta-heuristic methods applied
to the design of wood–plastic composites, with some attention to
environmental aspects. J Compos Mater 2009;43(5):533–48.
[132] Xu X, Jayaraman K, Morin C, Pecqueux N. Life cycle assessment of wood–
fibre–reinforced polypropylene composites. J Mater Process Technol
2008;198(1–3):168–77.
[133] Pervaiz M, Sain MM. Carbon storage potential in natural fiber composites.
Resour Conserv Recycl 2003;39(4):325–40.