Mohanty 2001

This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]
On: 04 January 2013, At: 04:12

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
Composite Interfaces
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcoi20
Surface modifications
of natural fibers and
performance of the resulting
biocomposites: An overview
a b c
A. K. Mohanty , M. Misra & L. T. Drzal
a
Composite Materials and Structures Center,
Michigan State University, 2100 Engineering
Building, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
b
c
Version of record first published: 02 Apr 2012.
To cite this article: A. K. Mohanty , M. Misra & L. T. Drzal (2001): Surface

modifications of natural fibers and performance of the resulting biocomposites: An
overview , Composite Interfaces, 8:5, 313-343
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156855401753255422
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/

terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not
be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or
damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 04:13 04 January 2013
Composite Interfaces, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 313– 343 (2001)
Ó VSP 2001.
Surface modi cations of natural bers and performance

of the resulting biocomposites: An overview
A. K. MOHANTY, M. MISRA and L. T. DRZAL ¤

Composite Materials and Structures Center, Michigan State University, 2100 Engineering Building,
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Received 29 December 2000; accepted 15 January 2001
Abstract—A review of biocomposites highlighting recent studies and developments in natural bers,
bio-polymers, and various surface modi cations of natural bers to improve ber– matrix adhesion is
presented. One of the most important factors which determine the nal performance of the composite
materials is the quality of the ber– matrix interface. A suf cient degree of adhesion between the
surface of hydrophilic ligno-cellulosicnatural bers and the polymer matrix resin is usually desired to
achieve optimum performance of the biocomposite. Dewaxing, alkali treatment, isocyanate treatment,
peroxide treatment, vinyl grafting, bleaching, acetylation, and treatment with coupling agents are
useful ways to improve ber– matrix adhesion in natural ber composites. Two major areas of
biocomposites will be discussed in this article. One is the most predominant biocomposite currently
being commercialized for semi-structural use in the durable goods industries, e.g. auto-industries, i.e.
natural ber–polypropylenecomposites. The second type is the biocomposites from natural bers and
biodegradable plastics. Two major classes of biodegradable plastics are available, one being derived
from renewable resources and the second type being synthesized in the laboratory from petrochemical
sources which can also be used as matrix materials to make value-added biocomposites.
Keywords: Natural bers; surface modi cation; biodegradable polymers; biocomposites; mechanical
properties.
1. INTRODUCTION
Natural ber composites are mostly price-driven commodity composites which have
useable structural properties at relatively low cost. Advantages of natural bers
over traditional reinforcing bers such as glass and carbon are: low cost, low den-
sity, high toughness, acceptable speci c strength properties, ease of separation, en-
hanced energy recovery, carbon dioxide sequesterization and biodegradability. The
critical discussion about the preservation of natural resources and recycling has led
¤
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: drzal@egr.msu.edu
314 A. K. Mohanty et al.
to the renewed interest concerning bio-materials with the focus on renewable raw
materials [1]. Natural bers used to ll and reinforce thermoplastic polymers rep-
resent one of the fastest growing reinforcements today [2]. Growing environmental
awareness has also triggered a paradigm shift towards designing materials compat-
ible with the environment. Because of increasing environmental consciousness and
legislated requirements, the use and end-of-life removal of traditional composite
structures, usually made of carbon, glass or aramid bers, are becoming more im-
portant. Biocomposites derived from natural bers and traditional thermoplastics or
thermosets are not suf ciently environmentally friendly because matrix resins are
non-biodegradable. However, these biocomposites do now maintain a balance be-
tween economics and environment allowing them to be considered for applications
in the automotive, building, furniture and packaging industries.
To reduce vehicle weight, the manufacturers are moving away from steel towards
aluminum, plastics and composites [3]. Experts anticipate that in the very near fu-
ture, polymer and polymer composites will comprise »15% of total car weight [4].
Auto-makers now see strong promise in natural ber composites [5 – 7]. Car mak-
ers are looking increasingly at natural ber reinforced thermoplastics to cut weight
and costs in interior and under-the-hood engine components. Thermoplastics will
surpass thermosets in the 21st century because of their recycling possibility and con-
venience of repair and replacement. Natural bers, which traditionally were used to
ll and reinforce thermosets, are now rapidly becoming one of the fastest-growing
additives for thermoplastics. North American demand for both wood and agricul-
tural ber used as additives in plastics is forecast to increase almost 30% per year
for automotive and 60% annually in selected building products applications [8].
Preliminary estimates place the North American market for natural bers in plastic
composites at 400 million-lb (Fig. 1). Currently, the major market (Fig. 2) for
natural bers is in building applications, whereas automotive and other applications
Figure 1. North American demand for plastic llers and reinforcements (after Ref. [2]).
Surface modi cation and performance of biocomposites 315
are growing at an increasing rate. Jute-polyester composite [9] has gained popular-
ity in housing applications. DaimlerChrysler [10] in Europe has done considerable
development work on natural ber composites for automotive applications and Fiat
in Italy is also following a similar path. Flax ber reinforced composites can be
produced with strength properties as strong as their glass ber counterparts and are
now being used by Daimler Benz in Germany. The fruits of years of research have
resulted in natural ber composite underbody [6] parts as well as exterior compo-
nents [11].
Biocomposites (biodegradable) consist of biodegradable polymers as matrix
materials and bio- bers as reinforcing elements. Recently, interest in biodegradable
plastics has been revived due to new technologies. Manufacturers project that
polymers that are biodegradable or based on renewable ‘biofeedstocks’ may soon

be competing with commodity plastics due to sales growth of more than 20–30%
per year and improvements in economies of scale [12]. Comparatively, the high cost
of bioplastics is still a concern however. The blending of different bioplastics or one
bioplastic with a low cost traditional plastic can maintain a balance between cost and
biodegradability. However, incorporation of bio bers into biopolymer systems is
expected to be the ultimate goal. The challenge in replacing conventional plastics by
biodegradable materials is to design materials that exhibit structural and functional
stability during storage and use, yet are susceptible to microbial and environmental
degradation upon disposal, without any adverse environmental impact.
The natural ber – polymer interface presents a formidable challenge. Due to
the presence of hydroxyl and other polar groups in various constituents of natural
bers, the moisture absorption in biocomposites is high, which leads to weak in-
terfacial bonding between bers and matrix polymer. The in uence of various sur-
face modi cations of natural bers like henequen, jute and coconut (coir) bers
on performance of biocomposites will be discussed. The present work will high-
light our investigation of biocomposites with different surface modi ed bio bers
Figure 2. North American market demand of natural ber composites 2000 (after Ref. [2]).
and biodegradable matrices like starch – plastic and polyester amide as well as the
well-known non-biodegradable traditional plastic, i.e. polypropylene. Surface mod-
i cations have improved the performance of these resulting biocomposites.
Besides the speci c discussion of the in uence of various surface modi cations
of natural bers on performance of the resulting biocomposites, the present article
deals with the current development of biocomposites, the current development of
different bioplastics, and the present trends in automobile applications for natural
ber polypropylene biocomposites in order to provide a perspective on the potential
and future of biocomposite materials.
2. REINFORCING NATURAL FIBERS
With the increasing demands on improved energy ef ciency, material scientists are
looking at natural bers as an alternative to man-made synthetic bers in reinforced
plastics. The natural bers can serve as reinforcement by enhancing the strength and
stiffness and reducing the weight of the resulting composite structures. The source,
origin, nature as well as physical and chemical composition of different natural
bers have been studied [13, 14]. The man-made bers like glass, carbon, aramid,
etc. can be produced with a wide range of properties, whereas the properties of
natural bers vary with their source and treatment. Mechanical properties depend on
whether the bers are taken from plant stem or leaf, the quality of the plant locations,
the age of the plant and the extraction process (retting) adopted to collect the ber
from the plants. Depending on their origin, the natural bers may be grouped into:
bast (stem), leaf and seed types. The best known examples are: (i) Bast: jute, ax,
kenaf, hemp and ramie; (ii) Leaf : sisal, henequen and pineapple leaf ber (PALF);
Table 1.
World production of some important natural bers (after Refs [15– 17])*
Fiber Production 1999 Major countries of origin/ distribution

(Provisional data-metric tons)
Cotton 19 000 000 USA, China, India, Pakistan, Usbekistan,
Turkey
Flax 637 000 France, Belgium, Netherland
Jute and jute-like bers 3 300 000 India and Bangladesh
Kenaf and allied bers 717 000 China, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Latin
America
Hemp and tow 71 412 EU, Eastern Europe, China
Ramie 124 000 China, Brazil, Phillipines, India
Sisal 297 000 India, Sri Lanka, South Africa, South
America
Henequen 50 000 Mexico, Cuba
Coir 633 000 India, Sri Lanka
*
Partially modi ed by the authors through personal investigations and search.
(iii) Seed/ fruit: cotton, coir and kapok. The main natural bers of interest, their
world annual production and their primary countries of origin are listed [15– 17] in
Table 1.
2.1. Chemical composition of natural bers

The natural bers are ligno-cellulosic in nature and are composed of cellulose,
hemicellulose and lignin. The chemical compositions and structural parameters
of some important bio bres are represented in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the
various chemical constituents of a speci c natural ber also vary considerably. Such
variation may be due to the origin, age, retting (mode of extraction of ber from the
source) process adopted, etc. Among all the natural bers listed, coir is observed to
contain the least amount of cellulose but the highest percent of lignin. The amount
of cellulose, in lignocellulosic systems, can vary depending on the species and age
of the plant/ species. Cellulose is a hydrophilic glucan polymer consisting of a linear
chain of 1,4-¯-bonded anhydroglucose units which contains alcoholic hydroxyl
groups (Fig. 3). These hydroxyl groups form intramolecular hydrogen bonds inside
the macromolecule itself and intermolecular hydrogen bonds among other cellulose
macromolecules as well as with hydroxyl groups from the air (Fig. 4). Therefore,
all of the natural bers are hydrophilic in nature; their moisture content reaches
8–12.6% [18]. The exact chemical nature of principal component of natural ber,
the lignin, still remains obscure. The main dif culty in lignin chemistry is that no
method has so far been established by which it is possible to isolate the lignin in the
native state from the ber. Although the exact structural formula of lignin in natural
Table 2.
Chemical composition and structural parameters of some natural bers (after Ref. [1])
Types of Cellulose Lignin Hemi- Pectin Wax Micro brillar/ Moisture

bre cellulose spiral angle content
(Deg.)
BAST
Jute 61– 71.5 12– 13 13.6– 20.4 0.2 0.5 8.0 12.6
Flax 71 2.2 18.6– 20.6 2.3 1.7 10.0 10.0
Hemp 70.2– 74.4 3.7–5.7 17.9– 22.4 0.9 0.8 6.2 10.8
Ramie 68.6– 76.2 0.6–0.7 13.1– 16.7 1.9 0.3 7.5 8.0
Kenaf 31– 39 15– 19 21.5 — — — —
LEAF
Sisal 67– 78 8.0– 11.0 10.0– 14.2 10.0 2.0 20.0 11.0
PALF 70– 82 5–12 — — — 14.0 11.8
Henequen 77.6 13.1 4– 8 — — — —
SEED
Cotton 82.7 — 5.7 — 0.6 — —
FRUIT
Coir 36– 43 41– 45 0.15– 0.25 3– 4 — 41– 45 8.0
Figure 3. Structure of cellulose.

Figure 4. Schematic representation of hydrogen bonding in natural ber.
ber has yet not been established, most of the functional groups and units, that make
up the molecule have been identi ed. Lignins are phenolic polymeric materials
and are formed from phenolic precursors (Fig. 5) such as (i) p-hydroxycinnamyl
alcohols, (ii) p-coumaryl alcohol, (iii) coniferyl alcohol and (iv) sinapyl alcohol
through a metabolic pathway. A probable structure of lignin [19] is represented in
Fig. 6. The mechanism of lignin biosynthesis is still under active research [19]. The
high carbon and low hydrogen content of lignin suggest that it is highly unsaturated
or aromatic in character. Lignin is characterized by its associated hydroxyl and
methoxy groups. Lignin is a biochemical polymer that functions as a structural
support material in plants. During synthesis of plant cell walls, polysaccharides
such as cellulose and hemicellulose are laid down rst, and lignin lls the spaces
between the polysaccharide bers, cementing them together. This ligni cation
process causes stiffening of cell walls, and the carbohydrate is protected from
Figure 5. Phenolic precursors which form the lignin.
Figure 6. Structure of lignin (after Ref. [19]).
chemical and physical damage. The topology of lignin from different sources may
be different but it has the same basic composition. Although the exact mode of
linkages in bio bers [9] is not well known, lignin is believed to be linked with the
carbohydrate moiety through two types of linkages, one alkali sensitive and the
other alkali resistant. The alkali-sensitive linkage forms an ester-type combination
between lignin hydroxyls and carboxyls of hemicellulose uronic acid. The ether-
type linkage occurs through the lignin hydroxyls combining with the hydroxyls
of cellulose. The lignin, being polyfunctional, exists in combination with more
than one neighboring chain molecules of cellulose and/ or hemicellulose, making a
crosslinked structure.
2.2. Properties of natural bers

The natural bers exhibit considerable variation in diameter along with the length
of individual laments. Quality as well as most of the properties depends on factors
like size, maturity as well as processing methods adopted for the extraction of bers.
The modulus of the ber decreases with increasing diameter. The properties such
as density, electrical resistivity, ultimate tensile strength, initial modulus, etc. are
related to the internal structure and chemical composition of bers. A comparison of

properties of some natural bers with conventional man-made bers can be obtained
from Table 3. The strength and stiffness correlate with the angle between axis and
bril of the ber (micro brillar angle), i.e. the smaller this angle, the higher the
mechanical properties.
The chemical constituents and complex chemical structure of natural bers also
affect the properties considerably. Coir shows the lowest tensile strength among all
the natural bers listed in Table 3, which is attributed to a low cellulose content
and considerably high micro brillar angle as shown in Table 2. The high tensile
strength of ax may be attributed to its high cellulose content and comparatively
low micro brillar angle. However, it is not possible to correlate the ber strength
exactly with cellulose content and micro brillar angle because of the very complex
structure of natural bers. Filament and individual ber properties can vary widely
depending on the source, age, separating technique, moisture content, speed of
testing, history of ber, etc. The lignin content [20– 22] of the ber in uences
Table 3.
Comparative properties of some natural bers with conventional man-made bers (after Ref. [1])
Fibre Density Diameter Tensile Young’s Elongation

(g/ cm3 ) (¹m) strength modulus at break
(MPa) (GPa) (%)
Cotton 1.5– 1.6 — 287– 800 5.5– 12.6 7.0– 8.0
Jute 1.3–1.45 25– 200 393– 773 13– 26.5 1.16– 1.5
Flax 1.50 — 345– 1100 27.6 2.7– 3.2
Hemp — — 690 — 1.6
Ramie 1.50 — 400– 938 61.4– 128 1.2– 3.8
Sisal 1.45 50– 200 468– 640 9.4– 22.0 3– 7
PALF — 20– 80 413– 1627 34.5– 82.51 1.6
Coir 1.15 100– 450 131– 175 4– 6 15– 40
E-glass 2.5 — 2000– 3500 70 2.5
S-glass 2.5 — 4570 86 2.8
Aramid 1.4 — 3000– 3150 63– 67 3.3– 3.7
Carbon 1.7 — 4000 230– 240 1.4– 1.8
its structure, its properties and morphology. The waxy substances of natural bers
generally in uence the ber’s wettability and adhesion characteristics [23, 24].
In terms of speci c strength, natural bers can be compared with glass bers. On
the other hand, the low temperature limit for use of natural bers does not allow
an arbitrary choice of polymers as matrix materials. For manufacture of composites
with suitable matrix systems, it is very important to consider the degradation of ber
mechanical properties when they are exposed to composite processing temperatures
between 180– 200± C.
2.3. Advantages of natural bers over glass ber composites

The comparative properties of some natural bers with conventional manmade
bers is represented in Table 3. Present research shows that natural ber composites
can replace glass ber composites in many applications. The main advantages of
natural bers are [25]: low density, comparable speci c strength, favorable mechan-
ical and acoustic properties, favorable processing properties e.g. low wear on tools,
favorable energy absorption performance (high stability, no splintering unlike ber-
glass), potential for one-step manufacturing even of complex construction elements,
occupational health bene ts compared to glass, no off-gassing of toxic compounds
in contrast to phenol-resin bonded wood, a favorable ecological balance for part
production, weight reduction and cost.
2.3.1. Cost. In order to create a reasonable return to farmers, non-traditional,

value-added applications for natural bers, such as reinforced composites, are
attractive. For the manufacturers, the low cost of bio bers is the main attraction for
their growth in the composite eld. Recent reports of Kline & Co.[2] put the price of
natural bers (Table 4) as reported by various suppliers to the auto industry such as
Visteon, Johnson Controls and Findlay in North America as: ax $0.15– $0.21 per
pound; hemp $0.15– $0.65 per pound; kenaf $0.15– $0.30 per pound. In general,
natural ber costs about $0.17/ pound as against US$ 0.90/ pound for glass bers.
Another publication [7] quotes re ned natural bers selling at $0.15– $0.40 per
pound versus $0.50– $0.75 per pound for glass bers. According to a recent market
study by the Nova Institute, German [25]; prices for natural bers range from DM
0.90 to 1.20/ kg (ca. in US $0.20– 0.26/ lb) for bers used in composites.
Table 4.
Cost of natural bers (after Ref. [2])
Natural ber Price (US$ / lb) Customers Growth outlook

(% / yr.)
Flax 0.15– 0.21 Visteon, 60
Johnson Controls
Hemp 0.15– 0.65 Johnson Controls 50
Kenaf 0.15– 0.30 Johnson Controls, 50
Findlay
2.3.2. Energy savings. There are several reasons why natural bers should
provide a net energy savings versus man-made bers. Natural bers are produced
by solar energy, so the energy required to produce them is considerably less as
compared to synthetic bers. The energy needed to produce one kilogram of ax
ber eece is only 17 MJ per kilogram whereas glass ber eece requires 55 MJ per
kilogram [6]. It takes 6500 BTUs of energy to produce one pound of Kenaf while
it takes almost four times that much energy (23 500 BTUs) to produce one pound
of glass ber [26]. Glass bers require a great deal of energy to produce since
processing temperature can exceed 1200± C. Composite fabrication with natural
bers requires much less energy as compared to synthetic bers. As an example,
compared with a berglass-reinforced component, analysis shows that a composite
made of natural bers lowers the energy needed for production by 80% [11].
3. BIODEGRADABLE POLYMERS
Although plastics are one of chemistry’s greatest contributions to improving hu-

man health and welfare, there is growing environmental concern about their lack
of degradability. Critics argue that manufacture of plastics uses non-renewable
resources in hazardous and polluting ways, that vast amounts of plastics become
waste, that plastics cannot be destroyed safely, and that the use of ‘natural’ ma-
terials would be in our best interests. Of all the packaging wastes discarded in the
United States, plastics account for about 20% by volume [27]. The main reasons for
the interest in biodegradable polymers are: the growing problem of waste, thereby
resulting general shortage of land ll availability, and the need for the environmen-
tally responsible use of resources together with the CO2 neutrality concept. The
main constraint on the use of biodegradable polymers is the difference in the price of
these polymers compared to bulk produced oil-based plastics. Biodegradable poly-
mers have offered scientists a possible solution to waste-disposal problems associ-
ated with traditional petroleum-derived plastics. Interest in biodegradable plastics is
being revived by new technologies developed by major companies, such as Bayer,
DuPont, DowCargill, Eastman Chemical, Novamont, BSL and BASF [1, 12, 28]
and thus a biodegradable market is now re-emerging.
3.1. General classi cation

Biodegradable polymers may be classi ed as; biosynthetic, semi-biosynthetic
and chemosynthetic. Such plastics can be made from renewable resources like
starch, cellulose, etc. The best examples are starch plastics, cellulose acetate and
polylactic acid (PLA) from corn. The best examples of biodegradable plastics
being synthesized from petroleum feed stocks in the laboratory are polyester amide
(Bayer’s BAK polymer), PCL (Polycaprolactone), DuPont’s Biomax copolyester
resin, BASF’s Eco ex copolymer, Eastman’s aliphatic aromatic copolyester, i.e.
Eastar Bio, etc. The statement that ‘all petro-based products are non-biodegradable
and products from nature are biodegradable’ is wrong. Even non-biodegradable

plastic / resin can be made from renewable resources. DuPont is producing non-
biodegradable copolymers from renewable materials. Nonbiodegradable resins are
also made from engineered vegetable oils [29]. Thus biodegradability is not only
a function of origin but also a function of chemical structure and the degrading
environment.
3.2. Traditional vs. bio-polymers and their cost aspects

Performance limitations and high costs have restricted the adoption of bioplastics to
niche markets up to now. Today’s much improved properties of traditional plastics
is the out-come of research over the last several years; however, biodegradable
plastics have attracted the attention of researchers recently. Comparatively high

pricing (Table 5) for biopolymers is still a concern. For scientists, the real challenge
lies in nding applications that would consume suf ciently large quantities of
these biopolymers to allow them to compete economically in the market. The
challenge in replacing conventional plastics by biodegradable materials is to design
materials that exhibit structural and functional stability during storage and use, yet
are susceptible to microbial and environmental degradation upon disposal.
Blending technology has been applied effectively to reduce and control the
performance of biodegradable plastics. The blending of biodegradable polymers is
a method of reducing the overall cost of material and offers a method of modifying
both properties and degradation rates. However, a blend, particularly with non-
biodegradable polymer, can reduce or inhibit the degradation of biodegradable
component [31]. Biodegradables are gaining rapidly in the marketplace. During
Table 5.
Cost comparison of some traditional plastics and biodegradable plastics (after Refs [1, 12, 30]).
Plastics Average cost

(US $/ lb)
General purpose Polypropylene (PP) 0.34– 0.36
commodity petro- Low density polyethylene (LDPE) 0.57– 0.59
chemical plastics High density polyethylene (HDPE) 0.46– 0.48
Polystyrene (PS) 0.40– 0.44
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 0.40– 0.41
General purpose epoxy 1.16– 1.26
General purpose polyester 0.57– 0.65
Biodegradable plastics Polylactic acid (PLA) 1.50– 3.00
Cellulose acetate 1.70– 1.87
Starch plastics 0.50– 1.60
Polycaprolactone (PCL) 2.7
Polyester amide (Bayer’s BAK ) 2.00
Aliphatic aromatic copolyester 2.00
(Eastman’s Eastar Bio)
the recent Sydney Olympic Games, some 40 million disposables were used by and
disposed of by those in attendance [32]. The items ended up as part of the entire food
waste stream in city composting facilities specially built for the ‘Green Olympics’.
The major players of biodegradable polymers are emphasizing cost – performance.
The majority of biodegradable polymers as now marketed at around US $2/lb. A
larger market for biodegradable plastics is expected to open up with the prices
coming down to around US$1/lb. Large-scale use will be a major boost for
price reduction of the currently developing biodegradable plastics. Cargill-Dow
offers PLA made from corn and plans to bring online a 300 million-lb facility in
Nebraska in 2002. At present, Cargill-Dow is limited to a 10 million-lb semi-works
facility at Minesota. Novamont expects to double the capacity of its 10 000 tons
facility of starch plastics in Terni, Italy by mid-2001. Other commercial sources
are also becoming available for biodegradables, like aliphatic aromatic copolyester
(Eastar Bio of Eastman Chemical), Biomax of DuPont, Eco ex copolymer of BASF,
polyester amide (BAK) of Bayer, cellulose acetate of Mazzuccchelli, Italy, and
starch plastics of Novamont, Italy. By embedding natural bers into biopolymeric
matrices, novel and much value-added biocomposites can be made [33– 36].
Increased use of bio bers reduces the net polymer content of biocomposites,
and hence the cost. Biopolymers as components of packaging and natural ber
composites are gaining rapid acceptance in terms of price and performance.
4. SURFACE CHEMICAL MODIFICATIONS OF NATURAL FIBERS

A strong ber– matrix interface bond is critical for high mechanical properties of
composites. In polymer matrix composites, there appears to be an optimum level
of ber –matrix adhesion, which provides the best composite mechanical proper-
ties [37]. The main drawback of natural bers is their hydrophilic nature, which
lowers their compatibility with hydrophobic polymer matrices. The hydrophilic na-
ture of bio bers leads to biocomposites having high water absorption characteristics
that reduce their utility in many applications. The presence of a natural waxy sub-
stance on the ber surface contributes immensely to ineffective ber to polymer
matrix bonding and poor surface wetting. The presence of free water and hydroxyl
groups, especially in the amorphous region, reduces the ability of natural bers to
develop acceptable adhesive characteristics with most binder resins. High water and
moisture absorption of the ber causes swelling and a plasticising effect resulting
in dimensional instability and poor mechanical properties.
Bio bers with high cellulose content also contain a high crystalline content.
These crystalline regions are aggregates of cellulose blocks held together closely
by the strong intra-molecular hydrogen bonds. During composite fabrication,
the binding resins are not able to penetrate into the ber unless the cell wall
is swollen. So the bers are subjected to various treatments. The high degree
of crystallinity of cellulose, as well as the tridimensional reticulate structure of
lignin, make natural bers far from thermoplastic materials. The crystalline
structure of cellulose can be disrupted by substituting the hydroxyl group with

some chemical functionality. This decrystallization process helps to improve the
thermoplasticity of the cellulose since the substitution groups play the role of
plasticiser. Research on thermoplasticization of natural bers has gained popularity
and can be achieved by graft copolymerization, etheri cation, esteri cation, etc.
The surface chemical modi cations of natural bers like dewaxing, alkali treatment,
vinyl grafting, cyanoethylation, acetylation, bleaching, peroxide treatment, sizing
with polymeric isocyanates, treatment with various coupling agents, etc. have
achieved various levels of success in improving ber– matrix adhesion in natural
ber composites [33–35, 38– 40]. A brief description of some important chemical
surface modi cations of natural bers are summarized in the following sub-sections.
4.1. Alkali treatment

The optimum alkali treatment is both a very effective surface modi cation and also
a low cost surface treatment of natural bers. The reaction of sodium hydroxide
with natural ber (Cell-OH) is thought to occur as shown below:
Cell-OH C NaOH ! Cell O¡ NaC C H2 O C surface impurities:
This treatment removes a certain amount of lignin, wax and oils covering the
external surface of the ber cell wall, depolymerizes the native cellulose structure
and exposes short length crystallites (Fig. 7).
During alkali treatment, when hemicellluloses are removed, the inter brillar
region is likely to be less dense and less rigid and thereby makes the brils more
capable of rearranging themselves along the direction of tensile deformation [40].
Changes in crystallization of natural bers [41– 43] as a result of alkali treatment
Figure 7. Schematic representation of raw and alkali treated natural ber.

have been reported. The increase in the percentage of crystallinity index of alkali
treated bers occurs because of the removal of the cementing materials, which leads
to better packing of the cellulose chains. In addition, treatment with NaOH leads to
a decrease in the spiral angle and an increase in molecular orientation. The elastic
moduli of bers, for instance, are expected to increase with increasing degree of
molecular orientation. The in uence of alkali treatment on performance of natural
ber composites has been studied by several researchers [22, 33– 35, 40, 44, 45].
Thus, the increasingly rough surface topography and brillar formation is thought to
be responsible for better ber –matrix adhesion by giving rise to additional sites of
mechanical interlocking, thereby promoting more resin / ber interpenetration at the
surface. The concentration of NaOH solution, treatment times and temperature of
treatment play a vital role in achieving the optimum ef ciency of the ber as far as
the adhesive characteristics of the bers are concerned. A high alkali concentration
may depolymerize the native cellulose and deligni y the ber excessively, which
can adversely affect the strength of the ber.
4.2. Graft copolymerization

An effective method of surface chemical modi cation of natural bers is graft
copolymerization [46– 49]. Redox initiation has been successfully implemented
to graft vinyl monomers on to natural bers for the end use applications in
composites [33, 49, 50]. Among all the redox initiating systems, CuSO4 -NaIO4
(Cu2C -IO¡4 ) is particularly interesting because in this particular system, no acid
is used during the graft copolymerization reaction. As is well known, the use of
acid during the grafting reaction degrades the properties of natural bers [46]. The
schematic representation of graft co-polymerization of vinyl monomers i.e. methyl
methacrylate (MMA) and acrylonotrile (AN) on natural ber is shown in Scheme 1.
Optimized vinyl grafted natural bers, consisting of the orderly arrangement of
grafted moieties, act as compatible reinforcing bers with several resin systems
in obtaining better ber – matrix adhesion of the resulting biocomposites [34, 50].
4.3. Etheri cation

Cyanoethylation of natural bers is one of the best examples of the etheri -
cation mode for plasticization. Acrylonitrile is selected as the etheri cation
reagent [35, 51, 52] and the reactions occur under basic conditions as represented in
Scheme 2. According to the process as reported by Hon and Jose na [52] the cellu-
losic materials may be reacted with acrylonitrile using 4% NaOH aqueous solution
saturated by NaSCN as a swelling agent and catalyst at 40± C. The reaction of benzyl
chloride with hydroxyl groups [53] can produce etheri ed natural ber (Scheme 3).
4.4. Acetylation
Acetylation of natural bers is a well-known esteri cation mode to introduce
plasticization to cellulosic bers. While the acetylation treatment has long been
Scheme 1. Graft copolymerization reaction.
Scheme 2. Cyanoethylation reaction.
Scheme 3. Etheri cation of natural ber.
used on textile goods, its importance in natural ber composites has attracted
attention only recently [54, 55]. Acetylation has been extensively applied to
wood cellulose to stabilize the cell wall, improving dimensional stability and
environmental degradation [56]. The acetylation process may be carried out
in presence or in absence of acid catalyst (Scheme 4). One of the chemical
Scheme 4. Acetylation of natural ber.

Scheme 5. Reaction of natural ber with maleic anhydride.
modi cation techniques employed by the Okura company was to produce esteri ed
woods [57], which could be molded in to plastic sheets by hot-pressing. Thus,
dicarboxylic acid anhydrides like maleic anhydride can react with hydroxyl groups
of natural ber (Cell-OH), as shown in Scheme 5 to produce a plasticized natural
ber like plasticized wood which has commercial value.
For the acetylation reaction, acetic anhydride is preferred over acetic acid as
the latter does not react suf ciently with cellulose [55]. Since acetic anhydride
is not a good swelling agent for cellulose, in order to accelerate the reaction,
the cellulosic materials are rst soaked in acetic acid and subsequently treated
with acetic anhydride. Acetylation greatly reduces the hygroscopic nature of
natural bers and thus results in dimensional stability of the composites, since any
absorbed moisture does not cause further swelling or shrinkage of the composite
material.
4.5. Treatment with isocyanate
The isocyanate group reacts nicely with the hydroxyl group on natural bers
and forms strong covalent bonds, which thereby create better compatibility with
the binder resin in the composites. The reaction of isocyanate groups of poly-
meric methylene diisocyanate (PMDI) with the natural ber surface is represented
in Scheme 6. Polymethylene-polyphenyl-isocyanate (PMPPIC) treated cellulosic
bers link strongly with a polystyrene (PS) matrix. Since both PMPPIC and
PS contain benzene rings, their delocalized ¼ electrons provide a strong interac-
tion [58].
Scheme 6. Reaction of natural ber with isocyanate groups of polymeric MDI(PMDI).

Scheme 7. Reaction of bio ber with maleated polypropylene (MAPP).
4.6. Treatment with maleated polypropylene

Maleated polypropylene or maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene (MAPP) has
received wide spread application as a coupling agent or a compatibilizer in natural
ber reinforced polypropylene composites [59– 66]. The treatment of cellulosic
natural bers with MAPP copolymer (Scheme 7) provides covalent bonds across
the interface. Through such treatment, the surface energy of the bers is believed
to be increased, thereby providing better wettability and higher interfacial adhesion.
Optimum concentration of MAPP has to be determined experimentally to get best
ber –matrix adhesion of the composites. MAPP is now available commercially
under various commercial names like epolene® , polybond and hostaprime® with
acid contents ranging from 0.1 to approximately 4 wt%.
The molecular weight of MAPP may vary with acid content because of the
manufacturing process. The variation of the molecular weight is thought to have
an effect on the diffusion in the interphase and the compatibility of the MAPP
with the bulk matrix. Both the molecular weight and acid content have signi cant
effects on the role that the MAPP plays in changing the interphase chemical
composition and properties. Theoretically, extremely long chains of MAPP with
a lot of maleic anhydride (MA) grafting would be an ideal additive to natural
ber –PP composites, creating both covalent bonding to ber surface and extensive
molecular entanglements to improve the properties of the interphase. The extremely

long chains are supposed to reduce the possibility of migration of MAPP to the
ber surface because of the short processing times [64]. If the molecular weight
of MAPP is too high, MAPP may entangle with the PP molecules so that the
polar groups on MAPP have dif culty in nding the hydroxyl groups on the ber
surface. The details of the interphase chemistry of this universal MAPP coupling
agent in biocomposites are yet to be fully understood. Researchers are exploring
this mechanism through comparison of the spectroscopic analysis of the interphase
region and the bulk matrix which give information on the amount and reactivity
of different types of compatibilizers in the interphase with each of the sizings.
The combined analysis of the chemical interaction and the physical strength of the
interphase would also allow for the full characterization of the mechanism of the
natural ber polypropylene composite system.
5. BIOCOMPOSITES
Bio- bers or more correctly agricultural bers, e.g. ax, jute, kenaf, sisal, coir,
etc. dispersed in polymeric matrices, i.e. thermoplastics like polypropylene (PP),
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), etc.; thermosets like epoxy, vinyl ester, etc. or biodegrad-
able plastics like soy plastic, starch plastic, polyester amide, etc. are broadly clas-
si ed as biocomposites (Fig. 8). Petro-based plastics, i.e. PP, PVC, polyester,
epoxy, etc. being non-biodegradable and the bio ber being biodegradable, the re-
sulting biocomposites are termed as partially bio-degradable composites. Biocom-
posites from natural bers and biodegradable plastics are classi ed as completely
biodegradable composites. Biodegradable plastics may be classi ed into two types,
i.e. natural biopolymer when the plastic is derived mainly from renewable resources
like starch plastic, soy plastic, etc., or synthetic biopolymer, i.e. a plastic which has
been synthesized in the laboratory, like polyester amide, aliphatic polyesters, etc. To
get the desired properties of biocomposites, two or more different natural bers or
combinations of natural ber and man-made bers can be used to reinforce plastics
to fabricate a new class of composites called hybrid composites.
Natural ber reinforced polyester composites have received commercial success
for making low cost housing materials. Natural ber reinforced thermosts resins
have recently attained commercial success in making exterior vehicle components.
Thermoplastics will surpass thermosets in the 21st century because of their recy-
cling possibility and the convenience of servicing of composite products. Among
all the thermoplastics, polypropylene has shown the most commercial success in
the natural ber composite market, especially in automotive interior parts applica-
tions. Development of more environmentally friendly biocomposites automotive
interiors to replace non-biodegradable plastics like polyester and PP is an opportu-
nity for increased use of bioplastics in biocomposites. The following subsections
summarize our most recent work on natural ber –PP and natural ber –biopolymer
composites.
Figure 8. Classi cation of natural ber composites.
5.1. Biocomposites from natural ber and non-biodegradable traditional

thermoplastic
Of all the thermoplastic matrices available, PP shows the most potential ben-
e ts when combined with bio bers for making biocomposites of commercial
value. Most work on natural ber– PP is based on melt mixing followed by
injection / compression molding. A number of publications on natural ber – PP
based biocomposites are available in the literature [61, 64, 67– 69]. Thermoforming
processes have been adopted for the fabrication of natural ber reinforced thermo-
plastic composites for automotive applications [70] and there have been some pub-
lished studies on biocomposites from natural bers like jute, sisal, ramie, coir and
curaua (Ananas erectifolius — a hydrophilous species from the Amazon region) and
thermoplastics like PP, PE, PVC. Thermoformable PP and lignocellulosic bers can
be extruded in sheet form for use in automotive interior components, such as door
panels, truck liners, seatbacks, package and speaker trays, reducing the consump-
tion of petro-dependent materials in the thermo-moldable plastics [71] by less than
50%. The USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, conducted a survey,
worldwide, for agricultural ber and residue utilization and identi ed a total of 1039
citations, showing a strong international interest in these kinds of materials [72].
Recently, we [66] have studied the in uence of surface modi cation on perfor-
mance of short length henequen ber – PP biocomposites fabricated through a com-
pression molding technique. For the rst time we have used powder PP in mak-
ing the biocomposites. As already discussed, most work on natural ber – PP is
based on melt mixing of short ber and usual granulated PP in a kinetic mixer fol-
lowed by injection / compression molding. Such processing conditions are expected
to damage the natural ber to a certain extent and may be costly. The best use
of natural bers will occur when processing methods reduce or eliminate the ber
damage to the greatest extent possible. Alternative processing methods of natural
ber –thermoplastic composites is an important advancement necessary for their in-
creased use.
One such advance is the application of powder impregnation technology. This

technology is environmentally benign, and void-free composites with excellent
properties can be derived with intelligent use of this novel technology. This tech-
nology does not need the use of organic solvent, and is therefore a VOC (volatile
organic compound) free technology. Even a very low level of voids due to retained
solvents reduce the mechanical properties of the composites drastically. Recent
success in developing a computer model to predict the pressure– temperature condi-
tions that are required for void-free consolidation for polymer powder impregnation
tapes [73– 75] indicates that optimal processing ef ciency is attained when the poly-
mer particle size is approximately equal to the ber diameter. This has prompted
us to use PP powder for the rst time in making biocomposites from the leaf ber
henequen (Hq.), obtained from a plant Agave fourcroydes, that is closely related to
Agave sisalana which yields sisal. Thus, henequen is very similar to sisal and about
90% of the total henequen ber is produced in Mexico.
Chemical surface modi cation of henequen bers were conducted using dewax-
ing, alkali treatment, cyanoethylation, vinyl grafting and treatment with a coupling
agent, i.e. MAPP [66]. The mechanical properties like exural strength (FS) and
modulus of elasticity (MOE) were measured and are represented in Fig. 9. In gen-
eral, the mechanical properties of composites increase as suitable surface modi -
cation of the reinforcing bers is implemented. The low concentration of alkali
(5%) treatment for longer time (72 h) leads to ber brillation and results in better
ber –matrix adhesion. Epolene (maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene, MAPP)
treatment enhances the mechanical properties of the biocomposites considerably.
Figure 9. In uence of surface modi cations on performance of short henequen ber– powder PP
composites. A: Polypropylene (PP), B: Raw Hqn.(30 wt%)–PP, C: Dewaxed Hqn.(30 wt%)– PP,
D: Cyanoethylated Hqn.(30 wt%)–PP, E: Acrylonitrile-g-Hqn.(30 wt%)– PP, F: 5% Alkali treated
Hqn.(30 wt%)– PP, G: MAPP treated (0.5% MAPP, 10 min soaking) Hqn.(30 wt%)– PP, H: MAPP
treated (0.5% MAPP, 10 min soaking) Hqn. (50 wt%)– PP.
MAPP is now a well-known coupling agent for PP-based composites either from
natural ber [61, 64, 67– 69] or man-made bers like glass [76, 77]. The addition
of a small percentage of epolene is found to enhance the mechanical properties of
PP based composites quite signi cantly.
The increase in the macro-mechanical properties is attributed to an increase in
the interfacial shear strength (ISS) of the modi ed composites. The mechanism
of increase in ISS is not fully understood. It is not clear whether the maleic
anhydride improves the ber wetting or reacts with the ber. It is also not clear
what concentration of MAPP is required. To improve the properties of moldable
thermoplastic composites for use in applications such as in the auto industry,
the ability to control the chemical and mechanical properties of the ber – matrix
interphase is crucial.
The superior mechanical properties of alkali treated natural ber based composites
is attributed to the fact that such treatment improves the adhesive characteristics of
the ber surface by removing the natural and arti cial impurities, thereby producing
a rough surface topography. In addition, alkali treatment leads to ber brillation,
i.e. breaking down the ber bundles into smaller brils. This increases the effective
surface available for contact with the matrix polymer. Thus, the development of a
rough surface topography and the enhancement of the ber aspect ratio offer better
ber –matrix adhesion. The concentration of alkali solution and the soaking time
with the natural ber plays an important role, which varies from one natural ber
to another. The results also demonstrate that alkali treatment after dewaxing gives
slightly better properties than alkali treatment without prior dewaxing (DW). The
results show that low concentration of MAPP is more effective in enhancing the
properties of the biocomposites. The better ber – matrix adhesion of MAPP treated
henequen– PP is deduced from environmental scanning microscopy study (Fig. 10).
Figure 10. Environmental Scanning Electron Microscopy (ESEM) 100£ of: (a) raw henequen– PP
and (b) MAPP treated henequen– PP composites, scale 450 ¹m.
Research on low cost surface modi cation of natural bers is a necessity since
the main attraction of today’s market of biocomposites is the low cost of bio ber.
Among the various low cost surface modi cations, alkali treatment and ammonia
ber explosion (AFEX) are very attractive and promising [78]. Although maleated
polypropylene (MAPP) is a very attractive coupling agent for natural ber– PP
based biocomposites, the use of organic solvent like toluene, to dissolve the
coupling agent (such solution is usually required for the sizing of natural bers)
may be costly or may not be environmentally acceptable. Recent ndings of water
emulsion based maleated polypropylene may kindle renewed interest as a very
promising coupling agent in natural ber – thermoplastic composite technology.
5.2. Biocomposites from natural bers and biodegradable plastics

Biodegradable biocomposites consist of biodegradable plastic as the matrix polymer

and bio ber / natural ber as reinforcing element. As already mentioned under
Section 3, the biodegradable polymers may be derived from renewable resources
or can also be built up from pure synthetic monomers. In this section we will
summarize two class of biocomposites, i.e. one that is fabricated from bio- ber and
renewable resource based biodegradable plastics and a second type derived from
bio- ber and synthetic biodegradable matrix.
5.2.1. Biocomposites from bio ber and renewable resource based bioplastic.
Eco-friendly biocomposites from bioresources such as plant derived ber and
crop derived plastics will be the new materials of the 21st century, not only
because of the growing environmental threat but also because of the uncertainty
of petroleum supplies. Without a renewable resource for composite materials,
a time will come when petrochemical-derived materials become too expensive
for widespread consumptive use at the level used today. Supplementing the
use of petro-based products with renewable resources must start soon; yet a
literature survey reveals that only a very small amount of work has been done on
biodegradable biocomposites [1]. The development of such biocomposites started
in the late 1980s, and most of the biodegradable polymers as discussed in Section 3,
not yet satisfying each of the requirements for biocomposites, are now available
in the market. The biodegradable polymers like Biopol® , Bioceta, Mater Bi,
Sconacell, etc. [79, 80] have been tested in order to examine their properties, with
special emphasis on the suitability of such polymers for use as matrix materials for
the fabrication of biocomposites.
The processing and properties of biodegradable composites of Biopol® (bacteria
produced polyesters) reinforced with wood cellulose have been reported by Gaten-
holm et al. [81, 82]. Although cellulose bers improved the strength and stiffness
of the matrix polymer, the composites were very brittle. Luo and Netravali [83, 84]
have reported the mechanical, thermal and interfacial properties of biocompos-
ites from pineapple leaf ber and Biopol® . In order to obtain better ber – matrix
adhesion, the effects of various surface modi cations of jute on performance of
biodegradable jute – Biopol® composites have been reported recently [33, 35]. The
surface modi cations of jute involving dewaxing, alkali treatment, cyanoethylation
and grafting are made with the aim of improving the hydrophobicity of the ber so
as to obtain good ber– matrix adhesion in the resulting composites.
Differently chemically modi ed jute yarn-Biopol® composites [33] showed max-
imum enhancement of mechanical properties like tensile strength (TS), bending
strength (BS), impact strength (IS) and bending-modulus (Bm) by 194, 79, 166
and 162% respectively in comparison to pure Biopol® . With 10% acrylonitile
(AN) grafted yarn, the TS of composite enhanced by 102%, whereas with 25%-
grafted yarn, TS enhanced by 84% in comparison to Biopol® . Thus with increase
of grafting percent, the mechanical properties were found to decrease. The com-
posites made from alkali treated yarns produced better mechanical properties than
dewaxed and grafted yarns. Orientation of jute yarn played an important role in
the properties. The enhancement of mechanical properties of the biocomposites
is noticed only when the properties of composites were measured along the yarn
wrapping direction. Unlike jute yarn, the enhancement of mechanical properties
of jute fabric – Biopol® composites do not show any variation with the direction
of measurement of properties [35]. More than 50% enhancement of TS, 30% of
BS and 90% of IS of resulting biocomposites as compared to pure Biopol® sheets
were observed under the experimental conditions used. From the compost degrada-
tion studies it was observed that about 34% weight loss occurred for neat Biopol® ,
while dewaxed, alkali treated, and 19% AN-grafted jute fabric – Biopol® composites
decreased their weights by about 56, 42, and 37% after 150 days of degradation.
The tensile strength and stiffness of unidirectional laminates from hemp, ramie
and ax each combined with biodegradable matrix like Sconacell A (a starch
based plastic), and a shellac based resin have been reported [36]. The stiffness
of ramie /Sconacell A and ax /Sconacell A were about 50%, whereas tensile
strengths were about 60% as compared to E-glass-epoxy composites (GFRP). The
stiffness of ramie / shellac laminates was quite comparable with GFRP, while the
tensile strength was only 43%. Hemp/ Sconacell biocomposite showed 143% of
the stiffness and 60% of tensile strength as compared to GFRP. These values of
mechanical properties reveal that biocomposites can in many cases replace GFRP
in structural applications.
Several publications [85– 90] report the comparability of mechanical properties of
biocomposites with well-known glass ber reinforced plastics. Tests with different
ax ber-reinforced biodegradable matrix polymers by Hanselka et al. [85] showed
that the tensile strength and Young’s modulus of these biocomposites were clearly
in uenced by the particular matrix and the adhesion between ber and matrix. The
mechanical properties of extruded ax ber-reinforced thermoplastic starch showed
increased values, especially for tensile strength and Young’s modulus because of
the addition of green- ax ber rovings. The literature on this subject suggests
that from the point of view of the mechanical properties, such biocomposites are
suitable construction materials; however, limitations must be seen where extreme
environmental conditions exist. The tensile strength and stiffness of biocomposites

mainly meant for use as panels, i.e. non-woven fabrics from ax reinforced with
Sconacell A, Bioceta, shellac and some newly investigated matrix systems and
also from Lyocell (a man made cellulosic bre), embedded in Sconacell have been
reported [36]. As reported, ax / newly developed matrix system and ax /shellac
compounds gave good values of tensile strength, which were in the range from 80
to 93 MPa or even 109 MPa with increased ber volume content of ax /shellac
composites from 30 to 45%. A considerable improvement in tensile strength was
achieved by using Lyocell instead of ax bers each embedded in Sconacell A.
Structural biocomposites are reinforced by multilayer or woven fabrics, mainly
from yarns or slivers for strength and stiffness requirements, whereas panellings
are usually made from non-woven fabrics from relatively short bers for a better
draping. Biocomposites containing natural bers and biodegradable matrices are
patented [91] for applications as building materials. The title materials contain
natural bers, e.g. ax, hemp, ramie, sisal or jute and a biodegradable matrix
such as cellulose diacetate, or a starch derivative. While reviewing the chances
and limitations of biodegradable polymers based on renewable raw materials, Fritz
et al. [92] have reported that some destructurized polysaccharides can form the
polymer matrix of ax ber-reinforced composites.
In the US, soybeans provide over 60% of the fats and oils used for food and
the majority of feed protein. Soybeans typically contain about 20% oil and 40%
protein. Both protein and oil can be used in non-food applications, i.e. in making
biodegradable plastics / resins [1, 29]. The soy protein can be converted to plastic
by reactive extrusion in the presence of a plasticizer like glycerol. Soy protein may
be blended with PCL or other suitable biodegradable polymers and compatibilizers
to obtain some usable soy-based plastics. There remains a great opportunity to
develop soy plastic from soy protein to make it more economically viable in order
to compete with non-traditional plastics on both a performance and cost basis and
having the added advantage of biodegradability. Soy oil has also been extensively
studied through various functionalizations to make it suitable as a resin matrix in
making biocomposites.
Biocomposites from ax ber and soy-based resins are made by a liquid molding
(Resin Transfer Molding) technique [93, 94]. The tensile strength at 34% ber
content was found to be 30 MPa, exural strength of 65 MPa with tensile moduli
around 4–5 GPa. Soy-based sizing improves the ber– matrix adhesion and shows
a substantial increase in modulus to about 6 GPa. The soy-based resins which
can be used as sizing agents for the natural bers may be formulated through a
controlled functionalization of soy oil. The soy-based resins have a strong af nity
for natural bers and form excellent ber –matrix adhesion. The soy oil based resins
can replace phenol formaldehyde, urethane, and other petroleum-based binders in
particleboard applications. Research on non-food applications of soy protein and
soy oil in the biocomposites elds has attracted the attention of various researchers.
Starch is a versatile polymer with immense potential for use in non-food appli-
cations. Today starch-based polymers are used as packing materials and compost
bags. Starch based polymers can be produced from corn, wheat or potatoes. Starch
can be made thermoplastic with a technology very similar to extrusion. Thermo-
plastic starch can be processed as a traditional plastic; however, its sensitivity to
humidity makes it unsuitable for many applications. Since polycaprolactone (PCL)
can provide water resistance and is a good compatibilizer for starch, the blending of
starch and PCL is gaining commercial interest. Thermoplastic starch based materi-
als are still at an early stage of development and the markets for such products are
expected to increase as the properties are improved, prices decline and more new
applications are made from this versatile bioplastic.
The use of starch plastic in biocomposite fabrications has gained much attention
in recent years [36, 95]. Hermann et al. [36] have reported the properties of bio-
composites from natural bers like ramie, ax and hemp with starch based plastic.
The stiffness of ramie / ax — starch plastic biocomposites are about 50% com-
pared to glass-epoxy composites whereas hemp-starch plastic biocomposites show
143% of the stiffness of glass-epoxy composites. Recently, we have reported [96]
on the effect of various surface modi cations of jute fabrics on the performance
of biocomposites fabricated from such surface treated jute and starch plastics. The
tensile strength of starch plastic is enhanced by more that 150% as a result of rein-
forcement with bleached jute fabrics in the biocomposites containing 50 wt% ber.
The bleached jute based composite shows around 40% and 95% improvement in
tensile strength and bending strength respectively in comparison to the compos-
ites prepared from untreated jute. Bleached jute-starch plastic biocomposites with
50 wt% ber show tensile strength as high as 62 MPa, exural strength 72 MPa
and very high stiffness with MOE value of 4.9 GPa. Such improved properties of
biocomposites as a result of bleaching is attributed to the better compatibility of the
ber and starch plastic matrix. Bleaching brings about partial deligni cation and
dewaxing, thereby separating the individual cells. The surface becomes clean with
increased micro-roughness, which is favorable for ber– matrix adhesion.
Besides bleaching, all other surface modi cations like dewaxing, alkali treatment,
dicumyl peroxide (DCP) treatment, isocyanate treatment also improved the mechan-
ical properties of the biocomposites as compared to untreated jute based biocom-
posites. Some of the signi cant results of effect of various surface modi cations
on performance of jute-starch plastic biocomposites are represented in Fig. 11 [96].
The widespread applications of starch plastics are mainly hindered due to its high
water absorption characteristics. After reinforcement with surface modi ed jute, the
water absorption of virgin starch plastics is reduced drastically with alkali treated
jute-starch plastic biocomposites showing the least water absorption.
5.2.2. Biocomposites from bio ber and non-renewable based synthetic bioplastic.
Among synthetic biodegradable plastics, we have used polyester amides to produce
biocomposites from natural bers like jute [34], coir [97], sisal and PALF [98].
Figure 11. In uence of surface modi cations on performance of jute-starch plastic biocomposites
(50 wt% jute fabric in the composite). A: untreated jute, B: polymeric MDI treated jute, C: DCP
treated jute, D: bleached jute.
Biodegradable thermoplastic polyester amide with the trade name of BAK are pro-
duced by a completely synthetic route. The BAK contains weak points in its struc-
ture to aid bacterial decomposition [99]. Bayer manufactures biodegradable plas-
tics with trade names BAK 1095 and BAK 2195. BAK 1095 is based on caprolactam
(Nylon 6), butanediol and adipic acid, whereas BAK 2195 is synthesized from adipic
acid and hexamethylene diamine (Nylon 6,6) and adipic acid with butanediol and
diethylene glycol as ester component. BAK 1095 has mechanical properties resem-
bling polyethylene (PE). BAK 2195 (an injection molding thermoplastic) exhibits
greater stiffness [100] than BAK 1095. The property pro le of BAK 2195 can also
be modi ed through the addition of llers and reinforcing substances, such as starch,
natural bers, wood our, and minerals [101].
Woven jute fabrics – BAK 1095 have been prepared [34] to study the in uence of
different surface treatments of jute on the performance of the resulting biocompos-
ites. More than a 40% improvement in the tensile strength occurred as a result of re-
inforcement with alkali treated jute. Jute content also affected the performance and
about 30 wt% jute showed optimum properties of the biocomposites. Processing
conditions and surface treatments need to be further optimized to achieve improved
properties of jute – polyester amide composites, which is now under investigation in
our laboratory.
Coir ber is a low strength ber as compared to jute (Table 3), but through
optimum surface treatments, the biocomposites from non-woven coir and BAK 1095
show improved performance [97]. Non-woven mats and thin lms of BAK polymer
were fabricated into biocomposites. Biocomposites with 50 wt% coir showed
optimum mechanical properties. The in uence of various surface modi cations of
coir on performance of the resulting biocomposites is represented in Fig. 12 [97].
One of the best observations of this investigation is that the low (optimum) percent
methyl methacrylate (MMA) grafted coir showed much improved exural strength
of the biocomposites. The improvement of the mechanical properties is attributed
to an improved compatibility between polymer matrix and coir ber through vinyl
polymer moieties deposited on the ber surface during grafting process. From the
strength measurements of various percent MMA grafted coir [49], we have observed
that low percent graft shows better strength over untreated as well as high percent
grafted coir bers. The decrease in strength on increase of percent grafting is
attributed to the decrease in the orderly arrangement of PMMA units and hence
degree of crystallinity.
Sisal ber also showed an improved reinforcement effect over pineapple leaf ber
with BAK-1095 [98]. Aligned non-wovens mats have been fabricated into biocom-
posites. The in uence of various surface modi cations of sisal on performance of
biocomposites is represented in Fig. 13 [98]. The ber content of 50 wt% was
found to be optimum so far as the performance of the biocomposites was con-
cerned. Among all the modi cations, alkali treatment and acetylation resulted in the
best performance of the biocomposites. The alkali treatment improves the surface
roughness and results in better ber– matrix adhesion. In the process of acetyla-
tion, the hydrogen atom on the acetyl carbon atom becomes more reactive due to
Figure 12. In uence of surface modi cations on performance of coir– polyester amide biocomposites
(50 wt% unidirectional non-woven coir mat in the composite). A: untreated coir, B: alkali (5%) coir,
C: cyanoethylated coir, D: 7% polymethyl methacrylated-g-coir,E: 8.4% polyacrylonitrile-g-coir.
Figure 13. In uence of surface modi cations on performance of sisal– polyester amide biocompos-
ites (50 wt% unidirectional non-woven sisal mat in the composite). A: untreated sisal, B: alkali (5%)
treated sisal, C: cyanoethylated sisal, D: acetylated sisal, E: bleached sisal, E: 10% polyacylonitrile-
g-sisal.
the presence of the carbonyl group. This may form a chemical bond with active
sites of BAK thereby improving the adhesion and so improves the strength of the
biocomposites.
6. CONCLUSION
Natural ber composites have potential to replace petroleum-based structural com-

posites on both a performance and cost basis. Thermoplastics will surpass ther-
mosets in the 21st century because of their recycling possibility and convenience.
Among all the thermoplastics, polypropylene has attained the largest commercial
usage in natural ber composite market especially in automotive applications. Al-
ternative processing technologies for the manufacture of biocomposites with re-

duced ber damage and elimination of VOCs will be necessary for improvement
in mechanical properties over current extrusion/ injection molding for natural ber
composite processings.
Eco-friendly biodegradable biocomposites will be the novel materials of the 21st
century. Biocomposites can make more value-added products from bioplastics.
Even small-scale replacement of petro-based plastics with plant derived plastics will
have a great impact on the environment. The major hurdle of currently marketed
biodegradable plastics is their high cost. Although there is high interest in ‘green’
products, the majority of consumers want to have a ‘green’ product with a price
that is competitive with petro-based products. Large scale applications of newly
emerging bio-plastics will result in the reduction of cost. Surface modi cations
of hydrophilic natural bers have achieved some degree of success in making a
superior interface, but lower cost surface modi cation needs to be emphasized for
biocomposites to replace glass ber composites in many applications in the future.
REFERENCES
1. A. K. Mohanty, M. Misra and G. Hinrichsen, Macromol. Mater. Eng. 276/ 277, 1 (2000).
2. Personal communication, Kline & Company, Inc., NJ; with: Carl Eckert, Opportunities for
natural bers in plastic composites, presented at 3rd Annual Ag Fiber Technology Showcase,
Memphis, TN, USA (2000).
3. W. F. Powers, Adv. Mat. Proc. (May), 39 (2000).
4. R. Stauber, in: Proc. Kuntsttoffe im Automobilbau. Mannheim/ 1999, VDI-Verlag, Dusseldorf
(1999).
5. P. Mapleston, Modern Plastic (April), 73 (1999).
6. DaimlerChrysler High Tech Report (1999).
7. L. M. Sherman, Plast. Technol. (October), 62 (1999).
8. Composite Week Newsletter 43(2), October 23– 29 (2000).
9. A. K. Mohanty and M. Misra, Polym. — Plast. Technol. Eng. 34, 729 (1995).
10. J. Knothe and T. Schlosser, in: 3rd International Symposium on Bioresource Hemp & Other
Fibre Crops, Wolfsburg, Germany (2000).
11. Automotive Engineering International (October), 120 (2000).
12. A. Scott, Chem. Week (September), 13 (2000).

13. J. N. McGovern, Fibers vegetable, in: Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Engineering, vol. 7,
p. 17. John Wiley, New York (1987).
14. S. K. Batra, Other long vegetable bers, in: Handbook of Fiber Chemistry, 2nd edn, M. Lewin
and E. M. Pearce (Eds), p. 505. Marcel Dekker, New York (1998).
15. FAO Statistics, Statistics Tables on Hard Fibers and Jute, Kenaf and Allied Fibers; Document
prepared by the Commodities and Trade Division of FAO / Rome and presented during the
Intersessional Consultation on Fibers, 1999, Institute of Natural Fibers, Ponza, Poland (1999).
16. FAO Statistics June 1999, Document CCP: / JU/ ST / 99/ 1 (1999).
17. M. Mackiewicz-Talarczyk, World market of bast and hard bers, in: Natural Polymers and
Composites: — ISNaPol/ 2000, Sao Pedro, Brazil; in: Proceedings from the Third International
Symposium on Natural Polymers and Composites, L. H. C. Mattoso, A. Leao and E. Frollini
(Eds), p. 582 (2000).
18. A. K. Bledzki, S. Reihmane and J. Gassan, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 59, 1329 (1996).
19. A. M. Rouchi, Chem. Eng. News (November 13), 29 (2000).
20. L. M. Lewin and E. M. Pearce, Handbook of Fiber Science and Technology, Vol. IV, Fiber
Chemistry. Marcel Dekker, New York (1985).
21. R. M. Rowell, in: Emerging Technologies for Materials and Chemicals, R. M. Rowell,
T. P. Schultz and R. Narayan, (Eds), 476, 12 (1992).
22. E. T. N. Bisanda and M. P. Ansell, Compos. Sci. Technol. 41, 165 (1991).
23. S. H. Zeronian, H. Kawabata and K. W. Alger, Text. Res. Inst. 60 (3), 179 (1990).
24. V. V. Safonov, Treatment of Textile Materials. Legprombitizdat, Moscow (1991).
25. M. Karus, M. Kaup and D. Lohmeyer, Study on markets and prices for natural bers Ger-
many and EU, in: 3rd International Symposium Bioresource Hemp & Other Fibre Crops,
Wolfsburg, Germany, (2000), in: Online — proceedings of the BIORESOURCE HEMP 2000
(www.bioresource-hemp.de).
26. E. S. Lipinsky and J. D. Ingham, Brief Characterization of the top 50 US Commodity Chemicals,
DOE (USA) report number ILA 207376-A-H1.
27. European Plastic News (July/ August), 14 (1998).
28. D. Marshall, Eur. Plast. News (March), 23 (1998).
29. R. P. Wool, Chemtech. (June), 44 (1999).
30. Plastics Technology (April), 66– 67 (2000).
31. W. Amass, A. Amass and B. Tighe, Polym. Int. 17, 89 (1998).
32. Modern Plastics (November), 28 (2000).
33. A. K. Mohanty, M. A. Khan, S. Sahoo and G. Hinrichsen, J. Mater. Sci 35, 2589 (2000).
34. A. K. Mohanty, M. A. Khan and G. Hinrichsen, Composites: Part A 31, 143 (2000).
35. A. K. Mohanty, M. A. Khan and G. Hinrichsen, Compos. Sci. Technol. 60, 1115 (2000).
36. A. S. Hermann, J. Nickel and U. Riedel, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 59, 251 (1998).
37. L. T. Drzal and M. Madhukar, J. Mater. Sci. 28, 569 (1993).
38. R. M. Rowell, Property enhanced natural ber composite materials based on chemical modi ca-
tion, in: Science & Technology of Polymers and Advanced Materials, P. N. Prasad et al. (Eds),
p. 717. Plenum Press, New York (1998).
39. A. R. Sanadi and D. F. Caul eld, Compos. Intf. 7 (1), 31 (2000).
40. J. Gassan and A. K. Bledzki, Compos. Sci. Technol. 59, 1301 (1999).
41. D. S. Varma, M. Varma and I. K. Varma, Text. Res. Inst. 54, 349 (1984).
42. S. Sreenivasan, Iyer. P. Bahama and K. R. Iyer Krishnan, J. Mat. Sci. 31, 721 (1996).
43. H. S. S. Sharma, T. W. Fraser, D. McCall and G. Lyons, J. Textile Inst. 86, 539 (1995).
44. S. V. Prasad, C. Pavithran and P. K. Rohatgi, J. Mater. Sci. 18, 1443 (1983).
45. N. Chand and P. K. Rohatgi, Polym. Compos. 27, 157 (1986).
46. A. K. Mohanty, J. Macromol. Sci. Rev. Macromol. Chem. Phys. 27 (3&4), 593 (1987).
47. A. K. Mohanty, P. C. Tripathy, M. Misra, S. Parija and S. Sahoo, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 77 (14),
3035 (2000).
48. P. C. Tripathy, M. Misra, S. Parija, M. Misra and A. K. Mohanty, Polym. Intern. 48, 868 (1999).
49. J. Rout, M. Misra and A. K. Mohanty, Polym. Adv. Technol. 10, 336 (1999).
50. P. Ghosh and P. K. Ganguly, Plast. Rubber. Compos. Process. Appl. 20, 171 (1993).
51. X. Lu, M. Q. Zhang, M. Z. Rong, G. Shi, G. C. Yang and H. M. Zeng, Adv. Compos. Lett. 8 (5),
231 (1999).
52. D. N. S. Hon and M. S. L. Jose na, J. Polym. Sci. Part A: Polym. Chem. 27 (12), 4143 (1989).
53. D. N. S. Hon and N. J. Ou, J. Polym. Sci. Part A: Polym. Chem. 27, 2457 (1989).
54. S. Mishra, M. Misra, S. S. Tripathy, S. K. Nayak and A. K. Mohanty, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos.
2000 (Accepted July 2000).
55. L. Y. Mwaikambo and M. P. Ansell, Angew Makromol. Chem. 272, 108 (1999).
56. R. M. Rowell, Property enhancement of wood composites, in: Composite Applications — The
Role of Matrix, Fibre and Interface, R. M. Rowell, T. Vigo and B. Kinzig (Eds), Ch. 4. VCH
Publishers, New York (1992).
57. H. Matsuda and M. Ueda, Makuzai Kogyo (Wood Industry) 41 , 3– 8, 61– 66, (1986).
58. D. Maldas, B. V. Kokta and C. Daneault, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 37, 751 (1989).
59. J. Felix and P. Gatenholm, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 42, 609 (1991).
60. M. Avella, C. Bozzi, R. dell’Erba, B. Focher, A. Marzetti and E. Martuscelli, Angew Makromol.
Chemie. 233, 149 (1995).
61. J. Gassan and A. K. Bledzki, Composites: Part A 28A, 1001 (1997).
62. A. R. Sanadi, D. F. Caul eld and R. M. Rowell, Plastics Eng. (April), 27 (1994).
63. A. C. Karmaker and J. P. Schneider, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 15, 201 (1996).
64. A. R. Sanadi, D. F. Caul eld, R. E. Jacobson and R. M. Rowell, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 34, 1889
(1995).
65. J. P. Schneider and A. C. Karmaker, in: ANTEC’ 95, pp. 2086– 2090 (1995).
66. A. K. Mohanty, M. Misra and L. T. Drzal, in: Society for the Advancement of Materials and
Process Engineering (SAMPE) Conf. Procedding, M. Rokosz, R. B. Boeman, D. T. Buckley and
J. Jaranson (Eds), Dearborn, MI, p. 299– 310 (2000).
67. A. C. Karmaker and J. A. Youngquist, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 62, 1147 (1996).
68. R. Karnani, M. Krishnan and R. Narayan, Polym. Eng. Sci. 37 (2), 476 (1997).
69. A. R. Sanadi, R. M. Rowell and D. F. Caul eld, Polym. News 20, 7 (1996).
70. A. L. Leao, R. Rowell and N. Tavares, in: Science and Technology of Polymers and Advanced
Materials, P. N. Prasad et al. (Eds), pp.755– 761 (1998).
71. J. J. Balatinecz and R. T. Woodhams, J. Forestry 91 (11) (1993).
72. J. Youngquist, USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, FPL-GTR-80, Madison, WI,
146 p. (1994).
73. L. T. Drzal, S. Padaki, M. N. Vyakarnam and J. H. Fernandes, Powder Polym. Technol. 18, 512
(2000).
74. S. Padaki and L. T. Drzal, J. Compos. Mater. 31 (12), 2201 (1996).
75. S. Padaki and L. T. Drzal, Composites Part A 30, 325 (1999).
76. M. van den Oever and T. Peijs, Composites Part A 29, 227 (1998).
77. C. Roux, J. Denault and M. F. Champagne, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 78, 2047 (2000).
78. A. K. Mohanty, M. Misra and L. T. Drzal, Recent developments on interfacial adhesion in
natural ber thermoplastic composites: an overview, in: International Symposium on Interfaces
in Polymer Composites, Newark, NJ (2000).
79. A. S. Hermann, H. Hanselka and G. Niederstadt, Faserverbundwerkstoffe und Verfahren zur
Herstellung von Strukturbauteilen, DE 44 20 817, June 1994, August (1995).
80. U. Riedel and M. Chowanietz, Faserverbundwerkstoffund Verfahren zu seiner Herstellung, DE
Akz. 196 47 671.2-44, November (1996).
81. P. Gatenholm, J. Kubat and A. Mathiasson, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 45, 1667 (1992).
82. P. Gatenholm and A. Mathiasson, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 51, 1231 (1994).
83. S. Luo and A. N. Netravali, Polym. Compos. 20 (3), 367 (1999).
84. S. Luo and A. N. Netravali, J. Mater. Sci. 34, 3709 (1999).
85. H. Hanselka and A. S. Hermann, Bio-Verbund: Biologisch abbaubare Konstruktionswerkstoffe
auf der Basis nachwachsender Rohstoffe, in: Techtextil Symposium 94, Frankfurt (1994).
86. A. S. Herrmann and H. Hanselka, Biologisch abbaubare Konstruktionswerkstoffe auf der Basis
nachwachsender Rohstoffe, in: 26. Int. AVK-Tagung (1994).
87. H. Hanselka, A. S. Herrmann and E. Prömper, Automobil-Leichtbau durch den Einsatz von
(biologisch abbaubaren) Naturfaser-Verbundwerkstoffen, VDI Berichte Nr. 1235 (1995).
88. G. Niederstadt, A. S. Hermann and H. Hanselka, Faserverbundwerkstoffe— nach Gebrauch auf
den Kompost, Spektrum der Wissenschaft, February (1995).
89. K. Moser, Faser-Kunststoff-Verbund. VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf (1992).
90. A. S. Herrmann, H. Hanselka, J. Nickel and U. Riedel, Biodegradable bre reinforced plastics
based upon renewable resources, in: TECNITEX, Torino-Lingotto (1996).

91. A. S. Herrmann, H. Hanselka and G. Niederstadt, Eur. Pat. Appl. EP 687,711 (Cl. C08L97/ 02),
20 Dec. 1995, DE Appl. 4,420,817 (16 June 1994).
92. H. G. Fritz, W. Aichholzer, T. Seidenstuecker and B. Widmann, Starch/ Staerke 47 (12), 475
(1995).
93. G. I. Williams and R. P. Wool, Composites from Renewable Resources, in: Proceedings of the
American Institute of Chemical Engineering 1998 Annual Meeting, Miami, FL (1998).
94. G. I. Williams and R. P. Wool, Appl. Compos. Mat. 7, 421 (2000).
95. A. Vazquez, V. P. Cyras, J. M. Kenny and S. Iannace, in: ICCM-12, Paris (1999).
96. M. Misra, A. K. Mohanty and L. T. Drzal, in: Society for the Advancement of Materials and
Process Engineering (SAMPE) Conf. Proceedings, M. Rokosz, R. B. Boeman, D. T. Buckley
and J. Jaranson (Eds), Dearborn, MI, pp. 189– 196 (2000).
97. J. Rout, M. Misra, S. S. Tripathy, S. K. Nayak and A. K. Mohanty, Polym. Compos. 22 (6) (2001)
(in press).
98. S. Mishra, M. Misra, S. S. Tripathy, S. K. Nayak and A. K. Mohanty, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos.
(2000) (accepted).
99. E. Grigat, R. Koch and R. Timmerman, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 59, 251 (1998).
100. Polymer News 23, 129 (1998).
101. D. Marshall, Eur. Plast. News (March), 23 (1998).

Mohanty 2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mohanty 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]

On: 04 January 2013, At: 04:12

To cite this article: A. K. Mohanty , M. Misra & L. T. Drzal (2001): Surface

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156855401753255422

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/

Surface modi cations of natural  bers and performance

A. K. MOHANTY, M. MISRA and L. T. DRZAL ¤

Received 29 December 2000; accepted 15 January 2001

polymers that are biodegradable or based on renewable ‘biofeedstocks’ may soon

2. REINFORCING NATURAL FIBERS

Fiber Production 1999 Major countries of origin/ distribution

2.1. Chemical composition of natural  bers

Types of Cellulose Lignin Hemi- Pectin Wax Micro brillar/ Moisture

Figure 3. Structure of cellulose.

Figure 4. Schematic representation of hydrogen bonding in natural  ber.

Figure 5. Phenolic precursors which form the lignin.

Figure 6. Structure of lignin (after Ref. [19]).

2.2. Properties of natural  bers

related to the internal structure and chemical composition of  bers. A comparison of

Fibre Density Diameter Tensile Young’s Elongation

2.3. Advantages of natural  bers over glass  ber composites

2.3.1. Cost. In order to create a reasonable return to farmers, non-traditional,

Natural  ber Price (US$ / lb) Customers Growth outlook

Although plastics are one of chemistry’s greatest contributions to improving hu-

3.1. General classi cation

and products from nature are biodegradable’ is wrong. Even non-biodegradable

3.2. Traditional vs. bio-polymers and their cost aspects

plastics have attracted the attention of researchers recently. Comparatively high

Plastics Average cost

4. SURFACE CHEMICAL MODIFICATIONS OF NATURAL FIBERS

structure of cellulose can be disrupted by substituting the hydroxyl group with

4.1. Alkali treatment

Figure 7. Schematic representation of raw and alkali treated natural  ber.

4.2. Graft copolymerization

4.3. Etheri cation

Scheme 1. Graft copolymerization reaction.

Scheme 2. Cyanoethylation reaction.

Scheme 3. Etheri cation of natural  ber.

Scheme 4. Acetylation of natural  ber.

Scheme 5. Reaction of natural  ber with maleic anhydride.

4.5. Treatment with isocyanate

Scheme 6. Reaction of natural  ber with isocyanate groups of polymeric MDI(PMDI).

Scheme 7. Reaction of bio ber with maleated polypropylene (MAPP).

4.6. Treatment with maleated polypropylene

molecular entanglements to improve the properties of the interphase. The extremely

natural  ber polypropylene composite system.

Figure 8. Classi cation of natural  ber composites.

5.1. Biocomposites from natural  ber and non-biodegradable traditional

One such advance is the application of powder impregnation technology. This

5.2. Biocomposites from natural  bers and biodegradable plastics

Biodegradable biocomposites consist of biodegradable plastic as the matrix polymer

environmental conditions exist. The tensile strength and stiffness of biocomposites

Natural  ber composites have potential to replace petroleum-based structural com-

ternative processing technologies for the manufacture of biocomposites with re-

12. A. Scott, Chem. Week (September), 13 (2000).

based upon renewable resources, in: TECNITEX, Torino-Lingotto (1996).

You might also like

Surface modi cations of natural bers and performance

2.1. Chemical composition of natural bers

Types of Cellulose Lignin Hemi- Pectin Wax Micro brillar/ Moisture

Figure 4. Schematic representation of hydrogen bonding in natural ber.

2.2. Properties of natural bers

related to the internal structure and chemical composition of bers. A comparison of

2.3. Advantages of natural bers over glass ber composites

Natural ber Price (US$ / lb) Customers Growth outlook

3.1. General classi cation

Figure 7. Schematic representation of raw and alkali treated natural ber.

4.3. Etheri cation

Scheme 3. Etheri cation of natural ber.

Scheme 4. Acetylation of natural ber.

Scheme 5. Reaction of natural ber with maleic anhydride.

Scheme 6. Reaction of natural ber with isocyanate groups of polymeric MDI(PMDI).

Scheme 7. Reaction of bio ber with maleated polypropylene (MAPP).

natural ber polypropylene composite system.

Figure 8. Classi cation of natural ber composites.

5.1. Biocomposites from natural ber and non-biodegradable traditional

5.2. Biocomposites from natural bers and biodegradable plastics

Natural ber composites have potential to replace petroleum-based structural com-