Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 1417–1424

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Additives used in natural fibre reinforced polymer composites-a review

Sakshi Shantharam Kamath, Ravi Kumar Chandrappa ⇑
Department of Chemistry, Alva’s Institute of Engineering & Technology, Visvesvaraya Technological University, MIJAR, Karnataka 574225, India

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

Article history: Natural fibres are considered as a credible substitute to synthetic fibres in composite world because of
Received 27 May 2021 their advantages like biodegradability, availability and eco-friendly behavior. The lesser density of natu-
Received in revised form 27 August 2021 ral fibres compared to carbon fibre and glass fibre results in production of composites which is lighter
Accepted 31 August 2021
compared to synthetic fibre composites. However, the major reason for their limited potential in finding
Available online 14 September 2021
wider application is the hydrophilic nature of natural fibres because of high content of cellulose and
hemicellulose and due to its poor flame retardancy. The literature review is done to explore different
Keywords:
ways to overcome this drawback to utilize it in composite fabrication which can be used in different
Natural fibres
Polymer composites
applications replacing synthetic fibre composites. Researchers have incorporated certain additives like
Additives coupling agents, plasticizers, fillers, flame retardants during composite fabrication which showed better
Plasticizers mechanical properties of the composites. Thus, natural fibres can be a promising material in the compos-
Fillers ite field resulting in development of sustainable green product benefiting the environment.
Coupling agents Copyright Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Con-
ference on Functional Material, Manufacturing and Performances

1. Introduction
In the quest for ideal materials, metals because of their strength
and easy availability soon became go-to materials for everyday
usage. Metals although have superior strength than most other
materials but are also expensive and heavier in nature making
them bulkier and restricting their usage in certain applications.
Thus, a need for lightweight, cost-effective product gave rise to
the invention of composite materials. Polymer composite materials
with the increased strength to weight ratio facilitate high perfor-
mance and efficiency [1,2]. Thus, composite materials lately have
become a key research topic due to their easier availability of
raw materials, versatile properties and their applications. Proper-
ties of composites are customizable according to the intended
application through a careful selection of fibre, fibre orientation,
fibre loading modification of fibre surface properties. The interest
on composite materials has resulted in various applications in air-
craft industry, construction industry and automobile industry [3,4].
Composite materials are made up of one or more reinforce-
ments (discontinuous phase) like fibres embedded in a matrix
(continuous phase), resin. The type of natural fibres, their origin
and the quality and reinforcement geometry provide strength to
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dr.ravikumarc@gmail.com (R.K. Chandrappa).
the matrix, and the resultant composite develops properties such
as high specific strength, stiffness, and hardness, which are much
more than the individual components. Polymer composites can
be achieved with a wide variety of fibre reinforcements either syn-
thetic in origin e.g. carbon fibre, glass fibres, aramid or natural
fibres like flax, hemp, coir, abaca and sometimes hybrids too
wherein both synthetic and natural fibres are used together[5,6].
Synthetic fibres to their credit have, good elasticity can handle
heavy loads and are long lasting and are readily available than their
natural counterparts. Though synthetic fibres are easy to produce
and are available in plenty but come with a disadvantage that they
are non-biodegradable and hence, are not eco-friendly and leave a
trail of carbon footprint right from their production and until dis-
posal[7]. On the contrary, natural fibres are available in plenty
either cultivated for the same or available as byproducts of agricul-
tural industry and their properties are comparable to synthetic
fibres. Thus, natural fibre polymer composites (NFPC) are alterna-
tives to the synthetic fibre composites and are fast replacing syn-
thetic fibres in composite materials[8,9]. The motivation behind
the current article is to focus on selection of additives for natural
fibres used in composite fabrication. The additives during compos-
ite manufacture have its effect on physical and mechanical proper-
ties, thereby giving an idea about which additive can be used so as
to get better properties with respect to eco-friendly composites.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.08.331
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 2nd International Conference on Functional Material, Manufacturing and Performances
Sakshi Shantharam Kamath and Ravi Kumar Chandrappa Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 1417–1424

2. Natural fibre polymer composites

Natural fibre polymer composites are multi-phase materials in

which reinforcing fibres are natural in origin and are Plant or Ani-
mal derived. Mixture of fibre and resin results in synergistic prop-
erties that cannot be accomplished from either component
individually. Natural fibres come with their own advantages like
good strength and rigidity, negligible cost and more importantly
when compared to synthetic fibres are environmentally friendly,
biodegradable, and are renewable materials. This review focuses
on the composites manufactured incorporating fibres derived from
plants. Plant fibres are broadly classified into stem, fruit and leaf
fibres which is shown in Fig. 1.

3. Chemical composition of natural fibres Fig. 2. Composition of natural fibres.

The chemical composition of natural plant fibre can be classified

4. Drawbacks in natural fibre reinforced polymer composites
as middle lamella, primary wall and secondary cell wall as shown
in Fig. 2 [10,11]. Major constituents of secondary cell wall are cel-
Natural fibres mainly contain –OH groups which can interact
lulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Cellulose constitutes of both crys-
with polar molecules such as water, forming hydrogen bond. The
talline and amorphous region which differs from plant to plant and
sorption of water is mainly dependent on the relative humidity
decides the mechanical strength and the stiffness of the fibre[12].
of prevailing atmosphere, level of crystallinity and amorphous con-
Fig. 3(a) indicates structure of cellulose molecule which is com-
tent present in cellulose. Cellulose with high degree of crystallinity
posed of D-glucopyranose which are interconnected with b-1,4-
can accommodate water only on surface whereas if the percentage
glycosidic linkage having 10,000 degrees of polymerization
of amorphous phase is more, water can penetrate interior of cellu-
[13,14]. The –OH group present in the cellulose is responsible for
lose material[21].Hence, uptake of water there by causes undesir-
intramolecular hydrogen bonding. The alignment of this cellulose
able effects. The –OH content present in the fibre is responsible for
molecule to the fibre axis is termed as microfibril angle which is
its inadaptability towards hydrophobic non-polar resins during
a deciding factor of the strength of the fibre along with the degree
composite fabrication. The water absorption and transportation
of crystallinity of the molecule. Lower the microfibril angle and
to the bulk of fibre from the surface occurs because of diffusion
higher the crystallinity, greater will be the strength of the fibre
or by capillary action[22], and water flows into fibre-matrix inter-
[15,16]. Fig. 3(b and c) indicates the structure of hemicelluloses
face, resulting in leaching of water-soluble substance from the
and lignin. Presence of bulky pendant groups in structure of hemi-
fibre surface and results in debonding of fibre and matrix[5]as
cellulose and lignin results in their amorphous nature. Hemicellu-
depicted in Fig. 4. The efficiency of fibre-matrix interface decides
lose comprises of mixture of 5 and 6 carbon ring polysaccharides
the strength of the composites manufactured. If the bonding
with 50–300 degree of polymerization whereas lignin is made up
between the fibre-resin is too strong, the load applied will relate
of aliphatic and aromatic moiety constituting 4-hydroxy-3-
in production of crack which will not disseminate the stress from
methoxy phenyl propane. These are highly stable and insoluble
resin to fibre, resulting in brittle material causing the material to
in most of the solvents but gets dissolved in alkali [17].The con-
breakdown[23]. At the same time, if the bonding is ineffective,
stituents of the natural fibres commonly used in fibre reinforced
required stress transfer from resin to matrix is not achieved. This
polymer composites with their density, chemical constituents
results in the composites with lesser mechanical strength over
and world production is given in Table 1. As these natural fibres
time.
are produced in plenty, because of their easy availability, these
The investigation carried by different Researchers prove that
fibres can be incorporated to produce sustainable composite
natural fibres have greater water absorption property, which
materials.

Fig. 1. Natural fibres origin.

1418
Sakshi Shantharam Kamath and Ravi Kumar Chandrappa Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 1417–1424

Fig. 3. (a) Structure of cellulose, 3(b) hemicellulose and 3(c) lignin[18].

Table 1
World production, density and chemical constituents of natural fibres [7,9,19–20]

Fibre World production (103 ton) Density (g/cm3) Cellulose (wt) Hemicellulose (wt) Lignin (wt)
Bamboo 30,000 0.6–1.1 26–43 30 21–31
Bagasse 75,000 1.2 55.2 16.8 25.3
Jute 2300 1.23 61–71 14–20 12–13
Areca 1213 1.05–1.25 53.20 32.98 7.20
Kenaf 970 1.2 72 20.3 9
Flax 830 1.38 71 18.6–20.6 2.2
Sisal 375 1.2 65 12 9.9
Hemp 214 1.35 68 15 10
Coir 100 1.2 32–43 0.15–0.25 40–45
Ramie 100 1.44 68.6–76.2 13–16 0.6–0.7
Abaca 70 1.5 56–63 20–25 7–9

Fig. 4. Fibre debonding after water sorption.

1419
Sakshi Shantharam Kamath and Ravi Kumar Chandrappa
increases with increasing fibre content, increasing time duration
exposed to moist conditions; thereby resulting in ineffective stress
transfer from resin to fibre causing failure of the composites man-
ufactured [24–27]. Because of these short comings in the natural
fibres, certain surface modification of the fibres can be done using
chemical treatment or by incorporating additives in composite fab-
rication. In the current review, focus is done on the latter part
where the recent research done on different additives in natural
fibre composites are highlighted. The classification of additives is
given in Table 2.
5. Additives in natural fibre composites
5.1. Plasticizers
Torres et al investigated effect on mechanical properties by the
addition of ethylene, glycol, propylene glycol, chitosan, glycerol
and water on sisal, jute and cabuya reinforced composite with
potato, sweet potato and corn starch as the matrix. The concentra-
tion of plasticizers was used from 0 to 10%. The composites with
10% sisal fibres showed maximum mechanical properties com-
pared to other fibre reinforcements. The fibre agglomeration was
seen in the composites with fibre percentage greater than 125.
The plasticizers resulted in the increase in the mechanical proper-
ties of the composites out of which ethylene glycol and glycerol
showed better results among other plasticizers[28].
Srinivas et al in year 2014 investigated on the flexural strength
of Areca frond fibre-starch based bio-composites. The matrix had
the combination of base material, binder and plasticizer as shown
in the Table 3. The Taguchi analysis revealed highest delta (5.39)
value to glycerol which acts as a plasticizer which is the major fac-
tor for highest flexural strength value of the composite manufac-
tured. The combination of base 170 g, binder 10 g and the
plasticizer 5 g gave maximum flexural strength of 16.97 MPa
which was analysed according to ASTM D790[29].
Srinivas et al in year 2016 studied the effect of plasticizer on the
strength on areca frond fibre-corn starch composite. The compos-
ites were prepared with varying percentage of water, glycerol,
vinegar, cellulose acetate and agarose. Glycerol acts as plasticizer
whose role played a major importance in the tensile strength of
the composites whereas agarose was of least importance. The com-
bination of starch 20 g, water 80 g, vinegar 10 g, cellulose acetate
10 g, agarose 10 g, and glycerol 10 g gave highest tensile strength
of 38.92 MPa. Signal to noise ratio and the delta value for glycerol
was maximum which was recorded as 2.07 and 6.89 respectively
compared to other additives which is the major reason for its
impact on producing composites with higher tensile strength[30].
Table 2
Classification of additives.
Additives Examples Desired Polymer
composite
properties
Plasticizers Ethylene, glycol, chitosan, Improved
glycerol, polypropylene glycol mechanical
strength of the
composites
Fillers Red mud particle, coconut shell Lesser voids
powder, egg shell powder, resulting in better
tamarind seed powder strength
Coupling agents Peroxides, silanes, maleic acid Mechanically
derivatives improved
composites
Flame retardants Metal oxides, hydroxides, Less flammability
halogen based, phosphorous and better
based resistance to fire
1420
Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 1417–1424
Table 3
The bio-degradable matrix composition used in composite fabrication.
Base material Corn starch 30–40 g
Water 60–120 g
Vinegar 5–10 g
Binder Methyl cellulose 5–10 g
Resorcinol 5–10 g
Plasticizer Glycerol 5–20 g
MN Nur et al in year 2016 studied the effect of polyethylene
glycol showing tremendous improvement in the fracture tough-
ness of the composites manufactured. The combination of polylac-
tic acid, kenaf fibre and montmorillonite clay showed 24.5% rise in
fracture toughness of the composite which was recorded to be
416 kJ/m2 [31]. In year 2020, effect of sorbitol and glycerol on
physical properties of Zea Mays biodegradable film was investi-
gated by M D Hazrol et al [32]. The combination of plasticizers
was used in the ratio of 30, 45 and 60 wt%. It was revealed that bet-
ter properties were observed in sorbitol and sorbitol-glycerol com-
bination compared to only glycerol used in Zea Mays films.
5.2. Fillers
Fillers are the additives added to the polymer composites affect-
ing various property of the composite material. Table 4 reveals dif-
ferent fillers used in composite fabrication and its properties.
5.3. Coupling agents
5.3.1. Peroxides
The effect of benzoyl peroxide and dicumyl peroxide on the cer-
eal straw reinforced rubber composite materials was studied by
Marcin et al in year 2018. The scheme for peroxides reacting with
alkali treated fibre cellulose is as shown in Fig. 5. The surface mod-
ification of the fibres was proved by FTIR and SEM analysis. The bio
filler at the range of 10 phr showed highest mechanical properties,
as the percentage of the fibre increased to 20 phr and 30 phr, the
mechanical property of the rubber composite decreased. Thermo-
gravimetric analysis proved that; the addition of coupling agent
enhanced the thermal stability of treated straw-rubber composite
up to 220℃[45].
N H Sari et al in year 2019, studied the effect of dicumyl perox-
ide on pandanwangi fibre reinforced polyethylene composite. The
fibre percentage was kept constant at 10% and the dicumyl perox-
ide were used in the concentration from 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0%, 2.5%
and 4% with respective percentage of polyethylene resin. Tensile,
flexural and impact test was carried out adhering to ASTM 638-
10, ASTM D-790-10 and ASTM D256-06a respectively. The compos-
ites with fibre modified using 4% dicumyl peroxide showed maxi-
mum mechanical properties. The tensile strength was recorded
81.7 MPa, flexural strength 66.86 MPa and impact strength as
found to be 28000 J/mm2,[46].
Sapieha et al in year 1990 studied the effect of benzoyl peroxide
and dicumyl peroxide on cellulose based LLDPE composites. Stud-
ies revealed that dicumyl peroxide effect is greater than benzoyl
peroxide in enhancing mechanical properties of the composites.
The dicumyl peroxide at optimum concentration leads to effective
grafting of polyethylene on cellulose material which is clearly
shown in SEM analysis studied[47].
Vishnu et al in year 2020 studied the effect of coupling agent
dicumyl peroxide on thermal and other tensile properties of areca
fibre reinforced linear low-density polyethylene composite. It was
shown that since areca fibre is hydrophilic in nature thereby natu-
rally showing poor blending with hydrophobic LLDPE resin. This
resulted in the very low tensile strength of the composite because
Sakshi Shantharam Kamath and Ravi Kumar Chandrappa Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 1417–1424

Table 4
Effect of fillers on various properties of the composites.

Fillers Fibres Resin Tensile Flexural Impact Thermal Wear rate References
Red mud particle (SiO2 (15.2%), Al2O3 (16.8%), Fe2O3 Sisal/banana Polyester Increased Increased Decreased – – [33]
(33.8%), Na2O3 (11.87%) and CaO (2.45%)
Red mud particle (20%) Coconut Polyester Increased Increased Increased – – [34]
sheath
Red mud nano particle (15%) Areca fibre Polyester – – – Increased – [35]
Red mud particles (15%) – Polypropylene Increased Increased Decreased Increased – [36]
Red mud particle Bamboo Epoxy Increased Decreased Decreased – – [37]
Red mud particle Madar Polyester Decreased Increased Increased – [38]
Red mud particle (15%) – Polypropylene Increased Increased – [39]
Coconut shell powder (40%) Jute Epoxy – – – – Decreased [40]
Aegle marmelos, Termineliachebula and Soapnuts (3– – Polyester Increased Increased Increased – – [41]
12%)
Egg shell Hemp Epoxy Increased Increased Increased Increased Decreased [42]
Tamarind seed powder Flax Elium Increased Increased [43]
Bagasse ash Sisal, kenaf, Epoxy Decreased Increased – – – [44]
banana, flax

Fig. 5. Scheme of peroxide reacting with cellulose[45].

of ineffective bonding between the fibre and the resin. The addition
of dicumyl peroxide acts as a binder resulted in effective mixing of
fibre and resin relatively increasing the properties of the compos-
ites manufactured[48].
5.3.2. Maleated coupling agents
The effect of maleated polyethylene (MAPE) and maleated tri-
block copolymer styrene/ethylene-butylene/styrene (MASEBS) on
natural fibre reinforced polyethylene composites was studied by
Tian Liu et al in year 2013. The fibres used for the study was pine,
bagasse, rise husk and rice straw. The tensile, flexural and impact
test was carried out following ASTM D638-03, ASTM D790-03
and ASTM D 256 respectively. Tensile and flexural strength were
maximum at 30% fibre loading. The hardness increased by addition
of 5% MASEBS and the compression strength increased drastically
with the addition of 2% MAPE. Further, lesser storage modulus
and higher loss tangent value proved MASEBS to be a good additive
in the composites manufactured[49].
S Mohanty et al have used MAPP(G-3015) as an additive, vari-
ous parameters such as effect of fibre length, various concentra-
tions and different time period of impregnation of the fibres in
the coupling agent have been studied. It was concluded that 30%
fibre loading made of 6 mm average fibre lengths, 0.5% MAPP con-
centration and 5 min impregnation time gave excellent results.
Huge increase of 72.3% in flexural strength was reported by the
1421
authors in the case of treated composites[50]. Similarly, M. Khalid
et al have studied the effect of maleic anhydride grafted
polypropylene (MAPP) on various mechanical properties, on empty
fruit bunch fibre (EFBF) and cellulose based bio composites. They
have reported that, with addition of 2 wt% of MAPP along with
30 % weight of filler i.e. EFBF had given the huge increase of up
to 58% in tensile strength due to better wettability. At the same
time lesser improvement was seen on the cellulose based natural
fibres composite materials with same percentage of MAPP. Further,
there was no improvement in the flexural modulus on addition of
MAPP. Impact strength of the composite at higher loading like 30–
40 % with addition of MAPP did not increase, rather took a down-
ward turn and made the composites with lesser impact strength.
Thus it was concluded from their studies that addition of MAPP
increased only the tensile strength for their composites with no
appreciable increase in other mechanical properties like flexural
modulus or impact strength[51].
5.3.3. Silanes
Silanes mostly in the form of tri alkoxy silanes are one of the
most important coupling agents that are used as additives in both
synthetic and natural fibres. Addition of silanes helps mainly in
better interaction between the fibre and the resin because of its
bifunctional structure. Silanes can be equally applied to natural
fibre polymer composites, as both natural fibres and glass fibres
Sakshi Shantharam Kamath and Ravi Kumar Chandrappa
contain polar hydroxyl groups, and recent literature studies show
that silane is fast accepted as one of the important additives for
bringing the chemical compatibility between resin and natural
fibres[52].
Wang et al investigated effect of silanes on jute fibre reinforced
thermoplastic composites. It was shown that there was an
increased chemical compatibility between the resin and the fibre
on addition of silane. This was evident in the absence of a peak
at 3400 cm 1 which is as shown in Fig. 6. which revealed that
silane treatment removes the hydroxyl group present in jute
fibre[53].
Jiri et al in year 2014 did a comparative study on effectiveness
of coupling agents, Silane and Maleic acid grafted Poly propylene
(MAgPP) in a composite formed by the mixing of Polypropylene
and Tossa jute fibres and they confirmed that silane-based cou-
pling agent is more effective than MAPP additive. Composites
formed by adding Polypropylene resin with 30% fibre loading along
with addition of 1.5 wt% silane resulted in an increase of 179%,
191%, 221% and 264% for tensile strength, flexural strength, tensile
modulus and flexural modulus respectively when compared with
sample made from pure propylene. They also concluded that,
though effect of adding MAPP on mechanical property is slightly
lesser than silane but MAPP is more process friendly as they come
in pellet form when compared to silane which is in liquid form
where proper mixing can be challenging[54].
Bhanu et al studied effect of silane coupling agent on jute fibre
reinforced poly lactic acid composite. The coupling agents used for
the analysis was 2-amino propyl trimethoxy silane and trimethoxy
methyl silane. The storage modulus value and thermal stability of
composites drastically increased with silane treated composites
compared to untreated jute-polylactic acid composite. Wear resis-
tance was higher with the composites having jute fibres modified
with trimethoxy methyl silane where the interfacial bonding
between fibre and resin was stronger[55].
5.4. Flame retardants
The natural fibre composites are used in different applications
like automotive industries, packaging materials, constructions
sites, marine industries; where the safety is of prime importance.
The orientation of the natural fibres along with its aspect ratio is
the key factor in deciding the flame resistance of the composite
Fig. 6. FTIR spectra of effect of Silane on polar OH groups.
1422
Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 1417–1424
[56]. As these natural fibres are made up of cellulose, hemicellu-
lose, lignin, pectin, the flammability of natural fibre depends on
the concentration of these moiety in the fibres[57]. Greater the cel-
lulose content, greater will be the flammability and higher the lig-
nin concentration; higher will be char formation[58]. Cellulose
decomposes at 350 ℃, lignin decomposes in the range of 200 to
600 ℃ and hemicellulose is having least thermal stability and
decomposes at 200 ℃ [56]. The thermal stability of the natural
fibre composites is very less compared to synthetic fibre compos-
ites, because of which there is a need to identify different flame
retardants which can be incorporated during composite fabrication
which will increase thermal stability of composites, thereby reduc-
ing the fire hazards during its use[59]. Different types of flame
retardants which can be used as additives during composite fabri-
cation is given in Fig. 7 [60].
G Dorez et al in year 2012, studied effect of ammonium
polyphosphate on the thermal behaviour of natural fibre reinforced
polybutylene succinate composite. The fibres used were cellulose,
hemp, flax, sugarcane and bamboo. This study revealed that, the
fibres incorporated in matrix reduces thermal stability. Amount
of fibre content affects the peak of heat released rate (pHRR) to a
major amount. Thus, addition of ammonium phosphate acts a
flame retardant and reduces pHRR significantly [61].
In year 2016, addition of nano material graphene and different
types of flame retardants on the thermal stability, flame resistivity
and mechanical properties of palm fibre reinforced epoxy compos-
ite were studied by P Khalili et al. Zinc borate (ZB), ammonium
polyphosphate (APP) and alumina tri hydrate (ATH) was added
as flame retardant. The composites with 15% weight fraction of
ZB and ATH showed greater resistivity towards flame. The addition
of graphene reduced the flame retarding capacity of the compos-
ites. Highest mass residue was observed for composites with flame
retardants, however the mechanical property of flame retardants
added composite materials reduced drastically[62].
Ismail in year 2013 studied the effect of ammonium polyphos-
phate (APP) on kenaf fibre reinforced polypropylene composite.
The maleated polypropylene was added in different proportions
for the effective bonding between fibre and the resin. To check
the flame retardancy, limited oxygen index test (LOI) was done
according to ASTM D 2863. Test revealed that, addition of APP
reduced the flame sensitivity of the composites. The thermal sta-
bility was not affected by addition of APP whereas flexural strength
increased. The impact strength of composite was reduced after
adding APP to the composite[63].
N Li et al in year 2015 studied the effect of APP and Polyethyle-
neimine (PEI), on ramie polybenxoazine composites. Studies
revealed that treatment enhances adhesion between the fibres
and the composites with improving tensile and flexural strength.
The tensile strength and flexural strength without flame retardants
was reported as 44.8 MPa and 56.2 MPa respectively. The treat-
ment with APP and PEI increased tensile and flexural strength to
106.6 MPa and 128.1 MPa respectively. The LOI value of the com-
posites without additives was reported to be 26.5% whereas with
APP and PEI, the LOI value increased to 38.9%[64].
Magnesium hydroxide in combination with boric acid and zinc
borate was used as flame retardants to check its effect on saw dust/
rice husk reinforced polypropylene composites by Sain et al in year
2004. Horizontal burning rate and oxygen index tests revealed that
the flame retardancy was increased up to 50% by the addition of
25% magnesium hydroxide into the composites. Further, when 5%
of magnesium hydroxide was replaced with boric acid and zinc
borate; instead of synergistic effect, the flammability of the com-
posites showed increasing trend. The mechanical properties
reduced with addition of flame retardants[65].
Wang et al in year 2014 studied the effect of Flame retardancy
with respect to maleic anhydride grafted-hemp-high density poly-
Sakshi Shantharam Kamath and Ravi Kumar Chandrappa
Fig. 7. Type of flame retardants[60].
ethylene composite. The flame retardancy was measured using
cone calorimeter. The addition of Maleic anhydride reduced the
flammability of hemp-HDPE composites. At fibre concentration
15% and MAPE concentration of 2% the flame resistivity increased
drastically[66].
It is observed that the mechanical properties and the flame
retardancy are inversely proportional to each other with respect
to natural fibre composites. As a result of this, identifying the bal-
ance between flammability without affecting the mechanical prop-
erties of the composites manufactured becomes important.
Subasinghe et al in year 2016 studied the effect of APP on kenaf
fibre reinforced polypropylene composites. ASTM E1354 was fol-
lowed and flame retardancy test was analysed using cone
calorimeter. APP addition, showed poor flammability of the com-
posites whereas the synergistic effect was seen with respect to
wool and APP in the test conducted using cone calorimeter[67].
Kong et al in year 2020, synthesised a bio-based flame retardant
which is basically mixture of banana peel powder and phytic acid
(PA-B). Banana peel powder (15%) – Poly lactic acid composite
showed LOI of22.1%. When the same test was carried out incorpo-
ration 15% PA-B, the LOI increased to 37.5%. The char formed by
burning of the upper layer of the fibre composite forms a barrier
effect protecting underlying material from further decomposition.
Char residue of banana peel powder composite is 3.3 wt% whereas
for PA-B treated composite it was reported as 10.9 wt% at 550 ℃.
Thus, proving the best usage of banana peel powder along with
phytic acid[68].
6. Challenges and future scope of additives:
As per the literature review work done in this article, additives
play a significant role, in determining the properties of natural
fibre reinforced polymer composites. Selective additive with its
optimum concentration is the key factor in deciding the final out-
come of the composite property, Plasticizers like Glycerol, PEG and
sorbitol is preferred over Agarose, as this shows increased mechan-
ical properties of the composites. Fillers like red mud particles,
coconut shell powder, eggshell powder and tamarind seed powder,
shows an increased general trend in tensile, flexural strength and
thermal property of the composite, whereas impact and wear rate
are seen decreasing. Benzoyl peroxide and dicumyl peroxide shows
1423
Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 1417–1424
increasing thermal stability and slight increase in mechanical
properties. Maleated coupling agents used as additives shows
increase in tensile and flexural strength but reduces flexural mod-
ulus and impact strength of the composites. When Silanes are used
as coupling agents removes –OH group from the cellulose thereby
giving better interaction between fibre and the resin because of its
bifunctional structure. Though flame retardants are known to
increase the flame retarding ability of the composites but at the
expense of its mechanical property. Thus, this review reveals that
a judicious selection of the additives is crucial for the intended out-
come of the composites in future work.
7. Conclusions
The crucial factor that is limiting increased usage of natural
fibres in the production of composite materials is the presence of
polar groups in its surface leading to ineffective bonding with the
resin. Therefore, to overcome this disadvantage, various additives
such as plasticizers, coupling agents, flame retardants and fillers
are incorporated during composite fabrication which effectively
alters the surface property, reducing the hydrophilicity of the
fibres. This results in better bonding between fibre and resin with
the increasing mechanical parameters like tensile strength, flexural
strength, impact strength, thermal stability, flame retardancy of
the composite. Hence, additives allow a great deal of tailoring in
composite formulation to make it fit for envisioned purpose.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sakshi Shantharam Kamath: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Investigation, Resources, Writing – original draft. Ravi Kumar
Chandrappa: Writing - review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Sakshi Shantharam Kamath and Ravi Kumar Chandrappa
Acknowledgement
Authors would like to thank Principal, Alva’s Institute of Engi-
neering and Technology, India for his encouragement.
References
[1] V. K. Balla, K. H. Kate, J. Satyavolu, P. Singh, J. G. D. Tadimeti, Compos. Part B
Eng. 2019, 174, 106956.
[2] S.S. Kamath, D.N. Punith, S. Preetham, S.N. Gautham, K.L. Janardhan, B.B.
Yashwanth, Lect. Notes Mech. Eng. (2021) 33–43.
[3] S. Shahinur, Natural Fiber and Synthetic Fiber Composites : Comparison of
Properties , Performance , Cost and Environmental Bene fi ts, Elsevier Ltd.,
2019.
[4] R.A. Ilyas, S.M. Sapuan, M.N. Norizan, M.S.N. Atikah, M.R.M. Huzaifah, A.M.
Radzi, M.R. Ishak, E.S. Zainudin, S. Izwan, A.M. Noor Azammi, R. Jumaidin, Z.M.
Ainun, R. Syafik, A. Nazrin, A. Atiqah, Pros. Semin. Enau Kebangs. 2019 (2019)
2–11.
[5] Z.N. Azwa, B.F. Yousif, A.C. Manalo, W. Karunasena, Mater. Des. 47 (2013) 424–
442.
[6] C.H. Lee, A. Khalina, S.H. Lee, M. Liu, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020 (2020).
[7] Y.G. Thyavihalli Girijappa, S. Mavinkere Rangappa, J. Parameswaranpillai, S.
Siengchin, Front. Mater. 6 (2019) 1–14.
[8] S.S. Kamath, D. Sampathkumar, B. Bennehalli, Ciência Tecnol. dos Mater. 29
(2017) 106–128.
[9] L. Kerni, S. Singh, A. Patnaik, N. Kumar, Mater. Today Proc. 28 (2020) 1616–
1621.
[10] M.S.S. Godara, Mater. Today Proc. 18 (2019) 3428–3434.
[11] M.B. Sticklen, Nat. Rev. Genet. 9 (2008) 433–443.
[12] H. Suryanto, E. Marsyahyo, Y.S. Irawan, R. Soenoko, J. Nat. Fibers 11 (2014)
333–351.
[13] M.M. Kabir, H. Wang, K.T. Lau, F. Cardona, Appl. Surf. Sci. 276 (2013) 13–23.
[14] A. Célino, S. Fréour, F. Jacquemin, P. Casari, Front. Chem. 1 (2014) 1–12.
[15] N. Reddy, Y. Yang, Polymer (Guildf). 46 (2005) 5494–5500.
[16] S.J. Eichhorn, C.A. Baillie, N. Zafeiropoulos, L.Y. Mwaikambo, M.P. Ansell, A.
Dufresne, K.M. Entwistle, P.J. Herrera-Franco, G.C. Escamilla, L. Groom, M.
Hughes, C. Hill, T.G. Rials, P.M. Wild, J. Mater. Sci. 36 (2001) 2107–2131.
[17] M.J. John, S. Thomas, Carbohydr. Polym. 71 (2008) 343–364.
[18] M.M. Kabir, H. Wang, K.T. Lau, F. Cardona, Compos. Part B Eng. 53 (2013) 362–
368.
[19] L. Mohammed, M.N.M. Ansari, G. Pua, M. Jawaid, M.S. Islam, Int. J. Polym. Sci.
(2015, 2015.).
[20] L. Yusriah, S.M. Sapuan, E.S. Zainudin, M. Mariatti, Procedia Chem. 4 (2012)
87–94.
[21] R. Gauthier, C. Joly, A.C. Coupas, H. Gauthier, M. Escoubes, Polym. Compos. 19
(1998) 287–300.
[22] E. Muñoz, J.A. García-Manrique, Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2015 (2015) 16–18.
[23] M.A. Hidalgo-Salazar, J.H. Mina, P.J. Herrera-Franco, Compos. Part B Eng. 55
(2013) 345–351.
[24] G. Bujjibabu, V.C. Das, M. Ramakrishna, K. Nagarjuna, Mater. Today Proc. 5
(2018) 12249–12256.
[25] A. Espert, F. Vilaplana, S. Karlsson, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 35 (2004)
1267–1276.
[26] K. Meenalochani, R. Vijayasimha, Int. J. Innov. Res. Adv. Eng. 4 (2017) 143–147.
[27] S. Vijayakumar, S. Manikandan, L. Karunamoorthy, Adv. Mater. Res. 984–985
(2014) 248–252.
[28] F.G. Torres, O.H. Arroyo, C. Gomez, J. Thermoplast. Compos. Mater. 20 (2007)
207–223.
[29] S.S. Heckadka, M.V. Kini, R.P. Ballambat, S.S. Beloor, S.R. Udupi, U.A. Kini, Int. J.
Manuf. Eng. 2014 (2014) 1–6.
1424
Materials Today: Proceedings 50 (2022) 1417–1424
[30] S. Shenoy, Heckadka, S. Yeshwant, Nayak, S. Ramakrishna, Vikas, M. Vijaya,
Kini, N.H. Padmaraj, Indian,, J. Sci. Technol. 9 (2016) 1–6.
[31] M. N. Nur Aimi, H. Anuar, 2016, 263-280.
[32] M.D. Hazrol, S.M. Sapuan, M.Y.M. Zuhri, E.S. Zainudin, N.I.A. Wahab, R.A. Ilyas,
M.M. Harussani, T. Jamal, A. Nazrin, R. Syafiq, 7Th Postgrad, Semin. Nat. Fibre
Reinf. Polym. Compos. 2020 (2020) 1–10.
[33] V. Arumuga Prabu, V. Manikandan, M. Uthayakumar, S. Kalirasu, Mater. Phys.
Mech. 15 (2012) 173–179.
[34] S. Vigneshwaran, M. Uthayakumar, V. Arumugaprabu, J. Clean. Prod. 276
(2020) 124278.
[35] C. Boopathi, N. Natarajan, R.K. Sanjeev, V. Meganathan, P. Kavin, Int. Conf.
Mater. Manuf. Mach. 2019 (2128) (2019) 020020.
[36] Y. Zhang, A. Zhang, Z. Zhen, F. Lv, P.K. Chu, J. Ji, J. Compos. Mater. 45 (2011)
2811–2816.
[37] S. Biswas, A. Satapathy, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) 1752–1767.
[38] P. Ganeshan, K. Raja, Int. J. Adv. Eng. Technol. Int J Adv Engg Tech 261-264.
[39] J. Zhang, K. Chaisombat, S. He, C.H. Wang, Mater. Des. 36 (2012) 75–80.
[40] P. Gopal, V.K. Bupesh, Raja, M. Chandrasekaran, C. Dhanasekaran, ARPN,, J.
Eng. Appl. Sci. 12 (2017) 2485–2490.
[41] L. Prasad, G. Singh, M. Pokhriyal, Mater. Today Proc. 5 (2018) 16990–16994.
[42] J.P. Inbakumar, S. Ramesh, Trans. Can. Soc. Mech. Eng. 42 (2018) 280–285.
[43] D.K. Selvaraj, F.J.G. Silva, R.D.S.G. Campilho, A. Baptista, G.F.L. Pinto, Procedia
Manufacturing, Elsevier B.V. (2019) 1121–1129.
[44] S. Vivek, K. Kanthavel, A. Torris, V. Kavimani, 2020, 17, 1-9.
[45] M. Masłowski, J. Miedzianowska, K. Strzelec, Cellulose 25 (2018) 4711–4728.
[46] N.H. Sari, M.R. Sanjay, G.R. Arpitha, C.I. Pruncu, S. Siengchin, Compos.
Commun. 15 (2019) 53–57.
[47] S. Sapieha, P. Allard, Y.H. Zang, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 41 (1990) 2039–2048.
[48] K.S. Vishnu, P.A. Anuroop, L.P. Anto, L. Mathew, K. Shunmugesh, Mater. Today
Proc. 24 (2019) 1924–1931.
[49] T. Liu, Y. Lei, Q. Wang, S. Lee, Q. Wu, BioResources 8 (2013) 4619–4632.
[50] S. Mohanty, S.K. Nayak, S.K. Verma, S.S. Tripathy, J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 23
(2004) 625–637.
[51] M. Khalid, S. Ali, L.C. Abdullah, C.T. Ratnam, S. Thomas Choong, Int. J. Eng.
Technol. 3 (2006) 79–84.
[52] Y. Xie, C.A.S. Hill, Z. Xiao, H. Militz, C. Mai, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 41
(2010) 806–819.
[53] X. Wang, Y. Cui, Q. Xu, B. Xie, W. Li, J. Vinyl Addit. Technol. 16 (2010) 183–188.
[54] B. Jiri, L. Petr, H. Jiri, S. Martin, B. Lubos 669 (2016) 52–59.
[55] B.K. Goriparthi, K.N.S. Suman, N. Mohan, Rao, Compos., Part, A, Appl., Sci.
Manuf. 43 (2012) 1800–1808.
[56] R. Sonnier, A. Taguet, L. Ferry, J.-M. Lopez-Cuesta, Towar. Bio-based Flame
Retard. Polym. (2018) 33–72.
[57] J.T. Kim, A.N. Netravali, Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 41 (2010) 1245–1252.
[58] M. Vinay, S. Anshuman, Org. Med. Chem. 4 (2017) 8–10.
[59] A. Elsabbagh, A. Ramzy, T. Attia, G. Ziegmann, Adv. Nat. Fibre Compos. (2018)
127–134.
[60] M. Bar, R. Alagirusamy, A. Das, Fibers Polym. 16 (2015) 705–717.
[61] G. Dorez, A. Taguet, L. Ferry, J.M. Lopez-Cuesta, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 98 (2013)
87–95.
[62] P. Khalili, K.Y. Tshai, I. Kong, C.H. Yeoh, Key Eng. Mater. 701 (2016) 286–290.
[63] A. Ismail, A. Hassan, A.A. Bakar, M. Jawaid, Sains Malaysiana 42 (2013) 429–
434.
[64] N. Li, H. Yan, L. Xia, L. Mao, Z. Fang, Y. Song, H. Wang, Compos. Sci. Technol. 121
(2015) 82–88.
[65] M. Sain, S.H. Park, F. Suhara, S. Law, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 83 (2004) 363–367.
[66] K. Wang, F. Addiego, A. Laachachi, B. Kaouache, N. Bahlouli, V. Toniazzo, D.
Ruch, Compos. Struct. 113 (2014) 74–82.
[67] A.D.L. Subasinghe, R. Das, D. Bhattacharyya, J. Mater. Sci. 51 (2016) 2101–2111.
[68] F. bei Kong, Q. lin He, W. Peng, S. bin Nie, X. Dong, J. nian Yang, J. Polym. Res. 27
(2020).