4.5 Article

Characterization of Wastes and Coproducts from the Coffee Industry for Composite Material Production

Journal

BIORESOURCES
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages 7637-7653

Publisher

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV DEPT WOOD & PAPER SCI
DOI: 10.15376/biores.11.3.7637-7653

Keywords

Coffee waste/coproduct; Thermal stability; Elemental analysis; Composition; Polymer composite

Funding

  1. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
  2. Competitive Green Technologies (CGTech) through AgriInnovation Program [052880, 052881, 051910]
  3. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) through OMAFRA-University of Guelph Partnership, Bioeconomy-Industrial Uses research theme [200425]
  4. Ministry of Research and Innovation and Ministry of Economic Development, Trade, and Employment through Ontario Research Fund-Research Excellence Round 4 (ORF-RE04) [050231, 050289]
  5. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [401111]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study characterizes and compares coffee chaff (CC) and spent coffee grounds (SCG), the two most useful coffee waste products, and evaluates their performance as fillers and/or reinforcing agents in polymer composites. The morphologies of the CC and the SCG were studied using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Detailed compositional and elemental analyses of the samples were carried out using several techniques. The thermal stabilities of the two types of biomass were evaluated using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Infrared spectroscopy was performed to investigate the functional groups available on the surface of the biomass. It was found that the CC had higher thermal stability, lower fat content, and a denser fibrous structure than the SCG, making it potentially a more suitable material than the SCG for use as a reinforcing filler in polymer composites. To verify this potential, CC and SCG filled polypropylene composites were produced and evaluated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available