4.6 Article

Evaluation of the Performance of Bio-Based Rigid Polyurethane Foam with High Amounts of Sunflower Press Cake Particles

Journal

MATERIALS
Volume 14, Issue 19, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14195475

Keywords

sunflower press cake; polyurethane foam; thermal insulation; sustainability; mechanical performance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that 10-20 wt.% SFP filler had the most significant positive impact, with improvements in thermal conductivity by 9% and 17%, compressive strength by 11% and 28% perpendicular direction and by 43% and 67% in the parallel direction. Tensile strength showed increments of 49% and 61% at 10 wt.% and 20 wt.% SFP filler. Additionally, SFP filler-modified PUR foams exhibited lower water absorption values and improved microstructures.
In the current study, rigid polyurethane foam (PUR) was modified with 10-30 wt.% sunflower press cake (SFP) filler, and its effect on performance characteristics-i.e., rheology, characteristic foaming times, apparent density, thermal conductivity, compressive strength parallel and perpendicular to the foaming directions, tensile strength, and short-term water absorption by partial immersion-was evaluated. Microstructural and statistical analyses were implemented as well. During the study, it was determined that 10-20 wt.% SFP filler showed the greatest positive impact. For instance, the thermal conductivity value improved by 9% and 17%, respectively, while mechanical performance, i.e., compressive strength, increased by 11% and 28% in the perpendicular direction and by 43% and 67% in the parallel direction. Moreover, tensile strength showed 49% and 61% increments, respectively, at 10 wt.% and 20 wt.% SFP filler. Most importantly, SFP filler-modified PUR foams were characterised by two times lower water absorption values and improved microstructures with a reduced average cell size and increased content in closed cells.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available