4.5 Article

Bio-resourced furan resin as a sustainable alternative to petroleum-based phenolic resin for making GFR polymer composites

期刊

IRANIAN POLYMER JOURNAL
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 287-299

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13726-020-00793-w

关键词

Furan bioresin; Resole phenolic resin; Biocomposite; Silane-modified woven glass fiber; Talc; Mechanical properties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Toward sustainability of polymer-matrix composites, this study aimed to prepare and evaluate glass fiber reinforced (GFR) biocomposites of fully bio-based furan resin, and their partial comparison with those from resole phenolic resin used commonly in composite industry. Thus, the bioresin, poly(furfuryl alcohol), PFA, was synthesized using a sulfonic acid catalyst. A furan biocomposite with a woven glass fiber (GF), modified by (3-aminopropyl)-triethoxysilane, and various percentages of talc filler were prepared. The mechanical properties of the GFR composite specimens were studied using three-point bending test, tensile test, and dynamic mechanical thermal analysis. Flexural strength was enhanced from 202 to 240 MPa by employing modified fibers, while using 1, 3 and 5 wt% of talc, it reached to 235, 252 and 228 MPa, respectively. Simultaneous use of the modified fibers and 3 wt% of talc significantly improved the flexural strength up to 327 MPa. The scanning electron microscope images evidently confirmed an increase in fiber-matrix adhesion in bioresins with modified fibers and talc. Thermogravimetric analysis established a promotion of thermal properties as a result of the apparent initial decomposition temperature, which was more obvious for the modified fiber containing biocomposites. Finally, the superiority of the bioresin was proved by comparing it to its petro-based counterpart in acidic, basic, and organic solvents. Thus, in many common uses, the inexpensive sustainable PFA bioresin can be considered as a promising alternative to a non-sustainable phenolic resin originated from petroleum resource.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据