4.5 Article

Characterization Studies of Natural Cellulosic Fibers Extracted from Shwetark Stem

期刊

JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS
卷 18, 期 11, 页码 1934-1945

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15440478.2019.1710650

关键词

Shwetark fibers; chemical analysis; FT-IR analysis; X-ray diffraction; thermogravimetric analysis (TGA); atomic force microscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study characterized cellulose fibers extracted from the stem of Shwetark plant for potential use as polymeric reinforcement. Chemical analysis showed high cellulose content and good thermal stability, making the fibers suitable for various applications. These findings suggest that Shwetark fibers could be prospective candidates to replace harmful synthetic fibers.
The present investigation is mainly aimed to characterize the cellulosic fibers extracted from the stem of Shwetark plant to test its possibility to be used as polymeric reinforcement. Chemical analysis conducted on the Shwetark fibers shows the presence of cellulose (69.65 wt. %), lignin (16.82 wt. %), wax (0.53 wt. %), ash (3.4 wt. %) and wetness content (8.8 wt. %). The density of the fibers is found as 1.364 g/cm(3). Crystallinity index and the crystallite size of the fibers are calculated as 72.06% and 3nm, respectively, from X-ray diffraction analysis while the presence of functional groups is ascertained from Fourier transform infrared analysis. Thermogravimetric analysis shows that the fibers are thermally stable till 225 degrees C, and the fiber morphology seen through scanning electron microscopic shows that the fibers are composed of densely and uniformly packed cellulose microfibrils. Atomic force microscopic studies exemplify that Shwetark fibers can be used for tribological applications. The mean tensile strength and percentage elongation of the Shwetark fibers are found as 309.68 MPa and 1.092%, respectively. Thus, the studies show the possibility of Shwetark fibers as prospective candidates to replace harmful synthetic man-made fibers.

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