4.7 Article

Characterisation of Sodium Acetate Treatment on Acacia pennata Natural Fibres

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym15091996

关键词

chemical composition; X-ray diffraction; fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; thermal stability; tensile strength

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The physico-chemical, structural, mechanical and thermal properties of Acacia pennata as a potential reinforcement in polymer composites were characterized in this study. Treatment with sodium acetate improved the quality and thermal stability of the fibers. The fiber's tensile strength and elongation at break also increased after treatment. Due to its lightweight property, Acacia pennata fiber can be suggested as a reinforcement in light-weight applications of polymer composites.
The present study concerns the physico-chemical, structural, mechanical and thermal characterization of Acacia pennata, a natural and almost inexpensive fibre, as a potential reinforcement in polymer composites. The effect of treating the fibre with sodium acetate to increase its qualities has been seen through the use of thermogravimetric analysis, scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis, X-ray diffraction (XRD), mechanical property tester, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). According to XRD analysis, the elimination of lignin and wax-like impurities resulted in an increase in the AP fibre's crystalline index (79.73%). The fibre's thermal stability was also discovered to be 365 degrees C. Tensile strength (557.58 MPa) and elongation at break both increased by 2.9% after treatment with sodium acetate. The surface nature and quality of AP fibres improved after sodium acetate treatment. It was confirmed by the reduction of chemical compositions (such as hemicellulose, lignin and pectin). Given its density, the fibre can be suggested as a reinforcement in polymer composites for light-weight applications because its lightweight property will be more useful for composite manufacturing.

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

4.7
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