3.9 Review

Targeted Pre-Treatment of Hemp Fibers and the Effect on Mechanical Properties of Polymer Composites

期刊

FIBERS
卷 11, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/fib11050043

关键词

hemp; fibers; pre-treatment; polymer; composites; properties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research on plant-fiber-reinforced composites with well-separated hemp fibers and targeted pre-treatment techniques to enhance mechanical properties has gained significant interest. Selectively removing non-cellulosic components and optimizing fiber surface properties improve interfacial bonding, thermal stability, and resistance to microbial degradation. This study comprehensively reviews these techniques and the impact of hemp fiber as reinforcement on polymeric composite mechanical properties.
Research on plant-fiber-reinforced composites has gained significant research interest since it generates composites with exceptional mechanical properties; however, the potential of hemp fibers can only be fully exploited if the fibers are well separated from the bundle to achieve cellulose-rich fibers. This is because well-separated bast fibers that are long and exhibit higher fiber aspect ratio enhance the mechanical properties of the composite by influencing property translations upon loading. A key feature for successful implementation of natural fibers is to selectively remove non-cellulosic components of hemp fiber to yield cellulose-rich fibers with minimal defects. Targeted pre-treatment techniques have been commonly used to address the aforementioned concerns by optimizing properties on the fiber's surface. This in turn improves interfacial bonding between the fibers and the hydrophobic polymer, enhances the robustness of hemp fibers by improving their thermal stability and increases resistance to microbial degradation. In this study, we comprehensively review the targeted pre-treatment techniques of hemp fiber and the effect of hemp fiber as a reinforcement on the mechanical properties of polymeric composites.

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

3.9
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