4.4 Article

Main Characteristics of Underexploited Amazonian Palm Fibers for Using as Potential Reinforcing Materials

期刊

WASTE AND BIOMASS VALORIZATION
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 3125-3142

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12649-018-0295-9

关键词

Piassava; Tucum; Jacitara; Vegetable fibers; Lignocellulosic fibers

资金

  1. CAPES
  2. CNPq
  3. FAPEMIG, Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to present the morphological, chemical, structural, thermal, and tensile properties of three Amazonian palm fibers (Leopoldinia piassaba-PIASSAVA, Desmoncus polyacanthos-JACITARA, and Astrocaryum sp.-TUCUM) and their inner (INN) and outer (OUT) portions, in order to provide support for possible use of these fibers as reinforcement in composites. TUCUM and TUCUM OUT presented the narrower fibers and lower lumen diameters, while JACITARA INN and OUT presented the wider fibers and higher lumen diameters. PIASSAVA and TUCUM INN were the shorter fibers, while JACITARA INN and OUT were the longer. TUCUM fibers presented the higher aspect ratio, wall fraction (WF), and coefficient of rigidity (CR). PIASSAVA fibers contain relatively higher lignin and extractive contents, which led to lower crystallinity index (CI), lower tensile strength (TS), lower modulus of elasticity (E), and higher elongation at break (EB) than others. JACITARA OUT fibers presented higher CI, thermal stability, and mechanical properties than JACITARA INN. TUCUM fibers presented the higher content of cellulose, and the higher values of TS and E, as also corroborated by their higher CI and thermal stability in relation to their counterparts. TUCUM INN exhibited more interesting characteristics (such as higher CI, thermal stability, and mechanical properties) than TUCUM OUT. The experimental results in the present work contribute to the widespread use of the different portions of these underexploited Amazonian palm fibers as a source of raw materials that may be used to engineer composites and new materials for a wide range of applications.

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

4.4
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