4.7 Article

A study of the effect of acetylation and propionylation surface treatments on natural fibres

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.01.004

关键词

natural fibres; surface treatments; surface chemistry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, the incorporation of lignocellulosic materials as reinforcing agents or as fillers in polymer composites has received an increased attention. Although natural fibres have a number of advantages over glass fibres, the strong polar character of their surface is a limiting factor, as compatibility with strongly apolar thermoplastic matrices is very low. Such problems of incompatibility may be overcome with fibre pretreatments, which can enhance compatibility, albeit having a negative impact on the economics. In the present study, two fibre pre-treatment methods, acetylation and propionylation, were applied on flax, hemp and wood fibres. The effect of esterification between the acetyl/propionyl groups and the hydroxyl groups of the fibre was examined by attenuated total reflectance-Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), while its extent was assessed by titration. X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were used to characterize the crystallinity and the surface morphology of the untreated and esterified fibres. The highest extent of the esterification reaction was achieved for the wood fibres due to their high lignin/hemicelluloses content. The two spectroscopic methods revealed that the fibre surface chemistry was altered after the treatments, as the results indicated that ester bonds are present on the fibre surface. The SEM results revealed that both treatments resulted in a removal of non-crystalline constituents of the fibres, possibly waxy substances, and alter the characteristics of the surface topography. It was also shown that the fibre crystallinity decreased slightly as a result of esterification. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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