Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Agricultural fibres, such as cellulose and protein fibres,
provide an environmentally friendly reinforcement
option for commodity thermoplastic materials such as
polyethylene (PE)1,2 and polypropylene (PP)312 and are
a pathway to obtain materials from sustainable
resources. Agricultural fibres typically are of lower
density than inorganic reinforcements such as talc, glass
or calcium carbonate. The absolute physical properties
of agricultural fibres might not be as high as inorganic
reinforcements, but specific or density normalised
properties are comparable with inorganic fillers.
Agricultural fibres are polymeric and have densities
lower than inorganic fibres so synthetic polymers can be
reinforced with little or no cost to unit weight.
The key to successful enhancement of polymers with
fibres of higher modulus or strength is to achieve good
polymer/fibre interaction.13 Good fibre/polymer interaction can be expected if the two components are
chemically compatible. Plant based cellulosic fibres such
as wood, flax, jute and sisal, and inorganic fibres and
fillers are hydrophilic. However, commodity thermoplastics such as PP are hydrophobic. To get chemical
compatibility between the two, additives such as
coupling agents or compatibilisers are used.1,2,7,13
Maleic anhydride has been used to increase the properties of cellulose fibre reinforced PE1,2 and PP.49 In most
2006
VOL
35
NO
6/7
287
Experimental
Keratin feather fibre
Keratin feather fibre was obtained from Featherfiber
(Nixa, MO) using a process patented by the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA).17 The
feather fibre was semicrystalline and had a diameter of
,5 mm and a density of 0.89 g cm23 (Ref. 15). A more
detailed description of feather fibre can be found
elsewhere.10,11,15,18 Fraser and MacRae report modulus
values of 3.4 and 5.2 GPa and yield stress values of 100
and 200 MPa at relative humidity values of 100 and 65%
respectively for feather rachis.19 Modulus and strength
values of polyolefins are less than the feather values, so
reinforcement of polyolefins with keratin feather fibre is
possible.
Fibres of 0.2 cm length were made by grinding
feather fibre using a Retsch ZM 1000 centrifugal
grinder. The rotational velocity of the instrument was
15 000 rev min21 and contained a torque feedback so as
not to feed in too much material and overload the
motor. The fibre was fed in slowly to avoid motor
overload and to minimise frictional heating of the
instrument and the fibre. Sieving analysis and SEM
imaging of the fibres showed that the majority of the
fibres were in the 0.2 cm length range with a few
percentages of smaller fine particles.
Composite preparation
The PP was ExxonMobil PP9505E1, a random copolymer PP with melt flow index (MFI)530 g/10 min at
230uC and 2.16 kg. The MaPP is ExxonMobil Exxelor
PO1020 and had a reported maleic anhydride substitution of 0.51.0 wt-%. The fibre fraction of the composites was held constant at 20 wt-%. The MaPP content
288
2006
VOL
35
NO
6/7
Composite testing
Composite samples were allowed to sit at ambient
conditions for one week before testing. Uniaxial tensile
testing was performed using a Com-Ten Industries 95 RC
Test System. The applied test speed was 2.5 cm min21.
Four samples of each composite were tested.
Thermal analysis
The thermal properties of the polymers and composites
were assessed using DSC. A TA Instruments DSC 910s
was used according to the procedures outlined in ASTM
D3417 and D3418. Sample sizes of ,5 mg were used in a
N2 atmosphere. The first heating cycle proceeded from
30 to 225uC at 10uC min21. The first heating cycle was
followed by a cooling cycle from 225uC back down to
20uC. The cooling rate could not be controlled. The
heater simply shut off and the DSC cell cooled to 30uC.
Although there may have been some variation in the
cooling step from sample to sample, the room temperature was always 20uC; so it was assumed that the cooling
steps were similar. A second heating cycle then
proceeded from 30 to 225uC. Peak assignments and
areas were determined according to the ASTM procedures. The first heating cycle yielded information about
the state of the polymer as a function of processing
conditions. The heat of fusion of the first heating cycle
DQm,1 and the melting temperature during the first
heating cycle Tm,1 were determined because these values
relate to the crystalline structure of the as tested
composite. The crystalline fraction of each polymer
DQm,1
DQf (1{mf )
(1)
2006
VOL
35
NO
6/7
289
290
2006
VOL
35
NO
6/7
7 Image (SEM) of tensile bar fracture surface for 4 wt-% MaPP composite at a 6300 and b
61000
2006
VOL
35
NO
6/7
291
9 DSC first heating cycle curves for annealed and unannealed PP9505E1 and PP9505E1/20 wt-% 0.2 cm keratin fibre
composites: no MaPP is used in this experiment
Conclusions
Although an increased population of large crystals near
a polymer/fibre interface can physically increase stress
292
2006
VOL
35
NO
6/7
Acknowledgements
Mention of trade names or commercial products in this
article is solely for the purpose of providing specific
information and does not imply recommendation or
endorsement by the US Department of Agriculture. The
present paper is based on a presentation at the
AutoPolymers workshop held in Charleston, SC, USA
in October 2005.
References
1. H. C. Kuan, J. M. Huang, C. C. M. Ma and F. Y. Wang: Plast.
Rubber Compos., 2003, 32, 122126.
2. X. Colom, F. Carrasco, P. Pages and J. Canavate: Compos. Sci.
Technol., 2003, 63, 161169.
3. P. Wambua, J. Ivens and I. Verpoest: Compos. Sci. Technol., 2003,
63, 12591264.
4. A. K. Rana, A. Mandal and S. Bandyopadhyay: Compos. Sci.
Technol., 2003, 63, 801806.
5. K. Oksman and C. Clemons: J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 1998, 67, 1503
1513.
6. J. P. Schneider, G. E. Myers, C. M. Clemons and B. W. English:
J. Vinyl Addit. Technol., 1995, 1, 103108.
7. P. V. Joseph, K. Joseph, S. Thomas, C. K. S. Pillai, V. S. Prasad
and S. M. Groeninckx: Compos. A, 2003, 34A, 253266.
8. A. J. Nunez, J. M. Kenny, M. M. Reboredo, M. I.
Aranguren and M. E. Marcovich: Polym. Eng. Sci., 2002, 42,
733742.
9. A. C. Karmaker and J. A. Youngquist: J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 1996,
62, 11471151.
10. T. A. Bullions, R. A. Gillespie, J. Price-OBrien and A. C. Loos:
J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2004, 92, 37713783.
11. J. Schuster: Proc. Conf. AutoPolymers 2005, San Diego, CA, USA,
July 2003, National Science Foundation and The LusoAmerican
Foundation (Portugal), Paper 4.
12. N. E. Zafeiropoulos, C. A. Baillie and F. L. Matthews: Adv.
Compos. Lett., 2001, 10, 293297.
13. K. K. Chawla: Composite materials; 1987, New York, SpringerVerlag.
14. K. Murayama-Arai, R. Takahashi, Y. Yokote and K. Akahane:
Eur. J. Biochem., 1983, 132, 501507.
15. J. R. Barone and W. F. Schmidt: Compos. Sci. Technol., 2005, 65,
173181.
16. C. Wang and L. M. Hwang: J. Polym. Sci. B, 1996, 34B, 14351442.
17. G. Gassner, W. Schmidt, M. J. Line, C. Thomas and R. M. Water:
US Patent 5705030, 1998.
2006
VOL
35
NO
6/7
293