http://jrp.sagepub.

com/
Composites
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and
http://jrp.sagepub.com/content/29/3/445
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0731684408098008
2010 29: 445 originally published online 24 April 2009 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites
Md. Rezaur Rahman, Mahbub Hasan, Md. Monimul Huque and Md. Nazrul Islam
Physico-Mechanical Properties of Jute Fiber Reinforced Polypropylene Composites

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites Additional services and information for

http://jrp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jrp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://jrp.sagepub.com/content/29/3/445.refs.html Citations:

by senthilkumar mani on September 19, 2011 jrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Physico-Mechanical Properties of Jute Fiber
Reinforced Polypropylene Composites
MD. REZAUR RAHMAN AND MAHBUB HASAN*
Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia
MD. MONIMUL HUQUE AND MD. NAZRUL ISLAM
Department of Chemistry, Bangladesh University of Engineering
and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
ABSTRACT: Jute fiber reinforced polypropylene composites were manufactured using a single
extruder and an injection molding machine. Raw jute fiber was oxidized and manufactured
composites were post-treated with urea to increase the compatibility of the jute fiber with the
polypropylene matrix. Both raw and oxidized jute fiber was utilized and four levels of fiber loading
(20, 25, 30, and 35 wt%) was used during composite manufacturing. Microstructural analysis
(scanning electron microscopy) and mechanical tests (tensile, flexural, impact, hardness, and water
absorption) were conducted. Post-treated jute fiber reinforced specimens yielded better mechanical
properties compared to the oxidized and raw ones. Based on fiber loading, 30% fiber reinforced
composites had the optimum set of mechanical properties. Authors propose that the bonding
between the polypropylene matrix and urea treated jute fiber must be increased in order to have
improved mechanical properties at higher fiber content.
KEY WORDS: mechanical properties, jute fiber, polypropylene, composite.
INTRODUCTION
O
VER THE PAST several years, there has been an increasing interest in the use of
biodegradable polymers, due to the serious environmental pollution arising from
consumed plastics with time. Biodegradable polymers may be obtained from renewable
resources, and can be synthesized from petrobased chemicals or microbially synthesized in
the laboratory [1]. Polypropylene (PP) is one of the most extensively used plastics both in
developed and developing countries. It provides advantages in regard to economy (price),
ecological (recycling behavior) and technical requirements (higher thermal stability).
Today synthetic polymers are combined with various reinforcing fillers in order to
improve the mechanical properties and obtain the characteristics demanded in actual
application [24]. Research is ongoing in order to replace synthetic fibers with
lignocellulosic fibers as reinforcing fillers [59]. Compared to talc, silica, glass fiber,
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mahbubhs@gmail.com
Journal of REINFORCED PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES, Vol. 29, No. 3/2010 445
0731-6844/10/03 044511 $10.00/0 DOI: 10.1177/0731684408098008
SAGE Publications 2010
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore
by senthilkumar mani on September 19, 2011 jrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
carbon fiber, and other synthetic fibers, the lignocellulosic fibers (corn stalk, rice husk,
rice straw, jute, abaca, saw dust, wheat straw, and grass) decrease wear in the machine
used for their production, are lightweight, easily available, renewable, and inexpensive.
Furthermore they are biodegradable and do not leave residues or result in by-products
that are toxic [1,10]. Besides, natural fibers as filler have advantages over mineral fillers as
they are non-abrasive and reduce the density of furnished products. The cost of producing
lignocellulos polymeric composites is quite low. Hence these composites have attracted
much attention and are becoming increasingly important for the production of large
variety, cheap, light-weight, environment friendly composites [11].
In the present study, jute fiber was used as the reinforcing material since it is produced
on a large scale in the Indian sub-continent, especially Bangladesh, and has a minimal
effect on the environment because of its biodegradable properties [12,13]. Jute is the
cheapest lignocellulogic long vegetable-based fiber and is abundantly available in
Bangladesh. It is traditionally used for making hessian clothes, ropes, gunny and shopping
bags, floor mats, etc. Several researchers have conducted chemical treatment of jute fiber
to improve the mechanical properties of the jute fiber reinforced polymer composites
[12,1416]. In the present study raw jute fiber was oxidized and manufactured composites
were post-treated with urea to increase the compatibility of the jute fiber with the
polypropylene matrix. Thus the aim of this study is to manufacture composites from raw
and oxidized jute fiber and biodegradable PP, post-treat the composites with urea, and
subsequently characterize those using the microstructural analysis and mechanical testing.
The effect of the fiber loading on the mechanical properties and morphology of the jute
fiber reinforced PP are also reported.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The thermoplastic polymer polypropylene (PP), used as matrix material, was supplied
by the Polyolefine Company, Private Limited Singapore in the form of homopolymer
pellets. It had specific gravity of 0.900.91, melting temperatures of 1651718C and
crystallinity of 82% [17]. The jute, used as reinforcing fiber, was collected from Bangladesh
Jute Research Institute (BJRI). It comprises 5961% cellulose, 1517% pentosan,
12.513.5% lignin, 4.85.2% polyuronide, 2.83.5% acetyl value, 0.91.4% fat,
1.561.87% nitrogenous matter, and 0.50.79% mineral substances [18]. Chemicals
used in this study were formic acid (HCOOH), sodium periodate (NaIO
4
), and urea
[CO(NH
2
)
2
] (Marck, Germany).
Oxidation of Jute Fiber
Raw jute fiber was cleaned and chopped into an approximate length of 3 mm, followed
by air and oven drying (1058C for 5 h). Dried jute fiber was immersed in 0.06 M sodium
periodate solution at a fiber to liquid ratio of 1 : 16. This oxidation reaction was
continued for 5 h at 708C followed by cooling and isolation of the oxidized jute fibers.
The oxidized jute fiber was thoroughly washed with tap water and then with distilled
water. Finally the washed oxidized fiber was open-air dried and subsequently oven dried
at 1058C for 6 h.
446 MD. REZAUR RAHMAN ET AL.
by senthilkumar mani on September 19, 2011 jrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Fabrication of Composites and Test Specimens
Both raw and oxidized dried jute fiber (20, 25, 30, and 35 wt%) was initially mixed
thoroughly with PP granules. The mixtures were passed through a single screw extruder
machine at a constant temperature of 135 58C. The extruded composites were cut into
1520 cm long pieces. All the pieces were then crushed into smaller granules using a
grinding machine (Model FFC-23, Machinery Company Limited, India). The granules
were dried in a vacuum oven at 658C for 1 h. The tensile and flexural test specimens were
prepared from the dried granulates molded using single cavity as per ASTM standard
using the injection molding machine at a molding temperature of 1658C.
Post-treatment of Composites
Urea was dissolved in distilled water contained in a wide flat-bottomed conical flask and
pH of the solution was adjusted at 3 by adding formic acid. Composites were then taken at
15% urea solution. The reaction was carried out at 908C using a magnetic stirrer hotplate
for 2.5 h. The specimens were occasionally stirred and changed into an upside-down
position at 15 min intervals to get proper reaction on both sides. After the reaction was
completed, the specimens were taken out and thoroughly washed with water using a soft
brush. Finally the water from the surface of the composites was removed with a soft cloth.
Microstructural Analysis
SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY (SEM)
The interfacial bonding between the jute fiber and PP matrix in manufactured
composites were examined using a Scanning Electron Microscope (JSM-6701F) supplied
by JEOL Company Limited, Japan. The results are presented in the results and
discussion section.
Mechanical Testing
Tensile, flexural, charpy impact, hardness, and water absorption tests were conducted.
For each test and type of composite, ten specimens were tested and the average values
are reported.
TENSILE TEST
Tensile tests were conducted according to ASTM D 638-01 [19] using a Universal
Testing Machine (Model: MSC-5/500, Agawn Seiki Company Limited, Japan) at a
crosshead speed of 10 mm/min.
FLEXURAL TEST
Static flexural tests were carried out according to ASTM D 790-00 [20] using the same
Testing Machine mentioned above at the same cross-head speed. The flexural strength
and modulus were calculated using the following equations:
flexural strength,
f

3PL
2bd
2
1
flexural modulus, E
L
3
m
4bd
3
2
Properties of Jute Fiber Reinforced Polypropylene Composites 447
by senthilkumar mani on September 19, 2011 jrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
where P is the maximum applied load, L is the length of support span, m is the slope of the
tangent, and b and d are the width and thickness of the specimen respectively.
CHARPY IMPACT TEST
Dynamic charpy impact tests were conducted on notched composite specimens
according to ASTM D 6110-97 [21] using a Universal Impact Testing Machine.
WATER ABSORPTION TEST
In order to measure the water absorption characteristics of the composites, rectangular
specimens were prepared having dimension of 39 10 4.1 mm. The specimens were dried
in an oven at 1058C, cooled in a desiccator using silica gel and immediately weighed.
Denver Instron balance was used for weight measurement. The dried and weighed
specimens were immersed in hot distilled water according to ASTM D 570-99 [22] for 2 h.
After immersion, the excess water on the surface of the specimens were removed using a
soft cloth. The final weight of the specimens was then taken. The increase in the weight of
the specimens was calculated using the equation:
water absorption %
final weight original weight
original weight
100: 3
HARDNESS TEST
The hardness of the composites was measured using a Rockwell Hardness Testing
Machine according to ASTM D785-98 [23]. Results are shown in the following section.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Tensile Properties
Tensile strength of the raw and oxidized jute fiber reinforced PP composites and urea
post-treated composites at different fiber loading is shown in Figure 1. For the raw jute
fiber composites, the tensile strength decreased with fiber loading [2,3,5,7,24,25] which is in
accordance with other researchers. As the fiber load increased, the weak interfacial area
between the fiber and matrix increased, which consequently decreased the tensile strength.
In order to increase the compatibility of the jute fiber with PP matrix, raw jute fiber was
oxidized and manufactured composites were post-treated with urea. This consequently
increased the tensile strength of the 20% fiber loaded post-treated composites compared to
the PP matrix itself (0% jute fiber). Tensile strength of the oxidized and post-treated
composites decreased with fiber loading due to the same reason mentioned above.
Again the tensile strength of the urea treated composites is significantly higher than those
of the oxidized and raw ones. It is found that the tensile strength increased approximately
1420% over the raw jute fiber composites, while the increment was 1115% over the
oxidized jute-PP composites.
Figure 2 shows the variation of the Youngs modulus at different fiber loading.
The Youngs modulus increased with fiber loading in accordance with other researchers
[5,7,8,12,14,25,26]. During tensile loading, partially separated micro-spaces are created,
448 MD. REZAUR RAHMAN ET AL.
by senthilkumar mani on September 19, 2011 jrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
which obstruct stress propagation between the fiber and matrix [27]. As the fiber load
increases, the degree of obstruction increases, which consequently increases the stiffness.
Again there is an increase in stiffness in post-treated composites compared to the raw and
oxidized ones.
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
10 0 5 15 20 25 30 35 40
Jute (wt%)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Raw
Oxidized
Oxidized & post-treated
Figure 1. Variation of tensile strength at different fiber loading.
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
10 0 5 15 20 25 30 35 40
Jute (wt%)
Y
o
u
n
g
'
s

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
G
P
a
)
Raw
Oxidized
Oxidized and treated
Figure 2. Variation of the Youngs modulus at different fiber loading.
Properties of Jute Fiber Reinforced Polypropylene Composites 449
by senthilkumar mani on September 19, 2011 jrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Flexural Properties
Flexural strength and modulus of the raw and oxidized jute fiber composites and urea
post-treated composites at different fiber loading are shown in Figures 3 and 4
respectively. The flexural strength increased with fiber loading [8,12,26], however there
was a decrement from 30 to 35% fiber loaded composites (Figure 3). Post-treated jute
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Jute (wt%)
F
l
e
x
u
r
a
l

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
G
P
a
)
Raw
Oxidized
Oxidized and post-treated
Figure 4. Variation of flexural modulus at different fiber loading.
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Jute (wt%)
F
l
e
x
u
r
a
l

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
M
P
a
)
Raw
Oxidized
Oxidized and post-treated
Figure 3. Variation of flexural strength at different fiber loading.
450 MD. REZAUR RAHMAN ET AL.
by senthilkumar mani on September 19, 2011 jrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
composites yielded higher flexural strength compared to the oxidized and raw ones. It is
found that the flexural strength increased by approximately 621% over the raw jute fiber
composites, while the increment was 314% over the oxidized jutePP composites.
According to Figure 4, flexural modulus increased with fiber loading as found by other
researchers [8,24,26]. Flexural modulus of the post-treated composites was higher than
those of the oxidized and raw jute fiber composites.
Impact Strength Results
Variation of the charpy impact strength with fiber loading for both raw and oxidized
jute composites and urea post-treated composites is shown in Figure 5. Impact strength
increased with filler loading [26,28,29]. However there was a decrease in the impact
strength from 30 to 35% fiber-loaded composites. One of the factors of impact failure of
composite is fiber pull out. With increase in the fiber loading, bigger force is required to
pull out the fibers. This consequently increased the impact strength. Impact strength of
the post-treated jute fiber composites was higher than those of the raw and oxidized ones.
The coupling reaction between the aldehyde group of the oxidized jute with the urea
molecules in the composite material was the cause of improvement of the impact strength
in the post-treated jute composites.
Hardness Results
Figure 6 shows the hardness of various manufactured composites at different fiber
loading. Average hardness increased with oxidation of jute fiber, urea post-treatment
and fiber loading [30]. This is due to the increase of stiffness of the respective composites.
Post-treated jute fiber reinforced composites yielded higher hardness compared to the raw
and oxidized ones.
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Jute (wt%)
C
h
a
r
p
y

i
m
p
a
c
t

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

(
J
/
m
)
Raw
Oxidized
Oxidized and post-treated
Figure 5. Variation of impact strength at different fiber loading.
Properties of Jute Fiber Reinforced Polypropylene Composites 451
by senthilkumar mani on September 19, 2011 jrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Water Absorption Characteristics
Water absorption characteristics of the manufactured composites against fiber loading
are shown in Figure 7. Water absorption (%) increased with fiber loading [2,24]. The urea
post-treated composites had higher water content compared to the raw and oxidized jute
composites. This may be due to the effect of the functional group polarity. Urea has
carbamide and amide groups, which are more polar than aldehyde and hydroxyl groups.
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Jute (wt%)
H
a
r
d
n
e
s
s

(
R
o
c
k
w
e
l
l

L
)
Raw
Oxidized
Oxidized and post-treated
Figure 6. Variation of hardness at different fiber loading.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Jute (wt%)
W
a
t
e
r

a
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
Raw
Oxidized
Oxidized and post-treated
Figure 7. Variation of water absorption at different fiber loading.
452 MD. REZAUR RAHMAN ET AL.
by senthilkumar mani on September 19, 2011 jrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Thus post-treatment increased the mechanical properties of the composites, but was
unable to decrease the water content of the composites.
Scanning Electron Microscopy
SEM microstructural analysis clearly indicates the improved interfacial bonding and
adhesion between the jute fiber and PP matrix from the raw jute fiber composites to the
oxidized jute composites and finally to the post-treated composites.
According to the results discussed above, the urea post-treatment enhanced the
mechanical properties of the jute fiber reinforced PP composites by improving the
interfacial bonding between the jute fiber and PP matrix. However there was no
improvement in the hydrophilic nature of the jute fiber. Based on the fiber loading, 30%
fiber reinforced composites had the optimum set of mechanical properties. When fiber
content was increased to 35%, the flexural and charpy impact strength decreased.
This may be attributed to the increase in the intermolecular attraction between the urea
reacted fibers compared to the urea treated fiber and PP matrix. Authors propose that
the bonding between the PP matrix and urea treated fiber must be increased in order to
have improved mechanical properties at higher fiber content. This may be achieved
by chemical modification of the PP matrix, thereby changing its hydrophobic nature
to hydrophilic nature.
CONCLUSIONS
In the current work, jute fiber reinforced PP composites were manufactured using a
single extruder and injection molding method. Raw jute fiber was oxidized and
manufactured composites were post-treated with urea to increase the compatibility of
the jute fiber with the PP matrix. Significant effect of the urea post-treatment is observed
in the physico-mechanical properties and micro-structural analysis. The following
conclusions can be drawn from the experimental results of this study:
1. The tensile strength of the composites decreased with an increase in the jute fiber
loading. However, there was an increase in the tensile strength of the 20% post-treated
jute reinforced composite compared to the PP alone.
2. The Youngs modulus, flexural strength, flexural modulus, charpy impact strength,
and hardness of the composites increased with an increase in the fiber loading.
However, the 35% fiber loaded composites had lower flexural and impact strength
compared to the 30% ones.
3. The tensile strength, Youngs modulus, flexural strength, flexural modulus, impact
strength, and hardness of the urea treated jute fiber reinforced composites were higher
than those of the raw and oxidized ones.
4. The urea post-treatment of composites increased the interfacial bonding between the
fiber and matrix, however the hydrophilic nature of the jute fiber was not improved.
5. The authors propose that the 30% jute fiber reinforced PP composites had the optimum
set of mechanical properties in comparison with other manufactured composites.
To have better mechanical properties at higher fiber content, the bonding between the
jute fiber and PP matrix must be improved. Chemical modification of the PP matrix
can achieve this by changing its nature from hydrophobic to hydrophilic.
Properties of Jute Fiber Reinforced Polypropylene Composites 453
by senthilkumar mani on September 19, 2011 jrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
REFERENCES
1. Premlal, H. G. B., Ismail, H. and Baharian, A. (2002). A Comparison of the Mechanical Properties of Rice
Husk Powder Filled Polypropylene Composites with Talc Filled Polypropylene Composites, Polymer
Testing, 21(7): 833839.
2. Yang, H. S., Kim, H. J., Park, H. J., Lee, B. J. and Hwang, T. S. (2006). Water Absorption Behavoir
and Mechanical Properties of Lignocellulosic FillerPolyolefin Bio-Composites, Composite Structure, 72:
429437.
3. Yang, H. S., Kim, H. J., Park, H. J., Lee, B. J. and Hwang, T. S. (2007). Effect of Compatibilizing Agents
on Rice Husk Flour Reinforced Polypropylene Composites, Composite Structure, 77: 4555.
4. Choi, N. W., Mori, I. and Ohama, Y. (2006). Development of Rice HusksPlastic Composites for Building
Materials, Waste Management, 26(2): 189194.
5. Thwe, M. M. and Liao, K. (2002). Effects of Environmental Aging on the Mechanical Properties of
Bamboo-Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Hybrid Composites, Composites A, 33: 4352.
6. Park, B. D., Wi, S. G., Lee, K. H., Singh, A. P., Yoon, T. H. and Kim, Y. S. (2003). Characterization of
Anatomical Features and Silica Distribution in Rick Husk Using Microscope and Micro-Analytical
Techniques, Biomass and Bioenergy, 25: 319327.
7. Yang, H. S., Kim, H. J., Son, J., Park, H. J., Lee, B. J. and Hwang, T. S. (2004). Rick-Husk Flour Filled
Polypropylene Composites; Mechanical and Morphological Study, Composite Structure, 63: 305312.
8. Rana, A. K., Mandal, A. and Bandyopadhyay, S. (2003). Short Jute Fiber Reinforced Polypropylene
Composites: Effect of Compatibiliser, Impact Modifier and Fiber Loading, Composites Science and
Technology, 63: 801806.
9. Singleton, A. C. N., Baillie, C. A., Beaumont, P. W. R. and Pejis, T. (2003). On the Mechanical Properties,
Deformation and Fracture of a Natural Fiber/Recycled Polymer Composite, Composites B, 34: 519526.
10. Vink, E. T. H., Rabago, K. R., Glassner, D. A. and Gruber, P. R. (2003). Applications of Life
Cycle Assessment to Nature Works Polylactide (PLA) Production, Polymer Degradation and Satability, 80:
403419.
11. Stokke, D. D., Kuo, M., Curry, D. G. and Giseslman, H. H. (2001). Grassland Flour/Polyethylene
Composites, Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Woodfiber Plastic Composites, Madison, USA,
pp. 4353.
12. Vilaseca, F., Mendez, J. A., Pelach, A., Llop, M., Canigueral, N., Girones, J. et al. (2007). Composite
Materials Derived from Biodegradable Starch Polymer and Jute Strands, Process Biochemistry, 42: 329334.
13. Planckett, D., Andersen, T. L., Pedersen, W. B. and Nielsen, L. (2003). Biodegradable Composites Based on
L-Polylactide and Jute Fibers, Composites Science and Technology, 63: 12871296.
14. Gassan, J. and Bledzki, A. K. (1999). Possibilities for Improving Mechanical Properties of Jute/Epoxy
Composites by Alkali treatment of Fibers, Composites Science and Technology, 59: 13031309.
15. Sarkar, B. K. and Ray, D. (2004). Effect of the Defect Concentration on the Impact Fatigue Ebdurance of
Untreated and Alkali treated JuteVinylester Composites under Normal and Liquid Nitrogen Atmosphere,
Composites Science and Technology, 64: 22132219.
16. Ray, D., Sarkar, B. K., Das, S. and Rana, A. K. (2002). Dynamic Mechanical and Thermal Analysis of
VinylesterResinMatrix Composites Reinforced with Untreated and Alkali-Treated Jute Fibers, Composites
Science and Technology, 62: 911917.
17. Brydson, J. A. (1999). Plastics Materials, 7th edn, Butterworth-Heinemann, USA.
18. International Jute Study Group Website. (2008) http://www.jute.org/ jute_diversified_prod.htm
19. ASTM Standard D 638-01 (2002). Standard Test Methods for Tensile Properties of Plastices, Annual Book of
ASTM Standard, 08.
20. ASTM Standard D 790-00 (2002). Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and
Reinforced Plastices and Electrical Insulating Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standard, 08.
21. ASTM Standard D 6110-97 (2002). Standard Test Methods for Determining the Charpy Impact Resistance
of Notched Specimens of Plastics, Annual Book of ASTM Standard, 08.
22. ASTM Standard D 570-99 (2002). Standard Test Methods for Water Absorption of Plastices, Annual Book of
ASTM Standard, 08.
23. ASTM Standard D 785-98 (2002). Standard Test Method for Rockwell Hardness of Plastices and Electrical
Insulating Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standard, 08.
24. Lou, C. W., Lin, C. W., Lei, C. H., Su, K. H., Hsu, C. H., Liu, Z. H. et al. (2007). PET/PP Blend with
Bamboo Charcoal to Produce Functional Composites, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 192193:
428433.
454 MD. REZAUR RAHMAN ET AL.
by senthilkumar mani on September 19, 2011 jrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from
25. Jamil, M. S., Ahmed, I. and Abdullah, I. (2006). Effects of Rice Husk Filler on the Mechanical and Thermal
Properties of Liquid Natural Rubber Compatibilized High-Density Polyethylene/Natural Rubber Blends,
Journal of Polymer Research, 13: 315321.
26. Joseph, S., Sreekala, M. S., Oommen, Z., Koshy, P. and Thomas, S. (2002). A Comparison of Mechanical
Properties of Phenol Formaldehyde Composites Reinforced with Banana Fibers and Glass Fibers,
Composites Science and Technology, 62: 18571868.
27. Ismail, H., Edyhan, M. and Wirjosentono, B. (2002). Bamboo Fiber Filled Natural Rubber Composites: The
Effects of Filler Loading and Bonding Agent, Polymer Testing, 21(2): 139144.
28. Lin, J. C., Chang, L. C., Nien, M. N. and Ho, H. L. (2006). Mechanical Behavior of Various Nanoparticle
Filled Composites at Low-Velocity Impact, Composite Structure, 27: 3036.
29. Jayaraman, K. (2003). Manufacturing SisalPolypropylene Composites with Minimum Fiber Degradation,
Composites Science and Technology, 63: 367374.
30. Mishra, S., Naik, J. B. and Patil, Y. P. (2000). The Compatibilising Effect of Maleic Anhydride on Swelling
and Mechanical Properties of Plant-Fiber-Reinforced Novolac Composites, Composites Science and
Technology, 60: 17291735.
Properties of Jute Fiber Reinforced Polypropylene Composites 455
by senthilkumar mani on September 19, 2011 jrp.sagepub.com Downloaded from