Bio-based Wood Polymer Nanocomposites: A Sustainable High-Performance Material for Future

  • Ankita Hazarika
  • Prasanta Baishya
  • Tarun K. MajiEmail author
Part of the Advanced Structured Materials book series (STRUCTMAT, volume 75)


Numerous studies are underway on the preparation and applications of petroleum-based polymer nanocomposites. The depletion of world oil pool, nonbiodegradability, and raising cost of petroleum-based materials are some of the disadvantages allied with these polymers-based products. The utilization of renewable materials has attracted researchers because of its easy availability and low cost. They can potentially remove the harmful effects of petroleum-based materials and thus show a greener path in the fields of application of composites. The biocomposites developed by using renewable polymers such as furfuryl alcohol, poly(lactic acid), gluten, starch, soy flour, etc., and naturally available fibers have been gaining considerable attention because of their environment-friendly nature. Wood is a biologically derived biodegradable raw material which requires minimum processing energy. Wood polymer composites (WPC) have tremendous advantageous properties and it rapidly improves the mechanical, physical, chemical as well as other properties of the composite suitable for different outdoor and indoor applications. The properties of the WPC can be improved to the desired level through the application of nanotechnology, cross-linking agents, flame retardants, grafting, etc. Nano-based wood polymer composite provides versatile advantages in their properties compared to the conventional WPC. Flame retardants obtained from renewable resource such as the gum of the plant Moringa oleifera can efficiently improve the flame retardancy along with other properties of the composites. This chapter discusses the various properties of renewable polymer-based wood polymer nanocomposites as a potential, sustainable, green composite to attain durability without using harmful chemicals.


Wood Bioresins Bionanocomposites Properties 


  1. Adeosun SO, Lawal GI, Balogun SA, Akpan EI (2012) Review of green polymer nanocomposites. J Miner Mater Charact Eng 11:385–416Google Scholar
  2. Agnantopoulou E, Tserki V, Marras S, Philippou J, Panayiotou C (2012) Development of biodegradable composites based on wood waste flour and thermoplastic starch. J Appl Polym Sci 126:E272–E280Google Scholar
  3. Ashori A (2008) Wood–plastic composites as promising green-composites for automotive industries. Bioresour Technol 99:4661–4667Google Scholar
  4. Athawale VD, Rathi SC (1997) Synthesis and characterization of starch–poly(methacrylic acid) graft copolymers. J Appl Polym Sci 66:1399–1403Google Scholar
  5. Baishya P, Maji TK (2014) Studies on Effects of different crosslinkers on the properties of starch based wood composites doi: 10.1021/sc5002325 Google Scholar
  6. Baysal E (2002) Determination of oxygen index levels and thermal analysis of scots pine (Pinussylvestris L.) impregnated with melamine formaldehyde-boron combinations. J Fire Sci 20:373–389Google Scholar
  7. Baysal E, Ozaki SK, Yalinkilic MK (2004) Dimensional stabilization of wood treated with furfuryl alcohol catalysed by Borates. Wood Sci Technol 38:405–415Google Scholar
  8. Bhattacharya A, Misra BN (2004) Grafting: a versatile means to modify polymers techniques, factors and applications. Prog Polym Sci 29:767–814Google Scholar
  9. Cao X, Chang PR, Huneault MA (2008a) Preparation and properties of plasticized starch modified with poly caprolactone based waterborne polyurethane. Carbohydr Polym 71:119–125Google Scholar
  10. Cao X, Chen Y, Chang PR, Huneault MA (2007) Preparation and properties of plasticized starch/multi walled carbon nanotubes composites. J Appl Polym Sci 106:1431–1437Google Scholar
  11. Cao X, Chen Y, Chang PR, Muir AD, Falk G (2008b) Starch-based nanocomposites reinforced with flax cellulose nanocrystals. express Polym Lett 2:502–510Google Scholar
  12. Cao X, Wang Y, Zhang L (2005) Effects of ethyl and benzyl groups on the miscibility and properties of castor oil-based polyurethane/starch derivative semi-interpenetrating polymer networks. Macromol Biosci 5:863–871Google Scholar
  13. Chen B, Evans JRG (2005) Thermoplastic starch-clay nanocomposites and their characteristics. Carbohydr Polym 61:455–463Google Scholar
  14. Czaja W, Romanovicz D, Brown RM (2004) Structural investigations of microbial cellulose produces in sattionary and agitated culture. Cellulose 11:403–411Google Scholar
  15. Das S, Saha AK, Choudhury PK, Basak R, Mitra BC, Todd T, Lang S, Rowel RM (2000) Effect of steam pretreatment of jute fiber on dimensional stability of jute composite. J Appl Polym Sci 76:1652–1661Google Scholar
  16. Deka BK, Maji TK (2011) Effect of TiO2 and nanoclay on the properties of wood polymer nanocomposite. Compos Part A 42:2117–2125Google Scholar
  17. Deka BK, Maji TK (2012) Effect of nanoclay and ZnO on the physical and chemical properties of wood polymer nanocomposite. J Appl Polym Sci 124:2919–2929Google Scholar
  18. Deka BK, Maji TK (2013) Effect of SiO2 and nanoclay on the properties of wood polymer nanocomposite. Polym Bull 70:403–417Google Scholar
  19. Deka BK, Mandal M, Maji TK (2012) Effect of nanoparticles on flammability, UV resistance, biodegradability, and chemical resistance of wood polymer nanocomposite. Ind Eng Chem Res 51:11881–11891Google Scholar
  20. Devi RR, Maji TK (2011) Preparation and characterization of wood/styrene-acrylonitrile co-polymer/mmt nanocomposite. J Appl Polym Sci 122:2099–2109Google Scholar
  21. El-Hanafy AA, Elsalam HA, Hafez EE, Borg EL (2008) Molecular characterization of two native Egyptian ligninolytic bacterial strains. J Appl Sci Res 4:1291–1296Google Scholar
  22. Evans BR, O’Neill HM, Malyvanh VP, Lee I, Woodward J (2003) Palladium bacterial cellulose membranes for fuel cells. Biosens Bioelectron 18:917–923Google Scholar
  23. Fernández-Garcia M, Rodriguez JA (2007) Metal oxide nanoparticles, nanomaterials: inorganic and bioinorganic perspectives doi:  10.1002/9781119951438.eibc0331. (Encyclopedia of Inorganic and Bioinorganic Chemistry)
  24. Garcia ZF, Martinez E, Castillo AA, Castano VM (1995) Numerical analysis of the experimental mechanical properties in polyester resins reinforced with natural fibers. J Reinf Plast Compos 14:641–649Google Scholar
  25. Ghosh SN, Maiti S (1998) Adhesive performance, flammability evaluation and biodegradation study of plant polymer blends. Eur Polym J 34:849–854Google Scholar
  26. Giudice CA, Pereyra AM (2007) Fire resistance of wood impregnated with soluble alkaline silicates. Res Lett 2007:1–4Google Scholar
  27. Guhados G, Wan WK, Hutter JL (2005) Measurement of the elastic modulus of single cellulose fibers using atomic force microscopy. Langmuir 21:6642–6646Google Scholar
  28. Habibi Y, Lucia LA, Rojas OJ (2010) Cellulose nanocrystals: chemistry, self-assembly, and applications. Chem Rev 110:3479–3500Google Scholar
  29. Hambir S, Bulakh N, Jog JP (2002) Polypropylene/clay nanocomposites: effect of compatibilizer on the thermal, crystallization and dynamic mechanical behavior. Polym Eng Sci 42:1800–1807Google Scholar
  30. Hartmann MH (1998) Biopolymers from renewable resources. In: Kaplan DL (ed) Springer, Berlin, Chapter 15, pp 367–411Google Scholar
  31. Haygreen JG, Bowyer JL (1982) Forest products and wood science: an Introduction, 1st edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IowaGoogle Scholar
  32. Hazarika A, Maji TK (2014a) Properties of softwood polymer composites impregnated with nanoparticles and melamine formaldehyde furfuryl alcohol copolymer. Polym Eng Sci 54:1019–1029Google Scholar
  33. Hazarika A, Maji TK (2012) Effect of different crosslinkers on properties of melamine formaldehyde-furfuryl alcohol copolymer/montmorillonite impregnated softwood (Ficus hispida). Polym Eng Sci 53:1394–1404Google Scholar
  34. Hazarika A, Maji TK (2013a) Study on the properties of wood polymer nanocomposites based on melamine formaldehyde-furfuryl alcohol copolymer and modified clay. J Wood Chem Technol 33:103–124Google Scholar
  35. Hazarika A, Maji TK (2013b) Synergistic effect of nano-TiO2 and nanoclay on the ultraviolet degradation and physical properties of wood polymer nanocomposites. Ind Eng Chem Res 52:13536–13546Google Scholar
  36. Hazarika A, Maji TK (2014b) Properties of softwood polymer composites impregnated with nanoparticles and melamine formaldehyde furfuryl alcohol copolymer. Polym Eng Sci 54:1019–1029Google Scholar
  37. Hazarika A, Maji TK (2014c) Strain sensing behavior and dynamic mechanical properties of carbon nanotubes/nanoclay reinforced wood polymer nanocomposite. Chem Eng J 247:33–41Google Scholar
  38. Hazarika A, Maji TK (2014d) Thermal decomposition kinetics, flammability, and mechanical property study of wood polymer nanocomposite. J Therm Anal Calorim 115:1679–1691Google Scholar
  39. Hazarika A, Mandal M, Maji TK (2014) Dynamic mechanical analysis, biodegradability and thermal stability of wood polymer nanocomposites. Compos Part B 60:568–576Google Scholar
  40. Hetzer M, Kee D (2008) Wood/polymer/nanoclay composites, environmentally friendly sustainable technology: a review. Chem Eng Res Des 86:1083–1093Google Scholar
  41. Hill CAS, Abdul KHPS, Hale MD (1998) A study of the potential of acetylation to improve the properties of plant fibres. Ind Crops Prod 8:53–63Google Scholar
  42. Hoffmann MR, Martin ST, Choi WY, Bahnemann W (1995) Environmental application of semiconductor photocatalysis. Chem Rev 95:69–96Google Scholar
  43. Huda MS, Drzal LT, Misra M, Mohanty AK (2006) Wood-fiber-reinforced poly(lactic acid) composites: evaluation of the physicomechanical and morphological properties. J Appl Polym Sci 102:4856–4869Google Scholar
  44. Huda MS, Mohanty AK, Misra M, Drzal LT, Schut EJ (2005) Green composites from recycled cellulose and poly (lactic acid): physico-mechanical and morphological properties evaluation. Mater Sci 40:4221–4229Google Scholar
  45. Hussain F, Hojjati M, Okamoto M, Gorga RE (2006) Review article: polymer-matrix nanocomposites, processing, manufacturing, and application: an overview. J Compos Mater 40:1511–1575Google Scholar
  46. Jana T, Roy BC, Maiti S (2000) Biodegradable film modification of the biodegradable film for fire retardancy. Polym Degrad Stab 69:79–82Google Scholar
  47. Jimenez M, Duquesne S, Bourbigot S (2006) Intumescent fire protective coating: toward a better understanding of their mechanism of action. Thermochim Acta 449:16–26Google Scholar
  48. John MJ, Thomas S (2008) Biofibres and biocomposites. Carbohydr Polym 71:343–364Google Scholar
  49. Johnson MR, Tucker N, Barnes S (2003) Impact performance of miscanthus/ novamont mater bi biocomposites. Polym Test 22:209–215Google Scholar
  50. Juntaro J, Pommet M, Kalinka G, Mantalaris A, Shaffer MSP, Bismarck A (2008) Creating hierarchical structures in renewable composites by attaching bacterial cellulose onto sisal fibers. Adv Mater 20:3122–3126Google Scholar
  51. Karak N (2006) Polymer (epoxy) clay nanocomposites. J Polym Mater 23:1–20Google Scholar
  52. Khanna S, Srivastava AK (2007) Production of poly (3-hydroxybutyric-co-3-hydroxyvaleric acid) having a high hydroxyvalerate content with valeric acid feeding. J Ind Microbiol Biot 34:457–461Google Scholar
  53. Klemm D, Schumann D, Kramer F, Hesler N, Koth D, Sultanova B (2009) Nanocellulose materials—different cellulose, different functionality. Macromol Symp 280:60–71Google Scholar
  54. Lande S, Høibø OA, Larnøy E (2010) Variation in treatability of Scots pine (Pinussylvestris) by the chemical modification agent furfuryl alcohol dissolved in water. Wood Sci Technol 44:105–118Google Scholar
  55. Lande S, Westin M, Schneider M (2004a) Chemistry and ecotoxicology of furfurylated wood. Scand J For Res 19:14–21Google Scholar
  56. Lande S, Westin M, Schneider M (2004b) Properties of furfurylated wood. Scand J For Res 19:22–30Google Scholar
  57. Lande S, Westin M, Schneider MH (2003) Development of modified wood products based on furan chemistry. Mol Cryst Liq Cryst 484:367–378Google Scholar
  58. Lavoine N, Desloges I, Dufresne A, Bras J (2012a) Microfibrillated cellulose—its barrier properties and applications in cellulosic materials: a review. Carbohydr Polym 90:735–764Google Scholar
  59. Lavoine N, Desloges I, Dufresne A, Bras J (2012b) Microfibrillated cellulose—its barrier properties and applications in cellulosic materials: a review. Carbohydr Polym 90:735–764Google Scholar
  60. Leszczy´nska A, Njuguna J, Pielichowski K, Banerjee JR (2007) Polymer/montmorillonitenanocomposites with improved thermal properties. Part II. Thermal stability of montmorillonite nanocomposites based on different polymeric matrixes. Thermochim Acta 454:1–22Google Scholar
  61. Li B, He JM (2004) Investigation of mechanical property, flame retardancy and thermal degradation of LLDPE–wood-fibre composites. Polym Degrad Stab 83:241–246Google Scholar
  62. Li Y, Liu Z, Dong X, Fu Y, Liu Y (2013) Comparison of decay resistance of wood and wood-polymer composite prepared by in-situ polymerization of monomers. Int Biodeter Biodegr 84:401–406Google Scholar
  63. Liang F, Wang Y, Sun XS (1999) Green composites using cross-linked soy flour and flax yarns. J Polym Eng 19:383–393Google Scholar
  64. Liu R, Cao J, Luo S, Wang X (2013) Effects of two types of clay on physical and mechanical properties of poly(lactic acid)/wood flour composites at various wood flour contents. J Appl Polym Sci 127:2566–2573Google Scholar
  65. Malmstrom E, Carlmark A (2012) Controlled grafting of cellulose fibres—an outlook beyond paper and cardboard. Polym Chem 3:727–733Google Scholar
  66. Martinez-Hernandez AL, Velasco-Santos C (2012) Keratin fibers from chicken feathers: structure and advances in polymer composites. Nova Publishers, New York, pp 149-211Google Scholar
  67. Martínez-Hernández AL, Velasco-Santos C, de-Icaza M, Castaño VM (2007) Dynamical–mechanical and thermal analysis of polymeric composites reinforced with keratin biofibers from chicken feathers. Compos Part B Eng 38:405–410Google Scholar
  68. Mathew AP, Dufresne A (2002) Morphological investigation of nanocomposites from sorbitol plasticized starch and tunicin whiskers. Biomacromolecules 3:609–617Google Scholar
  69. Md. Islama S, Hamdana S, Talibb ZA, Ahmeda AS, Md. Rahmana R (2012) Tropical wood polymer nanocomposite (WPNC): The impact of nanoclay on dynamic mechanical thermal properties. Compos Sci Technol 72:1995–2001Google Scholar
  70. Meng QK, Hetzer M, De Kee D (2011a) PLA/clay/wood nanocomposites: nanoclay effects on mechanical and thermal properties. J Compos Mater 45:1145–1158Google Scholar
  71. Meng QK, Hetzer M, Kee DD (2011b) PLA/clay/wood nanocomposites: nanoclay effects on mechanical and thermal properties. J Compos Mater 45:1145–1158Google Scholar
  72. Misra SK, Valappil SP, Roy I, Boccaccini AR (2006) Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA)/inorganic phase composites for tissue engineering applications. Biomacromolecules 7:2249–2258Google Scholar
  73. Mohanty AK, Misra M, Drzal LT (2002) Sustainable bio-composites from renewable resources: opportunities and challenges in the green materials world. J Polym Environ 10:19–26Google Scholar
  74. Mohanty AK, Misra M, Hinrichsen G (2000) Biofibres, biodegradable polymers and biocomposites: an overview. Macromol Mater Eng 276–277:1–24Google Scholar
  75. Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2004) The effect of morphological changes from pulp fiber towards nano-scale fibrillated cellulose on the mechanical properties of high-strength plant fiber based composites. Appl Phys A 78:547–552Google Scholar
  76. Nogi M, Yano H (2008) Transparent nanocomposites based on cellulose produced by bacteria offer potential innovation in the electronics device industry. Adv Mater 20:1849–1852Google Scholar
  77. Oksman K, Skrifvars M, Selin JF (2003) Natural fibres as reinforcement in polylactic acid (PLA) composites. Compos Sci Technol 63:1317–1324Google Scholar
  78. Pandey JK, Kumar AP, Misra M, Mohanty AK, Drzal LT, Singh RP (2005) Recent advances in biodegradable nanocomposites. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 5:497–526Google Scholar
  79. Panshin AJ, de Zeeuw C (1980) Textbook of wood technology: structure, identification, uses, and properties of the commercial woods of the United States, 4th edn. McGraw Hill Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  80. Paul DR, Robeson LM (2008) Polymer nanotechnology: nanocomposites. Polymer 49:3187–3204Google Scholar
  81. Raberg U, Hafren J (2008) Biodegradation and appearance of plastic treated solid wood. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 62:210–213Google Scholar
  82. Raj RG, Kokta BV, Maldas D, Daneault C (1989) Use of wood fibers in thermoplastics. VII the effect of coupling agents in polyethylene-wood fiber composites. J Appl Polym Sci 37:1089–1103Google Scholar
  83. Rowell RM, Young RA, Rowell JK (1997) Paper and composites from agro-based resources. CRC Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton FLGoogle Scholar
  84. Roy D, Semsarilar M, Guthrie JT, Perrier S (2009) Cellulose modification by polymer grafting: a review. Chem Soc Rev 38:2046–2064Google Scholar
  85. Sain M, Park HS, Suhara F, law S (2004) Flame retardant and mechanical properties of natural fibre–PP composites containing magnesium hydroxide. Polym Degrad Stab 83:363–364Google Scholar
  86. Saito R, Dresselhaus G, Dresselhaus MS (1998) Physical properties of carbon nanotubes. Imperial College Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  87. Sakurada I, Nukushina Y, Ito T (1962) Experimental determination of the elastic modulus of crystalline regions in oriented polymers. J Polym Sci 57:651–659Google Scholar
  88. Santayanon R, Wootthikanokkhan J (2003) Modification of cassava starch by using propionic anhydride and properties of the starch-blended polyester polyurethane. Carbohydr Polym 51:17–24Google Scholar
  89. Schneider MH (1995) New cell wall and cell lumen wood polymer composites. Wood Sci Technol 29:135–158Google Scholar
  90. Scott G (2000) Green- polymers. Polym Degrad Stab 68:1–7Google Scholar
  91. Sengupta R, Chakraborty S, Bandyopadhyay S, Dasgupta S, Mukhopadhyay R, Auddy K, Deuri AS (2007) A short review on rubber/clay nanocomposites with emphasis on mechanical properties. Polym Eng Sci 47:1956Google Scholar
  92. Siro I, Plackett D (2010) Microfibrillated cellulose and new nanocomposite materials: a review. Cellulose 17:459–494Google Scholar
  93. Sjostrom E (1993) Wood chemistry: fundamentals and applications, 2nd edn. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  94. Agustin MB, Ahmmad B, Leon ERPD, Buenaobra JL, Salazar JR, Hirose F (2013) Starch-based biocomposite films reinforced with cellulose nanocrystals from garlic stalks. Polym Compos 34:1325–1332Google Scholar
  95. Suda K, Kanlaya M, Manit S (2002) Synthesis and property characterization of cassava starch grafted poly[acrylamide-co-(maleic acid)] superabsorbent via-γ irradiation. Polymer 43:3915–3924Google Scholar
  96. Tábi T, Kovács JG (2007) Examination of injection molded thermoplastic maize starch. Express Polym Lett 1:804–809Google Scholar
  97. Tizzotti M, Charlot A, Fleury E, Stenzel M, Bernard J (2010) Modification of polysaccharides through controlled/living radical polymerization grafting-towards the generation of high performance hybrids. Macromol Rapid Commun 31:1751–1772Google Scholar
  98. Valappil SP, Misra SK, Boccaccini AR, Roy I (2006) Expert Rev Med Devices 3:853–868Google Scholar
  99. Vink ETH, Rabago KR, Glassner DA, Gruber PR (2003) Applications of life cycle assessment to nature works polylactide (PLA) production. Polym Degrad Stab 80:403–419Google Scholar
  100. Vollenberg PHT, Heiken D (1989) Particle size dependence of the Young’s modulus of filled polymers: 1 Preliminary experiments. Polymer 30:1656–1662Google Scholar
  101. Watanabe M, Sakurai M, Maeda M (2009) Preparation of ammonium polyphosphate and its application to flame retardant. Phosphorus Res Bull 23:35–44Google Scholar
  102. Wegner T, Skog KE, Ince PJ, Michler CJ (2010) Uses and desirable properties of wood in the 21st Century. J Forest 108:165–173Google Scholar
  103. Weil ED, Levchik SV, Ravey M, Zhu W (1999) A Survey of recent progress in phosphorus-based flame retardants and some mode of action studies. Phosphorus, sulfur, Silicon Relat Elem 144:17–20Google Scholar
  104. Wool RP, Khot SN, Lascala JJ, Bunker SP, Lu J, Thielemans W (2002) Affordable composites and plastics from renewable resources Part II: Manufacture of composites. Advancing sustainability through green chemistry and engineering. ACS Symp Ser 823:205–224Google Scholar
  105. Xie F, Pollet E, Halleya PJ, Avérous L (2013) Starch-based nano-biocomposites. Prog Polym Sci 38:1590–1628Google Scholar
  106. Xie Y, Hill CAS, Xiao Z, Mai C, Militz H (2011) Dynamic water vapor sorption properties of wood treated with glutaraldehyde. Wood Sci Technol 45:49–61Google Scholar
  107. Yang KK, Wang XL, Wang YZ (2007) Progress in nanocomposite of biodegradable polymer. J Ind Eng Chem 13:485–500Google Scholar
  108. Yanga HS, Kimb HJ, Parkc HJ, Leed BJ, Hwang TS (2007) Effect of compatibilizing agents on rice-husk flour reinforced polypropylene composites. Compos Struct 77:45–55Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ankita Hazarika
    • 1
  • Prasanta Baishya
    • 1
  • Tarun K. Maji
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Chemical SciencesTezpur UniversityAssamIndia

Personalised recommendations