Compatibility of Natural Fiber and Hydrophobic Matrix in Composite Modification

  • Oludaisi AdekomayaEmail author
  • Thokozani Majozi
Living reference work entry


Compatibility of natural fiber with hydrophobic matrix is a herculean task in literature works. Part of the concerns may have necessitated the need for modification of natural fiber with chemical treatment in order to evolve composite materials devoid of fiber pull-out, delamination, intralaminar matrix cracking, and other side effects of matrix-fiber interaction. The concept of this chapter is to x-tray the critical reasons behind the fiber disintegration in composite formation which may have allowed matrix susceptible to load-bearing and ultimate failure. Part of the identifiable lapses in the composite formation is generally noticed in the region of fiber absence within the matrix environment which often initiate fiber pull-out mechanism and followed by intense pressure along the fiber environment. In order to reinforce the compatibility of natural fiber and matrix, different approaches have been employed in the literatures. While substantial progress has been made on one part, there appears to be unbroken deficit in the adaptation of natural fiber in some selected applications. The principle of initiation of pull-out which may have occurred as a result of unequal distribution of fiber across the matrix is discussed in details in this work. This chapter provides an in-depth understanding of natural fiber classifications and some of the processing techniques which may have influenced some of these differences. It is expected that this chapter will capture the underlying processing factors which ultimately lead to incompatibility of fiber and the hydrophobic resin.


Natural fiber Modifications Compatibility Matrix Reinforcement 



The financial assistance of the National Research Foundation(NRF) toward this research is hereby acknowleged. Oppinion expressed and conclusions arrived at, are those of the authors and not necessarily to be attributed to the NRF. Appreciation also goes to the School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, for providing the platform to conduct this research.


  1. 1.
    Rana A, Jayachandran K (2000) Jute fiber for reinforced composites and its prospects. Mol Cryst Liq Cryst 353(1):35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ramamoorthy SK, Skrifvars M, Persson A (2015) A review of natural fibers used in biocomposites: plant, animal and regenerated cellulose fibers. Polym Rev 55(1):107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zaman HU, Khan MA, Khan RA (2012) Comparative experimental studies on the mechanical and degradation properties of natural fibers reinforced polypropylene composites. Compos Interfaces 19(1):59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faruk O et al (2012) Biocomposites reinforced with natural fibers: 2000–2010. Prog Polym Sci 37(11):1552–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nayak SK, Dixit G, Appukuttan K (2012) Sisal fiber (SF) reinforced recycled polypropylene (RPP) composites. Int J Plast Technol 16(2):150–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lau K-T et al (2018) Properties of natural fibre composites for structural engineering applications. Compos Part B 136:222–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Adekomaya O et al (2017) Negative impact from the application of natural fibers. J Clean Prod 143:843–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adekomaya O et al (2017) Minimizing energy consumption in refrigerated vehicles through alternative external wall. Renew Sust Energ Rev 67:89–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adekomaya O et al (2016) Sustaining the shelf life of fresh food in cold chain – a burden on the environment. Alex Eng J 55(2):1359–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lambert S, Wagner M (2017) Environmental performance of bio-based and biodegradable plastics: the road ahead. Chem Soc Rev 46(22):6855–6871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koohestani B et al (2019) Comparison of different natural fiber treatments: a literature review. Int J Environ Sci Technol 16(1):629–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xie Y et al (2010) Silane coupling agents used for natural fiber/polymer composites: a review. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 41(7):806–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li H, Sain MM (2003) High stiffness natural fiber-reinforced hybrid polypropylene composites. Polym-Plast Technol Eng 42(5):853–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mechraoui A, Riedl B, Rodrigue D (2007) The effect of fibre and coupling agent content on the mechanical properties of hemp/polypropylene composites. Compos Interfaces 14(7–9):837–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abiola OS et al (2014) Utilisation of natural fibre as modifier in bituminous mixes: a review. Constr Build Mater 54:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu X-D et al (2013) UV-assisted surface modification of PET fiber for adhesion improvement. Appl Surf Sci 264:61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ward CD, Shackleton CM (2016) Natural resource use, incomes, and poverty along the rural–urban continuum of two medium-sized, South African Towns. World Dev 78:80–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Werf HMG, Turunen L (2008) The environmental impacts of the production of hemp and flax textile yarn. Ind Crop Prod 27(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ashori A (2008) Wood–plastic composites as promising green-composites for automotive industries! Bioresour Technol 99(11):4661–4667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fernando AL et al (2015) Environmental aspects of fiber crops cultivation and use. Ind Crop Prod 68:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mohanty A, Misra M, Drzal L (2002) Sustainable bio-composites from renewable resources: opportunities and challenges in the green materials world. J Polym Environ 10(1–2):19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reddy N, Yang Y (2005) Biofibers from agricultural byproducts for industrial applications. Trends Biotechnol 23(1):22–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Felton A et al (2016) How climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies can threaten or enhance the biodiversity of production forests: insights from Sweden. Biol Conserv 194:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pritchard HW et al (2014) Innovative approaches to the preservation of forest trees. For Ecol Manag 333:88–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yang L et al (2015) Can thermally degraded glass fibre be regenerated for closed-loop recycling of thermosetting composites? Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 72:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhao Z, Chen X, Wang X (2015) Deformation behavior of woven glass/epoxy composite substrate under thermo-mechanical loading. Mater Des 82:130–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Adekomaya O et al (2016) A review on the sustainability of natural fiber in matrix reinforcement – a practical perspective. J Reinf Plast Compos 35(1):3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rahman NA et al (2013) Impact properties of glass-fiber/polypropylene composites: the influence of fiber loading, specimen geometry and test temperature. Fibers Polym 14(11):1877–1885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Samal SK, Mohanty S, Nayak SK (2009) Banana/glass fiber-reinforced polypropylene hybrid composites: fabrication and performance evaluation. Polym-Plast Technol Eng 48(4):397–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pérez-Pacheco E et al (2013) Effect of moisture absorption on the mechanical behavior of carbon fiber/epoxy matrix composites. J Mater Sci 48(5):1873–1882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thomason JL, Yang L (2014) Temperature dependence of the interfacial shear strength in glass–fibre epoxy composites. Compos Sci Technol 96:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    John MJ, Thomas S (2008) Biofibres and biocomposites. Carbohydr Polym 71(3):343–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Asokan P, Osmani M, Price ADF (2009) Assessing the recycling potential of glass fibre reinforced plastic waste in concrete and cement composites. J Clean Prod 17(9):821–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Oliveux G, Dandy LO, Leeke GA (2015) Current status of recycling of fibre reinforced polymers: review of technologies, reuse and resulting properties. Prog Mater Sci 72:61–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Beckermann G, Pickering K (2009) Engineering and evaluation of hemp fibre reinforced polypropylene composites: micro-mechanics and strength prediction modelling. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 40(2):210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Biswas S et al (2011) Effect of fiber loading and orientation on mechanical and erosion wear behaviors of glass–epoxy composites. Polym Compos 32(4):665–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mishnaevsky L, Brøndsted P (2009) Micromechanical modeling of damage and fracture of unidirectional fiber reinforced composites: a review. Comput Mater Sci 44(4):1351–1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sain M, Panthapulakkal S (2006) Bioprocess preparation of wheat straw fibers and their characterization. Ind Crop Prod 23(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Specht K et al (2006) Injection moulded natural fibre reinforced PP–influence of compounding processes. In: Proceedings of the 6th global wood and natural fibre composites symposium, KasselGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    La Mantia F, Morreale M (2011) Green composites: a brief review. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 42(6):579–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weiss M et al (2012) A review of the environmental impacts of biobased materials. J Ind Ecol 16:S169–S181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    AL-Oqla FM et al (2015) A model for evaluating and determining the most appropriate polymer matrix type for natural fiber composites. Int J Polym Anal Charact 20:191. (just-accepted)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ku H et al (2011) A review on the tensile properties of natural fiber reinforced polymer composites. Compos Part B 42(4):856–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bedian L et al (2017) Bio-based materials with novel characteristics for tissue engineering applications – a review. Int J Biol Macromol 98:837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Guo X et al (2017) Nanostructured graphene-based materials for flexible energy storage. Energy Storage Mater 9:150–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NRF/DST Chair: Sustainable Process Engineering, School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built EnvironmentUniversity of the Witwatersrand1 Jan Smuts Avenue, Braamfontein, JohannesburgSouth Africa
  2. 2.Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of EngineeringOlabisi Onabanjo UniversityAgo-IwoyeNigeria

Personalised recommendations