The effect of surface treatments and graphene-based modifications on mechanical properties of natural jute fiber composites: A review

Abstract

Natural fiber reinforced composites (FRC) are of great interests, because of their biodegradability, recyclability, and environmental benefits over synthetic FRC. Natural jute FRC could provide an environmentally sustainable, light weight, and cost-effective alternative to synthetic FRC. However, the application of natural jute FRC is limited because of their poor mechanical and interfacial properties. Graphene and its derivatives could potentially be applied to modify jute fiber surface for manufacturing natural FRC with excellent mechanical properties, and lower environmental impacts. Here, we review the physical and chemical treatments, and graphene-based modifications of jute fibers, and their effect on mechanical properties of jute FRC. We introduce jute fiber structure, chemical compositions, and their potential applications first. We then provide an overview of various surface treatments used to improve mechanical properties of jute FRC. We discuss and compare various graphene derivative-based surface modifications of jute fibers, and their impact on the performance of FRC. Finally, we provide our future perspective on graphene-based jute fibers research to enable next generation strong and sustainable FRC for high performance engineering applications without conferring environmental problems.

Keywords: Materials science; Mechanical processing; Nanotechnology fabrication.

Graphical abstract

Figure 1

Introduction to Jute (A) Jute plant (B) the extraction of jute fibers from the plant (C) jute fibers bundle and (D) the structure of jute fiber. Applications of jute fiber and its composites: (E) furniture, (F) constructions, and (G) automobile.

Figure 2

The alkali treatment of jute fiber (A) The schematic of the fine structure of cellulose and other polysaccharides of hot-alkali-treated jute fibers (i) untreated, (ii) 2% NaOH-treated, (iii) 4% NaOH-treated, (iv) 6%–10% NaOH-treated, (B) the adjacent cellulose chains, (C) the changes of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin contents. SEM images of jute fibers surface: (D) Untreated, (E) 6% NaOH-treated, and (F) 10% NaOH-treated. Reproduced with permission (Wang et al., 2019b).

Figure 3

Reaction of silane with natural fiber (R representing organic group, … representing hydrogen bonding)

Figure 4

Graphene-based jute fibers: Coating, surface functionalities, and morphologies (A) Schematic diagram showing 2D material coating process on jute fibers and the preparation of 2d material-coated jute fiber preforms, (B) wide scan XPS spectrum of untreated, GO, rGO, and G flakes coated jute fiber (C) high resolution C(1s) XPS spectrum of untreated jute fiber, (D) high resolution C(1s) XPS spectrum of GO-coated jute fiber, (E) high resolution C(1s) XPS spectrum of rGO-coated jute fiber, (F) high resolution C(1s) XPS spectrum of G flake-coated jute fiber. SEM image of (G) untreated jute fiber (X1500); (H) HA0.5 treated jute fiber (X1500); (I) GO treated jute fiber (X1200); (J) rGO treated jute fiber e (X1250); and (K) G flakes treated jute fiber (X1500). Reproduced with permission (Sarker et al., 2018, Karim et al., 2021b).

Figure 5

High performance graphene-based jute fibers (A) Interfacial shear strength (IFSS) of untreated, alkali-treated, GO, rGO, and G flake-coated jute fibers, (B) Optical microscopic images of the microdroplet of epoxy on (1) untreated; (2) alkali-treated; (3) GO-coated; and (4) G flake-coated jute fibers (X200) before microbond test, (C) SEM image of microdroplets of epoxy on jute fiber (1) before microbond test; (2) after microbond test; and (3) de-bonded area (red circle line) after microbond test (X250), (D) Young’s modulus and (E) tensile strength of untreated, alkali-treated, GO, rGO, and G flake-coated jute fibers, (F) SEM images of the fracture specimen after single fiber tensile test (1) untreated; (2) GO-coated; and (3) G flake-coated jute fiber (X250) and (G) SEM images of the fracture specimen after single fiber tensile test (1) untreated and (2) rGO-coated jute fiber (X250). Reproduced with permission (Sarker et al., 2018, Karim et al., 2021b).

Figure 6

Ultrahigh performance of graphene-based jute fiber composites Longitudinal (A) Young’s modulus, (B) tensile strength of untreated, alkali-treated and graphene materials treated jute fiber/epoxy composites. SEM images of the fracture surfaces of (C) untreated, (D) GO coated, (E) graphene-coated, and (F) rGO coated jute/epoxy composites after the longitudinal tensile test. Reproduced with permission (Sarker et al., 2018, Karim et al., 2021b). (G) Tensile strength (H) flexural strength of acetone treated unfilled and rGO filled jute/epoxy composites at different temperatures.Reproduced with permission (Pa and M, 2019).(I) Tensile strength and (J) flexural strength of untreated, GO and FG based jute/epoxy composite. Reproduced with permission (Sadangi et al., 2021).