Development of Eco-Friendly Cotton Fabric Reinforced Polypropylene Composites: Mechanical, Thermal, and Morphological Properties

Development of Eco-FriendlyCotton Fabric ReinforcedPolypropylene Composites:Mechanical, Thermal, andMorphological Properties

K. RUKMINIGE Global Research Center, Bangalore 560 066, India

B. RAMARAJCentral Institute of Plastics Engineering and Technology, Ahmedabad 382 445, India

SUCHETANA K. SHETTY, AJAY TARAIYA,SUMANDA BANDYOPADHYAYGE Global Research Center, Bangalore 560 066, India

SIDDARAMAIAHDepartment of Polymer Science and Technology, Sri Jayachamarajendra College of Engineering, Mysore570 006, India

Received: July 9, 2012Accepted: October 18, 2012

ABSTRACT: To determine the possibility of using cotton fabric (CF) asreinforcement in the thermoplastic polymer matrix, woven CF-reinforcedpolypropylene (PP) composites were fabricated by the compression molding ofPP sheets with 20% and 30 wt% of CF. The fabrication process involved laying upmultiple layers of woven CF between precut extruded sheets of PP and

Correspondence to: Siddaramaiah; e-mail: [email protected]

Advances in Polymer Technology, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2013, DOI 10.1002/adv.21327C© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 21327 (1 of 9)

ECO-FRIENDLY COTTON FABRIC REINFORCED POLYPROPYLENE COMPOSITES

compression molding to achieve 3.5–4.0 mm CF-reinforced PP composite laminatesheets. From the laminated sheets, test specimens were prepared and tested fortensile, flexural, and impact properties. It was found that the reinforcement of PPwith 30% CF increased the tensile strength from 21.87 to 28.07 MPa, tensilemodulus from 618 to 1867 MPa, flexural strength from 21.7 to 45.3 MPa, andflexural modulus from 813 to 1925 MPa. However, the tensile elongation at breakdecreased marginally from 26.72% to 20.99%. A multiaxial impact test indicatesreduction in the total energy absorbed and the peak force of the fabric-reinforcedlaminates in comparison with neat PP. Coefficient of thermal expansion results onCF-reinforced PP laminate sheet indicate reduction in thermal expansion.Dynamic mechanical analysis of CF-reinforced PP shows an increase in thestorage modulus and loss modulus. Scanning electron microscopic images revealfibers pull out and breakages due to lack of an interfacial interaction between theCF and the PP matrix. C© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Adv Polym Techn 2013, 32,21327; View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com. DOI 10.1002/adv.21327

KEY WORDS: Composites, Mechanical Properties, Polypropylene,Reinforcement, Structure–Property Relationship

Introduction

L ong life and attractive properties have madethe plastics a material of choice for many ap-

plications. Because of tremendous growth in appli-cations, plastics are one of the fastest growing seg-ments of the waste stream.1 Because, a vast majorityof plastic products are made from petroleum-basedsynthetic polymers that do not degrade in landfillsite or in a composite like environment,2 especially,polyolefins like polyethylene (PE) and polypropy-lene (PP). PP is a most popular synthetic thermoplas-tic that offers a combination of outstanding phys-ical, mechanical, thermal, electrical, and chemicalproperties and widely used in automobile, electri-cal equipments, furniture, and packaging industries.And the use of this material has accelerated to theextent that the disposal has become increasingly dif-ficult, because PP is resistant to microbial attackand biodegradation. As a consequence, the disposalof these products poses a serious environmentalthreat. An environmentally conscious alternative isto design/synthesize polymers that are environmentfriendly.3

In recent years, natural fibers and powders basedon cellulose and lignocellulosic materials have beenwidely used as reinforcing fillers in place of inor-ganic fillers and synthetic fibers in thermoplasticpolymer matrix.4–6 These natural fillers have sev-eral advantages, such as low cost, renewability, andbiodegradability. The biodegradability allows these

composites to play an important role in resolving fu-ture environmental problems. Agricultural residuessuch as bagasse, rice husks, and wood chips are par-ticularly important natural resources. These naturalfillers are lighter, cheaper, and provide much higherstrength7 per unit mass than do most of the inor-ganic fillers such as calcium carbonate, talc, zinc ox-ide, and carbon black, and there is keen interest inutilizing natural resources7–9 such as cellulosic, seaalgae, and sisal fibers in polymeric composites be-cause of their positive environmental attributes. Fur-thermore, these natural fillers are less abrasive anddo not cause wearing of barrels and screws duringprocessing. Compared with studies on natural fiberssuch as jute, sisal, coir, pineapple, and bamboo, lesseffort has been made on cotton fabric (CF)-reinforcedplastics. Cotton fiber is obtained from renewable re-sources, which is biodegradable, environmentallyfriendly, and offer carbon dioxide neutral life cycle.These natural fibers have potential to dramaticallymodify the crystallization characteristics of a givenpolymer matrix. Fibrous fillers such as wood, cotton,and coconut fibers find a wide range of applicationsin polyolefin. There is also a considerable potentialfor use of kenaf, jute, and other annual growth plantfibers as reinforcing materials in PP.

Andersons and Joffe10 studied strength andstiffness of flax/polymer composites. Mondragonet al.11 studied the effect of modification on shortflax fiber loaded PP composites using two typesof maleic anhydride treated PP, and optimumloading was obtained. Alexy et al.12 studied the

21327 (2 of 9) Advances in Polymer Technology DOI 10.1002/adv.21327


effect of blending lignin on PE and PP properties.Rozman et al.13 studied the compatibility effects oflignin in coconut fiber/PP composites. Amash andZugenmaier14 studied the morphology and thermaland dynamic mechanical behavior of two types ofcellulose fibrils with modification in PP. Grozdanovet al.15 have studied the use of rice straw as reinforce-ment in maleated polypropylene (m-PP). Mohantyet al.16 have studied the effectiveness of maleic an-hydride grafted polypropylene as a coupling agentin sisal–PP composites. Notingher et al.17 have stud-ied the mechanical properties of cellulose fiber re-inforced PP composites. Rana et al.18 investigatedjute fiber reinforced PP composites. In their study,jute fibers were chopped to approximately 100 mmin length and then processed through a granulatorhaving an 8-mm screen. Remarkable improvementswere attained even with 1% compatibilizer. Pauksztaand Borysiak19 have investigated the structure ofcomposites with PP and natural fibers. Hong et al.20

in their studies prepared, an affordable compositefrom jute fibers and PP. Tasdemir et al.21 studied thesilk and cotton fibers used in the textile industry,which have good physical and mechanical proper-ties as reinforcement with PP. Thomas et al.22 havestudied the effect of fiber treatment on the mechan-ical properties of pineapple leaf fiber reinforced PPgreen composite. Their study has demonstrated thatthe optimum fiber loading for the best performanceof the composite achieved was 30 wt%.

Polymer composites have generated interest inthe development of damped structural materials, be-cause of their low density, excellent stiffness, anddamping characteristics. The damping is an im-portant parameter related to the study of dynamicbehavior of fiber-reinforced composite structures.23

CF-reinforced polymer composites can also be usedin application where sound dampening is required.The chemical inertness of PP can help in positionthese composites for application in automotive fieldwhere efforts are being made to reduce the noise lev-els inside the car. Sound dampening characteristicscan also be used in designing auditoriums and otherareas where low sound reflection is required. Thisinvestigation reports the ability of PP/CF systemsto replace composites with conventional reinforc-ing materials such as glass fibers. Efforts have beenmade to improve mechanical properties such as ten-sile, flexural, dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA),and multiaxial impact of the PP matrix by incorpo-ration of CF as a reinforcing component at differentloadings. In today’s environmentally focused soci-ety, the demand for cost effective, environmental

TABLE IProperties of Polypropylene

Property UnitTypicalValuea

ObservedValueb

Melt flow index(230◦C/2.16 kg)

g/10 min 2.0 1.98

Tensile strength atyield (50 mm/min)

MPa 20–31 22.0

Flexural modulus(1% secant)

MPa 1000 700–900

Notched izod impactstrength (23◦C)

J/m 21–75 40.05

Vicat softeningtemperature 50 N(VST/B)°C

°C 87 85

Coefficient of thermalexpansion

10−6m/m °C 110–130 122.7

aMaterial data sheet.bCharacterized in Lab.

friendly materials continues to increase. The driv-ing force behind the use of the CF is its low cost,annually renewable resource utilization, and envi-ronmental benefits.

Experimental

MATERIALS

Polypropylene (PP) sheets of 1 mm thickness wereprocured from local market and used. The charac-teristics of PP sheets are given in Table I. CF wasprocured from a local vendor, which is plain ori-ented with the weft and the warp running acrosseach other.

FABRICATION OF PP/CF COMPOSITES

Templates were fabricated to produce acompression-molded plaque with dimensions of150 mm × 150 mm × 3.2 mm. This process was em-ployed to make the CF-reinforced PP sheets, whereinthe laid up layers of PP sheets and fabrics werepressed under a hydraulic pressure of 90 bar andat platen temperature of 185◦C. Laminates were pre-pared by a hydraulic compression molding press.24

A number of PP sheets used for the neat PP (controlsample) is four as shown in Scheme 1a. Calculationswere made as per the weight basis to calculate thenumber of fabric layers required to reinforce 20%

Advances in Polymer Technology DOI 10.1002/adv.21327 21327 (3 of 9)


SCHEME 1. Schematic representation of moldingprocesses for (a) neat PP, (b) 20%, and (c) 30%CF-reinforced PP laminates.

and 30% by weight of CF in the PP matrix. This ac-commodates three layers of PP sheets and 16 layersof fabric, for 20% CF-reinforced system was laid asshown in Scheme 1b. For 30% reinforcement, threelayers of PP sheets and 24 layers of CF was used(Scheme 1c). The processing conditions were op-timized for the fabrication of the composites by acompression-molding press. The optimized processparameters, which were used for the fabrication pro-cess, are presented in Table II. The following studieswere carried out on the prepared samples. All thetesting samples were prepared by cutting the pre-pared laminate by using a machine cutter into the

TABLE IIProcessing Parameters Used to Fabricate the TestSpecimens

Parameters Units Value

Lower platen temperature °C 185Upper platen temperature °C 185Pressure Bar 90Preheating time min 15Breathing time s 4Curing/heating time min 15Cooling time min 15Total cycle time min 45

rectangular strips of the required length and widthas per the standards.

CHARACTERIZATION TECHNIQUES

The tensile test was carried out as per ISO 527standard using rectangular strips of 150 mm ×12 mm × 4 mm dimensions on Zwick/Roell Z010UTM (Germany) at a crosshead speed of 1 and5 mm/min at room temperature. The flexural testwas carried out as per ISO 178 standard using150 mm × 10 mm × 4 mm rectangular barson Zwick/Roell Z010 UTM (Ulm, Germany) at acrosshead speed of 2 and 5 mm/min at room tem-perature. High-speed impact strength was measuredas per ISO 6603 for 70 mm × 70 mm × 4 mm sizecomposites specimens using CEAST Fractovis Plus(Pianezza, Italy) at 20 kg and 20 kN load.

The coefficient of linear thermal expansion (α) isthe ratio of the change in length to the change in tem-perature. The coefficient of linear thermal expansion(α) was measured using the ASTM E 831 method,which provides an average value for the expansioncoefficient over a temperature range. CTE was mea-sured using TA Instruments/TMA 2940 (New Cas-tle, DE) for neat PP and its composites. The sampleswere cut into strips of 10 mm × 10 mm × 3.85 mmand polished on both sides and were placed in a fur-nace of machine; initial dimensions were noted, andthe sample was scanned in the temperature rangefrom –40◦C to 100◦C at a heating rate of 5◦C/min.

DMA determines storage modulus, G′′, loss mod-ulus, G", and damping coefficient (�δ) as a functionof temperature and frequency or time. The test spec-imen of dimensions 30 mm × 10 mm × 4 mm wasclamped between the movable and stationary fix-tures of a single cantilever of TA Instrument, DMAQ800 for multifrequency strain mode and was sub-jected to heating from –20to 150◦C at a heating rateof 5◦C/min and at frequency at 1 Hz is applied to it.Both 20% and 30% CF-reinforced composites werecompared with neat PP. Thermal behavior was mea-sured using a thermogravimetric analyzer (PerkinElmer TGA7; Waltham, MA)at a temperature rangefrom 50 to 750◦C at a heating rate of 20◦C/min ina nitrogen atmosphere. About 5–6 mg of the sam-ple was used for each analysis. Scanning electronmicroscopic (SEM) analysis of neat PP and PP CF-reinforced composites was carried out using Joel JSM6335 F Field Emission SEM (the Netherlands), oper-ating at 20 kV voltage, before observation sampleswere sputtered to deposit 300 nm layer of gold toavoid the space-charge effect.



TABLE IIITensile and Flexural Properties of PP/CF Composites

Cotton Fabric(wt%)

Tensile Strength(MPa)

Elongation atBreak (%)

Tensile Modulus(MPa)

Flexural Modulus(MPa)

Flexural Strength(MPa)

0 21.87 ± 1.21 26.72 ± 1.31 618 ± 1.0 813 ± 65 21.7 ± 1.020 25.54 ± 4.61 20.99 ± 4.97 1503 ± 31.28 1452 ± 71 35.4 ± 0.630 28.07 ± 2.17 18.01 ± 2.80 1867 ± 23.65 1925 ± 196 45.3 ± 0.9

Results and Discussion

EFFECT OF COTTON FABRICREINFORCEMENT ON TENSILEPROPERTIES OF POLYPROPYLENE

The effect of CF fiber reinforcement on tensileproperties and PP green composites such as tensilestrength, tensile modulus, and percentage elonga-tion at break is presented in Table III. This tableindicates the effect of fabric loading on the tensilestrength and tensile modulus of the PP/CF com-posites. The tensile strength and tensile modulus in-creases significantly with an increase in fabric load-ing in the composites. The tensile strength of thecomposite increased by about 17% and 28%, respec-tively, for 20% and 30% fabric loading. The tensilemodulus of the composite increased by about 143%and 202%, respectively, for 20% and 30% fabric load-ing. This is due to the reinforcement imparted by thefibers, which allows stress transfer from the matrixto the fibers. Even though there is a wide differencein polarities and surface energies between the CFand PP matrix, the orientation of CF greatly sup-ports the load, so there is an increase in the tensilestrength and tensile modulus. However, the tensileelongation decreased by 35% and 27%, respectively,for PP composites with 20% and 30% CF loading.This can be attributed to the fact that the reinforcingfibers strongly restrain the deformation of the matrixpolymer as demonstrated in previous studies.25

EFFECT OF COTTON FABRICREINFORCEMENT ON FLEXURALPROPERTIES OF POLYPROPYLENE

Flexural data along with their standard deviationis presented in Table III. The change in the flexu-ral modulus and flexural strength of the compos-ites follows a trend similar to that observed in thetensile modulus with respect to the fiber loading.A significant improvement in the flexural strength

and flexural modulus for the fabric-reinforced com-posites was noticed. The flexural strength of the PPcomposites increased by 63% and 107%, respectively,for 20% and 30% CF reinforcement. Similarly, theflexural modulus increases by 72% and 137% for20% and 30% fabric-reinforced PP composites, re-spectively. This is because the fabric reinforcementrestricts the bending movement of the PP matrix,so that the flexural strength and modulus increaseswith an increase in the CF loading.

EFFECT OF COTTON FABRICREINFORCEMENT ON MULTIAXIALIMPACT BEHAVIOR OF POLYPROPYLENEMATRIX

The impact strength becomes very important inservice conditions, because crack formation due tosudden loads. Under sudden impact conditions, themolecular structure does not have sufficient time fora relaxation process and results in fracture involv-ing chain breaking and or interface separation. Theimpact strength of a composite depends upon manyfactors such as toughness of the reinforcement, thenature of the interfacial region, geometry of the com-posite, and test conditions. There are several typesof test methods for evaluating the impact strengthof polymers. The most commonly used are charpyand Izod impact tests. Although these two types oftests provide some information on the relative im-pact resistance of materials, the particular specimengeometry requirements of both tests make the testresults difficult to relate to practical polymer designmodels. However, the specimen geometry and load-ing mode for a multiaxial impact test provide a closecorrelation with practical impact conditions.26 Mul-tiaxial impact (MAI) testing was performed for foursamples at each level of fabric loading. The differ-ence in the peak force and peak energy of the neatPP and the CF-reinforced PP is shown in Fig. 1.The reduction in the total energy absorbed andthe peak force of the fabric-reinforced laminates incomparison to neat PP was observed. Reinforced



FIGURE 1. Effect of CF reinforcement on impactproperties of PP composites.

FIGURE 2. Digital photographs of impact-tested PPand PP/CF composite samples.

laminates are brittle, whereas the neat PP is com-pletely ductile. The reduction in the total energy ab-sorbed by the composite was observed to be 80%lower than the energy absorbed by the neat poly-mer. The reduction of the energy absorbed can beattributed to the lack of the interaction between thepolymer and the fabric. The images of the test spec-imens after the test are shown in Fig. 2. Interfacialfailure that leads to the brittle fracture of the com-posite is observed in the photographs.

EFFECT OF COTTON FABRICREINFORCEMENT ON CLTE PROPERTIESOF POLYPROPYLENE

The coefficient of linear thermal expansion(CLTE) (α) values was measured at –20◦C, at roomtemperature (23◦C) and at higher temperature (80◦C)for the neat PP and PP/CF laminates, the change in

TABLE IVCTE Results for PP and Its Composites

α Value (μm/m ◦C)

Cotton Fabric(wt%) –20 23 80

Change inLength (mm)

0 88.4 122.7 177.8 0.2220 67.7 84.2 96.4 0.1230 61.9 77.5 86.6 0.10

length of the samples and their α values is shown inTable IV, and the thermogram is shown in Fig. 3. Thepresence of reinforcing agents in polymers increasesthe stiffness of resultant laminates, thus improvingthe dimensional stability of composites at a giventemperature. This leads to reduction of the CTE ofthe laminate. CTE observed in the reinforced lami-nates was lower than the CTE observed for the neatpolymers. Moreover, CTE of 30% fabric-reinforcedlaminate was observed to be lower than that of theCTE observed for 20% fabric-reinforced laminate. Asthe composite specimen was compression molded,the values are same in all the directions.

EFFECT OF COTTON FABRICREINFORCEMENT ON DYNAMICMECHANICAL PROPERTIES OFPOLYPROPYLENE

DMA was used to probe the viscoelastic prop-erties of materials. DMA determines elastic modu-lus, viscous modulus, and damping coefficient as afunction of temperature, frequency, or time.27 Avariation of storage modulus, loss modulus, anddamping coefficient as a function of temperaturefor PP/CF composites is shown in Figs. 4, 5, and6, respectively. The storage modulus for the 20%fabric-reinforced system is increased by about 15%and 25% for the 30% fabric-reinforced system withrespect to pristine PP. This signifies that adding fab-ric to the PP increases the stiffness of the laminatesystem especially in the temperature range of 50–150◦C. The storage modulus decreases with an in-crease in temperature and drops sharply after themelting temperature of PP. Even though the storagemodulus decreases for all three compositions (neatPP, PP with 20% CF, and PP with 30% CF) stiffnessof the neat PP is lower throughout the scanned tem-perature range (0–170◦C) as compared to the fabric-reinforced systems. A slope of the storage modulusalso indicates the usage limit and application for



FIGURE 3. Effect of CF reinforcement on CTE of polypropylene composites.

FIGURE 4. Effect of CF reinforcement on the storagemodulus of polypropylene composites.

respective material. A fabric component added tostiffen the laminate strength but does not affectingthe transitions of the base resin. The loss modulus,which was measured as dissipated energy, does notshow much variation in the temperature range 50–150◦C but drops sharply after the melting tempera-ture of PP as in the case of storage modulus. The tanδ is the ratio of storage modulus and loss modulus,is indicative of dampness of the material, and shows

FIGURE 5. Effect of CF reinforcement on the lossmodulus of PP composites.

a broad peak at 0◦C, which increases visibly in thetemperature range 50–150◦C. The CF reinforcementeffect increased the storage modulus, loss modulus,and tan δ in the temperature range under the inves-tigation especially 50–150◦C.



FIGURE 6. Effect of CF reinforcement on tan δ of PPcomposites.

FIGURE 7. TGA thermograms of CF, neat PP, PP +20% CF, and PP + 30% CF.

EFFECT OF COTTON FABRICREINFORCEMENT ON THERMALSTABILITY OF POLYPROPYLENE

Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) has been car-ried out to evaluate the thermal stability of the com-posites. TGA thermograms of CF, neat PP, PP with20% CF, and 30% CF are shown in Fig. 7. A TGAthermogram of CF shows an onset of degradationat 50◦C upto 200◦C, due to evaporation of moistureand other volatile impurities. From 200 to 500◦C, itundergoes degradation in two stages, leaving about6% ash content after 500◦C. In contrast, neat PP

FIGURE 8. SEM images of (a) neat PP, (b) PP + 20%CF, and (c) PP + 30% CF.

does not show any weight loss upto 300◦C, but after300 ◦C it undergoes single step thermal degradationwithin 400◦C, without any visible change in the ashcontent. However, CF-reinforced PP compositesdoes not show low-temperature weight loss due tomoisture and other volatile impurities like neat CF,at the same time it does not show complete decom-position before 400◦C like that neat PP. This clearlyshows that the improved thermal performance ofthe PP material is due to CF reinforcement. AmongPP/CF composites, the 30% CF-reinforced compos-ite shows a better performance than the 20% CF-reinforced composite as shown in Fig. 7.

EFFECT OF COTTON FABRICREINFORCEMENT ON THE MORPHOLOGYOF POLYPROPYLENE

SEM images of (a) neat PP, (b) PP + 20% CF, and(c) PP + 30% CF are shown in Fig. 8. Polymer resinspenetrate into woven fabric completely, but thewetting of the fabric by the resin was not noticed



for both 20% and 30% of fabric loading. Fibers pullout and the breakage of the fibers are observed forboth the composites. This may be due to the absenceof a sizing agent typically used to treat the fiber forimproving the adhesion between the polymer andthe fabric. The lack of interaction between the fiberand the polymer is also reflected by the SEM imagesand which leads to poor impact properties of thecomposites.

Conclusions

In this study, we have shown an effective and effi-cient way to fabricate the PP laminates using CF. Fur-thermore, the benefits and advantages of fabricatedPP/CF laminates are briefly highlighted in this in-vestigation. This study reveals that the woven CF canbe effectively used as reinforcement with PP. Boththe levels of loading, i.e., 20% and 30% fabric yieldsvery convincing the reinforcement effect for PP. Asexpected the tensile strength, tensile modulus, flex-ural strength, and flexural modulus increased withan increase in the fabric content in the PP matrix,whereas the tensile elongations decreased. MAI test-ing indicates the brittle behavior of all composites.An increase in the storage modulus, loss modulus,and damping coefficient is observed. The CF rein-forcement effect increased the storage modulus, lossmodulus, and tan δ of PP/CF composites in the tem-perature range under the investigation especially at50–150◦C.

References

1. Prinos, J.; Dikiaris, D.; Theologidis, S.; Panayiotou, C. PolymEng Sci 1998, 38, 954.

2. Zuchowska, D.; Steller, R.; Meissner, W. Polym Degrad Stab1988, 60, 471–480.

3. Otey, F. H.; Westhoff, R. P.; Doane, W. M. Ind Eng Chem ProdRes 1987, 26, 1659–1663.

4. Dweiri, R.; Azhari, C. H. J Appl Polym Sci 2004, 92, 3744–3754.5. Hiristov, V. N.; Krumova, M.; St. Vasileva; Michler, G. H. J

Appl Polym Sci 2004, 92, 1286–1292.6. Pandey, J. H.; Ahmad, A.; Singh, R. P. J Appl Polym Sci 2003,

90, 1009–1017.7. Bledzki, A. K.; Gassan, J. Prog Polym Sci 1999, 24, 221–274.8. Oskman, K.; Skrifaurs, M.; Selin, J.-F. Compos Sci Technol

2003, 63, 1317–1324.9. Van der Velde, K.; Kiekens, P. Polym Test 2001, 20, 885–893.

10. Andersons, J.; Joffe R. Polym Compos 2006, 27, 221–229.11. Arbelaiz, A.; Fernandez, B.; Ramos, J. A.; Retegi A.; Llano-

Ponte R.; Mondragon I. Compos Sci Technol 2005, 65, 1582–1592.

12. Alexy, P.; Kosikova, B.; Podstranska, G. Polymer 2000, 41,4901–4908.

13. Rozman, H. D.; Tan, K. W.; Kumar, R. N.; Abubakar, A.; IsmailZ. A. M. Eur Polym J 1995, 36, 1483–1494.

14. Amash, A.; Zugenmaier, P. Polymer 2000, 41, 1589–1596.15. Grozdanov, A.; Buzarovska, G.; Bogoeva-Gaceva, Avella, M.;

Errico, M. E.; Gentille, G. Agronomy Sustain Dev 2006, 26,251–255.

16. Mohanty, S.; Verma, S. K.; Nayak S. K.; Tripathy S. S. J ApplPolym Sci 2004, 94, 1336–1345.

17. Notingher, P. V.; Panaitescu, D.; Vuluga, Z.; Iorga, M.; Paven,H.; Florea, D. J Optoelectron Adv Mater 2006, 8, 687–689.

18. Rana, A. K.; Mandal, A.; Mitra, B. C.; Jacobson, R.; Rowell, R.;Banerjee A. N. J Appl Polym Sci 1998, 69, 329–338.

19. Paukszta, D.; Borysiak, S. Fibers Textiles Eastern Eur 2005, 13,107–109.

20. Hong, C. K.; Hwang, I.; Kim, N.; Park, D. H.; Hwang, B. S.;Nah, C. J Ind Eng Chem 2008, 14, 71–76.

21. Tasdemir, M.; Kocak, D.; Usta, I.; Akalin M.; Merdan N. Int JPolym Mater 2007, 56, 1155–1165.

22. Jayamol, G.; Bhagawan, S. S.; Sabu, T. Compos Sci Technol1998, 58, 1471–1485.

23. Martone A.; Giordano M.; Antonucci V.; Zarrelli M. Compos-ites, Part A 2011, 42, 1663–1672.

24. Clemons, C. M.; Caulfield, D. F.; Giacomin, A. J. J ElastomersPlastics 1999, 31, 367–378.

25. Joseph, P. V.; Joseph, K.; Thomas, S. Compos Interfaces 2002,9, 171–205.

26. Duan, Y.; Saigal, A.; Greif, R.; Zimmerman, M. A. Polym EngSci 2002, 42, 395–402.

27. Joseph, P. V.; Mathew, G.; Joseph, K.; Thomas, S.; Pradeep, P.J Appl Polym Sci 2003, 88, 602–611.


Documents

Development of Eco-Friendly Cotton Fabric Reinforced Polypropylene Composites: Mechanical, Thermal, and Morphological Properties