Abstract:Kompozyty polimerowo-drzewne-charakterystyka ogólna oraz ich otrzymywanie z materia³ów odpadowych Streszczenie-Przedstawiono dane dotycz¹ce cen, wielkooeci produkcji i struktury rynku wyrobów z kompozytów polimerowo-drzewnych (WPC) w ró¿nych regionach oewiata oraz perspektywy zastosowañ tych wyrobów. Scharakteryzowano typowe rodzaje osnowy [polietylen, polipropylen, poli(chlorek winylu)], nape³niaczy drzewnych (przede wszystkim m¹czki drzewnej) a tak¿e oerodków pomocniczych. Omówiono proekologiczne uwarunkowan… Show more
“…Of the polymers used, only PS had the modulus of elasticity comparable to the boards composed of wood chips or annual plant particles. In this case, the MOE reached 3100–3300 N/mm 2 [48,49,50]. The modulus of elasticity was also clearly higher in those boards vs. the boards made from the remaining polymers, but it was still lower than the MOE of the boards made from pine chips.…”
This study examined the effects of selected types of thermoplastics on the physical and mechanical properties of polymer-triticale boards. The investigated thermoplastics differed in their type (polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polystyrene (PS)), form (granulate, agglomerate) and origin (native, recycled). The resulting five-ply boards contained layers made from different materials (straw or pine wood) and featured different moisture contents (2%, 25%, and 7% for the face, middle, and core layers, respectively). Thermoplastics were added only to two external layers, where they substituted 30% of straw particles. This study demonstrated that, irrespective of their type, thermoplastics added to the face layers most favorably reduced the hydrophobic properties of the boards, i.e., thickness, swelling, and V100, by nearly 20%. The bending strength and modulus of elasticity were about 10% lower in the experimental boards than in the reference ones, but still within the limits set out in standard for P7 boards (20 N/mm2 according to EN 312).
“…Of the polymers used, only PS had the modulus of elasticity comparable to the boards composed of wood chips or annual plant particles. In this case, the MOE reached 3100–3300 N/mm 2 [48,49,50]. The modulus of elasticity was also clearly higher in those boards vs. the boards made from the remaining polymers, but it was still lower than the MOE of the boards made from pine chips.…”
This study examined the effects of selected types of thermoplastics on the physical and mechanical properties of polymer-triticale boards. The investigated thermoplastics differed in their type (polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polystyrene (PS)), form (granulate, agglomerate) and origin (native, recycled). The resulting five-ply boards contained layers made from different materials (straw or pine wood) and featured different moisture contents (2%, 25%, and 7% for the face, middle, and core layers, respectively). Thermoplastics were added only to two external layers, where they substituted 30% of straw particles. This study demonstrated that, irrespective of their type, thermoplastics added to the face layers most favorably reduced the hydrophobic properties of the boards, i.e., thickness, swelling, and V100, by nearly 20%. The bending strength and modulus of elasticity were about 10% lower in the experimental boards than in the reference ones, but still within the limits set out in standard for P7 boards (20 N/mm2 according to EN 312).
“…PP is the most commonly used thermoplastic polymer in Europe as a matrix for composites. Moreover, due to its hydrophobic character, it is a very good barrier for humidity, which can affect the structure and performance of composites containing natural fibers or blends with biodegradable plastics [31,32]. Therefore, PP was chosen as the main polymer matrix in presented research.…”
This paper presents a water footprint assessment of polymers, polymer blends, composites, and biocomposites based on a standardized EUR-pallet case study. The water footprint analysis is based on life cycle assessment (LCA). The study investigates six variants of EUR-pallet production depending on the materials used. The system boundary included the production of each material and the injection molding to obtain a standardized EUR-pallet of complex properties. This paper shows the results of a water footprint of six composition variants of analyzed EUR-pallet, produced from biocomposites and composites based on polypropylene, poly(lactic acid), cotton fibers, jute fibers, kenaf fibers, and glass fibers. Additionally, a water footprint of applied raw materials was evaluated. The highest water footprint was observed for cotton fibers as a reinforcement of the analyzed biocomposites and composites. The water footprint of cotton fibers is caused by the irrigation of cotton crops. The results demonstrate that the standard EUR-pallet produced from polypropylene with glass fibers as reinforcement can contribute to the lowest water footprint.
“…However, researchers are looking for natural and renewable substitutes over the last years, considering pro-ecological trends in the plastics industry [37]. An essential feature of PP is its hydrophobic character, so the incorporation of natural fillers, which are prone to biodegradation, does not result in biodegradable character of PP-based composite [38]. Therefore, it is possible to introduce natural-based, primary, or even waste materials as potential fillers for composites based on the PP matrix.…”
Composites containing natural fibers are considered environmentally friendly materials which is related to the reduced use of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon dioxide compared to petroleum-based polymers. Nevertheless, a complete evaluation of their environmental impact requires a broader view. This paper presents a carbon, ecological, and water footprints assessment of polypropylene-based composites filled with cotton, jute, and kenaf fibers based on a standardized European pallet (EUR-pallet) case study. Obtained results were compared with unmodified polypropylene and composite with glass fibers. Incorporation of 30 wt% of cotton, jute, and kenaf fibers into a polypropylene matrix reduced its carbon footprint by 3%, 18%, and 18%, respectively. Regarding the ecological footprint, an 8.2% and 9.4% reduction for jute and kenaf fibers were noted, while for cotton fibers, its value increased by 52%. For these footprints, the use of jute and kenaf fibers was more beneficial than glass fibers. Nevertheless, the application of natural fibers caused a 286%, 758%, and 891% drastic increase of water footprint of the final product, which was mainly affected by cultivation and irrigation of crops. Therefore, in a holistic view, the incorporation of natural fibers into the polypropylene matrix definitely cannot be impartially considered as an environmentally friendly solution.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.