Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Journal of Polymers
Volume 2015, Article ID 189289, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/189289

Research Article
Peanut Husk Filled Polyethylene Composites:
Effects of Filler Content and Compatibilizer on Properties

Henry C. Obasi
Federal University of Technology, PMB 1526, Owerri 460221, Imo State, Nigeria

Correspondence should be addressed to Henry C. Obasi; neduobasi35@yahoo.com

Received 31 May 2015; Revised 4 August 2015; Accepted 10 August 2015

Academic Editor: José R. d’Almeida

Copyright © 2015 Henry C. Obasi. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Agrowaste biocomposites were obtained using peanut husk filler and LDPE. The effects of agrofiller content and compatibilizer on
the mechanical and biodegradable properties of the composites have been discussed. Mechanical and biodegradable behaviour of
LDPE became noticeably worse when it was blended with agrofiller, due to poor compatibility between the two phases. The presence
of MAPE in the composites and its compatibility with the agrofiller, led to much better dispersion and homogeneity of agrofiller
in the matrix and consequently to improved properties. Water absorption and thickness swelling indices increased with increasing
filler content and were reduced on addition of MAPE. Furthermore, weight loss of composites via enzymatic degradation showed
that both composites were biodegradable even at high levels of filler addition. However, composites with MAPE exhibited lower
weight loss.

1. Introduction alcohol, polycaprolactone, and polylactic acid or from natural

resources such as cellulose, starch, and chitin. Recently,
The geometric increase in the prices of raw materials, the use of waste agricultural biomass from different plant
especially those obtained from oil and natural gas sector, sources to prepare biodegradable composites with varying
and the attendant obnoxious effects of their use on the properties has been studied [2–7]. The use of agrowaste fillers
environment have triggered the strong desire in the use of in making polymer composites is necessitated due to the
raw materials from botanical resources partly or wholly for competitiveness of natural fiber with consumable crops for
the production of plastic products. The polymers obtained land use. These agrowastes are abundant, cheap, renewable,
from this class of raw materials (petrochemicals) are not and completely biodegradable. Agrowaste fillers when used
easily degraded and form major sources of municipal solid to reinforce the composites offer reasonable benefits when
wastes. These polymeric wastes pose a great threat to the compared to mineral fillers [8, 9]: light weight, being strong
environment because of their nondegradability and microbial and rigid, being environmentally friendly, being economical,
resistance. The time many synthetic polymers will take to being renewable, and being abundant. These agrowaste com-
fully decompose is estimated to be around 50 decades and, posites offer excellent engineering properties and provide a
during the period, natural phenomena may be influenced by plausible environmental solution to handle municipal waste
the presence of these materials [1]. disposal.
In order to solve the problems generated by these plastics However, like other natural plant based resources,
wastes, many attempts have been made to obtain an envi- agrowaste fillers have high moisture absorption tendency,
ronmentally friendly material. Over the past few decades, have poor surface adhesion to hydrophobic polymers, are
researches are focused on substitution of the petroleum- not suitable for high temperature applications, and have
based plastics with biodegradable materials having similar susceptibility to fungal and insect attack. Presently, there
properties and being inexpensive. Biodegradable plastics have been myriads of research works on the combinations of
could be obtained from synthetic polymers such as polyvinyl agrowastes such as palm kernel shell [10], cocoa pod husk [2],
2 Journal of Polymers

rice husk [11], coconut shell [12, 13], oil palm agrowastes [8, 14, State, Nigeria. The husks were processed to obtain peanut
15], peanut shell [16], and thermoplastic materials which had husk filler (PHF). The PHF mesh size used was 300 𝜇m.
successfully been developed.
Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) is a plant grown mainly for 2.2. Sample Preparation. Mixtures of peanut husk filler and
its fruits and it is one of the world’s important edible crops. low density polyethylene were melt-blended in an extrusion
The peanuts are often called groundnuts because their pods machine at a temperature of 120–150∘ C and a screw speed of
(shells) develop underground. Nigeria is the leading peanut 50 rpm to obtain PHF/LDPE composites. The PHF contents
growing country in Africa and the forth in the world after range from 0 to 25 wt.% in the blends. Maleated polyethylene
China, India, and USA. The production of peanut generates (MAPE) was used as a compatibilizer at 5 wt.% based on the
large quantities of waste peanut shells. Efforts to find utiliza- filler loading. The liquid melt was extruded as flats sheets.
tion of these waste materials have resulted mostly in low- These sheets were oven-dried over night at 70∘ C to reduce
value or limited application [16]. Just as it is the case of other moisture content and kept in air tight container for at least
cellulosic materials, peanut shells contain cellulose, hemi- 40 h according to ASTM D618.
celluloses, and lignin microfibrils, which are grouped into
macrofibrils. Chemical compositions of peanut shell fiber was 2.3. Tensile Test. Tensile tests were carried out using a
found to be cellulose (35.7%), hemicelluloses (18.7%), lignin universal Instron tensile tester 3366 according to ASTM D638
(30.2%), and ash content (5.9%) [3]. Therefore, the utilization with the samples obtained as described. Tensile properties
of peanut husk (shell) as natural filler in polyolefins will were measured at room temperature at 5 mm/min crosshead
foster a new application route in the conversion of agrowastes speed to obtain the tensile strength, elongation at break, and
to useful resources for plastic industries. This promotes Young’s modulus. Averaged values of five runs of each were
the universal call for improved environmental sustainability obtained.
through the reduction of municipal solid wastes and “waste
to wealth” generation. 2.4. Flexural Test. The flexural test was performed using
The physical and mechanical properties of thermoplastic the same universal testing machine used for tensile test in
biocomposites depend mainly on the interaction between accordance with ASTM D790 with a three-point bending
the natural filler and the thermoplastic material. In the geometry at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min to evaluate the
production of thermoplastic biocomposites, the incompati- flexural strength and modulus under a load cell of 1 kN.
bility between the hydrophilic natural filler and hydrophobic Average values of five samples were calculated.
thermoplastic matrix is an issue among researchers and
industrialists. 2.5. Impact Test. The impact test was conducted on notched
The presence of polar hydroxyl groups of the natural filler rectangular samples according to ASTM D256 using an
is hardly wetted by the nonpolar polymer matrix and thus impact tester (IZOD Impact tester), with a 4.0 J hammer.
often leads to poor mechanical properties when blended [17]. Average values were obtained from five runs for each sample.
One way to improve this interaction is by the incorporation
of coupling agents such as compatibilizers. Maleated poly- 2.6. Hardness Test. The hardness test of the composite sam-
mers such as maleated polyethylene (MAPE) and maleated ples was conducted using Lecco Vickers (LV 700) testing
polypropylene (MAPP) are mostly used as coupling agents in machine according to ASTM D78. Average values of five runs
polyethylene and polypropylene based biocomposites. Sev- were calculated.
eral researchers have reported the reasonable improvement
on properties of biocomposites by adding maleated coupling 2.7. Water Absorption Test. The water absorption study of the
agents [18–20]. composites was determined according to ASTM D570. Cut
In this study, the addition of peanut husk filler to LDPE samples of dimensions 30 × 30 × 3 mm3 were dried in a
has been considered as way of enhancing the mechanical and vacuum at 45∘ C for 24 h, weighed to get the initial dry weight
biodegradable properties of polymeric materials obtained to the nearest 0.001 g, and then immersed in distilled water
from these composites. Therefore, the main objective of this for a period of 63 days. Weights of the samples were measured
work is to investigate the effect of maleated PE and filler after every 7 days to obtain the new change in weight. The
content on the various properties of agrowaste filler polymer percent water absorption (𝑃wa ) was calculated as follows:
composites.
Percent water absorption (𝑃wa )
2. Experimental (1)
Final dry wt. after immersion
= 100 [( ) − 1] .
2.1. Materials. The low density polyethylene (LDPE) matrix Initial dry wt. before immersion
used in this study was supplied by Ceeplast Industry Ltd.,
Aba, Nigeria. It has a density of 0.935 g/cm3 and a melt flow 2.8. Thickness Swelling Test. Thickness swelling test is akin to
index (MFI) of 16 g/10 min. Maleated polyethylene (MAPE) water absorption test. Before testing, the initial thickness of
was obtained from Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Corporation. each sample was measured using a digital veneer caliper and
The agrowaste used as the reinforcing filler was peanut husks later immersed in distilled water at room temperature. After
and was obtained from a local market in Ehime Mbano, Imo 7 days, the sample was taken out and dried before its new
Journal of Polymers 3

thickness was measured. The percent thickness swelling (𝑃ts ) 24

was determined as follows:
20

Tensile strength (MPa)

Percent thickness swelling (𝑃ts )
16
(2)
Final thickness
= 100 [( ) − 1] . 12
Initial thickness
8
2.9. Enzymatic Degradation Test. The composite sample of
4
dimensions 30 × 30 × 3 mm3 is added into a conical flask
containing 30 mL acetate buffer (pH = 4.5) with cellulase con- 0
centration of 2 g/L. The mixture was then placed in a shaking 0 5 10 15 20 25
incubator at 55∘ C and shaken at 60 rpm for 54 h. After every Peanut husk (wt.%)
6 h, the sample was washed with distilled water and then
dried in a vacuum at 45∘ C for 24 h. The immersion medium CPHF/LDPE
PHF/LDPE
was refreshed regularly to maintain enzymatic activity. The
extent of enzymatic degradation (EED) was estimated from Figure 1: Variation of tensile strength at different filler content.
the weight loss of the sample based on the following equation:

EED (%)
16
Final dry wt. after treatment (3)
= 100 [1 − ( )] . 14
Initial dry wt. before treatment
Elongation at break (%)

12
10
3. Results and Discussion
8
3.1. Tensile Tests. Filler volume fraction and filler/matrix 6
interfacial adhesion are fundamental factors that affect the
mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced composites. The 4
quality of interfacial adhesion is dependent on a num- 2
ber of factors such as the nature of filler and polymer
0
components, the filler aspect ratio, the processing method, 0 5 10 15 20 25
and the treatment of the filler [21, 22]. The experimental Peanut husk (wt.%)
results of tensile tests of compatibilized CPHF/LDPE and
uncompatibilized PHF/LDPE composites are displayed in CPHF/LDPE
Figures 1–3. These figures depict the tensile properties in PHF/LDPE
relation to the filler content. The addition of peanut husk Figure 2: Variation of elongation at break at different filler content.
filler (amorphous in nature) reduced the tensile strength
which continuously decreased with increasing filler content
(Figure 1). The reduction in tensile strength could be due
to filler-filler interaction, which becomes more pronounced 2.8
than that of the filler-matrix interactions. Another factor
2.4
could be poor interfacial adhesion due to differences in
Young’s modulus (GPa)

polarities between the polar agrowaste filler and nonpolar 2

LDPE matrix which could initiate and propagate sites for
failures. Similar observations have also been reported in our 1.6
previous work [23] and by other researchers using natural 1.2
fillers [11, 24–29]. The addition of MAPE improved the tensile
strength when compared with the corresponding PHF/LDPE 0.8
composites. This is because the reactive maleic anhydride
0.4
group on MAPE chemically reacted with hydroxyl group
of peanut husk filler surface and the MAPE was covalently 0
bonded to peanut husk filler through esterification. 0 5 10 15 20 25
This mechanism offers a better compatibility to LDPE Peanut husk (wt.%)
matrix and more efficient interfacial adhesion. The schematic
CPHF/LDPE
reaction of PHF, MAPE, and LDPE matrix is shown in PHF/LDPE
Figure 4. Improvement on tensile properties of biocompos-
ites using maleated polyolefin has been studied [2, 25, 30–32]. Figure 3: Variation of Young’s modulus at different filler content.
4 Journal of Polymers

LDPE matrix LDPE matrix 40

+ 35

Flexural strength (MPa)

∘
PE 160 C PE 30
25
O O O O ·· ·· ·· H 20
O
+ H ·· ·· ·· O 15
OH OH O
10
Peanut husk filler Peanut husk filler
5
Figure 4: Schematic reaction between PHF, MAPE, and PE matrix. 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Peanut husk (wt.%)

The effect of filler content on the elongation at break of CPHF/LDPE

the PHF/LDPE biocomposites is illustrated in Figure 2. It is PHF/LDPE
evident in the figure that the elongation at break decreases
with increasing filler loading. Reduction of elongation at Figure 5: Variation of flexural strength at different filler content.
break is common since weakly or feasible bonds exist between
agrowaste filler and LDPE. At higher filler content, a drastic
reduction of elongation at break was observed and was mostly 3.5
common in biocomposites. Again, weak interfacial bonds due
to poor filler/LDPE interaction facilitated crack propagation 3
Flexural strength (GPa)

and thus composites fracture at lower value of elongation 2.5

was obtained with increasing filler content. Furthermore, the
addition of PHF stiffened the composites, thereby decreasing 2
their ductility. The elongation at break of the compatibilized 1.5
composites gave us better results than the uncompatibilized
composites. The same reasons earlier advanced for the tensile 1
strength, which greatly depend on the nature of the filler and 0.5
LDPE. The presence of MAPE functioned as a bridge between
two dissimilar materials. 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 3 shows Young’s modulus of the PHF/LDPE com-
Peanut husk (wt.%)
posites at different filler contents. It is evident that the
modulus increases with the addition of PHF into LDPE. The CPHF/LDPE
presence of fillers hindered the polymer chain mobility of PHF/LDPE
LDPE matrix, in addition to the stiffness of the composite
[33, 34]. The rigidity of the composite could also be linked Figure 6: Variation of flexural modulus at different filler content.
to the cellulose contents of the peanut husk fillers. Young’s
modulus increase with filler content was in agreement with
other reported works [11, 29, 35, 36]. For the MAPE modified The neat LDPE polymer showed flexural strength of
PHF/LDPE composites, the introduction of the polar groups 21.104 MPa and increased linearly on addition of peanut husk
in MAH enhanced the composites rigidity and compatibility filler by 44.65% up to 25 wt.% PHF for uncompatibilized
simultaneously and changed the intrinsic properties of the PHF/LDPE composites as shown in Figure 5. This result
matrix. Young’s modulus of the composite corresponded to agrees with the findings of many researchers using natural
the intrinsic properties of the filler, where the filler may show fillers to blend synthetic polymers; Tawakkal et al. [39]
its high stiffness [36]. Above all, several researchers have observed an appreciable increase in the flexural strength
shown that the incorporation of compatibilizers enhances of the composite from 10 to 60 wt.% KDC (Kenaf-derived
interfacial bonding via steric stabilization [37] and good wet- cellulose) when compared to that of neat PLA (polylactic
ting and reduction in surface tension [38]. It could be possible acid), but they noticed that, above 50 wt.% KDC, the flexural
that similar scenario played out itself in this system above. strength decreased with increasing KDC content. Similar
trend was also observed by Rahman et al. [40] where the
3.2. Flexural Properties. For a composite to be considered as flexural strength increased with RH (rice husk) filler addition
structural materials, it must possess a considerable amount of up to 35 wt.% and beyond that the flexural strength decreased.
flexural properties. The flexural strength and flexural modu- It is also observed that the flexural strength of PHF/LDPE
lus of both compatibilized and uncompatibilized PHF/LDPE composites further improved by 67.58% on the incorporation
composites of different filler loadings are shown in Figures 5 of MAPE which can be attributed to a well-formed interface
and 6, respectively. that allows better stress transfer from the matrix to the filler.
Journal of Polymers 5

The addition of MAPE positively modified the adhesive 35

characteristics of the composite by improving the mechanical 30
interlocking between the PHF and LDPE and thus improves

Impact strength (J/m)

the stress transfer during an applied load. 25
Figure 6 shows that the flexural modulus of PHF/LDPE
20
composites increased with the filler loading. The rigidity of
the PHF, combined with its higher content, may be linked to 15
enhanced bending modulus of PHF/LDPE composites.
10
The PHF might obstruct the free flow of the polymer
chain and thus restrict the ability of the polymer to deform. 5
Similar results have been also reported by other scholars
0
with various reinforcement materials [35, 36, 41, 42]. Flexural 0 5 10 15 20 25
modulus of PHF/LDPE modified with MAPE exhibited bet- Peanut husk (wt.%)
ter result with a 50.33% and 18.57% increase over unmodified
PHF/LDPE and neat LDPE at 25 wt.%, respectively. This CPHF/LDPE
could be linked to the improved interfacial bonding between PHF/LDPE
the filler and matrix. The increased composites stiffness
depends on the nature of the filler, filler content, and the Figure 7: Variation of impact strength at different filler content.
uniformity of the filler dispersion. These observations are
supported by Cañigueral et al. [43], who concluded that good
filler dispersion in the composite system could be confirmed 45
by observing the linear increase in the composites modulus.
40
The addition of MAPE offers a better bridging between the
filler and matrix via esterification reactions which results in 35
good stress propagation and improves mechanical character- 30
Hardness (Hv)

istics. 25
20
3.3. Impact Strength. Figure 7 presents the effects of PHF
contents on the notched Izod impact strength of both com- 15
patibilized and uncompatibilized PHF/LDPE composites. 10
The figure shows that the impact strength increased with 5
filler content. At 25 wt.% filler content, PHF/LDPE had 0
impact strength of 49.38% increment. Similar results were 0 5 10 15 20 25
also obtained for different natural filler filled composites [36, Peanut husk (wt.%)
39, 40, 44] up to 35 wt.% content beyond which the impact
strength dropped. CPHF/LDPE
The decrease in impact strength indicates that the amount PHF/LDPE
of matrix is probably not sufficient to transfer the stress
effectively during a sudden impact in combination with Figure 8: Variation of hardness at different filler content.
the lower absorption characteristic of the filler [39]. It has
been observed that high filler content increases the chances
of fiber agglomeration, which results in regions of stress
concentration requiring less energy for crack propagation rigid fillers in the matrix. Composites with compatibilizer
[45]. Joseph et al. [46] reported that the impact strength exhibited higher values of hardness that the uncompatibilizer
of fiber filled polymer composites depends on the nature composites. The increase in hardness of the compatibilized
of the filler, the polymer, and fiber matrix interfacial bond- composites may be due to stronger interfacial bonding of the
ing. The impact strengths of MAPE modified PHF/LDPE peanut husk filler and low density polyethylene matrix.
composites were found to be higher than the unmodified
PHE/LDPE composites, thus achieving 20.95% increment 3.5. Water Absorption Study. Figures 9 and 10 represent the
over the unmodified PHF/LDPE composites. This may be water absorption indices of PHF/LDPE composites at differ-
attributed to the same reason earlier advanced for tensile and ent filler contents for compatibilized and uncompatibilized
flexural strengths. PHF/LDPE composites, respectively. The degree of water
absorption in natural fiber reinforced composites is depen-
3.4. Hardness Result. The hardness behavior of various PHF/ dent on temperature, fiber content, orientation of fibers,
LDPE composites of different filler content for both with permeability of fiber, surface protection, area of the exposed
compatibilizer and without compatibilizer is shown in surface, diffusivity, void content, hydrophilicity of the indi-
Figure 8. The figure indicates that the mean hardness vidual components, and so forth [45]. Results indicated that
increased with increase in filler content. This may be linked water absorption increased gradually with increase in filler
to the increase in stiffness occasioned by the presence of content, reaching a saturation point where the moisture
6 Journal of Polymers

8 of MAPE, show lower percentage of water absorbed relative

7
to PHF/LDPE without the compatibilizer (MAPE). This may
be due to the presence of less voids and cracks as a result
6 of good interfacial bonding which is formed between the
Water adsorption (%)

5 PHF/MAPE/LDPE as earlier discussed. It could be said

that the better the compatibility of the polymer composites
4
is, the greater the reduction of the penetrant molecules
3 into composites would be. This behaviour suggests that the
composites with MAPE have better compatibility between the
2
PHF and LDPE matrices than those without MAPE.
1

0
3.6. Thickness Swelling Study. Thickness swelling study was
7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 carried out simultaneously with water absorption procedure.
Time (days) Figures 11 and 12 show the thickness swelling behaviours
of various PHF/LDPE composites. It can be clearly seen
LDPE/CPHF5 LDPE/CPHF20
LDPE/CPHF10 LDPE/CPHF25
that thickness swelling increased with immersion time and
LDPE/CPHF15 filler content. Swelling occurs when the liquid diffuses within
the composite material and is absorbed by the composites.
Figure 9: Water absorption of CPHF/LDPE at different filler When the immersion time of composites is increased, an
content. appreciable amount of water is absorbed, resulting in the
swelling of the filler and possible saturation of the cell walls.
This scenario can be related to the degree of the hydrolysis
mechanism of peanut husk filler of the composite in distilled
9 water. Above that, water exists as free water in the voids,
8 which leads to composite delamination or void formation [49,
50]. Compatibilized PHF/LDPE composites showed lower
7
thickness swelling compared to uncompatibilized PHF/LDPE
Water adsorption (%)

6 composites (Figure 11). The decrease in thickness swelling

5 may be attributed to the improved interfacial adhesion
4 between the filler and matrix. The presence of MAPE reduces
or eliminates microvoids and crack formation in the com-
3
posites which ordinarily would have created pathways for the
2 water molecules to diffuse into the composites.
1
0 3.7. Enzymatic Studies. The enzymatic degradation of cellu-
7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 lose or cellulosic containing materials, typically characterized
Time (days) by an insoluble reactant (cellulosic substrate) and a soluble
catalyst (enzyme-cellulase), is influenced not only by the
LDPE/PHF5 LDPE/PHF20
LDPE/PHF10 LDPE/PHF25 structural factors of the solid substrate but also by enzyme
LDPE/PHF15 related factors, such as enzyme source, product inhibition,
thermal inactivation, activity bonding and enzyme process-
Figure 10: Water absorption of PHF/LDPE at different filler content. ability, and enzyme compatibility [51]. The weight loss due to
enzyme degradation of PHF/LDPE composites for both mod-
ified and unmodified composites is shown in Figures 13 and
14. It is observed that the extent of enzyme degradation (EED)
content almost remained constant. This observation is due to increased with increase in filler content and immersion time.
the hydrophilic nature of natural filler which is responsible A higher degradation rate was observed for uncompatibilized
for the water absorption in the composites by virtue of the PHF/LDPE composites than the compatibilized PHF/LDPE
presence of abundant hydroxyl groups [39]. Thus, higher filler composites after 63 days of study. This trend was due to
content led to a higher amount of water being absorbed. It is the poor interfacial adhesion existing in PHF/LDPE which
worthy to note that water molecules can wet the PHF/LDPE facilitated the absorption of enzymes into the composites. At
composites easily and also penetrate into the composites high filler content, the PHF/LDPE composites absorb more
through voids with the resultant in higher water index in a of the cellulase solution because of excess hydroxyl group
short exposure time [47, 48]. that enhanced the cellulase attack on the peanut husk filler.
However, compatibilized PHF/LDPE composites exhib- Therefore, the peanut husk filler content affected the weight
ited lower percentage of water absorption in comparison with loss of the composites. Similar results have been obtained by
the uncompatibilized components. Figure 10 shows that, at Mohammad and Narges [52], Michael [53], and Azahari et al.
each filler content, PHF/LDPE composites, with the addition [54].
Journal of Polymers 7

3.5 4.5
4.4
3
4.3
Thickness swelling (%)

2.5 4.2
4.1

EED (%)
2
4
1.5 3.9
1 3.8
3.7
0.5
3.6
0 3.5
7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Immersion time (days) Immersion time (h)

LDPE/CPHF5 LDPE/CPHF20 LDPE/CPHF5 LDPE/CPHF20

LDPE/CPHF10 LDPE/CPHF25 LDPE/CPHF10 LDPE/CPHF
LDPE/CPHF15 LDPE/CPHF15

Figure 11: Variation of thickness of CPHF/LDPE at different filler Figure 13: Enzymatic degradation CPHF/LDPE at different filler
content. content.

3.5 4.5

3 4.4
Thickness swelling (%)

2.5 4.3

4.2
2
EED (%)

4.1
1.5
4
1
3.9
0.5 3.8

0 3.7
7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
Immersion time (days) Immersion time (h)

LDPE/PHF5 LDPE/PHF20 LDPE/PHF5 LDPE/PHF20

LDPE/PHF10 LDPE/PHF25 LDPE/PHF10 LDPE/PHF25
LDPE/PHF15 LDPE/PHF15

Figure 12: Variation of thickness of PHF/LDPE at different filler Figure 14: Enzymatic degradation of PHF/LDPE at different filler
content. content.

4. Conclusions the composite is necessary to improve the tensile

properties.
The main conclusions drawn from this work were as follows:
(4) The modification of the PHF/LDPE composites via
(1) A biocomposite was successfully fabricated from compatibilization enhanced the interfacial adhesion
peanut husk filler and LDPE and utilizing compati- at the filler/matrix interphase as indicated by the
bilization modification process. reduction in water absorption and thickness swelling
(2) Higher filler content in LDPE decreases the tensile of the composites.
strength and elongation at break due to weak inter-
(5) Presence of compatibilizer (MAPE) improved the
facial bonding between the PHF and LDPE matrices.
interfacial adhesion between the filler and matrix
(3) Young’s modulus, flexural strength and modulus, by lowering the percent weight loss via enzymatic
impact strength and hardness increased with increase degradation of the PHF/LDPE composites as shown
in filler content and the addition of MAPE into by the compatibilized composites.
8 Journal of Polymers

Conflict of Interests cashew nut shell novolac resin composites,” Applied Polymer
Composites, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 27–36, 2014.
The author declares that there is no conflict of interests [15] H. C. Obasi, N. C. Iheaturu, F. N. Onuoha, C. O. Chike-
regarding the publication of this paper. Onyegbula, M. N. Akanbi, and V. O. Eze, “Influence of alkali
treatment and fibre content on the properties of oil palm press
fibre reinforced epoxy biocomposities,” American journal of
References Engineering Research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 117–123, 2014.
[1] M. Saeed, G. Ismail, and O. Abdulrasoul, “Effect of compatibi- [16] N. F. Zaaba, H. Ismail, and M. Jaafar, “The effects of modifying
lization onpolyethylene/thermoplasticstarch blends,” Society of peanut shell powder with polyvinyl alcohol on the properties of
Plastic Engineers, Plastics Research Online, pp. 1–3, 2013. recycled polypropylene and peanut shell powder composites,”
[2] K. S. Chun, S. Husseinsyah, and H. Osman, “Tensile properties BioResources, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 2128–2142, 2014.
of polypropylene/cocoa pod husk biocomposites: effect of [17] S. Tserki, P. Matzinos, S. Kokkou, and C. Panayiotou, “Novel
maleated polypropylene,” Advanced Materials Research, vol. 747, biodegradable composite based on treated lignocellulosic waste
pp. 645–648, 2013. and characterization of waste flour,” Composites Part A, vol. 36,
pp. 965–974, 2005.
[3] G. U. Raju, S. Kumarappa, and V. N. Gaitonde, “Mechanical
and physical characterization of agricultural waste reinforced [18] H. Salmah and H. Ismail, “The effect of filler loading and
polymer composites,” Journal of Materials and Environmental maleated polypropylene on properties of rubberwood filled
Science, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 907–916, 2012. polypropylene/natural rubber composites,” Journal of Rein-
forced Plastics and Composites, vol. 27, no. 16-17, pp. 1867–1876,
[4] G. U. Raju, V. N. Gaitonde, and S. Kumarappa, “Experimental
2008.
study on optimization of thermal properties of groundnut shell
particle reinforced polymer composites,” International Journal [19] A. K. Bledzki, O. Faruk, and M. Huque, “Physico-mechanical
of Emerging Sciences, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 433–454, 2012. studies of wood fiber reinforced composites,” Polymer—Plastics
Technology and Engineering, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 435–451, 2002.
[5] A. Ashori and A. Nourbakhsh, “Bio-based composites from
[20] N. Sombatsompop, C. Yotinwattanakumtorn, and C. Thongpin,
waste agricultural residues,” Waste Management, vol. 30, no. 4,
“Influence of type and concentration of maleic anhydride
pp. 680–684, 2010.
grafted polypropylene and impact modifiers on mechanical
[6] S. L. Fávaro, M. S. Lopes, A. G. V. D. C. Neto, R. R. de properties of PP/wood sawdust composites,” Journal of Applied
Santana, and E. Radovanovic, “Chemical, morphological, and Polymer Science, vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 475–484, 2005.
mechanical analysis of rice husk/post-consumer polyethylene
[21] A. Gomes, T. Matsuo, K. Goda, and J. Ohgi, “Development
composites,” Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufac-
and effect of alkali treatment on tensile properties of curaua
turing, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 154–160, 2010.
fiber green composites,” Composites Part A: Applied Science and
[7] S. S. Ahankari, A. K. Mohanty, and M. Misra, “Mechanical Manufacturing, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1811–1820, 2007.
behaviour of agro-residue reinforced poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-
[22] M. Pracella, D. Chionna, I. Anguillesi, Z. Kulinski, and E.
co-3-hydroxyvalerate), (PHBV) green composites: a compar-
Piorkowska, “Functionalization, compatibilization and proper-
ison with traditional polypropylene composites,” Composites
ties of polypropylene composites with Hemp fibres,” Composites
Science and Technology, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 653–657, 2011.
Science and Technology, vol. 66, no. 13, pp. 2218–2230, 2006.
[8] H. P. S. Abdul Khalil, B. T. Poh, A. M. Issam, M. Jawaid, and R. [23] H. C. Obasi, “Properties of raphia palm interspersed fibre filled
Ridzuan, “Recycled polypropylene-oil palm biomass: the effect high density polyethylene,” Advances in Materials Science and
on mechanical and physical properties,” Journal of Reinforced Engineering, vol. 2013, Article ID 932143, 5 pages, 2013.
Plastics & Composites, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1117–1130, 2010.
[24] M. A. Wahab and M. A. Mottaleb, “Mechanical properties
[9] R. Malkapuram, V. Kumar, and Y. Singh Negi, “Recent devel- and water absorption of rice starch-filled linear low density
opment in natural fiber reinforced polypropylene composites,” polyethylene,” Korea Polymer Journal, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 297–302,
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 2001.
1169–1189, 2009.
[25] H. C. Obasi and G. C. Onuegbu, “Biodegradability and mechan-
[10] H. Salmah, A. Romisuhani, and H. Akmal, “Properties of low- ical properties of low density polyethylene/waste maize cob
density polyethylene/palm kernel shell composites: effect of flour blends,” International Journal of Applied Science and
polyethylene co-acrylic acid,” Journal of Thermoplastic Compos- Engineering Research, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 242–249, 2013.
ite Materials, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 3–15, 2013. [26] S. B. Nurshamila, I. Hnafi, and O. Nadras, “The effect of
[11] H.-S. Yang, H.-J. Kim, J. Son, H.-J. Park, B.-J. Lee, and T.- Rattan filler loading on properties of Rattan powder filled
S. Hwang, “Rice-husk flour filled polypropylene composites: polypropylene composites,” BioResources, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 5677–
mechanical and morphological study,” Composite Structures, 5690, 2012.
vol. 63, no. 3-4, pp. 305–312, 2004. [27] H. Demir, U. Atikler, D. Balköse, and F. Tıhmınlıoğlu, “The
[12] K. S. Chun, S. Husseinsyah, and H. Osman, “Properties of effect of fiber surface treatments on the tensile and water
coconut shell powder-filled polylactic acid ecocomposites: sorption properties of polypropylene-luffa fiber composites,”
effect of maleic acid,” Polymer Engineering and Science, vol. 53, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, vol. 37,
no. 5, pp. 1109–1116, 2013. no. 3, pp. 447–456, 2006.
[13] H. Salmah, S. C. Koay, and O. Hakimah, “Surface modification [28] H.-S. Yang, H.-J. Kim, H.-J. Park, B.-J. Lee, and T.-S. Hwang,
of coconut shell powder filled polylactic acid biocomposites,” “Water absorption behavior and mechanical properties of lig-
Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. nocellulosic filler-polyolefin bio-composites,” Composite Struc-
809–819, 2013. tures, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 429–437, 2006.
[14] H. C. Obasi, I. O. Igwe, G. N. Onyeagoro, M. U. Obidiegwu, [29] M. M. Thwe and K. Liao, “Effects of environmental aging on
and P. I. Anyanwu, “Oil palm mesocrap particles reinforced the mechanical properties of bamboo—glass fiber reinforced
Journal of Polymers 9

polymer matrix hybrid composites,” Composites Part A: Applied [44] C.-W. Lou, C.-W. Lin, C.-H. Lei et al., “PET/PP blend with
Science and Manufacturing, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 43–52, 2002. bamboo charcoal to produce functional composites,” Journal of
[30] J. Z. Lu, I. I. Negulescu, and Q. Wu, “Maleated wood-fiber/high- Materials Processing Technology, vol. 192-193, pp. 428–433, 2007.
density-polyethylene composites: coupling mechanisms and [45] P. A. Sreekumar, K. Joseph, G. Unnikrishnan, and S. Thomas,
interfacial characterization,” Composite Interfaces, vol. 12, no. 1- “A comparative study on mechanical properties of sisal-leaf
2, pp. 125–140, 2005. fibre-reinforced polyester composites prepared by resin transfer
[31] R. A. Majid, H. Ismail, and R. M. Taib, “Effects of polyethylene- and compression moulding techniques,” Composites Science and
g-maleic anhydride on properties of low density polyethy- Technology, vol. 67, no. 3-4, pp. 453–461, 2007.
lene/thermoplastic sago starch reinforced kenaf fibre compos- [46] P. V. Joseph, G. Mathew, K. Joseph, G. Groeninckx, and S.
ites,” Iranian Polymer Journal, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 501–510, 2010. A. Thomas, “Dynamic mechanical properties of short sisal
fibre reinforced polypropylene composites,” Composites Part A:
[32] B. Imre and B. Pukánszky, “Compatibilization in bio-based and
Applied Science and Manufacturing, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 275–290,
biodegradable polymer blends,” European Polymer Journal, vol.
2003.
49, no. 6, pp. 1215–1233, 2013.
[47] A. R. Sanadi, J. F. Hunt, D. F. Caulfield, G. Kovacsvolgyi,
[33] S. T. Sam, H. Ismail, and Z. Ahmad, “Linear low-density and B. Destree, “High fibre-low Matrix composites: kenaf
polyethylene/(soya powder) blends containing polyethylene-g- fibre/polypropylene,” in Proceedings of the 6th International
(maleic anhydride) as a compatibilizer,” Journal of Vinyl and Conference on Woodfibre-Plastic Composites, pp. 121–124, Madi-
Additive Technology, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 252–259, 2009. son, Wis, USA, May 2001.
[34] R. Santiagoo, H. Ismail, and K. Hussin, “Mechanical properties, [48] I. D. Danjaji, R. Nawang, U. S. Ishiaku, H. Ismail, and Z. A.
water absorption, and swelling behaviour of rice husk powder M. Mohd Ishak, “Degradation studies and moisture uptake of
filled polypropylene/recycled acrylonitrile butadiene rubber sago-starch-filled linear low-density polyethylene composites,”
(pp/nbrr/rhp) biocomposites using silane as a coupling agent,” Polymer Testing, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 75–81, 2002.
BioResources, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 3714–3726, 2011.
[49] S. Das, A. K. Saha, P. K. Choudhury et al., “Effect of steam
[35] A. K. Rana, A. Mandal, and S. Bandyopadhyay, “Short jute fibre pretreatment of jute fiber on dimensional stability of jute
reinforced polypropylene composites: effect of compatibilizer, composite,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science, vol. 76, no. 11,
impact modifier and fiber loading,” Composites Science and pp. 1652–1661, 2000.
Technology B, vol. 34, pp. 519–526, 2003. [50] J. Gassan and A. K. Bledzki, “The influence of fiber-surface
[36] S. Joseph, M. S. Sreekala, T. Oommen, P. Koshy, and S. A. treatment on the mechanical properties of jute-polypropylene
Thomas, “Comparison of mechanical properties of phenol composites,” Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufac-
formaldehyde composite reinforced with banana fibres and turing, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1001–1005, 1997.
glass fibres,” Composites Science and Technology, vol. 62, pp. [51] B. Yang, Z. Dai, S.-Y. Ding, and C. E. Wyman, “Enzymatic
1857–1865, 2002. hydrolysis of cellulosic biomass,” Biofuels, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 421–
[37] A. G. Supri, S. J. Tan, H. Ismail, and P. L. Teh, “Effect of 450, 2011.
poly(methyl methacrylate) modified water hyacinth fiber on [52] T. T. Mohammad and S. Narges, “Biodegradation behaviours
properties of low density polyethylene/natural rubber/water and water absorption of polypropylene alcohol/starch/carbox-
hyacinth fiber composites,” Polymer—Plastics Technology and ymethyl cellulose/clay nanocomposites,” International Nano
Engineering, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 898–906, 2011. Letters, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 1–8, 2013.
[38] R. B. Maliger, S. A. McGlashan, P. J. Halley, and L. G. Matthew, [53] I. Michael, “Study of cellulose interaction with concentrated
“Compatibilization of starch-polyester blends using reactive solutions of sulfuric acid,” ISRN Chemical Engineering, vol. 2012,
extrusion,” Polymer Engineering and Science, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. Article ID 428974, 7 pages, 2012.
248–263, 2006. [54] N. A. Azahari, N. Othman, and H. Ismail, “Biodegradation
[39] I. S. M. A. Tawakkal, R. A. Talib, K. Abdan, and C. N. Ling, studies of polyvinyl alcohol/corn starch blend films in solid and
“Mechanical and physical properties of kenaf-derived cellulose solution media,” Journal of Physical Science, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 15–
(KDC)-filled polylactic acid (PLA) composites,” BioResources, 31, 2011.
vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1643–1655, 2012.
[40] M. R. Rahman, M. N. Islam, M. M. Huque, S. Hamdan, and
A. S. Ahmed, “Effect of chemical treatment on rice husk (RH)
reinforced polyethylene (PE) composites,” BioResources, vol. 5,
no. 2, pp. 854–869, 2010.
[41] J. C. Lin, L. C. Chang, M. N. Nien, and H. L. Ho, “Mechanical
behaviour of various nanoparticle filled composites at low-
velocity impact,” Composite Structures, vol. 27, pp. 30–36, 2006.
[42] P. N. Khanam, H. P. S. A. Khalil, M. Jawaid, G. R. Reddy, C.
S. Narayana, and S. V. Naidu, “Sisal/carbon fibre reinforced
hybrid composites: tensile, flexural and chemical resistance
properties,” Journal of Polymers and the Environment, vol. 18, no.
4, pp. 727–733, 2010.
[43] N. Cañigueral, F. Vilaseca, J. A. Méndez et al., “Behavior of
biocomposite materials from flax strands and starch-based
biopolymer,” Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 64, no. 11, pp.
2651–2658, 2009.
Journal of International Journal of International Journal of Smart Materials Journal of
Nanotechnology
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Corrosion
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Polymer Science
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Research
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Composites
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of
Metallurgy

BioMed
Research International
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Nanomaterials
Submit your manuscripts at
http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of Journal of
Materials
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Nanoparticles
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Nanomaterials
Journal of

Advances in The Scientific International Journal of

Materials Science and Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Scientifica
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Biomaterials
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of Journal of Journal of Journal of Journal of

Nanoscience
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Coatings
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Crystallography
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Ceramics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Textiles
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 Volume 2014