INVESTIGATION ON PHYSICO-CHEMICAL, MECHANICAL AND THERMAL PROPERTIES OF EXTRACTED NOVEL PINUS ROXBURGHII FIBER

Figures & data

Figure 1. Extraction process. Image of (a) Pinus Roxburghii tree (b) needle with stem (c) before fiber extraction (d) after trimming the top and the bottom portion, (e) soaked in water, (f) extracted fiber (wet stage) and (g) extracted Pinus Roxburghii fiber (dry stage).

Figure 2. Optical microscopic image of a single extracted PRF showing diameter measurement.

Table 1. Comparison of various properties of PRFs with other natural fibers.

Fiber	Diameter (µm)	Density (kg/m^3)	Tensile Strength (MPa)	Young’s Modulus in tension (GPa)	% Elongation at break (Tensile loading)	Crystallinity index (%)	Crystalline size (nm)	References
Pinus Roxburghii fiber	145 ± 17.36	1020 ± 20.27	51.48 ± 19.75	1.44 ± 0.67	3.6	43.52	4.03	Present study
Acacia arabica bark	-	1028	-	-	-	51.72	15	Manimaran et al. (2016)
Albizia julibrissin	162.01	1331	483.40 ± 18	6.76 ± 0.49	9.35 ± 0.78	27.77	6.79	Md et al. (2020)
Artisdita hystrix leaf	-	540	440 ± 13.4	1.57 ± 0.04	-	44.85	-	Kathiresan et al. (2016)
Arundo donax	-	1168	248	9.4	3.24	-	-	Fiore, Scalici, and Valenza (2014)
Cardiospermum halicababum	315.4	1141	20.7	-	-	32.21	29.77	Vinod et al. (2021)
Cissus quadrangularis (stem)	770 – 870	1220	2300 – 5479	56 – 234	3.75–11.14	47.15	31.55	Indran and Raj (2015)
Cymbopogon flexuosus	118	1270	431.19 ± 23.96	53.889 ± 17.17	8 ± 0.1	46.02	13.96	Raja et al. (2021)
Elephant grass	70 – 400	817.53	185	7.4	2.50	-	-	Rao et al. (2007)
Ficus religiosa fiber	25.62	1246	433.32 ± 44	5.42 ± 2.6	8.74 ± 1.8	42.92	5.18	Moshi et al. (2020)
Flax	-	1500	345 - 1035	27.6	2.7–3.2	-	-	Bledzki and Gassan (1999)
Heteropogon contortus	-	602	476 ± 11.6	48 ± 2.8	1.63 ± 0.06	-	-	Hyness et al. (2018)
Jute	-	1300	393 – 773	26	1.5–1.8	-	-	Bledzki and Gassan (1999)
Manicaria saccifera palm	-	840–1070	72.09 ± 15.73	2.20 ± 0.44	-	-	-	Porras, Maranon, and Ashcroft (2015)
Mulberry	255–480	1070	463.84 ± 32.69	10.45	4.73 ± 1.06	-	-	Shanmugasundaram and Rajendran (2016)
Phaseolus vulgaris	352	934	436 ± 10.1	8.98 ± 1.237	1.48 ± 0.03	43.01	4.07	Babu et al. (2022)
Pigeon pea	-	1738	131	2.1	2.31	65.89	11.6	Kulandaivel, Muralikannan, and Kalyana Sundaram (2018)
Red banana peduncle	150–250	990	440 ± 13.4	12.41 ± 5	1.57 ± 0.04	62.1	12.1	Manimaran et al. (2018)
Sansevieria roxb. leaves	106.33	950	213.6	16.02	1.12	95.55	5.25	Krishna, Kailasanathan, and NagarajaGanesh (2020)
Sisal	50–300	1450	227 – 700	9–20	3-14	-	-	Rao et al. (2007)
Tridax procumbens	233.1 ± 9.9	1160 ± 120	25.75 ± 2.45	0.94 ± 0.09	2.77 ± 0.27	34.46	25.04	Vijay et al. (2019)

Table 2. Percentage of chemical constituents present in PRFs and other natural fibers.

Fiber	Weight % of						References
	Cellulose	Hemicellulose	Lignin	Wax	Moisture	Ash
Pinus Roxburghii fiber	58.3	19.0	20.2	0.94	9.48	1.60	This Study
Acacia arabica bark	68.10	9.36	16.86	0.49	-	-	Manimaran et al. (2016)
Albizia julibrissin	55.83	10.74	16.03	0.53	8.44	10.84	Md et al. (2020)
Areca palm leaf stalk	57.49 ± 0.66	18.34 ± 0.24	7.26 ± 0.12	0.71 ± 0.024	9.35 ± 0.15	-	Shanmugasundaram, Rajendran, and Ramkumar (2018)
Artisdita hystrix leaf	59.54	11.35	8.42	-	-	-	Kathiresan et al. (2016)
Cardiospermum halicababum	59.82	16.75	9.3	1.3	1.9	4.5	Vinod et al. (2021)
Cissus quadrangularis root	77.17	11.02	10.45	.014	7.3	-	Indran, Raj, and Sreenivasan (2014)
Cissus quadrangularis stem	82.73	7.96	11.27	0.18	6.6	-	Indran and Raj (2015)
Cymbopogon flexuosus	68.13	11.56	23.9	0.53	9.17	4.81	Raja et al. (2021)
Ficus religiosa fiber	55.58	13.86	10.13	0.72	9.33	4.86	Moshi et al. (2020)
Flax	64.1	16.7	2.0	1.5	-	-	Bledzki and Gassan (1999)
Heteropogon contortus	64.87	19.34	13.56	0.22	7.4	-	Hyness et al. (2018)
Jute	64.4	12	11.8	0.5	-	-	Bledzki and Gassan (1999)
Kenaf	45–57	8-13	21.5	0.8	6-12	-	Indran and Raj (2015)
Manicaria saccifera palm	74.1	12.0	31.1	-	-	-	Porras, Maranon, and Ashcroft (2015)
Mulberry	75.06	11.27	5.22	0.86	4.25	1.87	Shanmugasundaram and Rajendran (2016)
Phoenix dactylifera L. (leaf sheath)	43.50	24	18	-	6.8	7.73	Alotaibi et al. (2019)
Phoenix dactylifera L. (stalk)	44	26	11.45	-	9.6	1.85	Alotaibi et al. (2019)
Phoenix dactylifera L. (trunk)	35	15.40	20.13	-	15.6	12.6	Alotaibi et al. (2019)
Pigeon pea	55.03	-	18.32	2.38	8.13	4.67	Kulandaivel, Muralikannan, and Kalyana Sundaram (2018)
Sansevieria roxburghiana	78.63	2.01	9.86	0.16	7.85	1.49	Krishna, Kailasanathan, and NagarajaGanesh (2020)
Sea grass	57	38	5	-	-	-	Davies et al. (2007)
Tridax procumbens	32	6.8	3	0.71	11.2	-	Vijay et al. (2019)

Figure 3. (a) FTIR spectra of PRFs (b) XRD diffractograms of PRFs.

Figure 4. TG and DTG analysis curve for PRFs.

Figure 5. FESEM images of the PRFs (a) Showing void space (b) Showing wax content (c) Circular cross-section.

Figure 6. AFM analysis of PRFs: (a) 2D image and (b) 3D image.

Figure 7. EDX analysis of PRFs.

Figure 8. Stress-strain diagram of PRFs.

Manimaran, P., S. S. Saravanakumar, N. K. Mithun, and P. Senthamaraikannan. 2016. Physicochemical properties of new cellulosic fibers from the bark of Acacia arabica. International Journal of Polymer Analysis and Characterization 21 (6):548–53. doi:10.1080/1023666X.2016.1177699.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Md, J. S., S. Madhu, K. S. Chakravarthy, and J. S. N. Raju. 2020. Characterization of natural cellulose fibers from the stem of Albizia Julibrissin as reinforcement for polymer composites. Journal of Natural Fibers 19 (6):2204–17. doi:10.1080/15440478.2020.1807440.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kathiresan, M., P. Pandiarajan, P. Senthamaraikannan, and S. S. Saravanakumar. 2016. Physicochemical properties of new cellulosic Artisdita hystrix leaf fiber. International Journal of Polymer Analysis and Characterization 21 (8):663–68. doi:10.1080/1023666X.2016.1194636.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fiore, V., T. Scalici, and A. Valenza. 2014. Characterisation of a new natural fiber from Arundo donax L. as potential reinforcement of polymer composites. Carbohydrate Polymer 106:77–83. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.02.016.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vinod, A., R. Vijay, D. L. Singaravelu, M. R. Sanjay, S. Siengchin, Y. Yagnaraj, and S. Khan. 2021. Extraction and characterisation of natural fiber from stem of cardiospermum halicababum. Journal of Natural Fibers 18 (6):898–908. doi:10.1080/15440478.2019.1669514.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Indran, S., and R. E. Raj. 2015. Characterisation of new natural cellulosic fiber from Cissus quadrangularis stem. Carbohydrate Polymer 117:392–99. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.09.072.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Raja, S., R. Rajesh, S. Indran, D. Divya, and G. S. Priyadharshini. 2021. Characterization of industrial discarded novel Cymbopogon flexuosus stem fiber: A potential replacement for synthetic fiber. Journal of Industrial Textiles 51 (1_suppl):1207S–34S. doi:10.1177/15280837211007507.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rao, K. M. M., A. V. R. Prasad, M. N. V. R. Babu, K. M. Rao, and A. V. S. S. K. S. Gupta. 2007. Tensile properties of elephant grass fiber reinforced polyester composites. Journal of Materials Science 42 (9):3266–72. doi:10.1007/s10853-006-0657-8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Moshi, A. A. M., D. Ravindran, S. R. S. Bharathi, S. Indran, S. S. Saravanakumar, and Y. Liu. 2020. Characterisation of a new cellulosic natural fiber extracted from the root of Ficus religiosa tree. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 142:212–21. doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.09.094.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bledzki, A. K., and J. Gassan. 1999. Composites reinforced with cellulose-based fibers. Progress in Polymer Science 24 (2):221–74. doi:10.1016/S0079-6700(98)00018-5.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hyness, N. R. J., N. J. Vignesh, P. Senthamaraikannan, S. S. Saravanakumar, and M. R. Sanjay. 2018. Characterisation of new natural cellulosic fiber from heteropogon contortus plant. Journal of Natural Fibers 15 (1):146–53. doi:10.1080/15440478.2017.1321516.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Porras, A., A. Maranon, and I. A. Ashcroft. 2015. Characterisation of a novel natural cellulose fabric from Manicaria saccifera palm as possible reinforcement of composite materials. Composites Part B: Engineering 74:66–73. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.12.033.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shanmugasundaram, N., and I. Rajendran. 2016. Characterisation of raw and alkali-treated mulberry fibers as potential reinforcement in polymer composites. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 35 (7):601–14. doi:10.1177/0731684415625822.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Babu, B. G., D. Princewinston, S. S. Saravanakumar, A. Khan, P. V. A. Bhaskar, S. Indran, and D. Divya. 2022. Investigation on the physicochemical and mechanical properties of novel alkali-treated Phaseolus vulgaris fibers. Journal of Natural Fibers 19 (2):770–81. doi:10.1080/15440478.2020.1761930.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kulandaivel, N., R. Muralikannan, and S. Kalyana Sundaram. 2018. Extraction and characterisation of novel natural cellulosic fibers from pigeon pea plant. Journal of Natural Fibers 17 (5):769–79. doi:10.1080/15440478.2018.1534184.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Manimaran, P., M. R. Sanjay, P. Senthamaraikannan, M. Jawaid, S. S. Saravanakumar, and R. George. 2018. Synthesis and characterisation of cellulosic fiber from red banana peduncle as reinforcement for potential applications. Journal of Natural Fibers 16 (5):768–80. doi:10.1080/15440478.2018.1434851.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Krishna, M. G., C. Kailasanathan, and B. NagarajaGanesh. 2020. Physico-chemical and morphological characterisation of cellulose fibers extracted from Sansevieria roxburghiana Schult & Schult. f leaves. Journal of Natural Fibers 19:1–17.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vijay, R., D. L. Singaravelu, A. Vinod, M. R. Sanjay, S. Siengchin, M. Jawaid, A. Khan, and J. Parameswaranpillai. 2019. Characterisation of raw and alkali treated new natural cellulosic fibers from Tridax procumbens. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 125:99–108. doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.12.056.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shanmugasundaram, N., I. Rajendran, and T. Ramkumar. 2018. Characterisation of untreated and alkali treated new cellulosic fiber from an Areca palm leaf stalk as potential reinforcement in polymer composites. Carbohydrate Polymer 195:566–75. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.04.127.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Indran, S., R. E. Raj, and V. S. Sreenivasan. 2014. Characterisation of new natural cellulosic fiber from Cissus quadrangularis root. Carbohydrate Polymer 110:423–29. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.04.051.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alotaibi, M. D., B. A. Alshammari, N. Saba, O. Y. Alothman, M. R. Sanjay, Z. Almutairi, and M. Jawaid. 2019. Characterisation of natural fiber obtained from different parts of date palm tree (Phoenix dactylifera L.). International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 135:69–76. doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.05.102.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Davies, P., C. Morvan, O. Sire, and C. Baley. 2007. Structure and properties of fibres from sea-grass (Zostera marina). Journal of Materials Science 42 (13):4850–57. doi:10.1007/s10853-006-0546-1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar