Development of Gender-Friendly Power Ribboner for Extraction of Green Ribbon/Bast from Jute Plants

Figures & data

Figure 1. Illustration of manual operation of developed gender-friendly power ribboner.

Figure 2. Isometric view of developed gender-friendly power ribboner (a) Inner view (b) Outer view.

Figure 3. Flow chart of static structural analysis using FEM in ANSYS workbench.

Table 1. Mechanical properties of simulated material.

S. N.	Material	Properties
		Young’s modulus (E), GPa	Poisson’s ratio (ν)	Density (ρ), kg/m^3	Tensile yield strength, Mpa	Tensile ultimate strength, MPa	Reference
1	Nylon 66/6	3.77	0.40	1190	90	93.1	MatWeb (n.d.) and Kohan (1986)
2	Mild steel	210	0.3	7850	320	400	Norton (2006)
3	High carbon steel	200	0.3	7850	525	685	Norton (2006)
4	Medium carbon steel	210	0.3	7850	345	550	Norton (2006)

Figure 4. Power transmission system of the developed ribboner.

Figure 5. Simulated results of fluted crushing rollers.

Figure 6. Operation of the developed jute ribboner (a) operated by male operator, (b) operated by female operator, and (c) extracted jute ribbon and inner jute sticks.

Figure 7. Performance results of the developed gender-friendly power ribboner.

Table 2. ANOVA of power ribboner throughput capacity.

Source	DF	Type I SS	Mean square	F value	Pr>F
Hs	2	8342.52	4171.26	56.94	<.0001
rpmf	2	2969.85	1484.93	20.27	.0007
Dp	2	30074.30	15037.15	205.26	<.0001
Hs × rpmf	4	568.59	142.15	1.94	.1971
Hs × Dp	4	876.81	219.20	2.99	.0875
rpmf × Dp	4	45.48	11.37	0.16	.9552
Model	18	42877.56	2382.09	32.52	<.0001
Error	8	586.07	73.26
Corrected table	26	8342.52	4171.26

R² = 0.98, C.V. = 5.69, RMSE = 8.55.

where R² = coefficient of determination; C.V. = coefficient of variance; RMSE = root mean square error.

Table 3. ANOVA of power ribboner extraction capacity.

Source	DF	Type I SS	Mean square	F value	Pr>F
Hs	2	4258.67	2129.33	1299.25	<.0001
rpmf	2	374.22	187.11	114.17	<.0001
Dp	2	15448.22	7724.11	4713.02	<.0001
Hs × rpmf	4	3.11	0.78	0.47	.7540
Hs × Dp	4	2444.44	611.11	372.88	<.0001
rpmf × Dp	4	14.89	3.72	2.27	.1503
Model	18	22543.56	1252.42	764.19	<.0001
Error	8	13.11	1.64
Corrected table	26	22556.67

R² = 0.99, C.V. = 1.81, RMSE = 1.28.

Table 4. ANOVA of power ribboner extraction efficiency.

Source	DF	Type I SS	Mean square	F value	Pr>F
Hs	2	6.77	30.38	457.03	<.0001
rpmf	2	19.19	9.60	144.34	<.0001
Dp	2	407.21	203.60	3062.55	<.0001
Hs × rpmf	4	.44	0.11	1.64	.2546
Hs × Dp	4	19.33	4.83	72.69	<.0001
rpmf × Dp	4	2.82	0.70	10.60	.0028
Model	18	509.75	28.32	425.98	<.0001
Error	8	.53	0.07
Corrected table	26	51.28

R² = 0.99, CV = 0.29, RMSE = 0.25.

Table 5. ANOVA of power ribboner ribbon loss.

Source	DF	Type I SS	Mean square	F value	Pr>F
Hs	2	6.77	30.38	457.03	<.0001
rpmf	2	19.19	9.60	144.34	<.0001
Dp	2	407.21	203.60	3062.55	<.0001
Hs × rpmf	4	.44	0.11	1.64	.2546
Hs × Dp	4	19.33	4.83	72.69	<.0001
rpmf × Dp	4	2.82	0.70	10.60	.0028
Model	18	509.75	28.32	425.98	<.0001
Error	8	.53	0.07
Corrected table	26	51.28

R² = 0.99, CV = 2.48, RMSE = 0.25.

Figure 8. Results of optimization of operating parameters.

Figure 9. (a) Retting of the jute (b) Fibre extracted using ribbon retting (c) Fibre extracted using conventional retting.

Table 6. Quality parameters of fiber under different retting techniques.

Treatment	Bundle strength (gm/tex)	Colour (whitness, %)	Fineness (tex)	Defects (%)	Root content (%)	Retting duration
Control	18.6 ± 2.3^a	53 ± 0.76^a	2.7 ± 0.67^a	1.5 ± 0.89^a	15 ± 0.38^a	18
Ribbon in tape water alone	20.3 ± 2.1^b	59 ± 1.23^b	2.4 ± 0.92^b	1.5 ± 0.56^a	05 ± 0.42^b	10

(The superscript carrying same letter is not significant at p < .005 in DMRT).

MatWeb. n.d. Overview of materials for Nylon 66/6. https://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=26386631ec1b49eeba62c80a49730dc4&ckck=1

 Google Scholar

Kohan, M. I. 1986. The history and development of Nylon-66. High Performance Polymers: Their Origin and Development 19–37.

 Google Scholar

Norton, R. L. 2006. Machine design: An integrated approach. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

 Google Scholar