Available Online

J. Sci. Res. 3 (2), 249-259 (2011)

Publications

JOURNAL OF
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
www.banglajol.info/index.php/JSR

Fabrication and Characterization of Jute Fiber Reinforced Low Density

Polyethylene Based Composites: Effects of Chemical Treatment
M. J. Miaha, M. A. Khanb*, and R. A. Khanb
a

Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology, Chittagong-4349, Bangladesh

Institute of Radiation and Polymer Technology, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, P.O.
Box-3787, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
Received 4 January 2011, accepted in final revised form 25 March 2011
Abstract
Jute fiber reinforced low density polyethylene (LDPE) composites (10-30% fiber, by
weight) are prepared by compression molding. Tensile strength (TS), bending strength (BS)
and bending elongation (BE) of the composites are increased over LDPE. Jute fiber is
treated with monomer (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, HEMA) along with two different
initiators in methanol solvent. Jute fibers are soaked with 10% HEMA+2% Irgacure-184
(F1-Formulation) and 3% HEMA+2% benzol peroxide (F2-Formulation) and dried at 80C
for 2 hours then composites are fabricated by compression molding. It is found that due to
chemical treatment of the jute fibers, a significant improvement of the mechanical properties
of the composites are happened (56% TS, 30% BS and 35% BE) compared to the LDPE.
3%HEMA+2% benzol peroxide treated jute composites found better mechanical properties
compared to 10%HEMA+2% Irgacure-184 treated jute composites. Dielectric constant and
loss tangent of the composites are increased with increasing temperature up to a transition
temperature and then decreased, finally reached to plateau. Scanning Electron Microscopic
(SEM) analysis of the fracture side of the composites are carried out and supported better
fiber-matrix adhesion due to the chemical treatment.
Keywords: Jute fiber; Polyethylene; Composite; Tensile strength; Bending strength;
Dielectric constant; Loss tangent.
2011 JSR Publications. ISSN: 2070-0237 (Print); 2070-0245 (Online). All rights reserved.
doi:10.3329/jsr.v3i2.6763

J. Sci. Res. 3 (2), 249-259 (2011)

1. Introduction
Natural polymer like jute, kenaf, pineapple, flax, wood etc are biodegradable and easily
decomposable in the environment. To keep the environment free from pollution, the use of
biodegradable and environmental friendly polymer is important and hence scientists all
over the world are becoming interested in natural polymer. Nowadays, natural polymer
jute is loosing its demand in the local and foreign market because jute fibers do not
possess necessary mechanical properties desirable for engineering plastic. A notable
*

Corresponding author: [email protected]

250

Fabrication and Characterization

disadvantage of jute fibers is their polarity which makes it unsuited with hydrophobic
matrix. This incompatibility results in poor interfacial bonding between fibers and matrix.
The survival of the use of jute depends on the demand of jute as preferred material. On the
other hand, synthetic polymer such as polystyrene, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl
chloride etc. have higher mechanical properties, sustainability and durability compared to
the natural polymer. But they are not biodegradable and they cause pollution of the
environment. With this aim in mind many researchers developed different composites by
the combination of natural and synthetic polymers and some of them have already been
used as industrial products. Among synthetic polymers, polyethylene possesses
outstanding properties like low density, low cost, good flex life, good surface hardness,
scratch resistance and excellent electrical insulating properties [1]. Jute fiber is
predominantly polar due to the presence of various polar groups on its backbone [2]. On
the contrary, polyethylene is nonpolar [3]. So, for better interaction between the two
incompatible surfaces, the presence of a compatibilizer is envisaged [4]. Jute-polyethylene
composite containing benzol peroxide treated jute fabric reports remarkable increase in
mechanical properties [5]. As jute is abundantly available in tropical countries, it is
worthwhile to study jute-polyethylene composites with an aim to achieve comparable
properties of other filled polyethylene composites. A lot of research works are going on to
improve the quality of the composites more [6-13] and most of the articles reported only
mechanical properties. But, in this investigation both mechanical and electrical properties
specially dielectric constant and loss tangent of untreated and chemically treated jute fiber
reinforced LDPE composites have been investigated. Moreover, here jute fibers are cured
only by thermal method (dried at 80C for 2 hours). To improve fiber matrix adhesion
inside composites, jute fabric is treated with 10% HEMA (2-hydroxy ethyl methacrylate)
monomer + 2% Irgacure-184 (as photo-initiator) and 3%HEMA monomer + 2%Benzol
peroxide (as photo-initiator). Mechanical and electrical properties of the untreated jute
composites are compared with both types of chemically treated jute based composites.
2. Experimental
2.1. Materials
Jute fiber (Hessian cloth) is collected from Bangladesh Jute Research Institute, Dhaka.
Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) is purchased from Polyolefin Company Ltd. Singapore.
Monomer (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, HEMA) is procured from Merck, Germany.
Photo-initiator (Irgacure-184) is collected from Ciba-Geigy, Switzerland. Benzol peroxide
(BPO) and solvent (methanol) are purchased from BDH, UK.
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Preparation of Composites
Jute fibers are treated with monomer (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, HEMA) along with
two different initiators in methanol solvent. Composition of the formulations (Termed as

M. J. Miah et al., J. Sci. Res. 3 (2), 249-259 (2011)

251

F1 and F2) are given in Table 1. Jute fibers are soaked (15 min) in 10% HEMA+2%
Irgacure-184 (F1-Formulation) and 3% HEMA+2% benzol peroxide (F2-Formulation) and
dried in the oven at 80C for 2 hours then composites are fabricated by compression
molding using heat press (Carver INC, USA, Model-3856). The composites are prepared
by sandwiching two layers of jute between three layers of LDPE sheets. The LDPE sheets
(0.5-1.0 mm thickness) are prepared by heating the polymer granules at 115C for 5 min
between two steel plates under a pressure of 3 ton. Prepared LDPE sheets are cooled to
room temperature (25C), cut to desired size and kept in the plastic bag for composite
fabrication. Composites are prepared at 135C and 5 ton pressure using same heat press.
Table 1. Composition of formulations (% w/w).
Formulations

HEMA

MeOH

Photoinitiator
Irg-184

Benzol peroxide

F1

10

88

F2

95

2.2.2. Measurement of mechanical properties

The mechanical properties such as tensile strength (TS), bending strength (BS) and
bending elongation (BE) of LDPE sheets and the composites are determined by universal
testing machine (INSTRON, model 1011, UK). Tensile strength measurements and three
point bending tests are carried out following DIN 53455 and DIN 53452 standard methods
respectively. All the results are taken as the average values of at least 10 samples.
2.2.3. Measurement of dielectric properties
The dielectric properties, especially the dielectric constant and the dielectric loss of both
the treated and untreated composites are calculated from the measured capacitance of
samples using the relation = C/Co, where C is the capacitance of the samples and Co is
the capacitance of the samples in vacuum. Co is calculated from the knowledge of
dimensions of the sample using the following relation, Co = 8.85 10-12 A/t, where, t is
the thickness of the sample in meter. The dielectric properties are measured over the
temperature range from 20C to 80C at frequency 10 kHz.
2.2.4.

Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) analysis

The fracture surface of the composites is investigated by Scanning Electron Microscope

(JEOL-SEM, Japan, Model 6400) at an accelerating voltage of 10kV. SEM specimens are
sputter-coated with gold.

252

Fabrication and Characterization

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Mechanical properties of jute/LDPE composites
3.1.1. Tensile strength (TS) of the composites
Fibers are soaked with 10% HEMA+2% Irgacure-184 (F1-Formulation) and 3%
HEMA+2% benzol peroxide (BPO) (F2-Formulation) and dried at 80C for 2 hours. Using
these treated fibers, low density polyethylene (LDPE) based composites are fabricated by
compression molding. The fiber content in the composites varies from 10-30% by weight.
Untreated jute fiber reinforced LDPE matrix composites are also fabricated using same
method. Tensile strength (TS) of the matrix (LDPE), and untreated jute based composites
are compared with two types of the composites. The results are presented in Fig. 1. TS of
LDPE is found to be 15 MPa. It is found that TS of three types of composites (untreated,
HEMA treated and BPO treated) increases with the increase of jute content up to 25% and
then decreases. Untreated jute based composites performs about 37% enhancement of TS.
But 49% and 56% improvement of TS are found for 10%HEMA+2% Irgacure-184 treated
and 3%HEMA+2%BPO treated jute based composites. This is clear that BPO performs
better than that of Irgacure-184. BPO generates free radicals during composite fabrication
and these free radicals can initiate free radical reaction which reacts with HEMA and
cellulose back bone of jute fiber and thereby improves fiber matrix adhesion. The reaction
between HEMA monomer and cellulose (major constituent of jute) is shown in scheme
(a).

Tensile strength (Mpa)

30

Untreated
HEM A+Irg-184
HEM A+BPO

25

20

15

10
5

10

15

20

25

30

Jute content in the composites(wt%)

Fig. 1. Effect of jute content on the tensile strength.

Basically initiators (benzol peroxide and Irgacure-184) help to start initiation reaction
(formation of free radical oxygen) of monomer (HEMA) but not take part in the reaction.

M. J. Miah et al., J. Sci. Res. 3 (2), 249-259 (2011)

253

Homo-polymerization reaction can occur with the formation of poly-HEMA (scheme-b).

Benzol peroxide is an oxidizing agent and it can ionize quickly than Irgacure-184. HEMA
treatment of the jute fibers decreases the hydrophilic nature of the jute which attributes
higher TS over the control composites [14].

Scheme. (a) Reaction between HEMA and cellulose of jute, and (b) formation of
polymer (poly-HEMA).

(a)

(b)

Scheme: Reaction between HEMA and Cellulose of jute (a) and formation of
polymer (poly-HEMA) (b).

3.1.2. Bending strength (BS) of the composites

BS both of the treated and untreated composites has been measured as a function of jute
content; the result is shown in Figure.2. BS of the composites increases with the increase
of jute content like TS but reaches the maximum for 20% fiber content then decreases.
High fiber content is responsible for poor fiber matrix adhesion. Similar results are
reported elsewhere for jute/polyester amide composites [14].Chemical treatment of jutefiber plays an important role on its mechanical properties. HEMA and BPO treated
composites have higher values of BS than that of untreated composite. Observation proves
that there is a poor interaction between fiber and matrix in the untreated composites. In the
chemically treated composites, interaction between fibers and matrix is strong and fibers
are uniformly spread in the composites thus prevented to form a bundle. 30%
improvement of BS has been found for the BPO+HEMA treated composite than the
LDPE.

254

Fabrication and Characterization

Untreated

85

HEM A+Irg-184

Bending strength (Mpa)

75

HEM A+BPO

65
55
45
35
25
15
5

10

15

20

25

30

Jute content in the compostes (wt%)

Fig. 2. Effect of jute content on the bending strength.

3.1.3. Bending elongation (BE) of the composites

BE of treated and untreated composites with respect to jute content is presented in
Figure 3. BE of benzol peroxide treated jute based composite shows better result than that
of untreated sample and Irgacure-184 treated sample. Maximum value of BE for untreated
and BPO treated jute composites is found for 20% jute content. Whereas, for Irgacure-184
treated jute composite, the maximum value of BE is found for 25% jute content. This may
be due to elasticity of jute fibers which depends simultaneously both on amounts of fiber
and chemical treatment process. The significant information of this part of research is the
improvement of BE for jute/LDPE composites. Hence, it can be concluded that using
chemical treatment have the potentially to improve BE to the required range.
35

Untreated

% of bending elongation

HEM A+Irg-184
30

HEM A+BPO

25

20

15

10
5

10

15

20

25

30

Jute content in the composites (wt%)

Fig. 3. Effect of jute content on the % of bending elongation.

M. J. Miah et al., J. Sci. Res. 3 (2), 249-259 (2011)

255

3.2. Dielectric behavior of the jute/LDPE composites

Dielectric properties such as dielectric constant and loss tangents of both untreated and
chemically treated composites were studied with the variation of jute content at a fixed
frequency of 10 kHz. The variation of dielectric constant with temperature for the
composites containing 10, 20 and 30% jute fiber is given in Fig. 4. On the other hand,
dependence of loss tangent with temperature for the composites (10, 20 and 30% fiber
content) is presented in Fig. 5.
Fig. 4 shows the variation of dielectric constant with temperature for untreated,
10%HEMA+2%Irgacure-184 treated and 3%HEMA+2%BPO treated jute based
composites.

30

20

10

Untreated
HEM A+Irg-184
HEAM +BPO

35
b)

30

25

20

15

35

55

Temperature in C

75

15

35

55

75

Temperature in C

60
Dielectric constant x10 3

Untreated
HEM A+Irg-184
HEM A+BPO

a)

Dielectric constant x10 3

Dielectric constant x10 3

40

Untreated
HEM A+Irg-184
HEM A+BPO

c)

50
40
30
20
15

35

55

75

Temperature in C

Fig. 4. Dependence of dielectric constant on temperature for a) 10% jute based

composites b) 20% jute based composites and c) 30% jute based composites.

All the curves obtained for the composites containing 10% jute fabric (Fig. 4a) show
the same pattern. Dielectric constant of untreated and treated composites decreases
irregularly with some fluctuation with temperature. Dielectric constant for untreated
composite is found higher than those of the treated composites. 10%HEMA+2%Irgacure184 treated jute composite shows higher value of dielectric constant than the BPO treated
jute/LDPE composite. For the untreated composite containing 20% jute fabric (Fig. 4b), it
is found that dielectric constant initially increases very sharply with increasing
temperature and the maximum value reaches at 36C. Above this temperature, the
dielectric constant drops sharply up to 44C and then it decreases slowly with increasing
temperature. Above 75C the dielectric constant remains constant with increasing
temperature.
Composites
treated
with
10%HEMA+2%Irgacure-184
and
3%HEMA+2%BPO show the same pattern as the untreated one. Dependence of dielectric
constant with temperature for untreated and treated composites containing 30% jute
fabrics shows the same nature (Fig. 4c) as the 20% jute fabric composites. Initially the

256

Fabrication and Characterization

dielectric constant for untreated composite increases very sharply with increasing
temperature and the maximum value reaches at 47C. Above this temperature, dielectric
constants decrease very sharply up to 56C and then decrease slowly up to 70C. For
further increase in temperature, dielectric constant remains constant. Dielectric constant
for treated composites has maximum value at 42C. Loss tangent both of treated and
untreated composites containing 10% jute fabric (Fig. 5a) initially increase and then
decrease with increasing temperature. After that the loss tangent for both untreated and
treated composites remains constant. For the composites containing 20% jute fabric (Fig.
5b), the dielectric loss tangent increases rapidly with increasing temperature up to 36C
for both untreated and treated. Above 36C, the loss tangent decreases sharply with
increasing temperature which is in conformity with the dielectric behavior i.e.
demonstrated the presence of phase transition. For the composites containing 30% jute
fabric the transition is found at around 40~45C (Fig. 5c). Untreated composite shows the
transition at 44C and treated composites (both types) show the transition at 41C.

70

55
50
45
40

Untreated
HEM A+Irg-184
HEM A+BPO

b)

60
50
40

c)

Untreated
HEM A+Irg-184
HEM A+BPO

70
60
50
40
30

30
15
35
55
75
Temperature in C

80
Dielectric loss

a)

Dielectric loss

Dielectric loss

60

Untreated
HEM A+Irg-184
HEM A+BPO

15

35

55

75

Temperature in C

15

30 45 60 75
Temperature in C

Fig. 5. Dependence of dielectric loss on temperature for a) 10% jute based composites
b) 20% jute based composites and c) 30% jute based composites.

Above investigation clearly reveals that dielectric constant is lower for treated
composites over the untreated one. This is because of the free radials generation during
composites fabrication at high temperature. It is also apparent that BPO treated jute
composites show low dielectric constant compared to Irgacure-184 treated jute based
composites which indicates higher free radical formation of BPO during the process of
composites preparation. No transition is found for the composites containing 10% jute
fabric (both treated and untreated). Composites containing 20% and 30% jute fabric (both
treated and untreated) undergo a definite phase transition. Here it is concluded that when
jute content is increased, it undergoes a transition. It is reported that jute fiber is a
ferroelectric material [15]. The transition observed in the present study may be associated
with ferro-paraelectric transition. For definite conclusion about the nature of transition
hysteretic loop study is needed. The synthetic polymer LDPE has excellent chemical

M. J. Miah et al., J. Sci. Res. 3 (2), 249-259 (2011)

257

inertness and electrical insulating properties. The effect of LDPE is dominated in the
composites containing less than 20% of jute and hence there is no clear evidence of phase
transition in those composites. The transition temperature is same for both the treated and
untreated composites containing 20% jute fabrics. Whereas, the transition temperature in
untreated composite is higher than that of the treated composites of 30% jute fabric.
During fabrication of the composites, initiator produces free radicals in the treated
composites and they contribute to reduce the electrical insulating properties. All the
measurements (except 10% jute based composites) show that dielectric values increase up
to a transition temperature and above the transition temperature it decrease and with
further increase of temperature it reduce to a constant value. Jute is a hydrogen-bonded
material [16]. The hydrogen bonds break to form dipoles with increasing temperature.
These dipoles tend to align with the electric field and thus increase the dielectric constant.
At the transition temperature, the alignment of dipoles towards the field is the highest
which gives rise to maximum dielectric value. Above the transition temperature, the
dipoles tend to be random. As the randomness increases with increasing temperature, the
dielectric values decrease and eventually becomes constant.
3.3. Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) analysis
Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) investigation of the fracture surface of the jute
composites is performed to study interfacial properties between jute fiber and LDPE
matrix. SEM images of fracture surface of untreated (a), 10%HEMA+2%Irgacure-184
treated (b) and 3% HEMA+2%BPO treated (c) jute/LDPE composite are presented in Fig.
6.
a)..

b)

b)

c)

Fig. 6. SEM images of fracture surface of a) untreated jute fiber/PE composite b)

10% HEMA + 2% Irgacure-184 treated Jute/PE composite and c) 3%HEMA + 2%
BPO treated Jute/PE composite.

258

Fabrication and Characterization

The figure clearly indicates that there is considerable difference in the fiber-matrix
interaction between the treated and untreated jute composites. Fiber pull-out phenomena is
observed for all cases but for untreated jute composite fiber pull-out is observed in bundle
form where as in chemically treated composites agglomeration of the fibers into bundle
form is relatively prevented. Between the treated samples, 3%HEMA+2%BPO treated
jute/LDPE composite (Fig. 6c) shows significant change of morphology and this is
effective for better mechanical bonding between fiber and polymer matrix.
4. Conclusions
Natural fiber, jute is treated with 10% HEMA+2% Irgacure-184 and 3%HEMA+2%BPO
then dried at 80C for 2 hours. Low density polyethylene (LDPE) based composites are
fabricated by using untreated and treated jute fibers by compression molding. Tensile
strength (TS), bending strength (BS) and bending elongation (BE) of the composites are
found higher than the matrix polymer LDPE. It can be concluded that jute reinforced
properly with LDPE. Due to chemical treatment of the jute fibers, a significant
improvement of the mechanical properties of the composites is found over untreated
jute/LDPE composites. 3%HEMA+2% BPO treated jute composites show better
mechanical properties compared to 10% HEMA+2% Irgacure-184 treated jute composites.
Dielectric constant and loss tangent of the composites are increased with increasing
temperature up to a transition temperature and then decreased, finally reached to plateau.
Scanning Electron Microscopic (SEM) analysis supports better fiber-matrix adhesion due
to the chemical treatment. The importance of this investigation is to improve the
mechanical properties of the jute based composites by HEMA treatment of the jute fibers.
Two types of initiators are also found potential for the improvement of strength but BPO
performs better results. In conclusion, chemical treatment of jute has the capability to
improve the fiber matrix which is attributed to better mechanical properties.
References
1. J. A. Brydson, Plastic Materials, 3rd edition (Newnes Butterworths, London, 1975).
2. S. M. Lee (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Composites, Vol. 4 (VCH, New York, 1990).
3. H. F. Mark, N. G. Gaylord, and N. M. Bikales (eds.), Propylene Polymers, Encyclopedia of
Polymer Science and Technology, Vol. 11 (Interscience, Wiley, New York, 1969).
4. J. Stepek and H. Daoust, Additives for Plastics, Vol. 5, Chapt. 4 (Springer-Verlag, New York,
1983).
5. M. J. Miah, F. Ahmed, A. Hossain, A. H. Khan, and M. A. Khan, Polym. Plast. Tech. & Eng. 44,
1443 (2005).
6. U. Z. Haydar, A. H. Khan, A. Hossain, M. A. Khan, and R. A Khan, Polym. Plast. Tech. & Eng.
48,760 (2009).
7. M. A. Khan, R. A. Khan, Haydaruzzaman, G. Sushanta, M. N. A. Siddiky, and M. Saha, Polym.
Plast. Tech. & Eng. 48, 542 (2009).
8. M. Ramakrishna, V. Kumar, and N. S. Yuvraj, J. Reinf. Plast. & Composites 28, 1169 (2009).

M. J. Miah et al., J. Sci. Res. 3 (2), 249-259 (2011)

259

9. H. S. Yang, H. J. Kim, B. J. Lee and T. S. Hwang, Comp. Struct. 72, 429 (2006).
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2005.01.013
10. F. Vilaseca, J.A. Mendez, A. Pelach, M. Llop, N. Canigueral, J. Girones, Process Biochemistry
42, 329 (2007). doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2006.09.004
11. M. S. Jamil, I. Ahmed, and I. Abdullah, J. Poly. Res. 13, 315(2006).
12. C. Scarponi and C. S. Pizzinelli, Int. J. Mat. & Prod. Tech. 36, 278 (2009).
doi:10.1504/IJMPT.2009.027837
13. X. Li, S. Panigrahi and L. G. Tabil, Am. Soc. Agr. & Bio. Eng. 25 (4), 525 (2009).
14. A. K. Mohanty, A. M. Khan, and G. Hinrichsen, J. Comp. Sci. & Tech. 60, 1115 (2000).
15. L. R. Das, M.Sc.Thesis, Dept. of Physics, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, Bangladesh (2000).
16. E. Frollini, A. L. Leao, and L. H. C. Mattoso (eds.), (Instrumentacao Agropecuaria: San Carlos,
Brazil, 2000) pp.115-134.