Cargando…
Comparative Analysis of Carbon, Ecological, and Water Footprints of Polypropylene-Based Composites Filled with Cotton, Jute and Kenaf Fibers
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 vie...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7476004/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32796660 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13163541 |
_version_ | 1783579634499059712 |
---|---|
author | Korol, Jerzy Hejna, Aleksander Burchart-Korol, Dorota Wachowicz, Jan |
author_facet | Korol, Jerzy Hejna, Aleksander Burchart-Korol, Dorota Wachowicz, Jan |
author_sort | Korol, Jerzy |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7476004 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74760042020-09-09 Comparative Analysis of Carbon, Ecological, and Water Footprints of Polypropylene-Based Composites Filled with Cotton, Jute and Kenaf Fibers Korol, Jerzy Hejna, Aleksander Burchart-Korol, Dorota Wachowicz, Jan Materials (Basel) Article 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. MDPI 2020-08-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7476004/ /pubmed/32796660 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13163541 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Korol, Jerzy Hejna, Aleksander Burchart-Korol, Dorota Wachowicz, Jan Comparative Analysis of Carbon, Ecological, and Water Footprints of Polypropylene-Based Composites Filled with Cotton, Jute and Kenaf Fibers |
title | Comparative Analysis of Carbon, Ecological, and Water Footprints of Polypropylene-Based Composites Filled with Cotton, Jute and Kenaf Fibers |
title_full | Comparative Analysis of Carbon, Ecological, and Water Footprints of Polypropylene-Based Composites Filled with Cotton, Jute and Kenaf Fibers |
title_fullStr | Comparative Analysis of Carbon, Ecological, and Water Footprints of Polypropylene-Based Composites Filled with Cotton, Jute and Kenaf Fibers |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Analysis of Carbon, Ecological, and Water Footprints of Polypropylene-Based Composites Filled with Cotton, Jute and Kenaf Fibers |
title_short | Comparative Analysis of Carbon, Ecological, and Water Footprints of Polypropylene-Based Composites Filled with Cotton, Jute and Kenaf Fibers |
title_sort | comparative analysis of carbon, ecological, and water footprints of polypropylene-based composites filled with cotton, jute and kenaf fibers |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7476004/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32796660 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma13163541 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT koroljerzy comparativeanalysisofcarbonecologicalandwaterfootprintsofpolypropylenebasedcompositesfilledwithcottonjuteandkenaffibers AT hejnaaleksander comparativeanalysisofcarbonecologicalandwaterfootprintsofpolypropylenebasedcompositesfilledwithcottonjuteandkenaffibers AT burchartkoroldorota comparativeanalysisofcarbonecologicalandwaterfootprintsofpolypropylenebasedcompositesfilledwithcottonjuteandkenaffibers AT wachowiczjan comparativeanalysisofcarbonecologicalandwaterfootprintsofpolypropylenebasedcompositesfilledwithcottonjuteandkenaffibers |