Fabrication of Reinforced Bio-Fiberglass Using Selected Agricultural Wastes

Jude Aldezon P. Arellano1; Aubrey Rose M. Anyayahan2; Czarina Maine R. Sescar3

jude.arellano24@gmail.com1; owbrey123@gmail.com2; sescarczarina@gmail.com3
Bansud National High School
MIMAROPA Regional Science High School-Senior High School
Oriental Mindoro, MIMAROPA Region, Philippines

Abstract: The application of various reinforcements to strengthen fiberglass materials are often derived
from hazardous chemicals which have negative effects and serious risk to human health (Azar,1989).
Thus, the current study focused on the fabrication of bio-fiberglass reinforced with selected agricultural
wastes like coconut husk, cogon grass and rice husk. The product was created by stripping the collected
agricultural wastes and were carefully mixed with resin and hardener at the ratio of 10:1. Then molded
and sun dried. The morphology of the surface of the fabricated fiberglass samples were evaluated using
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and digital HD microscope. Resistance to breakage and flame as
well as water absorbing capacity of the products were also tested. Morphology of the fiberglass with
cogon grass showed large particles with evident gaps in between while the long-fibered surface structure
was depicted at the surface of the fiberglass with coconut husk. On the other hand, a finer and smoother
surface with evident solidified and compacted internal microstructure was observed in the surface of the
rice husk reinforced fiberglass. Results also revealed that the fabricated fiberglass reinforced with rice
husk had the highest resistance to breakage followed by the coconut husk and cogon grass reinforcement.
One-Way ANOVA shows significant difference among three set-ups in terms of WAC (F=235.476,
p=0.000) where in cogon grass (M=42.8) has the highest, and flame tolerance (F=89.896, p=0.000) where
in cogon grass (M=5.292) has the highest. Thus, among the produced fabricated fiberglass, samples with
rice husk and cogon grass is the most effective as natural reinforcing agent in producing stronger and
safer bio-fiberglass with promising high breakage resistance.

Key words: Bio-fiberglass; Reinforced fiberglass; SEM evaluation

1. Introduction

The increasing demand for eco-friendly materials, increasing depletion rate, and soaring prices of
petroleum based plastics and pressing environmental regulations have all triggered a growing interest
towards the field of producing synthetic fiberglass. Cogon grass is labeled as an “invasive species” by the
government of the Philippines because of its rapid reproduction of seeds and spread throughout a large
area quickly. The weed was commonly known as a pest to many of the locals, especially farmers because
crops are disturbed the weed (Madsen, 2009). According to (Tatum, 2009) many discarded areas in the
provinces, dumped husks of the coconuts can be found. It is the largest waste product in the coconut
growing regions. As the seventh largest rice-producing country in the world, the Philippines generates an
abundance of rice husk and rice straw waste, both of which are termite-resistant that can very useful as an
additive component for fiberglass (Sergeant, 2015).

Coconut husk, cogon grass and rice husk are cellulose-based fibrous material that can be used as
an additive to fiberglass. They are environmentally friendly, fully biodegradable, abundantly available,
and renewable. Plant fibers are light compared to glass, carbon and aramid fibers. The biodegradability of

1
plant fibers can contribute to a healthy ecosystem while their low cost and high performance fulfills the
economic interest of industry. It has the potential to be utilized as an insulating material, in the
production of organic chemicals, panel boards and activated carbon, and supplementary cementing
material (Thomas, 1975).

Meanwhile, cogon grass is use because its rhizomes are tough, white, commonly 1 m long but can
be considerably more, are extensively branched and covered with papery scale leaves at the nodes. Roots
are fibrous, emerging from the base of the culm and the nodes on the rhizome (MacDonald, 2004). On the
other hand coconut husk fiber is wonderfully open, airy, and almost wirey in texture coconut husk fiber
can also be placed upon a mount as a less moist alternative to sphagnum moss (Zureick et al.,1995). In
addition, the rice husks are the hard protecting coverings of grains of rice

Hence, the researchers worked on fabricating and further analysis of bio-fiberglass with an
additive of coconut husk, cogon grass and rice husk. While the objective of this study to described the
fabricated bio-fiberglass in terms of breakage resistance, flame tolerance, and water absorbing capacity.
This study also sought to described its surface morphology using scanning electron microscopy. The
fabricated reinforced bio-fiberglass has natural materials that will not cause skin irritation. Future
researchers environment, professionals, fishermen and entrepreneurs can benefit and help by this study.

This science investigatory project shows the comparison of coconut husk, cogon grass and rice
husk as an additive in making fiberglass. The production of bio-fiber glass is used for many different
purposes. They are mainly used as a casting material, a wood filling, an adhesive, and for auto repairs.
The excellent adhesive properties and durability of the fiberglass resins make them an extremely useful
construction material. However, this study only works on how effectively cogon grass, coconut husk and
rice husk as an additive components in producing reinforced bio-fiberglass.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Collection and Preparation of the Raw Materials

In making natural fiberglass, the researcher collected coconut husk, cogon grass and rice husk.
Secondly, the researchers separated the coconut husk fibers by stripping it and the cogon grass and rice
husk were dried under the sun for 8 hours and grind into pieces.

2.2 Creating the Fiberglass

The product was created by stripping and drying the collected materials. The researcher
first prepared a suitable molder in measured size (4x4) m . 50 mL Poly (premix polyester) resin, 10 mL
hardener (catalyst), 30 g rice husk, 30 g cogon grass, and 30 g coconut husk, stirring rod, and wax (mold
release) were gathered. Wax (mold release) was applied in a molder so the fiber would not adhere, and
then let it dry. Coconut husk fiber was separated by stripping it, cogon grass and rice husk were cut into
pieces. The resins and catalyst were put in a container and mixed it in 3-4 minutes. The mixture of resins
and catalyst were transferred in the mold, after the desired thickness were attained, the researcher added
the rice husk, cogon grass, and coconut husk in the mold. Then, the molded materials were sun dried for
about 5 hours depending on its size.

2
2.3 Surface Morphology Analysis
Hitachi TM3000 table top microscope (Scanning Electron Microscope) was used in the
generation of micrographs of the different reinforced bio-fiberglass.
The SEM apparatus was tuned on and connected first to a laptop computer. Small parts of the
samples of different agricultural wastes were cut according to the desired size that was suited on the
circular metal platform of the SEM. Magnifications were focused on the possible microporous cell
structures on the surface of the samples.
The micrograph generation was done in different magnifications and sections of the inserted
samples. All the obtained micrographs were saved on the connected laptop computer for proper
documentation and further analysis

2.4 Determining the Breakage Resistance of the Fiberglass

In determining the breakage resistance of the experimental products, impact test equipment
(weights) and meter stick were used. The researcher used 100g, 200g, 500g, & 1000g with the constant
height of 50 cm. The bio-fiberglass out of cogon grass was first tested. A 100 g weight was placed 50cm
above the product. Then the weight dropped down into the product.
To test the resistance of coconut husk, cogon grass and rice husk, the researcher did the same
procedure.

2.5 Determining the Flame Tolerance

In testing how the different fabricated bio-fiberglass responded to flame, the researcher referred
on the presented guidelines on ASTM E84-93. The researcher also made modifications in the procedure
to have the comparison among the reinforced bio-fiberglass and they were subjected to direct flame
exposure for observation on time of smoke and actual flame tolerance. TC-3200 Digital Thermometer
connected with a Type K-8mm thermocouple probe was used in determining the temperature of the
flames. Samples were given at 5mm x 5mm dimension with uniform thickness of 5 mm.
Three alcohol lamps were used with a temperature of 300 C (573.15K) in testing the three
reinforced bio-fiberglass. The lamps were lit until all display the same intensity of flame. The time of
appearance for the smoke and flame coming from each agricultural waste was recorder properly.

2.6 Determining the Water Absorbing Capacity

The test on the percentage of WAC of each reinforced bio-fiberglass absorbing material was
executed in the School’s Chemistry Laboratory.
The three reinforced bio-fiberglass were weighed (in g) first (Fd) during their dry state then after
soaking them to 10 mL of water within 24 hours giving their wet condition (Fw). Any excess water after
soaking was allowed to flow first before weighing it again. One sample was prepared for each bio-
fiberglass.
The formula that was used for Water Absorbing Capacity (WAC) in percent is: Water (%) by
mass= (wet mass – dry mass / dry mass) x 100. The results were recorded for tabulation.

2.7 Risk and Safety and Proper Waste Disposal

There may be precautions taken in making the fiberglass and handling the chemicals. The risk are
your skin may be burned when extracting the materials, your skin or eyes may be irritated when it have
contact with some materials, the materials may be ingested by children so keep it away from them. The
used chemicals was put in a glass bottle

3
2.8 Statistical Analysis

The data gathered for flame tolerance and water absorbing capacity of the fiber of reinforced
using coconut husk, cogon grass and rice husk where compared via One-Factor Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) where p-value of p<0.05 was accepted statistically.

Results and Discussion

1 2

Figures 1-2 show macro shot image of the surface of the fabricated bio-fiberglass reinforced by coconut
husk fibers given at 400x magnification while figures 3-4 depict the SEM micrographs of the surface of
the coconut husk reinforced bio-fiberglass.

It can be deduced from Fig.1-2 that the presence of the fibers of coconut husk in the fiberglass after the
fabrication was still very evident. The strands of the fibers were not deteriorated by the resins and the
hardener (catalyst) applied.

3 4

4
Figures (1-4). Digital shot of the surface of the bio-fiberglass reinforced with coconut husk fibers at 400x
magnification (1-2); and its SEM micrographs given at 1500x (3) and 3000x magnifications (4).

The results of the macro shots were supported by the SEM images produced (Fig.3-4). From the SEM
results, roughness in the surface was really evident. This gave implication that the fibrous characteristic of
the coconut husk remained even after the fabrication process.

This behavior of the coconut husk made the product more intact due to its fiber support
mechanism. According to Wingard (2000), natural fibrous materials have been continuously used to
reinforce various construction materials. Strong fibers could make the fabricated material more durable
which could resist total breakage and serious impacts.

5 6

Figures (5-8). Digital shot of the surface of the bio-fiberglass reinforced with cogon fibers at 400 x
magnifications (5-6); and its SEM micrographs given at 1500x (7) and 500x magnifications (8).

7 8

5
 Figures 5-6 show macro shot images of the surface of the fabricated bio-fiberglass reinforced by
cogon grass fibers given at 400x magnification while figures 7-8 depict the SEM micrographs of the
surface of the cogon reinforced bio-fiberglass at 1500x and 500x magnifications respectively.

Based on the macro images (5-6), the cogon leaves exhibited flattened structures. Unlike fiber
glass with coconut husk, the cogon reinforced fiber glass showed less holding support with the applied
resin and hardener after the fabrication process.

Divisive particles of cogon grass material were clearly shown in the SEM micrographs (7-8). This
condition of application of the cogon grass in the fabrication of fiberglass could give lower resistance to
possible breakage and damage (Chauhan &Johnson, 2010).

Due to the evident large gaps between particles of the cogon grass material, the fabricated
material from it could have more brittle characteristics since no fiber binding agent that would totally
sustain the strengths for the molded material.

9 10

Figures (9-12). Digital shot of the surface of the bio-fiberglass reinforced with rice husk at 400 x magnifications
(9-10); and its SEM micrographs given at 3000x (7) and 1500x magnifications (12).

11 12

6
 Figures 9-10 show macro shot images of the surface of the fabricated bio-fiberglass reinforced by
rice husk fibers given at 400x magnification while figures 7-8 depict the SEM micrographs of the surface
of the cogon reinforced bio-fiberglass at 1500x and 500x magnifications respectively.

A more polished fabricated fiberglass with rice husk as reinforcement material was shown in the
macro shot images in Fig.9-10. Due to the smaller particles of the rice husk, its distribution in the surface
of the actual fiberglass was more compact. Although, the rice husk was not given in fibers like the
coconut husk, it still provided a solidified structure as shown in SEM micrographs (11-12).

Rough internal microstructures in the rice husk reinforced bio-fiberglass (Fig.11-12) were due to
the compactness of the small particles which made the material more durable and highly resistant to stress
and breakage.

Because of smaller particles of the rice husk, the produced bi-fiberglass obtained smooth outside
texture but with solidified and rougher internal structures.

Table 1. Result of the Qualitative Testing of the Fiberglass in terms of Breakage Resistance

Cogon grass
Weight (g) Observation
100 No breakage
200 Break
500 ---
1000 ---

Coconut husk
Weight (g) Observation
100 No breakage
200 No breakage
500 No breakage
1000 Break

Rice husk
Weight (g) Observation
100 No breakage
200 No breakage
500 No breakage
1000 Break

The above table presents the result of the initial evaluation of the breakage resistance
properties of fabricated bio-fiberglass reinforced with coconut husk, cogon grass and rice husk.

7
 It can be gleaned on the tables that the cogon grass easily produced breakage starting at
200g. Meanwhile, the same results of observation were found for coconut and rice husks wherein
the breakage occurred at 1000g.

These results simply gave implications that the fiberglass samples reinforced with
coconut and rice husks had strong breakage resistance compared to the sample with cogon. This
means that cogon is not that strong reinforcement for fiberglass.

Table 2. Result of the Qualitative Testing of the Fiberglass in terms of Flame tolerance

Cogon grass
Replication Distance Time (s) Burned Rate
Burned (inches/min)
1 11 125 5.28
2 11 123 5.36
3 11 120 5.50
4 11 126 5.23
5 11 130 5.09
Ave 5.29

Coconut husk
Replication Distance Time (s) Burned Rate
Burned (inches/min)
1 11 109 6.06
2 11 105 6.29
3 11 108 6.11
4 11 110 6.00
5 11 113 5.84
Ave 6.06

Rice husk
Replicatio Distance Time (s) Burned Rate
n Burned (inches/min)
1 11 102 6.47
2 11 100 6.60
3 11 99 6.69
4 11 101 6.53
5 11 96 6.88
Ave 6.63

Table 2. depicts the results of the testing on the flame tolerance of the fiberglass samples
reinforced with coconut husk, cogon grass, and rice husk. The test was conducted based on the
specifications from ASTM D 1992 which considers burning distance. Burning rates in this test testify

8
higher accuracy compared to other flame tolerance tests which subjected their specimens to the direct
exposure to the flame. The results suggest that among the set-ups, bio-fiberglass with rice husk has the
lowest burning rate while the bio-fiberglass with cogon grass has the highest burning rate. The results
further imply that the cogon grass and coconut husk is more unsusceptible to fire. The cogon grass
fibers has a good flame tolerance compared to coconut husk and rice husk. In this study, the reinforced
bio-fiberglass have improved their insusceptibility to flames by adding fibers of cogon grass. The
obtained result of 5.292 inches/minute for the bio-fiberglass with cogon grass is considered to be
satisfactory as per specifications presented in ASTM D 1992 (National Materials Advisory Board,
National Academy of Sciences, 1980). According to Wang et al., (2017), fibrous materials are considered
to have high porosity and this porosity is directly associated to higher flame tolerance which means a
lower burning rate.

Table 3. Result of One-way ANOVA on the Fiberglass in terms of Water Absorbing Capacity (WAC)
SV SS df MS F Sig.
4.5337 2.266
BG 89.89636
73 2 887 0.000

0.025
WG 0.3026 12 217

Total 4.8363
73 14

Table 3 shows that there is a statistically significant effect of reinforced bio-fiberglass product in
terms of Flame Tolerance at the p < 0.05 level for the three conditions [F (2,12)=89.89636, p=0.000].
These results gave the implication that the compactness of the structure of the added material in
fabricating fiberglass has a direct effect on the Flame Tolerance . To determine where the significance
exists, Post Hoc Test was used for the comparison for the treatment groups.
Among all the reinforced bio-fiberglass, cogon grass reinforced bio-fiberglass significantly had
the highest Flame tolerance The results indicated that the reinforced bio-fiberglass was dependent on
compactness of the structure of the added material in fabricating fiberglass.

7 Flame tolerance
6
5
4
3 6.06 6.63
5.29
2
1
0
Cogon Grass Coconut Husk Rice Husk

9
Table 4. Result of the Qualitative Testing of the Fiberglass in terms of Water Absorbing Capacity
(WAC)
Dry Wet Mass WA
state state gain C
(g) (g) (g) in
%
Cogon 20 g 22.6 2.6 13%
grass
Rice husk 20 g 20.6 0.6 3%
Coconut 20 g 21.1 1.1 5.5%
husk

Table 3 shows the result of the test for water absorbing capacity of the fibergalss
materials reinforced with coconut husk, cogon grass and rice husk.
From the table, it can be deduced that the fiberglass material with rice husk appeared to
have the lowest water absorbing capacity (0.6g). In contrary, the material with cogon grass had
the highest WAC (2.6g).
These results gave the implication that the compactness of the structure of the added
material in fabricating fiberglass has a direct effect on the WAC. In the case of the cogon grass,
it was shown in its SEM micrographs that numerous gaps between its large particles were
present. These gaps served as area for water fast secretion.

Table 5. Result of One-way ANOVA on the Fiberglass in terms of Water Absorbing Capacity (WAC)
SV SS df MS F Sig.
BG
600 2 300 276.9231 0.000

WG 1.083
6.5 6 333

Total 606.5 8

Table 4 shows that there is a statistically significant effect of reinforced bio-fiberglass product in
terms of Water Absorbing Capacity (WAC) at the p < 0.05 level for the three conditions [F(2, 6) =
276.9231, p = 0.000]. These results gave the implication that the compactness of the structure of the
added material in fabricating fiberglass has a direct effect on the WAC . To determine where the
significance exists, Post Hoc Test was used for the comparison for the treatment groups.
Among all the reinforced bio-fiberglass, cogon grass reinforced bio-fiberglass significantly had
the highest WAC. The results indicated that the reinforced bio-fiberglass was dependent on compactness
of the structure of the added material in fabricating fiberglass and had a direct effect on the WAC.

10
 Water Absorbing Capacity
3
2.5
2.6
2
1.5
1
1.1
0.5
0.6
0
Cogon grass Rice husk Coconut husk

Conclusion

Based on the results and findings of the current study, the size of the particles of the
materials used for fiberglass fabrication has a direct effect on their durability, flame tolerance
and water absorbing capacity.

Samples of fabricated fiberglass revealed variations when it comes to their surface

morphology. Long-fibered structures were found in the surface of material with coconut husk;
larger particles at various gaps were identified under micrographs screening of the material with
cogon grass; and smoother surface but solidified and compacted internal microstructure were
revealed in the morphology of the samples of fabricated fiberglass with rice husk.

The fabricated fiberglass samples with rice and coconut husk had a very promising
potential to be utilized as reinforcement agent to produced bio-fiberglass that is stronger and with
high breakage resistance.

Recommendation

On the basis of findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are offered for
consideration:
 Conduct contact angle measurement to evaluate the actual hydrophobic characteristic of
the fabricated bio-fiberglass.
 Actual compact tests should also be executed on the produced bio-fiberglass samples.

References

Wingard, C. (2000). Characterization of prepreg and cured epoxy/fiberglass composite material for use in
advanced composite piping systems. Retrieved Febuary 24,
2017fromhttp://scihub.cc/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040603100004007

11
Grierson, P. F. and M. A. Adams. 2000. Plant species affect acid phosphatase,ergosterol and microbial P
in a Jarrah (eucalyptus marginataDonn ex Sm.) forest in southwestern Australia. Soil Biol.Biochem.
32:1817-1827.
MacDonald, G. E. 2004.Cogongrass (imperata cylindrical)-Biology, ecology, and management, Crit. Rev.
Plant Sci. 23:367-380.
Zureick, A., Shih, B., and Munley, E. (1995).”Fiber-reinforced polymeric bridge decks.” Struct.Engrg.
Rev, Oxford, England, 7(3), 257-266.
Casini, P. V. Vecchio, and I. Tamtantini. 1998. Allelopathicinterfence of itchgrass and cogongrass on
germination and early development of rice. Trop. Agric. 75:445-451
Chauhan, B. S. and D. E. Johnson. 2010. The role of seed ecology in improving weed management
strategies in the tropics. Adv. Agron. 105:221-262
Thomas, P. E. L. and J. C. S. Allison.1975. cogon grass and germination in Rottboellia exaltata. J. Agric.
Sci., Campbridge 85:129-134
Azar, W. (1989). “Experimental and analytical study of fiberglass .” Struct. Lab. Rep. 89-9-17, California
State University, Long Beach, Calif.
Madsen, John. "Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.." IPAMS-Invasive Plant Atlas of the MidSouth. 2007.
IPAMS. 12 Apr 2009 <http://www.gri.msstate.edu/ipams/Species.php?
SName=&CName=Cogongrass>.
Sergeant, A. 2015. Rice Husk: menace in Ghana:incidince farmer perceptions and control practices in the
forest . Argon. J. 95:191-193.

12