The Impact of the Bark of Camel’s Foot (Piliostigmathonningii) on the Physico-Mechanical Properties of Natural Rubber Vulcanizate
Journal of Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering
Volume 1, Issue 1, December 2016, Pages: 19-23
Received: Oct. 21, 2016;
Accepted: Nov. 12, 2016;
Published: Dec. 16, 2016
Views 2565 Downloads 70
Michael Ifeanyichukwu Ugbaja, Department of Polymer Technology, Nigerian Institute of Leather and Science Technology, Zaria, Nigeria
Kevin Ibe Ejiogu, Department of Polymer Technology, Nigerian Institute of Leather and Science Technology, Zaria, Nigeria
James Datoegoem Dashe, Department of Polymer Technology, Nigerian Institute of Leather and Science Technology, Zaria, Nigeria
Follow on us
A study on the impact of the bark camel’s foot “Piliostigmathonningii” on the physico-mechanical properties of natural rubber vulcanizate when used as filler has been carried out. Laboratory scale two roll mill was used to compound five different formulations of the natural rubber and the camel’s foot bark filler according to the following ratios in grams: 100/0, 70/30, 60/40, 50/50, and 40/60 respectively. From the compounded formulations; test samples were prepared using the laboratory scale hydraulic press machine. Each prepared composite sample was tested for tensile-strength, elongation at break, hardness, abrasion and compression properties, and the result obtained showed that the tensile strength of the vulcanizate increased with increase in filler loading up till 50% of the natural rubber content but decreased when the filler is beyond that. The elongation at break decreased with the control sample having the highest elongation. The hardness of thevulcanizate increased with increase in filler loading. The abrasion resistance did not follow any consistent trend in particular. The compression-set was found to be decreasing with increase in filler loading.
Bark of Camel’s Foot, Piliostigmathonningii, Physico-Mechanical Properties, Natural Rubber Vulcanizate
To cite this article
Michael Ifeanyichukwu Ugbaja,
Kevin Ibe Ejiogu,
James Datoegoem Dashe,
The Impact of the Bark of Camel’s Foot (Piliostigmathonningii) on the Physico-Mechanical Properties of Natural Rubber Vulcanizate, Journal of Energy, Environmental & Chemical Engineering.
Vol. 1, No. 1,
2016, pp. 19-23.
Copyright © 2016 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Mark H. F. (2001) Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology, Interscience, New York Vol. 12: 42.
Okieimen, F. E. and Imanah, J. E. (2003). TheCharacterisation of Agricultural Waste Products as Fillers in NR Formulation, Nig. J.Polym. Sci. and Tech, Vol. 3, 1: 210-216.
Danneberg, E. M. (1981), Proceeding of International Rubber Conference, Loughborough.
Fleminert, G and Bueche, C. (1957); “Light Reinforcement Filler” A Paper presented before the Swedish institute of Rubber Technology.
Blow, C. and Hepburn, C. (1971); Rubber Technol and Manufacture, Butter Worth Publishers London, 3rd Ed. 188.
Parkinson, D. (1957); Reinforcement of Rubber, Lakeman and Co. London, 12.
Hepburn, C. (1984); Filler reinforcement of Rubber Plastic and Rubber international No. 9:11-15.
Morton, M. (1987); Rubber Technology, 3rdEdn. Van Nostrand, New York; 74.
Coates Palgrave, M. (2002): Keith Coates Palgrave Trees of Southern Africa, Edn 3. Struik, Capetown.
Myers M, and Duncan A., (1973): Rubber Recycling, Rubber Chemistry and Technology, 75 (3): 420-474.
Nasir, M. and Choo, C.H. (1987) Euro. Polym J. 25,355.
Mehta, P. K. and Pitt, N. (1974) Rice by-Products conference Valencia, 76.
Rivin, D. (1963); RubbChem& Tech 36, 729.
Hepburn, C and Blow, C. M. (1971); Rubber Technology and Manufacture 3rd Edition, Butter Worth Publishing 188.