Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Mechanical and chemical characterization of biochar-reinforced polystyrene composites

BMC Chemistry volume 18, Article number: 246 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

This study investigates the chemical interactions and mechanical characteristics of composites made of polystyrene reinforced with biochar. Polystyrene-based resin (PBR) was combined with plantain peel-derived biochar in different weight ratios (10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%). The Brinell hardness test, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) were used to evaluate the properties of the composites. The results of the hardness test showed a non-monotonic pattern, with hardness first decreasing at low biochar loadings (10% and 20%), then significantly increasing at 30% biochar. At 40% biochar, the hardness then somewhat dropped, indicating that around 30% filler is the optimal biochar level for hardness. As the biochar loading increased, FTIR measurement showed that hydroxyl groups (-OH) were introduced and that the intensity of carbonyl groups (C = O) increased. According to SEM analysis, a uniform surface was found at lower biochar loadings, but at larger biochar contents, the surface became irregular and rough. In addition to providing insights into the chemical interactions at the interface between the biochar and the polymer matrix, these findings demonstrate the possibility of incorporating biochar to alter the mechanical properties of PBR.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The significant increase in both population and the generation of biomass-plastic waste, distinctive economic features of the 21st century, has highlighted the importance of developing engineering materials from waste streams. This is recognized as a sustainable approach within the circular economy [1]. Recent findings support the considerable environmental and economic advantages of this method, as it offers a solution to fulfil the engineering material needs of the growing population while simultaneously alleviating the environmental impact of solid waste [2, 3]. The daily accumulation of municipal solid waste (MSW), over 50% of which is combustible biomass and plastic, clearly shows that MSW is primarily composed of these materials [4, 5]. This composition highlights the significant potential of biomass-plastic content to serve as a sustainable secondary raw material for developing engineering materials [5].

Polystyrene stands out among common plastic wastes due to its persistence in the environment, large volume ratio, non-biodegradability, and recycling challenges [6, 7]. Efforts to mitigate polystyrene waste have included replacing polystyrene foam packaging with compostable materials [8], the use of densification machines for recycling [9], and implementing bans or restrictions on single-use polystyrene products [10]. Despite these measures, there is still a need for a more sustainable environmental engineering solution [11].

Polystyrene waste, when recycled into solvated resin, is being utilized to create engineering materials, offering a sustainable alternative to harmful and non-thermoplastic resins like epoxy [12]. Its effectiveness is supported by recent findings that demonstrate strong interfacial adhesion with various types of fillers in the development of plastic composites [13, 14]. The versatility of polystyrene as a polymer matrix has been explored with the use of metallic [15], mineral [16], and biomass [17, 18] fillers. These developments involve blending waste polystyrene with different biomass and non-biomass fillers to produce polymer composites that are enhanced for a range of applications [12].

Plantain peels, a byproduct from consuming the fruit part of Musa paradisiaca, constitute about 40% of the total mass of the plantain and are recognized as a sustainable resource, though they are currently underutilized [19]. Additionally, plantain peels contain significant, highly soluble amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus, which, while offering bio-resource potential, can also pose environmental risks and are prone to microbial degradation [19, 20]. Given the rates and patterns of production and consumption, plantain peel waste is identified as a valuable resource for material development [20].

Fruit peels are becoming more and more popular as a natural source of soluble fibre and antioxidants [21, 22]. Plantain peels, specifically, have been converted into more valuable products such as biofuel [23], biochar [24], animal feed [25], and organic fertilizer [26] showcasing their versatility in technological applications. Additionally, the analysis of plantain peels has shown they contain higher levels of cellulose and hemicelluloses and lower levels of other substances like ash and extractives [27, 28], which makes them well-suited for polymer composite development. Their use as fillers in composite materials has been explored with polyethylene [29, 30] and polypropylene [31] matrices, among others. It has been reported that producing biochar from waste biomass and using it as filler in composites can improve the mechanical, electrical, and physical properties of polymer-based composites [32].

The objective of this research is to create biodegradable composites with solvated polystyrene serving as the matrix and biochar generated from plantain peels serving as the filler. Numerous analytical methods, including energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, were employed to determine the characteristics of the composites.

Materials and methods

Preparation of polystyrene-based resin (PBR)

A solvent-based method was used to create the polystyrene-based resin. High-quality polystyrene forms were sourced and carefully dissolved in gasoline, resulting in a solution known as solvated polystyrene, or polystyrene-based resin (PBR), as has been previously reported [12]. The solvent-to-polystyrene ratio (32.2 g of polystyrene per 0.06 L of gasoline) was optimized for complete dissolution and to attain a viscosity appropriate for composite development. The dissolution process was conducted under controlled conditions, with a temperature of 25 °C and stirring at 50 RPM, to ensure uniformity and consistency in the final resin.

Production of plantain peel biochar

Plantain peels were sourced from local roasted plantain vendors in the Tanke Oke-odo area of Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria. The peels were rinsed twice with tap water and twice with distilled water to thoroughly remove residual dirt, then sun-dried for 48 h. Biochar production utilized a toplit updraft reactor, following the procedures outlined in our prior studies [13, 33]. The reactor consists of a compact, centrally positioned carbonization chamber equipped with air vents at its base and a vertical exhaust at the top, allowing for the expulsion of combustion gases. In the setup, 75 g of plantain peel was placed within the carbonization chamber, while the combustion fuel (biomass stems) was loaded into the area between the reactor and the chamber, referred to as the heating space. The fuel in this heating space is ignited from the top (top-lit), with air drawn upward through the bottom vents into the combustion zone. The temperature of the reactor was measured every 10 min using a CASON CA380 infrared thermometer. The process was conducted at ambient temperature and pressure and concluded when the reactor’s temperature matched the surrounding temperature. A peak temperature of 347 °C was reached within 100 min.

Preparation of composite samples

Plantain peel biochar and PBR were blended at different filler-to-matrix ratios to create composite samples. Four distinct biochar content ratios were examined: 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%; the corresponding PBR contents were 90%, 80%, 70%, and 60%, respectively (Table 1). The selected ratios were designed to preserve processability and performance while examining the impact of the biochar content on the final composites’ characteristics. The process of mixing entailed utilizing the hand layup method to thoroughly and uniformly disperse the plantain peel biochar particles inside the resin matrix by introducing the predetermined amounts of biochar and polystyrene-based resin into an appropriate mixing vessel. It has been acknowledged that the hand layup approach is an economical way to prepare composite [12]. To shape the composite mixtures into the necessary dimensions, they were put into steel sheet moulds coated in aluminum foil, measuring 5 cm by 5 cm by 1.5 cm. The moulds were thereafter put in an oven and allowed to cure for 3 h at 200 °C. This drying procedure guaranteed that the composite samples were properly cured and helped the solvent evaporate. As further explained in Table 1, the resultant composite materials were given different names.

Table 1 The ratios of the matrix to filler
Full size table

Characterization of the composites

The Branueur-Emmet-Teller technique (BET; Quantachrome NovaWin©1994–2013, Quantachrome Instruments v11.03) was used to measure the surface area and porosity of the generated biochar. The resulting composites’ structural, morphological, and chemical properties were assessed using a range of characterisation techniques. An investigation into the chemical interactions between the plantain peel biochar and the polystyrene-based resin was carried out using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR; Scimadzu FTIR-8400 S, Japan). Both the PBR and the produced composites had FTIR spectra collected at a resolution of 4 cm-1 in the 500–4000 cm–1 range. The bonding and functional groups present in the composites were revealed by the FTIR spectroscopy spectra. To investigate the composite samples’ surface appearance and microstructure, scanning electron microscopy (SEM; Phenom-World BV, Netherlands) was used. Filler dispersion, interfacial bonding, and any structural flaws in the composites may all be seen using this method. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) that was coupled to the SEM was used to determine the elemental composition of the composite materials. The relative abundance of the components contained in the composites, including the elements from the resin matrix and carbon from the biochar, was measured by examining the distinctive X-ray emissions.

Hardness testing

Hardness assessment was conducted to assess the mechanical characteristics of the composite specimens. The Brinell method was chosen for testing due to the polymeric nature of the material. To determine the Brinell hardness (HB) as per ISO 6506 standards, a spherical, hard metal (tungsten carbide) indenter was applied to the sample under a specified test load (ranging between 1 kgf and 3000 kgf). The quotient of the applied test force (F in newtons (N)) and the surface area of the residual indent on the specimen (the indent projection) after the test force is removed gives the Brinell hardness (HB). The physical hit is converted into an electric signal, which is then detected by the amplifier and displayed to acquire the measurement.

Results and discussions

Biochar yield and surface area

The carbonization process took 100 min and produced a biochar yield of 42.25 wt% at a maximum temperature of 347 °C. This yield indicates that a significant proportion of carbon content is retained during the production process, which is advantageous for enhancing the biochar’s performance as a filler in composites. Table 2 shows this yield along with the biochar’s textural properties. Strong interfacial interactions between the biochar and the polymer matrix may be enhanced by the comparatively large BET surface area of 909.1 m2/g. Additionally, the biochar exhibits a micropore diameter of 2.145 nm and a micropore volume of 0.448 cc/g, indicating a microporous nature with small, distinct pores. These textural characteristics make the biochar an efficient filler, capable of enhancing structural integrity and potentially improving thermal stability.

Table 2 Yield and textural properties of biochar
Full size table

Hardness test

The hardness test results offer significant understanding of the mechanical characteristics of the formulated composites. The Brinell hardness values, depicted in Fig. 1, signify the materials’ capacity to resist indentation and deformation. These values were obtained through triplicate measurements, and the average was computed.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The composite’s Brinell hardess numbers

Full size image

The results show an intriguing pattern in the mechanical characteristics of the composites as the amount of biochar increases. As a standard for comparison, the hardness value of the pure PBR composite was 196.0. There was a general trend of decreased hardness in the composites as the quantity of plantain peel biochar filler rose from 10 to 20%. The presence of voids created by the biochar particles within the PBR matrix may be the cause of this initial decrease. In particular, a minor drop in hardness to 190.33 was noted in the PBR90B10 composite, which contains 10% biochar and 90% PBR, in contrast to the control group. This slight drop implies that the overall hardness of the composite is not significantly affected by the addition of a modest amount of biochar. The hardness of the composites dropped more dramatically as the biochar level increased. With 20% biochar, the PBR80B20 composite had a hardness of 182.66, which was significantly lower than the PBR90B10 composite and the control group. Insufficient particle dispersion and particle-matrix interaction at lower biochar concentrations may be the cause of the formed voids, which lessen the composite’s resistance to indentation [21].

However, at greater loadings of biochar, the pattern diverges considerably. With increased biochar loading, changes in particle characteristics, such as size distribution, shape, and surface chemistry, become more pronounced. Smaller, well-dispersed biochar particles can improve hardness by enhancing interfacial adhesion with the PBR matrix. Conversely, unevenly sized or irregularly shaped particles may compromise the matrix’s structural integrity and weaken interfacial bonds. Besides, biochar particles generally contain polar functional groups (such as hydroxyl and carbonyl), which at moderate concentrations may interact positively with the PBR matrix and enhance its mechanical properties. For PBR70B30 (30% biochar), the hardness rises significantly to 280.33. This implies that at this concentration, biochar begins to function as reinforcement. The biochar particles that are evenly distributed in the matrix probably limit the mobility of the polymer chains, preventing plastic deformation and producing a significantly tougher composite. The hardness value for PBR60B40 (40% biochar) then significantly drops to 244.66. This might be as a result of biochar particles clumping together at greater loadings, which would create stress concentration areas and lower the hardness generally [34].

Therefore, the composites’ hardness shows a non-monotonic pattern as the amount of biochar increases. According to the pattern seen, composite hardness decreases more noticeably when the amount of biochar increases above particular thresholds. A biochar content of around 30% can be deemed optimal for maximizing the hardness of these polystyrene-biochar composites. At this concentration, the biochar maintains sufficient particle-matrix adhesion and dispersion while offering efficient reinforcement. Beyond this concentration, the composite’s decreased structural cohesiveness as a result of particle clumping and void development is reflected in the declining mechanical characteristics.

Composite characterization

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy

The functional groups in the PBR and the created biochar composites were described using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. This method provides important information about the materials’ chemical makeup and possible interactions between the biochar and the polystyrene matrix. The functional groups included in the composites were determined using the spectra of the biochar sample, the control sample, PBR, and higher biochar loadings (PBR70B30 and PBR60B40). The FTIR spectrum of the plantain peel biochar is shown in Fig. 2a. The broad peak at 3374 cm⁻¹ indicates hydroxyl (-OH) groups, likely from alcohols or phenols, while the peak at 2921 cm⁻¹ corresponds to C-H stretching, suggesting the presence of aliphatic hydrocarbons [35]. The peak at 1557 cm⁻¹ is attributed to C = C stretching in aromatic rings, confirming the development of aromatic structures typically seen in biochar after carbonization. Additional peaks at 1397 cm⁻¹ and 1328 cm⁻¹ indicate C-H bending and possible C-N stretching, pointing to organic groups such as methyl or amines [36]. The pronounced peak at 1059 cm⁻¹ reflects C-O stretching, which can be associated with oxygenated functional groups like alcohols or carboxyls, while the 787 cm⁻¹ peak corresponds to aromatic C-H bending [37, 38]. These functional groups, especially the oxygen-containing ones, play a crucial role in the biochar’s interactions with other materials.

Fig. 2
figure 2

(a) FTIR spectrum of plantain peel biochar. (b) FTIR spectrum of PBR. (c) FTIR spectrum of PBR70B30. (d) FTIR spectrum of PBR60B40

Full size image

Relevant information regarding the functional groups in the polystyrene-based resin is given by the peaks found in the PBR sample’s FTIR spectrum, shown in Fig. 2b. The stretching vibrations of aromatic C-H bonds are observed at 3059 cm-1 and 3024 cm-1; the stretching vibrations of aliphatic C-H bonds are observed at 2920 cm-1 and 2849 cm-1, suggesting the presence of hydrocarbon chains in the polystyrene structure; the aromatic C = C stretching vibration is associated at 1600 cm-1; and the aromatic C-H bond bending vibrations are observed at 1492 cm-1 and 1451 cm-1 [39, 40]. C-C bond stretching vibration and the presence of methyl (CH3) groups are indicated by peaks at 1374 cm-1 and 1154 cm-1, respectively [41]. Moreover, peaks at 1067 cm-1 and 1027 cm-1, respectively, correspond to the stretching vibrations of C-H bonds in aliphatic chains and aromatic rings. In addition, aromatic C-H bonds’ bending vibrations, rocking vibrations, and out-of-plane bending vibrations are represented by the peaks at 906 cm-1, 755 cm-1, 695 cm-1, and 537 cm-1, respectively [42, 43]. The peaks in these bands are indicative of different functional groups that are frequently present in materials based on polystyrene, such as aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons.

Figure 2c displays the PBR70B30 sample’s FTIR spectrum. At 3386 cm-1, a new peak emerges that is not present in the PBR spectra. O-H stretching vibrations, which are generally connected to hydroxyl groups, are shown by this peak. Plantain peels contain large amounts of cellulose and hemicellulose, which are rich in hydroxyl groups [44, 45]. This suggests that the biochar may have introduced these functional groups. The aliphatic hydrocarbons represented by the peaks at 3024 cm-1 and 2919 cm-1 are comparable to those found in PBR’s spectra, while PBR70B30 exhibits a slightly different peak from PBR’s at 2920 cm-1 to 2919 cm-1. Additionally, the peaks for aromatic C = C bonds (1599 cm-1) and aromatic C-H bonds (1492 cm-1 and 1491 cm-1), which stand for functional groups frequently present in polystyrene, have shifted slightly. The PBR spectra showed these peaks at 1600 cm-1 and 1451 cm-1. Nonetheless, the PBR70B30 sample retains the majority of the PBR peaks, suggesting that the aromatic structures that are typical of polystyrene are still present.

The FTIR spectrum of PBR60B40, which is composed of 40% biochar and 60% PBR, is displayed in Fig. 2d. The PBR60B40 spectrum shows a peak at 3392 cm-1, which is suggestive of O-H stretching vibrations, just like PBR70B30 does. This supports the existence of hydroxyl groups that the biochar most likely added, as shown in the FTIR spectrum of the biochar sample. In comparison to PBR70B30, PBR60B40 exhibits a larger shift in the peak that represents the aromatic C = C stretching in polystyrene (around 1600 cm-1 in PBR). The shift seen here is at 1557 cm-1, indicating that with this higher biochar loading, there may be a stronger interaction between the aromatic rings in polystyrene and the functional groups of the biochar. In contrast to PBR70B30, the PBR60B40 spectrum exhibits a minor reduction in the intensity of several peaks related to polystyrene. This might be because there is more biochar present, which causes the polystyrene signal in the FTIR measurement to be partially obscured. However, despite these slight shifts, most of the functional groups seen in the pure PBR are still present in the PBR60B40 spectrum.

Scanning electron microscopy

The surface morphology of the composites and PBR was assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The bulk of the particles verified an angular shape with diameters ranging from 150 to 537 μm when the microscope’s acceleration voltage was adjusted to 15 kV. The findings are presented in Fig. 3a–f, captured at various magnifications. The SEM image of the biochar, shown in Fig. 3a, reveals a highly porous structure, characterized by numerous irregular and fragmented surface morphology. This porous nature is likely a result of the thermal decomposition of the plantain peel during the biochar production process, leading to the release of volatile compounds and the formation of a carbon-rich matrix.

Fig. 3
figure 3

(a) SEM photograph of plantain peel biochar. Magnification (I) 1000x and (II) 2000x. (b) SEM photograph of PBR. Magnification (I) 1000x and (II) 2000x. (c) SEM photograph of PBR90B10. Magnification (I) 1000x and (II) 2000x. (d) SEM photograph of PBR80B20. Magnification (I) 1000x and (II) 2000x. (e) SEM photograph of PBR70B30. Magnification (I) 1000x and (II) 2000x. (f) SEM photograph of PBR60B40. Magnification (I) 1000x and (II) 2000x

Full size image

Figure 3b depicts the morphology of the pure PBR, which has a smooth and uniform surface, albeit with a few twisted and uneven edges. This smoothness results from the consistent solvolysis process of the polystyrene and the solvent. Similar observations have been documented in previous studies concerning solvated polystyrene [46, 47]. There are particles of undissolved polystyrene foam clearly visible on the PBR surface. These particles, which are the result of inadequate dilution of polystyrene foam, do not react chemically with polystyrene resin and so cannot appreciably alter the composite material [48]. Additionally, there are prominent surface crack lines that are caused by air bubbles getting trapped during the curing process.

Figure 3c displays the SEM image of the PBR90B10 composite, containing 10% biochar. It displays a uniformly aligned surface with a few concentrated, undissolved polystyrene foams in the middle. The smooth surface indicates effective interaction between the matrix and filler. Smoother surfaces, however, seem to be less flexible, allowing for lower elongation at break [48]. Likewise, the particles’ surrounding undissolved polystyrene foams point to a reduced level of interfacial bonding between the PBR matrix and the biochar. This interface may be a place of possible stress concentration, which would alter the mechanical characteristics of the material. This might also be the reason for the initial reduction in hardness shown in this composite as compared to pure PBR. In the morphology of PBR80B20 (Fig. 3d), the PBR structure remains discernible, with its particles protruding. The surface exhibits both uniform and non-uniform frameworks, suggesting that the biochar particles were not evenly distributed within the resin. Several pores are also visible on the surface, which are caused by trapped air bubbles during the curing process [49]. These pores imply weaker interfacial bonding and are consistent with the mechanical testing results, which showed that additional decreases in hardness occurred when the loading of biochar was increased to 20%

The SEM image of the composite PBR70B30 contacting 70% PBR and 30% biochar (Fig. 3e) reveals an uneven and rough surface with a dispersion of filamentary features and plate-like fragments of rock. There is no visible pore or void on the surface due to the continuous platy characteristic. The structure of PBR60B40, which contains 40% biochar, is depicted in Fig. 3f as having a heterogeneous rough surface with many fissures. The presence of cracks in these composites could stem from insufficient distribution of components or non-uniformity during the hand layup mixing technique employed. The rough surfaces of PBR70B30 and PBR60B40 may also result from the inclusion of biochar filler. Biochar typically possesses rough surfaces, which can be transferred to the particles during mixing [50].

Conclusion

The impact of adding biochar on the mechanical characteristics and chemical makeup of polystyrene composites has been effectively investigated in this work. Several analytical approaches were used to characterize the composites that were generated at varying concentrations of biochar filer. A non-monotonic trend was seen in the Brinell hardness test findings, indicating that about 30% of the sample should have the right amount of biochar for hardness. FTIR research demonstrated the introduction of hydroxyl groups from the biochar, and increase in peak intensity with higher biochar content. SEM analysis unveiled surfaces that varied in uniformity, with greater heterogeneity observed as the biochar loading increased. These results highlight the potential of biochar as a modulator of polystyrene’s mechanical properties.

Data availability

The data is available at Figshare Data Cloud Archive at: https://figshare.com/articles/figure/The_surface_morphology_of_the_b_biochar-reinforced_polystyrene_composites_b_using_scanning_electron_microscopy/27925917?file=50864469. The DOI is 10.6084/m9.figshare.27925917.

Abbreviations

BET:

Branueur-Emmet-Teller technique

BH:

Brinell hardness

EDX:

Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy

FTIR:

Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy

MSW:

Municipal solid waste

PBR:

Polystyrene-based resin

PBR90B10:

90% Polystyrene-based resin + 10% biochar

PBR80B20:

80% Polystyrene-based resin + 20% biochar

PBR70B30:

70% Polystyrene-based resin + 30% biochar

PBR60B40:

60% Polystyrene-based resin + 40% biochar

SEM:

Scanning electron microscopy

References

  1. Mumtaz H, et al. Hydrothermal treatment of plastic waste within a circular economy perspective. Sustainable Chem Pharm. 2023;32:100991.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang Z, et al. Co-pyrolysis of waste plastic and solid biomass for synergistic production of biofuels and chemicals-A review. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2021;84:100899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Song B, Hall P. Densification of biomass and waste plastic blends as a solid fuel: hazards, advantages, and perspectives. Front Energy Res. 2020;8:58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nidhi C, Sharma B, Singh PK. Energy value in biomass and plastic components of municipal solid waste. MATTER: Int J Sci Technol, 2017. 3(2).

  5. Adeniyi AG, et al. Thermochemical co-conversion of biomass-plastic waste to biochar: a review. Green Chem Eng. 2024;5(1):31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gonzalez-Aguilar AM, Pérez-García V, Riesco-Ávila JM. A thermo-catalytic pyrolysis of polystyrene waste review: a systematic, statistical, and bibliometric approach. Polymers. 2023;15(6):1582.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaukura N, et al. Potential uses and value-added products derived from waste polystyrene in developing countries: a review. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2016;107:157–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Abhijith R, Ashok A, Rejeesh C. Sustainable packaging applications from mycelium to substitute polystyrene: a review. Mater Today: Proc. 2018;5(1):2139–45.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dennis R, Dennis A, Dennis W. Styrofoam recycling: relaxation-densification of EPS by solar heat. J Sci Med, 2022. 3(3).

  10. Belarmino EH et al. Impact of Vermont’s Single-Use Plastics Ban on Consumers and Food Businesses. 2023.

  11. Adeniyi AG, Ighalo JO, Adeyanju CA. Materials-to-product potentials for sustainable development in Nigeria. Int J Sustain Eng, 2021: pp. 1–8.

  12. Adeniyi AG, et al. Solvated polystyrene resin: a perspective on sustainable alternative to epoxy resin in composite development. Mater Res Innovations. 2023;27(7):490–502.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Emenike EC, et al. Efficient recycling of disposable face masks via co-carbonization with waste biomass: a pathway to a cleaner environment. Clean Environ Syst. 2022;6:100094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Emenike EC, et al. Synthesis of activated carbon monolith from lignocellulosic material: evaluation of product quality. MRS Advances; 2023.

  15. Abdulkareem S, Ighalo J, Adeniyi A. Evaluation of the Electrical Characteristics of Recycled Iron Reinforced Polystyrene Composites. Iranian (Iranica. J Energy Environ. 2021;12(2):125–30.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Abdulkareem S, Adeniyi A. Preparation and evaluation of Electrical properties of Plastic composites developed from recycled polystyrene and local clay. Nigerian J Technological Dev. 2018;15(3):98–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Abdulkareem S, Adeniyi A. Production of particle boards using polystyrene and bamboo wastes. Nigerian J Technol. 2017;36(3):788–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Abdulkareem S, et al. Development of Plastic Composite using Waste Sawdust, Rice Husk and Bamboo in the polystyrene-based Resin (PBR) Matrix at Ambient conditions. Valorization of Biomass to Value-added commodities. Springer; 2020. pp. 423–38.

  19. Ferreiro O, et al. Valorization of Agro-industrial Plantain (Musa× Paradisiaca) By‐Products: alternative sources of Carbohydrates and Bioactive compounds. Starch‐Stärke. 2023;2300210:p.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Xie J, et al. Pectin from plantain peels: Green recovery for transformation into reinforced packaging films. Waste Manag. 2023;161:225–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Odeyemi SO, et al. Valorization of waste cassava peel into biochar: an alternative to electrically-powered process. Total Environ Res Themes. 2023;6:100029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Adeniyi AG, et al. One-step chemical activation for the production of engineered orange peel biochar. Emergent Mater. 2023;6(1):211–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Giwa AS et al. Biofuel Recovery from Plantain and Banana Plant Wastes: integration of biochemical and Thermochemical Approach. J Renew Mater, 2023. 11(6).

  24. Nnyia MO, et al. The Preparation and Physicochemical Analysis of Local Black Soap from Coconut Oil and Plantain Peel Biochar. J Turkish Chem Soc Sect A: Chem. 2023;10(1):177–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Yafetto L, Odamtten GT, Wiafe-Kwagyan M. Valorization of agro-industrial wastes into animal feed through microbial fermentation: A review of the global and Ghanaian case. Heliyon, 2023.

  26. Okunlola FO et al. Potentials of plantain peel and Tithonia diversifolia leaves as soil amendments in enhancing performance and nutritional contents of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Heliyon, 2023. 9(4).

  27. Ighalo JO, et al. Artificial neural network modeling of the water absorption behavior of plantain peel and bamboo fibers reinforced polystyrene composites. J Macromolecular Sci Part B. 2021;60(7):472–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Adeniyi A et al. Effect of fiber content on the physical and mechanical properties of plantain fiber reinforced polystyrene composite. Adv Mater Process Technol, 2022: pp. 1–13.

  29. Ohaga S, Igwe I, Nwapa C. Mechanical and End-Use Properties of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Filled with Plantain Peel Powder.

  30. Jacob J, Mamza PAP. Mechanical and thermal behavior of plantain peel powder filled recycled polyethylene composites. Ovidius Univ Annals Chem. 2021;32(2):114–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Jacob J. Effect of variation in frequency on the dynamic mechanical properties of plantain peel particulate reinforced recycled polypropylene composites. J Mater Environ Sci. 2023;14(3):317–23.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bartoli M, et al. Recent advances in biochar polymer composites. Polymers. 2022;14(12):2506.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Adeniyi AG, et al. Thermal recycling strategy of Coca-Cola PVC label films by its co-carbonization with Terminalia ivorensis leaves. Clean Eng Technol. 2022;11:100564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Alshabib A, Silikas N, Watts DC. Hardness and fracture toughness of resin-composite materials with and without fibers. Dent Mater. 2019;35(8):1194–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Emenike EC, et al. Delonix regia biochar potential in removing phenol from industrial wastewater. Bioresource Technol Rep. 2022;19:101195.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Emenike EC, et al. Synthesis of activated carbon monolith from lignocellulosic material: evaluation of product quality. MRS Adv. 2023;8(15):816–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Ayanwusi OR, et al. Characterization of groundnut shell biochar produced with different stainless steel combustion compartment volumes. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin. 2024;18(5):1598–612.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Emenike EC et al. Enhancing biochar properties through doping: A comparative study of sugarcane bagasse and chicken feather. Biofuels, 2023: pp. 1–8.

  39. Sussarellu R, et al. Oyster reproduction is affected by exposure to polystyrene microplastics. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(9):2430–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Ighalo JO, et al. Moisture absorption, thermal and microstructural properties of polymer composites developed from rice husk and polystyrene wastes. Int J Sustain Eng. 2021;14(5):1049–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Adeniyi AG, et al. Co-carbonization of waste biomass with expanded polystyrene for enhanced biochar production. Biofuels. 2023;14(6):635–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Adeniyi AG, et al. Hybrid biochar production from biomass and pigmented plastic for sustainable waste-to-energy. Emergent Mater. 2023;6(5):1481–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Iwuozor KO, et al. Synthesis and characterization of activated carbon monolith from African Locust bean pods and polystyrene resin. Mater Res Innovations. 2024;28(3):175–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Ferreira-Villadiego J et al. Chemical modification and characterization of starch derived from plantain (Musa Paradisiaca) peel waste, as a source of biodegradable material. Chem Eng Trans, 2018. 65.

  45. Venegas R, et al. Development and characterization of plantain (Musa Paradisiaca) flour-based biopolymer films reinforced with plantain fibers. Polymers. 2022;14(4):748.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Adeniyi AG, et al. Development and characterization of microstructural and mechanical properties of hybrid polystyrene composites filled with kaolin and expanded polyethylene powder. Results Eng. 2022;14:100423.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Iwuozor KO, et al. Eco-friendly composite materials: enhancing sustainability with sugarcane Bagasse Biochar and Polystyrene Resin. Sugar Tech; 2023. pp. 1–14.

  48. Adeniyi AG, et al. Morphological and thermal properties of polystyrene composite reinforced with biochar from elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum). J Thermoplast Compos Mater. 2022;35(10):1532–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Adeniyi AG et al. Balancing strength and sustainability: incorporating recycled tyres and pawpaw fibre in polystyrene composites. Asia-Pac J Chem Eng, 2024: p. e3037.

  50. Iwuozor KO, et al. Plant biomass-based composites in the maritime industry: a review. Mar Struct. 2024;96:103609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

AcknowledgmentThe authors extend their appreciation to the Researchers Supporting Project number (RSPD2024R978), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

The Support of King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, University of Ilorin, P. M. B. 1515, Ilorin, Nigeria

    Adewale George Adeniyi, Sulyman A. Abdulkareem, Mubarak A. Amoloye & Favour O. Eleregbe

  2. Department of Pure and Industrial Chemistry, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, P. M. B. 5025, Awka, Nigeria

    Ebuka Chizitere Emenike & Kingsley O. Iwuozor

  3. Deanship of Skills Development, King Saud University, P.O Box 2455, Riyadh, 11451, Saudi Arabia

    Ashraf M.M. Abdelbacki

  4. Department of Chemistry, College of Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11451, Saudi Arabia

    Abdelrahman O. Ezzat

  5. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

    Ifeoluwa Peter Oyekunle

Authors
  1. Adewale George Adeniyi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sulyman A. Abdulkareem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ebuka Chizitere Emenike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ashraf M.M. Abdelbacki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mubarak A. Amoloye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kingsley O. Iwuozor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Abdelrahman O. Ezzat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Favour O. Eleregbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ifeoluwa Peter Oyekunle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Adewale George Adeniyi, Conceptualisation, Data curation, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - original draft; Writing - review & editing; ValidationSulyman Age Abdulkareem, Conceptualisation, Data curation, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - original draft; Writing - review & editing; ValidationEbuka Chizitere Emenike, Conceptualisation, Data curation, Writing - review & editing; ValidationMubarak A. Amoloye: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing; Supervision; Validation; Project administrationAbdelrahman O. Ezzat: Writing - review & editing; Supervision; Validation; Project administration Kingsley O. Iwuozor: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing Ashraf M.M. Abdelbacki, Conceptualisation, Data curation, Writing - review & editing; ValidationIfeoluwa Peter Oyekunle: Writing - review & editing; Supervision; Validation; Project administration Favour O. Eleregbe, Conceptualisation, Data curation, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - original draft; Writing - review & editing; Validation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adewale George Adeniyi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adeniyi, A.G., Abdulkareem, S.A., Emenike, E.C. et al. Mechanical and chemical characterization of biochar-reinforced polystyrene composites. BMC Chemistry 18, 246 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13065-024-01365-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13065-024-01365-2

Keywords

BMC Chemistry

ISSN: 2661-801X

Contact us