Circularity in Materials: A Review on Polymer Composites Made from Agriculture and Textile Waste

Table 2

Composites developed from waste and the impact of using waste materials.

Composite type	Waste reinforcement	Waste matrix	Comments about performance	Reference
Cotton/polyester	Yes	No	(i) Comber noil provided better mechanical strength	[50]
Shoddy/epoxy	Yes	No	(i) Better storage modulus	[40]
Yarn manufacturing AC dust/polyurethane	Yes	No	(i) Thermal properties deteriorated	[4]
Cotton, flax/PLA	Yes	No	(i) Good mechanical properties; (ii) Suitable for lightweight applications	[34]
Kenaf/polyester	Yes	No	(i) Unidirectional reinforcement performed best. Suitable for civil engineering applications	[74]
Denim fabric/UP	Yes	No	(i) Good mechanical properties	[76]
Polyester/polyethylene	Yes	Yes	(i) Low interfacial adhesion	[77]
Denim cuts/cornstarch	Yes	No	(i) Can be used as acoustic panels	[48]
Denim/polypropylene	Yes	Yes	(i) Recommended for furniture and architecture applications	[23]
Demin/cornstarch	Yes	No	(i) Better tensile strength and interfacial binding; (ii) Recommended for single-use packaging applications	[51]
Glass fiber, polyester fiber, and polypropylene fiber/concrete	Yes	No	(i) Glass fibers provided the highest compressive and flexural strengths; (ii) Polyester provided the highest impact strength	[80]
Cotton-polyester/PVA	Yes	No	(i) Low density; (ii) High water absorption; (iii) Better insulation properties	[35]
Cotton-polyester/epoxy	Yes	No	(i) Suited for building construction and automobile applications	[49]
Cotton (comber noil)/UP	Yes	No	(i) The impact strength of cotton waste-reinforced composites was comparable to glass fiber-reinforced composites; (ii) Overall tensile and flexural strengths were low	[81]
Biochar/HDPE	Yes	No	(i) High loadings improved tensile and flexural properties at 50 to 60 percent biochar loadings; (ii) The thermal stability and the limiting oxygen index were improved	[84]
Sunflower husk/ULDP	Yes	No	(i) Improved stiffens, elastic modulus, and tensile strength; (ii) Recommended for mechanical vibration damping and impact resistance	[85]
Linseed cake/HDPE	Yes	No	(i) Lower mechanical performance due to a lack of interfacial adhesion	[86]
Banana fiber, jute/UP	Yes	No	(i) The mechanical properties of banana fiber composites were lower than jute-reinforced composites but were comparable	[87]
Argyreia speciosa fiber powder	Yes	No	(i) Only alkali-treated, fine powder as filler increased tensile strength by 30%, flexural strength by 18%, tensile modulus by 34%, and flexural modulus by 33%	[88]
Wheat straw/propylene	Yes	No	(i) Improved impact and tensile strength up to 50%, higher heat deflection, and higher stiffness and toughness; (ii) Potential for high-strength structural applications	[89]
Sugar beet/LDPE	Yes	No	(i) Using carbonyl additive improved composite strength at 50% content Young’s modulus increased by up to 175%	[90]
Sugarcane bagasse/tapioca starch	Yes	No	(i) The strength improved up to 2.5 MPa under 15 minutes of sonication at 40 kHz and 50°C temperature	[91]
Soybean hull/cornstarch	Yes	No	(i) 8% soybean hull increased the tensile strength up to 20% in comparison to plain plastic	[92]
Denim fabric/polycarbonate	Yes	Yes	(i) Polycarbonate performed as a better matrix than polyethylene in terms of tensile, flexural, and impact strengths	[94]
Glass fiber and flax fiber/waste vegetable oil-derived resin	No	Yes	(i) Better impact properties; (ii) Low weight; (iii) Better thermal stability	[96]
Wood particulates/HDPE, LDPE	Yes	Yes	(i) An increase in recycled wood waste demonstrated tensile strength up to 34.30 MPa and hardness up to 19.72 HV	[97]
Fly ash/PET	Yes	Yes	(i) Ground particles had the best flexural strength; (ii) Tensile and compressive strengths were reduced due to poor interfacial interaction	[101]
Rice husk, silica sand/HDPE, LDPE	Yes	Yes	(i) The resulting composites provided up to 26.39 MPa compressive strength, 4.9 MPa flexural strength, and 3.25 MPa tensile strength; (ii) The resulting composites were found suitable for floor tile fabrication	[103]
Silica sand/HDPE, LDPE	No	Yes	(i) Composites demonstrated 46.2 N/mm^2 compressive strength and 4.24 N/mm^2 flexural strength; (ii) Minimum water absorption was 0.039%, and the minimum sliding wear rate was  kg/m; (iii) These composites were found suitable for floor tile fabrication	[104]
Wood laminate sanding dust/polypropylene	Yes	Yes	(i) Tensile strength up to 42 MPa, impact strength up to 6 kJ/m^2, and flexural strength up to 46 MPa were achieved	[105]
Sand/polypropylene	No	Yes	(i) A tensile strength of 4.2 MPa and compressive strength of 35 MPa were achieved	[106]
Pineapple particulates/methyltrimethoxysilane	Yes	No	(i) These composites absorbed water 16 times its weight; (ii) Suitable for removing organic pollutants in water	[75]