Comparison of mechanical performance of different geotextiles manufactured from natural fibers of Syagrus. coronata (Mart.) Becc, Thypha domingensis and Juncus sp subjected to natural biodegradation.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2986985/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Comparison of mechanical performance of different geotextiles manufactured from natural fibers of Syagrus. coronata (Mart.) Becc, Thypha domingensis and Juncus sp subjected to natural biodegradation.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2986985/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 01 Nov, 2023

Read the published version in The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology →

You are reading this latest preprint version

The objective of this study was to evaluate the mechanical performance of geotextiles made from natural fibers of Syagrus coronata (Mart.) Becc., Thypha domingensis, and Juncus sp. The geotextiles were treated with waterproofing resin and exposed to biodegradation for 120 days to understand their stress and strain behavior. The geotextiles was treated with colorless wood waterproofing resin by Hydronorth® to make it less permeable, delay the degradation process, and consequently increase the material's resistance to climatic variables. Subsequently, the geotextiles was subjected to natural degradation on slopes covering an area of 10m². Samples of the exposed material to the degradation processes were collected every 30 days. The findings reveal that the examined fibers, following treatment with waterproofing resin, exhibit the capability for extended utilization in the field, with Thypha fiber outperforming the other tested fibers. These results hold significant potential for the incorporation of natural fibers in endeavours related to environmental conservation.

Geosynthetics

erosion control

sustainable materials

eco-friendly alternatives

biodegradable fibers

environmental engineering

The increased use of petroleum-based polymers has raised concerns about the significant amount of solid waste that they generate. Geotextiles made by synthetic fibers, which are widely used in several fields of engineering, are one of the contributors to this problem. Estimates suggest that around 1.5 billion square meters of geotextiles are used annually [1]. Geotextiles are favored due to their cost-benefit relationship and a wide range of applications, including mechanical, hydraulic, and biological functions [2, 3].

Most of the geotextiles are made from non-degradable materials, such as Polypropylene (PP), Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), and Polyethylene (PE), which pollute the environment [4]. There is a growing interest in finding sustainable alternatives, such as natural fibers or biodegradable polymers, which can replace non-biodegradable materials in up to 50% of all engineering applications [5]. The growing demand for more sustainable solutions and the reduction of environmental pollution has led to an increase in research on biodegradable geotextiles based on natural bioengineering [6]. In this context, natural fibers, which have been used since the beginning of civilization in clothing, crafts, and cords, emerging as a promising alternative.

Initially, the natural fibers obtained from plants were part of people's daily lives [7]. As time passed, advances in technology brought new methods and synthetic fibers, resulting in an increase in production. Soil bioengineering or geotextile are important components to be considered when attempting to recover degraded areas. The natural geotextiles made from Syagrus coronata (Mart.) Becc., Thypha domingensis, and Juncus sp. fibers offer an ecological alternative to traditional synthetic fibers because they originate from renewable and biodegradable natural resources.

The natural geotextiles, with high resistance to traction and deformation, are ideal for stabilization and erosion control. Natural fibers derived from plant sources have several benefits when compared to synthetic fibers. These benefits include low density, accessibility, impact resistance, flexibility, less abrasiveness, health safety, a sustainable production process, emission reduction, recyclability, controlled degradability, and carbon neutrality [8, 9]. They can be used in combination with other materials (for example, inert materials and synthetic fibers in smaller proportions) to protect shorelines, preventing the sliding of already eroded surfaces [10] or on roads to stabilize the asphalt structure [11]. Additionally, the use of natural geotextiles helps to preserve local biodiversity, allowing the environment to regenerate more quickly and sustainably.

Natural geotextiles are a versatile means for the recovery and reinforcement of degraded areas. They are in high demand due to the numerous benefits and various uses of these materials [12]. These materials are primarily used to restore soils, control plant growth, prevent erosion, stabilize slopes, prevent watercourse flooding, and improve water quality. Because they are naturally biodegradable, geotextiles produced from natural fibers are not affected by humidity [13], temperature changes, soil pH, or the activities of microorganisms and animals, and they can resist pressure with different compression patterns [14].

Although geotextiles made of vegetal fibers are durable and can be applied in various contexts, natural fibers present limitations, such as water absorption and lower stability and durability [15]. The absorption of moisture and the presence of microorganisms accelerate the degradation of materials [16].

Despite the multiplicity of geotextiles made from natural fibers that are not yet present on the market, the notion of using biopolymers as protective solutions for such purposes remains relatively unexplored [17, 18]. In general, natural fibers have porous characteristics and inherent attraction to water due to the presence of hydrophilic groups in their structure [19]. This association with the humidity results in swelling of the fibers and weakening of the cell wall, facilitating microbial attack [20]. The microorganisms possess enzymatic systems capable of hydrolyzing the carbohydrate polymers in the fibers into digestible units [21].

Therefore, humidity can be better controlled by supplementing the fibers with inorganic composts [22] We observe that geotextiles made by natural fibers and treated with sodium hydroxide present a higher support rate in sandy soil alone than in silty soil, both for flooded and non-flooded conditions for the treated geotextiles, to the detriment of untreated geotextiles, demonstrating their effectiveness. The natural fibers must be treated with protective substances. A probable factor is that the natural fibers, being cellulosic, are vulnerable to degradation by micro and macroorganisms, including bacteria and fungi when not treated with protective materials [23, 24]. The degradation of natural polymers are carried out mainly by fungi, with bacteria acting as secondary degrading agents [25]. Under humid conditions, the fungi is highly efficient in degrading natural fibers [26, 27].

Lignocellulosic fibers with microbes follow a degradation pathway involving enzymatic oxidation, reduction, and hydrolysis [28, 29]. It has been demonstrated that this pathway can be hindered by previous protective treatment processes on the fibers that will be used in making geotextiles exposed to biodegradation [21, 30]. In geosynthetics, supplementary additives are used to avoid degradation in long-term uses, helping the fibers remain in place for a longer time [31], thus producing different types of natural-based geocomposites.

In general, a geocomposite is formed by two main components: the matrix and the reinforcement [32]. Geotextiles made of natural fibers, although lightweight, do not offer the required rigidity, resistance, and dimensional stability for structural and load-bearing applications. Therefore, they are often blended with synthetic fibers that have high resistance and rigidity or subjected to chemical treatments [33].

Little has been studied regarding the use of protective additives in geotextiles made with natural fibers to increase their durability in the field. Although these additives can delay degradation, decomposition still occurs over long-term exposure [34]. To understand the effects of supplementary composts, it is necessary to verify geotextile quality factors, such as durability, through both field and laboratory tests. This understanding can help improve fiber-composite interactions and aid in the stabilization of slopes and potential forest recovery [35].

Analysis of the mechanical behaviors of traction and deformation can be useful in understand the relative influences on the durability and performance of natural fibers treated after exposure in the field [36]. It should be considered that each type of seed can obtain different results for each type of fiber from the application of a protective material [37].

As the properties and mechanical behavior of each type of fiber are different, the objective of this work is to evaluate the performance of geotextiles made from Syagrus coronata (Mart.) Becc., Thypha domingensis, and Juncus sp. fibers, treated with waterproofing resin.

2.1 Collection of Plants and Processing of samples

The selection of samples of Syagrus coronata (Mart.) Becc, Thypha domingensis and Juncus sp. was based on the mechanical properties and cellulose and lignin contents of each species reported in the literature. Leaves and sprouts from the plants were collected from two municipalities in the Baixo São Francisco region of northeastern Brazil between 2019 and 2020.

Typha domingensis, is a perennial angiosperm plant found in humid zones within the genus Typha, of the family Typhaceae [38]. It can be found in various regions around the world, including the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia [39]. This highly adaptable and fast-growing plant is often found in marshy areas and along the banks of streams, lakes, and rivers, [40] and is more tolerant of water depth and salinity than other Typha species [41]. The plant can grow up to 5 meters tall and is known for its distinctive cylindrical stems of brown flowers surrounded by green leaves [42]. The leaves of Typha domingensis are long and flat with a cylindrical stems, and they are used in various ways, including as materials for roofing, making baskets, and mats.

Besides its ornamental and utilitarian value, Typha domingensis is also important for its role in humid zone ecosystems. It acts as a filter, removing excess nutrients and pollutants from the water [43]. Generally, Typha domingensis is a valuable species with a wide range of uses and ecological benefits.

Syagrus coronata (Mart.) Becc., an angiosperm (monocotyledonous) belonging to the Arecaceae botanical family commonly known as "licuri palm", is a species of perennial palm native to South America. Easily propagated [44], in Brazil it is commonly found in the dry and arid regions of the Caatinga biome, with a distribution area that extends from the north of Minas Gerais, occupying the entire eastern and central portion of Bahia, to the south of Pernambuco, also encompassing the states of Sergipe and Alagoas in northeastern Brazil [45]. The tree is known for its fronds resembling feathers, which can grow from 2 to 3 meters in length, distributed in a spiral along the length of the stem, and its crown can reach a diameter of up to 10 meters [46]. It presents small, yellowish flowers arranged in panicle-type inflorescences, protected by a large leathery peduncular bract [47].

Syagrus coronata (Mart.) Becc. is a plant with multiple uses, such as ornamentation due to its attractive appearance and tolerance to various environmental conditions, such as salt and wind. Its fibers are also used in handicrafts, and its abundant, ovoid, and fleshy endoderm fruit serve as a nutritional source for various domestic animals, as they flower throughout the year (Barbosa et al.,2021) [48, 49]. In addition, the leaves of the licuri palm are used for roofs and palm trees in local communities. In general, Syagrus coronata is a versatile and valuable species, widely appreciated for its ornamental and utilitarian qualities.

Juncus sp., is an angiosperm with flowers belonging to the botanical family Juncaceae, commonly known as Juncus. This genus is widely distributed throughout the world and is found in a variety of habitats, including swamps, meadows, and pastures [50]. This species is known for its tall, green, or reddish stems, which can reach a height of 1.5 meters [51]. Thus, they are flexible and have a cylindrical shape. The leaves are narrow and flat and are arranged along the stem in a spiral pattern [52]

The Juncus flowers are small and discreet. They are arranged in dense clumps along the stem and are typically green or brown in color. Juncus sp. is a valuable species for many uses, including erosion control, habitat creation, and wet zone restoration [53]. It is also commonly used as a landscaping plant, as well as material for making baskets, vases, and other items. Tackholm and Drar (1974) mention that the production of Juncus mats was described by Abu Hanifa (895 AD) and Ibn El- Beitar (1248 AD), with Cairo being the main center of the ancient mat industry. In ancient times in Egypt, the roots of J. rigidus were used in the manufacture of writing instruments, sandals, and baskets. Juncus sp. is a resistant, versatile, and attractive species that has a wide range of uses and ecological benefits [54].

Vouchers containing samples of non-herbal preserved species (ASE) were obtained from the Department of Biology (DBI) at the Federal University of Sergipe in São Cristóvão SE, Brazil. After classification and botanical registration, the samples of the three species were taken to the laboratory for drying, stretching, and fiber separation using two geotextiles.

The collection of wild plants specimens in Brazil requires mandatory licenses and must follow the standard procedures recommended by the National System of Management of Genetic Heritage and Associated Traditional Knowledge "SisGen" [55]. This collection was carried out under the registration code SisGen A2B3842.

2.2 Implementation of the Experiment

In the previous stage of the research carried out by the Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Sedimentation - LABES/UFS, the fibers of Syagrus coronata, Typha domingensis, and Juncus sp. Were used (Fig. 1a). In order to provide greater durability to these natural geotextiles, they were sprayed with a colorless and waterproof wood resin from the Hydronorth ® brand (Fig. 1b). This process aimed to make the material less permeable to slow down the degradation process and, consequently, increase its resistance to climatic variables. To achieve full coverage, the waterproofing resin was applied on both sides of the two geotextiles. The geotextiles were randomly distributed and subjected to the following treatments: a) Geotextile without waterproofing resin (Control), geotextile treated with a layer of TYPE A waterproofing resin, and geotextile made of TYPE B fibers treated with 2 (two) layers of waterproofing resin (double layer).

The experimental trial was carried out on a slope with an area of 14 m² in a soil classified as a Typic Quartzipsamment located on the Campus of the Universidade Federal de Sergipe-UFS (coordinates 10°55'47.2"S 37°06'12.6"W), in the Municipality of São Cristóvão, state of Sergipe, northeastern Brazil (Fig. 1c).

The geotextiles were subjected to natural degradation arranged on a slope (Fig. 1), from which 5 (five) samples were removed from each scheduled tail of the central part of the geotextile during the maximum period of 120 days (4 months) of exposure. This was the maximum period during which the geotextile maintained its integrity for the performance of two resistance tests. Four collections were made at different periods, T₀ (0 days), T₁ (30 days), T₂ (60 days), T₃ (90 days) and T₄ (120 days).

The intact and degraded samples was subjected to mechanical tests. For the non-confined tensile test, the fiber samples will be cutted according to NBR 12824 [56], with 30 cm of compression.

To test the tensile strength of the geotextiles, undamaged samples were removed that were not affected by weather conditions, as well as degraded samples from the field. The evaluated mechanical characteristics meet the requirements of the geotextiles in terms of their functions in slope stabilization, where they are subjected to traction, compression, flexion, among others. In this research, the main parameters of mechanical resistance were measured through tests that obtained stress-strain curves at rupture, rigidity, and toughness. The non-confined tensile strength tests were carried out in the UFS Materials Engineering Laboratory, using an EMIC Model DL universal testing machine with a maximum capacity of 300 kN [57, 58].

2.3 Statistical Analysis

To assess the temporal interaction between the different treatments and the physical characteristics of the two geotextiles (T₁ − 1st day, at T₄ − 120th day), a factorial ANOVA (3x2x4) was conducted for repeated measurements to understand the effect of "degradation time" on the mechanical resistance characteristics of the three geotextiles, including the influence of the application of waterproofing resin. The normality of the two data sets was evaluated using Kolmogorov -Smirnov (KS) and Shapiro-Wilk (SW) residual tests. The assumption of homogeneity of variance was validated by the Levene test [59].

Post-hoc analyses for the main effects were conducted using Hochberg's GT2 test at a 5% probability level since the samples were mostly homogeneous. This was done to compare the two effects of the interactions (fiber*resin application*time of exposure). The effects of the difference between the initial natural degradability and the natural degradability over 120 days of exposure were tested using the Bonferroni test, also at a 5% probability level.

To determine the statistical impact of the application of waterproofing resin on the physical resistance of the geotextile, effect sizes were evaluated using Eta squared (η² ) and Cohen's d for the ΔM test [60]. Effect sizes refer to the power that an independent variable (IV) has on a dependent variable (DV). In this study, the effect size obtained by DV characterizes the effect of the geotextile treatment in relation to the control treatment (T₁ without waterproofing resin).

Bootstrapping procedures (1000 retests; 95% CI BCa) were implemented to achieve greater reliability in the results, correct deviations from normality in the distribution of the sample, adjust for differences between the two group sizes, and present a 95% confidence interval for differences between the two groups’stockings [61]. Due to the nature of the experiment, missing data were imputed using multiple imputation based on the likelihood function [62]. All statistical tests were conducted with a significance level of p < 0.05.

3.1 Traction Tests

3.1.2 Maximum Tensile Strength (α max)

The Table 1 presents a comparative analysis of the maximum tensile strength of geotextile fibers with and without the application of waterproofing resin over an experimental period of 120 days. It appears that the Thypha domingensis (control-without the application of waterproofing resin) has statistically significant higher values and a high power of effect for maximum tensile strength at the end of 120 days of exposure (6.732 N/m-1) compared to TYPE A treated fibers ( ΔM = 4.826 n/mm ^− 1, Bca 95% [0.729–8.923], p < 0.019, Cohen's d = 1.649).

When comparing the untreated fibers with the TYPE B treated fibers, no statistically significant mean differences were observed (ΔM = 1.580, Bca 95% [-2.5163–5.6771], p < 0.681, Cohen's d = 0.540). These results indicate that the addition of two layers of waterproofing resin (TYPE B) results in greater resistance to fiber rupture compared to fibers treated with one layer of resin (TYPE A) without impairing the natural performance of Thypha domingensis fiber.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics and multiple comparisons of two levels of resistance to maximum traction (N/mm ^− 1 ) of fibers for all groups.
geotextile (fibers)	Maximum tensile strength ( α max ) (N/mm ^− 1 )
	T ₁ (30 days of exposure)
	without resin	TYPE A	TYPE B
syagrus coronata	13,351 ^(5,398) Aa	13,351 ^(9,445) Aa	22,378 ^(6,528) Aa
Thypha domingensis	10,066 ^(2,430) Aa	9,361 ^(4,362) Ab	8,970 ^{( 3,564)} Ab
Juncus sp.	10,270 ^(2,661) Aa	6,207 ^(1,889) Bb	3,088 ^(1,216) Bb
	T₂(60 days of exposure)
	without resin	TYPE A	TYPE B
syagrus coronata	0.664 ^(0.376) Bb	3,353 ^(5,602) Ab	3.892 ^(0.900) Bb
Thypha domingensis	5,697 ^(3,483) Aa	6,399 ^(1,924) Aa	6,736 ^{( 2,745)} Aa
Juncus sp.,	0.346 ^(0.123) Bb	2,807 ^(1,461) Ab	2.662 ^(0.461) Ab
	T₃(90 days of exposure)
	without resin	TYPE A	TYPE B
syagrus coronata	0.540 ^(0.490) Ab	0.590 ^(0.447) Ab	0.840 ^(0.369) Ab
Thypha domingensis	4,315 ^{( 4,315)} Aa	3,449 ^(1,892) Aa	4,932 ^(1,693) Aa
Juncus sp.,	0.400 ^{( 0.229)} Ab	0.893 ^(0.556) Ab	0.946 ^(0.573) Ab
	T₄(120 days of exposure)
	without resin	TYPE A	TYPE B
syagrus coronata	N.C	0.578 ^(0.347) Aab	1,263 ^(1,941) Ab
Thypha domingensis	6,732 ^(5,016) Aa	1,905 ^(1,332) Ba	3,460 ^{( 2,264)} Ba
Juncus sp.,	N.C	0.906 ^(0.529) Aab	0.411 ^(0.248) Ab
Note: N.C = no continuity, TYPE A = Fibers treated with a layer of waterproofing resin and TYPE B = Fibers treated with two layers of waterproofing resin. Underwritten values represent Standard Deviation. Means followed by the same capital letters horizontally for the three levels of resin and lowercase letters vertically for the different fibers with the same application level do not differ statistically by Hochberg's GT2 test at a 5% probability.

For this same period, the fibers of Syagrus coronata and Juncus sp., not treated with waterproofing resin, will present deterioration and low resistance after 90 days of degradation (Fig. 2a), and the Thypha domingensis present greater plasticity in comparison to the other fibers tested.

The degradation of two geosynthetics under environmental conditions, such as humidity, UV-vis irradiation, wind and particle abrasion, attack by microorganisms, and temperature variations represent the main disadvantage of long-term use of these materials [63–65]. However, the chemical and structural stability of the synthetic polymers present in the composition of the geosynthetics are crucial factors in determining the useful life and operational performance of these materials [66].

In this sense, new geotextiles have been designed considering protective treatments based on resistant polymers such as waterproofing resin, in order to provide better stability during the geocompost service period [67].

3.1.3 Strain at break (ε)

A normal distribution of two residues for tensile strength showed that only Syagrus fiber coronata, treated with litter for 60 days in group T ₂ (60 days) [KS = 0.405, p = 0.007; SW = 0.680, p = 0.006], did not exhibit normal distribution. Levene's test showed that all groups had homogeneity of variance. Therefore, more conservative post-hoc statistical models (Hochberg's GT2 and Bonferroni) recommended for homogeneous data that follow normality [68], were used, as well as bootstrapping with 1000 retests, to obtain more reliable data.

General results of ANOVA show that no statistically significant differences were observed between the resistances to deformation obtained in mechanical tests when comparing the means of the fibers tested (F(2, 240) = 0.392, p = 0.676; η² = 0.003). Statistically significant differences were observed when comparing the resin application levels (F (2, 240) = 12.589, p < 0.001; η² = 0.028), as well as for the exposure times to fiber degradation (F (4, 240) = 6.886, p < 0.001; η² = 0.105). The interaction between the different variables also demonstrated statistically significant differences (F (11, 240) = 16.617, p < 0.001; η² = 0.204).

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of geotextile fibers treated with resin, which were subjected to different exposure times to degradation.

When analyzing the fibers treated with a single layer of TYPE A waterproofing resin at the final time of the experiment (T₄), which corresponds to 120 days of exposure, the Juncus sp. treated with TYPE A (simple layer) (Fig. 3b) exhibited a statistically significant result with a high power of effect on the maximum deformation resistance. This result was observed in comparison with the Syagrus coronate fiber treated with the same protective technique (ΔM = 4.21%, Bca 95% [2.70% – 5.10%], p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 4.885), how much in comparison to Thypha domingensis ( ΔM = 2.90%, Bca 95% [1.50% – 3.80%], p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 3.403).

The use of biodegrading agents and waterproofing materials to increase fiber aggregation promotes greater durability and deformation resistance of geotextiles. This improvement can be attributed to the increased amount of energy required to cause failure of the material and its aggregates, dressings, or protective treatments, thus contributing to its greater durability (Gao et al., 2022).

Table 2

Descriptive statistics and multiple comparisons of the two levels of deformation of the fibers for all groups.
geotextile (fibers)	Resistance to deformation (ε) (%)
	30 days of exposure
	without resin	TYPE A	TYPE B
syagrus coronata	3.33% ^(0.836) Aa	3.89% ^(1,508) Aa	2.75% ^(0.592) Ab
Thypha domingensis	3.86% ^(0.957) Aa	2.64% ^(0.711) Aa	2.60% ^(1.727) Ab
Juncus sp.,	4.02% ^(0.563) Ba	4.31% ^(0.018) ABa	10.29% ^(0.735) Aa
	60 days of exposure
	without resin	TYPE A	TYPE B
syagrus coronata	2.35% ^(1,327) Aa	3.12% ^(2,142) Aa	2.03% ^(1,475) Aa
Thypha domingensis	3.16% ^(0.835) Aa	2.66% ^(0.893) Aa	3.49% ^(0.979) Aa
Juncus sp.,	1.33% ^(0.371) Bb	3.52% ^(0.008) ABa	3.68% ^(0.015) Aa
	90 days of exposure
	without resin	TYPE A	TYPE B
syagrus coronata	1.49% ^(0.621) Aa	1.55% ^(1.326) Ab	1.00% ^(0.542) Ab
Thypha domingensis	2.55% ^(0.673) Aa	2.62% ^(0.914) Aab	2.18% ^(0.837) Ab
Juncus sp.,	1.49% ^(0.017) Aa	3.82% ^(0.855) Aa	4.51% ^(0.024) Aa
	120 days of exposure
	without resin	TYPE A	TYPE B
syagrus coronata	N.C	0.65% ^(0.351) Ac	0.43% ^(0.273) Ab
Thypha domingensis	2.40% ^(0.302) Aa	2.58% ^(0.835) Aa	2.56% ^(0.827) Aa
Juncus sp.,	N.C	4.81% ^(0.014) Ab	2.93% ^(0.029) Aa
Note: N.C = No continuity. TYPE A refers to fibers that have been treated with a layer of waterproofing resin, while TYPE B refers to fibers that have been treated with two layers of waterproofing resin. The underwritten values represent the standard deviation and means that are followed by the same capital letters horizontally, for the three levels of resin, and lowercase letters vertically, for the different fibers with the same application level, are not statistically different according to Hochberg's GT2 test at a 5% probability level.

Figure 3a shows the fibers treated with the control (without waterproofing resin). After 90 days of exposure to climatic variables in the field, the three natural fibers exhibited a statistically significant loss of resistance compared to the values initially obtained for the same treatment. The Juncus sp. fibers showed a loss of resistance of approximately 63.03% ( ΔM = 0.025, p = 0.045, Bca 95% [6% – 10%], Cohen's d = 1.791), while the Syagrus coronata fibers showed a loss of about 55.20% during the analyzed period ( ΔM = 1.9%, p = 0.020, Bca 95% [0.5% – 3%] Cohen's d = 1.678).

Among the three fibers tested, the fiber of Thypha domingensis showed less resistance to deformation at rupture when compared to the other two fibers studied, with a difference of approximately 33.99% (ΔM = 1.5%, p = 0.029, Bca 95% [0.3% – 2.8%] Cohen's d = 1,491). Additionally, in Fig. 3a, it appears that the fibers of Syagrus coronata and Juncus sp., which were not treated with waterproofing resin, may not resist biodegradation after 120 days of exposure. However, this behavior was corrected when waterproofing resin was applied.

The results, presented in Figs. 3b and 3c, indicate that treatment with waterproofing resin promotes a longer time of use in the field for all three natural fibers studied, as observed by Vivek et al. [69]. This behavior indicates a more rapid process of structural alteration in the untreated samples, which is caused by the loss of lignin and the alteration of cellulose crystallinity due to biodegradation exposure.

Under low-stress conditions, natural geotextiles can accommodate a greater number of fibers in the stress-strain relationship, optimizing the deformation capacity of the material. These results are similar to the findings of Matheus et al. [70]in their analysis of manufactured geotextiles. In engineering context, geotextiles are frequently subjected to tensile forces, whether uniaxial, biaxial, or more complex scenarios, and may also occasionally be exposed to sharp objects.

In this sense, the application of a layer of waterproofing resin seems to act as an aggregator, improving the accommodation of the cellulosic group [71, 72]. Therefore, applying an excess amount of resin appears to reduce the deformation capacity of natural fibers, making the material more ductile.

Another behavior that can be observed is the gradual degradation of Juncus sp. fibers after 90 days (Fig. 4b and 4c). Long-term changes can result in a reduction of two values of the mechanical properties of the material, particularly if it is more crystalline. In such cases, there is less empty space present, resulting in less deformability [73]. Thus, it is important to consider the effects of long-term changes when choosing materials for certain applications.

Indeed, several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of waterproofing resin treatment in enhancing the durability and resistance of natural fibers. For instance, Hu et al. [74] reported improved mechanical properties of natural fibers treated with waterproofing resins, increasing their resistance to degradation in various environmental conditions. Similarly, Joseph et al. [75] observed that natural fibers treated with waterproofing resins exhibited significantly lower hydrophilicity and higher tensile strength when compared to untreated fibers.

Further research, such as the study conducted by Liu et al. [76], found an increase in tensile strength and thermal stability in natural fiber composites treated with waterproofing resins. Moreover, Khalid et al. [77] emphasized the importance of treating natural fibers with waterproofing resins to obtain better mechanical properties and moisture resistance for engineering and civil construction applications.

While not directly related to the production of geotextiles, vegetable fibers are a viable option due to their good combination of mechanical and environmental properties [78] making them a promising ecological alternative to traditional cementitious materials. However, it is necessary to employ associated protection techniques to adapt these fibers to the technical requirements and guarantee their resilience over the necessary time for their use in the field, considering these structural issues.

The application of waterproofing resin, both in one and two layers, promotes greater durability and resistance capacity of the geotextile at maximum extension and deformation over a period of 120 days, compared to untreated fibers.

Regarding the maximum tensile strength, Thypha domingensis fiber showed the best results among the three studied fibers, both with one and two layers of resin, after 120 days.

Deformation is a critical factor to consider in the production of geotextiles, as the applicated values define the limits of use and quantity of fibers during production. In this sense the data shows that the three natural fibers, when treated with waterproofing resin present satisfactory values for resistance to deformation over 120 days of biodegradation.

Syagrus coronata fiber when treated with a layer, exhibits greater resistance to deformation after 120 days compared to other fibers.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the riverine communities of The Lower São Francisco River, helping in the manufacturing of prototypes of geotextiles based on the experience on the fiber crafts works.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files).

Code availability

No custom code used.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Funding

There was no fund support available to this Research.

Prambauer M, Wendeler C, Weitzenböck J, Burgstaller C (2019) Biodegradable geotextiles – An overview of existing and potential materials. Geotext Geomembr 47:48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOTEXMEM.2018.09.006
Fuggini C, Zangani D, Wosniok A, Krebber K, Franitza P, Gabino L et al (2016) Innovative Approach in the Use of Geotextiles for Failures Prevention in Railway Embankments. Transp Res Procedia 14:1875–1883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.154
Jeon H-Y, Koerner RM (2016) p xv–xvi
Niaounakis M (2015) Biopolymers: Applications and trends. Biopolymers: Appl Trends 1–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-00936-7
Prabhu L, Krishnaraj V, Sathish S, Gokulkumar S, Karthi N, Rajeshkumar L et al (2021) A review on natural fiber reinforced hybrid composites: chemical treatments, manufacturing methods and potential applications. Mater Today Proc 45:8080–8085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.280
Pandey JK, Ahn SH, Lee CS, Mohanty AK, Misra M (2010) Recent Advances in the Application of Natural Fiber Based Composites. Macromol Mater Eng 295:975–989. https://doi.org/10.1002/MAME.201000095
Das PP, Chaudhary V (2020) Tribological and dynamic mechanical analysis of bio-composites: A review. Mater Today Proc 25:729–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATPR.2019.08.233
Kerni L, Singh S, Patnaik A, Kumar N (2020) A review on natural fiber reinforced composites. Mater Today Proc 28:1616–1621. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATPR.2020.04.851
Navaratnam S, Selvaranjan K, Jayasooriya D, Rajeev P, Sanjayan J (2023) Applications of natural and synthetic fiber reinforced polymer in infrastructure: A suitability assessment. J Building Eng 66:105835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.105835
Guo M, Wang W, Shi Q, Chen T, Kang H, Li J (2019) An experimental study on the effects of grass root density on gully headcut erosion in the gully region of China’s Loess Plateau. Land Degrad Dev 30:2107–2125. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3404
Ansari A, Daigavane PB, Pathan S, Shaikh N, Shaikh F (2021) Use of Geotextiles in Roads Over Weak Subgrades. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 137 LNCE:365–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6466-0_34
Vigneshwaran S, Sundarakannan R, John KM, Joel Johnson RD, Prasath KA, Ajith S et al 2020 Recent advancement in the natural fiber polymer composites: A comprehensive review. J Clean Prod 277:124109. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.124109
Asongu SA, le Roux S, Biekpe N (2017) Environmental degradation, ICT and inclusive development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Policy 111:353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.049
Pelyk LV, Vasylechko VO, Kyrychenko OV (2019) Influence of Biodestructors on the Wear Resistance of Polyester Geotextile Materials. Colloids and Interfaces, Vol 3, Page 21 2019;3:21. https://doi.org/10.3390/COLLOIDS3010021
Marczak D, Lejcuś K, Grzybowska-Pietras J, Biniaś W, Lejcuś I, Misiewicz J (2020) Biodegradation of sustainable nonwovens used in water absorbing geocomposites supporting plants vegetation. Sustainable Mater Technol 26:e00235. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SUSMAT.2020.E00235
Bachchan AA, Das PP, Chaudhary V (2022) Effect of moisture absorption on the properties of natural fiber reinforced polymer composites: A review. Mater Today Proc 49:3403–3408. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATPR.2021.02.812
Fatehi H, Ong DEL, Yu J, Chang I (2021) Biopolymers as Green Binders for Soil Improvement in Geotechnical Applications: A Review. Geosciences Vol 11, Page 291 2021;11:291. https://doi.org/10.3390/GEOSCIENCES11070291
Peças P, Carvalho H, Salman H, Leite M (2018) Natural Fibre Composites and Their Applications: A Review. Journal of Composites Science, Vol 2, Page 66 2018;2:66. https://doi.org/10.3390/JCS2040066
Karimah A, Ridho MR, Munawar SS, Adi DS, Ismadi, Damayanti R et al (2021) A review on natural fibers for development of eco-friendly bio-composite: characteristics, and utilizations. J Mater Res Technol 13:2442–2458. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMRT.2021.06.014
Das PP, Acharya A, Chaudhary V (2021) Influence of Moisture Uptake on the Mechanical Properties of Natural Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites. Composite Materials, First Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003080633-12
Ghose SN, King KW (2016) The Effects of Physical and Chemical Properties of Cellulosic Fibers on Anaerobic Deterioration by Pure Cultures1. 33:392–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/004051756303300511
Arora M, Dutta RK, Soni DK (2019) Bearing Ratio Behavior of Sand Overlying Silty Sand and Reinforced with Treated Coir Geotextiles. 18:834–844. https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2019.1658255
Sumi S, Unnikrishnan N, Mathew L (2016) Experimental Investigations on Biological Resistance of Surface Modified Coir Geotextiles. Int J Geosynthetics Ground Eng 2:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40891-016-0073-3
Ran W, Lian J, Zhang J (2022) Evaluation and modeling of fungi towards wood degradation. Bioengineered 13:3284–3299. https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2022.2025699
Kavkler K, Demšar A (2012) Impact of fungi on contemporary and accelerated aged wool fibres. Polym Degrad Stab 97:786–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POLYMDEGRADSTAB.2012.02.002
Ahmed Z, Nizam SA (2008) Jute - Microbiological and Biochemical Research. Plant Tissue Cult Biotechnol 18:197–220. https://doi.org/10.3329/PTCB.V18I2.3651
Goodell B, Winandy JE, Morrell JJ (2020) Fungal Degradation of Wood: Emerging Data, New Insights and Changing Perceptions. Coatings 10:1210. https://doi.org/10.3390/COATINGS10121210
Rowell RM (1998) Property Enhanced Natural Fiber Composite Materials Based on Chemical Modification. Sci Technol Polym Adv Mater 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0112-5_63
Ali A, Shaker K, Nawab Y, Jabbar M, Hussain T, Militky J et al (2018) Hydrophobic treatment of natural fibers and their composites—A review. J Ind Text 47:2153–2183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1528083716654468
Ramesh M (2016) Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) fibre based bio-materials: A review on processing and properties. Prog Mater Sci 78–79:1–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PMATSCI.2015.11.001
Feldman D (2002) Polymer Weathering: Photo-Oxidation. J Polym Environ 10:163–173. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021148205366
Janasekaran S, Lei Z, Jun TR, Yunn LJ, Singh A (2022) Green Composites Reinforced with Natural Fibers: A Review on Mechanical Properties. Adv Structured Mater 166:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89992-9_1/COVER
Rajeshkumar G, Arvindh Seshadri S, Devnani GL, Sanjay MR, Siengchin S, Prakash Maran J et al (2021) Environment friendly, renewable and sustainable poly lactic acid (PLA) based natural fiber reinforced composites – A comprehensive review. J Clean Prod 310:127483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127483
Franco YB, Valentin CA, Kobelnik M, da Silva JL, Ribeiro CA, da Luz MP (2022) Accelerated Aging Ultraviolet of a PET Nonwoven Geotextile and Thermoanalytical Evaluation. Materials 15:4157. https://doi.org/10.3390/MA15124157
Holanda FSR, de Castro JDS, Santos LDV, de Andrade CEC, Griza S, Junior JJR et al (2020) Degradation of geotextiles of Typha latifolia Linn used in soil bioengineering techniques. Ciência Florestal 30:1147–1160. https://doi.org/10.5902/1980509842416
Kushwaha PK, Kumar R (2010) Influence of chemical treatments on the mechanical and water absorption properties of bamboo fiber composites. 30:73–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731684410383064
Khieng TK, Debnath S, Ting E, Liang C, Anwar M, Pramanik A et al (2021) A Review on Mechanical Properties of Natural Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composites under Various Strain Rates. Journal of Composites Science 2021, 5:130. https://doi.org/10.3390/JCS5050130
Hegazy AK, Abdel-Ghani NT, El-Chaghaby GA (2011) Phytoremediation of industrial wastewater potentiality by Typha domingensis. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8:639–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03326249/METRICS
Greenhouse J, Markos S, Moe RL, Simono S, Wetherwax M, Vorobik LA (2012) Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded, 2nd edn. University of California Press
Grace JB (1989) Effects of water depth on typha latifolia and Typha domingensis. Am J Bot 76:762–768. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1537-2197.1989.tb11371.x
Hotchkiss N, Dozier HL (1949) Taxonomy and Distribution of N. American Cat-Tails. Am Midl Nat 41:237. https://doi.org/10.2307/2422028
Les DH (2020) Aquatic monocotyledons of North America: ecology, life history, and systematics, vol 1. 1st ed. Taylor & Francis e Books
Deguenon HEJ, Guevara N, Tometin LAS, Guehou MS, Aina MP, Sohounhloue CKD (2022) Influence of the Stage Number on the Quality of Domestic Wastewater Treated with Typha domingensis Filter Plants. Chem Sci Int J 1–10. https://doi.org/10.9734/CSJI/2022/v31i5819
Gonçalves LJB, Santo-Silva EE, Barros MF, Rito KF, Leal IR, Tabarelli M (2020) The palm Syagrus coronata proliferates and structures vascular epiphyte assemblages in a human-modified landscape of the Caatinga dry forest. J Trop Ecol 36:123–132. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467420000073
Drumond MA (2007) Licuri Syagrus coronata (Mart.) Becc. Embrapa Semi-Árido 2007:16
Lima VVF (2019) Modelos de distribuição potencial e ecologia populacional de Syagrus coronata (Martius) Beccari - Arecaceae (licuri): recomendações para a conservação e o manejo de um importante PFNM para as regiões semiáridas do Nordeste do Brasil. Thesis. Universidade Federal de Brasília,
Lorenzi H, de Souza HM, Costa JTM, de Cerqueira LSC, Ferreira EJL Palmeiras brasileiras e exóticas cultivadas 2004.
Bagaldo AR, Miranda GS, Soares Júnior MSF, de Araújo FL, Matoso RVM, Chizzotti ML et al (2019) Effect of Licuri cake supplementation on performance, digestibility, ingestive behavior, carcass traits and meat quality of grazing lambs. Small Ruminant Research 177:18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SMALLRUMRES.2019.05.020
Ribeiro Daza A, Souza JG, Monnerat JPIS, Ribeiro CVDM (2021) Performance of growing lambs supplemented with ground licuri (Syagrus coronata). Anim Biosci 34:1014
López-Juambeltz F, Rodríguez-Gallego L, Dabezíes JM, Chreties C, Narbondo S, Conde D (2020) A GIS-based assessment combined with local ecological knowledge to support the management of Juncus acutus L. spreading in the floodplain of a protected coastal lagoon. J Nat Conserv 57:125891. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JNC.2020.125891
Xia L, Zhang C, Wang A, Wang Y, Xu W (2020) Morphologies and properties of Juncus effusus fiber after alkali treatment. Cellulose 27:1909–1920. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10570-019-02933-9/METRICS
Tackholm V, Boulos L (1974) Students’ flora of Egypt
Snogerup S (1978) Notes on Juncus for Flora Europaea
El-Shamy AI, Abdel-Razek AF, Nassar MI (2015) Phytochemical review of Juncus L. genus (Fam. Juncaceae). Arab J Chem 8:614–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ARABJC.2012.07.007
Freitas JG, Gabrielle VGN, Flores LNP, Batista FRDC (2021) Coleta Material Botânico - Guia Prático. vol. 1. 1st ed. Campina Grande-PB: 1;
ABNT ABDNT. Geotêxteis – Determinação da resistência à tração não-confinada – Ensaio de tração de faixa larga. NBR 12824 (1993) 1993
Mickovski SB, van Beek LPH (2009) Root morphology and effects on soil reinforcement and slope stability of young vetiver (Vetiveria zizanioides) plants grown in semi-arid climate. Plant Soil 324:43–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-009-0130-y
Wu Z, Leung AK, Boldrin D, Ganesan SP (2021) Variability in root biomechanics of Chrysopogon zizanioides for soil eco-engineering solutions. Sci Total Environ 776:145943. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.145943
Barker LE, Shaw KM (2015) Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: checking assumptions concerning regression residuals. Am J Clin Nutr 102:533–539. https://doi.org/10.3945/AJCN.115.113498
Cohen J Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
Haukoos J, medicine RL-A emergency (2005) Advanced Statistics: Bootstrapping Confidence Intervals for Statistics with “Difficult” Distributions. Wiley Online Library 12:360–365. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.aem.2004.11.018
Allison PD (2016) Multiple Imputation for Missing Data. 28:301–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124100028003003
Miszkowska A, Lenart S, Koda E (2017) Changes of Permeability of Nonwoven Geotextiles due to Clogging and Cyclic Water Flow in Laboratory Conditions. Water 9:660. https://doi.org/10.3390/W9090660
Oliveira RG, Pereira JG, Koerner RM (2007) The durability of geosynthetics. Geosynthetics in Civil Engineering. Woodhead, Sawston, UK, pp 36–65
Wiewel BV, Lamoree M (2016) Geotextile composition, application and ecotoxicology—A review. J Hazard Mater 317:640–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2016.04.060
Tanasă F, Nechifor M, Mauru¸sa-Elena Ignat M, Teacă C-A (2022) A Versatile Tool for Environmental Sensitive Applications in Geotechnical Engineering. Textiles 2:189–208. https://doi.org/10.3390/TEXTILES2020011
Boopalan M, Niranjanaa M, Umapathy MJ (2013) Study on the mechanical properties and thermal properties of jute and banana fiber reinforced epoxy hybrid composites. Compos B Eng 51:54–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.compositesb.2013.02.033
Homack SR, Understanding What ANOVA (2001) Post Hoc Tests Are, Really.
Vivek, Dutta RK, Parti R (2020) Application Potential of Treated Coir Geotextiles in Unpaved Roads. J Nat Fibers 17:1454–1467. https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2019.1578718
Matheus E, Palmeira EM, Agnelli JAM (2004) Degradação de alguns geossintéticos por radiação ultravioleta e variação de temperatura. Nota Técnica Solos e Rochas 27:177–188
Gao YX, Zhu HH, Ni YF, Wei C, Shi B (2022) Experimental study on uplift behavior of shallow anchor plates in geogrid-reinforced soil. Geotext Geomembr 50:994–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEOTEXMEM.2022.06.006
Korniejenko K, Frączek E, Pytlak E, Adamski M (2016) Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Composites Reinforced with Natural Fibers. Procedia Eng 151:388–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROENG.2016.07.395
Kakroodi AR, Cheng S, Sain M, Asiri A (2014) Mechanical, Thermal, and Morphological Properties of Nanocomposites Based on Polyvinyl Alcohol and Cellulose Nanofiber from Aloe vera Rind. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/903498. Research Article Mechanical
Hu L, Wan Y, He F, Luo HL, Liang H, Li X et al (2009) Effect of coupling treatment on mechanical properties of bacterial cellulose nanofibre-reinforced UPR ecocomposites. Mater Lett 63:1952–1954. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATLET.2009.06.015
Joseph PV, Mathew G, Joseph K, Groeninckx G, Thomas S (2003) Dynamic mechanical properties of short sisal fibre reinforced polypropylene composites. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 34:275–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-835X(02)00020-9
Liu Y, Xie J, Wu N, Wang L, Ma Y, Tong J (2019) Influence of silane treatment on the mechanical, tribological and morphological properties of corn stalk fiber reinforced polymer composites. Tribol Int 131:398–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRIBOINT.2018.11.004
Khalid MY, Al Rashid A, Arif ZU, Ahmed W, Arshad H, Zaidi AA (2021) Natural fiber reinforced composites: Sustainable materials for emerging applications. Results in Engineering 11:100263. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RINENG.2021.100263
Kumar N, Das D (2018) Nonwoven geotextiles from nettle and poly(lactic acid) fibers for slope stabilization using bioengineering approach. Geotext Geomembr 46:206–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.11.007

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 01 Nov, 2023

Read the published version in The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology →

Editorial decision: Major Revisions Needed
02 Oct, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
02 Jun, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
02 Jun, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
01 Jun, 2023
First submitted to journal
29 May, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Comparison of mechanical performance of different geotextiles manufactured from natural fibers of Syagrus. coronata (Mart.) Becc, Thypha domingensis and Juncus sp subjected to natural biodegradation.

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Material and Methods

2.1 Collection of Plants and Processing of samples

2.2 Implementation of the Experiment

2.3 Statistical Analysis

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Traction Tests

3.1.2 Maximum Tensile Strength (α max)

3.1.3 Strain at break (ε)

4. Conclusions

Declarations

References

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1