Fungus Surface Resistance of The Silica /Acrylic

Coated Leaves Waste Composite

By
Masturi, Widya Nurul Jannah, Riful Mazid Maulana, Teguh Darsono, Supriadi
Rostat
 INTRODUCTION

PHYSICS DEPARTMENT
UNIVERSITAS NEGERI SEMARANG
 INTRODUCTION

The researcher
The wood demands must to develop a
increasing for several material replacing
decades as people the rare wood.
growth.
SOLUTION?
Many industrial
entrepreneurs cut
down trees to provide
wood demand
Composites are materials consisting of two or
 INTRODUCTION
macroscopic scale resulting in improved
physical and mechanical properties
 INTRODUCTION
DEVELOPMENT OF COMPOSITE RESEARH

Pirayesh et al
Rosa et al 2009 Maafi et al 2010 Mattos et al 2014
2012
Rice husk filled PP Composite using Tea waste
Peanut-shell
composites cellulose fibers composite
composite

However, almost of them have not performed yet the safety aspect in its usage,
especially in handling the fungus being enable grow on the composite as hygroscopic
environment. Further, as hygroscopic environmental condition where the water easily
penetrates into the composite network, the composite will be targeted for the growth
 INTRODUCTION
of fungi and other biological agents. Therefore, it is very important to ensure the fungus
that may grow on the composite must be isolated, and one of the ways is by coating
process
 Several works of composite coatings have been also done, such as Iswanto et al that have
treated liquid paraffin, liquid silicone and waterproof coating on composites.

 Further, Lesar and Humar used waxes to coating on wood surfaces and to know their
resistance for fungi. However, these studies has not examined the possibility of fungus
resulted from the composite passing to the surface, regarding the contents of the leaf
waste usually produce fungus.

 In this works, we have made a polyurethane/teak leaf waste composite coated by some
material coaters. Using the coating process, the composite produced has
 properness and safety from fungus to be used as several home appliance.
 INTRODUCTION
 We have also measured the surface pores to ensure that the fungus possibly growing
cannot pass to the surface.
 Fabrication of Composite
METHODS

Weighing leaves
Collecting Teak Leaves Crushing process Smoothed leaves
mass
Pressing at 3 Mixing and Puting Weighing
Sample Composite metrics/ton for 15 into mold polyurethane minutes

Spray coating
with
compressor
Composite with coating
Acrilyc + silica sand
 Coating Process
METHODS

Milling 15 h

Silica sand Silica powder

Acrilyc
acrylic and acrylic + silica
DISCUSSION
Figure 1. SEM image for
surface on composites with
treatment coating acrylic
 infiltrating into the composite as a hygroscopic environment.
The coating treatment is to prevent water to insert to the
composite and also ensure the composite has a resistance to
fungi grown from teak leaf waste inside.
Using SEM measurement ,it was obtained for the composite
coated by acrylic only, the average pore size is 1.24 μm with very
rare distribution and has ball shape (Figure 1) This pores may
occur due to an interaction between acrylic and the teak leaf
waste particle underneath.
Cellulose and lignin As this interaction, some of acrylic chains are attracted inside
contents in the teak leaf and forms some pores. This suggestion is based on the acrylic’s
waste can trigger fungi active group, i.e. vinyl group attracted by some particle,
growth when there is water especially teak leaf waste particle on the composite surface.
 DISCUSSION
The silica/acrylic coater tends to form more oval shapes
having average length and width of 0.76 μm and 0.38 μm,
respectively (Figure 2).

The both pore sizes of acrylic

and acrylic-silica are fairly small if compared to some
wooden fungi having average pore size 3-7 μm [17]. It
means that the fungus possibly growing on the
polyurethane/teak leaf waste composite cannot get out
passing the pores and further may stay for long time under the coater to die. Figure
1. SEM image for surface on
 composites with
treatment coating acrylic-silica
CONCLUSION

We have successfully synthesized polyurethane/teak

leaves waste composite coated with acrylic and
acrylicsilica. The surface morphology of the acrylic coated
and acrylic-silica coated composites has a pore size of
1.24 μm and 0.38-0.76 μm, respectively. These pore sizes
are fairly smaller compared to wooden fungi having
average size 3-7μm. It means so that the composite is
fairly safe from the fungi may grow from the teak leaf
waste inside, and further it can be used as home
appliance material competing the woods.
 REFERENCE
• I. Zivkovic, A. Pavlovic, C. Fragassa. Int J Quality Res, vol 10(1), 205–218. 2016
• G. Kowaluk. Bioresour, vol 9(3), 5339-5348. 2014.
• A. Ashori. Polym-Plastics Technol Eng, vol 47(8), 741-744. 2008.
• D. Paukszta, S. Borysiak. Mater, vol 6, 2747-2767. 2013
• S.M.L. Rosa, E.F. Santos, C.A. Ferreira, S.M.B. Nachtigall. Mater Res, vol 12(3), 333-338. 2009
• M. Sumaila, B.I. Ugheoke, L. Timon, T. Oloyode. Leonardo J Sci, vol 9, 159-166.2006.
• C. Kose, E. Terzi, U. Buyuksari, E. Ever, N. Ayrilmis, and S. N. Kartal, J. Bioresour., vol. 6 (2), 2045–2054. 2011.
• A.H. Iswanto, T. Sucipto, S.S.D. Nadeak, and W. Fatriasari, , IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng, vol. 180, 1– 8. 2015.
• Masturi, Sunarno, W.N. Jannah, D. Alighiri, A. Purwinarko, Susilawati, U. Amri, S. Rustad.. J Phys Conf Ser, 824,
012006-9. 2017
• E.M. Maafi, F. Malek, L. Tighzert, P.. J Polym Environ, 18, 638-646. 2010.
• B.D. Mattos, A.L. Misso, P.H.G. De Cademartori, E. A. De Lima, W. L. E. Magalhães, and D. A. Gatto, Constr.
Build. Mater., vol. 61, 60–68. 2014.
• H. Pirayesh and A. Khazaeian, Compos. Part B Eng., vol. 43 (3), 1475–1479. 2012.
• G. Sumarni and M. Muslich, , J. Peneltian Hasil Hutan, vol. 22 (1), 1–9. 2004.
• J.T. Benthien, H. Thoemen, S. Maikowski, and M.T. Lenzy. J. Wood Fiber Sci., vol. 44(4), 422–429. 2012.

THANK YOU
• B. Lesar and M. Humar, “J. Wood Prod, vol. 69, 231–238. 2011.
• Y. Wyart, G. Georges, C. Deumie, C. Amra, P. Moulin, J Membrane Sci, 315, 82-92. 2008
• S. Akbari, N Eslahi, M.H. Kish. Polyolefins J, vol 4, 215-242. 2017.