ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Comparative Analysis of Carbon, Ecological, and Water Footprints of Polypropylene-Based Composites Filled with Cotton, Jute and Kenaf Fibers.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precise Engineering of Sustainable Fiber Composites Comprising Biobased or Valorized Matrices and Solid Components: A Perspective.ACS environmental Au · 2026Review
- Article
- Water use and conservation in the operating room and perioperative setting: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- Lignin-Containing Cellulose Acetate Films from Grapevine Waste: A Sustainable Path to Compostable Bioplastics.ACS sustainable chemistry & engineering · 2025Article
- Sustainable Material Selection for Interior Design Furniture: A Simple Procedure Based on Environmental Analysis and Structural Optimization.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Enhancing Fatigue Resistance of Polylactic Acid through Natural Reinforcement in Material Extrusion.Polymers · 2024Article
- Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Bacterial and Thermochemical Retting of Hemp.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Bioplastic production in terms of life cycle assessment: A state-of-the-art review.Environmental science and ecotechnology · 2023Review
- Mater-Bi/Brewers' Spent Grain Biocomposites-Novel Approach to Plant-Based Waste Filler Treatment by Highly Efficient Thermomechanical and Chemical Methods.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Current Development and Future Perspective on Natural Jute Fibers and Their Biocomposites.Polymers · 2022Review
- Clays as Inhibitors of Polyurethane Foams' Flammability.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Advantages and Disadvantages of Bioplastics Production from Starch and Lignocellulosic Components.Polymers · 2021Review
- Advances in Natural Fibers and Polymers.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A Review on Natural Fiber Reinforced Polymer Composite for Bullet Proof and Ballistic Applications.Polymers · 2021Review
- Reinforcing Mechanisms of Coir Fibers in Light-Weight Aggregate Concrete.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Composites containing natural fibers are considered environmentally friendly materials which is related to the reduced use of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon dioxide compared to petroleum-based polymers. Nevertheless, a complete evaluation of their environmental impact requires a broader view. This paper presents a carbon, ecological, and water footprints assessment of polypropylene-based composites filled with cotton, jute, and kenaf fibers based on a standardized European pallet (EUR-pallet) case study. Obtained results were compared with unmodified polypropylene and composite with glass fibers. Incorporation of 30 wt% of cotton, jute, and kenaf fibers into a polypropylene matrix reduced its carbon footprint by 3%, 18%, and 18%, respectively. Regarding the ecological footprint, an 8.2% and 9.4% reduction for jute and kenaf fibers were noted, while for cotton fibers, its value increased by 52%. For these footprints, the use of jute and kenaf fibers was more beneficial than glass fibers. Nevertheless, the application of natural fibers caused a 286%, 758%, and 891% drastic increase of water footprint of the final product, which was mainly affected by cultivation and irrigation of crops. Therefore, in a holistic view, the incorporation of natural fibers into the polypropylene matrix definitely cannot be impartially considered as an environmentally friendly solution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.