ArticleScientific reports2025
Mechanical characterization of sisal fiber-groundnut shell powder reinforced epoxy composites.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel sustainable hybrid intuitionistic fuzzy decision-making model for machinability ranking of Al-Cu-Mg-SiC-graphite-peanut shell hybrid composites.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Chemical and structural characterization of ramie-based epoxy composites reinforced with macadamia nut shell biochar.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study focuses on sustainable materials across various engineering fields, specifically investigating natural fibre-reinforced composites. It examines the mechanical properties of epoxy composites reinforced with sisal fibre and groundnut shell powder through a comparative analysis. The innovative aspect of this research lies in the variety of sisal fibre and groundnut shell powder ratios used to create the composites: 100:0, 80:20, 60:40, 40:60, 20:80, and 0:100. The composites were fabricated using the hand-laying technique. To evaluate their durability, the composites underwent a series of tests, including assessments of elasticity, flexibility, impact resistance, and hardness. The samples exhibiting the best tensile, flexural, and impact strengths were subjected to a comprehensive examination using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to analyse their internal structure, identify cracks, and observe surface characteristics on the broken surfaces. The findings indicate significant variations in mechanical properties based on the different ratios of sisal fibre and groundnut shell powder used for reinforcement. The composite with a cellulose fibre to groundnut powder ratio of 20:80 demonstrated the highest tensile strength, while the composite with a 100:0 ratio exhibited superior flexural strength. Additionally, the laminate with 100% sisal fibre reinforcement exhibited enhanced impact strength, and the 60:40 ratio presented the maximum hardness.
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.