Environmentally friendly composites from agricultural residue biomass for lightweight applications in new generation structures: A review

Palaniappan, M., Palanisamy, S., Louhichi, B., Ayrilmis, N., and Murugesan, T. m. (2025). "Environmentally friendly composites from agricultural residue biomass for lightweight applications in new generation structures: A review," BioResources 20(4), Page numbers to be added.

Abstract

The increasing global demand for sustainable materials has spurred extensive research into biopolymer-based composites derived from agricultural residue biomass. These materials offer an eco-friendly alternative to petroleum-based composites, addressing environmental pollution, resource depletion, and the need for low-density materials in sectors such as automotive, aerospace, packaging, and construction. This research focused on low-density bio-based composites as sustainable options for lightweight applications in automotive, aerospace, packaging, and construction. It highlights the use of agricultural residue and discontinuous binder systems to reduce density, as well as manufacturing techniques that improve structural efficiency. It emphasizes critical composite properties such as mechanical strength, thermal behavior, water resistance, biodegradability, and lightweight characteristics. The influence of fiber content and processing parameters on overall performance is also discussed. In addition, the review highlights major challenges, including scalability, cost-effectiveness, and long-term stability and proposes future research directions focused on durability enhancement, production efficiency, and commercial viability. Overall, this work underscores the transformative potential of agricultural residue-derived bio composites in advancing sustainable, high-performance materials for lightweight and eco-conscious construction and industrial applications.

Download PDF

Full Article

Environmentally Friendly Composites from Agricultural Residue Biomass for Lightweight Applications in New Generation Structures: A Review

Murugesan Palaniappan,^a,*Sivasubramanian Palanisamy ,^b,* Borhen Louhichi,^aNadir Ayrilmis ,^c Thulasi mani Murugesan ,^d

DOI: 10.15376/biores.20.4.Palaniappan

Keywords: Mechanical characteristics; Filler incorporation; Hybrid polymer composites; Tamarind shell powder; Palmyra palm leaflet; Coconut sheath leaf

Contact information: a: Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, 11432, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; b: Department of Mechanical Engineering, P T R College of Engineering & Technology, Thanapandiyan Nagar, Austinpatti, Madurai-Tirumangalam Road, Madurai, 625008, Tamilnadu, India; c: Department of Wood Mechanics and Technology, Faculty of Forestry, Istanbul University – Cerrahpasa, Bahcekoy, Sariyer, 34473, Istanbul, Turkey; d: Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada; * Corresponding Authors: sivaresearch948@gmail.com; mpapathi@imamu.edu.sa

INTRODUCTION

The development of lightweight composites using agricultural residue biomass offers a compelling solution to the dual challenges of sustainable material innovation and agricultural waste valorization. As global industries shift toward eco-conscious practices, there is increasing demand for materials that are not only renewable and biodegradable but also optimized for low-density structural applications (Singh et al. 2022; Maraveas 2020; Stalin and Shobhanadevi 2021). Agricultural residues serve as a feasible substitute for traditional fillers and reinforcements, offering the additional benefit of decreasing the overall weight of composite structures. This reduction is a crucial factor in the automotive, aerospace, packaging, and construction industries (Mohanty et al. 2022; Ramesh et al. 2021).

A fundamental principle in the design of low-density composites is the deliberate preservation of internal porosity or air-filled regions by avoiding complete saturation of void spaces with matrix polymer. Traditional composite approaches often emphasize achieving void-free structures to maximize mechanical integrity; however, this invariably leads to higher density materials. For applications where weight reduction is paramount, such as in lightweight panels or energy-efficient structural elements, a different strategy is required—one that carefully balances mechanical performance with the inclusion of voids or the use of minimal and discontinuous binder phases.

Agricultural residue biomass, being abundant, cost-effective, and rich in the structural polymers cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, provides an excellent basis for such lightweight systems. These materials exhibit favorable properties including biodegradability, low density, and acceptable tensile characteristics, making them attractive candidates for structural and semi-structural applications where weight reduction is essential (Rani et al. 2023; Palanisamy et al. 2024). Natural fibers derived from residues can significantly enhance the mechanical profile of a composite without necessitating full matrix impregnation, allowing for the design of partially bonded or binder-reduced systems that retain sufficient integrity for specific use-cases (Lizundia et al. 2022).

Beyond mechanical properties, agricultural residues such as tamarind shell powder and coconut shell fiber contribute desirable thermal and abrasion resistance, making them well-suited to lightweight composites intended for demanding environments (Phiri et al. 2023b; Ayrilmis et al. 2024). Their integration also aligns with the principles of circular economy by transforming agricultural waste into value-added products, thereby reducing residue accumulation while supporting rural and regional economies (Palanisamy et al. 2023; Kumar et al. 2024).

Despite these advantages, challenges remain in ensuring performance consistency, as natural fibers are affected by variables such as growth conditions and processing methods (Arzumanova 2021). Surface treatments and fiber modification techniques are increasingly applied to enhance fiber–matrix interaction, particularly in systems where the binder is reduced or intentionally discontinuous. Likewise, advances in fabrication methods such as compression molding and thermomechanical pressing enable the creation of structurally efficient, low-density panels with tailored porosity and minimal synthetic input (Russo et al. 2021; Manickaraj et al. 2024a).

The use of agricultural biomass in such composites significantly lowers the environmental impact when replacing synthetic materials (Olofsson and Börjesson 2018). Importantly, the sustainability of the final product depends not only on the biodegradability of the fiber but also on the matrix used. Researchers must be cautious in distinguishing between fully biodegradable systems (e.g., natural fiber + biopolymer) and partially biodegradable or non-biodegradable composites (e.g., natural fiber + synthetic resin) (Petersen 2008; Singh et al. 2021).

This review examines the function of agricultural residues in the production of lightweight composite materials, emphasising methods that deliberately decrease composite density. This is achieved not only through the selection of low-density fillers but also by reducing matrix content and utilising internal porosity. This document outlines recent advancements in material selection, binder reduction, structural design, and processing techniques that facilitate the development of next-generation lightweight biocomposites (Phiri et al. 2023a; Gupta et al. 2022b). Various agricultural residues that are commonly accessible, such as rice husks, banana fibres, tamarind shells, and corn stalks, are analysed for their potential use in low-density systems (Palanisamy et al. 2022b).

Additionally, the potential of binder-free or minimally bonded structures is addressed, especially in thermal-pressed and biodegradable panel systems in which natural fiber compaction and lignin content contribute to mechanical cohesion (Cardoen et al. 2015). These approaches represent a significant step toward reducing chemical inputs and achieving lightweight, environmentally responsible materials for the future.

This review explores environmentally friendly composites from agricultural residues, structured around key sections that highlight material performance, sustainability, and lightweight design. It begins with biopolymers in sustainable composites, followed by an overview of agricultural residues as reinforcements or fillers. A central focus on factors affecting composite density examines how reduced matrix content and controlled porosity contribute to lightweight structures. Fabrication techniques and surface treatments are discussed for optimizing properties and consistency. The review also covers applications in construction, automotive, and packaging, and concludes with end-of-life strategies aligned with circular economy goals (Sommer et al. 2015; Biswas et al. 2022; Satankar et al. 2024).

BIOPOLYMERS IN SUSTAINABLE COMPOSITES: TYPES AND STRUCTURES

Biopolymers are fundamental to the advancement of sustainable composites due to their biodegradability, renewability, and ability to effectively bind natural fiber reinforcements into eco-friendly, lightweight, and high-performance materials (Das et al. 2023; Khalil et al. 2023; Deshmukh et al. 2024). Derived from biological sources, biopolymers offer an environmentally benign alternative to petroleum-based plastics, making them integral to the development of sustainable materials in packaging, biomedical, agricultural, and automotive sectors (Nagalakshmaiah et al. 2019; Monia 2024). This section presents an integrated overview of the key biopolymers used in sustainable composites, focusing on their chemical structures, properties, and applications. Figures 1 and 2 show the types of bio polymers.

Polylactic Acid (PLA)

Polylactic acid (PLA) is a thermoplastic aliphatic polyester synthesized primarily from renewable resources such as corn starch, sugarcane, or cassava. The production of PLA can begin with the fermentation of carbohydrates extracted from these crops to produce lactic acid, which is subsequently polymerized either by direct condensation or by ring-opening polymerization of lactide, the cyclic dimer of lactic acid (Udayakumar et al. 2021).

Chemically, PLA is a linear polyester with the repeating unit (C₃H₄O₂)_n consisting of ester linkages (-COO-) between lactic acid monomers. PLA exists in stereochemical forms such as poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA), poly-D-lactic acid (PDLA), and their racemic mixtures (PDLLA), which influence its crystallinity and mechanical behavior (Sharahi et al. 2024).

PLA can break down into water and carbon dioxide under industrial composting conditions, which require high heat and moisture, helping to reduce its environmental impact in those controlled settings. Its mechanical strength and rigidity are comparable to traditional plastics such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET), although its relatively low glass transition temperature (50 to 60 °C) limits its use in high-temperature applications. Innovations in blending and additives are helping to overcome this limitation (Yaashikaa et al. 2022). PLA is widely used in packaging (e.g., cups, plates, and films), biomedical applications (including sutures, drug delivery systems, and orthopedic implants), and 3D printing, where its processability and renewability make it a preferred material (Biswal 2021).

Fig. 1. Types of biopolymers

Fig. 2. Types of bio polymer pellets: (a) PLA, (b) PHA, (c) Starch, and (d) PCL

Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA)

Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) are a diverse family of biodegradable polyesters naturally produced by microorganisms under nutrient-limited conditions as intracellular carbon and energy storage. These biopolymers are synthesized from various carbon sources, including sugars, lipids, and residue materials, aligning their production with circular bioeconomy principles (Fertahi et. al 2021; Nanda et al. 2022).

PHAs share a general chemical structure (−O−CHR−CO−)_n, in which the side chain RRR varies according to the specific monomer, impacting the polymer’s mechanical and thermal properties. The most common PHA, poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) (PHB), is characterized by repeating units (C₄H₆O₂)n containing hydroxyl (-OH) and carbonyl (-CO) groups (Patti and Acierno 2022).

PHAs exhibit superior thermal stability, mechanical strength, and biodegradability compared to many other biopolymers, decomposing safely in soil, marine, and composting environments (Kartik et al. 2021; Zhiltsova et al, 2024). Their non-toxic degradation products make them suitable for sensitive applications.

Industrially, PHAs are used in biodegradable packaging (bags, containers, films), agriculture (mulch films, controlled-release fertilizers), and medical devices (tissue engineering scaffolds, wound dressings, sutures) due to their biocompatibility and tunable properties (Abou-alfitooh and El-Hoshoudy 2024).

Starch-based Polymers

Starch-based polymers are classified as biodegradable polymers, originating from naturally abundant crops including corn, wheat, potatoes, and tapioca. Starch is a carbohydrate polymer consisting of amylose and amylopectin. It is extracted from these crops and functions as the base material. Native starch possesses inherent limitations, including brittleness and water sensitivity. Consequently, it is frequently subjected to chemical modification or blended with other polymers to enhance its mechanical strength, flexibility, and water resistance. The modification process allows starch-based polymers to fulfill the specifications of diverse industrial and commercial applications, all while preserving their biodegradability (Bledzki and Gassan 1999; Mohammed et al. 2022; McClements 2024).

Starch-based biopolymers are derived from abundant polysaccharides found in crops including corn, wheat, potatoes, and tapioca. Starch is a carbohydrate composed mainly of amylose (linear) and amylopectin (branched) glucose polymers with α-1,4 and α-1,6 glycosidic linkages. Native starch is brittle and highly hydrophilic, which limits its direct use; thus, it is chemically modified or blended with other polymers to improve its mechanical and moisture-resistant properties (Duceac and Coseri 2022; McClements 2024).

The general formula of starch is (C₆H₁₀O₅)_n, with modifications enhancing its flexibility and barrier characteristics. Its biodegradability and low cost make starch-based polymers suitable for sustainable packaging, disposable products, and agricultural films (Awasthi et al. 2022; Kabir et al. 2012).

Applications extend to food packaging (cutlery, shopping bags), agricultural mulch films that decompose naturally, and biomedical hydrogels and scaffolds benefiting from controlled biodegradability (Gowthaman et al. 2021).

Overall, starch-based polymers exemplify the potential of renewable resources in creating sustainable, eco-friendly materials. Their versatility, affordability, and biodegradability make them a valuable solution to the growing demand for alternatives to petroleum-based plastics, contributing significantly to reducing environmental pollution and fostering a circular economy (Heidari et al. 2023; Faruk et al. 2012).

Polycaprolactone (PCL)

Polycaprolactone (PCL) is a synthetic, biodegradable polyester synthesized by ring-opening polymerization of ε-caprolactone monomers. Its chemical formula is (C₆H₁₀O₂)_n, and it consists of flexible ester linkages that confer a low melting point (~60 °C) and excellent ductility (Fatehi et al. 2021).

PCL’s slow degradation rate and biocompatibility make it ideal for biomedical applications requiring prolonged structural integrity, such as tissue engineering scaffolds and drug delivery systems (Babaremu et al. 2023). Its flexibility also lends itself well to packaging materials such as stretch films. Moreover, PCL blends well with natural fibers and other biopolymers, creating composites with enhanced mechanical properties for use in construction, automotive parts, and consumer goods (Pramanik et al. 2023).

Overall, PCL’s unique combination of low processing temperature, flexibility, biocompatibility, and controlled degradability makes it a highly versatile material (Fatehi et al. 2021). Its ability to blend seamlessly with natural fibers and other biopolymers further enhances its utility, enabling the development of innovative, eco-friendly materials that address the growing demand for sustainable solutions in various industries.

OTHER BIOPOLYMERS

Various biopolymers contribute significantly to the advancement of sustainable materials, providing distinct properties and applications that serve a diverse array of industries. Cellulose derivatives, chitosan, and soy-based polymers are notable for their versatility and eco-friendliness, making them suitable solutions for the increasing demand for renewable and biodegradable materials. Figure 3 classifies the additional biopolymers as referenced by Gheorghita et al. (2021).

Fig. 3. Other biopolymers

Cellulose Derivatives

Cellulose derivatives are chemically modified forms of cellulose, which is the most abundant biopolymer on Earth. These derivatives are sourced from natural materials, including wood pulp, cotton, and various plant fibers. The derivatives, such as cellulose acetate, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), and cellulose nitrate, demonstrate high tensile strength, biodegradability, and superior compatibility with natural fibers, positioning them as optimal choices for reinforcement in biocomposites (Nourbakhsh and Ashori 2010; Garduño-Juárez et al. 2024). The modifications improve solubility, mechanical properties, and processing versatility, facilitating a range of applications. In the textile sector, these materials are utilized to produce soft and durable fabrics. In the packaging domain, cellulose-based films and coatings function as biodegradable alternatives to conventional plastics (Noaman et al. 2023).

Chemically modified cellulose, such as cellulose acetate, offers enhanced tensile strength and good compatibility with fibers, making it suitable for textiles, coatings, and pharmaceuticals (Garduño-Juárez et al. 2024). However, such materials, especially cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB), are resistant to natural degradation due to their dense and hydrophobic nature, which prevents enzyme activity. Therefore, these materials should not be described as degradable unless specifically designed to break down under certain conditions

Chitosan

Chitosan is a polysaccharide obtained from chitin, which is present in the exoskeletons of crustaceans such as shrimp, crabs, and lobsters. The production of chitosan involves the deacetylation of chitin, resulting in a versatile biopolymer. The material exhibits biocompatibility, facilitating safe interactions with biological systems. It is also biodegradable, undergoing natural decomposition in the environment, and it exhibits antimicrobial properties, effectively inhibiting the growth of bacteria and fungi (Westlake et al. 2023). The properties of chitosan render it valuable for a range of applications, particularly in water purification, where it functions as a flocculant to eliminate heavy metals and impurities from residue water. The antimicrobial and biocompatible properties render it suitable for biomedical applications, including wound dressings, surgical sutures, and drug delivery systems that facilitate controlled medication release. Furthermore, it serves a dual purpose in agriculture as a natural pesticide and in the cosmetics industry for skin-repairing applications (Gamage et al. 2022).

Soy-based polymers

Soy-based polymers, which are derived from soy protein, are renewable and biodegradable materials that have superior adhesion properties. Their sustainability and availability position them as an environmentally responsible option for a range of industrial applications. Soy-based polymers in adhesives offer robust bonding capabilities and are extensively utilized in wood composites and paper products. These materials are utilized in coatings, providing enhanced durability and environmental advantages compared to synthetic alternatives. Additionally, soy-based polymers can function as matrices in biocomposites, integrating with natural fibers to create lightweight, sustainable materials suitable for use in the construction, automotive, and packaging sectors (Li et al, 2021). Table 1 summarizes the different biopolymers, including their properties, sources, applications, and environmental impact. Figure 4 shows the combined chemical structure of biopolymers (Christina et al. 2024).

Table 1. Comparisons of Different Biopolymers

Fig. 4. Chemical structure of biopolymers: (a) PLA, (b) PHA, (c) starch, (d) PCL

AGRICULTURAL RESIDUE

The various categories of agricultural residue biomass are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.

Rice Husk

Rice husks, the protective outer shells removed during the rice milling process, have an annual global production exceeding 120 million tons. Notably, they contain a high silica content (approximately 15 to 20%) and significant cellulose levels, making them attractive as reinforcement materials in polymer composites. The silica contributes positively to thermal stability, flame retardancy, and mechanical rigidity, while the cellulose enhances structural integrity. Studies have shown that rice husk incorporation can improve the tensile strength of polymer matrices such as polypropylene by up to 28% (Saba et al. 2022). However, the high silica content can also pose challenges in certain applications, particularly due to its abrasive nature, which may accelerate wear on processing and cutting tools. Untreated husks feature waxy surfaces that hinder fiber-matrix adhesion, weakening composite performance. Surface modifications—such as alkaline (NaOH) and silane treatments are commonly applied to improve compatibility and bonding, and particle size control helps ensure uniform dispersion. Despite processing challenges, rice husks remain promising for use in lightweight construction materials, insulation panels, and eco-friendly packaging (Zarrintaj et al. 2023), provided that the abrasive effects of silica are adequately managed.

Fig. 5. (a) Groundnut shell, (b) rice husk, (c) tamarind shell powder, and (d) white straw

Banana Stem Fiber

Fibers derived from the pseudostem of the banana plant exhibit a cellulose content ranging from 60% to 65% and a low lignin content of 7% to 10%. These characteristics contribute to the fibers’ notable strength and flexibility (Zarrintaj et al. 2023). The fibers demonstrate tensile strengths between 200 and 700 MPa, with a low density of about 1.35 g/cm³. This combination yields an excellent specific strength-to-weight ratio, making them ideal for lightweight composite applications. Reddy and Yang (2005) documented a 35% enhancement in flexural strength and a 41% decrease in density for banana fiber-reinforced epoxy composites at 30 wt% fiber loading, underscoring their applicability in structural components. Nevertheless, the hydrophilic characteristics of banana fibers result in significant moisture absorption, potentially compromising fiber-matrix adhesion and inducing swelling. To address this issue, pretreatments including alkali soaking (NaOH), acetylation, or silanization are frequently utilized to enhance moisture resistance and interfacial bonding. Banana fibers are utilized in automotive components such as dashboards, door panels, and trims, in addition to applications in textiles and biodegradable packaging, due to their essential characteristics of flexibility, lightweight nature, and sustainability (Karuppusamy et al. 2023; Ramasubbu et al. 2024).

Fig. 6. (a) Coconut fiber, (b) banana fiber, (c) pineapple leaves, and (d) sugarcane bagasse

Coconut Shell Fiber

Coconut shell fiber, derived from the hard outer shell of coconuts, is rich in lignin (~40 to 50%), cellulose (~25%), and hemicellulose, which impart excellent abrasion resistance, hardness, dimensional stability, and impact resistance (Baranwal et al. 2022). These properties make it an ideal reinforcement for durable composites used in automotive interiors, furniture, flooring, and construction materials such as composite boards. Baranwal et al. (2022) reported that adding 10 to 15 wt% coconut shell powder to epoxy composites increases impact strength by up to 18% and reduces wear by nearly 30%, enhancing mechanical performance. However, the brittleness and rigidity of untreated coconut shell fibers can limit elongation and toughness, often necessitating hybridization with more ductile fibers or surface treatments like alkaline or silane coupling agents to improve dispersion and fiber-matrix bonding. Overall, coconut shell fiber offers a sustainable alternative that reduces dependence on non-renewable materials while delivering high wear resistance and mechanical strength.

Tamarind Shell Powder

Tamarind shell powder, obtained from the grinding of tamarind pod shells, contains a high concentration of lignocellulosic compounds such as polyphenols and tannins. These components provide significant thermal stability and mechanical rigidity (Veeman et al. 2021). Incorporating them at a concentration of 5 to 15 wt% into thermoplastic composites can enhance the modulus by as much as 40%, all while maintaining biodegradability. The uniform particle size and hardness render it suitable for applications such as injection-molded components, plastic furnishings, construction materials, and biodegradable packaging solutions. To enhance compatibility with hydrophobic matrices such as polypropylene, it is often essential to employ surface treatments or compatibilizers. Tamarind shell powder contributes positively to the environmental profile and mechanical performance of biocomposites.

Sugarcane Bagasse

Sugarcane bagasse, the fibrous residue left after juice extraction, is rich in cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, making it a valuable reinforcement material for biocomposites. Its high cellulose content provides tensile strength and stiffness, while moderate lignin enhances moisture resistance compared to other natural fibers. Studies, such as that of Asyraf et al. (2023), have demonstrated that incorporating bagasse fibers into polymer matrices such as PLA improves tensile strength by 17 to 22%, along with increased modulus and water resistance. The low density of bagasse contributes to lightweight composite panels ideal for construction and packaging applications. However, its natural hygroscopicity poses challenges such as swelling and reduced durability, which can be mitigated through chemical treatments including alkaline or silane modifications to enhance fiber-matrix adhesion. Sugarcane bagasse composites are widely used in lightweight building panels, insulation boards, biodegradable packaging, and automotive components, offering a sustainable and eco-friendly alternative to petroleum-based materials while supporting circular economy principles by converting agricultural residue into high-performance products.

Wheat Straw

Wheat straw, an abundant agricultural residue rich in lignocellulosic biomass and containing up to 3% silica, is a valuable resource for producing biodegradable composites (Akhouy et al. 2023). Its high cellulose content contributes to the strength and flexibility of composites, while silica influences fiber wettability and mechanical performance. Alkaline-treated wheat straw composites have demonstrated a 22% improvement in compressive strength, making them suitable for building materials. However, untreated straw’s surface waxes reduce fiber-matrix adhesion, necessitating pretreatments like alkaline treatment or steam explosion to enhance bonding by removing waxes and increasing surface roughness. Wheat straw composites are widely applied in packaging, building insulation, mulch films, and compostable materials, offering a sustainable and cost-effective alternative to conventional plastics and synthetic materials.

Corn Husks

Corn husks, a byproduct of corn harvesting, are rich in cellulose fibers that offer good flexibility and moderate strength, making them lightweight yet strong reinforcements for biopolymer composites (Ogah et al. 2022). These fibers enhance the tensile strength and durability of composites, especially in packaging materials, consumer goods, and insulation products. However, mechanical performance can decline at filler contents above 15 wt% due to fiber agglomeration and void formation. Challenges such as moisture sensitivity and ensuring uniform dispersion are addressed by using coupling agents and thorough drying before processing. Corn husks are widely utilized in biodegradable packaging, disposable cutlery, and flexible insulation products, providing renewable and eco-friendly alternatives to conventional plastics.

Pineapple Leaves

Pineapple leaf fibers (PALF) are strong and durable natural fibers with tensile strength ranging from 400 to 600 MPa and a high Young’s modulus, making them ideal for reinforcing biocomposites (Bellili et al. 2022). PALF-reinforced epoxy composites exhibit impact strengths comparable to synthetic aramid fibers, proving their suitability for demanding structural applications. These fibers contribute to sustainable composites used in automotive parts, construction materials, furniture, and textiles. Extraction methods such as retting and mechanical separation are optimized to preserve fiber integrity, while surface treatments enhance fiber-matrix adhesion, ensuring performance and durability in eco-friendly applications.

Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunches

Oil palm empty fruit bunches (OPEFB), a lignocellulosic byproduct of the palm oil industry, are rich in cellulose (~40 to 50%), hemicellulose (~30%), and lignin (~20%), providing fibers with moderate mechanical properties suitable for biocomposite reinforcement (Ponce et al. 2022). OPEFB fibers enhance the strength, durability, thermal insulation, and acoustic absorption of composites, with studies showing improvements in PLA-based composites’ thermal resistance and sound dampening capabilities. Despite their moderate tensile strength (typically 100 to 200 MPa), their abundant availability and biodegradability make them a sustainable alternative to synthetic fibers. Processing OPEFB fibers involves drying and chemical treatments, such as alkali or silane modification, to reduce moisture content and improve fiber-matrix adhesion. These fibers are widely used in automotive interior parts, insulation panels, flooring materials, and structural biocomposites, contributing to residue valorization in the palm oil sector while reducing dependence on non-renewable fillers and supporting eco-friendly material development.

Groundnut Shells

Groundnut shells, the outer coverings of peanuts, are rich in cellulose and lignin (~35%) and possess low density, making them ideal lightweight fillers in biopolymer composites (Govindarajan et al. 2024). Incorporating 10 wt% groundnut shell powder in epoxy composites has been shown to reduce density by 12% while enhancing acoustic damping, improving thermal and sound insulation properties. These shells are widely used in packaging materials, biodegradable plastics, and lightweight construction applications, offering a renewable alternative to synthetic fillers. However, challenges such as moisture sensitivity and uniform dispersion require surface modifications to optimize performance. Overall, groundnut shells contribute to sustainable development by transforming agricultural residue into high-value materials across multiple industries (Pandey et al. 2003; Gurusamy et al. (2024).

Table 2 provides approximate values for some key properties of common agricultural residue materials, specifically in the context of their use in biopolymer-based composites. These values can vary depending on the specific processing methods and the source of the material. Table 3 provides the advantages and disadvantages of agricultural residue materials.

Table 2. Common Agricultural Residue Materials: Properties

Table 3. Common Agricultural Residue Materials: Advantages and Disadvantages

FACTORS AFFECTING THE DENSITY OF ECO-FRIENDLY BIOCOMPOSITES

Type and Properties of Agricultural Residue Reinforcement

The selection of reinforcement plays a foundational role in determining composite density. Agricultural residues such as rice husk, sugarcane bagasse, groundnut shells, tamarind shell powder, wheat straw, and banana stem fiber have relatively low intrinsic densities (typically 1.2 to 1.4 g/cm³) due to their lignocellulosic structure, which includes voids (Olofsson and Börjesson 2018). Their naturally porous microstructure and hollow cellular arrangement contribute to reduced mass per unit volume. When processed correctly, these fibers can provide adequate mechanical performance at lower weight, making them ideal for environmentally friendly, lightweight structural composites (Petersen, 2008).

Matrix Selection

Bio-based and biodegradable matrices such as PLOH (Poly (Lactic acid) Hydroxyapatite), starch blends, PBS (Polybutylene Succinate), and bio-resins offer lower densities compared to conventional petroleum-derived polymers. These matrices, when paired with light agricultural fillers, help reduce overall composite density (Cardoen et al. 2015). For example, a PLOH-groundnut shell composite has been found to have a lower density profile while remaining compostable. The matrix must also exhibit good wetting and interfacial compatibility with the agricultural fibers to minimize void formation and optimize mechanical load transfer—ensuring that weight reduction does not come at the cost of performance (Sommer et al. 2015).

Influence of Filler Type, Size, and Loading Content

The use of agricultural powder fillers (e.g., tamarind shell powder, rice husk ash, and coconut shell flour) further enables lightweighting. Finer particles contribute to better packing and dispersion, whereas coarser particles may introduce porosity and affect uniformity (Parveen et al. 2024). Using low-density agro-waste fillers instead of mineral fillers (like talc or calcium carbonate) results in environmentally safer and lighter composites (Manickaraj et al. 2025).

Fiber-Matrix Interface Engineering and Surface Treatment

The interaction between the fiber and matrix significantly affects the effective density and performance of the biocomposite. Poor bonding may result in delamination or void formation, reducing the material’s weight but also weakening it structurally. Pretreatment methods such as alkaline (NaOH) treatment, silanization, and compatibilizer grafting (e.g. maleic anhydride) improve fiber-matrix adhesion, allowing for the use of lower filler loads while maintaining strength (Lozano and Lozano 2018). Effective interfacial engineering enables the creation of more compact, lightweight structures from agricultural waste sources.

Porosity Control and Microstructural Management

In lightweight composite applications, controlled porosity is occasionally purposefully incorporated to decrease weight and enhance thermal or acoustic insulation properties. Uncontrolled voids, which may result from insufficient mixing, inadequate degassing, or suboptimal curing processes, can cause a reduction in density, adversely affecting mechanical integrity (Shapiro-Bengtsen et al. 2022). Techniques such as vacuum-assisted resin infusion, high-shear mixing, and particle size control are utilized to reduce undesired porosity. The objective is to minimise mass while ensuring that structural integrity is maintained, thereby preserving the functionality of the intended application (Chandel et al. 2025).

Processing Methods Tailored for Lightweight Structures

Processing techniques strongly impact the final density of biocomposites. Foaming, low-pressure compression molding, and extrusion-based processing can introduce designed porosity or optimized fiber orientation to reduce weight (Mohan et al. 2024). For structural applications, sandwich constructions, cellular or honeycomb core designs, and layered laminates using agro-based materials provide high stiffness-to-weight ratios (Parveen et al. 2024). These methods are widely used to fabricate structural panels, acoustic boards, and eco-friendly packaging for new-generation building and transport applications.

Moisture Sensitivity and Hygroscopic Behavior

Most agricultural fibres exhibit hygroscopic properties, indicating their ability to absorb moisture from the atmosphere. This absorption results in a temporary increase in weight and can impact dimensional stability. Mitigation of this behaviour can be achieved through the implementation of fiber pre-drying, application of surface coatings, or selection of a hydrophobic matrix (Karuppusamy et al. 2025). In lightweight applications where moisture control is essential, such as transportation interiors or construction boards, this factor directly influences consistent density and long-term performance.

Hybridization and Structural Design

Hybrid composites, which are formed by the integration of multiple types of natural fibres or agro-waste fillers, can demonstrate enhanced mechanical strength while maintaining a reduced weight. Combining banana fibre with tamarind shell powder has been shown to result in a material that exhibits improved strength and thermal stability while maintaining a consistent mass (Aruchamy et al, 2025). The implementation of bio-architectures, including grid structures, foam-filled cavities, and thin-walled laminates, facilitates weight reduction while satisfying load-bearing specifications. The application of these principles is evident in sustainable construction elements, automotive panels, and green consumer goods (Patel and Patel 2021).

PROCESSING OF BIOPOLYMER-BASED COMPOSITES

Fiber Separation and Preparation

The separation and preparation of natural fibers are pivotal in defining the performance and reliability of biopolymer-based composites. The quality, morphology, and surface chemistry of the isolated fibers strongly influence fiber–matrix adhesion, mechanical reinforcement efficiency, and overall composite durability. Therefore, optimized extraction methods tailored to the fiber type and end-use requirements are essential to balance preservation of fiber integrity with enhancement of interfacial compatibility.

Mechanical methods

Mechanical techniques such as decortication and milling are commonly employed for their scalability and cost-efficiency in large-scale fiber processing. Decortication physically separates fibers from plant stalks through crushing, scraping, or beating, carefully preserving fiber length and aspect ratio, key parameters that directly affect tensile strength and load transfer within composites. The retention of fiber length during decortication supports the formation of continuous load paths in composites, critical for high-strength applications (Nagarajan et al. 2020). However, mechanical methods may introduce surface defects or fibrillation, which can either be beneficial by increasing surface roughness for adhesion or detrimental by reducing fiber strength if excessive damage occurs. Milling, by contrast, reduces biomass to short fibers or powder, facilitating uniform dispersion in polymer matrices but sacrificing fiber aspect ratio and reinforcing potential. This trade-off must be judiciously managed based on composite design goals.

Chemical methods

Chemical treatments, particularly alkali (NaOH) treatments, play a vital role in refining fiber surfaces by selectively removing amorphous, non-cellulosic components such as lignin, hemicellulose, pectins, and natural waxes. This process increases surface roughness and exposes hydroxyl groups on cellulose, substantially improving wettability and interfacial bonding with hydrophobic polymer matrices (Vinod et al. 2023). Alkali treatment also disrupts hydrogen bonding within fiber bundles, reducing aggregation and enhancing fiber dispersion during composite fabrication. However, the severity of chemical treatment must be controlled to avoid excessive cellulose degradation or fiber embrittlement, which compromise mechanical performance. The removal of lignin and hemicellulose can also reduce fiber moisture absorption tendencies, thereby improving dimensional stability and environmental resistance of composites. Moreover, chemical treatments can modulate thermal stability by eliminating lower-decomposition-temperature components, expanding processing windows for thermoplastic or thermoset composites.

Biological methods

Enzymatic treatments offer a highly selective and eco-friendly alternative for fiber extraction, employing enzymes such as laccase to degrade lignin and xylanase to hydrolyze hemicellulose, while preserving the crystalline cellulose backbone (Palaniappan et al, 2024b). This precision minimizes damage to fiber microstructure, maintaining mechanical integrity and natural polymerization degrees. Additionally, enzymatic methods reduce chemical residue and energy consumption compared to harsh chemical processes, aligning with sustainable manufacturing principles. However, these processes are slower and involve higher costs due to enzyme specificity and reaction time constraints, limiting their applicability to high-value composites or specialty applications. Ongoing research into enzyme immobilization, synergistic enzyme cocktails, and process intensification aims to improve scalability and economic viability, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Comparison of Fiber Separation Methods

COMPOSITE FABRICATION TECHNIQUES FOR LIGHTWEIGHT BIOCOMPOSITES

To develop truly lightweight bio composites, fabrication methods must move beyond conventional approaches that emphasize dense, void-free structures. High matrix saturation typically negates the natural low-density advantages of agricultural residues. Instead, effective strategies as listed below prioritize minimal binder content, controlled porosity, and structural efficiency.

Discontinuous Binder and Foamed Systems: Low-density composites can be achieved by limiting the polymer to a discontinuous binder phase, where the matrix acts only as an adhesive rather than filling all internal voids. This helps preserve the lumen spaces in fibers and reduces overall mass (Palaniappan et al. 2024a). Foamed biopolymers, produced using physical or chemical blowing agents, further enhance weight reduction by introducing microcellular structures while maintaining load-bearing capacity.
Adhesive Coating and Thermal Pressing: Another promising technique involves light adhesive coating of agricultural residues, followed by thermal pressing. This approach compacts the material into a cohesive form using minimal binder, often aided by the natural lignin content acting as a thermoplastic at elevated temperatures. This approach is particularly suitable for panel products made from shells, husks, and fibers (Reis et al. 2011).
Layered and Sandwich Structures: Hybrid fabrication strategies such as sandwich structures utilize low-density biomass cores with stiffer outer layers to balance mechanical strength and reduced weight. This configuration maintains structural performance while minimizing overall material usage (Palanisamy et al. 2022a).

SURFACE TREATMENTS

Enhancing the fiber–matrix interface is paramount to maximize load transfer and composite longevity, as natural fibers inherently possess hydrophilic surfaces that poorly bond with typically hydrophobic polymer matrices. Surface modification techniques aim to alter fiber chemistry and morphology to improve adhesion, moisture resistance, and thermal stability.

Alkali Treatment

Alkali treatment employs dilute sodium hydroxide solutions to remove surface impurities such as lignin, hemicellulose, waxes, and oils. This results in increased fiber surface roughness and exposure of cellulose microfibrils, effectively increasing the number of accessible hydroxyl groups available for bonding (Sumesh and Kanthavel 2020). The treatment also enhances crystallinity by reducing amorphous regions, which improves mechanical integrity and resistance to microbial attack. Alkali-treated fibers exhibit improved wettability and interfacial adhesion, which translates into composites with superior tensile strength and reduced moisture-induced swelling. However, overexposure to alkali can cause cellulose degradation, reducing fiber strength, necessitating precise control of treatment concentration and duration.

Silane Coupling Agents

Silane coupling agents chemically bridge the hydrophilic natural fiber surface and the hydrophobic polymer matrix by forming covalent bonds on both ends. The hydrolysable alkoxy groups on the silane react with cellulose hydroxyls, while the organofunctional groups interact with the polymer chains, thus enhancing fiber–matrix compatibility (Mishra and Naik 2005). This dual reactivity reduces interfacial voids and inhibits moisture absorption, leading to composites with improved mechanical strength, thermal stability, and environmental durability. Silane treatment also imparts improved resistance to hydrothermal aging and fungal degradation. Optimization of silane type and application method is crucial to achieving maximal interfacial enhancement without compromising fiber integrity.

APPLICATIONS OF LIGHTWEIGHT BIOPOLYMER COMPOSITES

Figure 7 demonstrates the diverse applications of lightweight biopolymer composites derived from agricultural residue biomass. The subsequent subsections outline the application domains and the fundamental strategies employed to attain lightweight composite performance, which include fiber-matrix optimization, structural design, and material hybridization.

Automotive Industry

In the automotive sector, weight reduction is directly linked to fuel efficiency and emission control, especially under stringent global environmental regulations. Biopolymer composites reinforced with jute, flax, or kenaf and bound in matrices such as PLA or PHA reduce component weight by up to 40% compared to glass fiber composites (Dwivedi and Mishra 2019; Vinoth et al. 2024). To maintain structural performance while lowering density, manufacturers adopt hybrid reinforcements, foamed polymer matrices, and laminated sandwich structures. These strategies enable the development of lightweight dashboards, door panels, and trims that offer both impact resistance and energy absorption, particularly beneficial in electric vehicles (Pączkowski et al. 2021; Prakash 2022).

Fig. 7. Applications of biopolymers

Aerospace Industry

Aerospace applications demand high stiffness-to-weight ratios, and lightweight biopolymer composites fulfill this need in cabin interiors and secondary structures. Components such as tray tables, seat shells, and panels benefit from microcellular foaming and layered biofiber design for strength without density penalties. Natural fibers offer superior thermal and acoustic insulation, while controlled porosity and interface engineering enhance dimensional stability and vibration damping (Ain et al. 2016; Glińska et al. 2021). Advanced treatments reduce moisture sensitivity and improve durability in harsh environments (Devadiga et al. 2020; Chaturvedi et al. 2022).

Packaging Industry

Packaging applications rely on composites that are both lightweight and biodegradable. Composites made from sugarcane bagasse, rice husks, and wheat straw are processed into low-density trays, containers, and films using techniques like compression molding and foaming agents. These products offer sufficient barrier strength and thermal stability while reducing plastic waste (Dele‐Afolabi et al. 2018; Chithra et al. 2024). Tailoring fiber loading and particle size allows optimization of rigidity and moisture barrier performance, making them suitable for food, pharmaceutical, and consumer packaging (Sivasubramanian et al. 2021).

Consumer Goods and Electronics

In electronics, product miniaturization demands lightweight yet durable enclosures. Biopolymer composites with agro-waste fillers are used in protective casings, earbuds, and accessories. Strategies such as thin-wall molding, fiber surface modification, and multi-phase reinforcement help achieve lightweight performance along with heat resistance and impact strength (Madurwar et al. 2013; Yadav et al. 2021). These solutions meet circular economy goals and address growing concerns over e-waste and recyclability (Nithyanandhan et al. 2022).

Building and Construction Industry

Lightweight biopolymer composites are replacing heavier, carbon-intensive materials in panels, partitions, and insulation boards. Materials such as coir, hemp, and flax—combined with bio-based matrices—are engineered into sandwich panels, hollow core structures, and laminates to reduce density while retaining load-bearing capacity. Their high thermal resistance, low conductivity, and minimal embodied energy contribute to sustainable building design (Rai et al. 2021; Nagappan et al. 2022). Enhanced resistance to moisture and microbial attack makes them suitable for both interior and semi-structural applications (Kurien et al. 2023; Manickaraj et al. 2023).

Sports Equipment

In sports, performance gear including bicycles, skis, and paddles demand materials that combine lightness with stiffness and toughness. Biopolymer composites achieve this balance through unidirectional natural fiber reinforcements, optimized layering, and resin modification. The reduction in weight enhances user performance while minimizing fatigue. In textiles, hemp and cotton stalk fibers improve breathability and biodegradability, reducing synthetic microplastic pollution in athletic wear (Gheorghita et al. 2021; Das et al. 2023).

Table 5. Agricultural Residue Materials, Potential Applications, and Properties

Furniture and Home Décor

Furniture applications benefit from composites that are structurally durable, aesthetically pleasing, and lightweight. Agricultural residues such as jute and flax are used to fabricate molded, thin-walled panels and hollow-core furniture elements. Such design strategies reduce material usage and weight while preserving strength and form (Udayakumar et al. 2021; Samir et al. 2022; Sathesh Babu et al. 2024). These materials also support sustainable interior design, aligning with consumer preferences for natural aesthetics and eco-conscious living.

Agriculture

Biopolymer composites serve eco-friendly roles in agriculture through biodegradable mulching films, seedling pots, and fertilizer-release trays. Lightweight formulations are developed using foam extrusion and low-pressure molding, making the products easy to handle and transport (Joshi et al. 2020; Gowda et al. 2023). Agricultural waste-derived composites such as banana fiber and rice husk offer both nutrient release and soil compatibility while minimizing plastic contamination (Udayakumar et al. 2021).

Medical Applications

In medicine, biopolymer composites are applied in temporary implants, surgical tools, and wound dressings. These products must be lightweight, biocompatible, and mechanically stable. Porosity control, resorbable matrix selection, and nanofiber integration allow tuning of degradation rates and mechanical strength for specific applications (Wu et al. 2021). Lightweight surgical tools made from such composites offer ergonomic benefits and reduce environmental impact from single-use plastics (Baranwal et al. 2022; Udayakumar et al. 2021).

Applications and properties of various agricultural residues are listed in Table 5.

END-OF-LIFE STRATEGIES AND CIRCULAR ECONOMY

Integrating end-of-life (EoL) strategies into the design and use of biopolymer-based composites is critical to achieving circular economy goals. These strategies aim to minimize environmental impact and maximize resource recovery at the end of a product’s lifecycle. Agricultural residue-derived composites, while inherently eco-friendlier due to their renewable and biodegradable nature, require well-defined EoL pathways to fully realize their sustainability potential (Parveen et al. 2024).

Common EoL strategies for such composites include:

Biodegradation and Composting: Composites made entirely from biodegradable matrices (e.g., PLA, PHB) and natural fillers like rice husk, coconut shell, or wheat straw can undergo microbial degradation under industrial composting conditions. However, biodegradation rates depend heavily on matrix type, filler treatment, and environmental conditions (Sumesh et al. 2023; Manickaraj et al. 2025).
Mechanical and Chemical Recycling: When biocomposites contain thermoplastic matrices, mechanical recycling through reprocessing and remolding can be viable, although the presence of natural fibers may alter melt flow properties. Chemical recycling techniques are still in early development stages for bio-based systems and may not yet be widely scalable (Lozano and Lozano 2018).
Thermal Recovery (Incineration with Energy Recovery): For composites that are not biodegradable or recyclable, controlled incineration can offer energy recovery. However, this strategy must be used cautiously due to potential emissions, especially when mixed with synthetic polymers (Shapiro-Bengtsen et al. 2022).
Landfilling: Though not encouraged in a circular framework, landfilling remains a common route in the absence of infrastructure for recycling or composting. Biocomposites with high natural content are less harmful in landfills compared to petroleum-based counterparts but still represent a loss of valuable resources (Chandel et al. 2025).

To support circularity, future design should incorporate design-for-disassembly, modular structures, binder-free processing, and mono-material systems to simplify separation and recovery. Moreover, the use of bio-based, non-toxic additives and surface treatments enhances biodegradability and EoL flexibility (Mohan et al. 2024). A dedicated focus on these strategies supported by literature on life cycle assessments (LCAs), biodegradability studies, and recycling technologies ensures that biocomposites not only reduce the environmental footprint during use but also remain environmentally benign after disposal (Parveen et al. 2024). This approach fosters material circularity, reduces dependence on virgin raw materials, and contributes to closing the material loop in line with global sustainability frameworks such as the EU Green Deal and UN SDGs (Karuppusamy et al. 2025).

CONCLUSIONS

The development of biopolymer-based composites from agricultural residue biomass presents a viable pathway toward sustainable, lightweight materials suitable for eco-friendly structural applications, particularly in the construction sector. This review has demonstrated the potential of underutilized residues such as rice husk, corn stalks, wheat straw, and banana fibers to serve as cost-effective and renewable reinforcements or fillers when combined with biodegradable polymer matrices.

The use of agricultural residues derived biocomposites strongly aligns with circular economy principles by valorizing waste streams into high-value materials while reducing environmental burdens. By tailoring fiber type, content, and processing methods, these composites can be optimized for diverse applications in automotive, packaging, building materials, and other industries where sustainability and reduced weight are critical requirements.
Despite notable advancements, challenges remain in ensuring uniform composite quality, enhancing interfacial bonding, and scaling up manufacturing processes economically. Future research must focus on improving fiber–matrix compatibility, optimizing mechanical and thermal performance, and addressing long-term durability. Additionally, comprehensive assessments of techno-economic feasibility and lifecycle performance are necessary to support broader commercial adoption.
A critical aspect of advancing sustainability is addressing end-of-life (EoL) strategies. These include industrial composting for fully biodegradable composites, mechanical or chemical recycling of matrix–fiber systems, and energy recovery through incineration when composting is not feasible. Incorporating such strategies from the design phase enables a closed-loop lifecycle, enhancing the material’s contribution to the circular economy. Increased emphasis on recyclable formulations, binder-free systems, and bio-based adhesives can further support circular material flows.
Biopolymer composites offer a promising route to reduce reliance on petroleum-based materials across multiple sectors including automotive, aerospace, construction, electronics, and healthcare. Their low carbon footprint, renewable origin, and biodegradability make them ideal candidates for green manufacturing and sustainable product development. As global interest in circular design intensifies, these materials are poised to become central to next-generation eco-conscious technologies.

Funding

This work was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (Grant Number IMSIU-DDRSP2502).

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request from the authors.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

REFERENCES CITED

Abou-alfitooh, S. A. M., and El-Hoshoudy, A. N. (2024). “Eco-friendly modified biopolymers for enhancing oil production: A review,” Journal of Polymers and the Environment 32(5), 2457-2483. DOI: 10.1007/s10924-023-03132-1

Agarwal, A., Shaida, B., Rastogi, M., and Singh, N. B. (2023). “Food packaging materials with special reference to biopolymers-properties and applications,” Chemistry Africa 6(1), 117-144. DOI: 10.1007/s42250-022-00446-w

Ain, U., Sultan, M. T. H., Jawaid, M., Cardona, F., and Talib, A. R. A. (2016). “A review on the tensile properties of bamboo fiber reinforced polymer composites,” BioResources 11(4), 1-23. DOI:10.15376/biores.11.4.Shah

Ajien, A., Idris, J., Md Sofwan, N., Husen, R., and Seli, H. (2023). “Coconut shell and husk biochar: A review of production and activation technology, economic, financial aspect and application,” Waste Management & Research 41(1), 37-51. DOI: 10.1177/0734242X221127167

Akhouy, G., Aziz, K., Gebrati, L., El Achaby, M., Akgul, Y., Yap, P.-S., Agustiono Kurniawan, T., and Aziz, F. (2023). “Recent applications on biopolymers electrospinning: Strategies, challenges and way forwards,” Polymer-Plastics Technology and Materials 62(13), 1754-1775. DOI: 10.1080/25740881.2023.2234459

Almanassra, I. W., Chatla, A., Zakaria, Y., Kochkodan, V., Shanableh, A., Laoui, T., and Atieh, M. A. (2024). “Palm leaves based biochar: Advanced material characterization and heavy metal adsorption study,” Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 14(13), 14811-14830. DOI: 10.1007/s13399-022-03590-y

Aruchamy, K., Karuppusamy, M., Krishnakumar, S., Palanisamy, S., Jayamani, M., Sureshkumar, K., Ali, S. K. and Al-Farraj, S.A., (2025). “Enhancement of mechanical properties of hybrid polymer composites using palmyra palm and coconut sheath fibers: The role of tamarind shell powder,” BioResources 20(1), 698-724. DOI 10.15376/biores.20.1.698-724

Arzumanova, N. B. (2021). “Polymer biocomposites based on agro waste: Part III. Shells of various nuts as natural filler for polymer composites,” New Mater Comp Appl 5, 19-44.

Asyraf, M. R. M., Syamsir, A., Ishak, M. R., Sapuan, S. M., Nurazzi, N. M., Norrrahim, M. N. F., Ilyas, R. A., Khan, T., and Rashid, M. Z. A. (2023). “Mechanical properties of hybrid lignocellulosic fiber-reinforced biopolymer green composites: A review,” Fibers and Polymers 24(2), 337-353. DOI: 10.1007/s12221-023-00034-w

Atanase, L. I. (2021). “Micellar drug delivery systems based on natural biopolymers,” Polymers 13(3), 477. DOI: 10.3390/polym13030477

Awasthi, S. K., Kumar, M., Kumar, V., Sarsaiya, S., Anerao, P., Ghosh, P., Singh, L., Liu, H., Zhang, Z., and Awasthi, M. K. (2022). “A comprehensive review on recent advancements in biodegradation and sustainable management of biopolymers,” Environmental Pollution 307, 119600. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119600

Ayrilmis, N., Kanat, G., Yildiz Avsar, E., Palanisamy, S., and Ashori, A. (2024). “Utilizing waste manhole covers and fibreboard as reinforcing fillers for thermoplastic composites,” Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites. DOI: 10.1177/07316844241238507

Babaremu, K., Oladijo, O. P., and Akinlabi, E. (2023). “Biopolymers: A suitable replacement for plastics in product packaging,” Advanced Industrial and Engineering Polymer Research 6(4), 333-340. DOI: 10.1016/j.aiepr.2023.01.001

Baranwal, J., Barse, B., Fais, A., Delogu, G. L., and Kumar, A. (2022). “Biopolymer: A sustainable material for food and medical applications,” Polymers 14(5), 983. DOI: 10.3390/polym14050983

Bellili, N., Dairi, B., Hammour, N., Djidjelli, H., and Boukerrou, A. (2022). “Physicomechanical behavior of agro waste-filled polypropylene composites materials,” Materials Today: Proceedings 53, 42-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.12.259

Biswal, T. (2021). “Biopolymers for tissue engineering applications: A review,” Materials Today: Proceedings 41, 397-402. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.09.628

Biswas, M. C., Jony, B., Nandy, P. K., Chowdhury, R. A., Halder, S., Kumar, D., Ramakrishna, S., Hassan, M., Ahsan, M. A., and Hoque, M. E. (2022). “Recent advancement of biopolymers and their potential biomedical applications,” Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 30, 51-74. DOI: 10.1007/s10924-021-02199-y

Biswas, S., and Pal, A. (2021). “Application of biopolymers as a new age sustainable material for surfactant adsorption: A brief review,” Carbohydrate Polymer Technologies and Applications 2, 100145. DOI: 10.1016/j.carpta.2021.100145

Bledzki, A.K. and Gassan, J. (1999). “Composites reinforced with cellulose based fibres,” Progress in Polymer Science 24(2), 221-274. DOI: 10.1016/S0079-6700(98)00018-5

Cardoen, D., Joshi, P., Diels, L., Sarma, P.M. and Pant, D. (2015). “Agriculture biomass in India: Part 2. Post-harvest losses, cost and environmental impacts,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 101, 143-153. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.002

Chandel, S., Shaji, A. and Chutturi, M. (2025). “Life cycle assessment of biocomposites: Environmental impacts and sustainability perspectives,” in: Innovations and Applications of Advanced Biomaterials in Healthcare and Engineering. Safaa Najah Saud Al-Humairi (Ed.), IGI Global Scientific Publishing, pp. 439-502. DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3373-1305-4.ch013

Chaturvedi, S., Verma, A., Sethi, S. K., Mavinkere Rangappa, S., and Siengchin, S. (2022). “Chapter 15—Stalk fibers (rice, wheat, barley, etc.) composites and applications,” In: Plant Fibers, their Composites, and Applications, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK, pp. 347-362. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-824528-6.00009-6

Chithra, N. V, Karuppasamy, R., Manickaraj, K., and Ramakrishnan, T. (2024). “Effect of reinforcement addition on mechanical behavior of Al MMC-A critical review,” J. Environ. Nanotechnol 13(2), 65-79. DOI: 10.13074/jent.2024.06.242632

Christina, K., Subbiah, K., Arulraj, P., Krishnan, S. K., and Sathishkumar, P. (2024). “A sustainable and eco-friendly approach for environmental and energy management using biopolymers chitosan, lignin and cellulose—A review,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 257, 128550. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.128550

Das, A., Ringu, T., Ghosh, S., and Pramanik, N. (2023). “A comprehensive review on recent advances in preparation, physicochemical characterization, and bioengineering applications of biopolymers,” Polymer Bulletin 80(7), 7247-7312. DOI: 10.1007/s00289-022-04443-4

Dele‐Afolabi, T., Mohamed Ariff, A. H., Mazlan, N., Sobri, S., Calin, R., and Zahari Nur, I. (2018). “Effect of agro‐waste pore formers on the microstructure, hardness, and tensile properties of porous alumina ceramics,” International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology 15(4), 1060-1071. DOI: 10.1111/ijac.12874

Deshmukh, G. S., Palanisamy, S., and Mubarak, S. (2024). “Polyester fiber: Composites and it’s applications,” in: Synthetic and Mineral Fibers, Their Composites and Applications, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK, Ch-8, 251-268. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-443-13623-8.00008-3

Devadiga, D. G., Bhat, K. S., and Mahesha, G. T. (2020). “Sugarcane bagasse fiber reinforced composites: Recent advances and applications,” Cogent Engineering 7(1), 1823159. DOI: 10.1080/23311916.2020.1823159

Difonzo, G., Troilo, M., Squeo, G., Pasqualone, A., and Caponio, F. (2021). “Functional compounds from olive pomace to obtain high‐added value foods–a review,” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 101(1), 15-26. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.10478

Duceac, I. A., and Coseri, S. (2022). “Biopolymers and their derivatives: Key components of advanced biomedical technologies,” Biotechnology Advances 61, 108056. DOI: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2022.108056

Dwivedi, S. P., and Mishra, V. R. (2019). “Physico-chemical, mechanical and thermal behaviour of agro-waste RHA-reinforced green emerging composite material,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 44(9), 8129-8142. DOI: 10.1007/s13369-019-03784-z

Evon, P., Labonne, L., Simon, V., Talou, T., Ballas, S., Véronèse, T., and Merah, O. (2023). “Coriander straw and press cake from seeds: Compositions and possible uses in the field of bio-sourced materials,” in: Handbook of Coriander (Coriandrum sativum): Chemistry, Functionality, and Applications, M. F. Ramadan (Ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 261-286. DOI: 10.1201/9781003204626

Faruk, O., Bledzki, A.K., Fink, H.P. and Sain, M. (2012). “Biocomposites reinforced with natural fibers: 2000–2010,” Progress in Polymer Science 37(11), 1552-1596. DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2012.04.003

Fatehi, H., Ong, D. E. L., Yu, J., and Chang, I. (2021). “Biopolymers as green binders for soil improvement in geotechnical applications: A review,” Geosciences 11(7), article 291. DOI: 10.3390/geosciences11070291

Fertahi, S., Ilsouk, M., Zeroual, Y., Oukarroum, A., and Barakat, A. (2021). “Recent trends in organic coating based on biopolymers and biomass for controlled and slow release fertilizers,” Journal of Controlled Release 330, 341-361. DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.12.026

Fredi, G., and Dorigato, A. (2024). “Compatibilization of biopolymer blends: A review,” Advanced Industrial and Engineering Polymer Research 7(4), 373-404. DOI: 10.1016/j.aiepr.2023.11.002

Gamage, A., Liyanapathiranage, A., Manamperi, A., Gunathilake, C., Mani, S., Merah, O., and Madhujith, T. (2022). “Applications of starch biopolymers for a sustainable modern agriculture,” Sustainability 14(10), article 6085. DOI: 10.3390/su14106085

Garduño-Juárez, R., Tovar-Anaya, D. O., Perez-Aguilar, J. M., Lozano-Aguirre Beltran, L. F., Zubillaga, R. A., Alvarez-Perez, M. A., and Villarreal-Ramirez, E. (2024). “Molecular dynamic simulations for biopolymers with biomedical applications,” Polymers 16(13), article 1864. DOI: 10.3390/polym16131864

Gheorghita, R., Anchidin-Norocel, L., Filip, R., Dimian, M., and Covasa, M. (2021). “Applications of biopolymers for drugs and probiotics delivery,” Polymers 13(16), article 2729. DOI: 10.3390/polym13162729

Glińska, K., Gitalt, J., Torrens, E., Plechkova, N., and Bengoa, C. (2021). “Extraction of cellulose from corn stover using designed ionic liquids with improved reusing capabilities,” Process Safety and Environmental Protection 147, 181-191. DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2020.09.035

Govindarajan, P. R., Antony, J. A., Palanisamy, S., Ayrilmis, N., Khan, T., Junaedi, H., and Sebaey, T. A. (2024). “Advances in manufacturing of carbon-based molecular nanomaterials based on rice husk/hull waste,” BioResources 19(4), 9834-9852. DOI: 10.15376/biores.19.4.Govindarajan

Gowthaman, N. S. K., Lim, H. N., Sreeraj, T. R., Amalraj, A., and Gopi, S. (2021). “Chapter 15 – Advantages of biopolymers over synthetic polymers: social, economic, and environmental aspects,” in: Biopolymers and Their Industrial Applications, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 351-372. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-819240-5.00015-8

Gowda, Y. T. G., Ballupete Nagaraju, S., Puttegowda, M., Verma, A., Rangappa, S. M., and Siengchin, S. (2023). “Biopolymer-based composites: An eco-friendly alternative from agricultural waste biomass,” Journal of Composites Science 7(6), 242. DOI: 10.3390/jcs7060242

Gupta, I., Cherwoo, L., Bhatia, R., and Setia, H. (2022a). “Biopolymers: Implications and application in the food industry,” Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology 46(3), article 102534. DOI: 10.1016/j.bcab.2022.102534

Gupta, N., Mahur, B. K., Izrayeel, A. M. D., Ahuja, A., and Rastogi, V. K. (2022b). “Biomass conversion of agricultural waste residues for different applications: A comprehensive review,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 29(49), 73622-73647. DOI: 10.1007/S11356-022-22802-6

Gurusamy, M., Soundararajan, S., Karuppusamy, M., and Ramasamy, K. (2024). “Exploring the mechanical impact of fine powder integration from ironwood sawdust and COCO dust particles in epoxy composites,” Matéria (Rio de Janeiro) 29(3), article e20240216. DOI: 10.1590/1517-7076-RMAT-2024-0216

Heidari, B. S., Ruan, R., Vahabli, E., Chen, P., De-Juan-Pardo, E. M., Zheng, M., and Doyle, B. (2023). “Natural, synthetic and commercially-available biopolymers used to regenerate tendons and ligaments,” Bioactive Materials 19, 179-197. DOI: 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2022.04.003

Jayaraman, R., Viknesh, M., and Girimurugan, R. (2023). “Experimental investigations on mechanical and water absorption properties of epoxy resin matrix treated sugarcane and tamarind shell powder reinforced bio-Composites,” Materials Today: Proceedings 74, 636-641. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.09.605

Joshi, K., Meher, M. K., and Poluri, K. M. (2020). “Fabrication and characterization of bioblocks from agricultural waste using fungal mycelium for renewable and sustainable applications,” ACS Applied Bio Materials 3(4), 1884-1892. DOI: 10.1021/acsabm.9b01047

Kabir, M.M., Wang, H., Lau, K.T. and Cardona, F. (2012). “Chemical treatments on plant-based natural fibre reinforced polymer composites: An overview,” Composites Part B: Engineering, 43(7), 2883-2892. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.04.053

Kartik, A., Akhil, D., Lakshmi, D., Gopinath, K. P., Arun, J., Sivaramakrishnan, R., and Pugazhendhi, A. (2021). “A critical review on production of biopolymers from algae biomass and their applications,” Bioresource Technology 329, article 124868. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124868

Karuppusamy, M., Thirumalaisamy, R., Palanisamy, S., Nagamalai, S., Massoud, E.E.S. and Ayrilmis, N. (2025). “A review of machine learning applications in polymer composites: Advancements, challenges, and future prospects,” Journal of Materials Chemistry A. 13, 16290-16308. DOI: 10.1039/D5TA00982K

Karuppusamy, M., Ramamoorthi, R., Karuppasamy, R., and Navin, M. (2023). “Review on fabrication and applications of jute fiber epoxy composite reinforced bio composite,” Journal of Advanced Mechanical Sciences 2(3), 76-81. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10251273

Khalil, H. P. S. A., Yahya, E. B., Jummaat, F., Adnan, A. S., Olaiya, N. G., Rizal, S., Abdullah, C. K., Pasquini, D., and Thomas, S. (2023). “Biopolymers based aerogels: A review on revolutionary solutions for smart therapeutics delivery,” Progress in Materials Science 131, article 101014. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2022.101014

Kokate, S., Parasuraman, K., and Prakash, H. (2022). “Adsorptive removal of lead ion from water using banana stem scutcher generated in fiber extraction process,” Results in Engineering 14, article 100439. DOI: 10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100439

Kordi, M., Farrokhi, N., Pech-Canul, M. I., and Ahmadikhah, A. (2024). “Rice husk at a glance: from agro-industrial to modern applications,” Rice Science 31(1), 14-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.rsci.2023.08.005

Kumar, S., Mukherjee, A., and Katiyar, V. (2024). Agro-Waste Derived Biopolymers and Biocomposites: Innovations and Sustainability in Food Packaging, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA.

Kurien, R. A., Selvaraj, D. P., Sekar, M., Koshy, C. P., Paul, C., Palanisamy, S., Santulli, C., and Kumar, P. (2023). “A comprehensive review on the mechanical, physical, and thermal properties of abaca fibre for their introduction into structural polymer composites,” Cellulose 30, 1-22. DOI: 10.1007/s10570-023-05441-z

Li, J., Hao, X., Gan, W., van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., and Wu, Y. (2021). “Recovery of extracellular biopolymers from conventional activated sludge: Potential, characteristics and limitation,” Water Research 205, article 117706. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117706

Liu, C., Luan, P., Li, Q., Cheng, Z., Xiang, P., Liu, D., Hou, Y., Yang, Y., and Zhu, H. (2021). “Biopolymers derived from trees as sustainable multifunctional materials: a review,” Advanced Materials 33(28), article 2001654. DOI: 10.1002/adma.202001654

Lizundia, E., Luzi, F., and Puglia, D. (2022). “Organic waste valorisation towards circular and sustainable biocomposites,” Green Chemistry 24(14), 5429-5459. DOI: 10.1039/D2GC01668K

Lozano, F. J. and Lozano, R. (2018). “Assessing the potential sustainability benefits of agricultural residues: Biomass conversion to syngas for energy generation or to chemicals production,” Journal of Cleaner Production 172, 4162-4169. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.037

Losini, A. E., Grillet, A.-C., Bellotto, M., Woloszyn, M., and Dotelli, G. (2021). “Natural additives and biopolymers for raw earth construction stabilization – A review,” Construction and Building Materials 304, article 124507. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124507

Lu, S., Chen, S., Li, H., Paengkoum, S., Taethaisong, N., Meethip, W., Surakhunthod, J., Sinpru, B., Sroichak, T., and Archa, P. (2022). “Sustainable valorization of tomato pomace (Lycopersicon esculentum) in animal nutrition: A review,” Animals 12(23), article 3294. DOI: 10.3390/ani12233294

Madurwar, M. V, Ralegaonkar, R. V, and Mandavgane, S. A. (2013). “Application of agro-waste for sustainable construction materials: A review,” Construction and Building Materials 38, 872-878. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09.011

Makinde-Isola, B. A., Taiwo, A. S., Oladele, I. O., Akinwekomi, A. D., Adelani, S. O., and Onuh, L. N. (2024). “Development of sustainable and biodegradable materials: A review on banana and sisal fibre based polymer composites,” Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials 37(4), 1519-1539. DOI: 10.1177/08927057231186324

Manickaraj, K., Ramamoorthi, R., Karuppasamy, R., Sakthivel, K. R., and Vijayaprakash, B. (2024a). “Chapter 11 – A review of natural biofiber‐reinforced polymer matrix composites,” in: Evolutionary Manufacturing, Design and Operational Practices for Resource and Environmental Sustainability, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA, pp. 135-141. DOI: 10.1002/9781394198221.ch11

Manickaraj, K., Ramamoorthi, R., Ramakrishnan, T., and Karuppasamy, R. (2024b). “Enhancing solid waste sustainability with iroko wooden sawdust and african oil bean shell particle-strengthened epoxy composites,” Global Nest Journal 26(1), 1-5. DOI: 10.30955/gnj.005467

Manickaraj, K., Thirumalaisamy, R., Palanisamy, S., Ayrilmis, N., Massoud, E.E.S., Palaniappan, M. and Sankar, S.L. (2025). “Value‐added utilization of agricultural wastes in biocomposite production: Characteristics and applications,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1-20. DOI: 10.1111/nyas.15368

Manickaraj, K., Ramamoorthi, R., Sathish, S., and Johnson Santhosh, A. (2023). “A comparative study on the mechanical properties of African teff and snake grass fiber-reinforced hybrid composites: Effect of bio castor seed shell/glass/SiC fillers,” International Polymer Processing 38(5), 551-563. DOI: 10.1515/ipp-2023-4343

Maraveas, C. (2020). “Production of sustainable construction materials using agro-wastes,” Materials, 13(2), article 262. DOI: 10.3390/ma13020262

McClements, D. J. (2024). “Composite hydrogels assembled from food-grade biopolymers: Fabrication, properties, and applications,” Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 332, article 103278. DOI: 10.1016/j.cis.2024.103278

Miranda, N. T., Motta, I. L., Maciel Filho, R., and Maciel, M. R. W. (2021). “Sugarcane bagasse pyrolysis: A review of operating conditions and products properties,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 149, article 111394. DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111394

Mishra, S., and Naik, J. B. (2005). “Mechanical properties of wood polymer composites prepared from agro-waste and HDPE,” Polymer-Plastic Technology and Engineering 44(3), 511-522. DOI: 10.1081/PTE-200048310

Mohammed, M., Rahman, R., Mohammed, A. M., Adam, T., Betar, B. O., Osman, A. F., and Dahham, O. S. (2022). “Surface treatment to improve water repellence and compatibility of natural fiber with polymer matrix: Recent advancement,” Polymer Testing 115, article 107707. DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2022.107707

Mohan, S., Muthulakshmi, L., and Hariharan, N. (2024). “Impact of biopolymers in a circular economy,” in: Biopolymeric Nanoparticles for Agricultural Applications, Ch. 16, pp. 413-436. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-68834-8_16

Mohan Kumar, K., Naik, V., Waddar, S. S., Santhosh, N., Kaup, V., and Harish, H. V. (2023). “Mechanical and water absorption characterization of mango seed shell/epoxy composite for low load carrying structures,” International Journal of Polymer Science 2023(1), article 9976409. DOI: 10.1155/2023/9976409

Mohanty, A. K., Wu, F., Mincheva, R., Hakkarainen, M., Raquez, J.-M., Mielewski, D. F., Narayan, R., Netravali, A. N., and Misra, M. (2022). “Sustainable polymers,” Nature Reviews Methods Primers 2(1), 46. DOI: 10.1038/s43586-022-00124-8

Monia, T. (2024). “Sustainable natural biopolymers for biomedical applications,” Journal of Thermoplastic Composite Materials 37(7), 2505-2524. DOI: 10.1177/08927057231214468

Nagalakshmaiah, M., Afrin, S., Malladi, R. P., Elkoun, S., Robert, M., Ansari, M. A., Svedberg, A., and Karim, Z. (2019). “Biocomposites: Present trends and challenges for the future,” Green Composites for Automotive Applications, Ch-16, 197-215. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-68834-8_16

Nagappan, S., Subramani, S. P., Palaniappan, S. K., and Mylsamy, B. (2022). “Impact of alkali treatment and fiber length on mechanical properties of new agro waste Lagenaria siceraria fiber reinforced epoxy composites,” Journal of Natural Fibers 19(13), 6853-6864. DOI: 10.1080/15440478.2021.1932681

Nagarajan, K. J., Balaji, A. N., Basha, K. S., Ramanujam, N. R., and Kumar, R. A. (2020). “Effect of agro waste α-cellulosic micro filler on mechanical and thermal behavior of epoxy composites,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 152, 327-339. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.02.255

Nanda, S., Patra, B. R., Patel, R., Bakos, J., and Dalai, A. K. (2022). “Innovations in applications and prospects of bioplastics and biopolymers: a review,” Environmental Chemistry Letters 20(1), 379-395. DOI: 10.1007/S10311-021-01334-4

Nithyanandhan, T., Sivaraman, P., Manickaraj, K., Raj, N. M., Pragash, M. S., and Tharun, A. (2022). “Tribological behaviour of aluminium 6061 reinforced with graphite and chicken bone ash by using stir casting,” International Journal of Vehicle Structures & Systems 14(7), 849-854. DOI: 10.4273/ijvss.14.7.04

Noaman, A. T., Abed, M. S., Al-Gebory, L., Al-Zubaidi, A. B., and Al‐Tabbakh, A. A. (2023). “Production of agro-waste cement composites: Influence of nutshells on mechanical and hardened properties,” Construction and Building Materials 394, article 132137. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132137

Nourbakhsh, A., and Ashori, A. (2010). “Wood plastic composites from agro-waste materials: Analysis of mechanical properties,” Bioresource Technology 101(7), 2525-2528. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.040

Ogah, A. O., Ezeani, O. E., Nwobi, S. C., and Ikelle, I. I. (2022). “Physical and mechanical properties of agro-waste filled recycled high density polyethylene biocomposites,” South Asian Res. J. Eng. Tech. 4(4), 55-62. DOI: 10.36346/sarjet.2022.v04i04.002

Olofsson, J., and Börjesson, P. (2018). “Residual biomass as resource – Life-cycle environmental impact of wastes in circular resource systems,” Journal of Cleaner Production 196, 997-1006. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.115

Pączkowski, P., Puszka, A., and Gawdzik, B. (2021). “Effect of eco-friendly peanut shell powder on the chemical resistance, physical, thermal, and thermomechanical properties of unsaturated polyester resin composites,” Polymers 13(21), article 3690. DOI: 10.3390/polym13213690

Palanisamy, S., Kalimuthu, M., Azeez, A., Palaniappan, M., Dharmalingam, S., Nagarajan, R., and Santulli, C. (2022a). “Wear properties and post-moisture absorption mechanical behavior of kenaf/banana-fiber-reinforced epoxy composites,” Fibers 10(4), article 32. DOI: 10.3390/fib10040032

Palanisamy, S., Kalimuthu, M., Palaniappan, M., Alavudeen, A., Rajini, N., Santulli, C., Mohammad, F., and Al-Lohedan, H. (2022b). “Characterization of Acacia caesia bark fibers (ACBFs),” Journal of Natural Fibers 19(15), 10241-10252. DOI: 10.1080/15440478.2021.1993493

Palanisamy, S., Kalimuthu, M., Nagarajan, R., Fernandes Marlet, J. M., and Santulli, C. (2023). “Physical, chemical, and mechanical characterization of natural bark fibers (NBFs) reinforced polymer composites: A bibliographic review,” Fibers 11(2), article 13. DOI: 10.3390/fib11020013

Palanisamy, S., Murugesan, T. M., Palaniappan, M., Santulli, C., Ayrilmis, N., and Alavudeen, A. (2024). “Selection and processing of natural fibers and nanocellulose for biocomposite applications: A brief review,” BioResources 19(1), 1789-1813. DOI: 10.15376/biores.19.1.Palanisamy

Palaniappan, M., Palanisamy, S., mani Murugesan, T., Tadepalli, S., Khan, R., Ataya, S., and Santulli, C. (2024a). “Influence of washing with sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) surfactant on different properties of ramie fibres,” BioResources 19(2), 2609-2625. DOI: 10.15376/biores.19.2.2609-2625

Palaniappan, S. K., Aruchamy, K., Bhuvaneshwaran, M., Velayutham, T., and Manickaraj, K. (2024b). “Chapter 9 – Polyacrylonitrile fiber: Composites and applications,” in: Synthetic and Mineral Fibers, Their Composites and Applications, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, UK, pp. 269-290. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-443-13623-8.00009-5

Pandey, J. K., Ahmad, A., and Singh, R. P. (2003). “Ecofriendly behavior of host matrix in composites prepared from agro‐waste and polypropylene,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science 90(4), 1009-1017. DOI: 10.1002/app.12743

Parlato, M. C. M., Porto, S. M. C., Galán-Marín, C., Rivera-Gómez, C. A., Cuomo, M., and Nocera, F. (2023). “Thermal performance, microstructure analysis and strength characterisation of agro-waste reinforced soil materials,” Sustainability 15(15), article 11543. DOI: 10.3390/su151511543

Parveen, N., Naik, S. C. S., Vanapalli, K. R. and Sharma, H. B. (2024). “Bioplastic packaging in circular economy: A systems-based policy approach for multi-sectoral challenges,” Science of the Total Environment 945, article 173893. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173893

Patel, P. and Patel, A. (2021), June. “Use of sustainable green materials in construction of green buildings for sustainable development,” in: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 785(1), article 012009. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/785/1/012009

Patti, A., and Acierno, D. (2022). “Towards the sustainability of the plastic industry through biopolymers: Properties and potential applications to the textiles world,” Polymers 14(4), article 692. DOI: 10.3390/polym14040692

Petersen, J. E. (2008). “Energy production with agricultural biomass: environmental implications and analytical challenges,” European Review of Agricultural Economics 35(3), 385-408. DOI: 10.1093/erae/jbn016

Phiri, R., Rangappa, S. M., and Siengchin, S. (2023a). “Agro-waste for renewable and sustainable green production: A review,” Journal of Cleaner Production 434, artilce 39989. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139989

Phiri, R., Rangappa, S. M., Siengchin, S., and Marinkovic, D. (2023b). “Agro-waste natural fiber sample preparation techniques for bio-composites development: Methodological insights,” Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering 21(4), 631-656. DOI: 10.22190/FUME230905046P

Pinaeva, L. G., and Noskov, A. S. (2024). “Biodegradable biopolymers: Real impact to environment pollution,” Science of The Total Environment 174445. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174445

Ponce, G., Rodríguez-Llamazares, S., Rivera, P. C., Castaño, J., Oporto-Velásquez, G., Sabando, C., Ide, W., Nesic, A., and Cabrera-Barjas, G. (2022). “Biocomoposites of polylactic acid/poly (butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) blends loaded with quinoa husk agro-waste: thermal and mechanical properties,” Journal of Polymer Research 29(8), 356. DOI: 10.1007/S10965-022-03196-Y

Prakash, S., Sharma, K., Dhumal, S., Senapathy, M., Deshmukh, V. P., Kumar, S., Anitha, T., Balamurugan, V., Pandiselvam, R., and Kumar, M. (2024). “Unlocking the potential of cotton stalk as a renewable source of cellulose: A review on advancements and emerging applications,” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 261, article 129456. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.129456

Prakash, V. R. A. (2022). “Mechanical, dielectric, and hydrophobicity behavior of coconut shell biochar toughened Caryota urens natural fiber reinforced epoxy composite,” Polymer Composites 43(1), 493-502. DOI: 10.1002/pc.26393

Pramanik, S., Kharche, S., More, N., Ranglani, D., Singh, G., and Kapusetti, G. (2023). “Natural biopolymers for bone tissue engineering: A brief review,” Engineered Regeneration 4(2), 193-204. DOI: 10.1016/j.engreg.2022.12.002

Rai, P., Mehrotra, S., Priya, S., Gnansounou, E., and Sharma, S. K. (2021). “Recent advances in the sustainable design and applications of biodegradable polymers,” Bioresource Technology 325, article 124739. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.124739

Ramasubbu, R., Kayambu, A., Palanisamy, S., and Ayrilmis, N. (2024). “Mechanical properties of epoxy composites reinforced with Areca catechu fibers containing silicon carbide,” BioResources 19(2), 2353-2370. DOI: 10.15376/biores.19.2.2353-2370

Ramesh, M., Rajeshkumar, L., Balaji, D., and Bhuvaneswari, V. (2021). “Green composite using agricultural waste reinforcement,” Green Composites 21-34. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-9643-8_2

Reddy, N., and Yang, Y. (2005). “Biofibers from agricultural byproducts for industrial applications,” Trends in Biotechnology 23(1), 22-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2004.11.002

Rani, G. M., Pathania, D., Umapathi, R., Rustagi, S., Huh, Y. S., Gupta, V. K., Kaushik, A., and Chaudhary, V. (2023). “Agro-waste to sustainable energy: A green strategy of converting agricultural waste to nano-enabled energy applications,” Science of the Total Environment 875, article 162667.

Reis, P. N. B., Ferreira, J. A. M., and Silva, P. A. A. (2011). “Mechanical behaviour of composites filled by agro-waste materials,” Fibers and Polymers 12, 240-246. DOI: 10.1007/s12221-011-0240-z

Russo, T., Fucile, P., Giacometti, R., and Sannino, F. (2021). “Sustainable removal of contaminants by biopolymers: A novel approach for wastewater treatment. Current state and future perspectives,” Processes 9(4), 719. DOI: 10.3390/pr9040719

Samir, A., Ashour, F. H., Hakim, A. A. A., and Bassyouni, M. (2022). “Recent advances in biodegradable polymers for sustainable applications,” NPJ Materials Degradation 6(1), 68. DOI: 10.3390/pr9040719

Sánchez, E., Zabaleta, R., Fabani, M. P., Rodriguez, R., and Mazza, G. (2022). “Effects of the amendment with almond shell, bio-waste and almond shell-based biochar on the quality of saline-alkali soils,” Journal of Environmental Management 318, article 115604. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115604

Santulli, C., Palanisamy, S., and Dharmalingam, S. (2023). “Natural fibres-based bio-epoxy composites: Mechanical and thermal properties,” in: Epoxy-Based Biocomposites, 163-176. DOI: 10.1201/9781003271017

Satankar, V., Jhodkar, D., Singh, M., Kumar, M., Mageshwaran, V., Palanisamy, S., Ayrilmis, N., and Khan, T. (2024). “Two-step process for gossypol reduction and protein enhancement in cottonseed kernel powder,” Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 15, 9475-9488. DOI: 10.1007/s13399-024-05884-9

Sathesh Babu, M., Ramamoorthi, R., Gokulkumar, S., and Manickaraj, K. (2024). Mahua oil cake microcellulose as a performance enhancer in flax fiber composites: Mechanical strength and sound absorption analysis,” Polymer Composites 46(3), 2221-2240. DOI: 10.1002/pc.29100

Shapiro-Bengtsen, S., Hamelin, L., Bregnbæk, L., Zou, L. and Münster, M. (2022). “Should residual biomass be used for fuels, power and heat, or materials? Assessing costs and environmental impacts for China in 2035,” Energy & Environmental Science 15(5), 1950-1966.DOI: 10.1039/D1EE03816H

Sharahi, M., Bahrami, S. H., and Karimi, A. (2024). “A comprehensive review on guar gum and its modified biopolymers: Their potential applications in tissue engineering,” Carbohydrate Polymers 347, article 122739. DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2024.122739

Singh, N., Ogunseitan, O. A., Wong, M. H., and Tang, Y. (2022). “Sustainable materials alternative to petrochemical plastics pollution: A review analysis,” Sustainable Horizons 2, article 100016. DOI: 10.1016/j.horiz.2022.100016

Singh, R., Gautam, S., Sharma, B., Jain, P., and Chauhan, K. D. (2021). “Chapter 2 –Biopolymers and their classifications,” in: Biopolymers and their Industrial Applications, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 21-44. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-819240-5.00002-X

Sivasubramanian, P., Kalimuthu, M., Palaniappan, M., Alavudeen, A., Rajini, N., and Santulli, C. (2021). “Effect of alkali treatment on the properties of Acacia caesia bark fibres,” Fibers 9(8), article 49. DOI: 10.3390/fib9080049

Sommer, S. G., Hamelin, L., Olesen, J. E., Montes, F., Jia, W., Chen, Q., and Triolo, J. M. (2015). “Agricultural waste biomass,” in: Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Food Networks, Ch-3, pp. 67-106. DOI: 10.1002/9781118937495.ch3

Song, H., Liu, J., He, K., and Ahmad, W. (2021). “A comprehensive overview of jute fiber reinforced cementitious composites,” Case Studies in Construction Materials 15, article e00724. DOI: 10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00724

Stalin, N., and Shobhanadevi, N. (2021). “Studies on thermal, structural, and compositional properties of agro-waste jute fiber composite reinforced with cardanol resin,” Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 13, 1-8. DOI: 10.1007/s13399-021-01958-0

Sumesh, K. R., and Kanthavel, K. (2020). “The influence of reinforcement, alkali treatment, compression pressure and temperature in fabrication of sisal/coir/epoxy composites: GRA and ANN prediction,” Polymer Bulletin 77, 4609-4629. DOI: 10.1007/s00289-019-02988-5

Sumesh, K. R., Ajithram, A., Palanisamy, S., and Kavimani, V. (2023). “Mechanical properties of ramie/flax hybrid natural fiber composites under different conditions,” Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 14, 1-12. DOI: 10.1007/s13399-023-04628-5

Udayakumar, G. P., Muthusamy, S., Selvaganesh, B., Sivarajasekar, N., Rambabu, K., Sivamani, S., Sivakumar, N., Maran, J. P., and Hosseini-Bandegharaei, A. (2021). “Ecofriendly biopolymers and composites: Preparation and their applications in water-treatment,” Biotechnology Advances 52, article 107815. DOI: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2021.107815

Veeman, D., Sai, M. S., Sureshkumar, P., Jagadeesha, T., Natrayan, L., Ravichandran, M., and Mammo, W. D. (2021). “Additive manufacturing of biopolymers for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: An overview, potential applications, advancements, and trends,” International Journal of Polymer Science 2021(1), article 4907027. DOI: 10.1155/2021/4907027

Vinod, A., Rangappa, S. M., Srisuk, R., Tengsuthiwat, J., and Siengchin, S. (2023). “Agro-waste Capsicum annum stem: An alternative raw material for lightweight composites,” Industrial Crops and Products 193, article 116141. DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.116141

Vinoth, V., Sathiyamurthy, S., Ananthi, N., and Jayabal, S. (2024). “Mechanical characterization and study on morphological properties: Natural and agro waste utilization of reinforced polyester hybrid composites,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 09544062241258077. DOI: 10.1177/09544062241258077

Westlake, J. R., Tran, M. W., Jiang, Y., Zhang, X., Burrows, A. D., and Xie, M. (2023). “Biodegradable biopolymers for active packaging: Demand, development and directions,” Sustainable Food Technology 1(1), 50-72. DOI: 10.1039/D2FB00004K

Wu, F., Misra, M., and Mohanty, A. K. (2021). “Challenges and new opportunities on barrier performance of biodegradable polymers for sustainable packaging,” Progress in Polymer Science 117, article 101395. DOI: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2021.101395

Yaashikaa, P. R., Kumar, P. S., and Karishma, S. (2022). “Review on biopolymers and composites–Evolving material as adsorbents in removal of environmental pollutants,” Environmental Research 212, article 113114. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113114

Yadav, R., Dwivedi, S. P., and Dwivedi, V. K. (2021). “Synthesis and mechanical behavior of ball-milled agro-waste RHA and eggshell reinforced composite material,” Materials Performance and Characterization 10(1), 237-254. DOI: 10.1520/MPC20190247

Zarrintaj, P., Seidi, F., Azarfam, M. Y., Yazdi, M. K., Erfani, A., Barani, M., Chauhan, N. P. S., Rabiee, N., Kuang, T., and Kucinska-Lipka, J. (2023). “Biopolymer-based composites for tissue engineering applications: A basis for future opportunities,” Composites Part B: Engineering 258, article 110701. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.110701

Zhang, L., Larsson, A., Moldin, A., and Edlund, U. (2022). “Comparison of lignin distribution, structure, and morphology in wheat straw and wood,” Industrial Crops and Products 187, article 115432. DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.115432

Zhiltsova, T., Campos, J., Costa, A., and Oliveira, M. S. A. (2024). “Sustainable polypropylene-based composites with agro-waste fillers: Thermal, morphological, mechanical properties and dimensional stability,” Materials 17(3), article 696. DOI: 10.3390/ma17030696

Article submitted: May 1, 2025; Peer review completed: May 30, 2025; Revised version received: June 27, 2025; Article accepted: August 7, 2025; Published: August 14, 2025.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.20.4.Palaniappan