The Feasibility of Jackfruit Peeling as Binder to

Whiteware Plastic MassPrepared by:

Ahmad Johari A. AbbasJeremiah L. Cabili

Introduction Binders have been called the most

important processing additive during ceramic sintering process (firing).

Ceramic binders are quite expensive, reaching from $2000 to $3000 per metric tons and is multiplied since it is imported from other countries.

The researchers plan to produce an alternative binder utilizing jackfruit peeling as the raw material.

Statement of the Problem The study will evaluate the

feasibility of the Jackfruit peeling as an effective raw material in the formulation of alternative ceramic binder to standard whiteware plastic mass.

Scope and Limitation The study will only encompass the

utilization of jackfruit peeling as an ALTERNATIVE CERAMIC BINDER.

Shrinkage (%drying and %firing shrinkage), %loss on ignition and modulus of rupture of the standard whiteware plastic mass formed using the binder utilized from the jackfruit peeling will be determined.

Procedure

300g jackfruit pulp & 350 ml water

Ground (Blender)

1500 ml jackfruit pulp

Strained (Strainer)

1000 ml jackfruit pulp (ready for use)

Figure 1.1 Preparation of Jackfruit Pulp as Binder

ProcedureForming the Plastic Mass using two

different treatments. (Water and jackfruit pulp as binders)

Determination of %firing shrinkage of the test bars in each

of the two treatments

Determination of %drying shrinkage of the test bars in each of the two treatments.

Determination of %loss on ignition of the test bars in each of the two

treatments

Determination of Modulus of Rupture of the test bars in each of the two treatments.Figure 1.2 Experimental

Methodology

Experimentations – Preparation of Test Bars

Experimentations – Preparation of Test Bars

Fired Test Bars

Firing Set-up

Experimentations – Shrinkage and Loss on Ignition Test

Measuring Length using Vernier Caliper

Wieghing of test bars

Experimentations – Modulus of Rupture

Modulus of Rupture Test using Versa Loader with improvised attachments

Results – Shrinkage (WATER)Test Bar Initial

Length (cm)

Oven-dried Length

(cm)

Fired Length

(cm)

%Drying Shrinkage

%Firing Shrinkage

W1 17 15.6 15.5 8.24 0.64W2 17 15.6 15.6 8.24 0.00W3 17 15.5 15.3 8.82 1.29W4 17 15.4 15.3 9.41 0.65W5 17 15.4 15.2 9.41 1.30W6 17 15.5 15.3 8.82 1.29W7 17 15.4 15.1 9.41 1.95W8 17 15.4 15.2 9.41 1.30W9 17 15.4 15.4 9.41 0.00W10 17 15.4 15.3 9.41 0.65W11 17 15.5 15.3 8.82 1.29W12 17 15.5 15.2 8.82 1.94W13 17 15.4 15 9.41 2.60W14 17 15.5 15.4 8.82 0.65

Results – Shrinkage (Jackfruit Pulp)Test Bar Initial

Length (cm)

Oven-dried Length

(cm)

Fired Length

(cm)

%Drying Shrinkage

%Firing Shrinkage

J1 17 15.1 14.7 11.18 2.65J2 17 15.2 14.8 10.59 2.63J3 17 15.2 14.8 10.59 2.63J4 17 15 14.9 11.76 0.67J5 17 15.1 14.9 11.18 1.32J6 17 15.4 15 9.41 2.60J7 17 15.2 14.8 10.59 2.63J8 17 15.4 14.9 9.41 3.25J9 17 15.2 14.8 10.59 2.63J10 17 15.2 14.9 10.59 1.97J11 17 15 14.8 11.76 1.33J12 17 15.2 14.9 10.59 1.97J13 17 15.3 14.8 10.00 3.27J14 17 15.2 15 10.59 1.32

Results - %loss on ignition (WATER)Test Bar Oven-dried

weight (g)Fired

weight (g)%loss on ignition

W1 105.5 97.1 7.96W2 109.7 100.5 8.39W3 104.9 96.2 8.29W4 105.9 97.2 8.22W5 105.1 96.5 8.18W6 106.7 98 8.15W7 103.1 95 7.86W8 107.8 99.1 8.07W9 105.7 96.9 8.33W10 105.9 97.2 8.22W11 106.8 98.1 8.15W12 108.1 99.1 8.33W13 107.7 98.4 8.64W14 108.2 99.2 8.32

Results - %loss on ignition (Jackfruit Pulp) Test Bar Oven-dried

weight (g)Fired

weight (g)%loss on ignition

J1 97.7 87.9 10.03J2 97.8 87.9 10.12J3 99 89.3 9.80J4 97.3 87.8 9.76J5 98.8 89.1 9.82J6 99 89.5 9.60J7 97.2 88.1 9.36J8 101.5 91.9 9.46J9 102.3 92.8 9.29J10 104.3 94.6 9.30J11 106.1 96.2 9.33J12 98.3 88.9 9.56J13 99.4 90.3 9.15J14 101.6 92.1 9.35

Results – Modulus of Rupture (WATER)

Test bar

Force Applied (kg)

Distance between supporting blocks (cm) Width (cm) Height (cm)

Modulus of Rupture(kg/cm2)

W1 46.87 12 2.1 2.1 91.10W2 51.40 12 2.1 2 110.13W3 51.40 12 2.1 2 110.13W4 46.87 12 2 2 105.46W5 46.87 12 2.1 2 100.44W6 46.87 12 2.1 2 100.44W7 46.87 12 2.2 2.1 86.96W8 37.82 12 2.1 2.2 66.98W9 46.87 12 2.1 2.1 91.10W10 46.87 12 2.1 2 100.44W11 46.87 12 2.1 2 100.44W12 46.87 12 2.1 2 100.44W13 55.92 12 2.1 2.1 108.69W14 37.82 12 2 2 85.09

Results – Modulus of Rupture (Jackfruit Pulp)

Test barForce Applied (kg)

Distance between supporting blocks (cm) Width (cm) Height (cm)

Modulus of Rupture(kg/cm2)

J1 42.35 12 2 2.1 86.42J2 37.82 12 2.1 2 81.04J3 37.82 12 2.1 2.1 73.51J4 37.82 12 2.1 2.1 73.51J5 37.82 12 2.2 2.1 70.17J6 37.82 12 2 2 85.09J7 33.29 12 2.1 2 71.35J8 42.35 12 2.1 2.2 74.99J9 46.87 12 2.1 2.1 91.10J10 37.82 12 2.1 2.1 73.51J11 42.35 12 2.1 2.2 74.99J12 37.82 12 2.1 2 81.04J13 42.35 12 2.1 2 90.74J14 37.82 12 2.2 2.2 63.93

Interpretation of Results

The following statistical interpretations are conducted with level of significance (α) set at 0.05

Statistical Tool

T-test was used to compare the two treatments and determine if there is a significant difference between the test bars that were subjected to different experimentations.

Drying Shrinkage

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1402468

101214161820

Dry Shrinkage (water)Dry Shrinkage (Jackfruit)Mean - Dry Shrinkage (water)Mean - Dry Shrinkage

(Drying Shrinkage) Water JackfruitMean 9.03361344537815 10.6302521008403Observations 14 14Hypothesized Difference 0Difference -1.59663865546219p-value (two-tailed at α=0.05)

1.32082324797673E-07

Firing Shrinkage

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 140123456789

10

Fire Shrinkage (water)Fire Shrinkage (Jack-fruit)Mean - Fire Shrinkage (water)Mean - Fire Shrinkage (Jackfruit)

(Firing Shrinkage) Water JackfruitMean 1.10958549898642 2.20536523702502Observations 14 14Hypothesized Difference 0Difference -1.0957797380386p-value (two-tailed at α=0.05)

.0008

Loss on Ignition

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131402468

101214161820

Loss on Ignition (water)Loss on Ignition (Jackfruit)Mean - Loss on Ig-nition (water)Mean - Loss on Ig-nition (Jackfruit)

(Loss on Ignition) Water JackfruitMean 8.22045045801021 9.56673283520003Observations 14 14Hypothesized Difference 0Difference -1.34628237718982p-value (two-tailed at α=0.05)

8.57E-14

Modulus of Rupture

(Modulus of Rupture) Water JackfruitMean 96.9882754875716 77.9564091574248Observations 14 14Hypothesized Difference 0Difference 19.0318663301468p-value (two-tailed at α=0.05)

3.75E-05

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140

20406080

100120140

Modulus of Rupture (water)Modulus of Rupture (Jackfruit)Mean - Modulus of Rupture (water)Mean - Modulus of Rupture (Jackfruit)

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The following statistical data states that there are significant differences between the shrinkage, %loss on ignition and modulus of rupture of the test bars formed using water and jackfruit pulp as separate binders.

The %drying and %firing shrinkage of the test bars that use jackfruit pulp as binder was observed to be higher than those of the test bars that use water as binder.

The test bars that use jackfruit pulp as binder have higher %loss on ignition compared to those test bars that use water as binder.

The modulus of rupture of the test bars that use jackfruit pulp as binder was observed to be higher than those of the test bars that use water as binder.

CONCLUSION The experimentations showed that

jackfruit peeling is feasible as an alternative ceramic binder to standard whiteware plastic mass.

However, the data gathered and statistical interpretations showed a low quality ceramic binder regarding the utilization of jackfruit peeling into such.

Recommendations Usage of other organic material similar

to jackfruit as the raw material. Other formulation of the binding

material. Finer binding material with less

particles present.

Bibliography California Rare Fruit Growers, Inc. (1996). Jackfruit.

Retrieved from California Rare Fruit Growers website: http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/jackfruit.html

Encyclopædia Britannica. (2012). whiteware. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/642810/whiteware

Instron. (2008). Modulus of Rupture. Retrieved from http://www.instron.us/wa/glossary/Modulus-of-Rupture.aspx?ref=http://www.google.com.ph/url

ETH-IMP Analytical Lab. (2004, April 8). Loss on Ignition. Retrieved from http://www.xrf.ethz.ch/xrf_instr_LOI.html

Bibliography Cement and Concrete Association of Australia.

(July 2002). Drying Shrinkage. Retrieved from http://www.concrete.net.au/publications/pdf/profshrinkage.pdf

Minerals Zone. (2005). Fire clay. Retrieved from http://www.mineralszone.com/minerals/fire-clay.html

William M.K. Trochim. (2006). T-test. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/stat_t.php

Jessica Elzea Kogal. (2006). Forming Methods for Whiteware Products. In Industrial Minerals and Rocks: Commodities, Markets and Uses (p. 1357). SME.

Bibliography T-test. (2011). In  faculty.vassar, HTML. Retrieved

from http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/ch11pt1.html Jackfruit. (2011). In tradewindsfruit, HTM.

Retrieved from http://www.tradewindsfruit.com/jackfruit.htm

Ceramic binders. (2006). In digitalfire, HTML. Retrieved from http://digitalfire.com/4sight/education/binders_for_ceramic_bodies_345.html

Ceramics. (2012). In Britannica, Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/103129/industrial-ceramics/

Bibliography Whiteware. (2011). In Britannica, Encyclopedia.

Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/642810/whiteware

Loss on ignition.(2011). In xrf.ethz, HTML. Retrieved from http://www.xrf.ethz.ch/xrf_instr_LOI.html

Dry shrinkage.(2011). In concrete.net.au, PDF. Retrieved from http://www.concrete.net.au/publications/pdf/profshrinkage.pdf

Fire shrinkage (2011). In ceramicindustry, Articles. Retrieved from http://www.ceramicindustry.com/articles/ppp-clay-body-shrinkage-absorption

Modulus of rupture. (2011). In ejpayne, HTM. Retrieved from http://www.ejpayne.com/uploads/pdf/MOR.pdf

THANK YOU! The Feasibility of Jackfruit Peeling as Binder to Whiteware Plastic Mass. RESEARCH PRESENTATION PREPARED BY AHMAD JOHARI ABBAS AND JEREMIAH CABILI. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2012.