$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Without a BC binder, the short, loose sisal fibers are held together only by friction and entanglements between the fibers. As a result, this preform is loose and it was not able to support much weight. Figure 3 shows the sisal fiber preform without BC as the binder, with a load applied in 3-point bending mode. The preform can be seen to be rather loose and when a load is applied by adding water into the polypropylene cup, the preform starts to deflect severely. The load applied is equivalent to 40 g of water. However, when 20 wt.% BC was used as the binder for these short and loose sisal fibers, a rigid fiber preform is manufactured. This preform can withstand the load of a full polypropylene cup (~170 g) without any significant deflection (Figure 3).
Scanning electron micrographs of a typical BC-sisal fiber preform are shown in Figure 4. BC can be seen to be covering the surface of the sisal fibers. This effect is due to the hydrophilic nature of sisal fibers (or any other natural fibers). The hydrophilic nature of sisal fibers absorbs water, drawing in the BC that is dispersed in the medium. Since BC is larger than the pores of natural fibers, they were not able to penetrate into the fibers. Instead, they were filtered against the surface of sisal fibers and form a layer of BC coating when the fibers were dried.
The mechanical performance of these fiber preforms under tension is tabulated in Table 1. Due to the porous nature of the fiber preforms with a porosity of ~70%, the tensile strength (load per unit area) of the preform is not well defined. Therefore, we tabulate the tensile force (load required to fail the specimen per unit width, which is 15 mm in our experiment, of the material) and the tensile index (tensile force per unit grammage) of our specimen. A tensile force and tensile index of 12.1 kN·m-1 and 15 N·m·g-1 was measured, respectively, when 20 wt.% BC was used as the binder. However, the tensile properties of neat sisal fiber preforms were not measurable as the fiber preform is loose.
Figure Legends:

Figure 1. Number of publications in the field of natural fibers and composites. The data was collected from the Web of Knowledge by using a keyword search of 'natural fib*' AND 'composite*', respectively. Obtained from Bismarck et al.4 with kind permission from American Scientific Publishing Ltd.

Figure 2. Schematic of double bag vacuum assisted resin infusion.

Figure 3. Photographs illustrating the difference in bending stiffness of sisal fiber preforms without (top two images) and with (bottom two images) BC as binder.

Figure 4. Scanning electron micrographs of a typical natural fiber preform using BC as binder at various magnifications. Top: 100X, middle: 1,000X and bottom: 25,000X, respectively. (a) and (b) denote the sisal fiber and BC nanofibrils, respectively.
| Materials | Tensile force (kN·m-1) | Tensile index (N·m·g-1) |
| Neat sisal preform | Not measurable | Not measurable |
| BC-sisal preform | 12.1 ± 2.4 | 15 ± 3 |
Table 1. Tensile properties of the sisal fiber preforms, with and without BC as the binder.