**4. Biocomposite product developments**

(miscible) seemed to improve the interaction between RHB and TPB matrix more effectively

The morphology of the fracture surfaces for (a) 50 wt% RHB/UTPB, (b) 50 wt% RHB/CTPB, (c) 80 wt% RHB/UTPB and (d) 80 wt% RHB/CTPB biocomposites is illustrated in **Figure 14**. Two striking observations can be seen in the surface morphology changes of biocomposites with different RHB contents and TPB matrix types. First, by comparing the effect of RHB contents, the 50 wt% RHB as in **Figure 14(a/b)**was perfectly attached and strongly adhered to the TPB matrix, in which this observation indicates the efficiency of composite material compounding

**Figure 14.** SEM micrograph of (a) 50 wt% RHB/UTPB, (b) 50 wt% RHB/CTPB, (c) 80 wt% RHB/UTPB and (d) 80 wt%

Meanwhile, the 80 wt% RHB as in **Figure 14(c**/**d)** showed poorer fibre dispersion and the existence of more clear holes or cavities in the fracture surface morphologies which resulted from insufficient adhesion between filler and matrix. This was then led to the fibre-fibre contact (fibre agglomeration) dominated in the composites. Second, by comparing the effect of TPB matrix types, the UTPB-based biocomposites (**Figure 14(a**/**c**) present relatively coarse and obvious phase separation morphology with inhomogeneous filler distribution in the matrix. This can be explained by the fact of the great difference in the polymer solubility parameters

than UTPB (immiscible)- based biocomposites.

40 Composites from Renewable and Sustainable Materials

and good fibres-matrix interfacial bonding.

RHB/CTPB biocomposites (magnification, 500×).

**3.8. Morphological observation**

The authors have carried out the collaboration with Bio Composite Extrusions Sdn. Bhd. and Integral Wood Sdn. Bhd. under TechnoFund grant which produced some of the composite panels and prototypes as shown in **Figure 15** (http://bcextrusions.com/).

**Figure 15.** Photograph of biocomposite products, buildings and constructions.
