4.7 Article

Use of multi-factorial analysis to determine the quality of cellulose nanofibers: effect of nanofibrillation treatment and residual lignin content

Journal

CELLULOSE
Volume 27, Issue 18, Pages 10689-10705

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10570-020-03136-3

Keywords

Wheat straw; Cellulose nanofibers; Nanofibrillation treatments; Lignin effect; Films properties; Quality

Funding

  1. Spain's DGICyT, MICINN [CTQ2016-78729-R]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Science and Education through the National Program FPU [FPU14/02278]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this work is to study and compare the influence of different nanofibrillation processes on the properties of cellulose nanofibers from wheat straw, and analyze the effect of the lignin in the nanocellulose quality and on the characteristics of the films produced. Wheat straw was subjected to a soda (NaOH) pulping process to obtain unbleached cellulosic pulp. The cellulosic pulp was bleached with NaClO2 in order to remove the lignin of the fiber. Both bleached and unbleached pulps were used to obtain nanocellulose using mechanical pretreatment (PFI refining) and treatments, (high pressure homogenization, twin-screw extruder and ultrafine friction grinder). The effect of the nanofibrillation treatments and the residual lignin content on cellulose nanofiber production was analyzed by means of a deep characterization. A multi-factorial quality index was used to score the cellulose nanofibers produced to enable a benchmarking study between different sources, processes and characteristics. In addition, an energetic study of the production process was carried out for the different treatments. The different nanofibers were used to produce cellulose nanofiber-based films and characterized in order to establish a relationship between the characteristics of cellulose nanofibers and the characteristics of the final product.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available