4.7 Article

Influence of nanocrystalline cellulose extracted from different precursors on properties of polyurethane elastomer composites

Journal

COMPOSITES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 218, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2021.109159

Keywords

Different precursors; Nanocrystalline cellulose; Polyurethane elastomer; Thermal stability

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51772243, 51802259]
  2. Collaborative Innovation Center Project of Education Department of Shaanxi Province [20JY052]
  3. Xi'an University of Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nanocrystalline cellulose extracted from waste paper without any alkali or bleaching treatment was used to reinforce polyurethane elastomer, showing superior properties compared to traditional sources. This method allows for recycling of waste paper and preparation of cost-effective, thermally resistant PU.
Nanocrystalline cellulose (CNC) produced from waste paper by direct acid hydrolysis without any alkali or bleaching treatment was used to reinforce polyurethane elastomer (PU). By comparison, traditional cellulosic sources such as microcrystalline cellulose and waste cotton were also used to extract CNC and prepare polyurethane nanocomposites. The result showed that CNC extracted from waste paper had the largest aspect ratio, crystallinity and thermal stability. Three kinds of CNC all built interactions with polyurethane matrix through hydrogen bonds and covalent bonds. Amongst, polyurethane nanocomposites with CNC extracted from waste paper had the largest thermodynamic properties and stiffness. Briefly, CNC extracted from waste paper was comparable with CNC isolated from traditional cellulosic sources and could be used for stronger reinforcement of PU with lower cost. This work realized recycling of waste paper with a simple method and prepared a thermally resistant PU with low cost.

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