4.8 Review

Comparison and assessment of methods for cellulose crystallinity determination

Journal

CHEMICAL SOCIETY REVIEWS
Volume 52, Issue 18, Pages 6417-6446

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d2cs00569g

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article reviews the primary methods for estimating the crystallinity of cellulose, including X-ray diffraction, nuclear magnetic resonance, Raman and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy, sum-frequency generation vibrational spectroscopy, as well as differential scanning calorimetry and evolving biochemical methods. The techniques are compared to better understand their requirements, differences, synergies, and limitations. The article highlights fundamental principles to guide researchers in studying the crystallinity of cellulosic materials.
The degree of crystallinity in cellulose significantly affects the physical, mechanical, and chemical properties of cellulosic materials, their processing, and their final application. Measuring the crystalline structures of cellulose is a challenging task due to inadequate consistency among the variety of analytical techniques available and the lack of absolute crystalline and amorphous standards. Our article reviews the primary methods for estimating the crystallinity of cellulose, namely, X-ray diffraction (XRD), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), Raman and Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, sum-frequency generation vibrational spectroscopy (SFG), as well as differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and evolving biochemical methods using cellulose binding molecules (CBMs). The techniques are compared to better interrogate not only the requirements of each method, but also their differences, synergies, and limitations. The article highlights fundamental principles to guide the general community to initiate studies of the crystallinity of cellulosic materials.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available