4.5 Article

A comparative study of carbon microsphere preparation by the hydrothermal carbonization of waste cotton fibers, viscose fibers and Avicel

Journal

NEW CARBON MATERIALS
Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 286-294

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S1872-5805(20)60490-5

Keywords

Hydrothermal carbonization; Cotton fibers; Viscose fibers; Carbon microspheres; Crystalline ndex

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51703153]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) of waste cotton fibers, viscose fibers and Avicel to prepare carbon microspheres was investigated. The precursors and carbonized products were characterized by SEM, EDS, XRD, TG and FTIR. Results showed that the optimum HTC conditions for preparing carbon microspheres from cotton fibers and Avicel with high crystallinities of 60.35% and 60.24%, respectively, were respectively 330 degrees C for 6 h in 0.15% CuSO4 and at 310 degrees C for 6 h in 0.10% CuSO4, while they could be synthesized at 260 degrees C for 8 h from viscose fibers with a low crystallinity of 34.31% without any additive, indicating that cellulosic materials with a lower crystallinity have milder HTC conditions for preparing carbon microspheres. The polymerization degree of the cellulosic materials has little effect on the formation of carbon microspheres. The carbon microspheres produced from three cellulosic materials have a similar amorphous structure and abundant functional groups, while those produced from cotton fibers and Avicel have higher carbon contents and better thermal stability. The cellulosic materials were first hydrolyzed to form water soluble products, which underwent dehydration, polymerization, polycondensation and aromatization to form the carbon microspheres. CuSO4 promotes the hydrolysis of the cellulosic materials which is why it is needed to form carbon microspheres from cellulose of a high crystallinity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available