4.8 Article

Cellulose Nanofibers from Softwood, Hardwood, and Tunicate: Preparation-Structure-Film Performance Interrelation

Journal

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
Volume 9, Issue 15, Pages 13508-13519

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.7b01738

Keywords

cellulose nanofibers (CNF); softwood; hardwood; tunicate; film; comparison; correlation

Funding

  1. Stiftelsen for kunskaps-och kompetensutveckling (KK-stiftelsen)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This work reveals the structural variations of cellulose nanofibers (CNF) prepared from different cellulose sources, including softwood (Picea abies), hardwood (Eucalyptus grandis X E. urophylla), and tunicate (Ciona intestinalis), using different preparation processes and their correlations to the formation and performance of the films prepared from the CNF. Here, the CNF are prepared from wood chemical pulps and tunicate isolated cellulose by an identical homogenization treatment subsequent to either an enzymatic hydrolysis or a 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidinyl-1-oxyl (TEMPO)-mediated oxidation. They show a large structural diversity in terms of chemical, morphological, and crystalline structure. Among others, the tunicate CNF consist of purer cellulose and have a degree of polymerization higher than that of wood CNF. Introduction of surface charges via the TEMPO-mediated oxidation is found to have significant impacts on the structure, morphology, optical, mechanical, thermal, and hydrophobic properties of the prepared films. For example, the film density is closely related to the charge density of the used CNF, and the tensile stress of the films is correlated to the crystallinity index of the. CNF. In turn, the CNF structure is determined by the cellulose sources and the preparation processes. This study provides useful information and knowledge for understanding the importance of the raw material for the quality of CNF for various types of applications.

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