4.7 Article

Study on antibacterial O-carboxymethylated chitosan/cellulose blend film from LiCl/N, N-dimethylacetamide solution

Journal

POLYMER
Volume 43, Issue 4, Pages 1541-1547

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0032-3861(01)00699-1

Keywords

cellulose; O-carboxymethylated chitosan; blend film

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two types of O-carboxymethylated chitosan (O-CMCh)/cellulose polyblends were prepared by mixing cellulose LiCl/N,N-dimethylacetamide (DMAc) solution with O-CMCh aqueous solution (I) or DMAc emulsion (II) and their corresponding films I and II) were regenerated in water. The (O-CMCh)/cellulose films obtained were characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and wide-angle X-ray-scattering (WAXS). FTIR analyses showed that amino groups of O-CMCh were not affected during the film formation. SEM observations indicated that the O-CMCh/cellulose polyblend displayed a heterogeneous microstructure. O-CMCh microdomains dispersed in the cellulose matrix of the blend film. Blend film I showed a better dispersion of the O-CMCh microdomains than blend film III did. DSC and WAXS analyses suggested that, for both two kinds of the blend films, the addition of O-CMCh did not significantly influence the crystallinity and thermal properties of cellulose. The antibacterial activity of the films against Escherichia coli (E. coli) was also measured via optical density method. Roth blend films I and II exhibited satisfying antibacterial activity against E. coli, even the O-CMCh concentration was only 2 wt%. Due to the coagulation effect of water on the polyblend, O-CMCh water solution is suitable for the preparation of the blend film with low O-CMCh concentration, while O-CMCh DMAc emulsion should be selected when high O-CMCh concentration is needed. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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