4.7 Article

Influence of drying method on the surface energy of cellulose nanofibrils determined by inverse gas chromatography

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 405, 期 -, 页码 85-95

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2013.05.033

关键词

Cellulose nanofibrils; Drying; Surface energy; Inverse gas chromatography

资金

  1. Maine Economic Improvement Fund
  2. USDA Forest Service Forest Product Laboratory [11-JV-11111124-079]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research and development of the renewable nanomaterial cellulose nanofibrils (CNFs) has received considerable attention. The effect of drying on the surface energy of CNFs was investigated. Samples of nanofibrillated cellulose (NFC) and cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) were each subjected to four separate drying methods: air-drying, freeze-drying, spray-drying, and supercritical-drying. The surface morphology of the dried CNFs was examined using a scanning electron microscope. The surface energy of the dried CNFs was determined using inverse gas chromatography at infinite dilution and column temperatures: 30, 40, 50, 55, and 60 degrees C. Surface energy measurements of supercritical-dried NFCs were performed also at column temperatures: 70, 75, and 80 degrees C Different drying methods produced CNFs with different morphologies which in turn significantly influenced their surface energy. Supercritical-drying resulted in NFCs having a dispersion component of surface energy of 98.3 +/- 5.8 mJ/m(2) at 30 degrees C The dispersion component of surface energy of freeze-dried NFCs (44.3 +/- 0.4 mJ/m(2) at 30 degrees C) and CNCs (46.5 +/- 0.9 mJ/m(2) at 30 degrees C) were the lowest among all the CNFs. The pre-freezing treatment during the freeze-drying process is hypothesized to have a major impact on the dispersion component of surface energy of the CNFs. The acid and base parameters of all the dried CNFs were amphoteric (acidic and basic) although predominantly basic in nature. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据