4.6 Article

Effect of Jet Stretch and Particle Load on Cellulose Nanocrystal-Alginate Nanocomposite Fibers

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 26, 期 17, 页码 14263-14270

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/la102216v

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center for Advanced Engineering Fibers and Films at Clemson University
  2. Graduate School at Clemson University for PSA-NGGF

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alginate fibers have found many applications such as the preparation of dressings to treat exuding wounds, drug delivery, enzyme immobilization, etc.; however, their use is limited due to poor mechanical properties. Cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) were isolated from cotton and introduced into calcium alginate fibers with the goal of improving their strength and modulus. The isolated CNCs are elongated nanoparticles of crystalline cellulose with an average length of 130 nm with a standard deviation (s)of 63 nm, an average width of 20.4 nm (s = 7.8 nm), and an average height of 6.8 nm (s = 3.3 urn). The CNCs were mixed with an aqueous sodium alginate dope solution and wet spun into a CaCl2 bath to form fibers. It was found that if the apparent jet stretch (ratio of the fiber draw velocity to extrusion velocity) is kept constant, addition of the nanocrystals reduces the tensile strength and modulus of the material; however, a small concentration of CNCs in the dope solution increases the tensile energy to break and enables an increase in the fiber spinning apparent jet stretch ratio by nearly 2-fold at up to 25% CNCs load; the maximum ratio of 4.6 is observed at 25 wt % CNC loading as compared to a maximum of 2.4 for the native alginate. Mechanical testing showed a 38% increase in tenacity and a 123% increase in tensile modulus with 10 wt % CNCs loading and an apparent jet stretch of 4.2. The data suggest that alignment of the nanocrystals in the composites is a key factor influencing the mechanical properties. CNCs have potential to become it biocompatible, renewable, and cost-effective solution to reinforce alginate fibers.

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

4.6
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