4.3 Article

Mechanical Strength and Water Resistance of Paperboard Coated with Long Chain Cellulose Esters

期刊

PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 249-258

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pts.932

关键词

paperboard; packaging; long chain cellulose esters; renewable materials; barrier

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [123153]
  2. Academy of Finland (AKA) [123153, 123153] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long chain cellulose esters (LCCE) are bio-based materials, which are biodegradable, can be prepared from renewable materials, and have relatively good mechanical and barrier properties. In this study, we tested the feasibility of various LCCEs as a coating material for paperboard. Cellulose hexanoates (C6) and cellulose palmitates (C12) of various degrees of substitution were synthesized and tested as barriers. Coating of paperboard was performed by dissolving the LCCE to chloroform or acetone, and levelling the coating with wire bar coater to the surface of the paperboard. The coating gave hydrophobic surface to the paperboard, and significantly improved the water vapour barrier properties. Cellulose palmitate coatings were better water vapour barriers than cellulose hexanoate. However, polyethylene-coated paperboard had markedly lower water vapour transmission rate than LCCEs used in this study. The LCCE coatings slightly improved the tensile strength of the paperboard. In order to find out the suitability of LCCEs for extrusion coating, the thermal behaviour of LCCEs were also assessed. The cellulose hexanoate starts to degrade thermally at 280 degrees C and cellulose palmitate at temperature 320 degrees C. These materials do not have a clear melting point, but they behave as amorphous materials, and turn gradually to viscous form as temperature increases from 170 degrees C to 200 degrees C. This indicates possibilities to use them in extrusion coating, at least if the viscosity is improved with suitable additives. Copyright c 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.3
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