4.7 Article

Influence of mechanical treatments on the properties of cellulose nanofibers isolated from microcrystalline cellulose

期刊

REACTIVE & FUNCTIONAL POLYMERS
卷 85, 期 -, 页码 134-141

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2014.09.009

关键词

Microcrystalline cellulose; Cellulose whiskers; Mechanical treatments; Film nanocomposites; Hydroxypropylcellulose

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [NRP66, 406640_136911/1]
  2. Adolphe Merkle Foundation
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [406640_136911] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The possibility of preparing cellulose whiskers-like materials by mechanical treatment of commercially available microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) was explored. High shear homogenization, grinding with a supermass colloider, and hammer-milling were the processes selected to disintegrate the MCC, which yielded F-MCC, G-MCC and H-MCC, respectively. Processing aqueous dispersions with high solid content allowed for the production of cellulose particles with greatly reduced dimensions. Morphological characterization revealed that homogenization and grinding reduced the particle size more effectively than hammer-milling, although the disintegration was incomplete in all cases. The reinforcing potential of the materials was evaluated against commercially available whiskers by using the various particles as fillers to mechanically reinforce hydroxypropylcellulose. Nanocomposite films containing 5, 10, or 20 wt.% of the filler were prepared and the mechanical properties were characterized. The results show that H-MCCs are just slightly better than the original MCC, whereas F-MCC and G-MCC performed similar to whiskers at 10 wt.% loading, despite the presence of a fraction of micrometer-sized particles. It is therefore reasonable to envision the use of the more easily produced F-MCC and G-MCC as replacement of cellulose whiskers in some applications. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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