4.6 Article

Cooxidant-free TEMPO-mediated oxidation of highly crystalline nanocellulose in water

期刊

RSC ADVANCES
卷 4, 期 94, 页码 52289-52298

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c4ra11182f

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bo Rydin Foundation
  2. Carl Trygger Foundation
  3. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF)
  4. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Selective oxidation of C6 hydroxyls to carboxyls through 2,2,6,6,-tetramethylpiperidine-1-oxyl (TEMPO)-mediated oxidation, where the oxidizing species (TEMPO+) is generated by cooxidants, such as NaBrO, NaClO or NaClO2, has become a popular way to modify the surfaces of nanocellulose fibrils in aqueous solutions. Employing highly crystalline nanocellulose from Cladophora sp. algae we demonstrate that the same degree of oxidation (D. O.) can be achieved within approximately the same time by replacing the cooxidants with electrogeneration of TEMPO+ in a bulk electrolysis setup. The D. O. is controlled by the oxidation time and the maximum D. O. achieved (D. O. 9.8%, 0.60 mmol g(-1) of carboxylic acids and 0 mmol g(-1) aldehydes) corresponds to complete oxidation of the surface-confined C6. This shows that TEMPO+ is not sterically hindered from completely oxidizing the fibril surface of Cladophora nanocellulose, in contrast to earlier hypotheses that were based on results with wood-derived nanocellulose. The oxidation does not significantly affect the morphology, the specific surface area (> 115 m(2) g(-1)) or the pore characteristics of the water-insoluble fibrous particles that were obtained after drying, but depolymerization corresponding to similar to 20% was observed. For extensive oxidation times, the product recovery of water-insoluble fibrils decreased significantly while significant amounts of charge passed through the system. This could indicate that the oxidation proceeds beyond the fibril surface, in contrast to the current view that TEMPO-mediated oxidation is confined only to the surface.

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