4.7 Article

Starch-based nanocomposites with cellulose nanofibers obtained from chemical and mechanical treatments

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.05.194

关键词

Biodegradable film; Acid hydrolysis; Rheology behavior

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [140274/2014-6]
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) [2952/2011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cellulose nanofibers (CNFs) were isolated from unripe banana peel by acid hydrolysis, with different acid concentrations (0.1%, 1.0% and 10% v/v), followed by mechanical treatment with high-pressure homogenizer. Banana starch-based films added with CNFs (0.2% w/w) as a reinforcing agent were produced by the casting method. The rheological behavior of aqueous dispersions of CNFs (1.0% w/w) and their effects on the properties of nano composite films were investigated. All aqueous dispersions of CNFs showed gel-like behavior and, when incorporated to the films, CNFs improved their water barrier properties and mechanical resistance as demonstrated by the increase in tensile strength and Young's modulus. Moreover, CNFs were well dispersed in the composite matrix. CNFs prepared at higher concentration, followed by mechanical treatment (FNM1 and FNM10), formed films with low moisture (13.66%) and solubility in water (24.1%). Whereas, CNFs prepared at the lowest acid concentration without mechanical treatment (FN0.1) led to films with high elongation at break (30.6%) and good tensile strength (12.3 MPa). Regardless of the used CNFs, all the nanocomposites displayed lower UV/light transmission than control film. The nanocomposite has potential use in food packaging, since the use of CNFs can promote improvements on barrier, optical and mechanical properties. Cellulose nanofibers isolated from agro-industrial residues offer the potential to reinforce composites of biodegradable polymers, producing a value-added material. (c) 2020 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