4.7 Article

Absorption kinetics of nanocellulose foams: Effect of ionic strength and surface charge

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 601, 期 -, 页码 124-132

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2021.05.092

关键词

Nanocellulose; Foam; Absorption; X-ray computed tomography; Structure; Wicking; Pore size

资金

  1. Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) [P.PSH.0890]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The absorption capacity and kinetics of nanocellulose foams are controlled by the surface charge of the fibers, affecting swelling and network structure. The absorption process includes three stages: wicking, transition, and fiber swelling. Tuning the surface charge can modulate the absorption kinetics of nanocellulose foam.
Hypothesis: The absorption capacity and kinetics of nanocellulose foams are controlled by the surface charge of the fibers, which affects swelling and determine the porosity and structure of the network. Experiments: Absorption kinetics were quantified at time scales ranging from fractions of a second to minutes. The mass absorption rate as well as the area profile for the liquid stains were simultaneously measured. Findings: The absorption profile followed a three-stage mechanism: wicking, transition and fiber swel-ling. Absorption of fluids differing in ionic strength revealed the critical role played by electrostatic forces. Nanocellulose foam absorption capacity is 25% higher for water than for 0.9 wt% NaCl solution. The absorption kinetics of nanocellulose foam are also tuneable by modulating the surface charge. High sur -face charge nanocellulose foams have slower absorption in water than their low surface charged ana-logues. This behaviour is driven by the lower pore sizes developed in high surface charge foams, as determined by X-ray CT. Small Angle X-ray Scattering revealed structural homogeneity of high surface charge foams upon absorption of water due to high fibrillation and fiber swelling. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. 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