4.7 Article

A TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibers/MOFs hydrogel with temperature and pH responsiveness for fertilizers slow-release

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.09.075

关键词

Cellulose; Hydrogel; Slow-release

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel MOF MIL-100(Fe)@CNFs hydrogel for slow-release fertilizers with temperature and pH response was prepared. Characterization of the hydrogels and evaluation using urea as a model fertilizer showed that MC10% hydrogels exhibited superior swelling capacity, water-retention, and slow-release performance. Additionally, wheat fertilized with MC hydrogels showed increased growth and photosynthetic rate.
In this work, a kind of MOF MIL-100(Fe)@CNFs hydrogel (MC) based on TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibers (CNFs) for fertilizers slow-release was prepared by free-radical polymerization, where N-vinyl caprolactam (NVCL) and CNFs were involved to exhibit temperature and pH response, respectively. Particularly, porous MIL100(Fe), a kind of metal organic frameworks (MOFs), was introduced to optimize the load and slow-release capabilities. The Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, and thermogravimetric analysis were used to characterize. The swelling behaviors and water-retention capabilities of hydrogels were evaluated. Using urea as the model fertilizer, the slow-release mechanism was revealed. Wheat was used as the model crop to evaluate the practical growth status. Compared with MC-0% hydrogels, the MC10% hydrogels exhibited a better swelling capacity (37 g/g), water-retention (22.78%) and slow-release performance (40.84%). It also exhibited sensitivities to temperature and pH for regulating urea release. Besides, the number of tillers and leaves of wheat fertilized with MC hydrogels significantly increased, as did the photosynthetic rate. In conclusion, the MC-0% hydrogels had a positive influence on crops growth, and promoted the possible utilization of hydrogels in slow-release fertilizers.

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