4.7 Article

Oxidative delignification: The roles of lignin reactivity and accessibility

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 363, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132351

关键词

Acid hydrotropic fractionation; Kraft pulping; Lignin reactivity; Hemicelluloses; Oxidative delignification; Bleaching

资金

  1. US Forest Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the oxidative delignification of birch kraft pulp fibers to pulp fibers from acid hydrotropic fractionation (AHF) using p-toluenesulfonic acid (p-TsOH). The results showed that AHF pulp fibers had higher delignification than kraft pulp fibers, despite having less reactive lignin. Additionally, the study found that higher fiber consistency resulted in better delignification.
This study compared oxidative delignification of birch kraft pulp fibers to pulp fibers from acid hydrotropic fractionation (AHF) using p-toluenesulfonic acid (p-TsOH). Under oxygen delignification at 20% consistency, AHF pulps with lower hemicellulose content showed higher delignification than kraft pulps with similar lignin content despite its residual lignin (cellulosic enzymatic lignin, CEL) being less reactive with fewer beta-O-4 ether aryl linkages based on 2D(13)C-H-1 nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. The water retention value (WRV) of AHF pulp fibers, a measure of fiber accessibility to water or oxidative chemicals, was substantially greater than that of kraft pulp fibers. Similar comparison of various AHF pulps further suggested that fibers with lower hemicellulose content were easier to delignify (bleach) despite having more lignin with lower reactivity (fewer beta-O-4 linkages). Additionally, the present study also indicated that oxygen delignification was more effective at high fiber consistency, which can be attributed to thinner water films on the fiber surfaces at higher fiber loadings. These results indicated that mass transfer was the rate controlling process in oxidative delignification of wood fibers.

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