4.7 Article

Cellulose nanofibers/polyvinyl alcohol blends as an efficient coating to improve the hydrophobic and oleophobic properties of paper

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-20499-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Key Research and Development Project of Zhejiang Province [2020C02043]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of cellulose nanofibers (CNFs)/polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) coating on the hydrophobic, oleophobic, and strength properties of paper were investigated. The increase of CNFs can effectively improve the lipophobicity, hydrophobicity, and tensile strength of the PVA coated paper.
The effect of cellulose nanofibers (CNFs)/polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) coating on the hydrophobic, oleophobic, and strength properties of paper were investigated. The results showed that the size of bamboo fibers (BFs) decreased significantly and the crystallinity increased significantly after biological enzyme treatment. The average length of CNFs obtained by high pressure homogenization was 2.4 mu m, the diameter was 28.7 nm, and the crystallinity was 63.63%. When the coating weight of PVA/CNF was 2.0 g/m(2) and the CNF dosage was increased from 0.0% to 3.0%, the paper grease resistance grade was increased from 7 to 9, the Cobb value was decreased from 22.68 +/- 0.29 g/m(2) to 18.37 +/- 0.63 g/m(2), the contact angle was increased from 67.82 degrees to 93.56 degrees, and the longitudinal and transverse tensile index were increased from 67.72 +/- 0.21 N m/g and 37.63 +/- 0.25 N m/g to 68.61 +/- 0.55 N m/g and 40.71 +/- 0.78 N m/g, respectively. When the CNF dosage was 3.0% and the coating weight of PVA/CNF was 4.0 g/m(2), the grease resistance grade of the paper was 12, the Cobb value was 21.80 +/- 0.39 g/m(2), and the longitudinal and transverse tensile indices were 72.11 +/- 0.43 N m/g and 42.58 +/- 0.48 N m/g, respectively. In summary, the increase of CNFs can effectively improve the lipophobicity, hydrophobicity and tensile strength of the PVA coated paper.

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