4.6 Article

Extraction of Cellulose Nanocrystals with a High Yield of 88% by Simultaneous Mechanochemical Activation and Phosphotungstic Acid Hydrolysis

期刊

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 2165-2172

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.5b01620

关键词

Cellulose nanocrystals; Mechanochemical activation; Phosphotungstic acid; Greener process; High yield; Thermal stability

资金

  1. Special Scientific Research Fund for Public Service Sectors of Forestry [201504603]
  2. Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate School of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University [1122yb018]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31170520, 31370560]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An efficient approach for extracting cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) was put forward through phosphotungstic acid (PTA) hydrolysis of cellulose raw materials under mechanochemical activation. Response surface methodology was employed for experimental design to determine the optimum conditions of CNCs preparation with software Design Expert. The results showed that quadratic polynomial model was qualified to represent the relationship between the response and independent variables and the regression model defined well the true behavior of the system. Under the optimal conditions, a high yield of up to 88.4%, crystallinity index of 79.6%, and a higher thermal stability can be achieved by combining mechanochemical activation and phosphotungstic acid hydrolysis. This process can improve effectively the hydrolysis efficiency, avoid a lengthy separation process, and reduce the preparation time. Meanwhile, compared to other techniques, mechanochemical activation is an energy-intensive method, and the process is environment-friendly. Phosphotungstic acid hydrolysis is easier to handle than liquid acids; meanwhile, the catalyst causes fewer corrosion hazards and can readily be recycled. Thus, an efficient green high-yield approach for the preparation of CNCs was achieved in the study.

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

4.6
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