4.7 Article

Solvent-dependent morphology and anisotropic microscopic dynamics of cellulose nanocrystals under electric fields

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 103, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.103.032606

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on the effects of solvents on the self-assembly morphology, microscopic dynamics, and nonlinear optical response of cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs). It is found that the solvents significantly impact the structure and behavior of CNCs, which is important for the design and application of biomaterials.
Cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) are interesting for the construction of biomaterials for energy delivery and packaging purposes. The corresponding processing of CNCs can be optimized through the variation of inter-cellulose interactions by employing different types of solvents, and thereby varying the degree of cellulose hydrogen bonding. The aim of this work is (i) to show how different types of solvents affect the self-assembled morphology of CNCs, (ii) to study the microscopic dynamics and averaged orientations on the CNCs in aqueous suspensions, including the effect of externally imposed electric fields, and (iii) to explore the nonlinear optical response of CNCs. The homogeneity of self-assembled chiral-nematic phase depends on both the polarity of the solvent and the CNC concentration. The variation of the chiral-nematic pitch length with concentration, as determined from real-space and Fourier images, is found to be strongly solvent dependent. The anisotropic microdynamics of CNCs suspension exhibits two modes, related to diffusion parallel and perpendicular to the (chiral-) nematic director. We have found also the coupling between translational and orientational motion, due to existing correlation length of twisted nematic elasticity. Preliminary second-harmonic generation experiments are performed, which reveal that relatively high field strengths are required to reorient chiral-nematic domains of CNCs.

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