4.7 Article

Nanocomposites based on banana starch reinforced with cellulose nanofibers isolated from banana peels

期刊

JOURNAL OF COLLOID AND INTERFACE SCIENCE
卷 505, 期 -, 页码 154-167

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2017.05.106

关键词

Banana starch; Cellulose nanofibers; High-pressure homogenizer; Biodegradable films; Mechanical properties

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior Brazil (CAPES) [0519/2016-2]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico Brazil (CNPq) [477842/2011-9, 150523/2013-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cellulose nanofibers were isolated from banana peel using a combination of chemical and mechanical treatments with different number of passages through the high-pressure homogenizer (0, 3, 5, and 7 passages). New nanocomposites were then prepared from a mixed suspension of banana starch and cellulose nanofibers using the casting method and the effect of the addition of these nanofibers on the properties of the resulting nanocomposites was investigated. The cellulose nanofibers homogeneously dispersed in the starch matrix increased the glass transition temperature, due to the strong intermolecular interactions occurring between the starch and cellulose. The nanocomposites exhibited significantly increased the tensile strength, Young's modulus, water-resistance, opacity, and crystallinity as the number of passages through the homogenizer augmented. However, a more drastic mechanical treatment (seven passages) caused defects in nanofibers, deteriorating the nanocomposite properties. The most suitable mechanical treatment condition for the preparation of cellulose nanofibers and the corresponding nanocomposite was five passages through the high-pressure homogenizer. In general, the cellulose nanofibers improved the features of the starch-based material and are potentially applicable as reinforcing elements in a variety of polymer composites. (c) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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