4.7 Article

Processing of PLA nanocomposites with cellulose nanocrystals extracted from Posidonia oceanica waste: Innovative reuse of coastal plant

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 439-447

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.01.075

关键词

Plant; Waste revalorization; Cellulose nanocrystals; Poly(lactic acid); Nanocomposites

资金

  1. SEAMAT-TER European project: Revalorisation of coastal algae wastes in textile nonwoven industry with applications in building noise isolation, Funding Program: LIFE+. Call [LIFE11 ENV/E/000600]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Poly(lactic acid) (PLA) nanocomposite films, reinforced with cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) extracted from Posidonia oceanica plant waste, were produced by solvent casting and their morphological, mechanical, thermal, optical and migration properties were studied. Cellulose nanocrystals were successfully extracted through an optimized chemical treatment, followed by sulphuric acid hydrolysis. The nanocrystals were added to the neat polymer at two different weight percentages (1 and 3%wt) using a commercial surfactant to increase the dispersion of CNC in the biodegradable matrix. All the nanocomposites kept the optical transparency of the PLA matrix, while morphological investigations underlined the rougher fracture surfaces of the CNC based systems and a more porous structure of the PLA matrix, induced by the addition of surfactant modified s-CNC. The surfactant favours the cellulose nanocrystal dispersion in the polymer matrix, remarkably enhancing the nucleation effect for matrix crystallization and producing its plasticization. The migration levels for all the studied nanocomposites were well below the legislative limits required for their use as food packaging materials. The successful production of biodegradable nanocomposites incorporating cellulosic sources from biomass waste suggests the possibility of using these new bio-nanocomposites in industrial applications. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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