4.7 Article

Effect of glycerol, nanoclay and graphene oxide on physicochemical properties of biodegradable nanocellulose plastic sourced from banana pseudo-stem

期刊

CELLULOSE
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 399-416

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10570-017-1537-x

关键词

Banana pseudo-stem; Nanocellulose; Nanoclay; Graphene oxide; Glycerol

资金

  1. Australian Research Council under the ITTC scheme through the Training Centre for Advanced Technologies in Food Manufacture at the University of New South Wales

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Banana pseudo-stems, as agricultural waste, are a potential source of ecofriendly nanocellulose-based biodegradable plastic. In this research, effect of glycerol as a plasticiser and nanoclay (NC), and graphene oxide (GO) as nanofillers on the banana pseudo-stem nanocellulose film mechanical, morphological, chemical, thermal, and barrier properties were studied extensively. NC and GO were found to be able to improve the tensile strength of the films but not their elasticity. These nano-fillers also increased the contact angle of the films. On the other hand, glycerol, which acted as a plasticiser, increased the elasticity of the films, but reduced the thermal stability, tensile strength, and contact angle. Synergetic effects were observed when nanofillers and glycerol were combined; both tensile strength and elasticity were improved and the contact angle of the films was significantly higher than films that only contained nanofillers. Concentration of plasticiser had significant effect on the film barrier properties. The water vapor permeability was positively correlated to the glycerol concentration. In contrast, oxygen permeability decreased as increase in glycerol concentration. These results strongly indicate that the properties of the banana pseudo-stem nanocellulose film could be engineered by modifying the type and concentration of added additives. This finding also provides fundamental knowledge and strategy options to further improve nanocellulose based bioplastic.

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