4.7 Article

How does the never-dried state influence the swelling and dissolution of cellulose fibres in aqueous solvent?

期刊

CELLULOSE
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 247-256

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10570-010-9485-8

关键词

Cellulose fibres; Swelling; Dissolution; Never-dried state; N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide; Sodium hydroxide

资金

  1. Carnot Mines institute
  2. Viskase Registerd trademark
  3. Spontex Registerd trademark
  4. Sappi
  5. Tembec, Inc.
  6. Lenzing, AG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The swelling and dissolution capacity of dried and never-dried hardwood and softwood pulps and cotton linters was compared in two aqueous solvents, N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide (NMMO)-water at 90 A degrees C with water contents ranging from 16 to 22% and NaOH-water at -6 A degrees C with NaOH contents ranging from 5 to 8%. Swelling and dissolution mechanisms were observed by optical microscopy and dissolution efficiency was evaluated by recovering insoluble fractions. The results show a contrasted picture towards the effect of the never-dried state on the swelling and the dissolution capacity depending on the origin of the fibres and the type of aqueous solvent. In the case of NMMO-water, the presence of water within and around the fibre does not seem to favour dissolution initiation but after 2 h of mixing the dissolution yield appears to be similar for either dried or never-dried state. The limiting factor for dissolution in NMMO-water is not the penetration of the solvent inside the cellulose fibres, but only the local concentration of NMMO molecules around the fibre. For NaOH-water, both optical microscopy observations on individual fibres and dissolution yield measurements show that the never-dried state is more reactive for softwood pulps and cotton linters and has no significant effect on hardwood pulps. In this case, the local decrease of solvent strength is counteracted by the opening of the structure in the never-dried state which should enable the Na+ hydrated ions to penetrate easier.

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