4.7 Article

Susceptibility of never-dried and freeze-dried bacterial cellulose towards esterification with organic acid

期刊

CELLULOSE
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 891-900

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10570-012-9680-x

关键词

Esterification; Organic acids; Bacterial cellulose; Freeze-dried state; Never-dried state

资金

  1. UK Engineering and Physical Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/F032005/1]
  2. Imperial College London
  3. EPSRC [EP/F032005/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/J013390/1, EP/F032005/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The susceptibility of (1) never-dried and (2) freeze-dried bacterial cellulose (BC) towards organic acid esterification is reported in this work. When never-dried BC (BC which was solvent exchanged from water through methanol into pyridine) was modified with hexanoic acid, it was found that the degree of substitution (DS) was significantly lower than that of hexanoic acid modified freeze-dried BC. The crystallinity of freeze-dried BC hexanoate was found to be significantly lower compared to neat BC and never-dried BC hexanoate. This result, along with the high DS indicates that significant bulk modification occurred during the esterification of freeze-dried BC. Such results were not observed for never-dried BC hexanoate. All these evidence point towards to fact that freeze-dried BC was more susceptible to organic acid esterification compared to never-dried BC. A few hypotheses were explored to explain the observed behaviour and further investigated to elucidate our observation; the effect of residual water in cellulose, the accessibility of hydroxyl groups and the crystal structure of never-dried and freeze-dried BC on the susceptibility of cellulose fibrils to esterification, respectively. However, the investigation of these hypotheses raised more questions and we are still left with the main question; why do BC nanofibres behave differently when modifying freeze-dried BC or never-dried BC?.

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