4.7 Article

Chemical, structural, and thermal characterizations of alkali-soluble lignins and hemicelluloses, and cellulose from maize stems, rye straw, and rice straw

期刊

POLYMER DEGRADATION AND STABILITY
卷 74, 期 2, 页码 307-319

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0141-3910(01)00163-X

关键词

maize stems; rye straw; rice straw; lignin; hemicelluloses; cellulose; degradation; thermal stability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment of dewaxed maize stems, rye straw, and rice straw with 1 M NaOH at 30 degreesC for 18 h resulted in a dissolution of 78.0, 68.8, and 82.1% of the original lignin, and 72.1, 72.6, and 84.6% of the original hemicelluloses, respectively. The three alkali lignin fractions and three hemicellulosic preparations and the corresponding residues (mainly cellulose) were characterized by both degraded methods, such as alkaline nitrobenzene oxidation and acid hydrolysis, and non-destructive techniques, e.g. ultraviolet (UV), Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR), carbon-13 nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopies (C-13-NMR), and gas permeation chromatography (GPC). It was found that the three lignin preparations contained substantial amounts of non-condensed guaiacyl and syringyl units with fewer p-hydroxyphenyl units, and had weight-average molecular weights between 3280 and 3890 g mol(-1). The two hemicellulosic preparations, obtained from maize stems and rye straw, were dominant in glucuronoarabinoxylans. While the hemicelluloses present in rice straw were mainly composed of alpha -glucan and kappa -arabino-(4-O-methyl-D-glucurono)-D-xylan. The thermal analysis of the polymers showed that hemicelluloses degraded in first place, while lignin showed less degradation, and therefore, its structure was more stable. Cellulose, on the other hand, showed an important degradation process, mainly between 250 and 330 degreesC, and its thermal stability is lower than that of lignin, but higher than that of hemicelluloses. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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