4.7 Article

Comparison of the reinforcing effects for cellulose nanocrystals obtained by sulfuric and hydrochloric acid hydrolysis on the mechanical and thermal properties of bacterial polyester

期刊

COMPOSITES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 87, 期 -, 页码 22-28

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2013.07.024

关键词

Nanoparticles; Particle-reinforced composites; Mechanical properties; Thermal properties; Processing

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51172207]
  2. Program for Zhejiang Leading Team of Science and Technology Innovation [2011R50003]
  3. Doctorate Innovation Foundation of Donghua University [BC201101]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two kinds of cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) obtained by sulfuric acid hydrolysis (CNC-S) and hydrochloric acid hydrolysis under hydrothermal condition (CNC-H) were used as organic nanoreinforcment to enhance the mechanical property and thermal stability of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV). Comparison of the reinforcing effects for different CNCs on the properties of PHBV was carried out. Compared to CNC-S, CNC-H exhibited the larger aspect ratio, higher crystallinity, and especially no residual acid groups. Moreover, better dispersion of CNC-H with larger loading contents could be introduced into PHBV matrix, which was beneficial to form more intermolecular hydrogen bonding interactions, leading to the formation of refined crystalline structure of PHBV although the crystallization rate was promoted due to stronger reinforcing effects of CNC-H. Therefore, at the same contents, the reinforcing effect of CNC-H was stronger than CNC-S. More importantly, compared to the neat PHBV, the tensile strength and Young's modulus of the nanocomposite with 12 wt.% CNC-Fl were enhanced by 175% and 300%, respectively, meanwhile the initial decomposition temperature (T-0) and maximum decomposition temperature (T-max) were increased by 58.1 and 52.1 degrees C, respectively. (C) 2013 Elsevier 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