journal article·2013-11Open access

Cellulose nanocrystals and self-assembled nanostructures from cotton, rice straw and grape skin: a source perspective

You-Lo Hsieh

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 48· Issue 22

Abstract

Cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) have been derived by sulfuric acid hydrolysis (64–65 wt% H2SO4, 10 mL/g cellulose, 45 °C) of pure cellulose isolated from cotton, rice straw and grape skin, producing relatively consistent products in 60, 45 and 30 min, respectively, and generally reflecting the extent of crystallinity and crystallite sizes of these cellulose sources. CNCs in nanorod forms are observed from all three cellulose sources and, in the case of cotton and grape skin, in the presence of more dominant forms of nanoparticles. Cotton CNCs are <10-nm-wide nanorods at up to 40 aspect ratios, whereas rice straw CNCs are flat ribbon cross-sectional shaped in 10:2:1–44:5:1 length/width/thickness ratios, and those from grape skin are abundant nanoparticles but fewer nanorods, all of very different nanoscale dimensions. Freezing (−196 °C) and freeze-drying (−50 °C) of dilute CNC suspensions induce self-assembling of these CNC populations into yet further distinctly different morphologies. Self-assembled cotton CNCs are loosely organized nanorods and nanospheres, whereas grape skin CNCs are mainly nanospheres of 5-nm-sized nanoparticles clusters around nanorod cores. Uniquely, rice straw CNCs assembled anisotropically into ultra-thin non-porous fibers. These source-linked unique CNC geometries and the ability of CNCs to self-assemble into different morphologies present wide ranging dimensions of these renewable cellulose nanomaterial building blocks from by-products of the world largest fiber, cereal and fruit crops.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Polysaccharides and Plant Cell Walls · Biofuel production and bioconversion

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (25)

Show source-provided references
1. Saxena IM, Brown RM Jr (2005) Ann Bot 96(1):9. doi: 10.1093/aob/mci15510.1093/aob/mci155 ↗
2. Hanley SJ, Giasson J, Revol JF, Gray DG (1992) Polymer 33(21):4639. doi: 10.1016/0032-3861(92)90426-W10.1016/0032-3861(92)90426-W ↗
3. Terech P, Chazeau L, Cavaille JY (1999) Macromolecules 32(6):1872. doi: 10.1021/ma981062110.1021/ma9810621 ↗
4. Grunert M, Winter WT (2002) J Polym Environ 10(1/2):27. doi: 10.1023/A:102106590598610.1023/A:1021065905986 ↗
5. Beck-Candanedo S, Roman M, Gray DG (2005) Biomacromolecules 6(2):1048. doi: 10.1021/bm049300p10.1021/bm049300p ↗
6. Lu P, Hsieh Y-L (2010) Carbohydr Polym 82(1):329. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.04.07310.1016/j.carbpol.2010.04.073 ↗
7. Samir MASA, Alloin F, Dufresne A (2005) Biomacromolecules 6(2):612. doi: 10.1021/bm049368510.1021/bm0493685 ↗
8. Helbert W, Cavaille JY, Dufresne A (1996) Polym Compost 17(4):604. doi: 10.1002/pc.1065010.1002/pc.10650 ↗
9. Sakurada I, Nukushina Y, Ito T (1962) J Polym Sci 57(165):651. doi: 10.1002/pol.1962.120571655110.1002/pol.1962.1205716551 ↗
10. Sturcova A, Davies GR, Eichhorn SJ (2005) Biomacromolecules 6(2):1055. doi: 10.1021/bm049291k10.1021/bm049291k ↗
11. Wong EW, Sheehan PE, Lieber CM (1997) Science 277(5334):1971. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5334.197110.1126/science.277.5334.1971 ↗
12. Yu M-F, Lourie O, Dyer MJ, Moloni K, Kelly TF, Ruoff RS (2000) Science 287(5453):637. doi: 10.1126/science.287.5453.63710.1126/science.287.5453.637 ↗
13. Klemm D, Kramer F, Moritz S, Lindström Ankerfors TM, Gray D et al (2011) Angew Chem Int Ed 50:5438. doi: 10.1002/anie.20100127310.1002/anie.201001273 ↗
14. Production Statistics, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://faostat.fao.org
15. Hsieh Y-L (2006) In: Gordon S, Hsieh Y-L (eds) Cotton science and technology. Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Cambridge
16. Karimi K, Kheradmandinia S, Taherzadeh MJ (2006) Biomass Bioenergy 30(3):247. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.11.01510.1016/j.biombioe.2005.11.015 ↗
17. Spigno G, Pizzorno T, De Faveri DM (2008) Bioresour Technol 99(10):4329. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.04410.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.044 ↗
18. Prozil SO, Evtuguin DV, Lopes LPC (2012) Ind Crops Prod 35(1):178. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2011.06.03510.1016/j.indcrop.2011.06.035 ↗
19. Lu P, Hsieh Y-L (2012) Carbohydr Polym 87(1):564. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.08.02210.1016/j.carbpol.2011.08.022 ↗
20. Lu P, Hsieh Y-L (2012) Carbohydr Polym 87(4):2546. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.11.02310.1016/j.carbpol.2011.11.023 ↗
21. Elazzouzi-Hafraoui S, Nishiyama Y, Putaux JL, Heux L, Dubreuil F, Rochas C (2008) Biomacromolecules 9(1):57. doi: 10.1021/bm700769p10.1021/bm700769p ↗
22. Jiang F, Esker AR, Roman M (2010) Langmuir 26(23):17919. doi: 10.1021/la102840510.1021/la1028405 ↗
23. Lahiji RR, Xu X, Reifenberger R, Raman A, Rudie A, Moon RJ (2010) Langmuir 26(6):4480. doi: 10.1021/la903111j10.1021/la903111j ↗
24. Cheng RS, Wang N, Ding E (2008) Langmuir 24(1):5. doi: 10.1021/la702923w10.1021/la702923w ↗
25. Ragauskas AJ, Zhang JG, Elder TJ, Pu YQ (2007) Carbohydr Polym 69(3):607. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2007.01.01910.1016/j.carbpol.2007.01.019 ↗