Tunable porosity of cotton xerogels via ionic liquid-based natural fiber welding
Source abstract
Abstract
Natural fiber welding (NFW) typically uses an ionic liquid such as 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate (EMImAc) to partially dissolve cellulose and weld strands of cotton thread into an amorphous network. Removal of EMImAc through successive solvent rinses and drying produces all-cellulose structures ranging from non-porous biocomposites to highly porous xerogels based on the identity of the solvent exchange. However, how and why certain solvent interactions actually deliver mesoporous fiber-welded biopolymer materials with controlled porosity is poorly understood. In this study, we demonstrate that the porosity of a welded cotton xerogel can be controlled by tuning the solvent exchange and drying steps. NFW cotton thread is rinsed of EMImAc by solvent exchange with one or a series of solvents of varying polarities. We determine that the polarity of the final solvent in the series can control the BET surface area of the dry product, with nonpolar solvents creating xerogels. This porosity can be further enhanced using lyophilization, a less disruptive evaporation technique, to deliver a maximum BET surface area of 232 m2 g–1 when cyclohexane is used as the final rinse solvent.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Advanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials · Nanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. Nishino T, Arimoto N (2007) Biomacromol 8:2712–2716. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm070341610.1021/bm0703416 ↗
2. Budtova T (2019) Cellulose 26:81–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-018-2189-110.1007/s10570-018-2189-1 ↗
3. Lindman B, Medronho B, Alves L, Costa C, Edlund H, Norgren M (2017) Phys Chem Chem Phys 19:23704–23718. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7cp02409f10.1039/c7cp02409f ↗
4. Duchemin BJC, Mathew AP, Oksman K (2009) Compos Part A: Appl S 40:2031–2037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2009.09.01310.1016/j.compositesa.2009.09.013 ↗
5. Huber T, Müssig J, Curnow O, Pang S, Bickerton S, Staiger MP (2012) J Mater Sci 47:1171–118610.1007/s10853-011-5774-3 ↗
6. Haverhals LM, Reichert WM, De Long HC, Trulove PC (2010) Macromol Mater Eng 295:425–43010.1002/mame.201000005 ↗
7. Haverhals LM, Durkin DP, Trulove PC (2020). In: Shiflett MB (ed) Commercial applications of ionic liquids. Springer International Publishing, Cham
8. LM Haverhals, HC De Long, WM Reichert, PC Trulove (2012)
9. Aiello A, Cosby T, McFarland J, Durkin DP, Trulove PC (2022) Carbohydr Polym 282:119040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.11904010.1016/j.carbpol.2021.119040 ↗
10. Aiello A, Morey JR, Livi KJT et al (2020) J Magn Magn Mater 497:165964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2019.16596410.1016/j.jmmm.2019.165964 ↗
11. Durkin DP, Ye T, Choi J et al (2018) Appl Catal B 221:290–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2017.09.02910.1016/j.apcatb.2017.09.029 ↗
12. Durkin DP, Ye T, Larson EG et al (2016) ACS Sustain Chem Eng 4:5511–552210.1021/acssuschemeng.6b01250 ↗
13. Trulove PC, Durkin DP, Fahey PJ et al (2018) ECS Trans 86:287–296. https://doi.org/10.1149/08614.0287ecst10.1149/08614.0287ecst ↗
14. Chung RT, Park S, Yates EA, Durkin DP, De Long HC, Trulove PC (2018) ECS Trans 86:249–255. https://doi.org/10.1149/08614.0249ecst10.1149/08614.0249ecst ↗
15. Haverhals LM, Sulpizio HM, Fayos ZA et al (2012) Cellulose 19:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-011-9605-010.1007/s10570-011-9605-0 ↗
16. Taft RW, Kamlet MJ (1976) J Am Chem Soc 98:2886–2894. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00426a03610.1021/ja00426a036 ↗
17. Kamlet MJ, Taft RW (1976) J Am Chem Soc 98:377–383. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00418a00910.1021/ja00418a009 ↗
18. Kamlet MJ, Abboud JL, Taft RW (1977) J Am Chem Soc 99:6027–6038. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00460a03110.1021/ja00460a031 ↗
19. Doherty TV, Mora-Pale M, Foley SE, Linhardt RJ, Dordick JS (2010) Green Chem 12:1967–1975. https://doi.org/10.1039/C0GC00206B10.1039/C0GC00206B ↗
20. Hauru LKJ, Hummel M, King AWT, Kilpeläinen I, Sixta H (2012) Biomacromol 13:2896–2905. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm300912y10.1021/bm300912y ↗
21. Greenspan L (1977) J Res National Bureau Stand Sect A, Phys Chem 81A:89–9610.6028/jres.081A.011 ↗
22. Bhatnagar BS, Bogner RH, Pikal MJ (2007) Pharm Dev Technol 12:505–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/1083745070148115710.1080/10837450701481157 ↗
23. Chang BS, Kendrick BS, Carpenter JF (1996) J Pharm Sci 85:1325–1330. https://doi.org/10.1021/js960080y10.1021/js960080y ↗
24. Buchtová N, Budtova T (2016) Cellulose 23:2585–2595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-016-0960-810.1007/s10570-016-0960-8 ↗
25. Beaumont M, König J, Opietnik M, Potthast A, Rosenau T (2017) Cellulose 24:1199–1209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-016-1166-910.1007/s10570-016-1166-9 ↗
26. Cheong WJ, Carr PW (1988) Anal Chem 60:820–826. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00159a01810.1021/ac00159a018 ↗
27. Kamlet MJ, Abboud JLM, Abraham MH, Taft RW (1983) J Org Chem 48:2877–288710.1021/jo00165a018 ↗
28. Lu J, Brown JS, Liotta CL, Eckert CA (2001) Chemical Communications 7:665–666. https://doi.org/10.1039/B100425P10.1039/B100425P ↗
29. Beaumont M, Kondor A, Plappert S et al (2017) Cellulose 24:435–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-016-1091-y10.1007/s10570-016-1091-y ↗
30. Brunauer S, Deming LS, Deming WE, Teller E (1940) J Am Chem Soc 62:1723–1732. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01864a02510.1021/ja01864a025 ↗
31. Reichardt C, Welton T (2011) Solvents and solvent effects in organic chemistry. John Wiley & Sons