Shape-recovery in organic solvents of water-responsive cellulose nanofiber actuators
Source abstract
Abstract
In this work, we have prepared films based on cellulose nanofibers (CNFs) that mimic plant responsiveness to water by shape-changing. Film twisting was achieved by creating an asymmetrical expansion through a gradient of carboxylate groups within the CNF film thickness. We present the characterization of pristine and modified CNFs, and their swelling and mechanical performances when conditioned into films. The immersion in water and organic solvents (isopropanol, ethanol, DMSO, acetonitrile, and cyclohexane) allowed controlling the asymmetrical expansion. Hence, film twisting is triggered when immersed in water and their shape recoveries were accomplished by dipping them in organic solvents. We investigated the main physicochemical interactions between the different CNFs and solvents governing film expansion. This work leaves the door open for the design of biomimetic cellulose-based materials for soft robotics, building materials, and electronic applications.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Advanced Materials and Mechanics · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (57)
Show source-provided references
1. Abitbol T, Kloser E, Gray DG (2013) Estimation of the surface sulfur content of cellulose nanocrystals prepared by sulfuric acid hydrolysis. Cellulose 20:785–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-013-9871-010.1007/s10570-013-9871-0 ↗
2. Baati R, Magnin A, Boufi S (2017) High solid content production of nanofibrillar cellulose via continuous extrusion. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 5:2350–2359. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b0267310.1021/acssuschemeng.6b02673 ↗
3. Barton AFM (1991) Handbook of solubility parameters and other cohesion parameters. pp 277–284
4. Beck S, Méthot M, Bouchard J (2015) General procedure for determining cellulose nanocrystal sulfate half-ester content by conductometric titration. Cellulose 22:101–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-014-0513-y10.1007/s10570-014-0513-y ↗
5. Benítez AJ, Walther A (2017) Cellulose nanofibril nanopapers and bioinspired nanocomposites: a review to understand the mechanical property space. J Mater Chem A 5:16003–16024. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ta02006f10.1039/c7ta02006f ↗
6. Benítez AJ, Torres-Rendon J, Poutanen M, Walther A (2013) Humidity and multiscale structure govern mechanical properties and deformation modes in films of native cellulose nanofibrils. Biomacromolecules 14:4497–4506. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm401451m10.1021/bm401451m ↗
7. Boufi S, Chaker A (2016) Easy production of cellulose nanofibrils from corn stalk by a conventional high speed blender. Ind Crops Prod 93:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.05.03010.1016/j.indcrop.2016.05.030 ↗
8. Burgert I, Keplinger T, Cabane E et al (2016) Biomaterial wood: wood-based and bioinspired materials. Elsevier, Amsterdam
9. Capadona JR, Shanmuganathan K, Tyler DJ et al (2008) Stimuli-responsive polymer nanocomposites inspired by the sea cucumber dermis. Science 319:1370–1374. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.115330710.1126/science.1153307 ↗
10. Chemin M, Beaumal B, Cathala B, Villares A (2020) Ph-responsive properties of asymmetric nanopapers of nanofibrillated cellulose. Nanomaterials 10:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano1007138010.3390/nano10071380 ↗
11. Chen Y, Wan J, Dong X, Ma Y (2013) Fiber properties of eucalyptus kraft pulp with different carboxyl group contents. Cellulose 206 20:2839–2846. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10570-013-0055-810.1007/S10570-013-0055-8 ↗
12. Chen W, Sun B, Biehl P, Zhang K (2022) Cellulose-based soft actuators. Macromol Mater Eng. https://doi.org/10.1002/mame.20220007210.1002/mame.202200072 ↗
13. da Silva Perez D, Montanari S, Vignon MR (2003) TEMPO-mediated oxidation of cellulose III. Biomacromolecules 4:1417–1425. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm034144s10.1021/bm034144s ↗
14. Dawson C, Vincent J, Rocca A (1997) How pine cone open. Nature 390:66810.1038/37745 ↗
15. Duan J, Liang X, Zhu K et al (2017) Bilayer hydrogel actuators with tight interfacial adhesion fully constructed from natural polysaccharides. Soft Matter 13:345–354. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6sm02089e10.1039/c6sm02089e ↗
16. Duchemin B (2022) The sustainability of phytomass-derived materials: thermodynamical aspects, life cycle analysis and research perspectives. Green Chem 24:2653–2679. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1gc03262c10.1039/d1gc03262c ↗
17. Duigou A, Le, Requile S, Beaugrand J et al (2017) Natural fibres actuators for smart bio-inspired hygromorph biocomposites. Smart Mater Struct 26:125009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-665X/AA941010.1088/1361-665X/AA9410 ↗
18. El Seoud OA, Fidale LC, Ruiz N et al (2008) Cellulose swelling by protic solvents: which properties of the biopolymer and the solvent matter? Cellulose 15:371–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-007-9189-x10.1007/s10570-007-9189-x ↗
19. Erb RM, Sander JS, Grisch R, Studart AR (2013) Self-shaping composites with programmable bioinspired microstructures. Nat Commun 4:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms266610.1038/ncomms2666 ↗
20. Fält S, Wågberg L, Vesterlind EL (2003) Swelling of model films of cellulose having different charge densities and comparison to the swelling behavior of corresponding fibers. Langmuir 19:7895–7903. https://doi.org/10.1021/la026984i10.1021/la026984i ↗
21. Faruk O, Bledzki AK, Fink HP, Sain M (2012) Biocomposites reinforced with natural fibers: 2000–2010. Prog Polym Sci 37:1552–1596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2012.04.00310.1016/j.progpolymsci.2012.04.003 ↗
22. Fidale LC, Ruiz N, Heinze T, El Seoud OA (2008) Cellulose swelling by aprotic and protic solvents: what are the similarities and differences? Macromol Chem Phys 209:1240–1254. https://doi.org/10.1002/macp.20080002110.1002/macp.200800021 ↗
23. French AD (2014) Idealized powder diffraction patterns for cellulose polymorphs. Cellulose 21:885–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10570-013-0030-410.1007/S10570-013-0030-4 ↗
24. French AD, Santiago Cintrón M (2013) Cellulose polymorphy, crystallite size, and the Segal Crystallinity Index. Cellulose 20:583–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-012-9833-y10.1007/s10570-012-9833-y ↗
25. Ganewatta MS, Wang Z, Tang C (2021) Chemical syntheses of bioinspired and biomimetic polymers toward biobased materials. Nat Rev Chem 2021 511 5:753–772. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-021-00325-x10.1038/s41570-021-00325-x ↗
26. Huber T, Müssig J, Curnow O et al (2011) A critical review of all-cellulose composites. J Mater Sci 47:1171–1186. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10853-011-5774-310.1007/S10853-011-5774-3 ↗
27. Im W, Lee S, Rajabi Abhari A et al (2018) Optimization of carboxymethylation reaction as a pretreatment for production of cellulose nanofibrils. Cellulose 25:3873–3883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-018-1853-910.1007/s10570-018-1853-9 ↗
28. Ju X, Bowden M, Brown EE, Zhang X (2015) An improved X-ray diffraction method for cellulose crystallinity measurement. Carbohydr Polym 123:476–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.12.07110.1016/j.carbpol.2014.12.071 ↗
29. Kono H, Oshima K, Hashimoto H et al (2016) NMR characterization of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose: substituent distribution and mole fraction of monomers in the polymer chains. Carbohydr Polym 146:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.03.02110.1016/j.carbpol.2016.03.021 ↗
30. Kuang Y, Chen C, Cheng J et al (2019) Selectively aligned cellulose nanofibers towards high-performance soft actuators. Extrem Mech Lett 29:100463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eml.2019.10046310.1016/j.eml.2019.100463 ↗
31. Liang Y, Liu C, Xiu H et al (2020) Effect of 3D printing parameters on self-driven deformation characteristics of intelligent hydrogel actuators. ChemistrySelect 5:10367–10373. https://doi.org/10.1002/slct.20200242410.1002/slct.202002424 ↗
32. Markstedt K, Håkansson K, Toriz G, Gatenholm P (2019) Materials from trees assembled by 3D printing: wood tissue beyond nature limits. Appl Mater Today 15:280–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2019.02.00510.1016/j.apmt.2019.02.005 ↗
33. Mayeen A, Shaji LK, Nair AK, Kalarikkal N (2018) Morphological characterization of nanomaterials. Charact Nanomater Adv Key Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101973-3.00012-210.1016/B978-0-08-101973-3.00012-2 ↗
34. Mohkami M, Talaeipour M (2011) Investigation of the chemical structure of carboxylated and carboxymethylated fibers from waste paper via XRD and FTIR analysis. BioResources 6:1988–200310.15376/biores.6.2.1988-2003 ↗
35. Mokhena TC, Sadiku ER, Mochane MJ et al (2021) Mechanical properties of cellulose nanofibril papers and their bionanocomposites: a review. Carbohydr Polym 273:118507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.11850710.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118507 ↗
36. Mulakkal MC, Trask RS, Ting VP, Seddon AM (2018) Responsive cellulose-hydrogel composite ink for 4D printing. Mater Des 160:108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.09.00910.1016/j.matdes.2018.09.009 ↗
37. Oh SY, Dong IY, Shin Y et al (2005) Crystalline structure analysis of cellulose treated with sodium hydroxide and carbon dioxide by means of X-ray diffraction and FTIR spectroscopy. Carbohydr Res 340:2376–2391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carres.2005.08.00710.1016/j.carres.2005.08.007 ↗
38. Peng N, Huang D, Gong C et al (2020) Controlled arrangement of Nanocellulose in Polymeric Matrix: from reinforcement to functionality. ACS Nano 14:16169–16179. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c0890610.1021/acsnano.0c08906 ↗
39. Reid MS, Villalobos M, Cranston ED (2016) Cellulose nanocrystal interactions probed by thin film swelling to predict dispersibility. Nanoscale 8:12247–12257. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6nr01737a10.1039/c6nr01737a ↗
40. Saito T, Isogai A (2004) TEMPO-Mediated oxidation of native cellulose. The Effect of Oxidation Conditions on Chemical and Crystal Structures of the water-insoluble fractions. Biomacromolecules 5:1983–1989. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm049776910.1021/bm0497769 ↗
41. Saito T, Shibata I, Isogai A et al (2005) Distribution of carboxylate groups introduced into cotton linters by the TEMPO-mediated oxidation. Carbohydr Polym 61:414–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2005.05.01410.1016/j.carbpol.2005.05.014 ↗
42. Schwanninger M, Rodrigues JC, Pereira H, Hinterstoisser B (2004) Effects of short-time vibratory ball milling on the shape of FT-IR spectra of wood and cellulose. Vib Spectrosc 36:23–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vibspec.2004.02.00310.1016/j.vibspec.2004.02.003 ↗
43. Segal L, Creely JJ, Martin AE, Conrad J CM (1959) An empirical method for estimating the degree of crystallinity of native cellulose using the X-Ray diffractometer. Text Res J 29:786–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405175590290100310.1177/004051755902901003 ↗
44. Smallwood IM (2012) Handbook of organic solvent properties. pp 1–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-23646-410.1016/C2009-0-23646-4 ↗
45. Srinivasan AV, Haritos GK, Hedberg FL (1991) Biomimetics: advancing man-made materials through guidance from nature. Appl Mech Rev 44:463–482. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.311948910.1115/1.3119489 ↗
46. Venkatram S, Kim C, Chandrasekaran A, Ramprasad R (2019) Critical assessment of the hildebrand and hansen solubility parameters for polymers. J Chem Inf Model. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.9b0065610.1021/acs.jcim.9b00656 ↗
47. Wågberg L, Decher G, Norgren M et al (2008) The build-up of polyelectrolyte multilayers of microfibrillated cellulose and cationic polyelectrolytes. Langmuir 24:784–795. https://doi.org/10.1021/la702481v10.1021/la702481v ↗
48. Wang M, Tian X, Ras RHA, Ikkala O (2015) Sensitive humidity-driven reversible and bidirectional bending of nanocellulose thin films as bio-inspired actuation. Adv Mater Interfaces 2:1500080. https://doi.org/10.1002/admi.20150008010.1002/admi.201500080 ↗
49. Wang X, Huang H, Liu H et al (2019) Multi-Responsive Bilayer Hydrogel Actuators with programmable and precisely tunable motions. Macromol Chem Phys 220:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/macp.20180056210.1002/macp.201800562 ↗
50. Wang L, Li K, Copenhaver K et al (2021) Review on nonconventional fibrillation methods of producing cellulose nanofibrils and their applications. Biomacromolecules 22:4037–4059. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.1C0064010.1021/acs.biomac.1C00640 ↗
51. Wei J, Jia S, Guan J et al (2021) Robust and highly sensitive cellulose nanofiber-based humidity actuators. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 13:54417–54427. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.1c1789410.1021/acsami.1c17894 ↗
52. Yang L, Cui J, Zhang L et al (2021) A moisture-driven actuator based on polydopamine-modified MXene/bacterial cellulose nanofiber composite film. Adv Funct Mater 31:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.20210137810.1002/adfm.202101378 ↗
53. Zhang L, Chizhik S, Wen Y, Naumov P (2016) Directed motility of hygroresponsive biomimetic actuators. Adv Funct Mater 26:1040–1053. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.20150392210.1002/adfm.201503922 ↗
54. Zhang X, Yu Y, Jiang Z, Wang H (2016b) Influence of thickness and moisture content on the mechanical properties of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) films. Wood Res 61:851–860
55. Zhao Q, Liang Y, Ren L et al (2018) Design and fabrication of nanofibrillated cellulose-containing bilayer hydrogel actuators with temperature and near infrared laser responses. J Mater Chem B 6:1260–1271. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7tb02853a10.1039/c7tb02853a ↗
56. Zhao Q, Chang Y, Yu Z et al (2020) Bionic intelligent soft actuators: high-strength gradient intelligent hydrogels with diverse controllable deformations and movements. J Mater Chem B 8:9362–9373. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0tb01927e10.1039/d0tb01927e ↗
57. Zhou S, Zhou S, Zhou Q et al (2020) Design and preparation of 3D printing intelligent poly N,N-dimethylacrylamide hydrogel actuators. E-Polymers 20:273–281. https://doi.org/10.1515/epoly-2020-003310.1515/epoly-2020-0033 ↗