"THERMAL STABILITY AND UV RESISTANCE OF NANOCELLULOSE/TANNIN HYBRID FILMS"
Source abstract
Abstract
"Nanofibrillated cellulose can be used as a robust scaffold filled with tannin particles. Such reinforcement may confer particular chemical features needed for the production of hybrid films used as active packaging. Based on this hypothesis, powdered tannin particles were incorporated into nanocellulose-based films at two different weight fractions. The chemical, thermal and mechanical properties of these films were determined. Also, their resistance to UV exposure was evaluated in terms of colorimetric and mechanical characteristics. Neither chemical nor thermal noticeable adverse effects could be ascribed to the tannin insertion. On the other hand, the insertion of 1 wt% tannin induced an increase of 60% in tensile strength, although this effect was not retained after UV exposure. Meanwhile, the film that incorporated 3 wt% tannin appeared to present stable mechanical properties after UV exposure. This mechanical stability over UV exposure was not obtained with the inclusion of 1 wt% tannin content. The hybrid nanofilms acquired brown shades, which were not retained when the films were exposed to UV radiation."
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Lignin and Wood Chemistry · biodegradable polymer synthesis and properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (25)
Show source-provided references
1. "1 European Environment Agency, Managing municipal solid waste - a review of achievements in 32 European countries - managing municipal solid waste, 2013, https://doi.org/10.2800/71424
2. 2 A. Tencati, S. Pogutz, B. Moda, M. Brambilla and C. Cacia, Waste Manag., 56, 35 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.06.02510.1016/j.wasman.2016.06.025 ↗
3. 3 A. L. Missio. B. D. Mattos, C. G. Otoni, M. Gentil, R. Coldebella et al., Biomacromolecules, 21, 1865 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.9b0173310.1021/acs.biomac.9b01733 ↗
4. 4 A. L. Missio, B. D. Mattos, D. de F. Ferreira, W. L. E. Magalhães, D. A. Bertuol et al., J. Clean. Prod., 184, 143 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.20510.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.205 ↗
5. 5 N. Lavoine and L. Bergström, J. Mater. Chem. A, 5, 16105 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ta02807e10.1039/C7TA02807E ↗
6. 6 M. Makarem, C. M. Lee, K. Kafle, S. Huang, I. Chae et al., Cellulose, 26, 35 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-018-2199-z10.1007/s10570-018-2199-z ↗
7. 7 T. Abitbol, A. Rivkin, Y. Cao, Y. Nevo, E. Abraham, T. Ben-Shalom et al., Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 39, 76 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2016.01.00210.1016/j.copbio.2016.01.002 ↗
8. 8 R. Coldebella, M. Gentil, C. Berger, H. W. Dalla Costa, C. Pedrazzi et al., Polymers (Basel), 13, 908 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/polym1306090810.3390/polym13060908 ↗
9. 9 N. Noshirvani, B. Ghanbarzadeh, R. Rezaei Mokarram and M. Hashemi, Food Packag. Shelf Life, 11, 106 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2017.01.01010.1016/j.fpsl.2017.01.010 ↗
10. 10 Z. Yu, L. Sun, W. Wang, W. Zeng, A. Mustapha et al., Ind. Crop. Prod., 112, 412 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.12.03110.1016/j.indcrop.2017.12.031 ↗
11. 11 M. A. Salah and A. Salama, Cellulose Chem. Technol., 55, 649 (2021), https://doi.org/10.35812/CelluloseChemTechnol.2021.55.5310.35812/CelluloseChemTechnol.2021.55.53 ↗
12. 12 L. Leite, S. Bilatto, R. T. Paschoalin, A. C. Soares, F. K. V. Moreira et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 165, 2974 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.10.18910.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.10.189 ↗
13. 13 J. P. de Oliveira, G. Pinheiro Bruni, S. L. Mello el Halal, F. C. Bertoldi, A. R. Guerra Dias et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 124, 175 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.11.20510.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.11.205 ↗
14. 14 H. Wang and L. Wang, J. Clean. Prod., 143, 624 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.06410.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.064 ↗
15. 15 K. J. Olejar, S. Ray, A. Ricci and P. A. Kilmartin, Cellulose, 21, 4545 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-014-0447-410.1007/s10570-014-0447-4 ↗
16. 16 J. Huang, Z. Lu, J. Li, D. Ning, Z. Jin et al., Carbohyd. Polym., 255, 117330 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.11733010.1016/j.carbpol.2020.117330 ↗
17. 17 P. Li, J. A. Sirviö, A. Haapala, A. Khakalo and H. Liimatainen, Food Hydrocoll., 92, 208 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.02.00210.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.02.002 ↗
18. 18 M. N. N. Kumode, G. Bolzon, W. Magalhães and S. G. Kestur, J. Clean. Prod., 149, 1157 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.08310.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.083 ↗
19. 19 B. Sun, A. Huang, Y. Wang and J. Liu, J. Nat. Fibers, 12, 1 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2013.79690710.1080/15440478.2013.796907 ↗
20. 20 S. S. Darwish, N. M. N. el Hadidi and M. Mansour, Int. J. Conserv. Sci., 4, 271 (2013), https://doaj.org/article/334a2fd03a4f4dc9a5e66a487da63db5
21. 21 H. Ejima, J. Richardson, K. Liang, J. P. Best, M. P. van Koeverden et al., Science, 341, 154 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1126/science.123726510.1126/science.1237265 ↗
22. 22 J. Guo, B. Tardy and A. Christofferson et al., Nature Nanotech., 11, 1105 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2016.17210.1038/nnano.2016.172 ↗
23. 23 P. Cerruti, G. Santagata, G. Gomez d'Ayala, V. Ambrogi, C. Carfagna et al., Polym. Degrad. Stab., 96, 839 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2011.02.00310.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2011.02.003 ↗
24. 24 S. Kamel, Express Polym. Lett., 1, 546 (2007), https://doi.org/10.3144/expresspolymlett.2007.7810.3144/expresspolymlett.2007.78 ↗
25. "