Trends in the production of cellulose nanofibers from non-wood sources
Source abstract
Abstract
The rise of biomass-derived nanocellulose addresses the sustainability criteria now demanded of new materials, which have been widely overlooked in the plastics era—renewability, abundance, biodegradability, and recyclability. Cellulose nanofibers have conventionally been extracted from wood products, supported by an established forestry infrastructure, but the drive for biomass sustainability has encouraged researchers to explore non-wood sources over the past 15 years. Non-wood sources, including agricultural residues and industrial wastes, offer an attractive alternative due to their abundance, fast generation, and low starting value. Moreover, agricultural residues can improve the sustainability of cellulose nanofiber processing from multiple angles. The biochemical composition of the typical agricultural residue, which is lower in lignin and higher in hemicellulose than wood stems, improves the fibrillation efficiency of cellulose bundles into nano-scale fibers. In addition, agricultural residues yield high biomass volume from short growth cycles with improved land utilisation, whilst offsetting environmental issues associated with their current uses. In this work, we performed a comprehensive literature evaluation of the biomass sources used to produce cellulose nanofibers. Of the 3358 cellulose nanofiber publications from 2004 to 2018 with an identifiable source material, 57% were derived from wood-based biomass and 30% from non-wood biomass, with 100 unique biomass sources identified. Furthermore, the top research fields associated with non-wood publications included general characterisation (36%), plastic nanocomposites (19%), bionanocomposites (9%), biomedical products (8%), and electronic devices (6%). As social, political and economic drivers reinforce sustainability as a key focus in nanocellulose production, this bibliometric resource provides a timely snapshot of the sustainability trends in cellulose nanofiber research.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Cellulose Research Studies · Lignin and Wood Chemistry · Biofuel production and bioconversion
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Abdul Khalil HPS, Bhat AH, Abu Bakar A et al (2015) Cellulosic nanocomposites from natural fibers for medical applications: a review. In: Pandey JK, Takagi H, Nakagaito AN, Kim H-J (eds) Handbook of polymer nanocomposites. processing, performance and application: volume c: polymer nanocomposites of cellulose nanoparticles, processing, performance and application. Springer, Berlin, pp 475–51110.1007/978-3-642-45232-1_72 ↗
2. Abdul Khalil HPS, Davoudpour Y, Saurabh CK et al (2016) A review on nanocellulosic fibres as new material for sustainable packaging: process and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 64:823–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.07210.1016/j.rser.2016.06.072 ↗
3. Adel AM, El-Gendy AA, Diab MA et al (2016) Microfibrillated cellulose from agricultural residues. Part I: papermaking application. Ind Crops Prod 93:161–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.04.04310.1016/j.indcrop.2016.04.043 ↗
4. Alila S, Besbes I, Vilar MR et al (2013) Non-woody plants as raw materials for production of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC): a comparative study. Ind Crops Prod 41:250–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.04.02810.1016/j.indcrop.2012.04.028 ↗
5. Anagnost SE, Mark RE, Hanna RB (2002) Variation of microfibril angle within individual tracheids. Wood Fiber Sci 34:337–349
6. Asper M, Hanrieder T, Quellmalz A, Mihranyan A (2015) Removal of xenotropic murine leukemia virus by nanocellulose based filter paper. Biologicals 43:452–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biologicals.2015.08.00110.1016/j.biologicals.2015.08.001 ↗
7. Balea A, Merayo N, De La Fuente E et al (2017) Assessing the influence of refining, bleaching and TEMPO-mediated oxidation on the production of more sustainable cellulose nanofibers and their application as paper additives. Ind Crops Prod 97:374–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.12.05010.1016/j.indcrop.2016.12.050 ↗
8. 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 ↗
9. Boufi S (2017) Agricultural crop residue as a source for the production of cellulose nanofibrils. Cellul Nanofibre Compos. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100957-4.00006-110.1016/B978-0-08-100957-4.00006-1 ↗
10. Chaker A, Alila S, Mutje P et al (2013) Key role of the hemicellulose content and the cell morphology on the nanofibrillation effectiveness of cellulose pulps. Cellulose 20:2863–2875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-013-0036-y10.1007/s10570-013-0036-y ↗
11. Chaker A, Mutjé P, Vilar MR, Boufi S (2014) Agriculture crop residues as a source for the production of nanofibrillated cellulose with low energy demand. Cellulose 21:4247–4259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-014-0454-510.1007/s10570-014-0454-5 ↗
12. Chen C, Hu L (2018) Nanocellulose toward advanced energy storage devices: structure and electrochemistry. Acc Chem Res 51:3154–3165. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.8b0039110.1021/acs.accounts.8b00391 ↗
13. Chen YW, Lee HV (2018) Revalorization of selected municipal solid wastes as new precursors of “green” nanocellulose via a novel one-pot isolation system: a source perspective. Int J Biol Macromol 107:78–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.08.14310.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.08.143 ↗
14. Chen Y, Geng B, Ru J et al (2017) Comparative characteristics of TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibers and resulting nanopapers from bamboo, softwood, and hardwood pulps. Cellulose 24:4831–4844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-017-1478-410.1007/s10570-017-1478-4 ↗
15. Courchene CE, Peter GF, Litvay J (2005) Cellulose microfibril angle as a determinant of paper strength and hygroexpansivity in Pinus taeda L. Wood Fiber Sci 38:112–120
16. Das IK, Rakshit S (2016) Millets, their importance, and production constraints. In: Padmaja PG, Das IK (eds) Biotic stress resistance in millets. Academic Press, New York, pp 3–1910.1016/B978-0-12-804549-7.00001-9 ↗
17. Davis CS, Grolman DL, Karim A, Gilman JW (2015) What do we still need to understand to commercialize cellulose nanomaterials? Green Mater 3:53–58. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgrma.15.0001310.1680/jgrma.15.00013 ↗
18. Delgado-Aguilar M, González I, Tarrés Q et al (2016) The key role of lignin in the production of low-cost lignocellulosic nanofibres for papermaking applications. Ind Crops Prod 86:295–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.04.01010.1016/j.indcrop.2016.04.010 ↗
19. Fahma F, Iwamoto S, Hori N et al (2010) Isolation, preparation, and characterization of nanofibers from oil palm empty-fruit-bunch (OPEFB). Cellulose 17:977–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-010-9436-410.1007/s10570-010-9436-4 ↗
20. FAOSTAT (2019) FAOSTAT statistical database
21. Farahbakhsh N, Roodposhti PS, Ayoub A et al (2015) Melt extrusion of polyethylene nanocomposites reinforced with nanofibrillated cellulose from cotton and wood sources. J Appl Polym Sci. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.4185710.1002/app.41857 ↗
22. Favier V, Canova GR, Cavaille JY et al (1995a) Nanocomposite materials from latex and cellulose whiskers. Polym Adv Technol 6:351–35510.1002/pat.1995.220060514 ↗
23. Favier V, Chanzy H, Cavaillé JY (1995b) Polymer nanocomposites reinforced by cellulose whiskers. Macromolecules 28:6365–6367. https://doi.org/10.1021/ma00122a05310.1021/ma00122a053 ↗
24. Ferraz N, Carlsson DO, Hong J et al (2012a) Haemocompatibility and ion exchange capability of nanocellulose polypyrrole membranes intended for blood purification. J R Soc Interface 9:1943–1955. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2012.001910.1098/rsif.2012.0019 ↗
25. Ferraz N, Straømme M, Fellström B et al (2012b) In vitro and in vivo toxicity of rinsed and aged nanocellulose-polypyrrole composites. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 100A:2128–2138. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.3407010.1002/jbm.a.34070 ↗
26. Ferrer A, Filpponen I, Rodríguez A et al (2012a) Valorization of residual Empty Palm Fruit Bunch Fibers (EPFBF) by microfluidization: production of nanofibrillated cellulose and EPFBF nanopaper. Bioresour Technol 125:249–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.10810.1016/j.biortech.2012.08.108 ↗
27. Ferrer A, Quintana E, Filpponen E et al (2012b) Effect of residual lignin and heteropolysaccharides in nanofibrillar cellulose and nanopaper from wood fibers. Cellulose 19:2179–2193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-012-9788-z10.1007/s10570-012-9788-z ↗
28. FitzPatrick M, Champagne P, Cunningham MF, Whitney RA (2010) A biorefinery processing perspective: treatment of lignocellulosic materials for the production of value-added products. Bioresour Technol 101:8915–8922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.12510.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.125 ↗
29. García A, Gandini A, Labidi J et al (2016) Industrial and crop wastes: a new source for nanocellulose biorefinery. Ind Crops Prod 93:26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.06.00410.1016/j.indcrop.2016.06.004 ↗
30. Gardner KH, Blackwell J (1974) The structure of native cellulose. Biopolymers 13:1975–2001. https://doi.org/10.1002/bip.1974.36013100510.1002/bip.1974.360131005 ↗
31. Gassan J, Chate A, Bledzki AK (2001) Calculation of elastic properties of natural fibers. J Mater Sci 36:3715–3720. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101796961592510.1023/A:1017969615925 ↗
32. Gupta A, Verma JP (2015) Sustainable bio-ethanol production from agro-residues: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:550–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.03210.1016/j.rser.2014.08.032 ↗
33. Habibi Y (2014) Key advances in the chemical modification of nanocelluloses. Chem Soc Rev 43:1519–1542. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3cs60204d10.1039/c3cs60204d ↗
34. Hassan ML, Mathew AP, Hassan EA et al (2012) Nanofibers from bagasse and rice straw: process optimization and properties. Wood Sci Technol 46:193–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00226-010-0373-z10.1007/s00226-010-0373-z ↗
35. Hayes MHB, Mylotte R, Swift RS (2017) Humin: its composition and importance in soil organic matter, 1st edn. Elsevier Inc, New York
36. Hessler LE, Merola GV, Berkley EE (1948) Degree of polymerization of cellulose in cotton fibers. Text Res J 18:628–63410.1177/004051754801801004 ↗
37. Hosseinmardi A, Annamalai PK, Wang L et al (2017) Reinforcement of natural rubber latex using lignocellulosic nanofibers isolated from spinifex grass. Nanoscale 9:9510–9519. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7NR02632C10.1039/C7NR02632C ↗
38. Huang HJ, Ramaswamy S, Tschirner UW, Ramarao BV (2008) A review of separation technologies in current and future biorefineries. Sep Purif Technol 62:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2007.12.01110.1016/j.seppur.2007.12.011 ↗
39. Jiang Y, Liu X, Yang Q et al (2018) Effects of residual lignin on mechanical defibrillation process of cellulosic fiber for producing lignocellulose nanofibrils. Cellulose 25:6479–6494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-018-2042-610.1007/s10570-018-2042-6 ↗
40. Jiang Y, Liu X, Yang Q et al (2019) Effects of residual lignin on composition, structure and properties of mechanically defibrillated cellulose fibrils and films. Cellulose 26:1577–1593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-018-02229-410.1007/s10570-018-02229-4 ↗
41. Jonoobi M, Oladi R, Davoudpour Y et al (2015) Different preparation methods and properties of nanostructured cellulose from various natural resources and residues: a review. Cellulose 22:935–969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-015-0551-010.1007/s10570-015-0551-0 ↗
42. Jorfi M, Foster EJ (2015) Recent advances in nanocellulose for biomedical applications. J Appl Polym Sci 132:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.4171910.1002/app.41719 ↗
43. Kalia S, Dufresne A, Cherian BM et al (2011) Cellulose-based bio- and nanocomposites: a review. Int J Polym Sci 2011:35. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/83787510.1155/2011/837875 ↗
44. Kampeerapappun P (2012) Preparation characterization and antimicrobial activity of electrospun nanofibers from cotton waste fibers. Chiang Mai J Sci 39:712–722
45. Kargarzadeh H, Mariano M, Huang J et al (2017) Recent developments on nanocellulose reinforced polymer nanocomposites: a review. Polymer (Guildf) 132:368–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.POLYMER.2017.09.04310.1016/J.POLYMER.2017.09.043 ↗
46. Kargarzadeh H, Mariano M, Gopakumar D et al (2018) Advances in cellulose nanomaterials. Springer, Netherlands10.1007/s10570-018-1723-5 ↗
47. Kenney KL, Smith WA, Gresham GL, Westover TL (2013) Understanding biomass feedstock variability. Biofuels 4:111–127. https://doi.org/10.4155/bfs.12.8310.4155/bfs.12.83 ↗
48. Konandreas P, Schmidhuber J (2007) Global biofuel production trends and possible implications for Swaziland
49. Kumar P, Barrett DM, Delwiche MJ, Stroeve P (2009) Methods for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for efficient hydrolysis. Ind Eng Chem Res 48:3713–372910.1021/ie801542g ↗
50. Kumar A, Singh SP, Singh AK (2016) Comparative study of cellulose nanofiber blending effect on properties of paper made from bleached bagasse, hardwood and softwood pulps. Cellulose 23:2663–2675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-016-0954-610.1007/s10570-016-0954-6 ↗
51. Laftah WA, Wan Abdul Rahman WA (2016) Pulping process and the potential of using non-wood pineapple leaves fiber for pulp and paper production: a review. J Nat Fibers 13:85–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2014.98406010.1080/15440478.2014.984060 ↗
52. Lavoine N, Desloges I, Dufresne A, Bras J (2012) Microfibrillated cellulose—its barrier properties and applications in cellulosic materials: a review. Carbohydr Polym 90:735–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.05.02610.1016/j.carbpol.2012.05.026 ↗
53. Lee SH, Chang F, Inoue S, Endo T (2010) Increase in enzyme accessibility by generation of nanospace in cell wall supramolecular structure. Bioresour Technol 101:7218–7223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.04.06910.1016/j.biortech.2010.04.069 ↗
54. Lessard G, Chouinard A (1980) In: Bamboo research in Asia: proceedings of a workshop held in Singapore, 28–30 May 1980. IDRC, Ottawa, ON, CA
55. Li S, Bashline L, Lei L (2014) Cellulose synthesis and its regulation. The Arabidopsis Book/American Society of Plant Biologists. https://doi.org/10.1199/tab.016910.1199/tab.0169 ↗
56. Liu X, Jiang Y, Qin C et al (2018) Enzyme-assisted mechanical grinding for cellulose nanofibers from bagasse: energy consumption and nanofiber characteristics. Cellulose 25:7065–7078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-018-2071-110.1007/s10570-018-2071-1 ↗
57. Madsen B, Gamstedt EK (2013) Wood versus plant fibers: similarities and differences in composite applications. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2013:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/56434610.1155/2013/564346 ↗
58. Makavana JM, Agravat VV, Balas PR et al (2018) Engineering properties of various agricultural residue. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 7:2362–2367. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.706.28210.20546/ijcmas.2018.706.282 ↗
59. Malucelli LC, Matos M, Jordão C et al (2018) Grinding severity influences the viscosity of cellulose nanofiber (CNF) suspensions and mechanical properties of nanopaper. Cellulose 25:6581–6589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-018-2031-910.1007/s10570-018-2031-9 ↗
60. Mayer-Laigle C, Blanc N, Rajaonarivony R, Rouau X (2018) Comminution of dry lignocellulosic biomass, a review: part I. From fundamental mechanisms to milling behaviour. Bioengineering 5:41. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering502004110.3390/bioengineering5020041 ↗
61. Metreveli G, Wågberg L, Emmoth E et al (2014) A size-exclusion nanocellulose filter paper for virus removal. Adv Healthc Mater 3:1546–1550. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.20130064110.1002/adhm.201300641 ↗
62. Miao Z, Grift TE, Hansen AC, Ting KC (2011) Energy requirement for comminution of biomass in relation to particle physical properties. Ind Crops Prod 33:504–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2010.12.01610.1016/j.indcrop.2010.12.016 ↗
63. Milanez DH, Noyons E, de Faria LIL (2016) A delineating procedure to retrieve relevant publication data in research areas: the case of nanocellulose. Scientometrics 107:627–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1922-510.1007/s11192-016-1922-5 ↗
64. Miller J (2015) Nanocellulose State of the industry. TAPPI Nano. http://www.tappinano.org/media/1114/cellulose-nanomaterials-production-state-of-the-industry-dec-2015.pdf
65. Missoum K, Belgacem MN, Bras J (2013) Nanofibrillated cellulose surface modification: a review. Materials (Basel) 6:1745–1766. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma605174510.3390/ma6051745 ↗
66. Naimi LJ, Sokhansanj S, Bi X, Lim CJ (2016) Development of a size reduction equation for woody biomass: the influence of branch wood properties on Rittinger’s constant. Trans ASABE 59:1475–1484. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.59.1134710.13031/trans.59.11347 ↗
67. Nair SS, Yan N (2015) Effect of high residual lignin on the thermal stability of nanofibrils and its enhanced mechanical performance in aqueous environments. Cellulose 22:3137–3150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-015-0737-510.1007/s10570-015-0737-5 ↗
68. Nechyporchuk O, Belgacem MN, Bras J (2016) Production of cellulose nanofibrils: a review of recent advances. Ind Crops Prod 93:2–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.02.01610.1016/j.indcrop.2016.02.016 ↗
69. Niimura H, Yokoyama T, Kimura S et al (2010) AFM observation of ultrathin microfibrils in fruit tissues. Cellulose 17:13–1810.1007/s10570-009-9361-6 ↗
70. Novaes E, Kirst M, Chiang V et al (2010) Lignin and biomass: a negative correlation for wood formation and lignin content in trees. Plant Physiol 154:555–561. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.110.16128110.1104/pp.110.161281 ↗
71. Okahisa Y, Abe K, Nogi M et al (2011) Effects of delignification in the production of plant-based cellulose nanofibers for optically transparent nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 71:1342–1347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2011.05.00610.1016/j.compscitech.2011.05.006 ↗
72. Okahisa Y, Furukawa Y, Ishimoto K et al (2018) Comparison of cellulose nanofiber properties produced from different parts of the oil palm tree. Carbohydr Polym 198:313–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.06.08910.1016/j.carbpol.2018.06.089 ↗
73. Oksman K, Aitomäki Y, Mathew AP et al (2016) Review of the recent developments in cellulose nanocomposite processing. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 83:2–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.10.04110.1016/j.compositesa.2015.10.041 ↗
74. Osong SH, Norgren S, Engstrand P (2016) Processing of wood-based microfibrillated cellulose and nanofibrillated cellulose, and applications relating to papermaking: a review. Cellulose 23:93–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-015-0798-510.1007/s10570-015-0798-5 ↗
75. Parajuli R, Dalgaard T, Jørgensen U et al (2015) Biorefi ning in the prevailing energy and materials crisis: a review of sustainable pathways for biorefinery value chains and sustainability assessment methodologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 43:244–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.04110.1016/j.rser.2014.11.041 ↗
76. Park C-W, Han S-Y, Namgung H-W et al (2017) Preparation and characterization of cellulose nanofibrils with varying chemical compositions. BioResources 12:5031–5044. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.12.3.5031-504410.15376/biores.12.3.5031-5044 ↗
77. Pennells J, Yu Lin T, Schmidt S et al (2018) Effects of the growth environment on the yield and material properties of nanocellulose derived from the Australian desert grass Triodia. Ind Crops Prod 126:238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.09.05710.1016/j.indcrop.2018.09.057 ↗
78. Phitsuwan P, Sakka K, Ratanakhanokchai K (2013) Improvement of lignocellulosic biomass in planta: a review of feedstocks, biomass recalcitrance, and strategic manipulation of ideal plants designed for ethanol production and processability. Biomass Bioenerg 58:390–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.08.02710.1016/j.biombioe.2013.08.027 ↗
79. Postek MT, Vladár A, Dagata J et al (2011) Development of the metrology and imaging of cellulose nanocrystals. Meas Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/22/2/02400510.1088/0957-0233/22/2/024005 ↗
80. Prakasham RS, Nagaiah D, Vinutha KS et al (2014) Sorghum biomass: a novel renewable carbon source for industrial bioproducts. Biofuels 5:159–174. https://doi.org/10.4155/bfs.13.7410.4155/bfs.13.74 ↗
81. Puangsin B, Yang Q, Saito T, Isogai A (2013) Comparative characterization of TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibril films prepared from non-wood resources. Int J Biol Macromol 59:208–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2013.04.01610.1016/j.ijbiomac.2013.04.016 ↗
82. Rajinipriya M, Nagalakshmaiah M, Robert M, Elkoun S (2018) Importance of agricultural and industrial waste in the field of nanocellulose and recent industrial developments of wood based nanocellulose: a review. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 6:2807–2828. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b0343710.1021/acssuschemeng.7b03437 ↗
83. Rocha I, Ferraz N, Mihranyan A et al (2018) Sulfonated nanocellulose beads as potential immunosorbents. Cellulose 25:1899–1910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-018-1661-210.1007/s10570-018-1661-2 ↗
84. Rojo E, Peresin MS, Sampson WW et al (2015) Comprehensive elucidation of the effect of residual lignin on the physical, barrier, mechanical and surface properties of nanocellulose films. Green Chem 17:1853–1866. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4GC02398F10.1039/C4GC02398F ↗
85. Rol F, Belgacem MN, Gandini A, Bras J (2019) Recent advances in surface-modified cellulose nanofibrils. Prog Polym Sci 88:241–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2018.09.00210.1016/j.progpolymsci.2018.09.002 ↗
86. Sampaio S, Bishop D, Shen J (2005) Physical and chemical properties of flax fibres from stand-retted crops desiccated at different stages of maturity. Ind Crops Prod 21:275–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2004.04.00110.1016/j.indcrop.2004.04.001 ↗
87. Shahid-Ul-Islam, Shahid M, Mohammad F (2013) Perspectives for natural product based agents derived from industrial plants in textile applications—a review. J Clean Prod 57:2–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.00410.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.004 ↗
88. Sharma R, Kumar V, Kumar R (2019) Distribution of phytoliths in plants: a review. Geol Ecol Landsc 3:123–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2018.152283810.1080/24749508.2018.1522838 ↗
89. Solala I, Vuorinen T, Volperts A et al (2012) Mechanoradical formation and its effects on birch kraft pulp during the preparation of nanofibrillated cellulose with Masuko refining. Holzforschung 66:477–483. https://doi.org/10.1515/hf.2011.18310.1515/hf.2011.183 ↗
90. Tao G, Lestander TA, Geladi P, Xiong S (2012) Biomass properties in association with plant species and assortments I: a synthesis based on literature data of energy properties. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:3481–3506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.03910.1016/j.rser.2012.02.039 ↗
91. TAPPI (2013) Proposed new TAPPI standard: standard terms and their definition for cellulose nanomaterial
92. Thakur VK (2014) Nanocellulose polymer nanocomposites: fundamentals and applications. Wiley, New York10.1002/9781118872246 ↗
93. Thygesen A, Thomsen AB, Daniel G, Lilholt H (2007) Comparison of composites made from fungal defibrated hemp with composites of traditional hemp yarn. Ind Crops Prod 25:147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2006.08.00210.1016/j.indcrop.2006.08.002 ↗
94. Tsuboi K, Yokota S, Kondo T (2014) Difference between bamboo- and wood-derived cellulose nanofibers prepared by the aqueous counter collision method. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 29:69–76. https://doi.org/10.3183/npprj-2014-29-01-p069-07610.3183/npprj-2014-29-01-p069-076 ↗
95. Tumuluru JS, Tabil LG, Song Y et al (2014) Grinding energy and physical properties of chopped and hammer-milled barley, wheat, oat, and canola straws. Biomass Bioenerg 60:58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.10.01110.1016/j.biombioe.2013.10.011 ↗
96. Turbak AF, Snyder FW, Sandberg KR (1983) Microfibrillated cellulose
97. Väisänen T, Haapala A, Lappalainen R, Tomppo L (2016) Utilization of agricultural and forest industry waste and residues in natural fiber-polymer composites: a review. Waste Manag 54:62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.04.03710.1016/j.wasman.2016.04.037 ↗
98. Vassilev SV, Baxter D, Andersen LK et al (2012) An overview of the organic and inorganic phase composition of biomass. Fuel 94:1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.09.03010.1016/j.fuel.2011.09.030 ↗
99. Vogel J (2008) Unique aspects of the grass cell wall. Curr Opin Plant Biol 11:301–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2008.03.00210.1016/j.pbi.2008.03.002 ↗
100. Voloshin RA, Rodionova MV, Zharmukhamedov SK et al (2016) Review: biofuel production from plant and algal biomass. Int J Hydrog Energy 41:17257–17273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.07.08410.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.07.084 ↗