| Literature DB >> 28772441 |
Siwei Huang1, Ling Zhou2, Mei-Chun Li3, Qinglin Wu4, Dingguo Zhou5.
Abstract
Cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) were isolated from corn stalk using sulfuric acid hydrolysis, and their morphology, chemical structure, and thermal stability properties were characterized. The CNCs had an average length of 120.2 ± 61.3 nm and diameter of 6.4 ± 3.1 nm (L/D = 18.7). The degree of crystallinity of the CNCs increased to 69.20% from the 33.20% crystallinity of raw corn stalk fiber, while the chemical structure was well kept after sulfuric acid hydrolysis. Thermal stability analysis showed that the degradation temperature of the CNCs reached 239.5 °C, which was higher than that of the raw fiber but lower than that of the extracted cellulose. The average activation energy values for the CNCs, evaluated using the Friedman, Flynn-Wall-Ozawa (F-W-O) and Coats-Redfern methods, were 312.6, 302.8, and 309 kJ·mol-1 in the conversion range of 0.1 to 0.8. The isolated CNCs had higher values of activation energy than did the purified cellulose, which was attributed to the stronger hydrogen bonds present in the crystalline domains of CNCs than in those of cellulose. These findings can help better understand the thermal properties of polymer/CNC composites.Entities:
Keywords: activation energy; cellulose nanocrystal; corn stalk; fiber; thermal properties
Year: 2017 PMID: 28772441 PMCID: PMC5344553 DOI: 10.3390/ma10010080
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1SEM micrographs of (a) the raw material and (b) the extracted cellulose; (c,d) transmission electron microscopy (TEM) micrographs of the cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) isolated from the corn stalk.
Figure 2X-ray diffraction patterns of (i) the raw material; (ii) the extracted cellulose; and (iii) the CNCs.
Figure 3Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) spectra of (i) the raw material; (ii) the extracted cellulose; and (iii) the CNCs.
Figure 4(a) Thermo-gravimetric (TG) and (b) Derivative TG curves of (i) the raw material; (ii) the cellulose; and (iii) the CNCs isolated from the corn stalk at a heating rate of 5 °C/min.
Characteristic temperatures of the decomposition reactions of (i) the raw material; (ii) the extracted cellulose; and (iii) the CNCs.
| Heating Rate (°C/min) | Sample | Residue (%) | ( | ( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| i | 169.24 | 7.58 | 326.20 | 51.71 | 339.19 | 59.04 | 19.53 | 51.46 | 169.95 | |
| 5 | ii | 305.55 | 37.98 | 321.31 | 52.38 | 332.56 | 63.20 | 22.14 | 25.22 | 27.01 |
| iii | 241.38 | 10.09 | 258.92 | 20.86 | 279.10 | 30.43 | 16.12 | 20.34 | 37.72 | |
| i | 175.91 | 5.00 | 332.20 | 45.34 | 353.45 | 54.45 | 30.98 | 49.45 | 177.54 | |
| 10 | ii | 314.24 | 37.13 | 330.57 | 53.17 | 341.25 | 64.21 | 21.41 | 27.08 | 27.01 |
| iii | 248.47 | 9.17 | 269.16 | 24.30 | 286.79 | 34.36 | 20.67 | 25.19 | 38.32 | |
| i | 177.00 | 5.77 | 344.84 | 51.13 | 365.71 | 63.40 | 17.90 | 57.63 | 188.71 | |
| 20 | ii | 320.42 | 32.43 | 340.19 | 50.80 | 350.55 | 62.40 | 22.55 | 29.79 | 30.13 |
| iii | 239.63 | 5.07 | 259.49 | 17.18 | 280.24 | 30.95 | 21.96 | 25.88 | 40.61 | |
| i | 177.03 | 7.61 | 345.49 | 47.75 | 368.65 | 65.54 | 23.16 | 57.93 | 191.62 | |
| 30 | ii | 317.94 | 41.34 | 340.27 | 44.01 | 368.52 | 68.43 | 21.88 | 27.09 | 50.58 |
| iii | 230.15 | 5.56 | 259.79 | 19.00 | 291.06 | 36.21 | 21.39 | 30.65 | 60.91 |
T = Temperature; o = onset; p = DTG peak; s = shift; W = weight loss.
Figure 5Differential scanning calorimeter (DSC) heating curves of (i) the raw material; (ii) the extracted cellulose; and (iii) the CNCs.
Figure 6Typical iso-conversion plot for the cellulose and the CNCs using the (a,b) Friedman method; (c,d) Flynn-Wall-Ozawa method; and (e,f) Coats-Redfern method.
Activation energy of the cellulose, calculated by the three methods in the range of a = 0.1–0.8.
| Conversion Rate | Friedman | F-W-O | Coats-Redfern | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E (KJ/mol) a | R2 | E (KJ/mol) a | R2 | E (KJ/mol) a | R2 | |
| 0.1 | 154.3 (±0.2) | 0.9834 | 167.7 (±0.2) | 0.9829 | 167.0 (±0.2) | 0.9810 |
| 0.2 | 142.5 (±0.2) | 0.9917 | 154.4 (±0.2) | 0.9947 | 152.6 (±0.1) | 0.9939 |
| 0.3 | 142.9 (±0.2) | 0.9915 | 154.4 (±0.2) | 0.9947 | 152.3 (±0.1) | 0.9939 |
| 0.4 | 146.8 (±0.2) | 0.9395 | 158.5 (±0.2) | 0.9458 | 156.5 (±0.2) | 0.9388 |
| 0.5 | 147.1 (±0.2) | 0.9394 | 158.5 (±0.2) | 0.9458 | 156.4 (±0.2) | 0.9387 |
| 0.6 | 143.7 (±0.2) | 0.9913 | 154.4 (±0.2) | 0.9947 | 152.0 (±0.2) | 0.9939 |
| 0.7 | 166.4 (±0.3) | 0.9976 | 169.1 (±0.2) | 0.9702 | 167.3 (±0.2) | 0.9662 |
| 0.8 | 169.9 (±0.3) | 0.9867 | 158.5 (±0.2) | 0.9458 | 156.1 (±0.1) | 0.9385 |
| Mean | 151.7 (±0.2) | 0.9776 | 175.4 (±0.2) | 0.9718 | 157.5 (±0.2) | 0.9681 |
E: Apparent energy of activation; a Values from cellulose with standard deviation.
Activation energy of the CNCs, calculated by the three methods in the range of a = 0.1 to 0.8.
| Conversion Rate | Friedman | F-W-O | Coats-Redfern | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E (KJ/mol) a | R2 | E (KJ/mol) a | R2 | E (KJ/mol) a | R2 | |
| 0.1 | 242.6 (±0.2) | 0.9959 | 239.0 (±0.2) | 0.9955 | 242.7 (±0.2) | 0.9952 |
| 0.2 | 289.9 (±0.1) | 0.9972 | 285.2 (±0.2) | 0.9971 | 291.2 (±0.2) | 0.9968 |
| 0.3 | 302.2 (±0.3) | 0.9999 | 299.4 (±0.2) | 0.9996 | 305.9 (±0.2) | 0.9995 |
| 0.4 | 304.9 (±0.3) | 0.9984 | 302.3 (±0.1) | 0.9974 | 308.9 (±0.1) | 0.9972 |
| 0.5 | 305.3 (±0.3) | 0.9976 | 295.0 (±0.2) | 0.9984 | 300.8 (±0.2) | 0.9982 |
| 0.6 | 311.7 (±0.3) | 0.9836 | 304.8 (±0.1) | 0.9721 | 310.8 (±0.1) | 0.9704 |
| 0.7 | 356.1 (±0.3) | 0.9899 | 343.0 (±0.1) | 0.9721 | 350.5 (±0.2) | 0.9769 |
| 0.8 | 387.9 (±0.3) | 0.9933 | 353.5 (±0.1) | 0.9782 | 360.9 (±0.1) | 0.9973 |
| Mean | 312.6 (±0.3) | 0.9945 | 302.8 (±0.2) | 0.9888 | 309.0 (±0.2) | 0.9914 |
E: Apparent energy of activation; a: Values from CNCs with standard deviation.
Figure 7A comparison of apparent activation energy as a function of decomposition conversion rate for the cellulose and the CNCs, calculated by (a) Friedman; (b) F-W-O; and (c) Coats-Redfern methods.