| Literature DB >> 28788179 |
Matheus Poletto1, Heitor L Ornaghi2, Ademir J Zattera3.
Abstract
In this work, the relationship between cellulose crystallinity, the influence of extractive content on lignocellulosic fiber degradation, the correlation between chemical composition and the physical properties of ten types of natural fibers were investigated by FTIR spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction and thermogravimetry techniques. The results showed that higher extractive contents associated with lower crystallinity and lower cellulose crystallite size can accelerate the degradation process and reduce the thermal stability of the lignocellulosic fibers studied. On the other hand, the thermal decomposition of natural fibers is shifted to higher temperatures with increasing the cellulose crystallinity and crystallite size. These results indicated that the cellulose crystallite size affects the thermal degradation temperature of natural fibers. This study showed that through the methods used, previous information about the structure and properties of lignocellulosic fibers can be obtained before use in composite formulations.Entities:
Keywords: FTIR; XRD; cellulose; crystallinity; natural fibers; thermal stability
Year: 2014 PMID: 28788179 PMCID: PMC5456159 DOI: 10.3390/ma7096105
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Chemical composition of the fibers used in this study obtained from the literature [11,12,13,14].
| Fibers | Cellulose (wt%) | Hemicellulose (wt%) | Lignin (wt%) | Pectin (wt%) | Waxes (wt%) | Extractives (wt%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holocellulose (wt%) | ||||||
| 61.3–64 | 31–33 | – | – | 3.9–4.3 | ||
| 60–62.3 | 32.8–35 | – | – | 4.4–4.6 | ||
| 56.5–57.7 | 30–31 | – | – | 11–11.2 | ||
| 56.8–58.8 | 27.7–28 | – | – | 13–14.3 | ||
| Curaua | 71–74 | 9.9–21 | 7.5–11 | – | 0.79–0.9 | 2.5–2.8 |
| Jute | 45–71 | 13.6–21 | 12–26 | 0.2–10 | 0.5 | 2 |
| Kenaf | 31–72 | 20.3–23 | 9–19 | 3–5 | – | 2–5 |
| Ramie | 68.6–91 | 5–16.7 | 0.6–0.7 | 1.9–2 | 0.3 | 6 |
| Sisal | 65–67 | 12 | 9.9 | 2–10 | 0.3–2 | 0.8–2 |
| Buriti | 65–71 | 21–27 | – | – | 5.4–6.0 | |
Figure 1FTIR spectra of the wood fibers (a); and vegetal fibers (b) studied.
Energy of the hydrogen bonds and hydrogen bond distance for the fibers studied.
| Fibers | 3567 cm−1 | 3423 cm−1 | 3342 cm−1 | 3278 cm−1 | 3221 cm−1 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EH (kJ) | R (Å) | EH (kJ) | R (Å) | EH (kJ) | R (Å) | EH (kJ) | R (Å) | EH (kJ) | R (Å) | |
| 6.185 | 2.832 | 16.182 | 2.800 | 22.438 | 2.782 | 26.574 | 2.768 | 30.349 | 2.756 | |
| 6.329 | 2.831 | 16.757 | 2.799 | 22.007 | 2.782 | 26.394 | 2.768 | 30.314 | 2.757 | |
| 6.401 | 2.831 | 16.613 | 2.799 | 22.438 | 2.781 | 26.610 | 2.768 | 30.874 | 2.754 | |
| 6.473 | 2.831 | 16.325 | 2.800 | 22.295 | 2.781 | 26.753 | 2.767 | 30.493 | 2.756 | |
| Curaua | 5.969 | 2.833 | 16.038 | 2.801 | 21.935 | 2.782 | 26.746 | 2.767 | 30.997 | 2.754 |
| Jute | 5.980 | 2.833 | 16.038 | 2.801 | 21.827 | 2.783 | 26.538 | 2.768 | 30.666 | 2.755 |
| Kenaf | 5.667 | 2.833 | 16.253 | 2.800 | 22.043 | 2.782 | 27.041 | 2.766 | 30.781 | 2.755 |
| Ramie | 6.048 | 2.832 | 16.325 | 2.800 | 22.100 | 2.782 | 26.782 | 2.767 | 31.140 | 2.754 |
| Sisal | 6.156 | 2.832 | 16.253 | 2.800 | 21.863 | 2.783 | 26.538 | 2.768 | 31.148 | 2.754 |
| Buriti | 6.185 | 2.832 | 16.253 | 2.800 | 22.366 | 2.781 | 27.041 | 2.766 | 31.184 | 2.753 |
Infrared crystallinity ratio and hydrogen bond intensity of the fibers studied. HBI, hydrogen bond intensity.
| Fibers | IR crystallinity ratio | HBI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1372/H2900 (TCI) | H1429/H897 (LOI) | A3400/A1320 | |
| 0.608 ± 0.01 | 3.172 ± 0.02 | 1.440 | |
| 0.474 ± 0.01 | 2.299 ± 0.04 | 1.598 | |
| 0.389 ± 0.02 | 3.137 ± 0.03 | 1.508 | |
| 0.237 ± 0.03 | 2.060 ± 0.01 | 1.523 | |
| Curaua | 1.300 ± 0.01 | 1.070 ± 0.01 | 1.132 |
| Jute | 1.150 ± 0.03 | 0.990 ± 0.01 | 1.207 |
| Kenaf | 1.190 ± 0.01 | 0.930 ± 0.02 | 1.119 |
| Ramie | 1.240 ± 0.01 | 1.050 ± 0.01 | 1.426 |
| Sisal | 1.150 ± 0.02 | 0.970 ± 0.03 | 1.625 |
| Buriti | 1.150 ± 0.01 | 0.780 ± 0.05 | 2.241 |
Figure 2X-ray diffractograms of (a) wood species and (b).vegetal fibers studied
Parameters obtained from the XRD analysis of the fibers studied.
| Fibers | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.11 | 34.4 | 49.3 | −25.7 | |
| 1.92 | 34.1 | 43.4 | −32.9 | |
| 2.18 | 43.0 | 55.7 | −31.6 | |
| 2.23 | 37.8 | 52.7 | −46.3 | |
| Curaua | 3.43 | 60.6 | 43.5 | −40.8 |
| Jute | 2.94 | 52.0 | 34.3 | −18.0 |
| Kenaf | 2.71 | 51.1 | 34.9 | −21.4 |
| Ramie | 3.31 | 56.5 | 34.8 | −9.4 |
| Sisal | 3.37 | 47.1 | 57.3 | −34.7 |
| Buriti | 3.70 | 45.1 | 71.2 | −34.4 |
a Cr.I.: crystalline index proposed by Hermans; b C.I.: crystalline index proposed by Segal.
Figure 3Liner regression comparing the Hermans (a); and Segal (b) methods.
Figure 4Thermogravimetric curves for the wood (a); and vegetal fibers (b) studied.
Thermal degradation temperature and residue at 800 °C for the fibers studied.
| Fibers | DTG peak (°C) | Residue at 800 °C(%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 250 | 291 | 364 | 23.6 | |
| 251 | 322 | 367 | 16.8 | |
| 257 | 289 | 368 | 22.4 | |
| 237 | 275 | 350 | 24.1 | |
| Curaua | 260 | 283 | 344 | 10.1 |
| Jute | 262 | 297 | 365 | 11.8 |
| Kenaf | 238 | 298 | 364 | 10.5 |
| Ramie | 221 | 289 | 357 | 10.6 |
| Sisal | 209 | 295 | 347 | 17.4 |
| Buriti | 92 | 291 | 334 | 17.5 |