| Literature DB >> 30960502 |
Ana Balea1, Elena Fuente2, Angeles Blanco3, Carlos Negro4.
Abstract
Nanocelluloses (NCs) are bio-based nano-structurated products that open up new solutions for natural material sciences. Although a high number of papers have described their production, properties, and potential applications in multiple industrial sectors, no review to date has focused on their possible use in cementitious composites, which is the aim of this review. It describes how they could be applied in the manufacturing process as a raw material or an additive. NCs improve mechanical properties (internal bonding strength, modulus of elasticity (MOE), and modulus of rupture (MOR)), alter the rheology of the cement paste, and affect the physical properties of cements/cementitious composites. Additionally, the interactions between NCs and the other components of the fiber cement matrix are analyzed. The final result depends on many factors, such as the NC type, the dosage addition mode, the dispersion, the matrix type, and the curing process. However, all of these factors have not been studied in full so far. This review has also identified a number of unexplored areas of great potential for future research in relation to NC applications for fiber-reinforced cement composites, which will include their use as a surface treatment agent, an anionic flocculant, or an additive for wastewater treatment. Although NCs remain expensive, the market perspective is very promising.Entities:
Keywords: Hatscheck process; bacterial cellulose; cellulose nanocrystals; cellulose nanofibers; cement; fiber-cement; nanocelluloses
Year: 2019 PMID: 30960502 PMCID: PMC6473712 DOI: 10.3390/polym11030518
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Effect of nanocelluloses (NCs) in cement and fiber-cement composites.
| NC Type | Source NC | NC Dose (wt.%) | Cementitious Material | Effect on Mechanical Properties | Other Effects | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| High intensity refining process in a Valley Beater | Sisal ( | 3.3 | ΔMOE (%) = 70.83 * | [ | ||
| 4 | ΔMOE (%) = 30.77 * | [ | ||||
| 2 | ΔMOE (%) = 50 * | [ | ||||
| 8 | ΔMOE (%) = 55.55 * | [ | ||||
| 2–6 | ΔMOE (%) = 27.78–113.89 * | [ | ||||
| 3.4 | ΔMOE (%) = 10.17 * | [ | ||||
| 3.3 | ΔMOE (%) = 60.71 * | [ | ||||
| Bleaching (NaClO) | Waste algae ( | 0.1–1.0 | ΔMOE (%) = 3.62–169.68 (adding 0.1 and 1.00 wt.% CNF, respectively) | [ | ||
| Commercial supplied by Sigma-Aldrich, CAS: 9004-34-6 | Cotton | 0.1–1.0 | ΔMOE (%) = −37.10–(−36.20) | [ | ||
| TEMPO oxidation and fibrillation | Bleached hardwood pulp | 0–0.4 | ΔCompression strength (%) = 20 | The porosity notably decreased with the increasing dose of CNF | [ | |
| TEMPO oxidation and fibrillation at 600 bar at 1.5% to obtain a gel (5–6 cycles) | Bleached Eucalyptus Kraft | 0–0.5 | ΔCompression strength (%) = 43 | ΔHardening (%) = 66 | [ | |
| - TEMPO oxidation and grinding at 1 wt.% | Bleached Eucalyptus chemithermomechanical pulp | 0–1.2 | ΔYield stress (%) = 94 (0.2 wt.% CNF) | [ | ||
| - Cellulose filaments (CFs): | Wood | 0–0.2 | ΔCompression strength (%) = −20 | ΔSlump (%) = −61 (with 0.2 wt.% CF) | [ | |
| 0–0.2 | ΔCompression strength = 16% | ΔSlump (%) = −50 (with 0.2 wt.% CF) | [ | |||
| Disc grinding method | Bleached softwood pulp | 0–0.4 | ΔFlexural strength = 106% | ΔHardening (%) = 10 | [ | |
| Super Masscolloider method | Bleached Eucalyptus Kraft | 0, 0.5, 1 | ΔMOE and ΔMOR insignificant changes | ΔPorosity (%) = 95 (with 1 wt.% CNF) | [ | |
| Grinding method | Unbleached bamboo organosolv | 1 | ΔMOE (%) = 5.20 * | Significant effects were not observed on density and porosity | [ | |
| Chemical and mechanical pretreatment | Pine Kraft | 0.14, 0.27, 0.41 | ΔMOR (%) = 4.93–18.64 | ΔMini-slump flow (%) = −14.54–(−24.73) | [ | |
| Only chemical treatment | Recycled cartonboard | 0.045 | ΔMOR (%) = 4.35 | ΔWater porosity (%) = 12.5 | [ | |
| 5.7 | ΔCompressive Strength (%) = 25 | ΔMercury intrusion porosimetry (%) = −7.25 | [ | |||
| Microcellulose Sigmacell 101 | unknown | 1, 3, 5 | ΔMOE and ΔMOR insignificant changes with 1% of micro or nanocellulose | [ | ||
|
| ||||||
| - CNC | Eucalyptus | 0–0.77 | ΔMOR (%) = 20 with 0.10 wt.% of CNC (max improvement) | ΔYield stress (%) = from −67.2 (with 0.02% of CNC) to 1137 (with 1.5 wt.% of CNC) | [ | |
| CNC | Eucalyptus | 0–0.77 | ΔMOR (%) = 23 with 0.10 wt.% of CNC, but 30 with 0.5 wt.% of CNC | ΔPorosity (%) = −16% | [ | |
| Commercial MCC, Sigma Aldrich | Cotton | 0, 3 | ΔCompressive strength (%) = −12 | ΔCritical yield stress (%) = 155 | [ | |
| MCC (Avicel® PH101) plus Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) | Cotton linters | 0.2 (+ 0.1 wt.% CNTs) | ΔMOR (%) = 2.9 | ΔDry bulk density (%) = 8.24 | [ | |
| 0.5 (+ 0.3 wt.% CNTs) | ΔMOR (%) = 12.3 | ΔDry bulk density (%) = 4.49 | [ | |||
| MCC | Cotton linters | 2.5 | ΔMOR (%) = 50 | [ | ||
| 2.5 | ΔMOR (%) = 16 | [ | ||||
| Tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) surface-modified MCC | Cotton linters | 2.5 | ΔMOR (%) = 94 | [ | ||
| ΔMOR (%) = 59 | [ | |||||
| Commercial MCC (Sigma Aldrich) | - | 3 | ΔMOR (%) = −26.31 | ΔDensity (%) = −2.16 | [ | |
|
| ||||||
| 0.02 |
| ΔMOR (%) = 20 ** | Accelerated production of calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) | [ | ||
| Zetasizer (75 nm) crystallinity (DXR) = 65% | 0, 3 | ΔMOE (%) = 38 ** | Decreased fiber mineralization | [ | ||
| Zetasizer (75 nm) crystallinity (DXR) = 65% | 0, 3 | ΔMOE (%) = 11 ** | Decreased fiber mineralization, surface porosity, and surface roughness | [ | ||
| Zetasizer (75 nm) crystallinity (DXR) = 65% | 0, 3 | ΔMOE (%) = 33 ** | Decreased fiber mineralization | [ | ||
(*) with respect to the properties reached with the same dosage of cellulose fibers; (**) with respect to the properties reached without NC. MOE, modulus of elasticity; MOR, modulus of rupture.
Figure 1An approach to the potential use of NCs as an alternative to the refining process.
Comparison of refining versus using NC in fiber-cement composites.
| Refining | NC | |
|---|---|---|
| Production requirements | High energy demands | High energy demand and/or chemical reactives |
| Type and properties of cellulose fibers produced | Cellulose fibers with internal and external fibrillation | Nano- or microcellulose fibers |
| Medium specific surface area | Very high specific surface area | |
| Macroscale dimensions | Nanoscale dimensions | |
| Length reduction (cutting) | Length and diameter reduction | |
| Formation of hydrogen bridges | High tendency to form hydrogen bridges | |
| Increases swelling ability | Very high swelling ability, gel formation | |
| Chemical modification | Easy (after refining) | Even during production, many different possibilities for chemical modification |
| Cracks prevention | Macrocracks | Microcracks |
| Interactions | Increasing the capacity of the cellulose fibers to bond with cement matrix | Highly reactive with the cellulose fibers and the cement matrix, coating the cellulose fibers |
| Mechanical properties | Improves mechanical properties and network strength | Highly improved mechanical properties in combination with the cellulose fibers |
| Durability | Increases durability, reducing strength losses by increasing interaction with the matrix | Increases durability: preventing lumen mineralization, increasing interaction with the matrix, decreasing porosity |
| Drainage | Decrease in the drainage rate | It likely decreases the drainage rate; however, there are no studies on that in C-FCCs |
Figure 2A schematic example of the CNF–water interactions in a cement matrix.
Figure 3Backscattered scanning electron (BSE-SEM) microscope images of hardened pastes with (a) 0% CNC and (b) CNC/cement (vol.%) = 1.5 (≈0.77 wt.% CNC) at the age of 7 days. Reprinted from [84] with permission. Copyright Elsevier, 2014.
Figure 4Potential interactions between carboxylated CNF and the different components of the C-FCC matrix, such as (a) polyvynil alcohol fibers (PVOH); (b) metakaolin; and (c) silica fume.
Figure 5The flocculation interactions between cement grains or hydrates and anionic polyacrylamide (APAM) (a) or carboxylated NC as a promising flocculation agent (b).
Figure 6A representation of cation and sulphate adsorption using NC.