| Literature DB >> 33154467 |
Matthew J Dunlop1,2, Craig Clemons3, Richard Reiner3, Ronald Sabo3, Umesh P Agarwal3, Rabin Bissessur2, Helia Sojoudiasli4, Pierre J Carreau4, Bishnu Acharya5,6.
Abstract
In order for sustainable nanomaterials such as cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) to be utilized in industrial applications, a large-scale production capacity for CNCs must exist. Currently the only CNCs available commercially in kilogram scale are obtained from wood pulp (W-CNCs). Scaling the production capacity of W-CNCs isolation has led to their use in broader applications and captured the interest of researchers, industries and governments alike. Another source of CNCs with potential for commercial scale production are tunicates, a species of marine animal. Tunicate derived CNCs (T-CNCs) are a high aspect ratio CNC, which can complement commercially available W-CNCs in the growing global CNC market. Herein we report the isolation and characterization of T-CNCs from the tunicate Styela clava, an invasive species currently causing significant harm to local aquaculture communities. The reported procedure utilizes scalable CNC processing techniques and is based on our experiences from laboratory scale T-CNC isolation and pilot scale W-CNC isolation. To our best knowledge, this study represents the largest scale where T-CNCs have been isolated from any tunicate species, under any reaction conditions. Demonstrating a significant step towards commercial scale isolation of T-CNCs, and offering a potential solution to the numerous challenges which invasive tunicates pose to global aquaculture communities.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33154467 PMCID: PMC7645590 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-76144-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Flowchart for isolation of T-CNCs from tunicates.
Other reports of tunicate cellulose purification strategies and respective yields.
| Tunicate feedstock | Deproteination | Bleaching | Pretreatment yield (%)* | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pronase in buffer | NaOH reflux | N/A | [ | |
| KOH | NaClO/CH3COOH | N/A | [ | |
| KOH | NaClO/CH3COOH | N/A | [ | |
| NaOH | NaClO2 | N/A | [ | |
| NaOH | NaClO2 | N/A | [ | |
| NaOH | H2O2 | 20 | [ | |
| NaOH | NaClO2/CH3COOH | 31 | This work | |
1 Prehydrolysis (H2SO4) 2 Kraft Cooking (NaOH/Na2S) 3 Bleaching (NaClO) Step 1 & 2: 180 °C | 2 h Step 3: 75 °C | 1 h | 40 | [ | ||
| 30 | [ | |||
| 12 | [ | |||
| 3 | [ | |||
| 30 | [ | |||
| 24 | [ | |||
| 21 | [ | |||
*Approximate values | N/A = not reported.
Figure 2The aspect ratio distribution of W-CNC and T-CNC (top) and representative W-CNC and T-CNC micrographs (bottom) (ImageJ-Fizi Software was used to determine the size distribution, https://imagej.net/Fiji).
Other reports of CNC isolation with varying production scale and hydrolysis conditions.
| Cellulose source | Production scale | H2SO4 hydrolysis | CNC aspect ratio* | Hydrolysis yield (%)* | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCC # | Lab | (64%, 2 h) | 15 | 30% | [ |
| Cotton | Lab | (65%, 30 min) | 12 | N/A | [ |
| Cotton | Lab | (60%, 4 h) | 15 | N/A | [ |
| Wood | Lab | (64%, 25 min) | 28 | 33% | [ |
| Wood | Lab | (64%, 2 h) | 23 | N/A | [ |
| Wood | Pilot | (64%, 1.5 h) | 12 | 50% | This work and[ |
| Wood | Commercial | (64%, N/A) | 20 | N/A | [ |
| Tunicate | Lab | (60%, 1.5 h) | 50 | N/A | [ |
| Tunicate | Lab | (65%, 2 h) | 72 | N/A | [ |
| Tunicate | Lab | (60%, 32 h) | 70 | N/A | [ |
| Tunicate | Lab | (50%, 20 h) | 63 | N/A | [ |
| Tunicate | Lab | (48%, 13 h) | 70 | N/A | [ |
| Tunicate | Lab | (48%, 3 h) | 100 | N/A | [ |
| Tunicate | Lab | (55%, 20 min) | 35 | 30% | [ |
| Tunicate | Lab | (50%, 4.5 h) | 80 | 50% | [ |
| Tunicate | Pre-pilot | (64%, 2 h) | 65 | 42% | This Work |
*Approximate values | N/A = not reported | # = microcrystalline cellulose (MCC).
Figure 3Steady shear viscosity of 1 wt% T-CNC and W-CNC suspensions (a) steady shear and (b) small amplitude oscillatory (SAOS) data for the T-CNC suspension.
Comparison of the measured crystallinity index for CNCs using various techniques.
| Cellulose source | XRD* | NMR | 380-Raman | 93-Raman | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCC | 84 | NA | 77 | 68 | [ |
| Cotton | 92 | 75 | 77 | 68 | [ |
| Wood | 80–89, 90, 72 | 60 | 56 | 46 | [ |
| Tunicate | 91, 95 | 80, 94 | 70 | 93 | [ |
| Wood | 66, | NA | 56 | 46 | This work |
| Tunicate | 75 | NA | 68 | 96 | This work |
NA is not available | * For wood, wide range attributable to varying methods used to calculate crystallinity.
Figure 4Experimental X-ray diffractograms of lyophilized T-CNC and W-CNC.
Figure 5Raman spectra of wood and tunicate CNCs (Bruker OPUS 7.2 software was used to process spectral data).
Figure 6TGA thermograms of lyophilized CNCs in air (a) and an inert nitrogen (b).
Reported oxidative thermal properties of various CNCs prepared by H2SO4 hydrolysis.
| Cellulose source | Onset temperature* | Inflection point* | H2SO4 hydrolysis | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wood | 235 | 253 | (64%, 2 h) | [ |
| Wood | 210 | 240, 421 | (64%, 1.5 h) | This work and[ |
| Wood | 255 | 275 | (64%, N/A) | [ |
| Tunicate | 180 | N/A | (50%, 3 h) | [ |
| Tunicate | 180 | N/A | (50%, 4.5 h) | [ |
| Tunicate | 106# | 128# | (60%, 20 min) | [ |
| Tunicate | 290 | N/A | (55%, 1 h) | [ |
| Tunicate | 190 | 200 | (55%, 20 min) | [ |
| Tunicate | 225 | 291 | (64%, 2 h) | This work |
* Approximate values | N/A—not reported | #—measured in an inert environment.