| Literature DB >> 33804984 |
Zhongqi He1, Sunghyun Nam1, David D Fang1, Huai N Cheng1, Jibao He2.
Abstract
Cotton is one of the most important and widely grown crops in the world. Understanding the synthesis mechanism of cotton fiber elongation can provide valuable tools to the cotton industry for improving cotton fiber yield and quality at the molecular level. In this work, the surface and thermal characteristics of cotton fiber samples collected from a wild type (WT) and three mutant lines (Li1, Li2-short, Li2-long, Li2-mix, and liy) were comparatively investigated. Microimaging revealed a general similarity trend of WT ≥ Li2-long ≈ Li2-mix > Li1 > Li2 short ≈ liy with Ca detected on the surface of the last two. Attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared (ATR FT-IR) spectroscopy and thermogravimetric measurements also showed that Li2-short and liy were more similar to each other, and Li2-long and Li2-mix closer to WT while Li1 was quite independent. FT-IR results further demonstrated that wax and amorphous cellulose were co-present in fiber structures during the fiber formation processes. The correlation analysis found that the FT-IR-based maturity parameter was well correlated (p ≤ 0.05) to the onset decomposition temperature and all three weight-loss parameters at onset, peak, and end decomposition stages, suggesting that the maturity degree is a better parameter than crystallinity index (CI) and other FT-IR parameters that reflect the thermal stability of the cotton fiber. In summary, this work demonstrated that genetic mutation altered the surface and thermal characteristics in the same way for Li2-short and liy, but with different mechanisms for the other three mutant cotton fiber samples.Entities:
Keywords: Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; cotton; ligon-lintless mutation; micromorphology; short fiber mutant; surface composition
Year: 2021 PMID: 33804984 PMCID: PMC8037818 DOI: 10.3390/polym13070994
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Fiber phenotypes of wild-type and three mutant lines.
Figure 2A Li2 cotton mutant plant with mixed fiber phenotypes. Left boll, Li2-mix (i.e., short fiber in a Li2 plant with mixed phenotypes); right boll, Li2-long.
Figure 3Morphologies of cotton fibers visualized by polarized optical microscopy.
Figure 4SEM images of six cotton fiber samples. The bar distance is 100 and 10 μm, respectively, for upper and lower panels.
Figure 5EDS spectrograms of WT (upper) and li (lower) fiber samples.
Elemental composition in weight (W%) and atomic (A%) percentages of the cotton fiber samples by SEM–EDS analysis. Number of iterations = 5. Weight % difference (systematic error) < 0.1%.
| Element | WT |
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| C | 51.45 | 58.67 | 52.49 | 59.63 | 53.34 | 60.54 | 49.94 | 57.20 | 51.34 | 58.53 | 52.39 | 60.15 |
| O | 48.08 | 41.16 | 47.20 | 40.26 | 46.09 | 39.27 | 49.57 | 42.62 | 48.30 | 41.34 | 46.47 | 39.65 |
| K | 0.47 | 0.16 | 0.31 | 0.11 | 0.47 | 0.17 | 0.50 | 0.18 | 0.36 | 0.12 | 0.44 | 0.15 |
| Ca | ND 1 | ND | ND | ND | 0.10 | 0.03 | ND | ND | ND | ND | 0.16 | 0.05 |
1 not detected.
Figure 6Water droplets on the fiber webs. The values at each image are the contact angle with standard deviation (n = 5). No statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) was observed between these values.
Figure 7Attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared (ATR FT-IR) spectra and relevant IR parameters of six cotton fiber samples. (a) Spectra; (b) the first principal component (PC1) scores of the six samples by PCA calculation of the normalized spectra; (c) the relative amounts of waxes semi-quantitatively measured by the normalized intensities of methylene peaks at 2918 and 2849 cm−1; (d) the relative amount of amorphous cellulose linked to the normalized intensity at 740 cm−1; (e) the IR-based maturity; and (f) IR-based cellulose crystallinity index (CI) calculated by three-band ratio algorithms. Data in the c–f are presented in average with SD bars (n = 5). Different letters indicate the values of the same parameter significantly different at p ≤ 0.05.
Figure 8Thermograms of thermogravic analysis: (a) TG plots; (b) DTG plots.
Comparison of thermogravimetric data from the TG and DTG analysis.
| Char (%) C | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WT | 251.4 A | 5.8 A | 335.9 | 47.5 C | 1.256 BC | 360.4 C | 69.4 C | 19.6 C |
|
| 248.5 A | 6.1 A | 341.2 A | 47.5 C | 1.217 C | 363.1 B | 68.1 D | 21.1 A |
| 249.1 A | 5.6 A | 339.6 B | 51.3 B | 1.328 A | 360.3 C | 71.4 B | 18.3 | |
| 252.3 A | 5.8 A | 338.2 C | 49.8 B | 1.288 AB | 358.6 | 69.3 C | 20.4 B | |
| 209.7 B | 5.4 A | 340.9 A | 54.7 A | 1.066 | 366.6 A | 74.2 A | 16.8 | |
|
| 210.5 B | 4.5 B | 331.4 | 54.3 A | 1.206 C | 353.8 | 74.2 A | 16.7 |
T: temperature; WL: weight loss; D: decomposition rate; : onset decomposition; : peak decomposition; : end decomposition. A: averages followed by different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05); B: standard deviation of three measurements; C: char yield measured at 600 °C.
Correlation coefficients between the ATR FT-IR-based parameters and thermal properties of the six fiber samples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.790 | −0.571 | 0.664 | −0.415 | −0.942 ** | 0.767 |
|
| −0.889 * | −0.087 | 0.761 | 0.104 | −0.875 * | 0.485 |
|
| −0.596 | 0.386 | 0.631 | 0.601 | −0.478 | 0.001 |
|
| 0.690 | 0.354 | −0.689 | 0.286 | 0.886 * | −0.575 |
|
| −0.352 | −0.766 | 0.354 | −0.680 | −0.620 | 0.680 |
|
| 0.178 | 0.586 | 0.236 | 0.697 | 0.410 | −0.452 |
|
| 0.780 | 0.303 | −0.782 | 0.182 | 0.866 * | −0.606 |
|
| −0.791 | −0.219 | 0.804 | −0.084 | −0.793 | 0.573 |
Symbol *, ** indicates the coefficient value significant at p = 0.05, and 0.01, respectively.