| Literature DB >> 35160413 |
Oscar Gil-Castell1,2, Pablo Reyes-Contreras3,4, Pabla Andrea Barra4, Regis Teixeira Mendonça5,6, Isabel Carrillo-Varela7, José David Badia8, Angels Serra2, Amparo Ribes-Greus1.
Abstract
Cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) are attractive materials due to their renewable nature, high surface-to-volume ratio, crystallinity, biodegradability, anisotropic performance, or available hydroxyl groups. However, their source and obtaining pathway determine their subsequent performance. This work evaluates cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) obtained from four different eucalyptus species by acid hydrolysis, i.e., E. benthamii, E. globulus, E. smithii, and the hybrid En × Eg. During preparation, CNCs incorporated sulphate groups to their structures, which highlighted dissimilar reactivities, as given by the calculated sulphate index (0.21, 0.97, 0.73 and 0.85, respectively). Although the impact of the incorporation of sulphate groups on the crystalline structure was committed, changes in the hydrophilicity and water retention ability or thermal stability were observed. These effects were also corroborated by the apparent activation energy during thermal decomposition obtained through kinetic analysis. Low-sulphated CNCs (E. benthamii) involved hints of a more crystalline structure along with less water retention ability, higher thermal stability, and greater average apparent activation energy (233 kJ·mol-1) during decomposition. Conversely, the high-sulphated species (E. globulus) involved higher reactivity during preparation that endorsed a little greater water retention ability and lower thermal stability, with subsequently less average apparent activation energy (185 kJ·mol-1). The E. smithii (212 kJ·mol-1) and En × Eg (196 kJ·mol-1) showed an intermediate behavior according to their sulphate index.Entities:
Keywords: cellulose nanocrystals (CNC); crystallinity; eucalyptus; kinetic analysis; thermal stability
Year: 2022 PMID: 35160413 PMCID: PMC8840396 DOI: 10.3390/polym14030423
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Yield and composition of unbleached and bleached Kraft pulps along with CNCs obtaining yield from the different eucalyptus species.
| Unbleached Kraft Pulps | Bleached Kraft Pulps | CNC | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yield | Glucans | Xylans | Lignin | Yield | Glucans | Xylans | Lignin | Yield | |
| (%) | (% wt) | (% wt) | (% wt) | (%) | (% wt) | (% wt) | (% wt) | (% wt) | |
|
| 49 ± 2 | 73 ± 1 | 15 ± 1 | 4.3 ± 0.9 | 45 ± 2 | 73 ± 1 | 17 ± 1 | 1.3 ± 0.6 | 21.7 ± 1.0 |
|
| 57 ± 1 | 71 ± 1 | 18 ± 1 | 3.8 ± 0.6 | 53 ± 1 | 65 ± 1 | 19 ± 1 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 14.6 ± 0.4 |
|
| 56 ± 2 | 73 ± 2 | 18 ± 1 | 3.7 ± 1.1 | 53 ± 2 | 74 ± 1 | 22 ± 1 | <1.0 | 22.4 ± 1.5 |
| 57 ± 2 | 75 ± 2 | 19 ± 1 | 4.6 ± 1.3 | 52 ± 2 | 71 ± 2 | 22 ± 1 | 1.7 ± 0.7 | 24.9 ± 1.2 | |
Figure 1Surface electron micrographs and diameter distribution of the CNCs obtained from the different eucalyptus species.
Figure 2FTIR spectra of the CNCs obtained from the different eucalyptus species.
Sulphate index of the CNCs obtained from the different eucalyptus species.
| Sulphate Index (%) | |
|---|---|
|
| 0.21 |
|
| 0.97 |
|
| 0.73 |
| 0.85 |
Figure 3X-ray diffraction (XRD) spectra of the CNCs obtained from the different eucalyptus species.
Obtaining yield along with apparent crystallinity degree (CrI), lateral crystallite size (L002), infrared crystallinity index (ICI), and infrared crystallinity ratio (ICR) of CNC obtained from the different eucalyptus species.
| Crystallinity Evaluation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 65.8 ± 1.3 | 10.9 ± 1.3 | 1.041 | 0.997 |
|
| 65.0 ± 1.7 | 10.1 ± 1.1 | 1.014 | 0.983 |
|
| 64.4 ± 1.6 | 10.1 ± 0.8 | 1.014 | 0.988 |
| 65.2 ± 1.9 | 10.0 ± 1.4 | 1.011 | 0.987 | |
Figure 4Stacked calorimetric thermograms of the CNCs obtained from the different eucalyptus species.
Peak temperatures and enthalpies for the water release (T2 and ∆h2) and CNC thermal decomposition (T and ∆h), as obtained from the calorimetric thermograms.
| H2O Release | CNC Thermal Decomposition | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ∆ |
| ∆ | |
| (°C) | (J·g−1) | (°C) | (J·g−1) | |
|
| 69.2 ± 0.7 | 57.1 ± 4.3 | 279.7 ± 0.2 | 114.0 ± 0.8 |
|
| 82.5 ± 2.3 | 84.5 ± 4.3 | 269.7 ± 1.8 | 109.2 ± 0.8 |
|
| 69.8 ± 0.7 | 49.8 ± 2.2 | 278.6 ± 0.2 | 115.2 ± 0.6 |
| 78.2 ± 1.9 | 76.1 ± 6.6 | 273.6 ± 0.6 | 120.8 ± 1.0 | |
Figure 5Stacked mass variation thermograms (up) and first derivative traces (DTG) (down) of the CNCs obtained from the different eucalyptus species analyzed at 10 °C·min−1.
Peak temperatures and mass loss for the release of water (T, ∆m2), thermal decomposition of CNC (T, T, T, ∆m), and final residue (R) obtained from the thermogravimetric analyses at different heating rates (β).
| β | H2O Release | CNC Thermal Decomposition | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (°C·min−1) | ∆ | ∆ | ||||||
| 5 |
| 69.5 ± 1.6 | 2.5 ± 0.4 | 260.0 ± 0.5 | 270.0 ± 1.4 | 295.1 ± 2.9 | 69.3 ± 0.1 | 28.3 ± 0.8 |
|
| 69.8 ± 1.6 | 4.4 ± 0.7 | 253.6 ± 2.6 | 264.5 ± 1.7 | 287.1 ± 0.8 | 74.3 ± 0.2 | 22.3 ± 0.4 | |
|
| 69.1 ± 1.7 | 3.4 ± 0.5 | 255.0 ± 0.4 | 269.4 ± 1.3 | 292.9 ± 2.4 | 69.4 ± 2.4 | 26.5 ± 0.9 | |
|
| 70.6 ± 1.7 | 4.1 ± 0.3 | 253.8 ± 0.9 | 265.5 ± 2.7 | 284.9 ± 0.9 | 71.5 ± 0.9 | 24.1 ± 1.1 | |
| 10 |
| 61.8 ± 0.5 | 2.2 ± 1.0 | 261.2 ± 0.2 | 274.2 ± 0.6 | 301.2 ± 2.6 | 75.3 ± 0.1 | 22.5 ± 0.9 |
|
| 87.9 ± 0.2 | 4.8 ± 1.0 | 260.1 ± 1.9 | 271.4 ± 1.4 | 295.0 ± 2.2 | 78.4 ± 1.7 | 16.8 ± 1.2 | |
|
| 61.2 ± 1.6 | 2.5 ± 0.4 | 260.5 ± 1.5 | 273.4 ± 1.3 | 297.9 ± 3.1 | 72.5 ± 0.7 | 23.1 ± 0.7 | |
|
| 61.1 ± 1.7 | 4.4 ± 0.9 | 261.4 ± 0.4 | 271.8 ± 0.2 | 293.5 ± 1.1 | 73.4 ± 1.4 | 24.1 ± 0.4 | |
| 20 |
| 80.9 ± 0.8 | 3.6 ± 0.6 | 265.5 ± 0.2 | 278.7 ± 0.9 | 309.6 ± 1.5 | 78.2 ± 0.5 | 18.2 ± 0.8 |
|
| 83.7 ± 1.9 | 4.8 ± 0.9 | 273.2 ± 0.7 | 277.9 ± 0.1 | 304.3 ± 2.1 | 74.8 ± 0.2 | 19.4 ± 0.6 | |
|
| 79.0 ± 1.5 | 4.1 ± 1.6 | 265.3 ± 2.5 | 279.8 ± 0.2 | 308.1 ± 2.9 | 78.7 ± 2.3 | 14.8 ± 1.2 | |
|
| 89.6 ± 0.4 | 4.5 ± 0.1 | 267.1 ± 1.8 | 277.2 ± 2.8 | 298.5 ± 5.6 | 80.0 ± 0.4 | 15.9 ± 0.9 | |
| 30 |
| 83.7 ± 1.9 | 3.4 ± 0.2 | 267.3 ± 1.0 | 282.3 ± 1.3 | 316.9 ± 0.9 | 76.8 ± 0.1 | 18.8 ± 0.7 |
|
| 87.9 ± 0.1 | 4.9 ± 0.8 | 272.9 ± 1.7 | 282.8 ± 1.5 | 310.3 ± 3.8 | 74.2 ± 0.9 | 20.9 ± 0.4 | |
|
| 81.5 ± 3.0 | 3.3 ± 0.9 | 267.7 ± 1.0 | 283.9 ± 0.1 | 310.4 ± 0.3 | 81.4 ± 0.7 | 14.8 ± 0.9 | |
|
| 89.7 ± 1.7 | 3.8 ± 0.2 | 269.5 ± 1.9 | 281.4 ± 2.5 | 304.2 ± 3.7 | 76.9 ± 0.1 | 19.8 ± 1.1 | |
Figure 6Evolution of the onset (T), peak (T) and endset (T) temperatures as a function of the heating rate (β) of the CNCs obtained from the different eucalyptus species. Standard deviations below 2 K were omitted for the sake of clarity.
Values of ZDT along with the fitting parameters and regression coefficient for the thermal decomposition of CNC (T, T, T, ∆m) when β→0. Standard error was omitted for the sake of clarity.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (°C) | (°C) | |||||
|
|
| 253.0 | 271.5 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.998 |
|
| 265.5 | 286.9 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.991 | |
|
| 289.0 | 338.7 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.998 | |
|
|
| 246.7 | 280.8 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.990 |
|
| 256.5 | 286.8 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.987 | |
|
| 277.3 | 316.9 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.998 | |
|
|
| 246.8 | 268.8 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.996 |
|
| 270.1 | 292.4 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.972 | |
|
| 283.3 | 314.8 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.957 | |
|
| 243.9 | 270.4 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.998 | |
|
| 258.1 | 284.3 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.981 | |
|
| 275.6 | 306.4 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.928 |
Figure 7Application of the Kissinger method for the thermal decomposition of CNCs obtained from the different eucalyptus species.
Apparent activation energy (Ea) for the thermal decomposition of CNCs obtained from the different eucalyptus species.
| Kissinger | FWO | KAS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| (kJ·mol−1) | (kJ·mol−1) | (kJ·mol−1) | |||||
|
| 0.1 | 361.5 | 1.00 | 281.3 | 0.98 | 287.1 | 0.98 |
| 0.2 | 299.4 | 0.97 | 306.0 | 0.96 | |||
| 0.3 | 278.6 | 0.97 | 284.0 | 0.97 | |||
| 0.4 | 210.2 | 0.93 | 212.0 | 0.93 | |||
| 0.5 | 133.9 | 0.89 | 131.5 | 0.88 | |||
| 0.6 | 93.8 | 0.92 | 89.1 | 0.91 | |||
| 0.7 | 83.6 | 0.95 | 78.0 | 0.94 | |||
| 0.8 | 93.3 | 0.97 | 87.8 | 0.97 | |||
|
| 0.1 | 237.6 | 0.95 | 233.1 | 1.00 | 236.3 | 1.00 |
| 0.2 | 243.6 | 0.99 | 247.3 | 0.99 | |||
| 0.3 | 248.7 | 0.97 | 252.7 | 0.97 | |||
| 0.4 | 187.8 | 0.97 | 188.4 | 0.97 | |||
| 0.5 | 112.0 | 0.99 | 108.5 | 0.99 | |||
| 0.6 | 81.2 | 0.98 | 75.7 | 0.97 | |||
| 0.7 | 81.1 | 0.98 | 75.3 | 0.97 | |||
| 0.8 | 88.1 | 0.98 | 236.3 | 0.97 | |||
|
| 0.1 | 295.2 | 1.00 | 254.9 | 0.99 | 259.2 | 0.99 |
| 0.2 | 257.6 | 1.00 | 261.9 | 1.00 | |||
| 0.3 | 237.8 | 0.97 | 241.0 | 0.97 | |||
| 0.4 | 188.0 | 0.98 | 188.5 | 0.97 | |||
| 0.5 | 157.2 | 0.99 | 156.0 | 0.99 | |||
| 0.6 | 102.9 | 0.99 | 98.5 | 0.99 | |||
| 0.7 | 81.4 | 0.99 | 75.6 | 0.99 | |||
| 0.8 | 74,0 | 0.99 | 67.5 | 0.99 | |||
| 0.1 | 274.9 | 1.00 | 216.6 | 0.98 | 219.0 | 0.98 | |
| 0.2 | 219.3 | 0.97 | 221.8 | 0.97 | |||
| 0.3 | 209.8 | 0.99 | 211.7 | 0.99 | |||
| 0.4 | 182.0 | 1.00 | 182.4 | 1.00 | |||
| 0.5 | 122.0 | 1.00 | 119.0 | 0.99 | |||
| 0.6 | 93.9 | 0.99 | 89.1 | 0.99 | |||
| 0.7 | 94.0 | 1.00 | 88.9 | 1.00 | |||
| 0.8 | 92.4 | 0.99 | 86.7 | 0.99 | |||
Figure 8Application of Flynn–Wall–Ozawa (FWO) (left) and Kissinger–Akahira–Sunose (KAS) (right) methods for the CNCs obtained from the different eucalyptus species.
Figure 9Evolution of the apparent activation energy (Ea) as a function of conversion calculated as an average for the FWO and KAS methods.