4.7 Article

Preparation and Characterization of Regenerated Cellulose Film from a Solution in Lithium Bromide Molten Salt Hydrate

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym10060614

关键词

inorganic ionic liquid; kraft pulp; non-derivatizing dissolution; packaging film

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  2. National Science Foundation [CBET1159561]
  3. National Program for Support of Top-notch Young Professionals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the molten salt hydrate of lithium bromide (LiBr) was utilized as a non-derivatizing cellulose dissolution solvent to prepare regenerated cellulose films for kraft pulp. The effects of LiBr concentrations (60, 62, and 65 wt %) and dissolving time (from 5 to 40 min with the interval of 5 min) on the structures and the properties of the films were investigated. Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) and cross-polarization magic-angle spinning carbon-13 nuclear magnetic resonance (CP/MAS C-13 NMR) characterizations verified the breakage of inter- and intra-cellulose hydrogen bonds during the regeneration, resulting in the disruption of the crystalline structure of cellulose. X-ray diffraction (XRD) data indicated that the regeneration converted the polymorphism of cellulose from I to II as well as decreased its crystallinity. Ultraviolet-visible spectra (UV-Vis) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analyses revealed the excellent optical transparency of the films to visible light due to the complete dissolution of cellulose fibers as well as the sufficient breaking of the inter- and intra-cellulose hydrogen bonds. In terms of tensile testing, tuning LiBr concentrations and dissolving time could increase the elongation at break and tensile strength of the films. The maximum elongation at break of 26% and tensile strength of 67 MPa were achieved when the films prepared in 65 wt % LiBr for 10 and 15 min, respectively. These results indicated the great potential of the cellulose films for packaging use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据