Advertisement

Cellulose

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 57–65 | Cite as

Mercerized cellulose biocomposites: a study of influence of mercerization on cellulose supramolecular structure, water retention value and tensile properties

  • Helena HalonenEmail author
  • Per Tomas Larsson
  • Tommy IversenEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

In this study the effect of the mercerization degree on the water retention value (WRV) and tensile properties of compression molded sulphite dissolving pulp was evaluated. The pulp was treated with 9, 10, or 11 % aqueous NaOH solution for 1 h before compression molding. To study the time dependence of mercerization the pulp was treated with 12 wt% aqueous NaOH for 1, 6 or 48 h. The cellulose I and II contents of the biocomposites were determined by solid state cross polarization/magic angle spinning carbon 13 nuclear magnetic resonance (CP/MAS 13C NMR) spectroscopy. By spectral fitting of the C6 and C1 region the cellulose I and II content, respectively, could be determined. Mercerization decreased the total crystallinity (sum of cellulose I and cellulose II content) and it was not possible to convert all cellulose I to cellulose II in the NaOH range investigated. Neither increased the conversion significantly with 12 wt% NaOH at longer treatment times. The slowdown of the cellulose I conversion was suggested as being the result from the formation of cellulose II as a consequence of coalescence of anti-parallel surfaces of neighboring fibrils (Blackwell et al. in Tappi 61:71–72, 1978; Revol and Goring in J Appl Polym Sci 26:1275–1282, 1981; Okano and Sarko in J Appl Polym Sci 30:325–332, 1985). Compression molding of the partially mercerized dissolving pulps yielded biocomposites with tensile properties that could be correlated to the decrease in cellulose I content in the pulps. Mercerization introduces cellulose II and disordered cellulose and lowered the total crystallinity reflected as higher water sensitivity (higher WRV values) and poorer stiffness of the mercerized biocomposites.

Keywords

CP/MAS 13C NMR Compression molding Mercerization Cellulose II Supramolecular structure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Research Institutes of Sweden (Rise). Domsjö Fabriker AB is acknowledged for gift of sulphite pulp.

References

  1. Atalla RH, Gast JC, Sindorf DW, Bartuska VJ, Maciel GE (1980) 13C NMR spectra of cellulose polymorphs. J Am Chem Soc 102:3249–3251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackwell J, Kolpak FJ, Gardner KH (1978) The structure of cellulose I and II. Tappi 61:71–72Google Scholar
  3. Ciolacu D, Pitol-Filho L, Ciolacu F (2012) Studies concerning the accessability of different allomorphic forms of cellulose. Cellulose 19:55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dinand E, Vignon M, Chanzy H, Heux L (2002) Mercerization of primary wall cellulose and its implication for the conversion of cellulose I → cellulose II. Cellulose 9:7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dudley RL, Fyfe CA, Stephenson PJ, Deslandes Y, Hamer GK, Marchessaul RH (1983) High-resolution 13C CP/MAS NMR spectra of solid cellulose oligomers and the structure of cellulose II. J Am Chem Soc 105:2469–2472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fink HP, Walenta E, Philipp B (1999) Investigations of the time dependence of the conversion of cellulose to alkali cellulose by X-ray diffraction. Papier 53:25–31Google Scholar
  7. Gindl W, Keckes J (2005) All-cellulose nanocomposite. Polymer 46:10221–10225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hine PJ, Ward IM, Olley RH, Bassett DC (1993) The hot compaction of high modulus melt-spun polyethylene fibres. J Mater Sci 28:316–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kono H, Numata Y, Erata E, Takai M (2004) 13C and 1H resonance assignment of mercerized cellulose II by two-dimensional MAS NMR spectroscopies. Macromolecules 37:5310–5316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Larsson PT, Wickholm K, Iversen T (1997) A CP/MAS 13C NMR investigation of molecular ordering in celluloses. Carbohydr Res 302:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lennholm H, Wallbäcks L, Iversen T (1995) Solid-state high-resolution 13C-NMR studies of regenerated cellulose samples with different crystallinities. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 10:46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mansikkamäki P, Lahtinen M, Rissanen K (2005) Structural changes of cellulose crystallites induced by mercerization in different solvent systems; determined by powder X-ray diffraction method. Cellulose 12:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McKenzie AW, Higgins HG (1958) The structure and properties of paper. Sven Papperstidn 61:893–901Google Scholar
  14. Nilsson H, Galland S, Larsson PT, Gamstedt EK, Nishino T, Berglund LA, Iversen T (2010) A non-solvent approach for high-stiffness all-cellulose biocomposites based on pure wood cellulose. Compos Sci Technol 70:1704–1712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nilsson H, Galland S, Larsson PT, Gamstedt EK, Iversen T (2012) Compression molded wood pulp biocomposites—a study of hemicellulose influence on cellulose supramolecular structure and material properties. Cellulose. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-012-9688-2
  16. Nishino T, Arimoto N (2007) All-cellulose composite prepared by selective dissolving of fiber surface. Biomacromolecules 8:2712–2716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nishino T, Matsuda I, Hirao K (1995) Elastic-modulus of the crystalline regions of cellulose polymorphs. J Polym Sci B Polym Phys 33:1647–1651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nishino T, Takano K, Nakamae KJ (2004) All-cellulose composite. Macromolecules 37:7683–7687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Sullivan A (1997) Cellulose: the structure slowly unravels. Cellulose 4:173–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Okano T, Sarko A (1985) Mercerization of cellulose II. Alkali-cellulose intermediates and a possible mercerization mechanism. J Appl Polym Sci 30:325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peijs T (2003) Composites for recyclability. Materials Today April:30–35Google Scholar
  22. Revol J-F and Goring DAI (1981) On the mechanism of the mercerization of cellulose in wood. J Appl Polym Sci 26:1275–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sarko A (1978) What is the crystalline structure of cellulose? Tappi 61:59–61Google Scholar
  24. Soykeabkaew N, Arimoto N, Nishino T, Peijs T (2008) All-cellulose composites by surface selective dissolution of aligned lingo-cellulosic fibres. Compos Sci Technol 68:2201–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Soykeabkaew N, Nishino T, Peijs T (2009a) All-cellulose composites of regenerated cellulose fibres by surface selective dissolution. Compos A 40:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Soykeabkaew N, Sian C, Gea S, Nishino T, Peijs T (2009b) All-cellulose nanocomposites by surface selective dissolution of bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 16:435–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vanderhart DL, Atalla RH (1984) Studies of microstructure in native cellulose using solid-state 13C NMR. Macromolecules 17:1465–1472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhou Q, Malm E, Nilsson H, Larsson PE, Iversen T, Berglund LA, Bulone V (2009) Nanostructured biocomposites based on bacterial cellulosic nanofibers compartmentalized by a soft hydroxyethylcellulose matrix coating. Soft Matter 5:1–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wallenberg Wood Science CenterRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Innventia ABStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations