Advertisement

Cellulose

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 249–279 | Cite as

Thermodynamics of adsorption on nanocellulose surfaces

  • Salvatore Lombardo
  • Wim ThielemansEmail author
Review Paper
  • 235 Downloads

Abstract

Understanding the thermodynamic interactions of cellulose nanomaterials with their environment is important to understand the forces behind their self-organization and co-organisation with other compounds, and to be able to use self-assembly to form new functional multicomponent materials. This review analyzes published studies that determined the thermodynamic parameters of the surface interactions of and adsorption of various compounds (proteins, polymers, and small molecules/ions) onto cellulose nanomaterials. We compiled the data reported and performed a meta-analysis for better comparison and to find trends in the published data. We first introduce the methods employed and describe the adsorption isotherm models typically used to describe the adsorption thermodynamics on nanocellulose surfaces. We then discuss and analyze the published results for the interaction of the various compounds with nanocellulose surfaces. The systems that have been reported on most were adsorption of natural binding proteins and various pollutants from water, such as heavy metal ions, dyes, and drugs. Interactions between cellulose surfaces and the cellulose binding module were generally both enthalpy- and entropy-driven, where the negative binding enthalpy indicates the formation of specific interactions between peptides and the carbohydrate backbone. On the other hand, interactions with charged molecules were mostly endothermic and purely entropy-driven, indicating that the adsorption on nanocellulose surfaces can be described as an interaction between opposite charges, where the entropy increase that arises from the release of surface-structured water molecules and counterions from the electronic double layer supplies the major contribution to the free energy of adsorption. We performed a meta-analysis on all published data, and found a linear relationship between ∆H and ∆S with the slope equal to the reference temperature, irrespective of whether the interacting compound is a specific cellulose binding protein, a non-specific binding protein, a polymer, or a small molecule/ion. This indicates that the process of adsorption is the same for all compounds and takes place with a constant change in Gibbs free energy of interaction, ∆G, where a change in interaction enthalpy is offset by change in entropy change upon binding and vice versa.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Nanocellulose Adsorption Thermodynamics Isothermal titration calorimetry 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO) for funding under the Odysseus grant (G.0C60.13N) and research grant 1501516N, and KU Leuven for grant OT/14/072. WT also thanks the Provincie West-Vlaanderen (Belgium) for financial support through his Provincial Chair in Advanced Materials.

References

  1. Anirudhan TS, Rejeena SR (2012) Poly(acrylic acid)-modified poly(glycidylmethacrylate)-grafted nanocellulose as matrices for the adsorption of lysozyme from aqueous solutions. Chem Eng J 187:150–159.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.01.113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anirudhan TS, Shainy F (2015a) Effective removal of mercury(II) ions from chlor-alkali industrial wastewater using 2-mercaptobenzamide modified itaconic acid-grafted-magnetite nanocellulose composite. J Colloid Interface Sci 456:22–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2015.05.052 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Anirudhan TS, Shainy F (2015b) Adsorption behaviour of 2-mercaptobenzamide modified itaconic acid-grafted-magnetite nanocellulose composite for cadmium(II) from aqueous solutions. J Ind Eng Chem 32:157–166.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2015.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anirudhan TS, Deepa JR, Christa J (2016) Nanocellulose/nanobentonite composite anchored with multi-carboxyl functional groups as an adsorbent for the effective removal of Cobalt(II) from nuclear industry wastewater samples. J Colloid Interface Sci 467:307–320.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2016.01.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkins P, De Paula J (2001) Process at Solid surfaces. Atkins’ Physical chemistry, 7th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 977–1005Google Scholar
  6. Batmaz R, Mohammed N, Zaman M et al (2014) Cellulose nanocrystals as promising adsorbents for the removal of cationic dyes. Cellulose 21:1655–1665.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-014-0168-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beckham GT, Matthews JF, Bomble YJ et al (2010) Identification of amino acids responsible for processivity in a family 1 carbohydrate-binding module from a fungal cellulase. J Phys Chem B 114:1447–1453.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp908810a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Belhachemi M, Addoun F (2011) Comparative adsorption isotherms and modeling of methylene blue onto activated carbons. Appl Water Sci 1:111–117.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-011-0014-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benselfelt T, Cranston ED, Ondaral S et al (2016) Adsorption of xyloglucan onto cellulose surfaces of different morphologies: an entropy-driven process. Biomacromol 17:2801–2811.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.6b00561 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boraston AB (2005) The interaction of carbohydrate-binding modules with insoluble non-crystalline cellulose is enthalpically driven. Biochem J 385:479–484.  https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20041473 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Boraston AB, Ghaffari M, Warren RAJ, Kilburn DG (2002) Identification and glucan-binding properties of a new carbohydrate-binding module family. Biochem J 361:35–40.  https://doi.org/10.1042/bj3610035 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Bray MR, Johnson PE, Gilkes NR et al (1996) Probing the role of tryptophan residues in a cellulose-binding domain by chemical modification. Protein Sci 5:2311–2318.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.5560051117 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgert I (2006) Exploring the micromechanical design of plant cell walls. Am J Bot 93:1391–1401.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.93.10.1391 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Carpenter AW, de Lannoy CF, Wiesner MR (2015) Cellulose nanomaterials in water treatment technologies alexis. Env Sci Technol 49:209–220.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es506351r.Cellulose CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chanliaud E, De Silva J, Strongitharm B et al (2004) Mechanical effects of plant cell wall enzymes on cellulose/xyloglucan composites. Plant J 38:27–37.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2004.02018.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen P, Nishiyama Y, Wohlert J et al (2017) Translational entropy and dispersion energy jointly drive the adsorption of urea to cellulose. J Phys Chem B 121:2244–2251.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.6b11914 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Chodera JD, Mobley DL (2014) NIH public access. Annu Rev Biophys 42:121–142.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-083012-130318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cosgrove DJ (2014) Re-constructing our models of cellulose and primary cell wall assembly. Curr Opin Plant Biol 22:122–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2014.11.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Creagh AL, Ong E, Jervis E et al (1996) Binding of the cellulose-binding domain of exoglucanase cex from cellulomonas fimi to insoluble microcrystalline cellulose is entropically driven. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93:12229–12234.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.22.12229 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Cui G, Liu M, Chen Y et al (2016) Synthesis of a ferric hydroxide-coated cellulose nanofiber hybrid for effective removal of phosphate from wastewater. Carbohydr Polym 154:40–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.08.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Da Silva Perez D, Ruggiero R, Morais LC et al (2004) Theoretical and experimental studies on the adsorption of aromatic compounds onto cellulose. Langmuir 20:3151–3158.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la0357817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Melo JCP, da Silva Filho EC, Santana SAA, Airoldi C (2009) Maleic anhydride incorporated onto cellulose and thermodynamics of cation-exchange process at the solid/liquid interface. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 346:138–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2009.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Melo JCP, Da Silva Filho EC, Santana SAA, Airoldi C (2010) Exploring the favorable ion-exchange ability of phthalylated cellulose biopolymer using thermodynamic data. Carbohydr Res 345:1914–1921.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carres.2010.06.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Dumanli AG, Van Der Kooij HM, Kamita G et al (2014) Digital color in cellulose nanocrystal films. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6:12302–12306.  https://doi.org/10.1021/am501995e CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Duong TD, Nguyen KL, Hoang M (2006) Isotherm sorption of Cd2 + , Co2 + , and Ni2 + onto high-yield kraft fibers. J Colloid Interface Sci 303:69–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2006.07.038 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Eichhorn SJ, Dufresne A, Aranguren M et al (2010) Review: Current international research into cellulose nanofibres and nanocomposites. J Mater Sci 45:1–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-009-3874-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Everett DH (1986) Reporting data on adsorption from solution at the solid/solution interface. Pure Appl Chem 58:967–984.  https://doi.org/10.1351/pac198658070967 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freire E (2009) Do enthalpy and entropy distinguish first in class from best in class? Drug Discov Today 13:869–874.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis2008.07.005.Do CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freyer MW, Lewis EA (2008) Isothermal titration calorimetry: experimental design, data analysis, and probing macromolecule/ligand binding and kinetic interactions. Method Cell Biol 84:79–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0091-679X(07)84004-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Georgelis N, Yennawar NH, Cosgrove DJ (2012) Structural basis for entropy-driven cellulose binding by a type-A cellulose-binding module (CBM) and bacterial expansin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:14830–14835.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213200109 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Giese M, Blusch LK, Khan MK, MacLachlan MJ (2015) Functional materials from cellulose-derived liquid-crystal templates. Angew Chemie—Int Ed 54:2888–2910.  https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201407141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Giles CH, MacEwan TH, Nakhwa SN, Smith D (1960) Studies in adsorption. Part XI.* A system of classification of solution adsorption isotherms, and its use in diagnosis of adsorption mechanism and in measurement of specific surface areas of solid. J Chem Soc 846:3973.  https://doi.org/10.1039/jr9600003973 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Guo J, Catchmark JM (2013) Binding specificity and thermodynamics of cellulose-binding modules from trichoderma reesei Cel7A and Cel6A. Biomacromol 14:1268–1277.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm300810t CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Guo J, Catchmark JM, Mohamed MNA et al (2013) Identification and characterization of a cellulose binding heptapeptide revealed by phage display. Biomacromol 14:1795–1805.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm4001876 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Habibi Y, Lucia LA, Rojas OJ (2010) Cellulose nanocrystals: chemistry, self-assembly, and applications. Chem Rev 110:3479–3500.  https://doi.org/10.1021/cr900339w CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hamid HA, Jenidi Y, Thielemans W et al (2016) Predicting the capability of carboxylated cellulose nanowhiskers for the remediation of copper from water using response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural network (ANN) models. Ind Crop Prod 93:108–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.05.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holzapfel BM, Reichert JC, Schantz JT et al (2013) How smart do biomaterials need to be? A translational science and clinical point of view. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 65:581–603.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.07.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hu Z, Omer Ahmed M, Yu D (2018) Fabrication of carboxylated cellulose nanocrystal/sodium alginate hydrogel beads for adsorption of Pb(II) from aqueous solution. Int J Biol Macromol 108:149–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.11.171 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Huang R, Lau BLT (2016) Biomolecule-nanoparticle interactions: Elucidation of the thermodynamics by isothermal titration calorimetry. Biochim Biophys Acta—Gen Subj 1860:945–956.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2016.01.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kabiri M, Unsworth LD (2014) Application of isothermal titration calorimetry for characterizing thermodynamic parameters of biomolecular interactions: peptide self-assembly and protein adsorption case studies. Biomacromol 15:3463–3473.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm5004515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kenawy IM, Hafez MAH, Ismail MA, Hashem MA (2018) Adsorption of Cu(II), Cd(II), Hg(II), Pb(II) and Zn(II) from aqueous single metal solutions by guanyl-modified cellulose. Int J Biol Macromol 107:1538–1549.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.10.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Khan AA, Singh RP (1987) Adsorption thermodynamics of carbofuran on Sn (IV) arsenosilicate in H+ , Na+ and Ca2+ forms. Colloids Surf 24:33–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-6622(87)80259-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Klemm D, Kramer F, Moritz S et al (2011) Nanocelluloses: a new family of nature-based materials. Angew Chemie—Int Ed 50:5438–5466.  https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201001273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klockars KW, Tardy BL, Borghei M et al (2018) Effect of anisotropy of cellulose nanocrystal suspensions on stratification, domain structure formation and structural colors. Biomacromolecules.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.8b00497 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Kolakovic R, Peltonen L, Laukkanen A et al (2013) Evaluation of drug interactions with nanofibrillar cellulose. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 85:1238–1244.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2013.05.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Kumari S, Chauhan GS, Ahn JH (2016) Novel cellulose nanowhiskers-based polyurethane foam for rapid and persistent removal of methylene blue from its aqueous solutions. Chem Eng J 304:728–736.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Langmuir I (1916) The constitution and funfamental properties of solids and liquids. Part I. Solids. J Am Chem Soc 38:2221–2295.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ja02268a002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Latour RA (2015) The Langmuir isotherm: a commonly applied but misleading approach for the analysis of protein adsorption behavior. J Biomed Mater Res—Part A 103:949–958.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.35235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lima DU, Loh W, Buckeridge MS (2004) Xyloglucan-cellulose interaction depends on the sidechains and molecular weight of xyloglucan. Plant Physiol Biochem 42:389–394.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2004.03.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Lin N, Dufresne A (2014) Nanocellulose in biomedicine: current status and future prospect. Eur Polym J 59:302–325.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2014.07.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lin D, Lopez-Sanchez P, Gidley MJ (2016) Interactions of pectins with cellulose during its synthesis in the absence of calcium. Food Hydrocoll 52:57–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2015.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Liu Y (2009) Is the free energy change of adsorption correctly calculated? J Chem Eng Data 54:1981–1985.  https://doi.org/10.1021/je800661q CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Liu Y, Sturtevant JM (1995) Significant discrepancies between van’t Hoff and calorimetric enthalpies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 92:5597–5599.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.5560041212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Liu C, Jin R, Ouyang X, Wang Y (2017) Adsorption behavior of carboxylated cellulose nanocrystal—polyethyleneimine composite for removal of Cr(VI) ions. Appl Surf Sci 408:77–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.02.265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lombard V, Golaconda Ramulu H, Drula E et al (2014) The carbohydrate-active enzymes database (CAZy) in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res 42:490–495.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lombardo S, Thielemans W (2018) Thermodynamics of the interactions of positively charged cellulose nanocrystals with molecules bearing different amounts of carboxylate anions. Phys Chem Chem Phys 20:17637–17647.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c8cp01532e CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Lombardo S, Eyley S, Schütz C et al (2017) Thermodynamic study of the interaction of bovine serum albumin and amino acids with cellulose nanocrystals. Langmuir 33:5473–5481.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b00710 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Lombardo S, Chen P, Larsson PA et al (2018) Toward Improved Understanding of the Interactions between Poorly Soluble Drugs and Cellulose Nanofibers. Langmuir 34:5464–5473.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b00531 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Lopez M, Marais M, Zykwinska A et al (2010) Enthalpic studies of xyloglucan—cellulose interactions. Biomacromol 11:1417–1428.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm1002762 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lu M, Zhang YM, Guan XH et al (2014) Thermodynamics and kinetics of adsorption for heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions onto surface amino-bacterial cellulose. Trans Nonferrous Met Soc China 24:1912–1917.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s1003-6326(14)63271-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mansour RA, Elmenshawy AM (2017) Removal of heavy metals from aqueous solution by adsorption onto modified cellulose: equilibrium, kinetics, and thermodynamics study. Int Water Tech J 7:116–132Google Scholar
  62. Marga F, Gallo A, Hasenstein KH (2003) Cell wall components affect mechanical properties: studies with thistle flowers. Plant Physiol Biochem 41:792–797.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0981-9428(03)00120-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mazeau K, Vergelati C (2002) Atomistic modeling of the adsorption of benzophenone onto cellulosic surfaces. Langmuir 18:1919–1927.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la010792q CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mazeau K, Wyszomirski M (2012) Modelling of Congo red adsorption on the hydrophobic surface of cellulose using molecular dynamics. Cellulose 19:1495–1506.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-012-9757-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Melo JCP, Silva Filho EC, Santana SAA, Airoldi C (2011) Synthesized cellulose/succinic anhydride as an ion exchanger. Calorimetry of divalent cations in aqueous suspension. Thermochim Acta 524:29–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2011.06.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mohammed N, Grishkewich N, Berry RM, Tam KC (2015) Cellulose nanocrystal–alginate hydrogel beads as novel adsorbents for organic dyes in aqueous solutions. Cellulose 22:3725–3738.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-015-0747-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mohan T, Hribernik S, Kargl R, Stana-Kleinschek K (2015) Nanocellulosic materials in tissue engineering applications. In: Matheus Poletto (ed) Cellulose—fundamental aspects and current trends, pp 251–273Google Scholar
  68. Mu X, Gray DG (2014) Formation of chiral nematic films from cellulose nanocrystal suspensions is a two-stage process. Langmuir 30:9256–9260.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la501741r CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Myers AL (2004) Thermodynamics of adsorption. In: Letcher, Trevor M (ed) Chemical thermodynamics for industry, 1st edn. The Royal society of Chemistry, Letchworth, pp 243–254Google Scholar
  70. Nagy T, Simpson P, Williamson MP et al (1998) All three surface tryptophans in Type II a cellulose binding domains play a pivotal role in binding both soluble and insoluble ligands. FEBS Lett 429:312–316.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-5793(98)00625-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Navon Y, Radavidson H, Putaux J et al (2017) pH-sensitive interactions between cellulose nanocrystals and DOPC liposomes. Biomacromol 18:2918–2927.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.7b00872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Notenboom V, Boraston AB, Chiu P et al (2001) Recognition of cello-oligosaccharides by a family 17 carbohydrate-binding module: an X-ray crystallographic, thermodynamic and mutagenic study. J Mol Biol 314:797–806.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.2001.5153 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Pérez-Casas S, Hernández-Trujillo J, Costas M (2003) Experimental and theoretical study of aromatic-aromatic interactions. Association enthalpies and central and distributed multipole electric moments analysis. J Phys Chem B 107:4167–4174.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp0225828 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Perozzo R, Folkers G, Scapozza L (2004) Thermodynamics of protein-ligand interactions: History, presence, and future aspects. J Recept Signal Transduct 24:1–52.  https://doi.org/10.1081/RRS-120037896 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pillai SS, Deepa B, Abraham E et al (2013) Biosorption of Cd(II) from aqueous solution using xanthated nano banana cellulose: equilibrium and kinetic studies. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 98:352–360.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2013.09.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Place ES, Evans ND, Stevens MM (2009) Complexity in biomaterials for tissue engineering. Nat Mater 8:457–470.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat2441 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Ponyi T, Szabó L, Nagy T et al (2000) Trp22, Trp24, and Tyr8 play a pivotal role in the binding of the family 10 cellulose-binding module from Pseudomonas xylanase. A to insoluble ligands. Biochemistry 39:985–991.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bi9921642 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Privalov PL, Gill SJ (1989) The hydrophobic effect: a reappraisal. Pure Appl Chem 61:1097–1104.  https://doi.org/10.1351/pac198961061097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Putro Nyoo J, Kurniawan A, Ismadji S, Ju Y (2017) Nanocellulose based biosorbents for wastewater treatment: study of isotherm, kinetic, thermodynamic and reusability. Environ Nanotechnol, Monit Manag 8:134–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enmm.2017.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Qiao H, Zhou Y, Yu F et al (2015) Effective removal of cationic dyes using carboxylate-functionalized cellulose nanocrystals. Chemosphere 141:297–303.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.07.078 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Rathod M, Haldar S, Basha S (2015) Nanocrystalline cellulose for removal of tetracycline hydrochloride from water via biosorption: equilibrium, kinetic and thermodynamic studies. Ecol Eng 84:240–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.09.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rouquerol J, Rouquerol F (2014) Adsorption at the liquid-solid interface: thermodynamics and methodology. In: Rouquerol F, Rouquerol J, Sing KSW et al (eds) Adsorption by powders and porous solids: principles, methodology and applications, 2nd edn. Academic Press, London, pp 105–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Samiey B, Tehrani AD (2015) Study of adsorption of janus green B and methylene blue on nanocrystalline cellulose. J Chin Chem Soc 62:149–162.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jccs.201400093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Shopsowitz KE, Qi H, Hamad WY, MacLachlan MJ (2010) Free-standing mesoporous silica films with tunable chiral nematic structures. Nature 468:422–426.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09540 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Silva Filho EC, Lima LCB, Sousa KS et al (2013) Calorimetry studies for interaction in solid/liquid interface between the modified cellulose and divalent cation. J Therm Anal Calorim 114:57–66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-012-2868-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Silverstein KAT, Haymet ADJ, Dill KA (1998) A simple model of water and the hydrophobic effect. J Am Chem Soc 120:3166–3175.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ja973029k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Singh N, Balasubramanian K (2014) An effective technique for removal and recovery of uranium(vi) from aqueous solution using cellulose-camphor soot nanofibers. RSC Adv 4:27691–27701.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c4ra01751j CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Song W, Lee JK, Gong MS et al (2018) Cellulose nanocrystal-based colored thin films for colorimetric detection of aldehyde gases. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 10:10353–10361.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.7b19738 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Sun X, Yang L, Li Q et al (2014) Amino-functionalized magnetic cellulose nanocomposite as adsorbent for removal of Cr(VI): synthesis and adsorption studies. Chem Eng J 241:175–183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.12.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Teeri TT, Brumer H, Daniel G, Gatenholm P (2007) Biomimetic engineering of cellulose-based materials. Trends Biotechnol 25:299–306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.05.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Tomme P, Creagh AL, Kilburn DG, Haynes CA (1996) Interaction of polysaccharides with the N-terminal cellulose-binding domain of Cellulomonas fimi CenC. 1. Binding specificity and calorimetric analysis. Biochemistry 35:13885–13894.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bi961185i CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Torres JD, Faria EA, Prado AGS (2006) Thermodynamic studies of the interaction at the solid/liquid interface between metal ions and cellulose modified with ethylenediamine. J Hazard Mater 129:239–243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.08.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Tozuka Y, Yonemochi E, Oguchi T, Yamamoto K (1998) Fluorometric studies of pyrene adsorption on porous crystalline cellulose. J Colloid Interface Sci 205:510–515.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.1998.5722 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Tozuka Y, Tashiro E, Yonemochi E et al (2002) Solid-state fluorescence study of naphthalene adsorption on porous material. J Colloid Interface Sci 248:239–243.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.2001.8142 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Umpleby RJ, Baxter SC, Bode M et al (2001) Application of the Freundlich adsorption isotherm in the characterization of molecularly imprinted polymers. Anal Chim Acta 435:35–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(00)01211-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Vignolini S, Rudall PJ, Rowland AV et al (2012) Pointillist structural color in Pollia fruit. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:15712–15715.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210105109 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Voisin H, Bergström L, Liu P, Mathew A (2017) Nanocellulose-based materials for water purification. Nanomaterials 7:57.  https://doi.org/10.3390/nano7030057 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  98. Wang T, Zabotina O, Hong M (2012) Pectin-cellulose interactions in the arabidopsis primary cell wall from two-dimensional magic-angle-spinning solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance. Biochemistry 51:9846–9856.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bi3015532 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Wang F, Pan Y, Cai P et al (2017) Single and binary adsorption of heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions using sugarcane cellulose-based adsorbent. Bioresour Technol 241:482–490.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.162 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Wertz CF, Santore MM (2001) Effect of surface hydrophobicity on adsoroption and relaxation kinetics of albumin and fibrinogen: single-species and competetive behavior. Langmuir 17:3006–3016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Yu X, Tong S, Ge M et al (2013) Adsorption of heavy metal ions from aqueous solution by carboxylated cellulose nanocrystals. J Environ Sci 25:933–943.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(12)60145-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zhang Q, Brumer H, Ågren H, Tu Y (2011) The adsorption of xyloglucan on cellulose: effects of explicit water and side chain variation. Carbohydr Res 346:2595–2602.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carres.2011.09.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Zhao Z, Crespi VH, Kubicki JD et al (2014) Molecular dynamics simulation study of xyloglucan adsorption on cellulose surfaces: effects of surface hydrophobicity and side-chain variation. Cellulose 21:1025–1039.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-013-0041-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zhou Y, Zhang M, Wang X et al (2014) Removal of crystal violet by a novel cellulose-based adsorbent: comparison with native cellulose. Ind Eng Chem Res 53:5498–5506.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ie404135y CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Renewable Materials and Nanotechnology Research Group, Department of Chemical EngineeringKU LeuvenKortrijkBelgium

Personalised recommendations