pp 1–19 | Cite as

Trends in the production of cellulose nanofibers from non-wood sources

  • Jordan Pennells
  • Ian D. Godwin
  • Nasim Amiralian
  • Darren J. MartinEmail author
Review Paper


The rise of biomass-derived nanocellulose addresses the sustainability criteria now demanded of new materials, which have been widely overlooked in the plastics era—renewability, abundance, biodegradability, and recyclability. Cellulose nanofibers have conventionally been extracted from wood products, supported by an established forestry infrastructure, but the drive for biomass sustainability has encouraged researchers to explore non-wood sources over the past 15 years. Non-wood sources, including agricultural residues and industrial wastes, offer an attractive alternative due to their abundance, fast generation, and low starting value. Moreover, agricultural residues can improve the sustainability of cellulose nanofiber processing from multiple angles. The biochemical composition of the typical agricultural residue, which is lower in lignin and higher in hemicellulose than wood stems, improves the fibrillation efficiency of cellulose bundles into nano-scale fibers. In addition, agricultural residues yield high biomass volume from short growth cycles with improved land utilisation, whilst offsetting environmental issues associated with their current uses. In this work, we performed a comprehensive literature evaluation of the biomass sources used to produce cellulose nanofibers. Of the 3358 cellulose nanofiber publications from 2004 to 2018 with an identifiable source material, 57% were derived from wood-based biomass and 30% from non-wood biomass, with 100 unique biomass sources identified. Furthermore, the top research fields associated with non-wood publications included general characterisation (36%), plastic nanocomposites (19%), bionanocomposites (9%), biomedical products (8%), and electronic devices (6%). As social, political and economic drivers reinforce sustainability as a key focus in nanocellulose production, this bibliometric resource provides a timely snapshot of the sustainability trends in cellulose nanofiber research.


Cellulose nanofibers Non-wood Sustainability Biochemical composition Fibrillation 



Funding was provided by Grains Research and Development Corporation (Grant No. 9176987).

Supplementary material

10570_2019_2828_MOESM1_ESM.docx (140 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 139 kb)


  1. Abdul Khalil HPS, Bhat AH, Abu Bakar A et al (2015) Cellulosic nanocomposites from natural fibers for medical applications: a review. In: Pandey JK, Takagi H, Nakagaito AN, Kim H-J (eds) Handbook of polymer nanocomposites. processing, performance and application: volume c: polymer nanocomposites of cellulose nanoparticles, processing, performance and application. Springer, Berlin, pp 475–511Google Scholar
  2. Abdul Khalil HPS, Davoudpour Y, Saurabh CK et al (2016) A review on nanocellulosic fibres as new material for sustainable packaging: process and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 64:823–836. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adel AM, El-Gendy AA, Diab MA et al (2016) Microfibrillated cellulose from agricultural residues. Part I: papermaking application. Ind Crops Prod 93:161–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alila S, Besbes I, Vilar MR et al (2013) Non-woody plants as raw materials for production of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC): a comparative study. Ind Crops Prod 41:250–259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anagnost SE, Mark RE, Hanna RB (2002) Variation of microfibril angle within individual tracheids. Wood Fiber Sci 34:337–349Google Scholar
  6. Asper M, Hanrieder T, Quellmalz A, Mihranyan A (2015) Removal of xenotropic murine leukemia virus by nanocellulose based filter paper. Biologicals 43:452–456. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Balea A, Merayo N, De La Fuente E et al (2017) Assessing the influence of refining, bleaching and TEMPO-mediated oxidation on the production of more sustainable cellulose nanofibers and their application as paper additives. Ind Crops Prod 97:374–387. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benítez AJ, Walther A (2017) Cellulose nanofibril nanopapers and bioinspired nanocomposites: a review to understand the mechanical property space. J Mater Chem A 5:16003–16024. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boufi S (2017) Agricultural crop residue as a source for the production of cellulose nanofibrils. Cellul Nanofibre Compos. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chaker A, Alila S, Mutje P et al (2013) Key role of the hemicellulose content and the cell morphology on the nanofibrillation effectiveness of cellulose pulps. Cellulose 20:2863–2875. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaker A, Mutjé P, Vilar MR, Boufi S (2014) Agriculture crop residues as a source for the production of nanofibrillated cellulose with low energy demand. Cellulose 21:4247–4259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen C, Hu L (2018) Nanocellulose toward advanced energy storage devices: structure and electrochemistry. Acc Chem Res 51:3154–3165. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen YW, Lee HV (2018) Revalorization of selected municipal solid wastes as new precursors of “green” nanocellulose via a novel one-pot isolation system: a source perspective. Int J Biol Macromol 107:78–92. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen Y, Geng B, Ru J et al (2017) Comparative characteristics of TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibers and resulting nanopapers from bamboo, softwood, and hardwood pulps. Cellulose 24:4831–4844. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Courchene CE, Peter GF, Litvay J (2005) Cellulose microfibril angle as a determinant of paper strength and hygroexpansivity in Pinus taeda L. Wood Fiber Sci 38:112–120Google Scholar
  16. Das IK, Rakshit S (2016) Millets, their importance, and production constraints. In: Padmaja PG, Das IK (eds) Biotic stress resistance in millets. Academic Press, New York, pp 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis CS, Grolman DL, Karim A, Gilman JW (2015) What do we still need to understand to commercialize cellulose nanomaterials? Green Mater 3:53–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Delgado-Aguilar M, González I, Tarrés Q et al (2016) The key role of lignin in the production of low-cost lignocellulosic nanofibres for papermaking applications. Ind Crops Prod 86:295–300. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fahma F, Iwamoto S, Hori N et al (2010) Isolation, preparation, and characterization of nanofibers from oil palm empty-fruit-bunch (OPEFB). Cellulose 17:977–985. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. FAOSTAT (2019) FAOSTAT statistical databaseGoogle Scholar
  21. Farahbakhsh N, Roodposhti PS, Ayoub A et al (2015) Melt extrusion of polyethylene nanocomposites reinforced with nanofibrillated cellulose from cotton and wood sources. J Appl Polym Sci. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Favier V, Canova GR, Cavaille JY et al (1995a) Nanocomposite materials from latex and cellulose whiskers. Polym Adv Technol 6:351–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Favier V, Chanzy H, Cavaillé JY (1995b) Polymer nanocomposites reinforced by cellulose whiskers. Macromolecules 28:6365–6367. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferraz N, Carlsson DO, Hong J et al (2012a) Haemocompatibility and ion exchange capability of nanocellulose polypyrrole membranes intended for blood purification. J R Soc Interface 9:1943–1955. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferraz N, Straømme M, Fellström B et al (2012b) In vitro and in vivo toxicity of rinsed and aged nanocellulose-polypyrrole composites. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 100A:2128–2138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferrer A, Filpponen I, Rodríguez A et al (2012a) Valorization of residual Empty Palm Fruit Bunch Fibers (EPFBF) by microfluidization: production of nanofibrillated cellulose and EPFBF nanopaper. Bioresour Technol 125:249–255. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ferrer A, Quintana E, Filpponen E et al (2012b) Effect of residual lignin and heteropolysaccharides in nanofibrillar cellulose and nanopaper from wood fibers. Cellulose 19:2179–2193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. FitzPatrick M, Champagne P, Cunningham MF, Whitney RA (2010) A biorefinery processing perspective: treatment of lignocellulosic materials for the production of value-added products. Bioresour Technol 101:8915–8922. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. García A, Gandini A, Labidi J et al (2016) Industrial and crop wastes: a new source for nanocellulose biorefinery. Ind Crops Prod 93:26–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gardner KH, Blackwell J (1974) The structure of native cellulose. Biopolymers 13:1975–2001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gassan J, Chate A, Bledzki AK (2001) Calculation of elastic properties of natural fibers. J Mater Sci 36:3715–3720. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gupta A, Verma JP (2015) Sustainable bio-ethanol production from agro-residues: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:550–567. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Habibi Y (2014) Key advances in the chemical modification of nanocelluloses. Chem Soc Rev 43:1519–1542. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hassan ML, Mathew AP, Hassan EA et al (2012) Nanofibers from bagasse and rice straw: process optimization and properties. Wood Sci Technol 46:193–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hayes MHB, Mylotte R, Swift RS (2017) Humin: its composition and importance in soil organic matter, 1st edn. Elsevier Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Hessler LE, Merola GV, Berkley EE (1948) Degree of polymerization of cellulose in cotton fibers. Text Res J 18:628–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hosseinmardi A, Annamalai PK, Wang L et al (2017) Reinforcement of natural rubber latex using lignocellulosic nanofibers isolated from spinifex grass. Nanoscale 9:9510–9519. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Huang HJ, Ramaswamy S, Tschirner UW, Ramarao BV (2008) A review of separation technologies in current and future biorefineries. Sep Purif Technol 62:1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jiang Y, Liu X, Yang Q et al (2018) Effects of residual lignin on mechanical defibrillation process of cellulosic fiber for producing lignocellulose nanofibrils. Cellulose 25:6479–6494. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jiang Y, Liu X, Yang Q et al (2019) Effects of residual lignin on composition, structure and properties of mechanically defibrillated cellulose fibrils and films. Cellulose 26:1577–1593. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jonoobi M, Oladi R, Davoudpour Y et al (2015) Different preparation methods and properties of nanostructured cellulose from various natural resources and residues: a review. Cellulose 22:935–969. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jorfi M, Foster EJ (2015) Recent advances in nanocellulose for biomedical applications. J Appl Polym Sci 132:1–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kalia S, Dufresne A, Cherian BM et al (2011) Cellulose-based bio- and nanocomposites: a review. Int J Polym Sci 2011:35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kampeerapappun P (2012) Preparation characterization and antimicrobial activity of electrospun nanofibers from cotton waste fibers. Chiang Mai J Sci 39:712–722Google Scholar
  45. Kargarzadeh H, Mariano M, Huang J et al (2017) Recent developments on nanocellulose reinforced polymer nanocomposites: a review. Polymer (Guildf) 132:368–393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kargarzadeh H, Mariano M, Gopakumar D et al (2018) Advances in cellulose nanomaterials. Springer, NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kenney KL, Smith WA, Gresham GL, Westover TL (2013) Understanding biomass feedstock variability. Biofuels 4:111–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Konandreas P, Schmidhuber J (2007) Global biofuel production trends and possible implications for SwazilandGoogle Scholar
  49. Kumar P, Barrett DM, Delwiche MJ, Stroeve P (2009) Methods for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass for efficient hydrolysis. Ind Eng Chem Res 48:3713–3729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kumar A, Singh SP, Singh AK (2016) Comparative study of cellulose nanofiber blending effect on properties of paper made from bleached bagasse, hardwood and softwood pulps. Cellulose 23:2663–2675. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Laftah WA, Wan Abdul Rahman WA (2016) Pulping process and the potential of using non-wood pineapple leaves fiber for pulp and paper production: a review. J Nat Fibers 13:85–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lavoine N, Desloges I, Dufresne A, Bras J (2012) Microfibrillated cellulose—its barrier properties and applications in cellulosic materials: a review. Carbohydr Polym 90:735–764. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Lee SH, Chang F, Inoue S, Endo T (2010) Increase in enzyme accessibility by generation of nanospace in cell wall supramolecular structure. Bioresour Technol 101:7218–7223. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Lessard G, Chouinard A (1980) In: Bamboo research in Asia: proceedings of a workshop held in Singapore, 28–30 May 1980. IDRC, Ottawa, ON, CAGoogle Scholar
  55. Li S, Bashline L, Lei L (2014) Cellulose synthesis and its regulation. The Arabidopsis Book/American Society of Plant Biologists. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Liu X, Jiang Y, Qin C et al (2018) Enzyme-assisted mechanical grinding for cellulose nanofibers from bagasse: energy consumption and nanofiber characteristics. Cellulose 25:7065–7078. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Madsen B, Gamstedt EK (2013) Wood versus plant fibers: similarities and differences in composite applications. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2013:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Makavana JM, Agravat VV, Balas PR et al (2018) Engineering properties of various agricultural residue. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 7:2362–2367. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Malucelli LC, Matos M, Jordão C et al (2018) Grinding severity influences the viscosity of cellulose nanofiber (CNF) suspensions and mechanical properties of nanopaper. Cellulose 25:6581–6589. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mayer-Laigle C, Blanc N, Rajaonarivony R, Rouau X (2018) Comminution of dry lignocellulosic biomass, a review: part I. From fundamental mechanisms to milling behaviour. Bioengineering 5:41. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Metreveli G, Wågberg L, Emmoth E et al (2014) A size-exclusion nanocellulose filter paper for virus removal. Adv Healthc Mater 3:1546–1550. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Miao Z, Grift TE, Hansen AC, Ting KC (2011) Energy requirement for comminution of biomass in relation to particle physical properties. Ind Crops Prod 33:504–513. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Milanez DH, Noyons E, de Faria LIL (2016) A delineating procedure to retrieve relevant publication data in research areas: the case of nanocellulose. Scientometrics 107:627–643. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Missoum K, Belgacem MN, Bras J (2013) Nanofibrillated cellulose surface modification: a review. Materials (Basel) 6:1745–1766. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Naimi LJ, Sokhansanj S, Bi X, Lim CJ (2016) Development of a size reduction equation for woody biomass: the influence of branch wood properties on Rittinger’s constant. Trans ASABE 59:1475–1484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nair SS, Yan N (2015) Effect of high residual lignin on the thermal stability of nanofibrils and its enhanced mechanical performance in aqueous environments. Cellulose 22:3137–3150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nechyporchuk O, Belgacem MN, Bras J (2016) Production of cellulose nanofibrils: a review of recent advances. Ind Crops Prod 93:2–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Niimura H, Yokoyama T, Kimura S et al (2010) AFM observation of ultrathin microfibrils in fruit tissues. Cellulose 17:13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Novaes E, Kirst M, Chiang V et al (2010) Lignin and biomass: a negative correlation for wood formation and lignin content in trees. Plant Physiol 154:555–561. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Okahisa Y, Abe K, Nogi M et al (2011) Effects of delignification in the production of plant-based cellulose nanofibers for optically transparent nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 71:1342–1347. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Okahisa Y, Furukawa Y, Ishimoto K et al (2018) Comparison of cellulose nanofiber properties produced from different parts of the oil palm tree. Carbohydr Polym 198:313–319. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Oksman K, Aitomäki Y, Mathew AP et al (2016) Review of the recent developments in cellulose nanocomposite processing. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 83:2–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Osong SH, Norgren S, Engstrand P (2016) Processing of wood-based microfibrillated cellulose and nanofibrillated cellulose, and applications relating to papermaking: a review. Cellulose 23:93–123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Parajuli R, Dalgaard T, Jørgensen U et al (2015) Biorefi ning in the prevailing energy and materials crisis: a review of sustainable pathways for biorefinery value chains and sustainability assessment methodologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 43:244–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Park C-W, Han S-Y, Namgung H-W et al (2017) Preparation and characterization of cellulose nanofibrils with varying chemical compositions. BioResources 12:5031–5044. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pennells J, Yu Lin T, Schmidt S et al (2018) Effects of the growth environment on the yield and material properties of nanocellulose derived from the Australian desert grass Triodia. Ind Crops Prod 126:238–249. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Phitsuwan P, Sakka K, Ratanakhanokchai K (2013) Improvement of lignocellulosic biomass in planta: a review of feedstocks, biomass recalcitrance, and strategic manipulation of ideal plants designed for ethanol production and processability. Biomass Bioenerg 58:390–405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Postek MT, Vladár A, Dagata J et al (2011) Development of the metrology and imaging of cellulose nanocrystals. Meas Sci Technol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Prakasham RS, Nagaiah D, Vinutha KS et al (2014) Sorghum biomass: a novel renewable carbon source for industrial bioproducts. Biofuels 5:159–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Puangsin B, Yang Q, Saito T, Isogai A (2013) Comparative characterization of TEMPO-oxidized cellulose nanofibril films prepared from non-wood resources. Int J Biol Macromol 59:208–213. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Rajinipriya M, Nagalakshmaiah M, Robert M, Elkoun S (2018) Importance of agricultural and industrial waste in the field of nanocellulose and recent industrial developments of wood based nanocellulose: a review. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 6:2807–2828. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rocha I, Ferraz N, Mihranyan A et al (2018) Sulfonated nanocellulose beads as potential immunosorbents. Cellulose 25:1899–1910. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rojo E, Peresin MS, Sampson WW et al (2015) Comprehensive elucidation of the effect of residual lignin on the physical, barrier, mechanical and surface properties of nanocellulose films. Green Chem 17:1853–1866. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rol F, Belgacem MN, Gandini A, Bras J (2019) Recent advances in surface-modified cellulose nanofibrils. Prog Polym Sci 88:241–264. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sampaio S, Bishop D, Shen J (2005) Physical and chemical properties of flax fibres from stand-retted crops desiccated at different stages of maturity. Ind Crops Prod 21:275–284. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Shahid-Ul-Islam, Shahid M, Mohammad F (2013) Perspectives for natural product based agents derived from industrial plants in textile applications—a review. J Clean Prod 57:2–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sharma R, Kumar V, Kumar R (2019) Distribution of phytoliths in plants: a review. Geol Ecol Landsc 3:123–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Solala I, Vuorinen T, Volperts A et al (2012) Mechanoradical formation and its effects on birch kraft pulp during the preparation of nanofibrillated cellulose with Masuko refining. Holzforschung 66:477–483. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tao G, Lestander TA, Geladi P, Xiong S (2012) Biomass properties in association with plant species and assortments I: a synthesis based on literature data of energy properties. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:3481–3506. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. TAPPI (2013) Proposed new TAPPI standard: standard terms and their definition for cellulose nanomaterialGoogle Scholar
  91. Thakur VK (2014) Nanocellulose polymer nanocomposites: fundamentals and applications. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Thygesen A, Thomsen AB, Daniel G, Lilholt H (2007) Comparison of composites made from fungal defibrated hemp with composites of traditional hemp yarn. Ind Crops Prod 25:147–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tsuboi K, Yokota S, Kondo T (2014) Difference between bamboo- and wood-derived cellulose nanofibers prepared by the aqueous counter collision method. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 29:69–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tumuluru JS, Tabil LG, Song Y et al (2014) Grinding energy and physical properties of chopped and hammer-milled barley, wheat, oat, and canola straws. Biomass Bioenerg 60:58–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Turbak AF, Snyder FW, Sandberg KR (1983) Microfibrillated celluloseGoogle Scholar
  96. Väisänen T, Haapala A, Lappalainen R, Tomppo L (2016) Utilization of agricultural and forest industry waste and residues in natural fiber-polymer composites: a review. Waste Manag 54:62–73. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Vassilev SV, Baxter D, Andersen LK et al (2012) An overview of the organic and inorganic phase composition of biomass. Fuel 94:1–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vogel J (2008) Unique aspects of the grass cell wall. Curr Opin Plant Biol 11:301–307. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Voloshin RA, Rodionova MV, Zharmukhamedov SK et al (2016) Review: biofuel production from plant and algal biomass. Int J Hydrog Energy 41:17257–17273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wang Y, Wei X, Li J et al (2015) Study on nanocellulose by high pressure homogenization in homogeneous isolation. Fibers Polym 16:572–578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wang Z, Pan R, Sun R et al (2018) Nanocellulose structured paper-based lithium metal batteries. ACS Appl Energy Mater 1:4341–4350. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Watanabe Y, Schneider R, Barkwill S et al (2018) Cellulose synthase complexes display distinct dynamic behaviors during xylem transdifferentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:E6366–E6374. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Williams CL, Westover TL, Emerson RM et al (2016) Sources of biomass feedstock variability and the potential impact on biofuels production. Bioenergy Res 9:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Xu C, Carlsson DO, Mihranyan A (2016) Feasibility of using DNA-immobilized nanocellulose-based immunoadsorbent for systemic lupus erythematosus plasmapheresis. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 143:1–6. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Xu C, Kong X, Zhou S et al (2018) Interweaving metal-organic framework-templated Co-Ni layered double hydroxide nanocages with nanocellulose and carbon nanotubes to make flexible and foldable electrodes for energy storage devices. J Mater Chem A 6:24050–24057. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Yahya M, Chen YW, Lee HV, Hassan WHW (2018) Reuse of selected lignocellulosic and processed biomasses as sustainable sources for the fabrication of nanocellulose via Ni(II)-catalyzed hydrolysis approach: a comparative study. J Polym Environ 26:2825–2844. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Yu Y, Wang H, Lu F et al (2014) Bamboo fibers for composite applications: a mechanical and morphological investigation. J Mater Sci 49:2559–2566. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Yue D, Qian X (2018) Isolation and rheological characterization of cellulose nanofibrils (CNFs) from coir fibers in comparison to wood and cotton. Polymers 10(3):320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Ziemińska K, Butler DW, Gleason SM et al (2013) Fibre wall and lumen fractions drive wood density variation across 24 Australian angiosperms. AoB Plants 5:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Zimmermann T, Pöhler E, Geiger T (2004) Cellulose fibrils for polymer reinforcement. Adv Eng Mater 6:754–761. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (AIBN)The University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Agriculture and Food ScienceThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations