Advertisement

Cellulose

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 347–356 | Cite as

Water vapor mass transport across nanofibrillated cellulose films: effect of surface hydrophobization

Original Paper

Abstract

In this paper, porous nanofibrillated cellulose (NFC) films were utilized to produce water-resistant, porous cellulose films. Film porosities of ~ 50% were achieved through solvent exchange from water to acetone, and the resulting films were hydrophobized with an epoxy modifier in non-swelling conditions in acetone, yielding films that were non-wettable by water but permeable to water vapor. The mass transport mechanisms of gaseous and liquid water were studied by water vapor transfer rate (WVTR), water vapor uptake and water contact angle measurements to unfold how these properties were achieved. Surface hydrophobization was found to decrease the moisture uptake but it did not prevent it completely. The WVTR values were in effect similar for the initial and hydrophobized films, even if the water contact angles were higher in the latter. We anticipate that the porous and hydrophobic NFC films presented in this paper may find applications in sportswear, medical, or personal hygiene products.

Keywords

Cellulose films Nanofibrillated cellulose Surface hydrophobization Water mass transport Water vapor transport rate 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The VINN Excellence Centre SuMo Biomaterials is gratefully acknowledged for financial support. The authors also acknowledge Anders Mårtensson for skillful SEM work and Anne Wendel for support in the BET measurements. Furthermore, the authors thank Prof. Gunnar Westman for fruitful discussions and Chris Bonnerup for providing the NFC.

Supplementary material

10570_2017_1608_MOESM1_ESM.docx (43 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 43 kb)

References

  1. Aitomäki Y, Moreno-Rodriguez S, Lundström TS, Oksman K (2016) Vacuum infusion of cellulose nanofibre network composites: influence of porosity on permeability and impregnation. Mater Des 95:204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alger R (1970) Proceedings of the 4th materials research symposium, Gaithersburg, MD, 26–29 Oct 1970 (Issued 1972)Google Scholar
  3. Aulin C, Ahola S, Josefsson P, Nishino T, Hirose Y, Österberg M, Wågberg L (2009) Nanoscale cellulose films with different crystallinities and mesostructures their surface properties and interaction with water. Langmuir 25:7675–7685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aulin C, Gällstedt M, Lindström T (2010) Oxygen and oil barrier properties of microfibrillated cellulose films and coatings. Cellulose 17:559–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett EP, Joyner LG, Halenda PP (1951) The determination of pore volume and area distributions in porous substances. I. Computations from nitrogen isotherms. J Am Chem Soc 73:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bedane AH, Eić M, Farmahini-Farahani M, Xiao H (2015) Water vapor transport properties of regenerated cellulose and nanofibrillated cellulose films. J Membr Sci 493:46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bedane AH, Eić M, Farmahini-Farahani M, Xiao H (2016) Theoretical modeling of water vapor transport in cellulose-based materials. Cellulose 23:1537–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belbekhouche S, Bras J, Siqueira G, Chappey C, Lebrun L, Khelifi B, Marais S, Dufresne A (2011) Water sorption behavior and gas barrier properties of cellulose whiskers and microfibrils films. Carbohydr Polym 83:1740–1748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunauer S, Emmett PH, Teller E (1938) Adsorption of gases in multimolecular layers. J Am Chem Soc 60:309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferrer A, Quintana E, Filpponen I, Solala I, Vidal T, Rodríguez A, Laine J, Rojas OJ (2012) Effect of residual lignin and heteropolysaccharides in nanofibrillar cellulose and nanopaper from wood fibers. Cellulose 19:2179–2193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henriksson M, Berglund LA, Isaksson P, Lindstrom T, Nishino T (2008) Cellulose nanopaper structures of high toughness. Biomacromolecules 9:1579–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hill CA, Norton A, Newman G (2009) The water vapor sorption behavior of natural fibers. J Appl Polym Sci 112:1524–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hubbe MA, Rojas OJ, Lucia LA, Sain M (2008) Cellulosic nanocomposites: a review. BioResources 3:929–980Google Scholar
  14. Jiang F, Hsieh Y (2014) Amphiphilic superabsorbent cellulose nanofibril aerogels. J Mater Chem A 2:6337–6342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kontturi KS, Biegaj KW, Mautner A, Woodward RT, Wilson BP, Johansson L, Lee K, Heng JY, Bismarck A, Kontturi E (2017) Non-covalent surface modification of cellulose nanopapers by adsorption of polymers from aprotic solvents. Langmuir 33(23):5707–5712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kulasinski K, Guyer R, Derome D, Carmeliet J (2015) Water adsorption in wood microfibril-hemicellulose system: role of the crystalline–amorphous interface. Biomacromolecules 16:2972–2978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Larsson M, Johnsson A, Gårdebjer S, Bordes R, Larsson A (2017) Swelling and mass transport properties of nanocellulose-HPMC composite films. Mater Des 122:414–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavoine N, Desloges I, Dufresne A, Bras J (2012) Microfibrillated cellulose–its barrier properties and applications in cellulosic materials: a review. Carbohydr Polym 90:735–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nechyporchuk O, Belgacem MN, Bras J (2016) Production of cellulose nanofibrils: a review of recent advances. Ind Crops Prod 93:2–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nechyporchuk O, Yu J, Nierstrasz VA, Bordes R (2017) Cellulose nanofibril-based coatings of woven cotton fabrics for improved inkjet printing with a potential in e-textile manufacturing. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 5(6):4793–4801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Niinivaara E, Faustini M, Tammelin T, Kontturi E (2016) Mimicking the humidity response of the plant cell wall by using two-dimensional systems: the critical role of amorphous and crystalline polysaccharides. Langmuir 32:2032–2040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Österberg M, Vartiainen J, Lucenius J, Hippi U, Seppälä J, Serimaa R, Laine J (2013a) A fast method to produce strong NFC films as a platform for barrier and functional materials. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 5:4640–4647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Österberg M, Peresin MS, Johansson L, Tammelin T (2013b) Clean and reactive nanostructured cellulose surface. Cellulose 20:983–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pääkkö M, Ankerfors M, Kosonen H, Nykänen A, Ahola S, Österberg M, Ruokolainen J, Laine J, Larsson PT, Ikkala O (2007) Enzymatic hydrolysis combined with mechanical shearing and high-pressure homogenization for nanoscale cellulose fibrils and strong gels. Biomacromolecules 8:1934–1941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paul UC, Fragouli D, Bayer IS, Mele E, Conchione C, Cingolani R, Moret S, Athanassiou A (2017) Mineral oil barrier sequential polymer treatment for recycled paper products in food packaging. Mater Res Express 4:015501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pour G, Beauger C, Rigacci A, Budtova T (2015) Xerocellulose: lightweight, porous and hydrophobic cellulose prepared via ambient drying. J Mater Sci 50:4526–4535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rodionova G, Lenes M, Eriksen Ø, Gregersen Ø (2011) Surface chemical modification of microfibrillated cellulose: improvement of barrier properties for packaging applications. Cellulose 18:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rojo E, Peresin MS, Sampson WW, Hoeger IC, Vartiainen J, Laine J, Rojas OJ (2015) Comprehensive elucidation of the effect of residual lignin on the physical, barrier, mechanical and surface properties of nanocellulose films. Green Chem 17:1853–1866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saito T, Nishiyama Y, Putaux J, Vignon M, Isogai A (2006) Homogeneous suspensions of individualized microfibrils from TEMPO-catalyzed oxidation of native cellulose. Biomacromolecules 7:1687–1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saito T, Kimura S, Nishiyama Y, Isogai A (2007) Cellulose nanofibers prepared by TEMPO-mediated oxidation of native cellulose. Biomacromolecules 8:2485–2491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sehaqui H, Zimmermann T, Tingaut P (2014) Hydrophobic cellulose nanopaper through a mild esterification procedure. Cellulose 21:367–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spence KL, Venditti RA, Habibi Y, Rojas OJ, Pawlak JJ (2010a) The effect of chemical composition on microfibrillar cellulose films from wood pulps: mechanical processing and physical properties. Bioresour Technol 101:5961–5968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spence KL, Venditti RA, Rojas OJ, Habibi Y, Pawlak JJ (2010b) The effect of chemical composition on microfibrillar cellulose films from wood pulps: water interactions and physical properties for packaging applications. Cellulose 17:835–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tammelin T, Abburi R, Gestranius M, Laine C, Setälä H, Österberg M (2015) Correlation between cellulose thin film supramolecular structures and interactions with water. Soft Matter 11:4273–4282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wågberg L, Decher G, Norgren M, Lindström T, Ankerfors M, Axnäs K (2008) The build-up of polyelectrolyte multilayers of microfibrillated cellulose and cationic polyelectrolytes. Langmuir 24:784–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemistry and Chemical EngineeringChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.SuMo Biomaterials, VINN Excellence CentreChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.AaltoFinland

Personalised recommendations