Advertisement

Cellulose Nanofiber for Eco-friendly Polymer Nanocomposites

  • Ida Idayu MuhamadEmail author
  • Mohd Harfiz Salehudin
  • Eraricar Salleh
Chapter
Part of the Advanced Structured Materials book series (STRUCTMAT, volume 75)

Abstract

Nanocomposite is the reinforced composite material consists of nanoscale reinforcing fillers and matrix polymer. Fillers are dispersed within nanoscale and require just less amount than conventional reinforcing fillers, but the properties of composites are greatly improved. There would be only insignificant deterioration of properties in case of recycling; therefore, it is able to be an eco-friendly composite material. Recent studies show that interests in cellulose nanocomposites consists of nanocellulose fiber and matrix polymer are enhanced more and more in recent years. Especially, cellulose nanocomposites are best representative eco-friendly material as compared with nanocomposites reinforced with inorganic nanoscale fillers such as nanoclay, montmorillonite, mica, and silica. Natural filler such as cellulose nanofiber from palm empty fruit bunch (OPEFB) has drawn bigger attention as it promotes eco-friendly character. In current study, cellulose nanofiber (CNF) was prepared through pretreatment to remove noncellulosic content and then undergoes acid hydrolysis process. Starch-based nanocomposite film was formed by incorporation of 2–10 % CNF per weight of starch into the film matrix. The nanocomposite film that formed appears translucent and easy to handle. However, the film becomes more opaque as percentage of CNF incorporation increased. It was observed that films with the addition of up to 2 % CNF showed higher tensile strength and thermal stability, better barrier properties to water vapor than control films. Further study on the effect of CNF was carried out on Starch/Chitosan composite packaging film to determine the influence of CNF toward antimicrobial properties of the composite film as applied packaging for perishable food. The effects of CNF contents on the tensile, dynamic mechanical and thermal properties as well as the barrier properties of the Starch/Chitosan nanocomposite were also investigated. It also embarks a potential of cellulose nanofiber as filler for antimicrobial packaging as it enhances the results on antimicrobial efficacy toward food shelf life.

Keywords

Nanocomposite Eco-friendly Starch Cellulose nanofiber Antimicrobial 

References

  1. Abdul Khalil HPS, Marliana MM, Issam AM, Bakare IO (2011) Exploring isolated lignin material from oil palm biomass waste in green composites. Mater Des 32:2604–2610Google Scholar
  2. Abdul Khalil HPS, Bhat AH, Ireana Yusra AF (2012a) Green composites from sustainable cellulose nanofibrils: a review. Carbohydr Polym 87:963–979Google Scholar
  3. Abdul Khalil HPS, Bhat IUH, Jawaid M, Zaidon A, Hermawan D, Hadi YS (2012b) Bamboo fibre reinforced biocomposites: a review. Mater Des 42:353–368Google Scholar
  4. Abe K, Yano H (2009) Comparison of the characteristics of cellulose microfibril aggregates isolated from fiber and parenchyma cells of Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens). Cellulose 17:271–277Google Scholar
  5. Abe K, Yano H (2010) Comparison of the characteristics of cellulose microfibril aggregates isolated from fiber and parenchyma cells of moso bamboo (Phyllostachys pubescens). Cellulose 17(2):271–277Google Scholar
  6. Abe K, Iwamoto S, Yano H (2007) Obtaining cellulose nanofibers with a uniform width of 15 nm from wood. Biomacromolecules 8:3276–3278Google Scholar
  7. Alemdar A, Sain M (2008) Biocomposites from wheat straw nanofibers: morphology, thermal and mechanical properties. Compos Sci Technol 68:557–565Google Scholar
  8. Alexandre M, Dubois P (2000) Polymer-layered silicate nanocomposites: preparation, properties and uses of a new class of materials. Mater Sci Eng: R: Rep 28:1–63Google Scholar
  9. Araki J, Wada M, Kuga S, Okano T (2000) Birefringent glassy phase of a cellulose microcrystal suspension. Langmuir 16(6):2413–2415Google Scholar
  10. Arayapranee W, Na-Ranong N, Rempel GL (2005) Application of rice husk ash as fillers in the natural rubber industry. J Appl Polym Sci 98:34–41Google Scholar
  11. Avérous L (2004) Biodegradable multiphase systems based on plasticized starch: a review. J Macromol Sci, Part C: Polym Rev 44:231–274Google Scholar
  12. Azeredo HMCd (2009) Nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Food Res Int 42:1240–1253Google Scholar
  13. Azeredo HM, Mattoso LH, Avena-Bustillos RJ, Filho GC, Munford ML, Wood D, McHugh TH (2010) Nanocellulose reinforced chitosan composite films as affected by nanofiller loading and plasticizer content. J Food Sci 75:N1–N7Google Scholar
  14. Azeredo HMC, Miranda KWE, Rosa MF, Nascimento DM, de Moura MR (2012) Edible films from alginate-acerola puree reinforced with cellulose whiskers. LWT–Food Sci Technol 46:294–297Google Scholar
  15. Ban W, Song J, Argyropoulos DS, Lucia LA (2006) Improving the physical and chemical functionality of starch-derived films with biopolymers. J Appl Polym Sci 100:2542–2548Google Scholar
  16. Bhatnagar A (2005) Processing of Cellulose Nanofiber-reinforced Composites. J Reinf Plast Compos 24:1259–1268Google Scholar
  17. Cao X, Chen Y, Chang PR, Muir AD, Falk G (2008) Starch-based nanocomposites reinforced with flax cellulose nanocrystals. Express Polym Lett 2:502–510Google Scholar
  18. Carvalheiro F, Duarte LC, Gírio FM (2008) Hemicellulose biorefineries: a review on biomass pretreatments. J Sci Ind Res 67:849–864Google Scholar
  19. Chakraborty A, Sain M, Kortschot M (2006) Reinforcing potential of wood pulp derived microfibres in a PVA matrix. Holzforschung 60(1):53–58Google Scholar
  20. Chang PR, Jian R, Yu J, Ma X (2010a) Fabrication and characterisation of chitosan nanoparticles/plasticised-starch composites. Food Chem 120:736–740Google Scholar
  21. Chang PR, Jian RJ, Yu JG, Ma XF (2010b) Starch-based composites reinforced with novel chitin nanoparticles. Carbohydr Polym 80:420–425Google Scholar
  22. Chen Y, Liu C, Chang PR, Cao X, Anderson DP (2009) Bionanocomposites based on pea starch and cellulose nanowhiskers hydrolyzed from pea hull fibre: affect of hydrolysis time. Carbohydr Polym 76:607–615Google Scholar
  23. Chen W, Yu H, Liu Y, Chen P, Zhang M, Hai Y (2011) Individualization of cellulose nanofibers from wood using high-intensity ultrasonication combined with chemical pretreatments. Carbohydr Polym 83:1804–1811Google Scholar
  24. Cheng Q, Wang S, Han Q (2010) Novel process for isolating fibrils from cellulose fibers by high-intensity ultrasonication. II. Fibril characterization. J Appl Polym Sci 115(5):2756–2762Google Scholar
  25. Cheng Q, Wang S, Rials T, Lee S (2007) Physical and mechanical properties of polyvinyl alcohol and polypropylene composite materials reinforced with fibril aggregates isolated from regenerated cellulose fibers. Cellulose 14(6):593–602Google Scholar
  26. Cherian BM, Leão AL, de Souza SF, Thomas S, Pothan LA, Kottaisamy M (2010) Isolation of nanocellulose from pineapple leaf fibres by steam explosion. Carbohydr Polym 81:720–725Google Scholar
  27. Choudalakis G, Gotsis AD (2009) Permeability of polymer/clay nanocomposites: a review. Eur Polymer J 45:967–984Google Scholar
  28. Chung YC, Su YP, Chen CC, Jia G, Wang HL, Wu JC, Lin JG (2004) Relationship between antibacterial activity of chitosan and surface characteristics of cell wall. Acta Pharmacol Sin 25:932–936Google Scholar
  29. Coma V, Sebti I, Pardon P, Deschamps A, Pichavant FH (2001) Antimicrobial edible packaging based on cellulosic ethers, fatty acids, and nisin incorporation to inhibit ilisteria innocua and staphylococcus aureus. J Food Prot 64:470–475Google Scholar
  30. Cyras VP, Manfredi LB, Ton-That M-T, Vázquez A (2008) Physical and mechanical properties of thermoplastic starch/montmorillonite nanocomposite films. Carbohydr Polym 73:55–63Google Scholar
  31. de Morais Teixeira E, Corrêa A, Manzoli A, de Lima Leite F, de Oliveira C, Mattoso L (2010) Cellulose nanofibers from white and naturally colored cotton fibers. Cellulose 17:595–606Google Scholar
  32. de Moura MR, Aouada FA, Avena-Bustillos RJ, McHugh TH, Krochta JM, Mattoso LHC (2009) Improved barrier and mechanical properties of novel hydroxypropyl methylcellulose edible films with chitosan/tripolyphosphate nanoparticles. J Food Eng 92:448–453Google Scholar
  33. Dean K, Yu L, Wu DY (2007) Preparation and characterization of melt-extruded thermoplastic starch/clay nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 67:413–421Google Scholar
  34. Duanmu J, Gamstedt EK, Rosling A (2007) Hygromechanical properties of composites of crosslinked allylglycidyl-ether modified starch reinforced by wood fibres. Compos Sci Technol 67:3090–3097Google Scholar
  35. Dufresne A, Cavaillé J-Y, Vignon MR (1997) Mechanical behavior of sheets prepared from sugar beet cellulose microfibrils. J Appl Polym Sci 64:1185–1194Google Scholar
  36. Dufresne A, Dupeyre D, Vignon MR (2000) Cellulose microfibrils from potato tuber cells: processing and characterization of starch–cellulose microfibril composites. J Appl Polym Sci 76:2080–2092Google Scholar
  37. Duncan TV (2011) Applications of nanotechnology in food packaging and food safety: barrier materials, antimicrobials and sensors. J Colloid Interface Sci 363:1–24Google Scholar
  38. Ek M, Gellerstedt G, Henriksson G (2009) Pulping chemistry and technology, vol 2Google Scholar
  39. Elazzouzi-Hafraoui S, Nishiyama Y, Putaux J-L, Heux L, Dubreuil F, Rochas C (2007) The shape and size distribution of crystalline nanoparticles prepared by acid hydrolysis of native cellulose. Biomacromolecules 9(1):57–65Google Scholar
  40. Fahma F, Iwamoto S, Hori N, Iwata T, Takemura A (2010) Isolation, preparation, and characterization of nanofibers from oil palm empty-fruit-bunch (OPEFB). Cellulose 17:977–985Google Scholar
  41. Frenot A, Henriksson MW, Walkenstrom P (2007) Electrospinning of cellulosebased nanofibers. J Appl Polym Sci 103(3):1473–1482Google Scholar
  42. Fuad MYA, Ismail Z, Ishak ZAM, Omar AKM (1998) Rice husk ash. In: Pritchard G (ed) Plastics additives. Springer, Berlin, pp 561–566Google Scholar
  43. Habibi Y, Heux L, Mahrouz M, Vignon MR (2008) Morphological and structural study of seed pericarp of Opuntia ficus-indica prickly pear fruits. Carbohydr Polym 72:102–112Google Scholar
  44. Hadwiger LA, Kendra DF, Fristensky BW, Wagoner W (1986) Chitosan both activates genes in plants and inhibits RNA synthesis in fungi. In: Muzzarelli R, Jeuniaux C, Gooday G (eds) Chitin in nature and technology. Springer, US, pp 209–214Google Scholar
  45. Hambali E, Thahar A, Komarudin A (2010) The potential of oil palm and rice biomass as bioenergy feedstock. In: 7th biomass Asia workshop. Jakarta, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  46. Hamzah F, Idris A, Shuan TK (2011) Preliminary study on enzymatic hydrolysis of treated oil palm (Elaeis) empty fruit bunches fibre (EFB) by using combination of cellulase and β 1-4 glucosidase. Biomass Bioenergy 35:1055–1059Google Scholar
  47. Hayashi N, Kondo T, Ishihara M (2005) Enzymatically produced nano-ordered short elements containing cellulose I crystalline domains. Carbohydr Polym 61(2):191–197Google Scholar
  48. Henriksson M, Henriksson G, Berglund LA, Lindstrom T (2007) An environmentally friendly method for enzyme-assisted preparation of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) nanofibers. Eur Polym J 43(48):3434–3441Google Scholar
  49. Herrick FW, Casebier RL, Hamilton JK, Sandberg KR (1983) Microfibrillated cellulose: morphology and accessibility. J Appl Polym Sci: Appl Polym Symp 37:797–813Google Scholar
  50. Hiltner A, Liu RYF, Hu YS, Baer E (2005) Oxygen transport as a solid-state structure probe for polymeric materials: a review. J Polym Sci, Part B: Polym Phys 43:1047–1063Google Scholar
  51. Hossain MD, Hanafi MM, Jol H, Hazandy AH (2011) Growth, yield and fiber morphology of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) grown on sandy bris soil as influenced by different levels of carbon. Afr J Biotechnol 10:10087–10094Google Scholar
  52. Huang M-F, Yu J-G, Ma X-F (2004) Studies on the properties of Montmorillonite-reinforced thermoplastic starch composites. Polymer 45:7017–7023Google Scholar
  53. Iwamoto S, Kai W, Isogai T, Saito T, Isogai A, Iwata T (2010) Comparison study of TEMPO-analogous compounds on oxidation efficiency of woodcellulose for preparation of cellulose nanofibrils. Polym Degrad Stab 95(8):1394–1398Google Scholar
  54. Jayaraman K (2003) Manufacturing sisal–polypropylene composites with minimum fibre degradation. Compos Sci Technol 63:367–374Google Scholar
  55. John M, Thomas S (2008) Biofibres and biocomposites. Carbohydr Polym 71:343–364Google Scholar
  56. Jonoobi M, Harun J, Mathew AP, Hussein MZ, Oksman K (2010) Preparation of cellulose nanofibers with hydrophobic surface characteristics. Cellulose 17(2):299–307Google Scholar
  57. Jonoobi M, Khazaeian A, Tahir PM, Azry SS, Oksman K (2011) Characteristics of cellulose nanofibers isolated from rubberwood and empty fruit bunches of oil palm using chemo-mechanical process. Cellulose 18:1085–1095Google Scholar
  58. Khan ARAK, Salmieri Stephane, Le Tien Canh, Riedl Bernard, Bouchard Jean, Chauve Gregory, Tan Victor, Kamal Musa R, Lacroix Monique (2012) Mechanical and barrier properties of nanocrystalline cellulose reinforced chitosan based nanocomposite films. Carbohydr Polym 90:1601–1608Google Scholar
  59. Kim EG, Kim BS, Kim DS (2007) Physical properties and morphology of polycaprolactone/starch/pine-leaf composites. J Appl Polym Sci 103(2):928–934Google Scholar
  60. Klemm D, Heublein B, Fink HP, Bohn A (2005) Cellulose: fascinating biopolymer and sustainable raw material. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 44:3358–3393Google Scholar
  61. Koh HC, Park JS, Jeong MA, Hwang HY, Hong YT, Ha SY, Nam SY (2008) Preparation and gas permeation properties of biodegradable polymer/layered silicate nanocomposite membranes. Desalination 233:201–209Google Scholar
  62. Kumar S, Negi YS, Upadhyaya JS (2010) Studies on characterization of corn cob based nanoparticles. Adv Mater Lett 1:246–253Google Scholar
  63. Kristo E, Biliaderis CG (2007) Physical properties of starch nanocrystal-reinforced pullulan films. Carbohydr Polym 68:146–158Google Scholar
  64. Lagaron JM, Garcia S (2008) Thermoplastic nanobiocomposites for rigid and flexible food packaging applications. Woodhead Publishers, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  65. Lavoine N, Desloges I, Khelifi B, Bras J (2014) Impact of different coating processes of microfibrillated cellulose on the mechanical and barrier properties of paper. J Mater Sci 49:2879–2893Google Scholar
  66. Lee SY, Xu YX, Hanna MA (2007) Tapioca starch-poly (lactic acid)-based nanocomposite foams as affected by type of nanoclay. Int Polym Process 22(5):429–435Google Scholar
  67. Lee B-H, Kim H-S, Lee S, Kim H-J, Dorgan JR (2009) Bio-composites of kenaf fibers in polylactide: role of improved interfacial adhesion in the carding process. Compos Sci Technol 69:2573–2579Google Scholar
  68. Li L-H, Deng J-C, Deng H-R, Liu Z-L, Li X-L (2010) Preparation, characterization and antimicrobial activities of chitosan/Ag/ZnO blend films. Chem Eng J 160:378–382Google Scholar
  69. Lin M-F, Thakur VK, Tan EJ, Lee PS (2011a) Dopant induced hollow BaTiO3 nanostructures for application in high performance capacitors. J Mater Chem 21:16500–16504Google Scholar
  70. Lin M-F, Thakur VK, Tan EJ, Lee PS (2011b) Surface functionalization of BaTiO3 nanoparticles and improved electrical properties of BaTiO3/polyvinylidene fluoride composite. RSC Adv 1:576–578Google Scholar
  71. Liu H, Liu D, Yao F, Wu Q (2010) Fabrication and properties of transparent polymethylmethacrylate/cellulose nanocrystals composites. Bioresour Technol 101:5685–5692Google Scholar
  72. Liu K, Lin X, Chen L, Huang L, Cao S, Wang H (2013) Preparation of microfibrillated cellulose/chitosan-benzalkonium chloride biocomposite for enhancing antibacterium and strength of sodium alginate films. J Agric Food Chem 61:6562–6567Google Scholar
  73. Lu Y, Weng L, Zhang L (2004) Morphology and properties of soy protein isolate thermoplastics reinforced with chitin whiskers. Biomacromolecules 5:1046–1051Google Scholar
  74. Lu Y, Weng L, Cao X (2006) Morphological, thermal and mechanical properties of ramie crystallites—reinforced plasticized starch biocomposites. Carbohydr Polym 63:198–204Google Scholar
  75. Ludueña LN, Alvarez VA, Vazquez A (2007) Processing and microstructure of PCL/clay nanocomposites. Mater Sci Eng, A 460–461:121–129Google Scholar
  76. Ma X, Chang PR, Yu J (2008) Properties of biodegradable thermoplastic pea starch/carboxymethyl cellulose and pea starch/microcrystalline cellulose composites. Carbohydr Polym 72:369–375Google Scholar
  77. Ma Z, Kotaki M, Ramakrishna S (2005) Electrospun cellulose nanofiber as affinity membrane. J Memb Sci 265(1–2):115–123Google Scholar
  78. Masoodi R, El-Hajjar RF, Pillai KM, Sabo R (2012) Mechanical characterization of cellulose nanofiber and bio-based epoxy composite. Mater Des 36:570–576Google Scholar
  79. Melo Cd, Garcia PS, Grossmann MVE, Yamashita F, Dall’Antônia LH, Mali S (2011) Properties of extruded xanthan-starch-clay nanocomposite films. Braz Arch Biol Technol 54:1223–1333Google Scholar
  80. Mogri Z, Paul DR (2001) Water-vapor permeation in semicrystalline and molten poly(octadecyl acrylate). J Polym Sci, Part B: Polym Phys 39:979–984Google Scholar
  81. Mohanty AK, Misra M, Drzal LT (2002) Sustainable bio-composites from renewable resources: opportunities and challenges in the green materials world. J Polym Environ 10:19–26Google Scholar
  82. Morán JI, Alvarez VA, Cyras VP, Vázquez A (2007) Extraction of cellulose and preparation of nanocellulose from sisal fibers. Cellulose 15:149–159Google Scholar
  83. Mosier N, Wyman C, Dale B, Elander R, Lee YY, Holtzapple M, Ladisch M (2005) Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour Technol 96:673–686Google Scholar
  84. Mun TK (2011) Development of Malaysia Biomass Industry Technical Coach EU-Malaysia Biomass Sustainable Production Initiative. In: (Biomass-SP) Briefing session to financial institution on green technology financing 6. CyberjayaGoogle Scholar
  85. Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2004) The effect of morphological changes from pulp fiber towards nano-scale fibrillated cellulose on the mechanical properties of high-strength plant fiber based composites. Appl Phys A 78:547–552Google Scholar
  86. Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2005) Novel high-strength biocomposites based on microfibrillated cellulose having nano-order-unit web-like network structure. Appl Phys A 80:155–159Google Scholar
  87. Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2008) The effect of fiber content on the mechanical and thermal expansion properties of biocomposites based on microfibrillated cellulose. Cellulose 15:555–559Google Scholar
  88. Nishino T, Hirao K, Kotera M, Nakamae K, Inagaki H (2003) Kenaf reinforced biodegradable composite. Compos Sci Technol 63:1281–1286Google Scholar
  89. Paakko M, Ankerfors M, Kosonen H, Nykanen A, Ahola S, Osterberg M (2007) Enzymatic hydrolysis combined with mechanical shearing and high-pressure homogenization for nanoscale cellulose fibrils and strong gels. Biomacromolecules 8(6):1934–1941Google Scholar
  90. Phiriyawirut M (2012) Cellulose microfibril from banana peels as a nanoreinforcing fillers for zein films. Open J Polym Chem 02:56–62Google Scholar
  91. Pitak N, Rakshit SK (2011) Physical and antimicrobial properties of banana flour/chitosan biodegradable and self sealing films used for preserving fresh-cut vegetables. LWT—Food Sci Technol 44:2310–2315Google Scholar
  92. Ramanaiah K, Ratna Prasad AV, Chandra Reddy KH (2011) Mechanical properties and thermal conductivity of typha angustifolia natural fiber-reinforced polyester composites. Int J Polym Anal Charact 16:496–503Google Scholar
  93. Ramos LP (2003) The chemistry involved in the steam treatment of lignocellulosic materials. Quim Nova 26:863–871Google Scholar
  94. Rhim J-W, Park H-M, Ha C-S (2013) Bio-nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Prog Polym SciGoogle Scholar
  95. Rosa MF, Medeiros ES, Malmonge JA, Gregorski KS, Wood DF, Mattoso LHC, Glenn G, Orts WJ, Imam SH (2010) Cellulose nanowhiskers from coconut husk fibers: effect of preparation conditions on their thermal and morphological behavior. Carbohydr Polym 81:83–92Google Scholar
  96. Rowell RM, Pettersen R, Han JS, Rowell JS, Tshabalala MA (2005) Cell wall chemistry. In: Rowell RM (ed) Handbook of wood chemistry and wood composites, 37, CRS Press, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  97. Sae-Oui P, Rakdee C, Thanmathorn P (2002) Use of rice husk ash as filler in natural rubber vulcanizates: in comparison with other commercial fillers. J Appl Polym Sci 83:2485–2493Google Scholar
  98. Saito T, Hirota M, Tamura N, Kimura S, Fukuzumi H, Heux L (2009) Individualization of nano-sized plant cellulose fibrils by direct surface carboxylation using TEMPO catalyst under neutral conditions. Biomacromolecules 10(7):1992–1996Google Scholar
  99. Saito T, Kimura S, Nishiyama Y, Isogai A (2007) Cellulose nanofibers prepared by TEMPO-mediated oxidation of native cellulose. Biomacromolecules 8(8):2485–2491Google Scholar
  100. Saito T, Nishiyama Y, Putaux JL, Vignon M, Isogai A (2006) Homogeneous suspensions of individualized microfibrils from TEMPO-catalyzed oxidation of native cellulose. Biomacromolecules 7(6):1687–1691Google Scholar
  101. Salajkova M, Valentini L, Zhou Q, Berglund LA (2013) Tough nanopaper structures based on cellulose nanofibers and carbon nanotubes. Compos Sci Technol 87:103–110Google Scholar
  102. Salehudin MH, Salleh E, Muhamad II, Mamat SNH (2014a) Starch based biofilm reinforced with empty fruit bunch (EFB). Mater Res Innov 18(S6), S6-322–S6-325Google Scholar
  103. Salehudin MH, Salleh E, Muhamad II, Mamat SNH (2014b) Starch based active packaging film reinforced with empty fruit bunch (EFB) cellulose nanofiber. Procedia Chem 9:23–33Google Scholar
  104. Salleh E, Muhamad II, Khairuddin N (2007) Inhibition of Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli by antimicrobial starch-based film incorporated with lauric acid and chitosan. In: Proceedings of the 3rd CIGR section Vl international symposium on food and agricultural products: processing and innovation. Naples, ltalyGoogle Scholar
  105. Samir MASA, Alloin F, Paillet M, Dufresne A (2004) Tangling effect in fibrillated cellulose reinforced nanocomposites. Macromolecules 37:4313–4316Google Scholar
  106. Sanchez-Garcia MD, Lopez-Rubio A, Lagaron JM (2010) Natural micro and nanobiocomposites with enhanced barrier properties and novel functionalities for food biopackaging applications. Trends Food Sci Technol 21:528–536Google Scholar
  107. Satyanarayana KG, Arizaga GGC, Wypych F (2009) Biodegradable composites based on lignocellulosic fibers—an overview. Prog Polym Sci 34:982–1021Google Scholar
  108. Savadekar NR, Mhaske ST (2012) Synthesis of nano cellulose fibers and effect on thermoplastics starch based films. Carbohydr Polym 89:146–151Google Scholar
  109. Shi Q, Vitchuli N, Nowak J, Jiang S, Caldwell JM, Breidt F, Bourham M, Zhang X, McCord M (2013) Multifunctional and durable nanofiber-fabric-layered composite for protective application. J Appl Polym Sci 128:1219–1226Google Scholar
  110. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2008a) Mechanical properties of natural fibre reinforced polymer composites. Bull Mater Sci 31:791–799Google Scholar
  111. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2008b) Effect of fibre loading on urea-formaldehyde matrix based green composites. Iran Polym J 17:861–873Google Scholar
  112. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2009a) Grewia optiva fiber reinforced novel, low cost polymer composites. E-J Chem 6:71–76Google Scholar
  113. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2009b) Synthesis, characterisation and analysis of hibiscus sabdariffa fibre reinforced polymer matrix based composites. Polym Polym Compos 17:189–194Google Scholar
  114. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2010a) Synthesis, characterization and study of pine needles reinforced polymer matrix based composites. J Reinf Plast Compos 29:700–709Google Scholar
  115. Singha AS, Thakur VK (2010b) Mechanical, morphological, and thermal characterization of compression-molded polymer biocomposites. Int J Polym Anal Charact 15:87–97Google Scholar
  116. Siqueira G, Bras J, Dufresne A (2010) Cellulosic bionanocomposites: a review of preparation, properties and applications. Polymers 2:728–765Google Scholar
  117. Som C, Berges M, Chaudhry Q, Dusinska M, Fernandes TF, Olsen SI, Nowack B (2010) The importance of life cycle concepts for the development of safe nanoproducts. Toxicology 269:160–169Google Scholar
  118. Sousa-Gallagher MJ, Mahajan PV, Mezdad T (2013) Engineering packaging design accounting for transpiration rate: model development and validation with strawberries. J Food Eng 119:370–376Google Scholar
  119. Soykeabkaew N, Supaphol P, Rujiravanit R (2004) Preparation and characterization of jute- and flax-reinforced starch-based composite foams. Carbohydr Polym 58:53–63Google Scholar
  120. Soykeabkaew N, Laosat Nittaya, Ngaokla Atitaya, Yodsuwan Natthawut, Tunkasiri Tawee (2012) Reinforcing potential of micro- and nano-sized fibers in the starch-based biocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 72:845–852Google Scholar
  121. Sreekala MS, Kumaran MG, Thomas S (1997) Oil palm fibers: morphology, chemical composition, surface modification, and mechanical properties. J Appl Polym Sci 66:821–835Google Scholar
  122. Sulaiman F, Abdullah N, Gerhauser H, Shariff A (2011) An outlook of Malaysian energy, oil palm industry and its utilization of wastes as useful resources. Biomass Bioenergy 35:3775–3786Google Scholar
  123. Sun J-X, Sun R, Sun X-F, Su Y (2004) Fractional and physico-chemical characterization of hemicelluloses from ultrasonic irradiated sugarcane bagasse. Carbohydr Res 339:291–300Google Scholar
  124. Suradi SS, Yunus RM, Beg MDH,Yusof ZAM (2009) Influence pre-treatment on the properties of lignocellulose based composite. In: National conference on postgraduate research (ncon-pgr). UMP Conference Hall, Malaysia: Centre for Graduate Studies, Universiti Malaysia PahangGoogle Scholar
  125. Thakur VK, Singha AS (2011) Physicochemical and mechanical behavior of cellulosic pine needle-based biocomposites. Int J Polym Anal Charact 16:390–398Google Scholar
  126. Thakur VK, Thakur MK (2014a) Processing and characterization of natural cellulose fibers/thermoset polymer composites. Carbohydr Polym 109:102–117Google Scholar
  127. Thakur VK, Thakur MK (2014b) Recent advances in graft copolymerization and applications of chitosan: a review. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2:2637–2652Google Scholar
  128. Thakur VK, Thakur MK (2014c) Recent trends in hydrogels based on psyllium polysaccharide: a review. J Clean Prod 82:1–15Google Scholar
  129. Thakur VK, Singha AS, Misra BN (2011a) Graft copolymerization of methyl methacrylate onto cellulosic biofibers. J Appl Polym Sci 122:532–544Google Scholar
  130. Thakur VK, Tan EJ, Lin M-F, Lee PS (2011b) Polystyrene grafted polyvinylidenefluoride copolymers with high capacitive performance. Polym Chem 2:2000–2009Google Scholar
  131. Thakur VK, Tan EJ, Lin M-F, Lee PS (2011c) Poly(vinylidene fluoride)-graft-poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate): a novel material for high energy density capacitors. J Mater Chem 21:3751–3759Google Scholar
  132. Thakur VK, Singha AS, Kaur I et al (2011d) Studies on analysis and characterization of phenolic composites fabricated from lignocellulosic fibres. Polym Polym Compos 19:505–511Google Scholar
  133. Thakur VK, Yan J, Lin M-F et al (2012a) Novel polymer nanocomposites from bioinspired green aqueous functionalization of BNNTs. Polym Chem 3:962–969Google Scholar
  134. Thakur VK, Singha AS, Thakur MK (2012b) Biopolymers based green composites: mechanical, thermal and physico-chemical characterization. J Polym Environ 20:412–421Google Scholar
  135. Thakur VK, Lin M-F, Tan EJ, Lee PS (2012c) Green aqueous modification of fluoropolymers for energy storage applications. J Mater Chem 22:5951–5959Google Scholar
  136. Thakur VK, Ding G, Ma J et al (2012d) Hybrid materials and polymer electrolytes for electrochromic device applications. Adv Mater 24:4071–4096Google Scholar
  137. Thakur VK, Singha AS, Thakur MK (2012e) Surface modification of natural polymers to impart low water absorbency. Int J Polym Anal Charact 17:133–143Google Scholar
  138. Thakur VK, Thakur MK, Raghavan P, Kessler MR (2014a) Progress in green polymer composites from lignin for multifunctional applications: a review. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 2:1072–1092Google Scholar
  139. Thakur VK, Thunga M, Madbouly SA, Kessler MR (2014b) PMMA-g-SOY as a sustainable novel dielectric material. Rsc Adv 4:18240–18249Google Scholar
  140. Thakur VK, Grewell D, Thunga M, Kessler MR (2014c) Novel composites from eco-friendly soy flour/SBS triblock copolymer. Macromol Mater Eng 299:953–958Google Scholar
  141. Thakur VK, Thakur MK, Gupta RK (2014d) Review: raw natural fiber-based polymer composites. Int J Polym Anal Charact 19:256–271Google Scholar
  142. Tunç S, Duman O (2011) Preparation of active antimicrobial methyl cellulose/carvacrol/montmorillonite nanocomposite films and investigation of carvacrol release. LWT—Food Sci Technol 44:465–472Google Scholar
  143. Turbak AF, Snyder FW,Sandberg KR (1983) Microfibrillated cellulose, a new cellulose product: properties, uses, and commercial potentialGoogle Scholar
  144. Vilpoux O, Averous L (2004) Starch-based plastics in technology, use and potentialities of Latin American starchy tubers. NGO Raízes and Cargill Foundation-Sao Paolo-Brazil. Book N0. 3., Chap. 18. pp 521–553Google Scholar
  145. Wang S, Cheng Q (2009) A novel process to isolate fibrils from cellulose fibers by high-intensity ultrasonication. Part 1. Process optimization. J Appl Polym Sci 113(2):1270–1275Google Scholar
  146. Wan YZ, Luo H, He F, Liang H, Huang Y, Li XL (2009) Mechanical, moisture absorption, and biodegradation behaviours of bacterial cellulose fibre-reinforced starch biocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 69:1212–1217Google Scholar
  147. Wang B, Sain M (2007) Isolation of nanofibers from soybean source and their reinforcing capability on synthetic polymers. Compos Sci Technol 67:2521–2527Google Scholar
  148. Wang X, Du Y, Luo J, Lin B, Kennedy JF (2007) Chitosan/organic rectorite nanocomposite films: structure, characteristic and drug delivery behaviour. Carbohydr Polym 69:41–49Google Scholar
  149. Wang ZF, Wang B, Qi N, Zhang HF, Zhang LQ (2005) Influence of fillers on free volume and gas barrier properties in styrene-butadiene rubber studied by positrons. Polymer 46:719–724Google Scholar
  150. Wongpanit P, Sanchavanakit N, Pavasant P, Bunaprasert T, Tabata Y, Rujiravanit R (2007) Preparation and characterization of chitin whisker-reinforced silk fibroin nanocomposite sponges. Eur Polym J 43:4123–4135Google Scholar
  151. Wu RL, Wang XL, Li F, Li HZ, Wang YZ (2009) Green composite films prepared from cellulose, starch and lignin in room-temperature ionic liquid. Bioresour Technol 100:2569–2574Google Scholar
  152. Wyman CE, Dale BE, Elander RT, Holtzapple M, Ladisch MR, Lee YY (2005) Comparative sugar recovery data from laboratory scale application of leading pretreatment technologies to corn stover. Bioresour Technol 96:2026–2032Google Scholar
  153. Xu YX, Kim KM, Hanna MA, Nag D (2005) Chitosan–starch composite film: preparation and characterization. Ind Crops Prod 21:185–192Google Scholar
  154. Y JY, Q BY, W WZ, Q XL,G JJ (1997) Application and explore. 22Google Scholar
  155. Yano HSJ, Nakagaito AN, Nogi M, Matsuura T, Hikita M, Handa K (2005) Optically transparent composites reinforced with networks of bacterial nanofibers. Adv Mater 17:153Google Scholar
  156. Young R (1994) Comparison of the properties of chemical cellulose pulps. Cellulose 1:107–130Google Scholar
  157. Zhao H-P, Feng X-Q,Gao H (2007) Ultrasonic technique for extracting nanofibers from nature materials. Appl Phys Lett 90(7):073112Google Scholar
  158. Zuluaga R, Putaux J-L, Restrepo A, Mondragon I, Gañán P (2007) Cellulose microfibrils from banana farming residues: isolation and characterization. Cellulose 14:585–592Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ida Idayu Muhamad
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohd Harfiz Salehudin
    • 2
  • Eraricar Salleh
    • 1
  1. 1.Bioprocess Engineering Department, Faculty of Chemical EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohor BahruMalaysia
  2. 2.P.G Programme in Bioprocess Engineering, Bioprocess Engineering Department, Faculty of Chemical EngineeringUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaJohor BahruMalaysia

Personalised recommendations