Scholarlink

<p>In this study, nanocelluloses were successfully prepared from waste chestnut shells using three different methods: sulfuric acid hydrolysis (HCNC), enzymatic hydrolysis (ECNF), and TEMPO-mediated oxidation (TCNF). The yield, surface charge, chemical and crystalline structure, and thermal stability of the resulting nanocelluloses were comprehensively compared. HCNCs exhibited rod-like cellulose crystallite, whereas ECNFs and TCNFs displayed an entangled fibrous structure. HCNCs and TCNFs introduced anionic sulfate and carboxylic acid groups, respectively, while ECNFs preserved the natural surface properties of nanocellulose. The |zeta potential| of the nanocelluloses followed the order of TCNFs &gt; HCNCs &gt; ECNFs, while the crystallinity followed HCNCs &gt; TCNFs &gt; ECNFs, and thermal stability exhibited the reverse order of ECNFs &gt; TCNFs &gt; HCNCs. These differences can be attributed to variations in morphology and surface characteristics. This study presents a comparative analysis of various methods for converting chestnut shells into high value-added nanocellulose materials and explores the structural properties of these materials, thereby expanding the potential applications of nanocellulose across multiple fields.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Physicochemical properties of nanocellulose prepared from chestnut shells: a comparative study of different methods

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月8日

查看全文
  • Mengyu Liu,
  • Yuqi Hou,
  • Yanwen Wu,
  • Jie Ouyang

摘要

In this study, nanocelluloses were successfully prepared from waste chestnut shells using three different methods: sulfuric acid hydrolysis (HCNC), enzymatic hydrolysis (ECNF), and TEMPO-mediated oxidation (TCNF). The yield, surface charge, chemical and crystalline structure, and thermal stability of the resulting nanocelluloses were comprehensively compared. HCNCs exhibited rod-like cellulose crystallite, whereas ECNFs and TCNFs displayed an entangled fibrous structure. HCNCs and TCNFs introduced anionic sulfate and carboxylic acid groups, respectively, while ECNFs preserved the natural surface properties of nanocellulose. The |zeta potential| of the nanocelluloses followed the order of TCNFs > HCNCs > ECNFs, while the crystallinity followed HCNCs > TCNFs > ECNFs, and thermal stability exhibited the reverse order of ECNFs > TCNFs > HCNCs. These differences can be attributed to variations in morphology and surface characteristics. This study presents a comparative analysis of various methods for converting chestnut shells into high value-added nanocellulose materials and explores the structural properties of these materials, thereby expanding the potential applications of nanocellulose across multiple fields.