, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 1017–1023 | Cite as

Comparison of the characteristics of cellulose microfibril aggregates of wood, rice straw and potato tuber

  • Kentaro AbeEmail author
  • Hiroyuki Yano


The focus of this study has been to isolate cellulose microfibril aggregates by the one-time grinding treatment from wood, rice straw and potato tuber, and to compare their morphological and mechanical properties. Field emission scanning electron microscopy images showed that the diameter range of isolated microfibril aggregates from wood, 12–20 nm, was smaller than those from rice straw and potato tuber, 12–35 nm and 12–55 nm, respectively. These differences were observed even in the purified rice straws and potato tuber before the grinder treatment, but were hardly observed in the purified wood. The results of X-ray analysis and tensile tests indicated that there were no significant differences among the sources in the cellulose crystallinity and Young’s modulus of the isolated microfibril aggregates in the dry state. These results suggest that the inherent characteristics of cellulose microfibril aggregates in the dry state are very similar regardless of plant sources and tissue functions.


Cellulose microfibril Crystallinity Douglas fir Potato tuber Rice straw Tensile property 



This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid from Research Fellowships of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists.


  1. Abe K, Iwamoto S, Yano H (2007) Obtaining cellulose nanofibers with a uniform width of 15 nm from wood. Biomacromolecules 8:3276–3278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alemdar A, Sain M (2008) Isolation and characterization of nanofibers from agricultural residues: wheat straw and soy hulls. Bioresour Technol 99:1664–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dinand E, Chanzy H, Vignon MR (1999) Suspensions of cellulose microfibrils from sugar beet pulp. Food Hydrocoll 13:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Donaldson L (2007) Cellulose microfibril aggregates and their size variation with cell wall type. Wood Sci Technol 41:443–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dufresne A, Vignon MR (1998) Improvement of starch film performances using cellulose microfibrils. Macromolecules 31:2693–2696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dufresne A, Cavaille JY, Vignon MR (1997) Mechanical behavior of sheets prepared from sugar beet cellulose microfibrils. J Appl Polym Sci 64:1185–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Iwamoto S, Nakagaito AN, Yano H, Nogi M (2005) Optically transparent composites reinforced with plant fiber-based nanofibers. Appl Phys A 81:1109–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Iwamoto S, Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2007) Nano-fibrillation of pulp fibers for the processing of transparent nanocomposites. Appl Phys A 89:461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Iwamoto S, Abe K, Yano H (2008) The effect of hemicelluloses on wood pulp nanofibrillation and nanofiber network characteristics. Biomacromolecules 9:1022–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Leitner J, Hinterstoisser B, Wastyn M, Keckes J, Gindl W (2007) Sugar beet cellulose nanofibril-reinforced composites. Cellulose 14:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McCann MC, Wells B, Roberts K (1990) Direct visualization of cross-links in the primary plant cell wall. J Cell Sci 96:323–334Google Scholar
  12. 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 78:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nishino T, Matsuda I, Hirao K (2004) All-cellulose composite. Macromolecules 37:7683–7687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pääkkö M, Ankerfors M, Kosonen H, Nykänen A, Ahola S, Österberg M, Ruokolainen J, Laine J, Larsson PT, Ikkala O, Lindström T (2007) Enzymatic hydrolysis combined with mechanical shearing and high-pressure homogenization for nanoscale cellulose fibrils and strong gels. Biomacromolecules 8:1934–1941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sakurada I, Nukushima Y, Ito I (1962) Experimental determination of the elastic modulus of crystalline regions in oriented polymers. J Polym Sci 57:651–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Segal L, Creely JJ, Martin AE, Conrad CM (1959) An empirical method for estimating the degree of crystallinity of native cellulose using the X-ray diffractometer. Text Res J 29:786–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Somerville C, Bauer S, Brininstool G, Facette M, Hamann T, Milne J, Osborne E, Paredez A, Persson S, Raab T, Vorwerk S, Youngs H (2004) Toward a systems approach to understanding plant cell walls. Science 306:2206–2211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wise LE, Murphy M, D’Addieco AA (1946) Chlorite holocellulose, its fractionation and bearing on summative wood analysis and on studies on the hemicelluloses. Pap Trade J 122:35–43Google Scholar
  19. Zhao HP, Feng XQ, Gao H (2007) Ultrasonic technique for extracting nanofibers from nature materials. Appl Phys Lett 90:073112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zimmerman T, Pohler E, Schwaller P (2005) Mechanical and morphological properties of cellulose fibril reinforced nanocomposite. Adv Eng Mater 7:1156–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zuluaga R, Putaux JL, Restrepo A, Mondragon I, Ganan P (2007) Cellulose microfibrils from banana farming residues: isolation and characterization. Cellulose 14:585–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute for Sustainable HumanosphereKyoto UniversityGokasho, Uji, KyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations