, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 299–307 | Cite as

Preparation of cellulose nanofibers with hydrophobic surface characteristics

  • Mehdi Jonoobi
  • Jalaluddin Harun
  • Aji P. Mathew
  • Mohd Zobir B. Hussein
  • Kristiina Oksman


The aim of this study was to develop cellulose nanofibers with hydrophobic surface characteristics using chemical modification. Kenaf fibers were modified using acetic anhydride and cellulose nanofibers were isolated from the acetylated kenaf using mechanical isolation methods. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) indicated acetylation of the hydroxyl groups of cellulose. The study of the dispersion demonstrated that acetylated cellulose nanofibers formed stable, well-dispersed suspensions in both acetone and ethanol. The contact angle measurements showed that the surface characteristics of nanofibers were changed from hydrophilic to more hydrophobic when acetylated. The microscopy study showed that the acetylation caused a swelling of the kenaf fiber cell wall and that the diameters of isolated nanofibers were between 5 and 50 nm. X-ray analysis showed that the acetylation process reduced the crystallinity of the fibers, whereas mechanical isolation increased it. The method used provides a novel processing route for producing cellulose nanofibers with hydrophobic surfaces.


Kenaf Nanofibers Acetylation Chemical characterization Structural characterization 



The authors are grateful to the Ministry of Plantation Industry and Commodity (MPIC), Government of Malaysia as well as Kempe Stiftelserna, Sweden for funding of this research. The authors would also like to thank Mr. Rafi for his assistance with microscopy studies and Mrs. Forough Kalaee Nazarpoor for her help and support with the materials and data.


  1. Adebajo MO, Frost RL, Kloprogge JTK, Kokot S (2006) Raman spectroscopic investigation of acetylation of raw cotton. Spectrochim Acta Part A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 64(2):448–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alemdar A, Sain M (2007) Isolation and characterization of nanofibers from agricultural residues––Wheat straw and soy hulls. Bioresour Technol 99(6):1664–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alemdar A, Oksman K, Sain M (2009) The effect of decreased fiber size in wheat straw/polyvinyl alcohol composites. J Biobased Mater Bioenerg 3:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodirlau R, Teaca CA, Spiridon I (2008) Chemical modification of beech wood: Effect on thermal stability. Bioresour Technol 3(3):789–800Google Scholar
  5. Cavaille JY, Chanzy H, Fleury E, Sassi JF (1997) Surface modified cellulose microfibrils, method for making the same, and use thereof as a filler in composite materials. US Patent, 6,117.545Google Scholar
  6. Gousse C, Chanzy H, Cerradab ML, Fleury E (2004) Surface silylation of cellulose microfibrils: preparation and rheological properties. Polymer 45(5):1569–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heux L, Dinand E, Vignon MR (1999) Structural aspects in ultrathin cellulose microfibrils followed by 13C CP-MAS NMR. Carbohydr Polym 40:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hill CAS, Abdul Khalil HP, Hale MD (1998) A study of the potential of acetylation to improve the properties of plant fibres. Ind Crop Prod 8(1):53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hill CAS, Cetin NS, Ozmen N (2000) Potential catalysts for the acetylation of wood. Holzforschung 54:269–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hubbe MA, Rojas OJ, Lucia LA, Sain M (2008) Cellulosic nanocomposites: a review. BioResources 3(3):929–980Google Scholar
  11. Ifuku S, Nogi M, Abe K, Handa K, Nakatsubo F, Yano H (2007) Surface modification of bacterial cellulose nanofibers for property enhancement of optically transparent composites: dependence on acetyl-Group DS. Biomacromolecules 8:1973–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jonoobi M, Harun J, Shakeri A, Misra M, Oksman K (2009) Chemical composition, crystallinity and thermal degradation of bleached and unbleached kenaf bast (Hibiscus cannabinus) pulp and nanofibers. BioResources 4(2):626–639Google Scholar
  13. Khalil HPA, Ismail H, Rozman HD, Ahmad MN (2001) The effect of acetylation on interfacial shear strength between plant fiber and various matrices. Eur Polym J 37(5):1037–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim DY, Nishiyama Y, Kuga S (2002) Surface acetylation of bacterial cellulose. Cellulose 9:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ladouce L, Fleury, E, Gousse C, Cantiani R, Chanzy H, Excoffier G (2000) Cellulose microfibrils with modified surface, preparation method and use thereof. US Patent, 6,703,497Google Scholar
  16. Nacos M, Katapodis P, Pappas C, Daferera D, Tarantilis PA, Christakopoulos P, Polissiou M (2006) Kenaf xylan––a source of biologically active acidic oligosaccharides. Carbohydr Polym 66(1):126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. Applied Physics A 78:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Oksman K, Sain M (2005) Cellulose nanocomposites; processing, characterization and properties. ACS symposium series 938. Oxford University Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Sassi JF, Chanzy H (1995) Ultrastructural aspects of the acetylation of cellulose. Cellulose 2:111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Segal L, Creely L, Martin AE, Conrad CM (1959) An empirical method for estimating the degree of crystallinity of native cellulose using X-ray diffractometer. Text Res J 29:786–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Seydibeyoğlu MÖ, Oksman K (2008) Novel nanocomposites based on polyurethane and micro fibrillated cellulose. Compos Sci Technol 68(3–4):908–914Google Scholar
  22. Sun XF, Sun RC (2002) Comparative study of acetylation of rice straw fiber with or without catalysts. Wood Fiber Sci 34(2):306–317Google Scholar
  23. Taniguchi T, Okamura K (1998) New films produced from mircofibrillated natural fibers. Polym Int 47(3):291–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Troedec M, Sedan D, Peyratout C, Bonnet J, Smith A, Guinebretiere R, Gloaguen V, Krausz P (2008) Influence of various chemical treatments on the composition and structure of hemp fibers. Composites: Part A 39(3):514–522Google Scholar
  25. Tserki V, Zafeiropoulos NE, Simon F, Panayiotou C (2005) A study of the effect of acetylation and propionylation surface treatments on natural fibers. Composites: Part A 36(8):1110–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wågberg L, Decher G, Norgren M, Lindtröm T, Ankefores M, And Axnäs K (2008) The build-up of polyelectrolyte multilayers of microfibrillated cellulose and cationic polyelectrolytes. Langmuir 24:784–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wegner TH, Jones PE (2006) Advancing cellulose-based nanotechnology. Cellulose 13:115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zafeiropoulos NE, Dijon GG, Baillie CA (2007) A study of the effect of surface treatments on the tensile strength of flax fibres: Part I. Application of Gaussian statistics. Composites: Part A 38:621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zimmermann T, Pöhler E, Schwaller P (2005) Mechanical and morphological properties of cellulose fibril reinforced nanocomposites. Adv Eng Res 7:1156–1161Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehdi Jonoobi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jalaluddin Harun
    • 1
  • Aji P. Mathew
    • 2
  • Mohd Zobir B. Hussein
    • 3
  • Kristiina Oksman
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Tropical Forestry and Forest ProductsUniversity Putra MalaysiaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Division of Manufacturing and Design of Wood and BionanocompositesLuleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of ScienceUniversity Putra MalaysiaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations