, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1097–1111

A comparative study of energy consumption and physical properties of microfibrillated cellulose produced by different processing methods

  • Kelley L. Spence
  • Richard A. Venditti
  • Orlando J. Rojas
  • Youssef Habibi
  • Joel J. Pawlak


Microfibrillated celluloses (MFCs) with diameters predominantly in the range of 10–100 nm liberated from larger plant-based fibers have garnered much attention for the use in composites, coatings, and films due to large specific surface areas, renewability, and unique mechanical properties. Energy consumption during production is an important aspect in the determination of the “green” nature of these MFC-based materials. Bleached and unbleached hardwood pulp samples were processed by homogenization, microfluidization, and micro-grinding, to determine the effect of processing on microfibril and film properties, relative to energy consumption. Processing with these different methods affected the specific surface area of the MFCs, and the film characteristics such as opacity, roughness, density, water interaction properties, and tensile properties. Apparent film densities were approximately 900 kg/m3 for all samples and the specific surface area of the processed materials ranged from approximately 30 to 70 m2/g for bleached hardwood and 50 to 110 m2/g for unbleached hardwood. The microfluidizer resulted in films with higher tensile indices than both micro-grinding and homogenization (148 Nm/g vs. 105 Nm/g and 109 Nm/g, respectively for unbleached hardwood). Microfluidization and micro-grinding resulted in films with higher toughness values than homogenization and required less energy to obtain these properties, offering promise for producing MFC materials with lower energy input. It was also determined that a refining pretreatment required for microfluidization or homogenization can be reduced or eliminated when producing MFCs with the micro-grinder. A summary of the fiber and mechanical energy costs for different fibers and processing conditions with economic potential is presented.


Processing energy Microfibrillated cellulose Homogenization Microfluidization Micro-grinding Nanofibrillated cellulose 


  1. Abe K, Iwamoto S, Yano H (2007) Obtaining cellulose nanofibers with a uniform width of 15 nm from wood. Biomacromolecules 8(10):3276–3278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen M, Stenius P (2007) Water-in-oil emulsions stabilized by hydrophobized microfibrillated cellulose. J Dispers Sci Technol 28:837–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andresen M, Johansson L, Tanem B, Stenius P (2006) Properties and characterization of hydrophobized microfibrillated cellulose. Cellulose 13:665–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chakraborty A, Sain M, Kortschot M (2005) Cellulose microfibrils: a novel method of preparation using high shear refining and cryocrushing. Holzforschung 59:102–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chinga-Carrasco G, Syverud K (2010) Computer-assisted quantification of the multi-scale structure of films made from nanofibrillated cellulose. J Nanopart Res 12:841–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clean Air Council (2006) Waste reduction & recycling: waste facts and figures. http://www.cleanair.org/Waste/wasteFacts.html. Accessed 18 July 2010
  7. Erkisen O, Syverud K, Gregersen O (2008) The use of microfibrillated cellulose produced from kraft pulp as strength enhancer in TMP paper. Nordic Pulp Pap Res J 23(3):299–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goodrich J, Winter W (2007) a-Chitin nanocrystals prepared from shrimp shells and their specific surface area measurement. Biomacromolecules 8(1):252–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grande JA (2007) Biopolymers strive to meet price/performance challenge. Plast Tech. Available at http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Biopolymers+strive+to+meet+price%2fperformance+challenge.-a0161075965
  10. Henriksson M, Henriksson G, Berglund L, Lindstrom T (2007) An environmentally friendly method for enzyme-assisted preparation of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) nanofibers. Eur Polym J 43:3434–3441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henriksson M, Berglund L, Isaksson P, Lindstrom T, Nishino N (2008) Cellulose nanopaper structures of high toughness. Biomacromolecules 9(6):1579–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herrick F, Casebier R, Hamilton J, Sandberg K (1983) Microfibrillated cellulose: morphology and accessibility. J Appl Polym Sci Appl Polym Symp 37:797–813Google Scholar
  13. Iwamoto S, Nakagaito AN, Yano H, Nogi M (2005) Optically transparent composites reinforced with plant fiber-based nanofibers. Appl Phys A Mat Sci Process 81:1109–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Janardhnan S, Sain M (2006) Isolation of cellulose microfibrils—an enzymatic approach. Bioresources 1(2):176–188Google Scholar
  15. Kuehn B (2008) Plastic risks. J Am Med Assoc 299(20):2379Google Scholar
  16. Lindstrom T, Ankerfors M, Henriksson G (2007) Method for the manufacturing of microfibrillated cellulose. International Patent WO 2007/091942 A1Google Scholar
  17. Microfluidics Corporation (2010) Microfluidics. http://www.microfluidicscorp.com/. Accessed 18 July 2010
  18. Montanari S, Roumani M, Huex L, Vignon MR (2005) Topochemistry of carboxylated cellulose nanocrystals resulting from TEMPO-mediated oxidation. Macromolecules 38:1665–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 Mat Sci Process 78:547–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nakagaito AN, Yano H (2005) Novel high-strength biocomposites based on microfibrillated cellulose having nano-order-unit web-like network structure. Appl Phys A Mat Sci Process 80:155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ougiya H, Hioki N, Watanabe K, Morinaga Y, Yoshinaga F, Samejima M (1998) Relationship between the physical properties and surface area of cellulose derived from adsorbates of various molecular sizes. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 62(10):1880–1884Google Scholar
  22. Plastics Technology (n.d.) Resin pricing. Available at http://www.ptonline.com/articles/prices-trending-upward-for-commodity-engineering-resins. Accessed March 2010
  23. Saito T, Kimura S, Nishiyama Y, Isogai A (2007) Cellulose nanofibers prepared by TEMPO-mediated oxidation of native cellulose. Biomacromolecules 8:2485–2491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Siro I, Plackett D (2010) Microfibrillated cellulose and new nanocomposite materials: a review. Cellulose 17:459–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Spence K, Venditti R, Habibi Y, Rojas O, Pawlak J (2010a) The effect of chemical composition on microfibrillar cellulose films from wood pulps: mechanical processing and physical properties. Bioresour Technol 101:5961–5968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spence K, Venditti R, Rojas O, Habibi Y, Pawlak J (2010b) The effect of chemical composition on microfibrillar cellulose films from wood pulps: water interactions and physical properties for packaging applications. Cellulose 117:835–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stenstad P, Andresen M, Tanem B, Stenius P (2008) Chemical surface modifications of microfibrillated cellulose. Cellulose 15(1):35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Syverud K, Stenius P (2009) Strength and barrier properties of MFC films. Cellulose 16:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. T404 (1992) Tensile breaking strength and elongation of paper and paperboard (using pendulum-type tester). 2000–2001 TAPPI Test Methods. TAPPIGoogle Scholar
  30. T410 (1998) Grammage of paper and paperboard (weight per unit area). 2000–2001 TAPPI Test Methods. TAPPIGoogle Scholar
  31. T411 (1997) Thickness (caliper) of paper, paperboard, and combined board. 2000–2001 TAPPI Test Methods. TAPPIGoogle Scholar
  32. T452 (1998) Brightness of pulp, paper, and paperboard (directional reflectance at 457 nm). 2000–2001 TAPPI Test Methods. TAPPIGoogle Scholar
  33. T519 (1996) Difuse opacity of paper (d/0o paper backing). 2000–2001 TAPPI Test Methods. TAPPIGoogle Scholar
  34. T527 (1994) Color of paper and paperboard (d/0o geometery). 2000–2001 TAPPI Test Methods. TAPPIGoogle Scholar
  35. T555 (1999) Roughness of paper and paperboard (print-surf method). 2000–2001 TAPPI Test Methods. TAPPIGoogle Scholar
  36. Taniguchi T, Okamura K (1998) New films produced from microfibrillated natrual fibres. Polym Int 47:291–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Turbak A, Snyder F, Sandberg K (1983) Microfibrillated cellulose: a new cellulose product: properties, uses, and commercial potential. J Appl Polym Sci Appl Polym Symp 37:815–827Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelley L. Spence
    • 1
  • Richard A. Venditti
    • 1
  • Orlando J. Rojas
    • 1
    • 2
  • Youssef Habibi
    • 1
  • Joel J. Pawlak
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest BiomaterialsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest Products TechnologyAalto UniversityEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations