, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 1143–1148 | Cite as

The dynamic development of exclusion zones on cellulosic surfaces

  • Belkis Sulbarán
  • Guillermo Toriz
  • G. Graham Allan
  • Gerald H. Pollack
  • Ezequiel Delgado
Original Paper


The dynamics of the development of solute exclusion zones produced by water in contact with various cellulosic surfaces are reported. The term “exclusion zone” (EZ) refers to the ordered water volume present immediately contiguous to hydrophilic surfaces. As such, three examples of cellulose-based films, i.e., cellophane, cellulose acetate with 0.94 degree of substitution (CA0.94) and cellulose acetate with 2.51 degree of substitution (CA2.51) were compared by exposure to sulfated-polystyrene microspheres (2 μm diameter) suspended in water. Zones that were not penetrated by the microspheres were observed in each case and measured by means of an optical microscope. The thickness of these exclusion zones adjacent to the cellulosic surfaces increased progressively with time and reached a maximum value of 190 μm after 1 h of exposure. Zone formation was influenced by roughness, crystallinity, and the degree of acetylation of the surfaces. For the cellulosic surfaces, the rougher the surface, the thicker was the EZ formed. Both the accessibility and availability of the hydroxyl groups on the cellulosic surfaces also influenced the thickness of the resultant EZ in the sequence, cellophane > CA0.94 > CA2.51. The surface of cellulose acetate with the greater substitution degree (CA2.51) produced the thinnest EZ. The diminution of the capacity of these cellulose derivatives to instigate water-molecule ordering is considered to be due to the hydrophobicity imparted by the acetyl group content.


Water-ordering Exclusion zone Cellulosic surfaces Surface roughness Crystallinity 



Financial support for this work was provided by the National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico (CONACYT) and by an NIH Transformative grant awarded to Professor Pollack. The authors acknowledge the Nanotech User Facility at the University of Washington in Seattle, USA, for experimental support during the AFM measurements.


  1. Chai B, Zheng J, Zhao Q, Pollack GH (2008) Spectroscopic studies of solutes in aqueous solution. J Phys Chem 112:2242–2247. doi: 10.1021/jp710105nCCC CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chai B, Yoo H, Pollack GH (2009) Effect of radiant energy on near-surface water. J Phys Chem B 113(42):13953–13958. doi: 10.1021/jp908163w CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Das R, Pollack GH (2013) Charged-based forces at the Nafion–water interface. Langmuir 29:2651–2658. doi: 10.1021/la304418p CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Delgado E, Allan GG, Contreras H, Toriz G, Turrado J (2011) Fundamental aspects of adhesion between cellulose surfaces in contact—a review. Revista O Papel 72(9):85–90Google Scholar
  5. Houtman C, Atalla R (1995) Cellulose-lignin interactions. A computational study. Plant Physiol 107:977–984Google Scholar
  6. Hubbe M (2006) Bonding between cellulose fibers in the absence and presence of dry strength agents—a review. BioRes 1(2):281–318Google Scholar
  7. Lombardo T, Giovambattista N, Debenedetti P (2009) Structural and mechanical properties of glassy water in nanoscale confinement. Faraday Discuss 141:359–376. doi: 10.1039/b805361h CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Östenson M, Jarund H, Toriz G, Gatenholm P (2006) Determination of surface functional groups in lignocellulosic materials by chemical derivatization and ESCA analysis. Cellulose 13:157–170. doi: 10.1007/s10570-005-5855-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pollack GH (2013) The fourth phase of water: beyond solid, liquid, and vapor. Ebner and Sons, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  10. Pollack GH, Figueroa X, Zhao Q (2009) Molecules, water and radiant energy: new clues for the origin of life. Int J Mol Sci 10:1419–1429. doi: 10.3390/ijms10041419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Segal L, Creely J, Martin E, Conrad C (1959) An empirical method for estimating the degree of crystallinity of native cellulose using the X-ray diffractometer. Text Res J 29:764–786. doi: 10.1177/004051755902901003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Vogler E (1998) Structure and reactivity of water at biomaterial surfaces. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 74:69–117. doi: 10.1016SOOOl-8686(97)00040-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Vyalikh A, Grunberg B, Xu Y et al (2007) Hydrogen bonding of water confined in controlled-pore glass 10–75 studied by 1H-solid stated NMR. Z Phys Chem 221:155–168. doi: 10.1524/zpch.2007.221.1.155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Yuliwati E, Ismail F, Matsuura T et al (2011) Characterization of surface-modified porous PVDF hollow fibers for refinery wastewater treatment using microscopic observation. Desalination 283:206–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zheng J, Pollack GH (2003) Long-range forces extending from polymer–gel surfaces. Phys Rev E 68:31401–31408. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.68.031408 Google Scholar
  16. Zheng J, Wei C, Khijniak E, Khijniak E Jr, Pollack GH (2006) Surfaces and interfacial water: evidence that hydrophilic surfaces have long-range impact. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 127:19–27. doi: 10.1016/j.cis.2006.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Belkis Sulbarán
    • 1
  • Guillermo Toriz
    • 1
  • G. Graham Allan
    • 2
  • Gerald H. Pollack
    • 3
  • Ezequiel Delgado
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Madera, Celulosa y PapelUniversidad de GuadalajaraGuadalajaraMexico
  2. 2.Department of Chemical Engineering and College of the EnvironmentUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Department of BioengineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations