, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 5431–5442 | Cite as

Length-controlled cellulose nanofibrils produced using enzyme pretreatment and grinding

  • Yuan Chen
  • Dongbin Fan
  • Yanming Han
  • Gaiyun LiEmail author
  • Siqun Wang
Original Paper


The length of cellulose nanofibrils (CNFs) is a significant parameter for various applications. The goal of this research was to employ a fabrication method to produce length-controlled CNFs; the chosen technique was enzy-grinding (enzyme pretreatment followed by mechanical grinding). Here, we presented the results of the optimization of the diameter and length, the characterization of the properties of CNFs and nanofilms prepared using these fibrils. The cellulose morphology, crystallinity index (CrI), chemical structure, and thermal stability were investigated as functions of the enzyme loading and hydrolysis time. The results showed that enzy-grinding could effectively reduce the diameter and length of cellulose fibrils. The average diameter was about 8.6 ± 3.6 nm, and the length could be controlled over the range from 0.76 ± 0.38 μm to ≥ 4 μm (i.e. aspect ratios from 43 to ≥ 328). After the grinding process, the CNFs maintained high thermal stability and no change in the chemical structure compared to the original pulp. The transmittance and mechanical properties of the CNF films were strongly dependent on the fibril length. The fabrication of length-controlled CNFs using the enzy-grinding process is meaningful and significant research which could be relevant to the optimization of such materials for various applications.


Cellulose nanofibrils Length-controlled Enzyme Grinding Nanofilms 



This work was supported by the Special Fund for Forest Scientific Research in the Public Welfare (201504603).

Supplementary material

10570_2017_1499_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1211 kb)


  1. Akerholm M, Salm NL (2001) Interactions between wood polymers studied by dynamic FT-IR spectroscopy. Polymer 42(3):963–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen Y, He Y, Fan D, Han Y, Li G, Wang S (2016) An efficient method for cellulose nanofibrils length shearing via environmentally friendly mixed cellulase pretreatment. J Nanomater 2017. doi: 10.1155/2017/1591504 Google Scholar
  3. Alemdar A, Sain M (2008) Biocomposites from wheat straw nanofibers: morphology, thermal and mechanical properties. Compos Sci Technol 68(2):557–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azizi SM et al (2004) Tangling effect in fibrillated cellulose reinforced nanocomposites. Macromolecules 37(11):4313–4316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belbekhouche S et al (2011) Water sorption behavior and gas barrier properties of cellulose whiskers and microfibrils films. Carbohydr Polym 83(4):1740–1748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brinchi L et al (2013) Production of nanocrystalline cellulose from lignocellulosic biomass: technology and applications. Carbohydr Polym 94(1):154–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brito BS et al (2012) Preparation, morphology and structure of cellulose nanocrystals from bamboo fibers. Cellulose 19(5):1527–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell MG et al (2014) Preparation of nanocomposite plasmonic films made from cellulose nanocrystals or mesoporous silica decorated with unidirectionally aligned gold nanorods. Materials 7(4):3021–3033PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charreau H, Foresti ML, Vazquez A (2013) Nanocellulose patents trends: a comprehensive review on patents on cellulose nanocrystals, microfibrillated and bacterial cellulose. Recent Pat Nanotechnol 7(1):56–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Du H et al (2016) Preparation and characterization of functional cellulose nanofibrils via formic acid hydrolysis pretreatment and the nanofibrils high-pressure homogenization. Ind Crops Prod 94:736–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eichhorn SJ (2011) Cellulose nanowhiskers: promising materials for advanced applications. Soft Matter 7(2):303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eichhorn S et al (2010) Review: current international research into cellulose nanofibres and nanocomposites. J Mater Sci 45(1):1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fraschini C et al (2014) Critical discussion of light scattering and microscopy techniques for CNC particle sizing. Nord Pulp Pap Res J 29(1):31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gierlinger N, Schmidt GM (2008) In situ FT-IR microscopic study on enzymatic treamtment of poplar wood cross-sections. Biomacromol 9(8):2194–2201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Habibi Y, Lucia LA, Rojas OJ (2010) Cellulose nanocrystals: chemistry, selfassembly, and applications. Chem Rev 110(6):3479–3500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henriksson M et al (2007) An environmentally friendly method for enzyme-assisted preparation of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) nanofibers. Eur Polym J 43(8):3434–3441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrick FW et al (1983) Microfibrillated cellulose: morphology and accessibility. J Appl Polym Sci: Appl Polym Symp 37:797–813Google Scholar
  18. Jackson JK et al (2011) The use of nanocrystalline cellulose for the binding and controlled release of drugs. Int J Nanomed 6(6):321–330Google Scholar
  19. Jalak J et al (2012) Endo-exo synergism in cellulose hydrolysis revisited. J Biol Chem 287(34):28802–28815PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaushik M, Moores A (2016) Review: nanocelluloses as versatile supports for metal nanoparticles and their applications in catalysis. Green Chem 18(3):622–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klemm D et al (2005) Cellulose: fascinating biopolymer and sustainable raw material. Angew Chem Int Ed 44(22):3358–3393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klemm D et al (2011) Nanocelluloses: a new family of nature-based materials. Angew Chem Int Ed 50(24):5438–5466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kolakovic R et al (2012) Spray-dried nanofibrillar cellulose microparticles for sustained drug release. Int J Pharm 430(1–2):47–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krässig HA (ed) (1993) Cellulose: structure, accessibility, and reactivity. Gordon and Breach Science, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  25. Lavoine N et al (2014) Controlled release and long-term antibacterial activity of chlorhexidine digluconate through the nanoporpous networks of microfibrillated cellulose. Cellulose 21(6):4429–4442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin N, Huang J, Dufresne A (2012) Preparation, properties and applications of polysaccharide nanocrystals in advanced functional nanomaterials: a review. Nanoscale 4(11):3274–3294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu YS et al (2011) Cellobiohydrolase hydrolyzes crystalline cellulose on hydrophobic faces. J Biol Chem 286(13):11195–11201PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lopez M et al (2010) Enthalpic studies of xyloglucan-cellulose interactions. Biomacromol 11(6):1417–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mendez J et al (2011) Bioinspired mechanically adaptive polymer nanocomposites with water-activated shape-memory effect. Macromolecules 44(17):6827–6835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moon RJ et al (2011) Cellulose nanomaterials review: structure, properties and nanocomposites. Chem Soc Rev 40(7):3941–3994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moon RJ, Schueneman GT, Simonsen J (2016) Overview of cellulose nanomaterials, their capabilities and applications. JOM 68(9):2383–2393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nechyporchuk O, Pignon F, Belgacem MN (2015) Morphological properties of nanofibrillated cellulose produced using wet grinding as an ultimate fibrillation process. J Mater Sci 50(2):531–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nechyporchuk O, Belgacem MN, Bras J (2016) Production of cellulose nanofibrils: a review of recent advances. Ind Crops Prod 93:2–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Normand ML, Moriana R, Ek M (2014) Isolation and characterization of cellulose nanocrystals from spruce bark in a biorefinery perspective. Carbohydr Polym 111(20):979–987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Qing Y et al (2013) A comparative study of cellulose nanofibrils disintegrated via multiple processing approaches. Carbohyd Polym 97(1):226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Querejeta-Fernández A et al (2014) Chiral plasmonic films formed by gold nanorods and cellulose nanocrystals. J Am Chem Soc 136(12):4788–4793PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rabinovich ML, Melnick MS, Bolbova AV (2002) The structure and mechanism of action of cellulolytic enzymes. Biochem Moscow 67(8):850–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rees A et al (2015) 3D bioprinting of carboxymethylated-periodate oxidized nanocellulose constructs for wound dressing applications. Biomed Res Int 2:168–172Google Scholar
  39. Sacui IA et al (2014) Comparison of the properties of cellulose nanocrystals and cellulose nanofibrils isolated from bacteria, tunicate, and wood processed using acid, enzymatic, mechanical and oxidative methods. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6(9):6127–6138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salas C et al (2014) Nanocellulose properties and applications in colloids and interfaces. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 19(5):383–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Segal L et al (1959) An empirical method for estimating the degree of crystallinity of native cellulose using the X-ray diffractometer. Text Res J 29(10):786–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shao Y et al (2015) Use of microfibrillated cellulose/lignosulfonate blend as carbon precursors: impact of hvdrogel rheology on 3D printing. Ind Eng Chem Res 54(43):10575–10582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shopsowitz KE et al (2014) Biopolymer template glass with a twist: controlling the chirality, porosity, and photonic properties of silica with cellulose nanocrystals. Adv Funct Mater 24(3):327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Silvério HA et al (2013) Extraction and characterization of cellulose nanocrystals from corncob for application as reinforcing agent in nanocomposites. Ind Crops Prod 44(2):427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Siqueira G et al (2010) Morphological investigation of nanoparticles obtained from combined mechanical shearing, and enzymatic and acid hydrolysis of sisal fibers. Cellulose 17(6):1147–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spence KL et al (2011) A comparative study of energy consumption and physical properties of microfibrillated cellulose produced by different processing methods. Cellulose 18(4):1097–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yarbrough JM et al (2017) Multifunctional cellulolytic enzymes outperform processive fungal cellulases for coproduction of nanocellulose and biofuels. ACS Nano 11(3):3101–3109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhu H et al (2013) Transparent paper: fabrications, properties, and device application. Energy Environ Sci 7(1):269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuan Chen
    • 1
  • Dongbin Fan
    • 1
  • Yanming Han
    • 1
  • Gaiyun Li
    • 1
    Email author
  • Siqun Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Chinese Academy of ForestryResearch Institute of Wood IndustryBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Center for Renewable CarbonUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations