Advertisement

Cellulose

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 3973–3985 | Cite as

3D printed cellulose nanocrystal composites through digital light processing

  • Vincent Chi-Fung Li
  • Xiao Kuang
  • Arie Mulyadi
  • Craig M. Hamel
  • Yulin DengEmail author
  • H. Jerry QiEmail author
Original Research
  • 228 Downloads

Abstract

Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNC) have received significant attention due to their high Young’s modulus, high strength, biocompatibility, and renewability. These properties make them ideal as a reinforcement phase for polymer composites. However, typical composite processing techniques have limitation in efficiently fabricating composites with different shapes. Inspired by the emerging technology of 3D printing, this work utilized the digital light processing (DLP) 3D printing approach to fabricate CNC reinforced poly (ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGDA) glycerol composites. To improve CNC compatibility with PEGDA matrix, 1,3-diglycerolate diacrylate (DiGlyDA) that has a similar chemical structure but also has hydroxyl groups was blended with PEGDA. The dispersibility of CNC was characterized by the Halpin–Tsai model and polarized light microscopy. Mechanical testing results indicated that mechanical properties of DLP 3D printed composites were improved by CNC incorporation. Furthermore, curing layer thickness during DLP 3D printing can also be used to tune the composites’ mechanical and water swelling properties. Complex 3D CNC composites structures were also successfully printed by the DLP 3D printing with great fidelity. This versatile approach of controlling composite’s properties and structure using CNC and DLP 3D printing can be exploited to further advance the utilization of cellulosic materials toward biomedical and many other applications.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Cellulose nanocrystals Digital light processing 3D printing CNC composites 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The support of an AFOSR Grant (FA9550-16-1-0169; Dr. B.-L. “Les” Lee, Program Manager) and the NSF award (CMMI-1462895) are gratefully acknowledged. A gift fund from HP, Inc is also greatly appreciated. This work was performed in part at the Georgia Tech Institute for Electronics and Nanotechnology, a member of the National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure, which is supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant ECCS-1542174). The authors of this paper would like to thank the Renewable Bioproducts Institute at Georgia Tech for providing the Paper Science and Engineering (PSE) fellowship financial support. The authors also thank Professor J. Carson Meredith for the usage of the polarized light microscope.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Supplementary material

10570_2019_2353_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.6 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 3713 kb)

References

  1. Abdelmouleh M, Boufi S, Belgacem MN, Dufresne A, Gandini A (2005) Modification of cellulose fibers with functionalized silanes: effect of the fiber treatment on the mechanical performances of cellulose-thermoset composites. J Appl Polym Sci 98:974–984.  https://doi.org/10.1002/app.22133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anuj Kumar YSN, Bhardwaj NK, Choudhary V (2013) Synthesis and characterization of cellulose nanocrystals-PVA based bionanocomposite. Advanced Materials Letters. 4:626–631.  https://doi.org/10.5185/amlett.2012.12482 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bikas H, Stavropoulos P, Chryssolouris G (2016) Additive manufacturing methods and modelling approaches: a critical review. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 83:389–405.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7576-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen Q, Liu P, Nan F, Zhou L, Zhang J (2014) Tuning the iridescence of chiral nematic cellulose nanocrystal films with a vacuum-assisted self-assembly technique. Biomacromol 15:4343–4350.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm501355x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheung CCY, Giese M, Kelly JA, Hamad WY, MacLachlan MJ (2013) Iridescent chiral nematic cellulose nanocrystal/polymer composites assembled in organic solvents. ACS Macro Lett 2:1016–1020.  https://doi.org/10.1021/mz400464d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiappone A, Fantino E, Roppolo I, Lorusso M, Manfredi D, Fino P, Pirri CF, Calignano F (2016) 3d printed PEG-based hybrid nanocomposites obtained by sol-gel technique. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 8:5627–5633.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b12578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi JY, Das S, Theodore ND, Kim I, Honsberg C, Choi HW, Alford TL (2015) Advances in 2d/3d printing of functional nanomaterials and their applications. ECS J Solid State Sci Technol 4:P3001–P3009.  https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0011504jss CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Leon AC, Chen Q, Palaganas NB, Palaganas JO, Manapat J, Advincula RC (2016) High performance polymer nanocomposites for additive manufacturing applications. React Funct Polym 103:141–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reactfunctpolym.2016.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eichhorn SJ, Baillie CA, Zafeiropoulos N, Mwaikambo LY, Ansell MP, Dufresne A, Entwistle KM, Herrera-Franco PJ, Escamilla GC, Groom LH, Hughes M, Hill C, Rials TG, Wild PM (2001) Review current international research into cellulosic fibers and composites. J Mater Sci 36:25Google Scholar
  10. Eichhorn SJ, Dufresne A, Aranguren M, Marcovich NE, Capadona JR, Rowan SJ, Weder C, Thielemans W, Roman M, Renneckar S, Gindl W (2009) Review: current international research into cellulose nanofibres and nanocomposites. J Mater Sci 45:1–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-009-3874-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Esmaeilian B, Behdad S, Wang B (2016) The evolution and future of manufacturing: a review J. Manuf Syst 39:79–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2016.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eyley S, Thielemans W (2014) Surface modification of cellulose nanocrystals. Nanoscale 6:7764–7779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fantino E, Chiappone A, Roppolo I, Manfredi D, Bongiovanni R, Pirri CF, Calignano F (2016) 3d printing of conductive complex structures with in situ generation of silver nanoparticles. Adv Mater 28:3712–3717.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201505109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faruk O, Bledzki AK, Fink H-P, Sain M (2012) Biocomposites reinforced with natural fibers: 2000–2010. Prog Polym Sci 37:1552–1596.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2012.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faruk O, Bledzki AK, Fink H-P, Sain M (2014) Progress report on natural fiber reinforced composites. Macromol Mater Eng 299:9–26.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mame.201300008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feng XH, Yang ZZ, Chmely S, Wang QW, Wang SQ, Xie YJ (2017) Lignin-coated cellulose nanocrystal filled methacrylate composites prepared via 3D stereolithography printing: mechanical reinforcement and thermal stabilization. Carbohydr Polym 169:272–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gu J, Catchmark JM (2013) Polylactic acid composites incorporating casein functionalized cellulose nanowhiskers. J Biolo Eng 7:10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1754-1611-7-31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Halpin aJLK JC (1976) The Halpin Tsai equations: a review. Polym Eng Sci 16:9Google Scholar
  19. Henke K, Treml S (2013) Wood based bulk material in 3D printing processes for applications in construction. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 71:139–141.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-012-0658-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heux L, Chauve G, Bonini C (2000) Nonflocculating and chiral-nematic self-ordering of cellulose microcrystals suspensions in nonpolar solvents. Langmuir 16:3.  https://doi.org/10.1021/la9913957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jansen EJ et al (2005) Hydrophobicity as a design criterion for polymer scaffolds in bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 26:4423–4431.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johan Felix PG, Schreiber HP (1994) Plasma modification of cellulose fibers-effects on some polymer composite properties. J Appl Polym Sci 51:11Google Scholar
  23. Joshi SC, Sheikh AA (2015) 3D printing in aerospace and its long-term sustainability. Virtual Phys Prototy 10:175–185.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2015.1111519 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kedzior SA, Zoppe JO, Berry RM, Cranston ED (2018) Recent advances and an industrial perspective of cellulose nanocrystal functionalization through polymer grafting. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2018.11.005
  25. Kim J, Montero G, Habibi Y, Hinestroza JP, Genzer J, Argyropoulos DS, Rojas OJ (2009) Dispersion of cellulose crystallites by nonionic surfactants in a hydrophobic polymer matrix. Polym Eng Sci 49:2054–2061.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.21417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuang X, Zhao Z, Chen K, Fang D, Kang G, Qi HJ (2018) High-speed 3D printing of high-performance thermosetting polymers via two-stage curing. Macromol Rapid Comm 39:1700809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kumar S, Hofmann M, Steinmann B, Foster EJ, Weder C (2012) Reinforcement of stereolithographic resins for rapid prototyping with cellulose nanocrystals. ACS appl mater inter 4:5399–5407.  https://doi.org/10.1021/am301321v CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee H, Fang NX (2012) Micro 3D printing using a digital projector and its application in the study of soft materials mechanics. J Vis Exp: JoVE:e4457.  https://doi.org/10.3791/4457
  29. Lewis JA (2006) Direct ink writing of 3D functional materials. Adv Funct Mater 16:2193–2204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li VC-F, Dunn CK, Zhang Z, Deng Y, Qi HJ (2017) Direct ink write (DIW) 3d printed cellulose nanocrystal aerogel structures. Sci Rep 7:8018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li VCF, Mulyadi A, Dunn CK, Deng Y, Qi HJ (2018) Direct ink write 3D printed cellulose nanofiber aerogel structures with highly deformable, shape recoverable, and functionalizable properties. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 6:2011–2022.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b03439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu K, Liang H, Nasrallah J, Chen L, Huang L, Ni Y (2016) Preparation of the CNC/Ag/beeswax composites for enhancing antibacterial and water resistance properties of paper. Carbohydr Polym 142:183–188.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.01.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mabrouk AB, Ferraria AM, Botelho do Rego AM, Boufi S (2013) Highly transparent nancomposite films based on polybutylmethacrylate and functionalized cellulose nanocrystals. Cellulose 20:1711–1723.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-013-9916-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Markstedt K, Mantas A, Tournier I, Martinez Avila H, Hagg D, Gatenholm P (2015) 3D bioprinting human chondrocytes with nanocellulose-alginate bioink for cartilage tissue engineering applications. Biomacromol 16:1489–1496.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.5b00188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mazzoccoli JP, Feke DL, Baskaran H, Pintauro PN (2010) Mechanical and cell viability properties of crosslinked low- and high-molecular weight poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate blends. J Biomed Mater Res, Part A 93:558–566.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32563 Google Scholar
  36. Moon RJ, Martini A, Nairn J, Simonsen J, Youngblood J (2011) Cellulose nanomaterials review: structure, properties and nanocomposites. Chem Soc Rev 40:3941–3994.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c0cs00108b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nogi M, Komoda N, Otsuka K, Suganuma K (2013) Foldable nanopaper antennas for origami electronics. Nanoscale 5:4395–4399.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c3nr00231d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oksman K et al (2016) Review of the recent developments in cellulose nanocomposite processing. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 83:2–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.10.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Palaganas NB, Mangadlao JD, de Leon AC, Palaganas JO, Pangilinan KD, Lee YJ, Advincula RC (2017) 3D printing of photocurable cellulose nanocrystal composite for fabrication of complex architectures via stereolithography. Acs Appl Mater Inter 9:34314–34324.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.7b09223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Patel DK, Sakhaei AH, Layani M, Zhang B, Ge Q, Magdassi S (2017) Highly stretchable and UV curable elastomers for digital light processing based 3D printing. Adv Mater 29:1606000.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201606000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pawar AA, Saada G, Cooperstein I, Larush L, Jackman JA, Tabaei SR, Cho NJ, Magdassi S (2016) High-performance 3D printing of hydrogels by water-dispersible photoinitiator nanoparticles. Sci Adv 2:e1501381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Puglia D, Fortunati E, Kenny JM (2016) Multifunctional polymeric nanocomposites based on cellulosic reinforcements. William Andrew, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  43. Querejeta-Fernandez A, Chauve G, Methot M, Bouchard J, Kumacheva E (2014) Chiral plasmonic films formed by gold nanorods and cellulose nanocrystals. J Am Chem Soc 136:4788–4793.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ja501642p CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schubert C, van Langeveld MC, Donoso LA (2014) Innovations in 3D printing: a 3D overview from optics to organs. Br J Ophthalmol 98:159–161.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Singh M, Haverinen HM, Dhagat P, Jabbour GE (2010) Inkjet printing-process and its applications. Adv Mater 22:673–685.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.200901141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Siqueira G et al (2017) Cellulose nanocrystal inks for 3D printing of textured cellular architectures. Adv Funct Mater 27:1604619.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201604619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Siró I, Plackett D (2010) Microfibrillated cellulose and new nanocomposite materials: a review. Cellulose 17:459–494.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-010-9405-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stephanie Beck-Candanedo MR, Gray DG (2005) Effect of reaction conditions on the properties and behavior of wood cellulose nanocrystals suspensions. Biomacromol 6:7.  https://doi.org/10.1021/bm049300p Google Scholar
  49. Sun C, Fang N, Wu DM, Zhang X (2005) Projection micro-stereolithography using digital micro-mirror dynamic mask. Sens Actuators A Phys 121:113–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2004.12.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sydney Gladman A, Matsumoto EA, Nuzzo RG, Mahadevan L, Lewis JA (2016) Biomimetic 4D printing. Nat Mater 15:413–418.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4544 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tan CJ, Peng J, Lin WH, Xing YX, Xu K, Wu JC, Chen MC (2015) Role of surface modification and mechanical orientation on property enhancement of cellulose nanocrystalsipolymer nanocomposites. Eur Polym J 62:186–197.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2014.11.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tumbleston JR, Shirvanyants D, Ermoshkin N, Janusziewicz R, Johnson AR, Kelly D, Chen K, Pinschmidt R, Rolland JP, Ermoshkin A, Samulski ET (2015) Continuous liquid interface production of 3D objects. Science 347:1349–1352.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa2397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tunchel S, Blay A, Kolerman R, Mijiritsky E, Shibli JA (2016) 3D printing/additive manufacturing single titanium dental implants: a prospective multicenter study with 3 years of follow-up. Int J Dent.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8590971
  54. Vardanyan V, Poaty B, Chauve G, Landry V, Galstian T, Riedl B (2014) Mechanical properties of UV-waterborne varnishes reinforced by cellulose nanocrystals. J Coat Technol Res 11:841–852.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11998-014-9598-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ventola CL (2014) Medical applications for 3D printing-current and projected uses. Pharm Ther 39:704–711Google Scholar
  56. Vitale A, Cabral JT (2016) Frontal conversion and uniformity in 3D printing by photopolymerisation. Materials 9:760.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9090760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vitale A, Hennessy MG, Matar OK, Cabral JT (2015a) Interfacial profile and propagation of frontal photopolymerization waves. Macromolecules 48:198–205.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ma5021215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vitale A, Hennessy MG, Matar OK, Cabral JT (2015b) A unified approach for patterning via frontal photopolymerization. Adv Mater 27:6118–6124.  https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201502607 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang N, Ding E, Cheng R (2007) Surface modification of cellulose nanocrystals. Front Chem Eng China 1:228–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Warner J, Soman P, Zhu W, Tom M, Chen S (2016) Design and 3D printing of hydrogel scaffolds with fractal geometries. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 2:1763–1770.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsbiomaterials.6b00140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wendel B, Rietzel D, Kühnlein F, Feulner R, Hülder G, Schmachtenberg E (2008) Additive processing of polymers. Macromol Mater Eng 293:799–809.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mame.200800121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wohlers Associates (2017) Wohlers report 2017 annual worldwide progress reportGoogle Scholar
  63. Wu J, Zhao Z, Hamel CM, Mu X, Kuang X, Guo Z, Qi HJ (2018a) Evolution of material properties during free radical photopolymerization. J Mech Phys Solids 112:25–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2017.11.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wu J, Zhao Z, Kuang X, Hamel CM, Fang D, Qi HJ (2018b) Reversible shape change structures by grayscale pattern 4D printing. Multifunct Mater 1:015002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Xu S, Girouard N, Schueneman G, Shofner ML, Meredith JC (2013) Mechanical and thermal properties of waterborne epoxy composites containing cellulose nanocrystals. Polymer 54:6589–6598.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2013.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yanez-Soto B, Liliensiek SJ, Murphy CJ, Nealey PF (2013) Biochemically and topographically engineered poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate hydrogels with biomimetic characteristics as substrates for human corneal epithelial cells. J Biomed Mater Res A 101:1184–1194.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yang J, Han CR, Duan JF, Xu F, Sun RC (2013) Mechanical and viscoelastic properties of cellulose nanocrystals reinforced poly(ethylene glycol) nanocomposite hydrogels. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 5:3199–3207.  https://doi.org/10.1021/am4001997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yang F, Zhang M, Bhandari B (2017) Recent development in 3D food printing. Crit Rev Food Sci 57:3145–3153.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2015.1094732 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Youssef Habibi LAL, Orlando J, Rojas OJ (2010) Cellulose nanocrystals: chemistry self assembly, and applications. Chem Rev 110:22.  https://doi.org/10.1021/cr900339w Google Scholar
  70. Zarek M, Layani M, Cooperstein I, Sachyani E, Cohn D, Magdassi S (2015) 3D printing of shape memory polymers for flexible electronic devices. Adv Mater 28:4449–4454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhao Z, Wu J, Mu X, Chen H, Qi HJ, Fang D (2017a) Desolvation induced origami of photocurable polymers by digit light processing. Macromol Rapid Commun 38:1600625.  https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.201600625 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zhao Z, Wu J, Mu X, Chen H, Qi HJ, Fang D (2017b) Origami by frontal photopolymerization. Sci Adv 3:E1602326.  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhu J, Marchant RE (2011) Design properties of hydrogel tissue-engineering scaffolds. Expert Rev Med Devices 8:607–626.  https://doi.org/10.1586/erd.11.27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Chi-Fung Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiao Kuang
    • 3
  • Arie Mulyadi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Craig M. Hamel
    • 1
    • 3
  • Yulin Deng
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • H. Jerry Qi
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Renewable Bioproduct InstituteGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.The School of Chemical and Biomolecular EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.The George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations