Journal of Polymers and the Environment

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 615–621 | Cite as

Bio-Treatment of Natural Fibers in Isolation of Cellulose Nanofibres: Impact of Pre-Refining of Fibers on Bio-Treatment Efficiency and Nanofiber Yield

Original Paper

Abstract

Biodegradability, renewability and high specific strength properties of cellulose nanofibres and microfibrils have made them very attractive in nano-biocomposite science. Treatment of natural fibers with suitable enzymes or fungus has been found to substantially alleviate the high energy requirement associated with the isolation of cellulose nanofibers via high shear refining and subsequent cryocrushing. This article briefly describes a novel enzymatic fiber pretreatment developed to facilitate the isolation of cellulose nanofibres and explores the effect of pre-refining of fibers on the effectiveness of bio-treatment. Soft wood Kraft pulp was pre-sheared to different degree and treated with a genetically modified fungus isolated from fungus infected Dutch elm tree. Cellulose nanofibres were isolated from these treated fibers by high shear refining. The percentage yield of nanofibres from pre-refined fibers in the less than 50 nm range showed a substantial increase and at the same time the number of revolutions required during the high shear refining to attain a comparable level of nanofibres isolation decreased. This observation may be attributed to the better fiber internal accessibility of the enzymes due to loosening up of the fibers and increased number of fiber ends as a result of pre-refining.

Keywords

Cellulose nanofibres/microfibrils Cellulose microfibril isolation Enzyme pre-treatment Hydrogen bonds PFI refining 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the support of Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada—BIOCAP.

References

  1. 1.
    Payen A (1838) Comptes Rendus 7:1052Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clowes FAL, Juniper BE (1968) Plant cells. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liang CY, Marchessault RH (1959) J Polym Sci 37:385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sakurada I, Nukushina Y, Ito T (1962) J Polym Sci 57:651–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wainwright SA, Biggs WD, Currey JD, Gosline JM (1982) Mechanical design in organisms. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tashiro K, Kobayashi M (1991) Polymer 32(8):1516–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berglund LA (2004) In: Mohanthy MAD (ed) Naturalfibers, biopolymers and biocomposites. CRC Press LLC, pp 807–882Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turbak AF, Snyder FW, Sandberg KR (1983) J Appl Polym Sci Appl Polym Symp 37:815–827Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alemdar A, Sain M, Oksman K (2007) Proceedings of ninth international conference on wood and bio-fibre plastic composites, Madison, Wisconsin, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hubbe MA, Rojas OJ, Lucia LA, Sain M (2008) Bioresources 3(3):929–980Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chakroborty A, Sain M, Kortschot M (2007) J Biobased Mat Bioenergy 1(1):71–77Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fukuzumi H, Saito T, Iwata T, Kumamoto T, Isogai A (2009) Biomacromolecules 10(1):162–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang B, Sain M (2007) Bioresources 2(3):371–388Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alemdar A, Sain M (2008) Bioresour Technol 99(6):1664–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alemdar A, Sain M (2008) Comp Sci Technol 68:557–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chakraborty A, Sain M, Kortschot M (2005) Cellulose microfibres: a novel method of preparation using high shear refining and cryocrushing. Holzforschung 59:102–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bolaski W, Gallatin A, Gallatin JC (1959) Enzymatic conversion of cellulosic fibers. United States Patent 3, 041:246Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yerkes WD (1968) Process for the digestion of cellulosic materials by enzymatic action of Trametes suaveolens. United States Patent 3, 406: 089Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nomura Y (1985) Digestion of pulp. Japanese Patent 126, 395/85Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fuentes JL, Robert M (1988) Process of treatment of a paper pulp by an enzymic solution, European Patent 262040Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Uchimoto I, Endo K, Yamagishi Y (1988) Improvement of deciduous tree pulp. Japanese Patent 135, 597/88Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paice MG, Jurasek L (1984) Removing hemicellulose from pulps by specific enzymic hydrolysis. J Wood Chem Technol 4(2):187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Senior DJ, Mayers PR, Miller D, Sutcliffe R, Tan L, Saddler JN (1988) Selective solubilization of xylan in pulp using a purified xylanase from Trichoderma harzianum. Biotechnol Lett 10:907–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jurasek L, Paice MG (1988) Biological treatment of pulps. Biomass 15:103–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nazareth S, Mavinkurve S (1987) Laboratory studies on retting of coconut husk. Int Biodeter 23:343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sharma HSS (1987) Screening of polysaccharide-degrading enzymes for retting flax stems. Int Biodeter 23:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Morvan C, Jauneau A, Flaman A, Millet J, Demarty M (1990) Degradation of flax polysaccharides with purified endo-polygalacturonidase. Carbohyd Polym 13:149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tolan JS, Canovas RV (1992) The use of enzymes to decrease the Cl2 requirements in pulp bleaching. Pulp Paper Can 93:39–42Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scott BP, Young F, Paice MG (1993) Mill-scale enzyme treatment of a softwood kraft pulp prior to bleaching. Pulp Paper Can 94:57–61Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Viikari L, Kantelinen A, Poutanen K, Ranua M (1990) Characterization of pulps treated with hemicellulolytic enzymes prior to bleaching. In: Kirk TK, Chang H-m (eds) Biotechnology in pulp and paper manufacture. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, pp 145–151Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Janardhnan S, Sain M (2006) Isolation of cellulose microfibrils: an enzymatic approach. Bio-Resources 1(2):176–188Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zobel B, McElvee R (1966) J Tappi J 49(9):383–387Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Phillips FH, Bain RB, Watson AJ (1970) Appita 23(5):341–354Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Watson AJ, Phillips FH (1964) Appita 18(3):84–102Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Murphy DC (1990) Appita 16(1):16–30Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied ChemistryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations