Manipulation of Native Cellulose Eletrospinning from LiCl-DMAc System

doi:10.7503/cjcu20160833

Abstract

Abstract:

Cellulose nanofibers have been successfully fabricated by electrospinning of cellulose/lithium chloride-dimethylacetamide(LiCl-DMAc) solutions manipulated by nonsolvents. DMAc and dimethyl formamide(DMF) are used as the nonsolvents which is added into the concentrated cellulose solution. The effects of nonsolvents on the properties of cellulose solution and the morphology of electrospun cellulose nanofibers were investigated. Addition of nonsolvents is beneficial to increase the electrospinnable concentration of cellulose solution and obtain well-distributed nanofibers. The result of manipulating by DMF is better than DMAc. The improvement in electrospinnable concentration correlates well with the addition of nonsolvents which can decrease the viscosity of cellulose solution. The morphology of electrospun cellulose nanofibers is related to the rate of jet coagulation which is affected by the stability of cellulose solution during electrospinning.

Key words: Cellulose, Electrospinning, Lithium chloride/dimethylacetamide, Nonsolvent, Nanofibers

CLC Number:

O631

TrendMD:

WANG Shaojun, LUO Ting, ZHANG Xiaomin, SHU You, ZHU Jin, SU Shengpei. Manipulation of Native Cellulose Eletrospinning from LiCl-DMAc System[J]. Chem. J. Chinese Universities, 2017, 38(6): 990.

Figures/Tables 8

Table 1 Spinnability of different concentration cellulose solution diluted by nonsolvents*

Mass fraciton of cellulose(%)	LiCl-DMAc	DMAc	DMF
1.00	Y^-	N	N
1.25	Y^-	Y^-	Y^-
1.50	Y	Y	Y
1.75	Y	Y	Y⁺
2.00	Y	Y⁺	Y⁺
2.25	Y^-	Y	Y⁺
2.50	N	Y^-	Y

Fig.1 Optical microscope images of electrospun cellulose fibers from solution diluted by DMF (A) Non-electrospinnable for cellulose solution at concentration of 1.00%; (B) fiber formation worse for cellulose solution at concentration of 1.25%; (C) fiber formation for cellulose solution at concentration of 1.75%; (D) fiber formation better for cellulose solution at concentration of 2%.

Fig.2 SEM of eletrospun fibers from cellulose solution manipulated by different solvent at a concentration of 2% (A1), (A2) LiCl-DMAc; (B1), (B2) DMAc; (C1), (C2) DMF.

Fig.3 Steady shear viscosity of different cellulose solutiona. 4.00%cellulose; b. DMAC/LiCl-2.00%cellulose; c. DMAC-2.00%cellulose; d. DMF-2.00%cellulose.

Fig.4 Dynamic shear viscosity of different cellulose solutiona, d. LiCl-DMAC; b, e. DMAC; c, f. DMF.a—c. G'; d—f. G″.

Fig.5 Images of cellulose solution at concentration of 2.00% cellulose stay at ambient environment for 24 h(A) LiCl-DMAc; (B) DMAc; (C) DMF.

Fig.6 Dynamic shear viscosity of different cellulose solution stayed at ambient environment for 12 ha, d. LiCl-DMAC; b, e. DMAC; c, f. DMF.a—c. G'; d—f. G″.

Table 2 Conductivity and surface tension of cellulose solution diluted by different nonsolvents

Solution	Conductivity/ (μs·cm^-1)	Surface tension/ (mN·m^-1)
LiCl-DMAc	3000	45.31
DMAc	2700	43.58
DMF	2800	44.23

References 28

[1]	Subbiah T., Bhat G.S., Tock R. W., Parameswaran S., Ramkumar S. S., J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2005, 96, 557—569
[2]	Teo W.E., Ramakrishna S., Nanotechnology, 2006, 17, R89—R106
[3]	Burger C., Hsiao B.S., Chu B., Annu. Rev. Mater. Res., 2006, 36, 333—368
[4]	Huang Z.M., Zhang Y. Z., Kotaki M., Ramakrishna S., Compos. Sci. Technol., 2003, 63, 2223—2253
[5]	Ding B., Kim J., Miyazaki Y., Shiratori S., Sens. Actuators B: Chem., 2004, 101, 373—380
[6]	Qin X.H., Wang S. Y., J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2006, 102, 1285—1290
[7]	Yoshimoto H., Shin Y.M., Terai H., Vacanti J. P., Biomaterials, 2003, 24, 2077—2082
[8]	Rodríguez K., Gatenholm P., Renneckar S., Cellulose, 2012, 19, 1583—1598
[9]	Yu D.G., Li X. Y., Wang X., Cellulose, 2013, 20, 379—389
[10]	He X., Cheng L., Zhang X., Carbohydr. Polym., 2015, 115, 485—493
[11]	Lavoine N., Desloges I., Dufresne A., Bras J., Carbohydr. Polym., 2012, 90, 735—764
[12]	Khil M.S., Kim H. Y., Kang Y. S., Bang H. J., Lee D. R., Doo J. K., Macromol. Res., 2005, 13, 62—67
[13]	Kim C.W., Kim D. S., Kang S. Y., Marquez M., Joo Y. L., Polymer, 2006, 47, 5097—5107
[14]	Viswanathan G., Murugesan S., Pushparaj V., Nalamasu O., Ajayan P.M., Linhardt R. J., Biomacromolecules, 2006, 7, 415—418
[15]	Frey M.W., Joo Y., Kim C., Abs. Pap. ACS, 2003, 226, U404—U404
[16]	Haghia K.A., Mottaghitalabb V., Farjadc M., Cellulose, 2012, 16, 18—20
[17]	Frenot A., Henriksson M.W., Walkenström P., J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2007, 103, 1473—1482
[18]	Kim C.W., Frey M. W., Marquez M., Joo Y. L., J. Polym. Sci., Part B: Polym. Phys., 2005, 43, 1673—1683
[19]	He X., Xiao Q., Lu C., Wang Y., Zhang X., Zhao J., Deng Y., Biomacromolecules, 2014, 15, 618—627
[20]	Deitzel J.M., Kleinmeyer J., Harris D. E. A., Tan N. B., Polymer, 2001, 42, 261—272
[21]	Fong H., Chun I., Reneker D.H., Polymer, 1999, 40, 4585—4592
[22]	Wypych G., Handbook of solvents, ChemTec Publishing, 2001, 170—172
[23]	Aminabhavi T.M., Gopalakrishna B., J. Chem. Eng. Data, 1995, 40, 856—861
[24]	Hansen C.M., Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 1969, 8, 2—11
[25]	Tungprapa S., Puangparn T., Weerasombut M., Jangchud I., Fakum P., Semongkhol S., Supaphol P., Cellulose, 2007, 14, 563—575
[26]	Hur S., Kim W.D., Key Eng. Mater., 2006, 326, 393—396
[27]	Wei Y., Cheng F., J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2007, 106, 3624—3630
[28]	Röder T., Potthast A., Rosenau T., Kosmsa P., Baldinger T., Morgenstern B., Glatter O., Macromol. Symp., 2002, 190, 151—160