Cited by 29Advanced Cellulose Research StudiesNanocomposite Films for Food PackagingLignin and Wood Chemistry

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative extraction and characterisation of cellulose nanostructures from sawdust and maize stalk biomass

Open access
Makhado, Edwin, Seleka, Wilson M., Mahlaule Glory, Louisah, Selowa, Kgaugelo, Abu Elella, Mahmoud H., Botlhoko, Orebotse J., Satekge, Thabiso K., Hato, Mpitloane J.·2025·International Journal of Biological Macromolecules

Abstract

The conversion of agricultural waste into high-value nanoparticles presents a sustainable approach to waste management and the production of bio-based goods. This work effectively collected cellulose nanofibers and cellulose nanocrystals from agricultural leftovers using chemical methods. The resulting nanocelluloses were characterised through Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) to ascertain their chemical structure, crystallinity, morphology, and thermal stability. XRD revealed a crystalline cellulose I structure for cellulose nanofibers and a crystalline cellulose Iβ structure for nanocrystals. The former exhibited a crystallinity index of 74.3 %, surpassing the cellulose nanocrystals index of 66.8 %. Cellulose nanocrystals exhibited reduced thermal stability compared to cellulose nanofibers throughout the analysed TGA range. The zeta potential (ζ) values were found to be -18.2 ± 085 mV for cellulose nanofibers and - 12.80 ± 1.91 mV for cellulose nanocrystals. The kinetic activation energy for cellulose nanofibers exceeds that of cellulose nanocrystals, as determined by the Broido and Coats-Redfern models. The research illustrates the viability of agricultural waste as a plentiful, renewable feedstock for the production of cellulose nanomaterials, which possess properties appropriate for use in biocomposites, films, hydrogels,…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.147842

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Polipalli, 2025, A review on value addition of agricultural residues by chemical and bio-chemical processes to abate environmental pollution, Green Technol. Sustain., 3
  2. Listyanda, 2020, Preparation and characterization of cellulose nanocrystal extracted from ramie fibers by sulfuric acid hydrolysis, Heliyon, 6
  3. Schoeler, 2020, Cellulose nanofibers from cassava agro-industrial waste as reinforcement in pva films, Quím. Nova, 43, 711
  4. Listyanda, 2020, Preparation and characterization of cellulose nanocrystal extracted from ramie fibers by sulfuric acid hydrolysis, Heliyon, 6
  5. AP, 2025, Sustainable isolation of cellulose nanofibers with superior crystallinity and thermal stability from Terminalia catappa L. fruit peel waste, Biomass Convers. Biorefinery, 1
  6. Makhado, 2025, Preparation of carboxymethyl cellulose-based silica hydrogel nanocomposite for methylene blue and malachite green dyes adsorption from aqueous solution, Surf Interfaces, 56
  7. Surya, 2025, Sustainable cellulose nanofiber extraction from Borassus flabellifer: a comprehensive study and analytical insights, Biomass Convers. Biorefinery, 1
  8. Poletto, 2014, Native cellulose: structure, characterization and thermal properties, Materials, 7, 6105, 10.3390/ma7096105 · DOI
  9. Varsha, 2024, Valorization of avocado peel waste: extraction and characterization of cellulose nanofibers for multifunctional applications, Biomass Convers. Biorefinery, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Makhado, E., Seleka, W. M., Mahlaule Glory, L., Selowa, K., Abu Elella, M. H., Botlhoko, O. J., Satekge, T. K., & Hato, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Limpopo (ZA)
  • University of Johannesburg (ZA)
Corresponding author
Makhado, Edwin
Venue
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-11
Volume
329
Issue
Pt 1
Pages
147842
ISSN
0141-8130 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414533260
Cited by
22
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 22
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Biological Macromolecules (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Universiteit van Limpopo
  • National Research Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Advanced Cellulose Research Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
  • Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Process Chemistry and Technology › Lignin and Wood Chemistry
Keywords
cellulose nanofibers, cellulose nanocrystals, nanocellulose, agricultural waste valorization, sawdust, corn stalk, biomass conversion, crystallinity, thermal stability, zeta potential, activation energy, Coats-Redfern method, circular bioeconomy
MeSH terms
Cellulose, Zea mays, Thermogravimetry, Wood, X-Ray Diffraction, Spectroscopy, Fourier Transform Infrared, Biomass, Nanostructures, Nanoparticles, Nanofibers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review