The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of the Properties of Cellulose Nanocrystals and Cellulose Nanofibrils Isolated from Bacteria, Tunicate, and Wood Processed Using Acid, Enzymatic, Mechanical, and Oxidative Methods
Abstract
This work describes the measurement and comparison of several important properties of native cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) and cellulose nanofibrils (CNFs), such as crystallinity, morphology, aspect ratio, and surface chemistry. Measurement of the fundamental properties of seven different CNCs/CNFs, from raw material sources (bacterial, tunicate, and wood) using typical hydrolysis conditions (acid, enzymatic, mechanical, and 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidinyl-1-oxyl (TEMPO)-mediated oxidation), was accomplished using a variety of measurement methods. Atomic force microscopy (AFM), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and 13C cross-polarization magic angle spinning (CPMAS) nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy were used to conclude that CNCs, which are rodlike in appearance, have a higher crystallinity than CNFs, which are fibrillar in appearance. CNC aspect ratio distributions were measured and ranged from 148±147 for tunicate-CNCs to 23±12 for wood-CNCs. Hydrophobic interactions, measured using inverse gas chromatography (IGC), were found to be an important contribution to the total surface energy of both types of cellulose. In all cases, a trace amount of naturally occurring fluorescent compounds was observed after hydrolysis. Confocal and Raman microscopy were used to confirm that the fluorescent species were unique for each cellulose source, and demonstrated that such methods can be useful for monitoring purity during CNC/CNF processing. This study reveals the broad, tunable, multidimensional material space in which CNCs and CNFs exist.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cellulose nanomaterials review: structure, properties and nanocomposites
Moon, R. J., Martini, A., Nairn, J., Simonsen, J., & Youngblood, J. (2011) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c0cs00108b · Cited by 6,756
Cellulose nanocrystals: chemistry, self-assembly, and applications
Habibi, Y., Lucia, L. A., & Rojas, O. J. (2010) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr900339w · Cited by 5,980
Pääkkö, M., Ankerfors, M., Kosonen, H., Nykänen, A., Ahola, S., Österberg, M., Ruokolainen, J., Laine, J., Larsson, P. T., Ikkala, O., et al. (2007) · Biomacromolecules · doi:10.1021/bm061215p · Cited by 1,962
Beck-Candanedo, S., Roman, M., & Gray, D. G. (2005) · Biomacromolecules · doi:10.1021/bm049300p · Cited by 1,588
Transparent and high gas barrier films of cellulose nanofibers prepared by TEMPO-mediated oxidation
Fukuzumi, H., Saito, T., Iwata, T., Kumamoto, Y., & Isogai, A. (2009) · Biomacromolecules · doi:10.1021/bm801065u · Cited by 1,271
Polymer nanocomposites reinforced by cellulose whiskers
Favier, V., Chanzy, H., & Cavaille, J. Y. (1995) · Macromolecules · doi:10.1021/ma00122a053 · Cited by 1,149
Effect of microcrystallite preparation conditions on the formation of colloid crystals of cellulose
DONG, X. M., REVOL, J.-F., & GRAY, D. G. (1998) · Cellulose · doi:10.1023/a:1009260511939 · Cited by 1,032
Experimental determination of the elastic modulus of crystalline regions in oriented polymers
Sakurada, I., Nukushina, Y., & Ito, T. (1962) · Journal of Polymer Science · doi:10.1002/pol.1962.1205716551 · Cited by 883
Bioinspired mechanically adaptive polymer nanocomposites with water-activated shape-memory effect
Mendez, J., Annamalai, P. K., Eichhorn, S. J., Rusli, R., Rowan, S. J., Foster, E. J., & Weder, C. (2011) · Macromolecules · doi:10.1021/ma201502k · Cited by 319
Self-citation
Cited by
Current characterization methods for cellulose nanomaterials
Foster, E. J., Moon, R. J., Agarwal, U. P., Bortner, M. J., Bras, J., Camarero-Espinosa, S., Chan, K. J., Clift, M. J. D., Cranston, E. D., Eichhorn, S. J., et al. (2018) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c6cs00895j · Cited by 1,021
Self-citationLi, T., Song, J., Zhao, X., Yang, Z., Pastel, G., Xu, S., Jia, C., Dai, J., Chen, C., Gong, A., et al. (2018) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aar3724 · Cited by 531
Benchmarking Cellulose Nanocrystals: From the Laboratory to Industrial Production
Reid, M. S., Villalobos, M., & Cranston, E. D. (2017) · Langmuir · doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b03765 · Cited by 518
Nonconventional luminophores: characteristics, advancements and perspectives
Tang, S., Yang, T., Zhao, Z., Zhu, T., Zhang, Q., Hou, W., & Yuan, W. Z. (2021) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d0cs01087a · Cited by 462
Cellulose nanocrystals: Pretreatments, preparation strategies, and surface functionalization
Rana, A. K., Frollini, E., & Thakur, V. K. (2021) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.05.119 · Cited by 412
Metadata
- Authors
- Sacui, I. A., Nieuwendaal, R. C., Burnett, D. J., Stranick, S. J., Jorfi, M., Weder, C., Foster, E. J., Olsson, R. T., & Gilman, J. W.
- Venue
- ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2014-04-18
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 6127-6138
- ISSN
- 1944-8244 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-8252
- OpenAlex
- W2084402667
- Cited by
- 647
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 16.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of the Properties of Cellulose Nanocrystals and Cellulose Nanofibrils Isolated from Bacteria, Tunicate, and Wood Processed Using Acid, Enzymatic, Mechanical, and Oxidative Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/am500359f
- The paper
- Sacui, I. A., Nieuwendaal, R. C., Burnett, D. J., Stranick, S. J., Jorfi, M., Weder, C., Foster, E. J., Olsson, R. T., & Gilman, J. W. (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 Applied Materials & Interfaces. https://doi.org/10.1021/am500359f
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
