Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison between cellulose nanocrystal and microfibrillated cellulose as reinforcement of poly(vinyl acetate) composites obtained by either in situ emulsion polymerization or a simple mixing technique

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Cellulose Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nanocellulose is abundant, renewable, biocompatible, and a good candidate as reinforcement agent in nanocomposites; however, its hydrophilicity leads to poor dispersion in hydrophobic polymers. Recently, both in situ polymerization and cellulose surface modification have been used to improve dispersion, but emulsion polymerization is rarely adopted, and when it is, the reinforcement agent is usually cellulose nanocrystal (CNC), with gain in mechanical properties being the main focus of the research. Therefore, this work aims to explore the influence of adding either CNC or microfibrillated cellulose (MFC), both without surface modification, on the mechanical resistance, thermal degradation, and water vapor permeability of poly(vinyl acetate) composites obtained by either in situ emulsion polymerization or mixing. The results showed that despite having similar impacts on thermal and barrier properties, MFC and CNC affect the mechanical properties of their composites differently. Both cause decrease of the thermal degradation rate and do not have a significant impact on water vapor permeability. However, the addition of CNC during synthesis increased composite mechanical resistance significantly while the addition of MFC did not show improvement. Mechanical resistance is also strongly dependent on the procedure used to produce the composites.

Graphic abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to São Paulo Research Foundation—FAPESP (Grant 2016/18709-4 and 2018/12831-8) for financial support and Suzano Pulp and Paper for the kind donation of MFC. The authors also thank LNNano—Brazilian Nanotechnology National Laboratory, CNPEM/MCTIC for the technical support during the atomic force microscopy work and Espaço da Escrita—Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa—UNICAMP—for the language services provided.

Funding

São Paulo Research Foundation—FAPESP (Grants 2016/18709-4 and 2018/12831-8).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The manuscript was written with contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript. All authors contributed equally.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liliane M. F. Lona.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The authors declare the research did not involve either human participation or animal testing.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the supplementary information

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 314 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nozaki, A.P.M., Lona, L.M.F. Comparison between cellulose nanocrystal and microfibrillated cellulose as reinforcement of poly(vinyl acetate) composites obtained by either in situ emulsion polymerization or a simple mixing technique. Cellulose 28, 2273–2286 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-021-03691-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-021-03691-3

Keywords

Navigation