Nanomaterials have numerous commercial and technological applications in chemical, biomedical, optoelectronics, electronics and space industries. Once nanomaterials are released into the environment via manufacturing, use or disposal, their transport is the critical parameter in assessing their exposure and impact on the public health and the ecosystem, therefore understanding the fate of nanomaterials in the environment is critical. This research goal aims at developing nanomaterials derived from natural resources, both reinforcement and matrix are biobased and biodegradable. Cellulose nanofibers from wood, plants and agricultural by-products is an abundant renewable resources. The fabrication of cellulose based-nanocomposite film without affecting the optical, mechanical and thermal properties of cellulose triacetate (CTA), one of the most widely used polymers, and cellulose nanofiber (CNF), which represent the world’s most abundant bio-based nanofiller, is investigated. In this study, using recycled the polarizers industrial CTA film waste – recycled triacetate cellulose (rTAC), the conventional waste disposal could be improved for the environmental issues. Furthermore, the reinforcement from the raw material, which was the extraction of nanofibers consisted of sudachi residue (lemon peel) after juice extraction. Cellulose nanofiber suspension was solvent-exchanged with acetone-methanol by series of centrifuging and re-dispersing steps. After that, using the solution casting method including the mixture of rTAC film and nanofibers that was prepared by stirring in combination with ball milling technique to achieve full dispersed solution, was coated on the glass to obtain a thin film. And for comparative purposes, industrial cellulose nanofiber (OJI-CNF) in its pristine form, is also reported. The structure of nanofibers and the dispersion effect of both CNFs in TAC were observed by scanning electron micrograph (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The optical, mechanical and thermal properties of the nanocomposite films were characterized experimentally. The results showed that by varying nanofiber contents (1~7wt%), the haze was slightly increased while the transmittance was not be affected compared to that of rTAC film (92.7%). On the other hand, OJI-CNF showed a lower transparency significantly when increasing nanofiber contents, compared to lemon peel-CNF, indicated that the poor dispersion due to the aggregates of OJI-CNF in solution. It was found that the addition of CNFs increased the tensile stress by 60%; the tensile strain by 150% and the yield stress by 50%. The dynamic mechanical properties (creep behavior) results were also positive; the creep compliance improved for all nanocomposites compared to rTAC film. These both nanofibers contributed to a significant reduction in the thermal expansion properties of rTAC film while maintaining their ease of bending.

Nanomaterials have numerous commercial and technological applications in chemical, biomedical, optoelectronics, electronics and space industries. Once nanomaterials are released into the environment via manufacturing, use or disposal, their transport is the critical parameter in assessing their exposure and impact on the public health and the ecosystem, therefore understanding the fate of nanomaterials in the environment is critical. This research goal aims at developing nanomaterials derived from natural resources, both reinforcement and matrix are biobased and biodegradable. Cellulose nanofibers from wood, plants and agricultural by-products is an abundant renewable resources. The fabrication of cellulose based-nanocomposite film without affecting the optical, mechanical and thermal properties of cellulose triacetate (CTA), one of the most widely used polymers, and cellulose nanofiber (CNF), which represent the world’s most abundant bio-based nanofiller, is investigated. In this study, using recycled the polarizers industrial CTA film waste – recycled triacetate cellulose (rTAC), the conventional waste disposal could be improved for the environmental issues. Furthermore, the reinforcement from the raw material, which was the extraction of nanofibers consisted of sudachi residue (lemon peel) after juice extraction. Cellulose nanofiber suspension was solvent-exchanged with acetone-methanol by series of centrifuging and re-dispersing steps. After that, using the solution casting method including the mixture of rTAC film and nanofibers that was prepared by stirring in combination with ball milling technique to achieve full dispersed solution, was coated on the glass to obtain a thin film. And for comparative purposes, industrial cellulose nanofiber (OJI-CNF) in its pristine form, is also reported. The structure of nanofibers and the dispersion effect of both CNFs in TAC were observed by scanning electron micrograph (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The optical, mechanical and thermal properties of the nanocomposite films were characterized experimentally. The results showed that by varying nanofiber contents (1~7wt%), the haze was slightly increased while the transmittance was not be affected compared to that of rTAC film (92.7%). On the other hand, OJI-CNF showed a lower transparency significantly when increasing nanofiber contents, compared to lemon peel-CNF, indicated that the poor dispersion due to the aggregates of OJI-CNF in solution. It was found that the addition of CNFs increased the tensile stress by 60%; the tensile strain by 150% and the yield stress by 50%. The dynamic mechanical properties (creep behavior) results were also positive; the creep compliance improved for all nanocomposites compared to rTAC film. These both nanofibers contributed to a significant reduction in the thermal expansion properties of rTAC film while maintaining their ease of bending.

1. Oberdörster, G., V. Stone, and K. Donaldson, Toxicology of nanoparticles: a historical perspective. Nanotoxicology, 2007. 1(1): p. 2-25.
2. Aitken, R.J., et al., Manufacture and use of nanomaterials: current status in the UK and global trends. Occupational medicine, 2006. 56(5): p. 300-306.
3. Kim, J.-H., et al., Review of nanocellulose for sustainable future materials. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, 2015. 2(2): p. 197-213.
4. Biswas, P. and C.-Y. Wu, Nanoparticles and the environment. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2005. 55(6): p. 708-746.
5. Colvin, V.L., The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nature biotechnology, 2003. 21(10): p. 1166.
6. Usepa, U., Nanotechnology White Paper. Prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency by Members of the Nanotechnology Workgroup, a Group of Epa's Science Policy Council Science Policy Council (US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC) p, 2007. 20460.
7. Wiesner, M.R., et al., Assessing the risks of manufactured nanomaterials. 2006, ACS Publications.
8. Nouh, S., L. Wahab, and H. Eissa, The effect of UV radiation on the thermal degradation of cellulose triacetate. Radiation measurements, 1999. 30(6): p. 753-757.
9. Ribeiro, S.D., et al., Cellulose triacetate films obtained from sugarcane bagasse: Evaluation as coating and mucoadhesive material for drug delivery systems. Carbohydrate polymers, 2016. 152: p. 764-774.
10. Nakagaito, A., S. Iwamoto, and H. Yano, Bacterial cellulose: the ultimate nano-scalar cellulose morphology for the production of high-strength composites. Applied Physics A, 2005. 80(1): p. 93-97.
11. Bledzki, A. and J. Gassan, Composites reinforced with cellulose based fibres. Progress in polymer science, 1999. 24(2): p. 221-274.
12. Klemm, D., et al., Cellulose: fascinating biopolymer and sustainable raw material. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2005. 44(22): p. 3358-3393.
13. Ball, P., Material witness: In praise of wood. Nature Materials, 2005. 4(7): p. 515.
14. Malainine, M.E., M. Mahrouz, and A. Dufresne, Thermoplastic nanocomposites based on cellulose microfibrils from Opuntia ficus-indica parenchyma cell. Composites Science and Technology, 2005. 65(10): p. 1520-1526.
15. Dweib, M., et al., All natural composite sandwich beams for structural applications. Composite structures, 2004. 63(2): p. 147-157.
16. Bhatnagar, A. and M. Sain, Processing of cellulose nanofiber-reinforced composites. Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, 2005. 24(12): p. 1259-1268.
17. Yano, H. and S. Nakahara, Bio-composites produced from plant microfiber bundles with a nanometer unit web-like network. Journal of Materials Science, 2004. 39(5): p. 1635-1638.
18. Azizi Samir, M.A.S., F. Alloin, and A. Dufresne, Review of recent research into cellulosic whiskers, their properties and their application in nanocomposite field. Biomacromolecules, 2005. 6(2): p. 612-626.
19. Eichhorn, S.J., et al., current international research into cellulose nanofibres and nanocomposites. Journal of materials science, 2010. 45(1): p. 1.
20. Marins, J.A., et al., Structure and properties of conducting bacterial cellulose-polyaniline nanocomposites. Cellulose, 2011. 18(5): p. 1285-1294.
21. Abe, K., S. Iwamoto, and H. Yano, Obtaining cellulose nanofibers with a uniform width of 15 nm from wood. Biomacromolecules, 2007. 8(10): p. 3276-3278.
22. de Morais Teixeira, E., et al., Cellulose nanofibers from white and naturally colored cotton fibers. Cellulose, 2010. 17(3): p. 595-606.
23. Dufresne, A., D. Dupeyre, and M.R. Vignon, Cellulose microfibrils from potato tuber cells: processing and characterization of starch–cellulose microfibril composites. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 2000. 76(14): p. 2080-2092.
24. Wang, B. and M. Sain, Dispersion of soybean stock‐based nanofiber in a plastic matrix. Polymer International, 2007. 56(4): p. 538-546.
25. Alemdar, A. and M. Sain, Isolation and characterization of nanofibers from agricultural residues–Wheat straw and soy hulls. Bioresource technology, 2008. 99(6): p. 1664-1671.
26. Wang, B., M. Sain, and K. Oksman, Study of structural morphology of hemp fiber from the micro to the nanoscale. Applied Composite Materials, 2007. 14(2): p. 89.
27. Rosa, M., et al., Cellulose nanowhiskers from coconut husk fibers: Effect of preparation conditions on their thermal and morphological behavior. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2010. 81(1): p. 83-92.
28. Cherian, B.M., et al., Cellulose nanocomposites with nanofibres isolated from pineapple leaf fibers for medical applications. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2011. 86(4): p. 1790-1798.
29. Morán, J.I., et al., Extraction of cellulose and preparation of nanocellulose from sisal fibers. Cellulose, 2008. 15(1): p. 149-159.
30. Nakagaito, A.N., K. Ikenaga, and H. Takagi, Cellulose nanofiber extraction from grass by a modified kitchen blender. Modern Physics Letters B, 2015. 29(06n07): p. 1540039.
31. Amiralian, N., et al., Easily deconstructed, high aspect ratio cellulose nanofibres from Triodia pungens; an abundant grass of Australia's arid zone. RSC Advances, 2015. 5(41): p. 32124-32132.
32. Klemm, D., et al., Nanocelluloses as innovative polymers in research and application, in Polysaccharides Ii. 2006, Springer. p. 49-96.
33. Henriksson, M. and L.A. Berglund, Structure and properties of cellulose nanocomposite films containing melamine formaldehyde. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 2007. 106(4): p. 2817-2824.
34. Maran, B.V., et al., Isolation and characterization of bacteria from the copepod Pseudocaligus fugu ectoparasitic on the panther puffer Takifugu pardalis with the emphasis on TTX. Toxicon, 2007. 50(6): p. 779-790.
35. Nishino, T., I. Matsuda, and K. Hirao, All-cellulose composite. Macromolecules, 2004. 37(20): p. 7683-7687.
36. Orts, W.J., et al., Application of cellulose microfibrils in polymer nanocomposites. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 2005. 13(4): p. 301-306.
37. Yano, H., et al., Optically transparent composites reinforced with networks of bacterial nanofibers. Advanced Materials, 2005. 17(2): p. 153-155.
38. Bergshoef, M.M. and G.J. Vancso, Transparent nanocomposites with ultrathin, electrospun nylon‐4, 6 fiber reinforcement. Advanced materials, 1999. 11(16): p. 1362-1365.
39. Sakurada, I., Y. Nukushina, and T. Ito, Experimental determination of the elastic modulus of crystalline regions in oriented polymers. Journal of Polymer Science Part A: Polymer Chemistry, 1962. 57(165): p. 651-660.
40. Kim, C., et al., The mechanical properties of single wood pulp fibers. III. The effect of drying stress on strength. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 1975. 19(6): p. 1549-1562.
41. Pandey, J., et al., Bio-nano reinforcement of environmentally degradable polymer matrix by cellulose whiskers from grass. Composites Part B: Engineering, 2009. 40(7): p. 676-680.
42. Ifuku, S., et al., Surface modification of bacterial cellulose nanofibers for property enhancement of optically transparent composites: dependence on acetyl-group DS. Biomacromolecules, 2007. 8(6): p. 1973-1978.
43. de Campos, A., et al., Obtaining nanofibers from curauá and sugarcane bagasse fibers using enzymatic hydrolysis followed by sonication. Cellulose, 2013. 20(3): p. 1491-1500.
44. Chinga-Carrasco, G. and K. Syverud, Pretreatment-dependent surface chemistry of wood nanocellulose for pH-sensitive hydrogels. Journal of biomaterials applications, 2014. 29(3): p. 423-432.
45. Besbes, I., S. Alila, and S. Boufi, Nanofibrillated cellulose from TEMPO-oxidized eucalyptus fibres: effect of the carboxyl content. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2011. 84(3): p. 975-983.
46. Isogai, A., Wood nanocelluloses: fundamentals and applications as new bio-based nanomaterials. Journal of wood science, 2013. 59(6): p. 449-459.
47. Uetani, K. and H. Yano, Nanofibrillation of wood pulp using a high-speed blender. Biomacromolecules, 2010. 12(2): p. 348-353.
48. Nakagaito, A.N., K. Abe, and H. Takagi, 2 Production of Cellulose. Nanocellulose and Sustainability: Production, Properties, Applications, and Case Studies, 2018: p. 17.
49. Chaker, A., et al., Key role of the hemicellulose content and the cell morphology on the nanofibrillation effectiveness of cellulose pulps. Cellulose, 2013. 20(6): p. 2863-2875.
50. Tang, C. and H. Liu, Cellulose nanofiber reinforced poly (vinyl alcohol) composite film with high visible light transmittance. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 2008. 39(10): p. 1638-1643.
51. Iwamoto, S., et al., Optically transparent composites reinforced with plant fiber-based nanofibers. Applied Physics A: Materials Science & Processing, 2005. 81(6): p. 1109-1112.
52. Iwatake, A., M. Nogi, and H. Yano, Cellulose nanofiber-reinforced polylactic acid. Composites Science and Technology, 2008. 68(9): p. 2103-2106.
53. Sata, H., M. Murayama, and S. Shimamoto. 5.4 Properties and applications of cellulose triacetate film. in Macromolecular Symposia. 2004. Wiley Online Library.
54. Style, R.W., S.S. Peppin, and A.C. Cocks, Mud peeling and horizontal crack formation in drying clays. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 2011. 116(F1).
55. Nogi, M. and H. Yano, Transparent nanocomposites based on cellulose produced by bacteria offer potential innovation in the electronics device industry. Advanced materials, 2008. 20(10): p. 1849-1852.
56. https://www.microled-info.com/lcd-structure.
57. http://bigpictures.club/makeyourimage.html.