Cellulose whiskers versus microfibrils: influence of the nature of the nanoparticle and its surface functionalization on the thermal and mechanical properties of nanocomposites.

775 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Morphological investigation of nanoparticles obtained from combined mechanical shearing, and enzymatic and acid hydrolysis of sisal fibers (2010, methodology): “Sisal fibers were cut with a FRITSCH Pulverisette mill, until fine particulate fibers were obtained as reported elsewhere ( Siqueira et al. 2009 ).”
Hydrophobic cellulose nanopaper through a mild esterification procedure (2014, background): “…2008; Johnson et al. 2011; Araki et al. 2001), an improvement of the nanofibers’ compatibility with hydrophobic polymer matrices (Tingaut et al. 2010; Siqueira et al. 2009), hydrophobization (Johnson et al. 2011; Littunen et al. 2011), and moisture uptake reduction (Boujemaoui et al. 2012).”
Surface functionalisation of bacterial cellulose as the route to produce green polylactide nanocomposites with improved properties (2009, background): “Due to the hydrophilic nature of neat BC, the dispersibility of the nanofibrils in the hydrophobic polymer melt and the interfacial adhesion between BC and PLLA are poor [39].”