2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118544
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cellulose-based composite thermal-insulating foams toward eco-friendly, flexible and flame-retardant

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It should be noted that the 44.2% LOI for 1.5 wt% MEL–PA/CNF composite aerogel is higher than previously reported fire‐retardant cellulose‐based aerogel, such as cellulose aerogel modified with MgAl‐layered double hydroxide (36.3%), [ 7 ] cellulose nanofibrils aerogel modified with N ‐methylol dimethylphosphonopropionamide (26.3%), [ 36 ] MoS 2 encapsulated cellulose nanofibers aerogel (34.7%), [ 16 ] and boric acid/borate/alginate‐modified cellulose nanofibers foam (39.5%). [ 37 ] The flame retardancy of the 1.0 wt% MEL–PA composite aerogel was also visually demonstrated by burning with a butane torch with approximate temperature of 1430 °C. As compared to the unmodified CNF aerogel that can be immediately ignited and quickly burned to ash (Figure 5b,d), the modified CNF aerogel exhibited excellent fire retardancy (Figure 5c), only showing the formation of charred layer without any flame (Figure 5d).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It should be noted that the 44.2% LOI for 1.5 wt% MEL–PA/CNF composite aerogel is higher than previously reported fire‐retardant cellulose‐based aerogel, such as cellulose aerogel modified with MgAl‐layered double hydroxide (36.3%), [ 7 ] cellulose nanofibrils aerogel modified with N ‐methylol dimethylphosphonopropionamide (26.3%), [ 36 ] MoS 2 encapsulated cellulose nanofibers aerogel (34.7%), [ 16 ] and boric acid/borate/alginate‐modified cellulose nanofibers foam (39.5%). [ 37 ] The flame retardancy of the 1.0 wt% MEL–PA composite aerogel was also visually demonstrated by burning with a butane torch with approximate temperature of 1430 °C. As compared to the unmodified CNF aerogel that can be immediately ignited and quickly burned to ash (Figure 5b,d), the modified CNF aerogel exhibited excellent fire retardancy (Figure 5c), only showing the formation of charred layer without any flame (Figure 5d).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The low thermal conductivity of 0.063 W/(mK) of the Cel/BT foam (30 °C, 60% RH) provides more direct evidence for its good thermal insulation (Figure D), which is comparable to that of various cellulosic aerogels (Figure S20 and Table S2). Note that the thermal conductivity of the Cel/BT foam just increases slightly compared with the Cel foam (0.044 W/(mK)), indicating that the introduction of BT in the cellulose structure does not result in significant degradation in the thermal insulation performance. This phenomenon is reasonable as the interaction between cellulose and BT helps stabilize the 3D interconnected structure without collapse (i.e., numerous pores exist in the Cel/BT foam).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studying the mechanical behavior of cellulose foams is crucial for understanding how the material will behave in different applications . Elastic modulus, compressive strength, and energy absorption capacity are important properties in foamed materials, especially in applications such as shock absorption for the protection of fragile products …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studying the mechanical behavior of cellulose foams is crucial for understanding how the material will behave in different applications. 26 Elastic modulus, compressive strength, and energy absorption capacity are important properties in foamed materials, especially in applications such as shock absorption for the protection of fragile products. 27 Regarding the mechanical performance of the prepared foams, all of them exhibited elastoplastic behavior, as can be observed from the stress−strain curves shown in Figure 2a.…”
Section: ■ Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%