Polyols and rigid polyurethane foams derived from liquefied lignocellulosic and cellulosic biomass

Umar Adli Amran, Sarani Zakaria, Chin Hua Chia, Rasidi Roslan, Sharifah Nabihah Syed Jaafar, Kushairi Mohd Salleh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Abstract: Liquefaction of lignocellulosic and cellulosic biomasses produces different polyol properties. Hence, direct comparative studies on the properties of both biomass liquefaction-derived polyols and polyurethane foams (PUFs) have been extensively performed. Optimization of oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber (EFB) and EFB-based cellulose (EFBC) liquefactions was performed in cosolvent polyethylene glycol–glycerol to produce polyols. Hydroxyl (OH) and acid numbers, viscosity, molecular weight, and chemical functionalities of the polyols were analyzed and compared. The optimum liquefaction temperature for both EFB and EFBC was 175 °C. However, the optimum liquefaction time of EFBC (180 min) was longer than the time recorded by EFB (90 min). Liquefaction temperature and time had influenced degradation and recondensation of liquefied biomass products, hence affected the properties of polyols. Extreme degradation and recondensation during liquefaction had reduced the OH number of polyols. Recondensation significantly affected the molecular weight and viscosity of the EFB polyol, but not those of EFBC polyol. Rigid PUFs synthesized from the optimum EFB and EFBC polyols were denoted as EFB PUF and EFBC PUF, respectively. EFB PUF possessed larger average cell diameter than that of EFBC PUF. Comparatively, the thermal decomposition and compressive strength of EFB PUF were lower than those of EFBC PUF. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]

Original languageEnglish
JournalCellulose
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 1 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

Polyols
Fruits
Polyurethanes
Foams
Cellulose
Liquefaction
Biomass
Fibers
Molecular weight
Viscosity
polyol
polyurethane foam
Degradation
Palm oil
Polyethylene
Hydroxyl Radical
Compressive strength
Polyethylenes
Pyrolysis
Temperature

Keywords

  • Cellular morphology
  • Compressive
  • Hydroxyl and acid numbers
  • Oil palm empty fruit bunch
  • Thermal properties

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Polymers and Plastics

Cite this

Polyols and rigid polyurethane foams derived from liquefied lignocellulosic and cellulosic biomass. / Amran, Umar Adli; Zakaria, Sarani; Chia, Chin Hua; Roslan, Rasidi; Syed Jaafar, Sharifah Nabihah; Salleh, Kushairi Mohd.

In: Cellulose, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{717e97081b26401e936e475cf5396199,
title = "Polyols and rigid polyurethane foams derived from liquefied lignocellulosic and cellulosic biomass",
abstract = "Abstract: Liquefaction of lignocellulosic and cellulosic biomasses produces different polyol properties. Hence, direct comparative studies on the properties of both biomass liquefaction-derived polyols and polyurethane foams (PUFs) have been extensively performed. Optimization of oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber (EFB) and EFB-based cellulose (EFBC) liquefactions was performed in cosolvent polyethylene glycol–glycerol to produce polyols. Hydroxyl (OH) and acid numbers, viscosity, molecular weight, and chemical functionalities of the polyols were analyzed and compared. The optimum liquefaction temperature for both EFB and EFBC was 175 °C. However, the optimum liquefaction time of EFBC (180 min) was longer than the time recorded by EFB (90 min). Liquefaction temperature and time had influenced degradation and recondensation of liquefied biomass products, hence affected the properties of polyols. Extreme degradation and recondensation during liquefaction had reduced the OH number of polyols. Recondensation significantly affected the molecular weight and viscosity of the EFB polyol, but not those of EFBC polyol. Rigid PUFs synthesized from the optimum EFB and EFBC polyols were denoted as EFB PUF and EFBC PUF, respectively. EFB PUF possessed larger average cell diameter than that of EFBC PUF. Comparatively, the thermal decomposition and compressive strength of EFB PUF were lower than those of EFBC PUF. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]",
keywords = "Cellular morphology, Compressive, Hydroxyl and acid numbers, Oil palm empty fruit bunch, Thermal properties",
author = "Amran, {Umar Adli} and Sarani Zakaria and Chia, {Chin Hua} and Rasidi Roslan and {Syed Jaafar}, {Sharifah Nabihah} and Salleh, {Kushairi Mohd}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10570-019-02271-w",
language = "English",
journal = "Cellulose",
issn = "0969-0239",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Polyols and rigid polyurethane foams derived from liquefied lignocellulosic and cellulosic biomass

AU - Amran, Umar Adli

AU - Zakaria, Sarani

AU - Chia, Chin Hua

AU - Roslan, Rasidi

AU - Syed Jaafar, Sharifah Nabihah

AU - Salleh, Kushairi Mohd

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Abstract: Liquefaction of lignocellulosic and cellulosic biomasses produces different polyol properties. Hence, direct comparative studies on the properties of both biomass liquefaction-derived polyols and polyurethane foams (PUFs) have been extensively performed. Optimization of oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber (EFB) and EFB-based cellulose (EFBC) liquefactions was performed in cosolvent polyethylene glycol–glycerol to produce polyols. Hydroxyl (OH) and acid numbers, viscosity, molecular weight, and chemical functionalities of the polyols were analyzed and compared. The optimum liquefaction temperature for both EFB and EFBC was 175 °C. However, the optimum liquefaction time of EFBC (180 min) was longer than the time recorded by EFB (90 min). Liquefaction temperature and time had influenced degradation and recondensation of liquefied biomass products, hence affected the properties of polyols. Extreme degradation and recondensation during liquefaction had reduced the OH number of polyols. Recondensation significantly affected the molecular weight and viscosity of the EFB polyol, but not those of EFBC polyol. Rigid PUFs synthesized from the optimum EFB and EFBC polyols were denoted as EFB PUF and EFBC PUF, respectively. EFB PUF possessed larger average cell diameter than that of EFBC PUF. Comparatively, the thermal decomposition and compressive strength of EFB PUF were lower than those of EFBC PUF. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]

AB - Abstract: Liquefaction of lignocellulosic and cellulosic biomasses produces different polyol properties. Hence, direct comparative studies on the properties of both biomass liquefaction-derived polyols and polyurethane foams (PUFs) have been extensively performed. Optimization of oil palm empty fruit bunch fiber (EFB) and EFB-based cellulose (EFBC) liquefactions was performed in cosolvent polyethylene glycol–glycerol to produce polyols. Hydroxyl (OH) and acid numbers, viscosity, molecular weight, and chemical functionalities of the polyols were analyzed and compared. The optimum liquefaction temperature for both EFB and EFBC was 175 °C. However, the optimum liquefaction time of EFBC (180 min) was longer than the time recorded by EFB (90 min). Liquefaction temperature and time had influenced degradation and recondensation of liquefied biomass products, hence affected the properties of polyols. Extreme degradation and recondensation during liquefaction had reduced the OH number of polyols. Recondensation significantly affected the molecular weight and viscosity of the EFB polyol, but not those of EFBC polyol. Rigid PUFs synthesized from the optimum EFB and EFBC polyols were denoted as EFB PUF and EFBC PUF, respectively. EFB PUF possessed larger average cell diameter than that of EFBC PUF. Comparatively, the thermal decomposition and compressive strength of EFB PUF were lower than those of EFBC PUF. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]

KW - Cellular morphology

KW - Compressive

KW - Hydroxyl and acid numbers

KW - Oil palm empty fruit bunch

KW - Thermal properties

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060703076&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060703076&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10570-019-02271-w

DO - 10.1007/s10570-019-02271-w

M3 - Article

JO - Cellulose

JF - Cellulose

SN - 0969-0239

ER -