2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2019.104841
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of two different ultrasound reactors for the treatment of cellulose fibers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Disruption of Escherichia coli [25] , degradation of dichlorvos [26] , removal of pharmaceuticals from wastewater [27] , waste-activated sludge pretreatment [28] and effluent treatment [29] have also been proposed. Regarding the treatment of biomass using hydrodynamic cavitation, treatment of cellulose [30] , [31] , [32] , delignification of wheat straw [33] , pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass [34] , pretreatment of rice bran for microbial fuel cells for electricity generation [35] , pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse [36] , biomass extraction [37] and energy harvesting with microscale hydrodynamic cavitation thermoelectric generation coupling [38] have been investigated. Pretreatments of biomass using hydrodynamic cavitation and ultrasonic cavitation were compared [34] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Disruption of Escherichia coli [25] , degradation of dichlorvos [26] , removal of pharmaceuticals from wastewater [27] , waste-activated sludge pretreatment [28] and effluent treatment [29] have also been proposed. Regarding the treatment of biomass using hydrodynamic cavitation, treatment of cellulose [30] , [31] , [32] , delignification of wheat straw [33] , pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass [34] , pretreatment of rice bran for microbial fuel cells for electricity generation [35] , pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse [36] , biomass extraction [37] and energy harvesting with microscale hydrodynamic cavitation thermoelectric generation coupling [38] have been investigated. Pretreatments of biomass using hydrodynamic cavitation and ultrasonic cavitation were compared [34] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the Bingham model, different parameter settings were tested based on the literature [9,[28][29][30][31]. The final and best performing was the one used to compare the ODF model with the parameters a = 222, 000 Pa, b = 1.95, µ 0 = 100 Pa • s. The best performing parameter setting for the ODF model was the one where the standard deviation was computed with the slope 1.25 and D f was set to 1, i.e., setting R6 according to Table 1.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 72 The expected damage from pressure differences is an explosion rupture, differing from the dominant damage type observed ( Figures 4 , 6 and Supporting Information ). Rapid pressure changes may be the cause of fiber modification, 19 21 including local modifications of the open pores, i.e., pits, 73 but they are regarded of minor importance for fiber fibrillation by cavitation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hydrodynamic and acoustic cavitation are known and employed for the modification of cellulose fiber properties while preserving the fiber shape, that is, internal fibrillation, and, especially acoustic cavitation, for the external fibrillation of cellulose fibers and the production of nanocellulose. , For that, cohesive forces between the fibrils need to be overcome by external stressing. Higher treatment intensity and exposure time increase the degree of fibrillation and benefit the development of the cellulose fibers to smaller sizes. , However, also the fibril length and cellulose crystallinity (i.e., the regions of the structured organization of the glucose polymer and its constituting glucose monomer) are decreasing, which is often regarded as quality degradation. ,, Cavitation, especially acoustic cavitation, is also employed to intensify chemical modification .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%