Cellulose-calcium silicate (CCS) nanocomposites were fabricated through an environment-friendly process from waste wood, glass, and clam shells. Effect of heat-treatment on synthesis of CCS nanocomposites was investigated in terms of the precursor ratio and firing temperature. The optimization of cellulose, silicon, and calcium ratio resulted in the low temperature synthesis and also reducing input energy and the production of toxic by-products. The synthesized CCS nanocomposites were examined for its versatility, especially regarding its ability to replace plastics. The resulting biodegradable material has the potential for use in a variety of applications, including reducing CO2 emissions.
GoreA: ‘An inconvenient truth’; 2006, New York, Rodale Books.
2.
FedericoLM and ChidiacSE: ‘Waste glass as a supplementary cementitious material in concrete – critical review of treatment methods’, Cem. Concr. Compos., 2009, 31, 606–610.
3.
ImGP, MoonSP and LeeMG: ‘Dissolving pulp manufacture: pure cellulose making from the lignocellulosic materials’, Polym. Sci. Technol., 1997, 8, 608–621.
4.
KwonYT, LeeCW and YunJH: ‘Development of vermicast from sludge and powdered oyster shell’, J. Cleaner Prod., 2009, 17, 708–711.
5.
YangYG, XuJH, CaiB, WangQC, XiuDP, ZhaoZB, SunQZ and CaoSL: ‘Synthesis and applications of black ceramic from recycled industrial wastes’, Adv. Appl. Ceram., 2013, 112, 146–148.
6.
CarusLA and BragancaSR: ‘Bone china formulated with waste glass’, Adv. Appl. Ceram., 2013, 112, 169–175.
7.
LiS.-M, JiaN, ZhuJ.-F, MaM.-G and SunR.-C: ‘Synthesis of cellulose–calcium silicate nanocomposites in ethanol/water mixed solvents and their characterization’, Carbohydr. Polym., 2010, 80, 270–275.
8.
JiaN, LiS.-M, MaM.-G and SunR.-C: ‘Microwave-assisted ionic liquid preparation and characterization of cellulose/calcium silicate nanocomposites in ethylene glycol’, Mater. Lett., 2011, 65, 918–921.
9.
HäkkinenT and VaresS: ‘Environmental impacts of disposable cups with special focus on the effect of material choices and end of life’, J. Cleaner Prod., 2010, 18, 1458–1463.
10.
DeprezPH, HorsmansY, HasselMV, HoangP, PiessevauxH and GeubelA: ‘Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps: a prospective cost evaluation’, Gastrointest. Endosc., 2000, 51, 262–265.
11.
MerrildH, DamgaardA and ChristensenTH: ‘Life cycle assessment of waste paper management: the importance of technology data and system boundaries in assessing recycling and incineration’, Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 2008, 52, 1391–1398.
12.
MancusoR and BickhamMJ: ‘Estimating the true cost of disposable and reusable instruments’, AORN J., 1995, 62, 39–28.
13.
FinnvedenG, JohanssonJ, LindP and MobergÅ: ‘Life cycle assessment of energy from solid waste. Part 1: General methodology and results’, J. Cleaner Prod., 2005, 13, 213–229.
14.
EkvallT: ‘Key methodological issues for life cycle inventory analysis of paper recycling’, J. Cleaner Prod., 1999, 7, 281–294.
15.
HaraborA, RotaruP and HaraborNA: ‘Two phases in a commercial anhydrous sodium carbonate by air contact’, Physics AUC, 2013, 23, 79–88.
16.
MoniruzzamanM and OnoT: ‘Separation and characterization of cellulose fibers from cypress wood treated with ionic liquid prior to laccase treatment’, Bioresour. Technol., 2013, 127, 132–137.
17.
AhmedSH, El SheikhEM and MorsyAMA: ‘Potentiality of uranium biosorption from nitric acid solutions using shrimp shells’, J. Environ. Radioact., 2014, 134, 120–127.
18.
ZouY, FengY, WangL and LiuX: ‘Processing and properties of MWNT/HDPE composites’, Carbon, 2004, 42, 271–277.
19.
LacroixF, LuH.-Q and SchulteK: ‘Wet powder impregnation for polyethylene composites: preparation and mechanical properties’, Composites Part A, 1999, 30A, 369–373.
