The growing interest in bioplastics is largely attributed to their environmental benefits and their potential to remediate petrochemical polymers[1]. Among biobased polymers, cellulose has gained considerable attention due to its favourable physicochemical characteristics. However, native cellulose is intrinsically non thermoplastic, limiting its direct applicability in thermoplastic processing[2]. Chemical modification of cellulose in particularly, esterification with long chain fatty acids has been widely employed to impart thermoplastic behaviour, yielding cellulose esters(CE) with enhanced processability and functional versatility[3,4]. Cellulose esters are commonly fabricated into films via solvent casting, where rapid solvent evaporation dynamics critically influence morphology, transparency and surface properties, yet the effects of drying parameters (temperature, pressure, and environment) on long chain CE films remain underexplored[5,6]. Emerging evidence suggests that drying parameters affect the functional properties of CE films. Literature indicates, elevated drying temperatures have shown to influence wettability and barrier performance, while ambient drying conditions often result in increased opacity. Despite such findings, there remains a knowledge gap concerning the effect of drying parameters on physicochemical and thermal properties of long chain fatty cellulose ester films[7]. This study aims to systematically evaluate the impact of two drying methods vacuum oven (VO) and forced air circulation (RO) on the morphology, thermal and surface characteristics. Comparative analysis of the drying methods further elucidates the role of drying kinetics in determining the structural and functional attributes of the films.
Keywords: solvent casting, vacuum drying, cellulose esters, polymer films, EIPS
Authors
T. Kattamanchi
Laboratory of Wood Technology, School of Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
H. Kallakas
Laboratory of Wood Technology, School of Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
E. Tarasova
Laboratory of Wood Technology, School of Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
P. Alao
Laboratory of Wood Technology, School of Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
R. Lohmus
Institute of Physics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
A. Mere
Laboratory of Inorganic Materials, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
T. Kaljuvee
Laboratory of Thin Film Chemical Technologies, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
Atanas Katerski
Laboratory of Inorganic Materials, Tallinn University of Technology,Tallinn, Estonia
A. Krumme
Laboratory of Inorganic Materials, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
J. Kers
Laboratory of Wood Technology, School of Engineering, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
Login to download the PDF