In this study, magnetic cellulose membranes (MCM) have been prepared by using cotton linter as cellulose source and NaOH/urea as cellulose solvent at different magnetite content. Cellulose was dissolved in pre-cooled NaOH/urea solvent at -13°C to form cellulose solution. The cellulose solution then was mix with magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles synthesized via co-precipitation method of Fe2+ and Fe3+ in the presence of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to form MCM. The MCMs formed at different percentage of Fe3O4 i.e., 10, 20 and 30%. Analysis from vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM) shows that the saturation magnetization of the MCM increase as the percentages of Fe3O4 nanoparticles increased. However, the addition of Fe3O4 nanoparticles in the regenerated cellulose membrane has decreased the crystallinity index of MCM. The surface morphology of the MCM showed that the Fe3O4 nanoparticles were dispersed in the pore of the membrane. Tensile test showed decreasing in the tensile strength of the cellulose membrane with the addition of Fe3O4 nanoparticle.
The factors responsible for the low solubility percentage of oil palm empty fruit bunch (OPEFB) cellulose pulp compared
to kenaf when dissolved in aqueous NaOH/urea solvent system was reported. Physical and chemical properties of both
cellulose pulp were studied and compared in terms of the lignin content, viscosity average molecular weight (Mη),
crystallinity index (CrI), cellulose pulp structure and their zero span tensile strength. The structure of both OPEFB and
kenaf cellulose pulp were characterized using high powered microscope and field emission scanning electron microscopy
(FESEM) assisted by ImageJ® software. The results show that the most significant factor that affected the OPEFB and
kenaf cellulose dissolution in NaOH/-urea solvent was the Mη with OPEFB having a higher Mη of 1.68×105 compared to
5.53 × 104 for kenaf. Overall, kenaf cellulose appeared to be produced in higher quantities presumably due to its lower
molecular weight with superior tensile strength and permeability in comparison to OPEFB.