Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Enhancing the Value of Arbutus unedo L. (Strawberry Tree) Through Chemical Innovation

Altmetrics

Downloads

55

Views

47

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

30 September 2024

Posted:

01 October 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract

Arbutus unedo (strawberry tree) is a small Mediterranean tree capable of vigorous regrowth after disturbances like fire. Traditionally used for biomass fuel, its bark and branches hold potential for higher-value products through ecovalorisation into liquid mixtures that could replace petro-leum-based materials. This study aimed to explore the chemical composition of various compo-nents of Arbutus unedo and to produce a liquefied material from its internal (IB) and external bark (EB). Chemical compositions of internal and external bark were determined using TAPPI standards including ash, extractive content, lignin, and cellulose. Metal cations were analyzed by ICP. Liquefaction of bark was optimized in a PARR reactor, evaluating factors such as particle size, temperature, and time and the best polyols were monitored by FTIR-ATR. Polyurethane foams were made with internal and external bark liquefied materials by polymerization with isocyanate, a catalyst and water as blowing agent. Results showed that EB has a higher extractive and lignin content, while IB contains more cellu-lose. Liquefaction yields were higher for IB (74%) than EB (68%), with IB yielding polyols that produced stronger and more resilient foams. Mechanical properties of the foams were influenced by the NCO/OH ratio and catalyst levels. Overall, the internal bark demonstrated superior performance for foam production, highlighting its potential as an eco-friendly alternative to petroleum-derived materials.

Keywords: 
Subject: Chemistry and Materials Science  -   Materials Science and Technology

1. Introduction

Strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo) is one of 122 different species from the genus Arbutus, most common in America continent and in the Mediterranean region [1]. In the Americas, species include Arbutus arizonica, A. madrensis, A. menziesii, A. occidentalis, A. tessellata, and A. xalapensis. Mediterranean species include A. unedo, A. andrachne, A. pavarii, and A. canariensis, along with two hybrids: Arbutus × andrachnoides (A. unedo × A. andrachne) and Arbutus × androsterilis (A. unedo × A. canariensis)[1]. Strawberry tree is distributed around the Mediterranean, found in western, central, and southern Europe, northeastern Africa, the Canary Islands, and western Asia particularly in Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Albania, Greece, and parts of the former Yugoslavia, as well as some Mediterranean islands [1]. In Portugal these species has a significant importance since the country is the largest world producer of this fruit [2]. With the increased production of these fruits, several wastes are available, one of which is bark. The bark of this tree is grey or red-brownish and it fissures and peels off in small flakes [3]. It was formerly used in tanning due to the high amount of tannins [4] but it is not used anymore.
There is not much information about the chemical composition of Arbutus unedo bark, but it is probably similar to the bark of other species of the same genus. In accordance to Dönmez [5] the bark of Arbutus andrachne, tree from the same genus as Arbutus unedo, yielded 0.3% hexane extract, 10.1% acetone/water, and 22.4% water extractives. Fatty acids and sterols were the primary components in the lipophilic extractive samples, fatty acids made up 32.03%, with palmitic acid being the most abundant. Sitosterol was the only phytosterol detected. Two phenolic compounds, 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid and catechin, were also identified. Additionally, some mono- and disaccharide sugars, along with their alcohol derivatives, were detected [5] In this study the total amount of suberin monomers was 11.36 mg/g in A. andrachne which corresponds to about 1.1 % [5]. Another study with Arbutus xalapensis determined the water extract (10.7%) of which 5.7% were condensed tannins [6]
Bark liquefaction using polyalcohols is an emerging process in the valorization of biomass, specifically woody by-products, such as tree bark [7,8,9]. As a renewable and underutilized resource, bark contains a variety of organic compounds, including lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose and in some cases suberin which can be chemically transformed into valuable products. Liquefaction is a thermochemical process that involves breaking down the complex structures of lignocellulosic materials under moderate heat and pressure conditions, using polyalcohols (e.g., glycerol, ethylene glycol) as solvents or reagents. These polyalcohols act as reactive agents that promote depolymerization and facilitate the conversion of lignocellulosic biopolymers into liquid intermediates. The resulting bio-based liquids have applications in multiple industries, including adhesives [10,11] resins [12], and polyurethane foams [13,14], replacing or complementing petroleum-derived chemicals. This approach supports sustainability goals by converting lignocellulosic waste into high-value products, reducing dependency on fossil fuels, and enhancing the economic potential of forest-based industries. Mainly two types of catalysts are used, acid and basic. Acid catalysts are the most used because they help in the hydrolysis of the complex structures of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose in bark or other lignocellulosic materials. Sulfuric acid is probably the most used acid catalyst, but different acids have been used as for instance p-Toluenesulfonic acid for the liquefaction of E. globulus bark [7] or acetic, lactic and citric acids to liquefy Kraft lignin [15]. Basic catalysts like sodium hydroxide have also been used, especially in cork rich barks like Quercus suber [16,17] or Pseudotsuga menziesii [18].
Foams produced from liquefied wood and bark represent an innovative and sustainable alternative to conventional petroleum-based foams, such as polyurethane. By combining these liquefied components with isocyanate and suitable catalysts and blowing agents, lightweight foams can be produced for applications in packaging, insulation, and cushioning [19,20,21]. Liquefied lignocellulosic materials only substitute the petroleum-based polyol but some attempts have been made in order to substitute isocyanate by a less toxic chemical in the so called non-isocyanate polyurethanes (NIPUs) [22,23,24].
In this work the chemical composition of the internal and external barks of A. Unedo was determined and its influence on the liquefaction process and on the resulting polyurethane foams was studied.

2. Materials and Methods

The reagents used for polyol synthesis included glycerol (Sigma-Aldrich, USA, ≥99.5%), ethylene glycol (≥99.8%, Sigma-Aldrich, USA), sulfuric acid (analytical grade), methanol (A.C.S. grade, ≥99.8%), ethanol (analytical grade, absolute, Fisher Chemical >99.8%), and ultrapure water. For foam production, di-n-butyltin dilaurate (95%) was used as catalysts, along with the surfactant Tegostab B8404®, isocyanate MDI Voranate M229® (average functionality of 2.7, %NCO 31.1%), and ultrapure water.

2.1. Chemical Composition

The chemical composition of IB and EB was analyzed by determining their ash content, extractives (in dichloromethane, ethanol, and hot water), cellulose, lignin and hemicelluloses. The average composition of both samples was assessed, using a particle size fraction between 0.420 mm and 0.250 mm.
The ash content was determined by calcination the material at 525°C, following the standardized method outlined in Tappi T 211 om-93.
Extractives were quantified through Soxhlet extraction, using 3 g of each sample and 200 mL of solvent. The extraction was carried out sequentially, starting with dichloromethane (DCM), followed by ethanol and hot water, progressing from less to more polar solvents. The procedure adhered to Tappi T 204 standards for wood and pulp extractives. The extraction times were 6 hours for DCM and 16 hours for both ethanol and hot water. The content of extractives was expressed relative to the dry mass of the samples.
The determination of insoluble lignin was performed using a modified Klason method, according to TAPPI T 222 om-02. In this procedure, 350 mg of sample was treated with 3 mL of 72% sulfuric acid at 30°C for 1 hour, with stirring every 10 minutes. Subsequently, 84 mL of distilled water was added, and the mixture was transferred to 100 mL thermal glass bottles and autoclaved at 120°C for 1 hour. After cooling in an ice bath, the samples were filtered using crucibles with pore sizes of 5–15 μm, dried, and weighed. The lignin content was expressed as a percentage of the dry wood.
Cellulose content was measured following the Kürschner and Höffer procedure [25] involving four sequential reflux treatments of grape stalks using a nitric acid and ethanol mixture (1:4, v/v) for 1 hour per treatment.
Hemicellulose content was calculated by difference.

2.2. Sample Liquefaction

Arbutus unedo L. (Strawberry Tree) Internal bark (IB) and External bark (EB) samples were oven-dried at 100 °C and finely ground to increase surface area. A 10 g portion of the dried sample was weighed and placed into a reactor. A 50:50 mixture of glycerol and ethylene glycol, along with 3% sulfuric acid (based on sample weight), was then added. The mixture completely submerged the wood sample, and the reactor was sealed to prevent leakage. Stirring at 75 rpm was initiated to ensure homogeneous mixing. The temperature was gradually raised to 180 °C and maintained for 60 minutes. Afterward, the reactor was allowed to cool to room temperature, and the liquefied product was recovered. The resulting material was dissolved in 100 mL of methanol and filtered for further use.

2.3. Foam Preparation

To prepare the foam, 4 g of neutralized and dried polyol was placed in a polypropylene container. Isocyanate was added in measured amounts using a syringe into a cylindrical container (dimensions: 60 × 120 mm). The surfactant was then introduced to control the foam bubble size and distribution. Water was added as a blowing agent to react with the isocyanate, generating carbon dioxide for foam expansion. The mixture was mixed at 2000 rpm for 1–2 minutes, ensuring uniformity. Subsequently, the catalyst (DBTDL) was introduced to speed up the reaction between polyol and isocyanate, promoting foam formation. Additional mixing followed at 2000 rpm for another 1–2 minutes, during which foam began to rise. It was allowed to expand freely under ambient conditions. Standard proportions used included 4 g polyol, 0.4 g water (10%), 0.28 g surfactant (7%), 0.24 g catalyst (6%), and 10.5 g isocyanate, with variations in water (5-20%), catalyst (3-10%), and isocyanate index (0.6-1).

2.4. Foam Testing

The prepared polyurethane foam was shaped into a cylindrical sample (approximately 60 mm in diameter and 30 mm in height) for compression testing. The sample was placed between the compression plates, and the testing parameters were configured, including a compression speed of 5 mm/min. The Universal Test Machine applied a gradual and consistent compression force to the foam, while the applied force and corresponding deformation were recorded in real-time. Compression continued until the foam underwent significant deformation, stabilizing when most of the foam was compressed.

2.5. FTIR Analysis

The foam samples were dried in an oven at 102 ± 2 °C overnight, followed by grinding in a mortar. The FTIR spectra were collected using a Perkin Elmer UATR Two FT-IR Spectrometer (Beaconsfield, UK) with a resolution of 4.0 cm⁻¹ and 72 scans recorded over the range of 4000–400 cm⁻¹. Powder samples were placed directly onto the crystal to fully cover its surface, with three spectra taken for each sample.

3. Results and Discussion

The strawberry tree bark was divided into IB and EB. Their chemical composition was determined and is presented in Table 1. Extractives were determined sequentially by extraction with dichloromethane, ethanol and water. Dichloromethane extractives are mainly various lipophilic compounds such as terpenes, resins, fatty acids, sterols, waxes, and certain essential oils. A study made with Arbutus andrachne bark found out that the lipophilic extractives were mainly composed of fatty acids and sterols being palmitic acid the most prevalent, therefore it is expected that Arbutus unedo bark also has mainly fatty acids. There is a higher content of lipophilic extractives in EB with around 4.3% against the 2.4%, both higher than hexane extract from Arbutus andrachne bark [5]. Ethanol extractives represent the second most important extractives in strawberry tree IB with approximately 8.6% for each bark. Water extracts represent the major extract in both barks, just slightly higher than ethanol extractives, nevertheless some of the extractives that could be removed by water are already removed with ethanol, therefore if the water extraction was made first would probably have a higher content. Overall, EB has a higher percentage of extractives (22.9%) than the IB (20.2%). The main difference between EB and IB lies in their lignin content, with EB containing a significantly higher proportion (44%) compared to IB, which has 32%. On the contrary polysaccharides have a higher content in IB with about 26% cellulose and 22% hemicelluloses. EB might have a small amount of suberin of about 1% as determined for Arbutus andrachne [5].
Figure 1 shows the liquefaction yield of both IB and EB at three different temperatures. As expected, higher temperatures lead to higher liquefaction yields for both barks from around 30 % for 140 °C to around 70-80 % at 180 °C. At the same conditions, IB has a slightly higher liquefaction yield, probably due to the less condensed structure that is easier to liquefy. Similar variation is seen for different liquefaction times with liquefaction yield increasing from around 30 % at 15 min until 80 % for 60 min liquefaction time. Similar results were obtained before by several other lignocellulosic materials as for example wood [26], fruit shells [27,28,29] or barks [16,18], although for cork rich barks with higher suberin content the liquefaction was made with a basic catalyst. In some cases, a decrease in liquefaction yield is observed for higher temperatures and liquefaction times due to polycondensation reactions which was not the case here. Generally, polycondensation reactions are due to the reactions between polysaccharides and lignin derivatives and usually happen when using higher weight polyols such as PEG are used [30]. The use of low weight polyols can significantly reduce polycondensation reactions which has been attributed to highly polar hydroxyl groups with shot chains creating highly protic solvent [8]. In this process a mixture of ethylene glycol and glycerol were used since they have a synergistic effect in liquefaction. Ethylene glycol can accelerate the breakdown process since it is less viscous than glycerol, while glycerol can stabilize the resulting liquefied wood. Together, they create a more balanced reaction environment, resulting in faster liquefaction and better-quality products.
Preprints 119877 g001
Figure 1. Liquefaction yields different temperatures for the IB and EB (constant parameters: time 60 min and ratio bark:solvent of 1:10).
Figure 1. Liquefaction yields different temperatures for the IB and EB (constant parameters: time 60 min and ratio bark:solvent of 1:10).
Preprints 119877 g001
Preprints 119877 g002
Figure 2. Liquefaction yields different times for the IB and EB (constant parameters: temperature 180 °C and ratio bark:solvent of 1:10).
Figure 2. Liquefaction yields different times for the IB and EB (constant parameters: temperature 180 °C and ratio bark:solvent of 1:10).
Preprints 119877 g002
The chemical changes with the liquefaction were monitored by FTIR analysis that was done on both the liquefied materials (Figure 3 and Figure 4) and the solid residues after liquefaction (Figure 5 and Figure 6).
The main difference observed between the initial IB and EB spectra is the high absorption observed at 1600 cm-1 in the IB (Figure 4 and Figure 6). This high absorption is usually attributed to higher lignin content that has a strong absorption at 1600 cm⁻¹ due to the abundance of aromatic C=C bonds. Nevertheless, in this case it is probably due to the overall higher absorption in IB since there is also a higher absorption around 3330 cm-1 and 1030 cm-1 in initial IB.
All liquefied materials exhibit a broader and intense OH stretching peak around 3400 cm⁻¹ much higher than for the initial material, even though it is known that the penetration depth of the IR light into a liquid is typically greater than in solids due to its lower refractive index and density compared to solids resulting in stronger absorption bands in liquids. This peak is due not only from the liquefied material but has also a significative contribution from the polyalcohols (glycerol and ethylene glycol) used in the liquefaction process as stated before [31]. The CH stretching peaks at 2915 cm⁻¹ and 2850 cm⁻¹, corresponding to asymmetric and symmetric vibrations [32], increased significantly in relation to the original internal and EB, with their maxima shifting slightly to 2927 cm⁻¹ and 2870 cm⁻¹. The highest peak for the liquefied barks is the one at 2870 cm⁻¹ contrary to the initial solid material where the 2927 cm-1 is higher. This behavior has been observed before for other liquefied materials such as for instance cherry seeds [33] or Scotch Broom [34]. The peak at 1730 cm⁻¹ (non-conjugated C=O linkages) and the band at 1600 cm⁻¹ (conjugated C=O linkages and aromatic C=C-C ring stretch) are significantly reduced and narrowed. This is probably due to the breakdown and transformation of carbonyl-containing compounds that result in the reduction or disappearance of carbonyl-related absorption bands in the FTIR spectrum. The exception is observed at 140°C, where a pronounced peak appears at 1600 cm⁻¹. This peak may be attributed to the increased presence of phenolic extractives, which are more readily released into the liquid phase under these conditions.
There is a high increase in the fingerprint region (1500 cm⁻¹ to 600 cm⁻¹) in relation to the initial material which can also be due to the stronger absorption bands in liquids, nevertheless, there is a clear increase in the C-O stretching band with maximum at around 1030 cm-1 and with a shoulder at around 1090 cm-1 which shows the increase in carbohydrates in the liquid fraction. Noticeably, there isn’t a significant difference between different temperatures (except 140 °C) and different liquefaction times which shows that there are no big differences between the FTIR spectra of the polyols obtained at different liquefaction conditions.
The spectra obtained with the solid residues after liquefaction are relatively similar with the initial solid material, especially for external bark. The main changes observed in these spectra is the increase in 1730 cm-1 peak, in relation to 1600 cm-1 that is observed progressively as the temperature increases. This might correspond to an increase in non-conjugated C=O in relation to conjugated. Since conjugated carbonyl linkage is directly adjacent to a double bond, often involving alternating single and double bonds conjugated compounds are more stable than non-conjugated ones. More condensed or cross-linked lignin structures can increase the aromatic character and thus contribute to higher absorption at this frequency therefore lignin in the solid residue seems to be less cross linked and to have a less condensed structure than the initial material. Another reason might be that a higher percentage of lignin has been liquefied or also the decrease of extractable phenolic compounds that are released to the liquid fraction. For internal bark there is a significant decrease in the 1600 cm-1 peak followed by an increase in the band with the increase in temperature or liquefaction time. This initial decrease might be due to the solubilization of phenolic compounds such as tannins as mentioned before.
For the highest temperature tested there is an increase in the 1445 cm-1 peak which is generally attributed to aliphatic CH2 groups [26]. An increase at 1187 cm-1 is also observed. The peak at around 1030 cm-1 decreases but broadens making a shoulder visible at 1086 cm-1. This shoulder can be due to sulphate ion that absorbs in this range [35] and is present in sulfuric acid used in the liquefaction. Overall results seem to indicate that the solid residue has a lower lignin content than the initial material.
Polyurethane foams were made using the liquefied IB and EB polyols combined with isocyanate and using water as blowing agent and DBTDL as catalyst. Figure 7 illustrates the variation in compressive strength, compressive modulus and density of foams with increasing water content for both EB and IB derived polyols. Higher amounts of water content (blowing agent) led to lower mechanical properties decreasing compressive strength from about 100 kPa to less than 20 kPa for IB polyol. Compressive modulus also decreased for higher amounts of water producing softer, more flexible polyurethane foams that are easier to compress. The reason for this decreases might be explained by the decrease in foam density since higher amounts of blowing agent made the foam grow higher and with lower density. Overall IB polyurethane foams are more resistant than EB foams and this is seen by the significantly lower compressive strength and compressive modulus of the foams. On the contrary, no significant differences are observed between the density of IB and EB foams although IB foams have generally a higher density. Similar results on the variation of the mechanical strength of polyurethane foams produced with liquefied material were presented before. For instance, foams produced from liquefied Cytisus scoparius also showed a decrease in both compressive strength and modulus for foams made with DBTDL catalyst, observed for both acid- and base-derived polyols [36]. The obtained values for IB polyol were in the same range as those obtained for Cytisus scoparius although a little higher. The results found for IB polyol are not much different from the reported before by Li et al. [37], who reported compressive strengths of 147 kPa for 7% water content. However, most values were lower than the compressive strength of 80–150 kPa reported for PU foams produced with polyols containing approximately 50% biomass by Yao et al. [38], or the 68–195 kPa obtained for foams made from polyols derived from various waste papers by Hu et al.[39]. Compressive strength of foams made with EB polyol with different amounts of water were all under 20 kPa even though density is not that much small than the observed for IB foams.
Figure 8 illustrates compressive strength and modulus for different NCO/OH ratios (isocyanate index). For an index of 0.6, compressive strength was around 45 kPa for IB polyol and about 32 kPa for EB polyol. As the NCO/OH ratio increased, compressive strength also increased for the IB polyol, reaching a maximum of around 60 kPa. For EB based polyol, compressive strength decreased. Higher isocyanate content typically improves mechanical properties due to increased hard segment content and crosslinking in the polymer network [40,41]. Nevertheless, the effect of decreasing density due to the higher expansion of the foam might overlap the increase in hard segments. Once more the compressive strength and compressive modulus of foams made with IB polyol presented better mechanical resistance.
Figure 9 presents the effect of varying catalyst amounts on mechanical properties of IB and EB foams. For IB foams the results on compressive strength seem to increase and decrease afterwards but the results on compressive modulus decrease with the amount of catalyst. For EB foams increasing the catalyst led to a decrease in compressive strength and compressive modulus. The decrease of mechanical properties for higher amounts of catalyst might be due to an increased rate of gas formation (blowing reaction) that can result in larger cell sizes and less uniformity in the foam structure, therefore reducing the foam’s compressive strength. It is also seen that density decreases possibly due to the faster reaction trapping more gas within the foam, leading to lower overall density. Excessive catalyst has also been mentioned to increase the amount of side reactions [42]

5. Conclusions

The results obtained show that EB has a higher overall extractive content than IB and a higher amount of lipophilic extractives. Polysaccharides are more abundant in IB, which has higher amounts of cellulose than hemicelluloses. EB also contains more lignin compared to internal bark.
Both barks show higher liquefaction yields at increased temperatures, with internal bark liquefying slightly more efficiently due to its less condensed structure. FTIR spectra reveal significant changes post-liquefaction, such as reduced peaks for carbonyl compounds, indicating the breakdown of lignin and polysaccharides. Both IB and EB exhibit a notable increase in OH stretching peaks, attributed to the polyalcohols used in the liquefaction process.
Polyols derived from IB yielded stronger and more resilient foams compared to those from EB. Higher water content led to a decrease in both compressive strength and modulus, likely due to lower foam density. The mechanical properties of foams were sensitive to the NCO/OH ratio and catalyst amounts, with IB-based foams showing better compressive strength and modulus than EB-based foams, despite similar densities.
In summary, the internal bark of the strawberry tree offers superior mechanical properties for polyurethane foam production compared to external bark. The study provides insights into optimizing the liquefaction process and foam characteristics by controlling variables such as temperature, time, and catalyst content.

Author Contributions

For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided. The following statements should be used “Conceptualization, L.C.-L. and B.E.; methodology, L.C.-L. and B.E.; investigation, L.C.-L., Y.D., R.L., I.D., B.E.; resources, Y.D., I.D. J.F.; writing—original draft preparation, L.C.-L. and B.E.; writing—review and editing, L.C.-L., R.L. and B.E.; supervision, L.C.-L. and B.E.; funding acquisition, L.C.-L. and B.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Funds through the FCT—Foundation for Science & Technology through (Proj. UIDB/00681/2020 (CERNAS) DOI: 10.54499/UIDB/00681/2020) and Polytechnic University of Viseu.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P. Furthermore, we would like to thank the CERNAS Centre and the Polytechnic Institute of Viseu for their support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Torres, J.A.; Valle, F.; Pinto, C.; García-Fuentes, A.; Salazar, C.; Cano, E. Arbutus Unedo L. Communities in Southern Iberian Peninsula Mountains. Plant Ecology 2002, 160, 207–223. [CrossRef]
  2. Martins, J.; Pinto, G.; Canhoto, J. Biotechnology of the Multipurpose Tree Species Arbutus Unedo: A Review. J. For. Res. 2022, 33, 377–390. [CrossRef]
  3. Miguel, M.; Faleiro, M.; Guerreiro, A.; Antunes, M. Arbutus Unedo L.: Chemical and Biological Properties. Molecules 2014, 19, 15799–15823. [CrossRef]
  4. Gomes, F.; Simões, M.; Lopes, M.L.; Canhoto, J.M. Effect of Plant Growth Regulators and Genotype on the Micropropagation of Adult Trees of Arbutus Unedo L. (Strawberry Tree). New Biotechnology 2010, 27, 882–892. [CrossRef]
  5. Dönmez, İ.E.; Hemming, J.; Willför, S. Bark Extractives and Suberin Monomers from Arbutus Andrachne and Platanus Orientalis. BioResources 2016, 11, 2809–2819. [CrossRef]
  6. Aquino, F.R.; Reyes, R.F.; Quiñones, J.G.R.; García, W.S.; Mota, M.E.S.; Reyes, H.H.E. DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF AN ANALYTICAL METHOD FOR CONDENSED TANNIN EXTRACTS OBTAINED FROM THE BARK OF FOUR TREE SPECIES USING HPLC. WR 2021, 66, 171–182. [CrossRef]
  7. Mateus, M.M.; Guerreiro, D.; Ferreira, O.; Bordado, J.C.; Santos, R.G. dos Heuristic Analysis of Eucalyptus Globulus Bark Depolymerization via Acid-Liquefaction. Cellulose 2017, 24, 659–668. [CrossRef]
  8. D’Souza, J.; Wong, S.Z.; Camargo, R.; Yan, N. Solvolytic Liquefaction of Bark: Understanding the Role of Polyhydric Alcohols and Organic Solvents on Polyol Characteristics. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2015, 4, 851–861. [CrossRef]
  9. Fernandes, A.; Cruz-Lopes, L.; Dulyanska, Y.; Domingos, I.; Ferreira, J.; Evtuguin, D.; Esteves, B. Eco Valorization of Eucalyptus Globulus Bark and Branches through Liquefaction. Applied Sciences 2022, 12, 3775. [CrossRef]
  10. Gadhave, R.V.; Mahanwar, P.A.; Gadekar, P.T. Bio-Renewable Sources for Synthesis of Eco-Friendly Polyurethane Adhesives—Review. OJPChem 2017, 07, 57–75. [CrossRef]
  11. Lee, W.; Lin, M. Preparation and Application of Polyurethane Adhesives Made from Polyhydric Alcohol Liquefied Taiwan Acacia and China Fir. J of Applied Polymer Sci 2008, 109, 23–31. [CrossRef]
  12. Lee, W.-J.; Kuo, E.-S.; Chao, C.-Y.; Kao, Y.-P. Properties of Polyurethane (PUR) Films Prepared from Liquefied Wood (LW) and Ethylene Glycol (EG). Holzforschung 2014, 0. [CrossRef]
  13. Barbosa, K.T.; Fuentes Da Silva, S.H.; Magalhães, W.L.E.; Amico, S.C.; Delucis, R. de A. Acid-Catalyzed Kraft Lignin Liquefaction for Producing Polyols and Polyurethane Foams. Journal of Wood Chemistry and Technology 2024, 44, 9–21. [CrossRef]
  14. Cinelli, P.; Anguillesi, I.; Lazzeri, A. Green Synthesis of Flexible Polyurethane Foams from Liquefied Lignin. European Polymer Journal 2013, 49, 1174–1184. [CrossRef]
  15. da Silva, S.H.F.; Egüés, I.; Labidi, J. Liquefaction of Kraft Lignin Using Polyhydric Alcohols and Organic Acids as Catalysts for Sustainable Polyols Production. Industrial Crops and Products 2019, 137, 687–693. [CrossRef]
  16. Esteves, B.; Dulyanska, Y.; Costa, C.; Ferreira, J.V.; Domingos, I.; Pereira, H.; Lemos, L.T. de; Cruz-Lopes, L.V. Cork Liquefaction for Polyurethane Foam Production. BioResources 2017, 12, 2339–2353. [CrossRef]
  17. Yona, A.M.C.; Budija, F.; Kričej, B.; Kutnar, A.; Pavlič, M.; Pori, P.; Tavzes, Č.; Petrič, M. Production of Biomaterials from Cork: Liquefaction in Polyhydric Alcohols at Moderate Temperatures. Industrial Crops and Products 2014, 54, 296–301. [CrossRef]
  18. Esteves, B.; Cruz-Lopes, L.; Ferreira, J.; Domingos, I.; Nunes, L.; Pereira, H. Optimizing Douglas-Fir Bark Liquefaction in Mixtures of Glycerol and Polyethylene Glycol and KOH. Holzforschung 2018, 72, 25–30. [CrossRef]
  19. Choe, K.H.; Lee, D.S.; Seo, W.J.; Kim, W.N. Properties of Rigid Polyurethane Foams with Blowing Agents and Catalysts. Polymer journal 2004, 36, 368–373. [CrossRef]
  20. Kurańska, M.; Prociak, A.; Michalowski, S.; Zawadzińska, A. The Influence of Blowing Agents Type on Foaming Process and Properties of Rigid Polyurethane Foams. Polimery 2018, 63. [CrossRef]
  21. Han, M.S.; Choi, S.J.; Kim, J.M.; Kim, Y.H.; Kim, W.N.; Lee, H.S.; Sung, J.Y. Effects of Silicone Surfactant on the Cell Size and Thermal Conductivity of Rigid Polyurethane Foams by Environmentally Friendly Blowing Agents. Macromol. Res. 2009, 17, 44–50. [CrossRef]
  22. Blattmann, H.; Lauth, M.; Mülhaupt, R. Flexible and Bio-Based Nonisocyanate Polyurethane (NIPU) Foams. Macro Materials & Eng 2016, 301, 944–952. [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, X.; Pizzi, A.; Fredon, E.; Gerardin, C.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, B.; Du, G. Low Curing Temperature Tannin-Based Non-Isocyanate Polyurethane (NIPU) Wood Adhesives: Preparation and Properties Evaluation. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 2022, 112, 103001. [CrossRef]
  24. Gomez-Lopez, A.; Elizalde, F.; Calvo, I.; Sardon, H. Trends in Non-Isocyanate Polyurethane (NIPU) Development. Chemical Communications 2021, 57, 12254–12265. [CrossRef]
  25. Browning, B.L. Methods of Wood Chemistry. Volumes I & II. Methods of wood chemistry. Volumes I & II. 1967.
  26. Abd Hilmi, N.H.; Lodin, V.; Gilbert Jesuet, M.S.; Salim, S.; Lee, S.H.; Hori, N.; Takemura, A.; Palle, I. Producing Eucalyptus Pellita Wood Polyol through Liquefaction for Polyurethane Film Production. Industrial Crops and Products 2023, 205, 117431. [CrossRef]
  27. Cruz-Lopes, L.P.; Domingos, I.; Ferreira, J.; Esteves, B. Chemical Composition and Study on Liquefaction Optimization of Chestnut Shells. Open Agriculture 2020, 5, 905–911. [CrossRef]
  28. Domingos, I.; Ferreira, J.; Cruz-Lopes, L.P.; Esteves, B. Liquefaction and Chemical Composition of Walnut Shells. Open Agriculture 2022, 7, 249–256. [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, J.; Du, M.; Hu, L. Factors Influencing Polyol Liquefaction of Nut Shells of Different Camellia Species. BioResources 2016, 11, 9956–9969. [CrossRef]
  30. Kobayashi, M.; Asano, T.; Kajiyama, M.; Tomita, B. Analysis on Residue Formation during Wood Liquefaction with Polyhydric Alcohol. Journal of Wood Science 2004, 50, 407–414. [CrossRef]
  31. Cruz-Lopes, L.; Duarte, J.; Dulyanska, Y.; Guiné, R.P.; Esteves, B. Enhancing Liquefaction Efficiency: Exploring the Impact of Pre-Hydrolysis on Hazelnut Shell (Corylus Avellana L.). Materials 2024, 17, 2667. [CrossRef]
  32. Esteves, B.; Velez Marques, A.; Domingos, I.; Pereira, H. Chemical Changes of Heat Treated Pine and Eucalypt Wood Monitored by FTIR. Maderas. Ciencia y tecnología 2013, 15, 245–258.
  33. Cruz-Lopes, L.; Dulyanska, Y.; Domingos, I.; Ferreira, J.; Fragata, A.; Guiné, R.; Esteves, B. Influence of Pre-Hydrolysis on the Chemical Composition of Prunus Avium Cherry Seeds. Agronomy 2022, 12, 280. [CrossRef]
  34. Cruz-Lopes, L.; Almeida, D.; Dulyanska, Y.; Domingos, I.; Ferreira, J.; Fragata, A.; Esteves, B. Chemical Composition and Optimization of Liquefaction Parameters of Cytisus Scoparius (Broom). Forests 2022, 13, 1772. [CrossRef]
  35. Coates, J.P. A Practical Approach to the Interpretation of Infrared Spectra. Encyclopedia of analytical chemistry 2000, 10815–10837.
  36. Dulyanska, Y.; Cruz-Lopes, L.; Esteves, B.; Guiné, R.; Domingos, I. FTIR Monitoring of Polyurethane Foams Derived from Acid-Liquefied and Base-Liquefied Polyols. Polymers 2024, 16, 2214. [CrossRef]
  37. Li, X.; Cao, H.; Zhang, Y. Structures and Physical Properties of Rigid Polyurethane Foams with Water as the Sole Blowing Agent. Science in China Series B: Chemistry 2006, 49, 363–370. [CrossRef]
  38. Yao, Y.; Yoshioka, M.; Shiraishi, N. Combined Liquefaction of Wood and Starch in a Polyethylene Glycol/Glycerin Blended Solvent. Mokuzai Gakkaishi 1993, 39, 930–938.
  39. Hu, S.; Wan, C.; Li, Y. Production and Characterization of Biopolyols and Polyurethane Foams from Crude Glycerol Based Liquefaction of Soybean Straw. Bioresource technology 2012, 103, 227–233. [CrossRef]
  40. Hu, S.; Li, Y. Polyols and Polyurethane Foams from Base-Catalyzed Liquefaction of Lignocellulosic Biomass by Crude Glycerol: Effects of Crude Glycerol Impurities. Industrial Crops and Products 2014, 57, 188–194. [CrossRef]
  41. Yan, Y.; Pang, H.; Yang, X.; Zhang, R.; Liao, B. Preparation and Characterization of Water-blown Polyurethane Foams from Liquefied Cornstalk Polyol. Journal of applied polymer science 2008, 110, 1099–1111. [CrossRef]
  42. Gu, X.; Luo, H.; Lv, S.; Chen, P. Glycolysis Recycling of Waste Polyurethane Rigid Foam Using Different Catalysts. Journal of Renewable Materials 2021, 9, 1253–1266. [CrossRef]
Preprints 119877 g003
Figure 3. FTIR spectra of initial EB and liquefied polyols: (a) With different liquefaction time; (b) With different liquefaction temperature.
Figure 3. FTIR spectra of initial EB and liquefied polyols: (a) With different liquefaction time; (b) With different liquefaction temperature.
Preprints 119877 g003
Preprints 119877 g004
Figure 4. FTIR spectra of initial IB and liquefied polyols: (a) With different liquefaction time; (b) With different liquefaction temperature.
Figure 4. FTIR spectra of initial IB and liquefied polyols: (a) With different liquefaction time; (b) With different liquefaction temperature.
Preprints 119877 g004
Preprints 119877 g005
Figure 5. FTIR spectra of initial EB and solid residues after liquefaction: (a) With different liquefaction time; (b) With different liquefaction temperature.
Figure 5. FTIR spectra of initial EB and solid residues after liquefaction: (a) With different liquefaction time; (b) With different liquefaction temperature.
Preprints 119877 g005
Preprints 119877 g006
Figure 6. FTIR spectra of initial IB and solid residues after liquefaction: (a) With different liquefaction time; (b) With different liquefaction temperature.
Figure 6. FTIR spectra of initial IB and solid residues after liquefaction: (a) With different liquefaction time; (b) With different liquefaction temperature.
Preprints 119877 g006
Preprints 119877 g007
Figure 7. Variation of mechanical properties of foams with water content for IB and EB polyols: (a) Compressive strength; (b) Compressive modulus; (c) Density.
Figure 7. Variation of mechanical properties of foams with water content for IB and EB polyols: (a) Compressive strength; (b) Compressive modulus; (c) Density.
Preprints 119877 g007
Preprints 119877 g008
Figure 8. Variation of mechanical properties of foams with isocyanate index for IB and EB polyols: (a) Compressive strength; (b) Compressive modulus; (c) Density.
Figure 8. Variation of mechanical properties of foams with isocyanate index for IB and EB polyols: (a) Compressive strength; (b) Compressive modulus; (c) Density.
Preprints 119877 g008
Preprints 119877 g009
Figure 9. Variation of mechanical properties of foams with catalyst amount index for IB and EB polyols: (a) Compressive strength; (b) Compressive modulus; (c) Density.
Figure 9. Variation of mechanical properties of foams with catalyst amount index for IB and EB polyols: (a) Compressive strength; (b) Compressive modulus; (c) Density.
Preprints 119877 g009
Table 1. Chemical composition of internal and external strawberry tree bark.
Table 1. Chemical composition of internal and external strawberry tree bark.
Internal bark (IB) External bark (EB)
Ashes 7.57 10.21
Ethanol extractives 8.63 8.64
Dichloromethane extractives 2.39 4.27
Hot Water extractives 9.14 10.00
Klason Lignin 31.52 44.25
Cellulose 26.35 22.99
Hemicelluloses 21.98 9.84
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated