Table 2. Comparison of transparent paper prepared using various methods.
Diameter | Thickness | Density | Fiber width | Pore size of filter | Preparation time for fibers | Filtration time | T550 | Refs | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(mm) | (μm) | (g/cm3) | (nm) | (μm) | (min) | (min) | (%) | ||
Transparent Paper | 200 | 60 | 0.5–1.3 | 19.3 (μm) | 38 | 20 (16 + 4)a | 10 | 91.55 | This work |
Nanopaper | 72–200 | 40–60 | 0.85–8.73 | 5–20 | 0.65 | >90b | ∼45c | 49.7d | 15 |
Transparent Paper | 200 | 50 | 1.14 | 26 (μm) | 0.65 | 490 | ∼60 | 96 | 4 |
Nanopaper | 200 | — | 1.03 | 5–30 | 0.65 | >490 | ∼480 | 90–96 | 4 |
Nanopaper | — | 60 | 1.53 | 15–20 | 0.1 | >2520 | 180–240 | 71.6d | 27 |
NFC Film | 130 | 120 | 1.25 | 5–20 | 10 | — | ∼30 | — | 28 |
aThe RCFs took 16 min to dissolve and 4 min to debond.
bThe cellulose nanofibers took 60 min to undergo enzymatic treatment and 30 min to incubate. The time for homogenization is unknown.
cThe time for filtrating a 0.2 wt% suspension used to fabricate a 60 μm thick nanopaper with a density of 0.85 g/cm3.
dPercent transmission at 600 nm wavelength.