March 26, 2015 11:5 147-mplb S0217984915400394 page 1

Modern Physics Letters B

Vol. 29, Nos. 6 & 7 (2015) 1540039 (5 pages)

c World Scientific Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0217984915400394

Cellulose nanofiber extraction from grass

by a modified kitchen blender

Antonio Norio Nakagaito∗

Mod. Phys. Lett. B 2015.29. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Institute of Technology and Science, The University of Tokushima,

by RUTGERS UNIVERSITY on 04/10/15. For personal use only.

Minami Josanjima-cho 2-1, Tokushima, Tokushima 770-8506, Japan

nakagaito@tokushima-u.ac.jp

Koh Ikenaga
Faculty of Engineering, The University of Tokushima,
Minami Josanjima-cho 2-1, Tokushima, Tokushima 770-8506, Japan
ikenaga.1213@gmail.com

Hitoshi Takagi
Institute of Technology and Science, The University of Tokushima,
Minami Josanjima-cho 2-1, Tokushima, Tokushima 770-8506, Japan
takagi@tokushima-u.ac.jp

Received 17 July 2014

Revised 29 December 2014
Accepted 19 January 2015
Published 30 March 2015

Cellulose nanofibers have been used to reinforce polymers, delivering composites with
strength that in some cases can be superior to that of engineering plastics. The extrac-
tion of nanofibers from plant fibers can be achieved through specialized equipment that
demands high energy input, despite delivering extremely low yields. The high extrac-
tion cost confines the use of cellulose nanofibers to the laboratory and not for indus-
trial applications. This study aims to extract nanofibers from grass by using a kitchen
blender. Earlier studies have demonstrated that paper sheets made of blender-extracted
nanofibers (after 5 min to 10 min of blending) have strengths on par with paper sheets
made from commercially available cellulose nanofibers. By optimizing the design of the
blender bottle, nanofibrillation can be achieved in shorter treatment times, reducing the
energy consumption (in the present case, to half) and the overall extraction cost. The
raw materials used can be extended to the residue straw of agricultural crops, as an
alternative to the usual pulp fibers obtained from wood.

Keywords: Cellulose nanofiber; nanofiber extraction; blender; grass.

∗ Corresponding author.

1540039-1
 March 26, 2015 11:5 147-mplb S0217984915400394 page 2

A. N. Nakagaito, K. Ikenaga & H. Takagi

1. Introduction
Cellulose nanofibers extracted from natural plant fibers, exhibit mechanical proper-
ties similar to synthetic fibers like aramid. The crystalline regions of cellulose have
Young’s modulus of 138 GPa,1 with the tensile strength of nanofibers in excess of
2 GPa. Furthermore, cellulose is a renewable material, being photosyntheized by
plants using the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Such high-strength nanofibers
can be utilized as reinforcements to make high-performance nanocomposites.
Combined with a bioplastic matrix, these materials can be made completely
environmentally friendly.
So far, the main source of cellulose nanofibers have been wood pulp fibers
(intended for papermaking), which must be subjected to mechanical treatment
Mod. Phys. Lett. B 2015.29. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

in order to extract the nanofibers. The extraction is accomplished by specialized

by RUTGERS UNIVERSITY on 04/10/15. For personal use only.

devices requiring high energy input but delivering very low production yields, re-
sulting in extremely costly nanofibers. However, non-wood plant fibers, especially
agricultural crop residues like straw, have also been used in papermaking. Wheat
straw is an example of a pulp fiber source, and wheat is a representative species of
the Gramineae family of plants that extends to cereals, bamboo, and grass, all of
which are less expensive resources of cellulose nanofibers.
A more affordable mechanical process to extract cellulose nanofibers was demon-
strated by Uetani et al.2 by using a kitchen blender to obtain nanofibrillation. Since
their study is preceded by a patent to use a blender for fibrillation,3 it appear that
Uetani et al.’s work itself is not novel. However, they seem to be the first to fibrillate
cellulose using a household blender.
Here, we propose modifying the design of the blender bottle in order to optimize
the fribrillation of grass fibers, since the original bottle is intended to disintegrate
food or, at most, parenchyma cells of edible vegetables. We downsized the bottle
capacity by employing internal ribs inside the bottle. The net effect is the same
fibrillation as the original bottle, but with shorter blending times.

2. Experimental Methods
Grass pulp fibers were obtained by a series of chemical treatments, as follows.
Grass straw consisting mainly of the variety Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum)
was mixed with water and blended for 20 s in order to chop them into short bun-
dles. Chopped grass was dipped in a 5 wt.% sodium hydroxide aqueous solution at
ambient temperature, and stirred for 3 h to remove hemicelluloses. Afterwards, a
mixture of 800 ml of distilled water, 25 g of sodium chlorite, and 200 ml of acetic
acid was prepared, in which the grass was immersed and stirred at 70◦ C for 2 h
to completely remove lignin. After each treatment, fibers were washed by running
water until pH became neutral. The commercial cellulose nanofiber used as con-
trol was Celish KY-100G (Daicel Corporation, Japan) produced by a high-pressure
homogenizer.4,5

1540039-2
 March 26, 2015 11:5 147-mplb S0217984915400394 page 3

Cellulose nanofiber extraction from grass by a modified kitchen blender

Mechanical fibrillation was performed by the household blender Vitamix TNC

5200 (Vitamix Corporation, USA), with and without modifications to the bottle.
Grass fiber pulp aqueous suspensions at 1 wt.% fiber content were blended at
37,000 rpm for various periods of time. Paper-like sheets were obtained by filtering
the nanofiber suspensions, followed by drying at 70◦ C overnight in an electric oven.
Ribbon-shaped test pieces 70 mm × 10 mm were cut from the nanofiber sheets
and subjected to tensile tests with an Instron 5567 universal materials testing ma-
chine at a strain rate of 1.0 mm/min. To prevent damage at the gripping points,
thick paper tabs were glued to the ends of each specimen, and then clasped with
serrated chucks. The cross-sectional areas corresponding to the actual fracture sites
were used to calculate Young’s modulus and tensile strength. The tensile properties
Mod. Phys. Lett. B 2015.29. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

were averaged across five replicates.

by RUTGERS UNIVERSITY on 04/10/15. For personal use only.

3. Results and Discussion

The original 2-liter capacity blender bottle was replaced by a plastic container with
half the capacity (Fig. 1). Our intention is to increase the probability of the fibers
colliding with the rotating blades, so that greater impact and shear forces can break
up the cell walls of the fibers and, consequently, fibrillate them into finer nanofiber
bundles.
Since the mechanical testing could not be performed on individual nanofibers,
we subjected the paper-like sheets of nanofibers to an alternative tensile test. As
cellulose molecular chains contain hydroxyl groups, the larger exposed surface area
of nanofibers translates into higher sheet strengths due to the larger number of
hydrogen bonds interconnecting the nanofibers. At the same time, the remaining
thick nanofiber bundles which have not completely nanofibrillated act as defects,
reducing the sheet strength. Therefore, these two balancing effects on the strength
of the nanofiber sheets make the tensile strength an indirect measurement of the
overall degree of nanofibrillation.
Surprisingly, the reduction in volume did not result in faster fibrillation times.
As the new bottle consisted of a cylindrical container whereas the original one was
more of a rectangular box [Fig. 1(a)], the fiber suspension simply rotated jointly
with the blades, reducing the impact with the fibers. However, the new bottle did

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. (a) Modified 1-liter blender bottle and the original 2-liter bottle and (b) modified bottle
with ribs glued to the wall and without ribs.

1540039-3
 March 26, 2015 11:5 147-mplb S0217984915400394 page 4

A. N. Nakagaito, K. Ikenaga & H. Takagi

Mod. Phys. Lett. B 2015.29. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Fig. 2. Tensile properties of nanofiber sheets extracted after 5 min of blending compared to a
by RUTGERS UNIVERSITY on 04/10/15. For personal use only.

commercial nanofiber Celish sheet. Original: original blender bottle; Pla.: modified bottle; New
Pla.: modified bottle with ribs.

deliver nanofibers comparable to those obtained with the original bottle, if the same
blending times were used. In order to apply some resistance to the freely rotating
aqueous fiber suspension, four triangular prismatic ribs were glued to the inner
surfaces of the container wall, as seen in Fig. 1(b).
The increase in flow resistance caused by the attached ribs, resulted in a more
turbulent flow of the fiber suspension during blending that contributed to an in-
crease in the probability of fibers colliding against the blades. Indeed, the results
of the tensile test depicted in Fig. 2 show that a 5 min blending with the new bot-
tle with ribs produced nanofiber sheets with higher tensile modulus and strength
than those obtained with the original bottle. Moreover, these nanofiber sheets have
strength comparable to sheets made from the commercially available Celish, which
are produced by high-pressure homogenization.
The blending time required to produce nanofiber sheets that are comparable or
stronger than sheets made from commercial Celish (5 min) was half of the time
needed to obtain sheets with similar strengths using the original bottle (10 min).
This means halving the energy consumption of fibrillation, and thus, significantly
reducing the overall cost of nanofiber extraction. Grass and related agricultural
residue straws are widely available worldwide as source of cellulose nanofibers. With
the use of a properly modified kitchen blender, anyone interested in developing
cellulose nanofiber-based materials can produce cellulose nanofibers in a relatively
affordable and inexpensive way. We believe this method can help boost research in
this area and accelerate the introduction of new green materials to the market.

4. Conclusion
This study aimed to shorten the blending time required to extract cellulose
nanofibers by modifying the blender bottle. The smaller volume capacity, along
with the inclusion of ribs to create turbulence during blending led to a significant

1540039-4
 March 26, 2015 11:5 147-mplb S0217984915400394 page 5

Cellulose nanofiber extraction from grass by a modified kitchen blender

reduction in agitation time to produce nanofibers. Nanofiber sheets produced from

5 min of blending with the newly designed bottle had mechanical properties com-
parable to those of sheets made from commercially available cellulose nanofibers
extracted by a high-pressure homogenizer. The time required for fibrillation was
reduced to half, when compared with the original bottle.

Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to Dr. Raymond Wan from The Chinese University of
Hong Kong, for the English proofreading of the manuscript.
Mod. Phys. Lett. B 2015.29. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

References
by RUTGERS UNIVERSITY on 04/10/15. For personal use only.

1. T. Nishino, K. Takano and K. Nakamae, J. Polym. Sci. Pol. Phys. 33 (1995) 1647.
2. K. Uetani and H. Yano, Biomacromolecules 12 (2011) 348.
3. C. C. Galati, US Patent 4,811,908 (Motion Control Industries, Inc., 1989).
4. A. F. Turbak, F. W. Snyder and K. R. Sandberg, J. Appl. Polym. Sci.: Appl. Polym.
Symp. 37 (1983) 815.
5. F. W. Herrick, R. L. Casebier, J. K. Hamilton and K. R. Sandberg, J. Appl. Polym.
Sci.: Appl. Polym. Symp. 37 (1983) 797.

1540039-5