A new publication by Dr Tim Huber, senior research and technology associate at LIST, and co-authors has appeared in Progress in Materials Science, one of the highest-ranked journals in the field. The journal publishes invited review papers that synthesise and critically assess entire research areas. Being selected to contribute reflects both scientific recognition and leadership in the topic.
Jointly authored with Dr Nina Graupner and Professor Dr Jörg Müssig from the HSB – City University of Applied Sciences, Bremen, the paper examines regenerated cellulose fibres and their use in composite materials.
The problem: promising materials, limited industrial use
Regenerated cellulose fibres are made from renewable raw materials such as wood pulp. Unlike natural fibres such as flax or hemp, which vary depending on harvest and growing conditions, regenerated cellulose fibres are produced through controlled industrial processes. Their properties are consistent and reproducible, which, Huber says, is an advantage for engineers who need reliable performance. They have a long history of use in textiles and tyres, and research over the past decades has explored their potential in structural composites as alternatives to glass and other synthetic fibres.
Yet despite strong academic interest, large-scale industrial uptake in composite applications remains limited. One reason lies in complexity, he says. The term “regenerated cellulose fibre” covers several different fibre types, produced using distinct chemical processes, with varying environmental footprints, availability and cost structures. At the same time, studies use different polymer matrices, fibre architectures and manufacturing routes. This makes direct comparison difficult and slows decision-making in industry.
The solution: structuring the evidence
To address this gap, the authors compiled around 800 data points on fibre, polymer and composite performance. The analysis shows that regenerated cellulose fibres offer competitive mechanical performance in several areas. In particular, their higher elongation at break compared with many natural fibres makes them attractive for impact-related applications where energy absorption is critical.
The review also assesses cost positioning and environmental performance. While typically more expensive than traditional natural fibres, regenerated cellulose fibres are often less costly than high-performance synthetic fibres. From an environmental perspective, their renewable origin gives them advantages in many composite applications.
However, the paper does not present them as a universal solution. “It always depends on the application,” Huber notes. “In textiles, for example, cotton may perform very well. In structural composites, density and mechanical behaviour become much more important.”
The authors also point to an often-overlooked barrier: perception. Unlike visibly “natural” fibres, regenerated cellulose fibres appear technical and uniform. In consumer-facing products, this makes it harder to communicate their sustainable origin, even when environmental assessments are favourable.
A reference point for future decisions
By consolidating dispersed research and analysing technical, economic and environmental aspects in a single publication, the review provides a reference framework for researchers and industry. It clarifies where regenerated cellulose fibres are ready for broader use, where further development is required, and why the gap between laboratory results and industrial adoption persists.
For LIST, “the invited review represents an important scientific achievement, and has already received significant traction from academia,” says Huber. At the same time, contributing to a leading review journal highlights both the maturity of the research and the institute’s role in advancing sustainable material solutions grounded in evidence.
Huber, T. / Graupner, N. and Müssig, J. (2026). Regenerated cellulose fibres and their composites: From fundamental properties to advanced applications. In: Progress in Materials Science. Volume 156, February 2026, 101547 .– doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2025.101547