Influence of the solvent and nonsolvent composition on the electrospinning of a cellulose acetate ternary system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A series of cellulose acetate (CA) ternary system solutions consisting of the CA, N,N ‐dimethylacetamide, and various nonsolvents, such as 1‐propanol, 1‐hexanol, 1‐octanol, 1‐decanol, 1,3‐propane diol, and glycerol, were prepared, and the effects of the component composition on the solutions characteristics and electrospinning were examined. In particular, the effects of the nonsolvent concentration, structure, and degree of miscibility with other components were studied. In some cases, increasing the nonsolvent content increased the solution viscosity and facilitated the electrospinning process. However, we found that electrospinning was also governed by the structure of the nonsolvents and by the solution viscosity. An increase in the number of hydroxyl groups or an increase in the hydrocarbon chain length of the monohydroxyl alcohol nonsolvent improved the fiber formation. The calculated Hansen sphere [ D ( S ‐p) ] values of the CA ternary system solution were then used to explain their electrospinnability. The increases in the hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity of system caused by changes in the nonsolvent structure increased the D ( S‐p ) values and improved fiber formation in electrospinning process. The calculated D ( S ‐p) values were also shown to be in good agreement with the obtained microscopy images of the electrospun fiber. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2015 , 132 , 42819.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".