MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972475560 · doi:10.1088/1757-899x/42/1/012018

Effect of ultrasonic pre-treatment of thermomechanical pulp on hydrogen peroxide bleaching

2012· article· en· W1972475560 on OpenAlexafffund
Éric Loranger, Alasdair Charles, Claude Daneault

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHydrogen peroxideUltrasonic sensorBrightnessChemistryPulp (tooth)Xylenol orangeUltrasoundPeroxideMaterials scienceNuclear chemistryOrganic chemistryOpticsDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrasound pre-treatments of softwood TMP had been carried to evaluate its impact on the efficiency of hydrogen peroxide bleaching. The trials were performed after a factorial design of experiment using frequency, power and time as variables. The experiments were conducted in an ultrasonic bath and then bleached with hydrogen peroxide. Measurements such as brightness, L*A*B* color system coordinate, residual hydrogen peroxide and metal content were evaluated on bleached pulp. The results indicate that the effect of ultrasonic treatment on brightness was dependent on the ultrasound frequency used; the brightness increased slightly at 68 kHz and decreased at 40 and 170 kHz. These results were correlated to the ultrasound effect on the generation of transition metals (copper, iron and manganese) which are responsible for catalytic decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. The influence of metal interference was minimized by using a chelating agent such as diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA). With the results obtained in this study we have identified a set of option conditions, e.g. 1000 W, 40 kHz, 1.5 % consistency and 0.2% addition of DTPA prior to the bleaching stage (after ultrasonic pre-treatment) who improve brightness by 2.5 %ISO.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Materials Science and EngineeringSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207