CHEMICAL AND SODA PULPING PROPERTIES OF KENAF AS A FUNCTION OF GROWTH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kenaf (Hibiscus canabinus)is a promising non-wood source of fibre for pulping and papermaking. Because the chemical and physical composition of the plant changes as the plant develops, research is needed to determine its pulping properties at various stages of growth in order to establish the optimum harvesting time. In the present work, the chemical composition and pulping properties of kenaf as a function of growth have been studied. Kenaf plants were harvested at the end of 90, 120, 150, and 200 days (maturity). Extractive-free ground samples of the stem were cooked at three different temperatures, 140, 155, and 170°C, using soda cooking liquor of 32 g/L NaOH, with an active alkali charge of 15% as Na2O, and a liquor-to-wood ratio of 6:1. The differences in the holocellulose and lignin content for 90, 120, and 150-day old kenaf were not significant, while 200-day-old kenaf was significantly different from others. Pulping of kenaf at various stages of growth indicated that soda pulping properties were not significant. In comparing the yields of kenaf pulps, it is observed that; over the whole range of cooking times and temperatures studied, the average yield for 150-day-old kenaf is highest at 60.4%. Kenaf can be harvested at the end of 150-day growth period, based on the results of chemical analyses to achieve higher yield, with lower lignin content.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".