Photoprotection of Wood Using Polyester-Type UV-Absorbers Derived from the Reaction of 2-hydroxy-4(2,3-epoxypropoxy)-benzophenone with Dicarboxylic Acid Anhydrides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyester-type UV absorbers were created by reacting the epoxy-functionalized UV absorber 2-hydroxy-4(2,3-epoxypropoxy)-benzophenone (HEPBP) with maleic, phthalic, or succinic anhydride. The ability of the UV absorbers to photostabilize wood was then examined. Fourier transform infra-red (FTIR) spectroscopy confirmed that HEPBP reacted with phthalic anhydride to create a polyester that preserved the UV-absorbing benzophenone group. There was less evidence that the polyester was formed when HEPBP was reacted with maleic or succinic anhydride. HEPBP-phthalic anhydride was the most effective UV absorber at photostabilising wood. This UV absorber showed increased UV absorption around 270 nm, formed a leach-resistant film at wood surfaces and was able to restrict both weight and tensile strength losses of thin wood veneers during accelerated weathering, unlike chromium trioxide and a UV absorber-hindered amine light stabilizer. We conclude that polymeric polyester-type UV absorbers show promise as a way of photostabilizing wood and briefly discuss how more effective systems could be developed in future.
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) | 0.001 | 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".