Mechanisms of Aldehyde-Containing Paper Wet-Strength Resins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of dextran (513 000 Da) with pendant acetaldehyde groups to increase the wet strength of filter paper was evaluated as a function of the aldehyde content, impregnation pH, and temperature. The impregnation of filter paper with dextran aldehyde increased the wet tensile strength. By contrast, neither dextran nor unhydrolyzed dextran acetal enhanced the wet paper strength. Drying of the impregnated sheets was a crucial step. Never-dried impregnated filter paper showed no improvement in tensile strength. This result contradicts the behavior of starch aldehyde, which can improve wet web strength. Impregnation under acidic conditions gave greater wet-strength improvements because of enhanced dextran−fiber bond formation compared with that occurring at neutral or alkaline pH. This result was explained by an equilibration process at low pH that allows dextran−dextran bonds to be converted to dextran−fiber bonds. Wet-strength improvements slowly disappeared with rewetting time as a result of the hydrolysis of acetal and hemiacetal dextran−fiber bonds. The hydrolysis rates were fastest at low pH.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".