Comparison of various solvents for determination of intrinsic viscosity and viscometric constants for cellulose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Different solvents used to determine the intrinsic viscosity and the viscometic constants, a and K, published in the literature for cellulose, were compared. The various parameters affecting the viscometric constants were also evaluated. The main conclusions obtained from the experimental data available in the literature are that (1) the intrinsic viscosities in various solvents are ordered as follows: [η]LiCl/DMAc > [η]NH3/NH4SCN ≥ [η]FeTNa > [η]CED > [η]Cadoxen > [η]Cuoxam; (2) the reported intrinsic viscosities and molecular weights for cellulose are lower than the true value due to degradation of cellulose in the solvents; (3) the rate of degradation was the smallest in LiCl/DMAc and NH3/NH4SCN, moderate in cadoexn and FeTNa, and the highest in CED and cuoxam; (4) the plot of log K versus exponent a was linear and inversely related; (5) the curve was used for estimation of the constant K for cellulose in a solvent (NH3/NH4SCN) with a known exponent a; and (6) among various reported solvents, LiCl/DMAc and NH3/NH4SCN are advantageous over other solvents because of a complete dissolution of the polymer with a negligible reduction in its intrinsic viscosity. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 86: 2189–2193, 2002
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".