Chitosan microgels obtained by on-chip crosslinking reaction employing a microfluidic device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the present work, we report on the preparation of microgels of chitosan crosslinked with sodium tripolyphosphate (TPP) employing the microfluidics technique (MF). To achieve this, several flow focusing geometries were designed and tested. As a first step, a two-inlet flow focusing geometry was employed to emulsify chitosan and the crosslinking reaction was carried out offchip. This procedure did not allow separating the resulting chitosan microgels due to an incomplete crosslinking reaction. A crosslinking reaction on-chip was studied as an alternative. A four-inlet flow focusing geometrywas designed in which three dispersed phases, chitosan 0.25% (w/v), TPP 0.05% (w/v) and acetic acid 1% (v/v) and an continuous phase mineral oil + Span 80 (3% w/v) were employed. The flow rates for the continuous phase were varied from 6.7 to 11.7 μL/min and chitosan microgels were successfully obtained with average diameters from 68 to 42 μm. The average size of the microgels outside the MF device decreased up to ~21% with respect to their size inside the MF device due to partial expulsion of water from the microgels when complete gelation occurred.
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".