Electrospinning of Sodium Alginate‐Pectin Ultrafine Fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the electrospinning process of sodium alginate-pectin fibers intended to be used as a carrier for stabilizing folic acid. Fiber-forming solutions containing 0.01% (w/w) folic acid were prepared by blending low- or medium-viscosity sodium alginate with pectin in a 70 : 30 ratio to form LSAP and MSAP solutions, respectively. Similar to other polysaccharide polymers reported previously, these solutions could not be electrospun. However, the incorporation of poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) effectively enabled the electrospinning process. Electrospun fibers of different morphologies, ranging from fiber to fiber-bead, were obtained, depending on the blend ratio, concentration, and viscosity of the polymer-PEO solution used. Fibers electrospun from 3% MSAP/PEO (80%/20% w/w) had the smallest diameter (about 40 nm), whereas fibers containing higher PEO contents were larger in diameter. Bead-free fibers were formed when 4% LSAP/PEO (50/50) and 5% LSAP/PEO (80/20 to 50/50) were electrospun. The electrical conductivity and surface tension lowering effects of PEO on the polymer solution were likely the contributing factors for the observed electrospinning behaviors. By adjusting the formulation of the polymer solution, fibers of various morphologies may be obtained to suit different end-use applications. A study is currently ongoing to investigate the effectiveness of these fibers for stabilizing folic acid.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".