Study of the Effect of Grafting Method on Surface Polarity of Tempo-Oxidized Nanocellulose Using Polycaprolactone as the Modifying Compound: Esterification versus Click-Chemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esterification and click-chemistry were evaluated as surface modification treatments for TEMPO-oxidized nanocelluloses (TONC) using Polycaprolactone-diol (PCL) as modifying compound in order to improve the dispersion of nanofibers in organic media. These two grafting strategies were analyzed and compared. The first consists of grafting directly the PCL onto TONC, and was carried out by esterification between hydroxyl groups of PCL and carboxyl groups of TONC. The second strategy known as click-chemistry is based on the 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition reaction between azides and alkyne terminated moieties to form the triazole ring between PCL and TONC. The grafted samples were characterized by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and Thermogravimetry analysis (TGA). Further, the effects of the two treatments on the surface hydrophobization of TONC were investigated by contact angle measurements. The results show that both methods confirm the success of such a modification and the click reaction was significantly more effective than esterification.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".