Synthesis and Characterization of Phenol Formaldehyde Novolac Resin Derived from Liquefied Mountain Pine Beetle Infested Lodgepole Pine Barks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, mountain pine beetle (MPB, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) infested lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.) barks are liquefied in phenol using either sulfuric acid or hydrochloric acid as the catalyst and two types of bark‐based phenol‐formaldehyde novolac resins, namely liquefied bark‐novolac resin S and liquefied bark‐novolac resin C are synthesized using the liquefied bark fractions. Compared to using hydrochloric acid in bark liquefaction, sulfuric acid catalyzed bark liquefaction reveals a higher liquefaction yield with a lower free phenol content and a higher molecular weight in the liquefied bark fraction. Liquefied bark‐novolac resins are found to have higher molecular weights, higher curing activation energies, and faster curing rates than the lab‐made control resins without bark components. The uncured liquefied bark‐novolac resins have higher thermal stability than the uncured lab‐made control resins. After curing with hexamethylenetetramine (HMTA), liquefied bark‐novolac resins show a similar post‐cured thermal stability to the lab‐made control resins. The findings suggest that the liquefied barks from MPB infested lodgepole pine are suitable for synthesizing novolac resins.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".