Effect of nanofillers on carboxymethyl cellulose/hydroxyethyl cellulose hydrogels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effect of hydrophilic nanoparticles (oxidized cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) and montmorillonite nanoclay) on the properties of a sodium carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)/hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC) hydrogel system was investigated. Visually, the CNC reinforced cellulosic hydrogel‐composites were transparent over all CNC loadings, whereas those reinforced with organoclay were opaque even at low clay loadings despite the nanoparticles being well dispersed. Incorporation of CNC into the cellulosic hydrogels led to an increase in the compressive modulus of CNC‐hydrogel composites, but a corresponding decrease in the swelling ratio. However, the addition of CNCs enabled a reduction in the amount of cross‐linker required to obtain a given compressive modulus and swelling behavior. It was observed that the surface charge density of the CNCs had no significant effect on the compression modulus or swelling behavior of the CMC/HEC hydrogel composites. By contrast, the organoclay reinforced CMC/HEC hydrogels did not show any trend in compression modulus or swelling ratio with organoclay content. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2009
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".