Optimizing cellulose fibrillation for the production of cellulose nanofibrils by a disk grinder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The fibrillation of a bleached kraft eucalyptus pulp was investigated by means of a laboratory-scale disk grinder for the production of cellulose nanofibrils (CNF), while the parameters disk rotating speed, solid loading, and fibrillation duration were varied. The cumulative energy consumption was monitored during fibrillation. The degree of polymerization (DP) and water retention value (WRV) of the resultant cellulose fibrils were determined as measures of the degree of fibrillation, which was also visualized by scanning electron microscopy, field emission-scanning electron microscopy, and transmission electron microscopy imaging. A higher rotating speed than 1500 rpm did not improve the fibrillation judged by DP and WRV measurements. Solid loading has an insignificant effect on fibrillation in a wide range. The energy consumption (E) was determined as a function of the DP and WRV. The optimal grinding conditions were between 1200 and 1500 rpm at 2.0%–2.2% solid loading.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".