Self-Assembled and Cross-Linked Animal and Plant-Based Polysaccharides: Chitosan–Cellulose Composites and Their Anion Uptake Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-assembled and cross-linked chitosan/cellulose glutaraldehyde composite materials (CGC) were prepared with enhanced surface area and variable morphology. FTIR, CHN, and 13 C solid state NMR studies provided support for the cross-linking reaction between the amine groups of chitosan and glutaraldehyde; whereas, XRD and TGA studies provided evidence of cellulose–chitosan interactions for the composites. SEM, equilibrium swelling, and nitrogen adsorption studies corroborate the enhanced surface area and variable morphology of the cross-linked biopolymers. Equilibrium sorption studies at alkaline conditions with phenolic dyes, along with single component and mixed naphthenates in aqueous solution revealed variable uptake properties with the composites. The Freundlich isotherm model revealed that the composite at the highest levels of cross-linker, CGC3, had the highest sorption affinity ( K F; L mmol/g) for phenolphthalein (phth) followed by ortho -nitrophenyl acetic acid (ONPAA) and para -nitrophenol (PNP), as follows: Phth (5.03 × 10 –1 ) > ONPAA (2.28 × 10 –1 ) > PNP (8.49 × 10 –2 ). The Sips isotherm model provided a good description of the sorption profile of single component and naphthenate mixtures. The monolayer uptake capacity ( Q m; mg g –1 ) is given in parentheses: 2-hexyldecanoic acid (S1; 115 mg/g) > 2-naphthoxyacetic acid (S3; 40.5 mg/g) > trans -4-pentylcyclohexylcarboxylic acid (S2; 13.7 mg/g). By comparison, the Q m values for CGC3 with naphthenate mixtures (24.1 and 27.4 mg/g) according to UV spectroscopy and electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-HRMS). The sorbent materials generally show greater uptake with naphthenates that possess lower vs higher double bond equivalence (DBE) values. Kinetic studies revealed that the sorption of phth adopted behavior described by the pseudo-second order model, while uptake for S3 and naphthenate mixtures adopted pseudo-first order behavior. This study contributes to a greater understanding of the sorption properties of the two types of abundant biopolymers and their composites by illustrating their tunable sorption properties. The key role of hydrophobic interactions for CGC materials was evidenced by the controlled sorptive uptake of carboxylate anions with variable molecular structure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".