Solubility of Lignin and Acetylated Lignin in Organic Solvents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The solubility of four lignin samples and their acetylated forms was determined in a series of organic solvents to investigate the relationship between solubility and the solubility parameter. The solubility parameter of lignin samples and acetylated lignin was calculated based on the number of atoms or groups on lignin units. Lignin samples were obtained by isolating lignin from lignocellulosic bioethanol residues (Lignin 1 [L1]), isolating lignin from kraft hardwood black liquor (Lignin 2 [L2]), commercial kraft softwood lignin (Lignin 3 [L3]), and commercial soda non-wood lignin (Lignin 4 [4]). The solubility of lignin in organic solvents was not predictable due to poor correlation between the solubility of lignin and its solubility parameter. However, the solubility of lignin in an organic solvent depended on the molecular weight and the aliphatic hydroxyl number of the lignin. L2, with a lower molecular weight than other lignin samples, had the highest solubility in organic solvents, and L3, with highest aliphatic hydroxyl number, had the lowest solubility in organic solvents. All acetylated lignins were soluble in most of the organic solvents. Furthermore, the molecular weights of the soluble parts of all four lignins in ethyl acetate were found to be lower than the original lignins.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".