Randomly Oriented Strand Board Composites from Nanoengineered Protein-Based Wood Adhesive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A nanoengineered canola protein adhesive (CPA) with improved adhesion and water resistance was previously developed by chemically modifying canola protein with ammonium persulfate followed by exfoliating graphite oxide nanoparticles. The objectives of this research were to prepare randomly oriented strand board (ROSB) composites using nanoengineered canola protein adhesive at pilot scale and to characterize the adhesive and mechanical properties of ROSB panels. Six groups of ROSB panels were produced by replacing commercial liquid phenol formaldehyde (LPF) with CPA at levels of 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 100%. The mechanical and water resistance properties were tested according to ASTM D1037-12 and CSA O437.0-93 standard specifications. The mechanical performances, bond durability, and water resistance were not affected by CPA addition up to a level of 40%, compared to commercial LPF adhesives. Mechanical performance of all ROSB panels prepared in this study exceeded the acceptable minimum standards specified by CSA O437.0-93 standards. Canola-based adhesive can be used in commercial ROSB production, either as 100% resin for interior application or up to 40% replacement of LPF for exterior application.
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) | 0.001 | 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".