MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797658049 · doi:10.3390/molecules23040868

Production of Flocculants, Adsorbents, and Dispersants from Lignin

2018· review· en· W2797658049 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiachuan Chen, Armin Eraghi Kazzaz, Niloofar Alipoormazandarani, Zahra Hosseinpour Feizi, Pedram Fatehi

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsNorthern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation
KeywordsDispersantLigninFlocculationAdsorptionPulp and paper industryWaste managementChemistryOrganic chemistryDispersion (optics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, lignin is mainly produced in pulping processes, but it is considered as an under-utilized chemical since it is being mainly used as a fuel source. Lignin contains many hydroxyl groups that can participate in chemical reactions to produce value-added products. Flocculants, adsorbents, and dispersants have a wide range of applications in industry, but they are mainly oil-based chemicals and expensive. This paper reviews the pathways to produce water soluble lignin-based flocculants, adsorbents, and dispersants. It provides information on the recent progress in the possible use of these lignin-based flocculants, adsorbents, and dispersants. It also critically discusses the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches to produce such products. The challenges present in the production of lignin-based flocculants, adsorbents, and dispersants and possible scenarios to overcome these challenges for commercial use of these products in industry are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations111
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207