Electrospun cellulose acetate nanofibers for airborne nanoparticle filtration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reported in this paper are the effects of tip-to-collector distance, voltage, deposition time and solution concentration on the fiber size distribution and filter quality factor of electrospun cellulose acetate (CA)-based nanofibers. Nanofibrous filter samples were produced by electrospinning in a laboratory setting. The CA solutions were prepared by diluting various concentrations of CA in a 2:1 (w:w) ratio of N,N-dimethylacetamide (concentration 10–20 wt.%). The electrospinning voltages ranged from 8–12 kV, with distances from 10–15 cm and deposition times of up to 30 minutes. The produced nanofibrous filter samples were then analyzed in terms of fiber size distribution and filter quality factor using nanosized sodium chloride particles ranging from 4–240 nm in diameter. The maximum filtration efficiency measured was 99.8% for filter samples obtained with an overall deposition time of 30 minutes. The maximum filter quality factor was 0.14 Pa −1 for a CA concentration of 20 wt.% and a tip-to-collector distance of 15 cm. The average fiber diameters of the fibers were between 175 and 890 nm, and CA concentrations below 15% led to the formation of beads.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 it