Comparative study of CNC and CNF as additives in waterborne acrylate-based anti-corrosion coatings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nanocomposite coatings are of great interest as barrier coatings since synergy effects between matrix and additive properties can be achieved. This, however, requires favorable additive-matrix interactions to provide a strong interphase (interface region). In this work we elucidate the properties of two environmentally benign nanocomposite coatings based on a waterborne acrylate formulation with additives from renewable sources, i.e. either cellulose nanocrystals, CNC; or, alternatively, cellulose nanofibrils, CNF. We focus on the corrosion protective properties of these coatings and discuss the reason why the nanocomposite with CNC displays favorable corrosion protection properties whereas that with CNF does not. To this end we utilized scanning electron microscopy, water contact angle measurement, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy techniques to investigate the microstructure, surface wetting, interactions between cellulosic materials and matrix as well as corrosion protective properties of both composite coatings.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".