Chemical characteristics of thermo-hydrolytically recycled particles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Particles from waste laminated particleboards were recovered using various thermo-hydrolytic treatments. The size distribution and three main chemical properties, such as pH, buffer capacity, and nitrogen content of the control and resulting particles were determined. The effects of treatment temperature and duration on the chemical properties of recycled particles were investigated. The effects of the resulting particles on the gel time of urea-formaldehyde (UF) resin were also measured. The test results suggested that the pH of particles after hot water soaking pre-treatment and the different thermo-hydrolytic treatments increased to different extents, with the exception of the particles treated at 140 °C for 50 min and 160 °C for 20 min. The acid buffer capacity and base buffer capacity of particles treated at 140 °C for 50 min and 160 °C for 20 min had no statistical difference, but they were much higher than those of other types of treated particles. A high treatment temperature facilitated the decomposition of wood polymers and UF resin. Both temperature and treatment duration had significant effects on pH, acid buffer capacity, and base buffer capacity of wood particles. Wood particles recycled at a high temperature had a negative effect on the gel time of UF resin.
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 | 0.001 | 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".