Cellulose-based dispersants and flocculants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural dispersants and flocculants, often referred to as dispersion stabilizers and liquid-solid separators, respectively, have secured a promising role in the bioprocessing community. They have various applications, including in biomedicine and in environmental remediation. A large fraction of existing dispersants and flocculants are synthesized from non-safe chemical compounds such as polyacrylamide and surfactants. Despite numerous advantages of synthetic dispersants and flocculants, issues such as renewability, sustainability, biocompatibility, and cost efficiency have shifted attention towards natural homologues, in particular, cellulose-based ones. Within the past decade, cellulose derivatives, obtained via chemical and mechanical treatments of cellulose fibrils, have successfully been used for these purposes. In this review article, by dividing the functional cellulosic compounds into "polymeric" and "nanoscale" categories, we provide insight into the engineering pathways, the structural frameworks, and surface chemistry of these "green" types of dispersants and flocculants. A summary of their efficiency and the controlling parameters is also accompanied by recent advances in their applications in each section. We are confident that the emergence of cellulose-based dispersing and flocculating agents will extend the boundaries of sustainable green technology.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".