High-Yield Grafting of Carboxylated Polymers to Wood Pulp Fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Poly(ethylene-alt-maleic acid), PEMAc, is a linear polymer that, along with its isomer polyacrylic acid, has the highest carboxylic acid content of any polymer. The goal of this work was to elucidate the mechanisms that control the amount of PEMAc that is permanently fixed on pulp fibers after the impregnation of dry pulp with a dilute PEMAc solution followed by drying/heating (curing). Two mechanisms by which PEMAc is fixed to cellulose fibers were discovered, chemical, and physical fixation. With room temperature drying only physical fixation is operative. Evidence supports the explanation that physical fixation is a consequence of the slow swelling and dissolution of thick dried PEMAc deposits on fiber surfaces. Chemical fixation includes grafting to cellulose plus enhanced cohesion within thick PEMAc layers, possibly due to interchain crosslinking. The pH of the PEMAc impregnation solution determines the fixation mechanism for curing temperatures above 100 o C. Physical fixation dominates when pH > 8 whereas chemical fixation dominates for impregnation pH values < 7, suggesting the curing reactions require partial or complete protonation of the succinic acid moieties. The yield of impregnated polymer fixed to the fibers after washing depends upon the fixation mechanism. When chemical fixation dominates, the yields for low and high molecular weight PEMAc doses less than 0.1 meq/g (6.3 kg PEMA/tonne dry pulp) were close to or equaled 100%. By contrast, when the primary mechanism is physical fixation, yields are ~50% for high molecular weight PEMAc and 0-20% for low MW PEMAc. These results show that high PEMAc fixation yields can be achieved under curing conditions that could be implemented in pulp drying machines producing dry market pulp.
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) | 0.001 | 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".