The comparison of the properties of nanocellulose isolated from colonial and solitary marine tunicates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the first comparative of tunicate cellulose nanocrystalline (t-CNC) from colonial and solitary tunicates. The t-CNC from the colonial tunicate Eudistoma sp. (CL1) was compared with solitary tunicates Polycarpa reniformis (CL2) and Phallusia nigra (CL3). Tunicate samples were extracted by methanol. Residues from the methanol extraction were then subjected to further cellulose purification using pre-hydrolysis, kraft-cooking, bleaching, and sulfuric acid hydrolysis to yield t-CNC. The solitary tunicates yielded higher microfibril contents after the bleaching step but obtained similar t-CNC content to the colonial one after acid hydrolysis. The isolated t-CNC were characterized using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, thermalgravimetric analysis, and transmission electron microscopy. Both colonial and solitary tunicates yielded cellulose type I. The pure cellulose type I was successfully isolated from solitary tunicates whereas high inorganic impurities were observed in colonial tunicates. The isolate t-CNC showed high aspect ratios. The solitary and colonial tunicates provided t-CNC with crystallinity indexes over 97% and 35%, respectively. The crystalline size of t-CNCs ranged from 55-124 Å. The thermal stability of all isolated t-CNC was slightly decreased due to the sulfate functional groups gained after acid hydrolysis. We concluded that solitary tunicates were better than colonial tunicates as a source of t-CNC preparation.
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".