Nanocrystalline Cellulose from Microcrystalline Cellulose of Date Palm Fibers as a Promising Candidate for Bio-Nanocomposites: Isolation and Characterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L.) is a natural biopolymer rich in lignocellulosic components. Its high cellulose content lends them to the extraction of tiny particles like microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) and nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC). These cellulose-derived small size particles can be used as an alternative biomaterial in wide fields of application due to their renewability and sustainability. In the present work, NCC (A) and NCC (B) were isolated from date palm MCC at 60 min and 90 min hydrolysis times, respectively. The isolated NCC product was subjected to characterization to study their properties differences. With the hydrolysis treatment, the yields of produced NCC could be attained at between 22% and 25%. The infrared-ray functional analysis also revealed the isolated NCC possessed a highly exposed cellulose compartment with minimized lignoresidues of lignin and hemicellulose. From morphology evaluation, the nanoparticles' size was decreased gradually from NCC (A) (7.51 nm width, 139.91 nm length) to NCC (B) (4.34 nm width, 111.51 nm length) as a result of fragmentation into cellulose fibrils. The crystallinity index was found increasing from NCC (A) to NCC (B). With 90 min hydrolysis time, NCC (B) showed the highest crystallinity index of 71% due to its great cellulose rigidity. For thermal analysis, NCC (B) also exhibited stable heat resistance, in associating with its highly crystalline cellulose structure. In conclusion, the NCC isolated from date palm MCC would be a promising biomaterial for various applications such as biomedical and food packaging applications.
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".