Mechanical Properties of Microspheres Assembled from Carboxylated Cellulose Nanocrystal Rods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The elastic modulus of carboxylated cellulose nanocrystal (cCNC) microbeads made by spray-drying were measured by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) combined with a 1 μm Si microsphere probe method. Use of a Si microsphere on the cantilever probe tip to measure deformations of cCNC microbeads is shown to eliminate spurious contributions from localized mechanical responses that plague conventional cantilever sharp probe tips. The findings are consistent with the Hertz model. The the Young’s modulus of cCNC microbeads depends on spray drying parameters. Spray drying from dilute cCNC suspensions yields particles with a Young’s modulus of 18.02 MPa. Higher cCNC feed concentrations yield denser particles characterized by an elastic modulus of 24.55 MPa. Doping dilute cCNC suspensions with citric acid results in aerosol-phase esterification and crosslinking of the cCNC microbeads. Crosslinking in this manner yields a stiffer microbead with a Young’s modulus of 27.97 MPa. cCNC-derived microbeads are stiffer than microbeads derived from collagen, hyaluronic acid, alginate, dextran or pectin, but they are more elastic than urethane-acrylate crosslinked beads, and cellulose beads reconstituted from dissolved cellulose by emulsion-precipitation.
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".