Some Practical Aspects of Nanocellulose Film: Characterization, Expansion and Shrinking Tests, and Techniques to Create Remoistenable Nanocellulose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microfibrillated cellulose (MFC), commonly referred to as nanocellulose, is an emerging conservation material with significant potential for application in a wide range of conservation treatments. Due to its properties of transparency and mechanical strength, nanocellulose film offers novel potential when thin tissues may not be suitable. However, when water or aqueous adhesives are applied to nanocellulose, it loses stability and becomes pulpy, making practical use problematic. Additionally, nanocellulose film can shrink upon drying, causing planar deformation. For these reasons, adhesives used with nanocellulose are limited in published treatments to date. The nanocellulose film used in this study was characterized and expansion and shrinking tests were conducted to better understand how nanocellulose film reacts when water and ethanol are introduced. The potential of using nanocellulose film in a remoistenable form is also explored. Results found that nanocellulose film behaved differently than Japanese tissue when water was introduced. While each expanded when water was introduced, the nanocellulose film shrunk 11 % from its initial size when dry, whereas the Japanese tissue returned to its initial size. Practical techniques are recommended to create remoistenable nanocellulose film with a selection of adhesives. Notably, remoistenable nanocellulose films created with methylcellulose and gelatine showed promising initial results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".