Aqueous-Cellulose-Solvent-Derived Changes in Cellulose Nanocrystal Structure and Reinforcing Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cellulose nanocrystals as reinforcing agents have received considerable interest, and their dimension mainly depends on the original sources of cellulose. We intend to manually modulate the morphology of cellulose nanocrystals by treating them with cellulose solvents so that we can explore their reinforcing capacity. In this work, waste cotton fabric was processed in two aqueous solvents (a sulfuric acid aqueous solution and a NaOH/urea aqueous solution), and the regenerated cellulose was used to produce cellulose nanocrystals using acid hydrolysis. The results revealed that the nanocrystals (RCNC-H) obtained after the treatment in sulfuric acid had a hybrid crystalline structure and a needle-like shape with an aspect ratio of about 15.2, while cotton fabric was completely dissolved in the NaOH/urea aqueous solution, and the regenerated nanocrystals (RCNC-N) displayed a typical crystalline form of cellulose II with a higher crystallinity and a shorter rod-like shape with an aspect ratio of about 6.3. The reinforcing effects of RCNC-H and RCNC-N were evaluated using polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) films as a model, where the addition of RCNC-H resulted in a relatively better tensile strength and oxygen barrier property, and the PVA/RCNC-N films had a slightly lower water vapor permeability. Therefore, this work suggests a new possibility for altering the naturally formed nanostructure of cellulose for different 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".