MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385379366 · doi:10.1007/s10570-023-05399-y

Lignin nanoparticles as co-stabilizers and modifiers of nanocellulose-based Pickering emulsions and foams

2023· article· en· W4385379366 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa B. Agustin, Neda Nematollahi, Mamata Bhattarai, Erfan Oliaei, Mari Lehtonen, Orlando J. Rojas, Kirsi S. Mikkonen

Bibliographic record

VenueCellulose · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEuropean Research CouncilAcademy of FinlandEuropean Commission
KeywordsNanocellulosePickering emulsionCreamingMaterials scienceFlocculationLigninNanoparticleChemical engineeringNanotechnologyPhase (matter)EmulsionCelluloseChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanocellulose is very hydrophilic, preventing interactions with the oil phase in Pickering emulsions. This limitation is herein addressed by incorporating lignin nanoparticles (LNPs) as co-stabilizers of nanocellulose-based Pickering emulsions. LNP addition decreases the oil droplet size and slows creaming at pH 5 and 8 and with increasing LNP content. Emulsification at pH 3 and LNP cationization lead to droplet flocculation and rapid creaming. LNP application for emulsification, prior or simultaneously with nanocellulose, favors stability given the improved interactions with the oil phase. The Pickering emulsions can be freeze-dried, enabling the recovery of a solid macroporous foam that can act as adsorbent for pharmaceutical pollutants. Overall, the properties of nanocellulose-based Pickering emulsions and foams can be tailored by LNP addition. This strategy offers a unique, green approach to stabilize biphasic systems using bio-based nanomaterials without tedious and costly modification procedures. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10570-023-05399-y.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCelluloseSame topicAdvanced Cellulose Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207