Nanocellulose Coating on Kraft Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paper is a biodegradable material, but in food packaging, its hygroscopicity and porosity can cause food contamination due to the exchange of gasses and liquids with the environment. Therefore, it is important to use biodegradable materials for paper coatings, such as nanocellulose, which is chemically compatible with paper but less hygroscopic. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nanofibrillated cellulose (NFC) as a paper coating. NFC produced from bleached eucalyptus pulp was used as a coating on kraft paper sheets produced from Pinus pulp. To prepare the coating, two thicknesses of wet nanocellulose (1 mm and 2 mm) were tested, and two nanocellulose films made with the same thicknesses were evaluated. The morphological, physical, mechanical, and thermal properties of the composites were investigated. The presence of NFC improved the surface of the paper by filling the pores; consequently, the density and barrier properties were also improved. All mechanical properties were improved, with the highest increases observed for bursting and tensile strength; however, the films showed low bursting index values and null values for the tearing index. The thermal stability of the paper with NFC coatings met the minimum requirements for food packaging.
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".