Preparation and Characterization of Softwood and Hardwood Nanofibril Hydrogels: Toward Wound Dressing Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Hydrogels of cellulose nanofibrils (CNFs) are promising wound dressing candidates due to their biocompatibility, high water absorption, and transparency. Herein, two different commercially available wood species, softwood and hardwood, were subjected to TEMPO-mediated oxidation to proceed with delignification and oxidation in a one-pot process, and thereafter, nanofibrils were isolated using a high-pressure microfluidizer. Furthermore, transparent nanofibril hydrogel networks were prepared by vacuum filtration. Nanofibril properties and network performance correlated with oxidation were investigated and compared with commercially available TEMPO-oxidized pulp nanofibrils and their networks. Softwood nanofibril hydrogel networks exhibited the best mechanical properties, and in vitro toxicological risk assessment showed no detrimental effect for any of the studied hydrogels on human fibroblast or keratinocyte cells. This study demonstrates a straightforward processing route for direct oxidation of different wood species to obtain nanofibril hydrogels for potential use as wound dressings, with softwood having the most potential.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".