Upcycling of protein concentrates from industrial byproducts into polyurethane wood adhesives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood structures generally rely on synthetic adhesives for their strength and versatility. However, environmental concerns linked to the chemical composition of these adhesives have stimulated the search for more environmentally friendly adhesives. Researchers have explored replacing petroleum-based constituents with natural raw materials such as lignins, tannins, and proteins. Of these alternatives, proteins, being biological macromolecules, are recognized for their capacity to enhance adhesion to wood substrates. This study considered the development of protein-based adhesives derived from diverse sources, including soybean meal, microbrewery spent grains, shrimp shells, and skim milk powder. These raw materials were subjected to mild alkaline conditions to yield protein concentrates. The resulting adhesives were formulated at various protein content levels: 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%. The study’s findings showed that the incorporation of proteins into the polyurethane adhesive system not only can preserve but also augment adhesive performance. This enhancement encompasses deeper penetration into wood substrates and an overall improvement in mechanical strength. These results underscore the promise of proteins as a sustainable alternative to petroleum-based polyols in adhesive formulations.
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".