MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392862230 · doi:10.3390/polym16060814

Effect of Iron Chloride Addition on Softwood Lignin Nano-Fiber Stabilization and Carbonization

2024· article· en· W4392862230 on OpenAlexafffund
Maxime Parot, Denis Rodrigue, Tatjana Stevanović

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOrganosolvLigninCarbonizationSoftwoodMaterials scienceElectrospinningChemical engineeringNanofiberChlorideFiberComposite materialChemistryOrganic chemistryPolymerScanning electron microscope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents the effect of iron chloride addition on the production of nanocarbon fibers from softwood Organosolv lignin. It was shown that adding 2% FeCl3 to the lignin solution before electrospinning to produce lignin nanofibers increased the thermal resistance of lignin fibers during stabilization. FTIR and XPS analyses of the lignin fibers stabilized with and without FeCl3 revealed that the temperature rate could be increased in the presence of FeCl3 from 1 to 3 °C/min. The optimal temperature to stabilize the lignin fibers was found to be 250 °C, as higher temperatures led to thermal degradation. Also, carbon fibers were successfully produced from pure softwood Organosolv lignin fibers. Carbonization tests were conducted under nitrogen and the best parameters were determined to be a ramp of 10 °C/min until 600 °C with a holding time of 2 h. Furthermore, the effect of 2% FeCl3 addition in the lignin solution was investigated during these processes. XPS analysis showed a 93% carbon content for fibers carbonized with and without FeCl3 addition, while SEM images revealed some surface roughness in fibers with FeCl3 after carbonization. These results confirm that FeCl3 addition influences the carbon nanofiber production.

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)0.000
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymersSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207