Valorization of wood pulp to mechanically strong and biodegradable packaging foams by wet foaming process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research focuses on developing environmentally friendly, biodegradable foams as alternatives to traditional petroleum-based materials like polyurethane and expanded polystyrene (EPS). Utilizing pulp and lignin through a cost-effective method, the study optimized factors such as sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) concentration, lignin content, and foaming time to achieve desirable mechanical properties and porosity. The box-behnken design identified optimal samples with varied characteristics, including densities from 0.013 g/cm³ to 0.077 g/cm³ and porosities from 95.2% to 99.2%. The introduction of lignin improved foam strength, with compression pressures ranging from 37.5 to 379 kPa. Additionally, the impact of chitosan on porosity, strength, and water resistance was examined. Incorporating 20 wt.% of chitosan enhanced strength by 4% and reduced water absorption by 60%. Over three months, the biodegradable foams displayed significant degradation, introducing them as sustainable alternatives to EPS for diverse applications like 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".