Effect of incubation conditions of cellulase hydrolysis on mechanical pulp fibre morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanical pulp industry is diversifying through the manufacture of high-value paper products, such as microfibrillated cellulose. However, the development of fibre quality is still energy-intensive. Enzymatic hydrolysis is hypothesized to promote fibre cutting, greater fibrillation, and reduce refining energy costs. Despite potential benefits, there is little understanding of the mechanisms behind fibre development during enzymatic hydrolysis of mechanical pulp. This work investigates how incubation pH and temperature during enzymatic hydrolysis impact the refining of mechanical pulp short fibres. Incubation with endoglucanase at pH 5 and 60 °C increased fibre cutting by approximately 20 %. Fibrillation was negatively affected at this condition, resulting in increased slim fines formation with refining. Incubation at pH 8 and 80 °C promoted >15 % reduction in fibre length, despite such conditions being associated with low enzyme activity. The pH variation modified the sedimentation height of the fibres and the conductivity of suspensions, indicating a change in fibre surface charge. Fibre morphology changes were induced by enzyme hydrolysis conducted at conditions representative of the full range of pH and temperature observed in mechanical pulp mills.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".