MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409908052 · doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2025.121078

Fabricating lignin-derived flocculants – A review

2025· review· en· W4409908052 on OpenAlexafffund
Weijue Gao, Weibing Wu, Pedram Fatehi

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Crops and Products · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsLigninFlocculationPolymer scienceChemistryPulp and paper industryBiotechnologyBiologyOrganic chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rising water crisis and challenges associated with the use of petrochemicals have resulted in an increased interest in using renewable biopolymer-based materials for decontaminating water and wastewater effluents. Lignin is the second most abundant natural polymer that is produced in large quantities in the pulping and biorefinery industries. Lignin has received a great deal of attention in the last decades for developing lignin-based polymers as effective coagulants and flocculants. This review paper provides a comprehensive overview of the primary research conducted to develop different types of lignin-based flocculants for treating colloidal suspensions and solutions in single and dual polymer systems. The modification strategies, including sulfonation, oxidation , Mannich, carboxymethylation, graft copolymerization , and crosslinking, are reviewed as strategies for altering the physicochemical characteristics of technical lignins for mimicking flocculants. Moreover, the benefits, challenges, and future opportunities related to the preparation and employment of lignin-based flocculants are also discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial Crops and ProductsSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207