MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411748295 · doi:10.6000/1929-5995.2025.14.07

Crosslinking of Hardwood Lignin with Citric Acid for Sustainable Wood Adhesives

2025· article· en· W4411748295 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ega Cyntia Watumlawar, Byung‐Dae Park

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research Updates in Polymer Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKyungpook National University
KeywordsHardwoodLigninMaterials scienceAdhesiveCitric acidPulp and paper industryComposite materialPolymer scienceOrganic chemistryBotanyEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The toxicity of petroleum-based crosslinkers raises health and environmental concerns, prompting interest in bio-based alternatives. This study reports the facile crosslinking of hardwood lignin (HWL) with citric acid (CA) as a bio-crosslinker for application as a lignin-based wood adhesive. HWL is characterized by GPC and DSC to determine its molecular weight and glass transition temperature, respectively. The successful crosslinking and esterification reactions of the HWL-CA-based resin are confirmed by the exothermic peaks observed in the DSC thermogram and by FT-IR analysis. The HWL-based adhesives with various proportions of CA meet the Korean standard shear strength requirement of 0.60 MPa, with 12% CA (HWL-CA12) giving the maximum value of 1.07 MPa. The successful surface modification of the veneer pre-treatment with CA is also confirmed by FT-IR analysis. Although the adhesive strength of the HWL-CA12 is decreased on the pre-treated veneer relative to the untreated veneer, it remains above the standard requirement on the veneers that were treated with 10% and 15% of CA. These findings demonstrate the potential of CA-crosslinked lignin as a sustainable alternative to petroleum-based wood adhesives.

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)0.002
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research Updates in Polymer ScienceSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207