Influence of Surfactants on the Rheological Behavior of Nanocrystal Suspension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of surfactants on the steady shear rheology of cellulose nanocrystal (referred to as NCC) suspension was investigated. Two surfactants, anionic sodium lauryl sulfate (referred to as Stepanol) and cationic hexadecyltrimethylammonium bromide (referred to as HTAB), were studied. The NCC concentration was fixed at 1 wt%. The surfactant concentration varied from 0 to 500 ppm. The influence of Stepanol was found to be weak whereas HTAB had a strong influence on the rheology of NCC suspension. The NCC suspension and surfactant-NCC suspensions were highly non-Newtonian shear-thinning. The power-law model described the rheological behavior of NCC suspension and surfactant-NCC suspensions adequately. The consistency and flow behavior indices varied only marginally with the addition of anionic surfactant Stepanol to NCC suspension. With the addition of cationic surfactant HTAB to NCC suspension, however, a large increase in consistency index was observed. The flow behavior index decreased simultaneously with the addition of HTAB to NCC suspension.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".