Characterization of Cellulose Nanofiber Made from Red Algae Bleached Pulp Using Microgrinder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the feasibility of using red algae bleached pulp (RaBP) as a raw material for manufacturing cellulose nanofibers (CNFs) via mechanical treatment.Hardwood bleached kraft pulp (HwBKP) and softwood bleached kraft pulp were used as controls.The physical properties of each pulp were assessed through morphological analysis, fiber length and width measurements, initial freeness, and degree of polymerization (DP).Among the pulps characterized, RaBP exhibited the shortest fiber length and smallest width, along with a high initial freeness of 93 mL Canadian Standard Freeness (CSF), eliminating the need for beating or refining before CNF production.CNFs were prepared from RaBP and HwBKP using a microgrinder, and the characteristics of the resulting CNFs-referred to as RaCNFs and HwCNFs, respectivelywere compared.As the number of grinding passes increased from 1 to 5, the particlesize and fiber width of RaCNFs and HwCNFs decreased, while their low-shear viscosity increased.RaCNFs exhibited smaller fiber dimensions but lower low-shear viscosity than HwCNFs, a difference attributed to the lower DP of RaBP.RaCNFs and HwCNFs exhibited negative zeta potentials, indicating stable dispersion.Overall, RaBP is a promising and efficient raw material for CNF production.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".