Carboxylated cellulose nanofibril suspensions: Rheology and mesh size analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing environmental concerns have led to efforts to replace petroleum-based products with biodegradable and renewable materials.Cellulose nanofibrils (CNF), produced by disintegration of wood fibres, are promising for this purpose.Cellulose nanofibrils in suspension make three-dimensional networks and stiff gels which have a number of industrial applications, such as modifying the rheology of food, paint, and cosmetics, and biomedical applications such as drug delivery.In order to use CNF hydrogels in such applications, their viscoelastic properties and mesh structure must be studied in detail.In this research, we study the rheology of CNF suspensions in the dilute and semi-dilute regimes, investigate the effects of surface charge modification, interfibrillar bridging, and chemical cross-linking on their viscoelasticity, and analyse their mesh structure and porosity.The results show an extremely large primary electroviscous effect in CNF suspensions.In the dilute regime, increasing the ionic strength at first decreases the viscosity, due to decreasing the electric double layer thickness.A further increase in the ionic strength leads to an increase in viscosity, due to fibril aggregation.The transition happens when the double layer thickness κ -1 is comparable to the fibril diameter d, κd ∼ 1.In the semi-dilute regime, the elastic modulus of CNF suspensions is extremely concentration dependant.Increasing the fibril concentration increases the network stiffness and improves the recovery response after releasing the stress in creep-recovery tests.Screening the surface charge with low concentrations of cationic polyacrylamide or calcium ions increases the creep deformation.At higher additive concentrations, however, the creep 0.7% CNF hydrogel prepared with DAO.δ = 0.005 s, ∆ = 1.0055 s.The dashed line is a fit to equation 5.10, and the solid line is a fit to the proposed bimodal equation 5.15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 5-6 Diffusion quotients vs. R h .Solid line is a fit to equation 5.8, and the dashed line is a fit to equation 5.9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 5-7 C g values obtained using equation 5.15, vs. d h .The line is to guide the eye.93 xiii
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".