MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110593866

Impact of Weak Organic Acids as Coagulants on Tailoringthe Properties of Cellulose Aerogel Beads

2025· other· W7110593866 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venueelib (German Aerospace Center) · 2025
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerogelCelluloseRaw materialCitric acidPolysaccharideNanoporousHydrolysisHydrochloric acid
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cellulose is the most abundant polysaccharide on Earth and is well known for its renewability, biodegradability and chemical stability.1-2 We have been investigating the use of weak organic acids to tailor the properties of cellulose aerogel beads.3 The cellulose solution was prepared by using commercial cellulose in a mixture of NaOH, urea, and water as solvent.4 Three weak acids, acetic acid, lactic acid, and citric acid, and a strong acid, hydrochloric acid, were chosen as regeneration baths. The production of aerogel beads by conventional dropping technique was studied and optimized for each acid. The produced cellulose aerogels were characterized by nitrogen adsorption-desorption isotherm, BJH pore data analyses, density analyses, IR spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and X-ray powder diffractometry, and their properties were compared. In common, all the aerogel beads showed interconnected nanofibrillar network. The pore size distribution was highly influenced by the acids employed for regeneration. High concentration of weak acids contributed to low shrinkage, high specific surface area and high pore volume. In conclusion, this study showed an alternate path way to tailor the properties of cellulose aerogel beads. Furthermore, cellulose from biomass waste can be used for such products too. Thus, hemp and flax from Canadian suppliers were used as starting material. Within the presentation an overview on the production of cellulose aerogels from various raw materials working under different conditions will be presented. Reference 1. Wang S., Lu A., and Zhang L., Prog. Polym. Sci., 53, 169-206, 2016. 2. Wong L. C., Leh C. P., and Goh C. F., Carbohydr. Polym., 264, 118036, 2021. 3. Costa D., Milow B., and Ganesan K., Chem. Eur. J., 30(51), e202401794, 2024. 4. Budtova T., and Navard P., Cellulose, 23(1), 5-55, 2015.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.021

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueelib (German Aerospace Center)French-language works237,207