Utilizing the biomass waste for the production of cellulose aerogel beads and tailoring their properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomass waste can be utilized for the cellulose aerogel production. 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. The good quality cellulose was extracted by hydrolyzing the raw material using alkali hydroxide and hydrogen peroxide. The cellulose solution was prepared by using commercial cellulose in a mixture of NaOH, urea, and water as solvent.1 Aerogel beads were produced by conventional dropping technique, washing, solvent exchange and supercritical drying. The aerogel properties were compared with the classical cellulose aerogel beads which were prepared from commercial grade cellulose. We have been investigating the use of weak organic acids as coagulants to tailor the properties of cellulose aerogel beads.2 Three weak acids, acetic acid, lactic acid, and citric acid, and a strong acid, hydrochloric acid, were chosen as regeneration baths. 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. Reference 1. Budtova T., and Navard P., Cellulose, 23(1), 5-55, 2015. 2. Costa D., Milow B., and Ganesan K., Chem. Eur. J., 30(51), e202401794, 2024.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".