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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".