ArticlePloS one2023
Effect of decoration route on the nanomechanical, adhesive, and force response of nanocelluloses-An in situ force spectroscopy study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although cellulose derivatives are widely applied in high-tech materials, the relation between their force responses and their surface chemical properties in a biological environment as a function of pH is unknown. Here, interaction forces of surface modified cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs), lignin residual cellulose nanocrystals (LCNCs), and 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidine-1-oxyl radical (TEMPO)-oxidized cellulose nanofibres (TCNFs) with OSO3-, COO- and lignin chemical groups were measured using in situ peak force quantitative nanomechanical mapping and force spectroscopy in salt solution at two pH values. We found that the forces acting between the tip and CNC or LCNC are steric dominated showing long range and slow decay as a result of their low surface charge density. High Mw lignin contributed to the increased repulsion range for LCNCs compared to CNCs. The repulsion measured for TCNFs at the very short range was electrostatic force dominating showing a steep decay attributed to its high surface charge density. In the case of TCNFs, electrostatic double layer force was also evidenced by the attraction measured at secondary minima. In all the three cases the electro steric interactions are pH dependent. Dissipation maps verified that the force behavior for each material was related to structural conformation restriction of the groups at compression. The slow decayed repulsion of CNCs or LCNCs is related to a weak restriction of conformational change due to small surface groups or high molecular weight bound polymers forming flat layers, whereas the steep repulsion of TCNFs is attributed to a strong conformation restriction of carboxylic groups occurred by forming extended structure. Our results suggest that the force responses of the materials were dominated by surface charges and structural differences. TCNFs showed superior nanomechanical and repulsion properties over CNCs or LCNCs at neutral pH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.