ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing the impact of chemo-mechanical and soxhlet extraction techniques on cellulose nanofiber characteristics.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The extraction of cellulose nanofibers (CNFs) from lignocellulosic biomass provides a sustainable alternative to synthetic materials due to their biodegradability, mechanical strength, and environmental compatibility. However, conventional extraction methods are often affected by high chemical consumption, energy intensity, and limited scalability. This study presents a comparative and optimized approach for the sustainable extraction of CNFs using two distinct methods, including chemo-mechanical treatment and Soxhlet extraction, applied to sugarcane bagasse and eucalyptus bark. Unlike previous studies, this work systematically compares both methods under controlled conditions to evaluate their efficiency, fiber integrity, and environmental impact. The extracted CNFs were characterized using X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), dynamic light scattering (DLS), and zeta potential analysis. The FTIR spectra confirmed the presence of C-O-C fundamental vibrational stretching of cellulose and effective removal of non-cellulosic components such as lignin and hemicellulose. XRD results displayed the moderate crystalline nature of the extracted cellulose, with variation in intensity attributed to extraction technique and biomass type. Zeta potential analysis showed that CNFs extracted from eucalyptus bark via Soxhlet extraction exhibited superior colloidal stability (-32.5 mV), while those from sugarcane bagasse through chemo-mechanical treatment showed lower stability (-15.3 mV). These findings offer new insights into the method-material interaction and highlight the Soxhlet extraction route as more effective in producing stable, high-purity nanofibers. The protocols can be vital in reducing production costs and chemical utilization, enhancing material performance, and enabling large-scale application in packaging and biomedical industries.
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.