Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32116331›Full record

ArticleAnalytical letters2019

Contactless Resonant Cavity Dielectric Spectroscopic Studies of Cellulosic Paper Aging.

Mary Kombolias, Jan Obrzut, Michael T Postek, Dianne L Poster, Yaw S Obeng

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical letters, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mary KomboliasTesting and Technical Services, Plant Operations, United States Government Publishing Office, Northwest, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7867-3825
Jan ObrzutMaterials Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Michael T PostekUniversity of South Florida, College of Pharmacy, Tampa, FL, USA.
Dianne L PosterMaterials Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Yaw S ObengPhysical Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
National Institute of Standards and Technology · USUnited States Government Publishing Office · USUniversity of South Florida · US

Funding

Intramural NIST DOC 9999-NIST
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current analytical techniques for characterizing printing and graphic arts substrates, particularly those used to date and authenticate provenance, are destructive. This limits the amount of data that can be captured from an individual sample. For samples being evaluated in forensic and archeological investigations, any loss or degradation of the materials is undesirable. Furthermore, it is difficult to produce statistically relevant data for such analytes. We have shown elsewhere that a contactless microwave resonant cavity dielectric spectroscopy technique can discriminate between paper samples made from different plant fiber species based on their lignin content. In this publication, we demonstrate the utility of the contactless resonant cavity dielectric spectroscopy (RCDS) technique in the characterization of naturally and artificially aged paper samples. Based on our experimental results, we suggest that the technique could be used in forensic and archeological investigations of unique paper products.

Indexed as

cellulosecellulose degradationFiber analysisnondestructivepaperrelative age of paperresonant cavity dielectric spectroscopywriting and graphics arts substrates

Identifiers

PMID32116331
PMCPMC7047761
OpenAlexW2971171841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.