ArticleNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Dimensions of Cellulose Nanocrystals from Cotton and Bacterial Cellulose: Comparison of Microscopy and Scattering Techniques.
Article in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cationization of Cellulose Nanocrystals with Ionic Liquids and Polymers: From Electrostatic Screening to Adsorption-Controlled Aggregation.Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2026Article
- Viscous Rheological Behavior of Nanosuspensions of Fumed Silica Nanoparticles and Cellulose Nanocrystals.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Cross-Linked Cellulose Nanocrystal Membranes with Cholesteric Assembly.Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Different microscopy and scattering methods used in the literature to determine the dimensions of cellulose nanocrystals derived from cotton and bacterial cellulose were compared to investigate potential bias and discrepancies. Atomic force microscopy (AFM), small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS), depolarized dynamic light scattering (DDLS), and static light scattering (SLS) were compared. The lengths, widths, and heights of the particles and their respective distributions were determined by AFM. In agreement with previous work, the CNCs were found to have a ribbon-like shape, regardless of the source of cellulose or the surface functional groups. Tip broadening and agglomeration of the particles during deposition cause AFM-derived lateral dimensions to be systematically larger those obtained from SAXS measurements. The radius of gyration determined by SLS showed a good correlation with the dimensions obtained by AFM. The hydrodynamic lateral dimensions determined by DDLS were found to have the same magnitude as either the width or height obtained from the other techniques; however, the precision of DDLS was limited due to the mismatch between the cylindrical model and the actual shape of the CNCs, and to constraints in the fitting procedure. Therefore, the combination of AFM and SAXS, or microscopy and small-angle scattering, is recommended for the most accurate determination of CNC dimensions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.