ArticlePolymers2024
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cellulose-Based Surfactants in Expandable Graphite Wood Coatings.
Article in Polymers, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study deals with the design of modern environmentally friendly and non-toxic flame retardants based on expandable graphite 25 K + 180 (EG) modified by cellulose ethers (Lovose TS 20, Tylose MH 300, Klucel H) and nanocellulose (CNC) that are biocompatible with wood and, therefore, are a prerequisite for an effective surfactant for connecting EG to wood. The effectiveness of the formulations and surfactants was verified using a radiant heat source test. The cohesion of the coating to the wood surface and the cohesion of the expanded graphite layer were also assessed. The fire efficiency of the surfactants varied greatly. Still, in combination with EG, they were all able to provide sufficient protection-the total relative mass loss was, in all cases, in the range of 7.38-7.83% (for untreated wood it was 88.67 ± 1.33%), and the maximum relative burning rate decreased tenfold compared to untreated wood, i.e., to 0.04-0.05%·s
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.