ArticleDiscover nano2026
Effects of processing on the nanostructure and properties of cellulose nanofibers derived from fresh flower stems and leaves.
Article in Discover nano, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The flower industry generates substantial amounts of stem and leaf waste from non-standard or unsold flowers, which are often discarded as waste despite their potential as a renewable biomass resource. In this study, we investigated the upcycling of flower stem and leaf powder into cellulose nanofibers (CNFs) using two distinct isolation methods: TEMPO-mediated oxidation to produce TEMPO-oxidized CNFs (TCNFs) and mechanical disintegration to produce mechanically disintegrated CNFs (MCNFs). The morphology of the obtained nanofibers was examined using atomic force microscopy and field-emission scanning electron microscopy, revealing that TCNFs exhibited thinner, more uniform fibrils with higher aspect ratios, whereas MCNFs displayed slightly thicker fibers with greater heterogeneity. Rheological measurements indicated shear-thinning and thixotropic behavior for both CNF suspensions, with viscosity primarily dependent on the concentration rather than the disintegration method. Solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and Fourier transform infrared analyses confirmed the removal of hemicellulose and lignin in both samples, while TCNFs exhibited a characteristic peak for carboxyl groups at 175 ppm and 1605 cm
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.