The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 61 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment
Open accessAbstract
Cellulose nanofibers were isolated from banana peel bran using chemical treatment (CT—alkaline treatment, bleaching, and acid hydrolysis) and enzymatic treatment (ET—alkaline treatment and hydrolysis with xylanase). Both bran and cellulose nanofibers were characterized by size distribution, X-ray diffraction (XRD), and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR); the morphological features of the bran and the nanostructures were studied by scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM), respectively. TEM analysis evidenced that both treatments effectively isolated banana fibers in the nanometer scale. Nanofibers originating from CT and ET had an average diameter of 10.9 and 7.6 nm and a length of 454.9 and 2889.7 nm, respectively. The aspect ratio of all the samples lay in the range of long fibers. In neutral water, the nanofiber suspensions exhibited high and negative zeta potential, which prevented the nanofibers from aggregating and yielded a more stable colloidal suspension. XRD studies revealed that CT afforded more crystalline cellulose nanofibers (58.6%) as compared with ET (49.2%). FTIR confirmed that the treatments removed most of the hemicelluloses and lignin present in the banana fibers. Nanoparticles isolated from the banana peel by both treatments have potential application as reinforcing elements in composites.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Cellulose nanofibers were isolated from banana peel bran using chemical treatment (alkaline treatment, bleaching, acid hydrolysis) and enzymatic treatment (alkaline treatment, xylanase hydrolysis). Both treatments produced nanoscale fibers, but enzymatic treatment gave longer, higher-aspect-ratio, more stable suspensions, while chemical treatment gave more crystalline nanofibers.
Key findings
- Both treatments effectively isolated banana fibers in the nanometer scale: CT nanofibers had average diameter 10.9 ± 2.3 nm, length 454.9 ± 6.6 nm, aspect ratio 42.7 ± 7.5, and zeta potential −16.1 ± 0.7 mV; ET nanofibers had diameter 7.6 ± 1.5 nm, length 2889.7 ± 214.3 nm, aspect ratio 353.9 ± 28.2, and zeta potential −25.7 ± 0.6 mV.
- XRD crystallinity index was 15.0% for bran, 58.6% for CT-treated CNFs, and 49.2% for ET-treated CNFs; bran crystallinity improved by 300% after CT and 200% after ET.
- ET furnished twice as high yield (10%) as CT (5.1%); nanofiber suspension concentrations were 0.54 and 0.57 g/100 g for CT and ET, respectively.
- FTIR confirmed that treatments removed most hemicelluloses and lignin, but ET did not remove lignin completely, leaving residual lignin and bundles/impurities; CT was more aggressive and removed amorphous components more effectively.
Methods
- Bran was prepared from the peel of unripe plantain bananas of the variety “Terra” (*Musa paradisiaca*) from southeastern Brazil, harvested in March 2013; peels were dried, milled, washed with ethanol, and sieved through a 200-mesh sieve.
- CT used 5% w/v KOH, 1% w/v NaClO₂ bleaching at pH 5.0 and 70 °C, a second KOH treatment, and 1% v/v H₂SO₄ hydrolysis at 80 °C for 1 h; ET used 5% w/v KOH delignification followed by xylanase (50 U/g bran) in acetate buffer pH 5.0 at 45 °C for 24 h, then enzyme denaturation at 80 °C for 30 min.
- Characterization included SEM, TEM, laser diffraction particle size, zeta potential, XRD crystallinity index, and FTIR; ANOVA and Tukey tests were run at 5% significance.
Limitations
- The paper states that a future study will investigate the potential reinforcement that nanofibers from both treatments promote in composites; no composite mechanical testing was performed here.
- The paper states that the samples were compared without the mechanical treatment step, even though a previous study found seven passages through a high-pressure homogenizer most suitable, because the objective was to isolate the effect of chemical versus enzymatic treatment.
- The paper states that ET did not remove lignin completely and that ET nanofibers contained residual bundles/impurities; CT was more aggressive, produced shorter nanofibers, and had lower zeta potential, making those CNFs more likely to aggregate.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
48 Not checked yet · 40 Own result · 23 Own interpretation · 10 No basis given · 1 Sources not found
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The aspect ratio of all the samples lay in the range of long fibers.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nanofibers originating from CT and ET had an average diameter of 10.9 and 7.6 nm and a length of 454.9 and 2889.7 nm, respectively.”
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) · plain
“the CNFs obtained by CT and ET had diameters of 10.9 and 7.6 nm, respectively”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The TEM images processed for diameter measurement are representative of the nanofiber population.
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“FTIR confirmed that the treatments removed most of the hemicelluloses and lignin present in the banana fibers.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“XRD studies revealed that CT afforded more crystalline cellulose nanofibers (58.6%) as compared with ET (49.2%).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TEM analysis evidenced that both treatments effectively isolated banana fibers in the nanometer scale.”
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) · plain
“In general, the CNFs obtained by CT and ET had diameters of 10.9 and 7.6 nm, respectively, showing that both treatments effectively isolated banana fibers in the nanometer scale (Table 1).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In neutral water, the nanofiber suspensions exhibited high and negative zeta potential, which prevented the nanofibers from aggregating and yielded a more stable colloidal suspension.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nanofibers originating from CT and ET had an average diameter of 10.9 and 7.6 nm and a length of 454.9 and 2889.7 nm, respectively.”
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) · plain
“the CNFs obtained by CT and ET had diameters of 10.9 and 7.6 nm, respectively”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The TEM images processed for diameter measurement are representative of the nanofiber population.
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nanofibers originating from CT and ET had an average diameter of 10.9 and 7.6 nm and a length of 454.9 and 2889.7 nm, respectively.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nanofibers originating from CT and ET had an average diameter of 10.9 and 7.6 nm and a length of 454.9 and 2889.7 nm, respectively.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TEM images confirmed the presence of nanofibers in both experiments (Fig. 3a and b).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.3. Scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 46
- Probably not a substantial claim. 23
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cellulose nanofibers were isolated from banana peel bran using chemical treatment (CTdalkaline treatment, bleaching, and acid hydrolysis) and enzymatic treatment (ETdalkaline treatment and hydrolysis with xylanase).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The peak at 3337 cm À1 corresponded to eOH stretching; this band was related to specific intramolecular hydrogen bonds of cellulose II (Yang, Yan, Chen, Lee, & Zheng, 2007;Zuluaga et al., 2009).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.7. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yang, Yan, Chen, Lee, & Zheng, 2007;Zuluaga et al., 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The crystallinity index (I cr ) of the samples (calculated by Eq. ( 1)) was 15.0, 58.6, and 49.2% for the bran, CT-treated CNFs, and ETtreated CNFs, respectively.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.6. X-ray diffraction (XRD)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ET yielded longer nanofibers and higher aspect ratio, and the values lay in the range that made them potentially useful as reinforcing agents in composites.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.4. Particle size distribution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The bran sample crystallinity improved by 300 and 200% after CT and ET, respectively.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.6. X-ray diffraction (XRD)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the prepared nanofibers presented larger crystalline region as compared with the initial banana fibers, and their diffraction patterns were similar.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.6. X-ray diffraction (XRD)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The light yellowish pulp became lighter, but not totally white (Fig. 1b), so the process did not remove the lignin fractions completely.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.2. Appearance and concentration of nanofiber suspensions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The treatments changed the fibers structurally and chemically; the fibers underwent morphological alterations along all the treatment steps.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.3. Scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A white material emerged at the end of the acid hydrolysis (Fig. 1a).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.2. Appearance and concentration of nanofiber suspensions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nanofibers isolated from the banana peel had diameters and lengths of 10.9 and 454.9 nm (CT) and 7.6 and 2889.7 nm (ET), respectively.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.4. Particle size distribution
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the bran and the CNFs obtained by CT exhibited modal distribution.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.4. Particle size distribution
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The chemical composition of banana fibers, on dry basis, was as follows: 9.6% of total extractives, 0.01% of ash, 7.5% of cellulose, 7.9% of lignin, and 74.9% of polysaccharides including hemicelluloses.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.1. Chemical composition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nanofibers isolated from the banana peel had diameters and lengths of 10.9 and 454.9 nm (CT) and 7.6 and 2889.7 nm (ET), respectively.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.4. Particle size distribution
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The alkaline treatment (first step) was accomplished during both CT and ET, which changed the initial brown color (color in the web version) of the material (many cellulosic pulps appear to be darker when they are in suspension with alkaline solution) to light yellowish brown (color in the web version), due to phenolic groups ionization.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.2. Appearance and concentration of nanofiber suspensions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The SEM micrographs of the banana peel bran revealed irregular structure and some residues from the grinding procedure; they also evidenced starch granules (see arrows in Fig. 2) resulting from the contact of the banana peel with the pulp.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.3. Scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The bran had an average diameter of 24.5 mm.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.4. Particle size distribution
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The shoulder at 1731 cm À1 in the spectrum of the bran corresponded to vibrations of the acetyl and uronic ester groups of hemicelluloses or to the ester linkage of carboxylic group of the ferulic and p-coumaric acids of lignin (Cherian et al., 2008).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.7. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cherian et al., 2008 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The images suggested gradual removal of amorphous components such as hemicelluloses, lignin, and pectin; they also showed that a cellulose portion remained after CT and ET.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.3. Scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The bran contained a large amorphous portion; the typical Btype pattern peak at 2q ¼ 17 evidenced the presence of starch (Pirani & Hashaikeh, 2013).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.6. X-ray diffraction (XRD)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pirani & Hashaikeh, 2013
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The sharp diffraction peaks at 2q ¼ 16 and 2q ¼ 22 were typical of cellulose I and indicated the higher crystallinity of the nanofibers as compared with the initial fibers (Rosa et al., 2010).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.6. X-ray diffraction (XRD)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rosa et al., 2010 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The treatments affected the dimensions and the surface charge of the resulting nanoparticles.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 4. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“FTIR spectra of the cellulose nanofibers confirmed this finding.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 4. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, the chemically treated banana fibers had 300% larger crystallinity as compared with the 200% higher crystallinity of the enzymatically treated samples.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 4. Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The milder method used enzymes and furnished longer nanofibers with higher aspect ratio; nanofibers obtained by this method culminated in a more stable suspension, with higher zeta potential than the nanofibers obtained by chemical treatment.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 4. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The performance of cellulose nanofibers as reinforcing agents is associated with surface charge (zeta potential).
In the paper
“Fig. 6 evidences that the bleaching (CT) and alkaline treatment (ET) steps removed most of the lignin from the CNFs: the bands at 1525 cm À1 (aromatic ring vibration) and 761 cm À1 (CeH strains) disappeared after these pretreatments (Zuluaga et al., 2009).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.7. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zuluaga et al., 2009 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The shoulder that appeared in the spectrum of the CT-treated CNFs at 1635 cm À1 was associated with adsorbed water; it could also reveal that conjugated carbonyl groups either existed in the polyphenolic structure of lignin or resulted from carbohydrate oxidation (Hassan et al., 2010).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.7. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hassan et al., 2010
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, acid hydrolysis is corrosive, modifies the cellulose surface, and produces chemical waste (Satyamurthy et al., 2011).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Satyamurthy et al., 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Sulfuric acid is usually the reagent of choice: it efficiently cleaves the glycosidic bonds existing between the cellulose chains and prevents the CNFs from agglomerating, to generate stable colloidal suspensions (Pirani & Hashaikeh, 2013).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pirani & Hashaikeh, 2013
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although various methods yield cellulose nanoparticles, their isolation usually involves three steps: (1) pretreatment of raw materials, (2) partial hydrolysis, and (3) mechanical disintegration (Sun, 2004).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sun, 2004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The efficiency of these processes depends on the treatment conditions, the nature of the raw material, and the properties of the hydrolytic agent (Sukumaran, Singhania, Mathew, & Pandey, 2009).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sukumaran, Singhania, Mathew, & Pandey, 2009
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Because it does not involve solvents or chemical reagents, enzymatic hydrolysis constitutes an environmentally friendly process that can potentially reduce operational costs and improve efficiency (Meyabadi & Dadashian, 2012;Siqueira, Bras, & Dufresne, 2010a;Yu, Lou, & Wu, 2008).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Meyabadi & Dadashian, 2012
- Not checked yetcites Siqueira, Bras, & Dufresne, 2010a
- Not checked yetcites Yu, Lou, & Wu, 2008
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Xylanases are hydrolytic enzymes that modify the random amorphous compounds (hemicelluloses) present in the plant fiber.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hubbe, Rojas, Lucia, & Sain, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Pääkko et al., 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“plant fibers, which are among the existing natural fibers, are an attractive materialdthey constitute rich sources of cellulose, the main component of plant cell walls (Lavoine, Desloges, Dufresne, & Bras, 2012).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lavoine, Desloges, Dufresne, & Bras, 2012
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The process conditions that lead to nanometric dimensions affect the morphological characteristics of the nanoparticles, thereby influencing how they perform as reinforcement material in composites (Rosa et al., 2010).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rosa et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In neutral water, the nanofiber suspensions exhibited high and negative zeta potential, which prevented the nanofibers from aggregating and yielded a more stable colloidal suspension.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Acid hydrolysis (Lu & Hsieh, 2012;Tonoli et al., 2012;Zuluaga et al., 2009) and enzymatic hydrolysis (George, Ramana, Bawa, & Siddaramaiah, 2011;Hassan, Mathew, Hassan, & Oksman, 2010;Pääkko et al., 2007;Satyamurthy, Jain, Balasubramanya, & Vigneshwaran, 2011;Woehl et al., 2010) are the most commonly employed methods.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Cellulose nanofibers (CNFs) offer many advantages: they are mechanically strong, stiff, and highly crystalline, so they find wide applications in the biomedical (Cherian et al., 2008), pharmaceutical (Villanova et al., 2011), and especially the paper industries (Sehaqui, Allais, Zhou, & Berglund, 2011); they can also function as reinforcing agents in polymer matrixes (Lee, Teramoto, & Endo, 2011;S”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The enzymatic hydrolysis of CNFs has to be fast, to avoid complete cellulose degradation (Zhu, Sabo, & Luo, 2011).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhu, Sabo, & Luo, 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“they can also function as reinforcing agents in polymer matrixes (Lee, Teramoto, & Endo, 2011;Soykeabkaew, Laosat, Ngaokla, Yodsuwan, & Tunkasiri, 2012).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lee, Teramoto, & Endo, 2011
- Not checked yetcites Soykeabkaew, Laosat, Ngaokla, Yodsuwan, & Tunkasiri, 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“They can also initiate the random hydrolysis of the b-1,4 non-reducing terminal regions located between the glycosidic linkages of the glucose units (Hubbe, Rojas, Lucia, & Sain, 2008;Pääkko et al., 2007).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hubbe, Rojas, Lucia, & Sain, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Pääkko et al., 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“It is more appropriate to use the unripe banana peel instead of the ripe fruit.This is because the enzymatic synthesis of the fruit itself occurs during maturation, and thus, to partially degrade cellulose to monosaccharides (Happi Emaga, Robert, Ronkart, Wathelet, & Paquot, 2008).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 2.1. Materials
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Happi Emaga, Robert, Ronkart, Wathelet, & Paquot, 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Tholstrup Sejersen et al. (2007), nanosized particles should have high zeta potential, so that the colloidal suspension can resist aggregation, to increase its degree of dispersion in the composite.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.5. Zeta potential
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tholstrup Sejersen et al. (2007) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Higher electrostatic repulsion existed between the fibers in this case, providing enough surface charges to stabilize the suspension.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.5. Zeta potential
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The performance of cellulose nanofibers as reinforcing agents is associated with surface charge (zeta potential).
In the paper
“A previous work by our research group (Pelissari et al., 2014) evaluated how the number of passages (0, 3, 5, and 7 times) affected the structure of the nanofibers.According to these previous results, the most suitable mechanical treatment condition to prepare CNFs was to accomplish seven passages through the high-pressure homogenizer.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 2.3. CNFs isolation 2.3.1. Chemical treatment (CT)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pelissari et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Bondeson and Oksman (2007) reported that hydrolysis with sulfuric acid elicited electrostatic repulsion between nanofibers in suspension, and that this process introduced natural sulfate groups into the nanofiber surface.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.5. Zeta potential
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bondeson and Oksman (2007)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Probably, the alkaline treatment probably was not efficient enough to totally remove lignin; the remaining lignin may have formed a barrier around hemicelluloses and cellulose.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.2. Appearance and concentration of nanofiber suspensions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“During bleaching, chlorine and chlorites rapidly oxidized lignin, generating hydroxyl, carbonyl, and carboxylic groups; these groups facilitated lignin solubilization in alkaline medium and hence cellulose purification (Dufresne, Cavail ̀lé, & Vignon, 1997).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.2. Appearance and concentration of nanofiber suspensions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dufresne, Cavail ̀lé, & Vignon, 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, the enzyme xylanase had difficulty in solubilizing hemicelluloses, so it was not able to penetrate the cellulose chains, which made cellulose hydrolysis difficult.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.2. Appearance and concentration of nanofiber suspensions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hassan, Hassan, and Oksman (2011) described that CT gave rise to less resistant CNFs, probably as a result of the shorter length of the nanoparticles.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.4. Particle size distribution
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hassan, Hassan, and Oksman (2011)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ET yielded longer nanofibers and higher aspect ratio, and the values lay in the range that made them potentially useful as reinforcing agents in composites.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.4. Particle size distribution
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“George et al. (2011) stated that high aspect ratio should favor tension transfer in the nanofiberematrix interface.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.4. Particle size distribution
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites George et al. (2011) source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The bands relative to cellulose were more intense in the spectra of the treated samples, because lignin removal augmented their crystalline content.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.7. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This meant that CT was more aggressivedit degraded amorphous zones and partly destroyed the crystalline zones of the fibers, to furnish shorter nanofibers.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.4. Particle size distribution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, Sun, Xu, Sun, Xiao, and Sun (2005) reported that CT effectively delignified cellulose and solubilized hemicelluloses in the barley straw.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.2. Appearance and concentration of nanofiber suspensions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sun, Xu, Sun, Xiao, and Sun (2005)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ET did not remove these amorphous components as effectively as CT, which generated a barrier of cementing materials around the fiber bundles and hindered enzyme penetration into the cellulose chains.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.3. Scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with ET, CT involved more steps and was more aggressive, promoting greater removal of the amorphous components.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.2. Appearance and concentration of nanofiber suspensions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“CNFs isolation involved either acid or enzymatic hydrolysis, and these steps removed amorphous cellulosic domains (Siqueira et al., 2010a).”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.6. X-ray diffraction (XRD)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Siqueira et al., 2010a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“On the basis of the study by Pelissari et al. (2014), incomplete hemicelluloses and lignin removal during treatment and interfibrillar hydrogen bonds formation accounted for the residual nanofiber bundles.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.3. Scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pelissari et al. (2014) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Nanofibers of mulberry branch barks obtained by CT had I cr of 58.8% (Li et al., 2009), similar to that found for the CT-treated nanofibers herein.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.6. X-ray diffraction (XRD)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Li et al., 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These diameters were similar to those of nanosized structures derived from other chemically treated sourcesdrice straw (12e35 nm) (Abe & Yano, 2009), sugarcane bagasse (30 nm) (Bhattacharya, Germinario, & Winter, 2008), and sugar beet (30e100 nm) (Leitner, Hinterstoisser, Wastyn, Keckes, & Gindl, 2007)dand enzymatically treated sourcesdbleached kraft bagasse pulp (9e 25 nm) (Hassan et al., 2010),”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.3. Scanning (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Abe & Yano, 2009
- Not checked yetcites Bhattacharya, Germinario, & Winter, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Leitner, Hinterstoisser, Wastyn, Keckes, & Gindl, 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“In contrast, bagasse pulp nanofibers obtained by ET gave much higher I cr (73.9%) (Hassan et al., 2010) as compared with the ET-treated CNFs achieved in this study.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.6. X-ray diffraction (XRD)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hassan et al., 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Mussatto, Fernandes, Milagres, and Roberto (2008) stated that removal of hemicelluloses and lignin fractions extensively altered the structure of natural fibers, increasing the crystal surface area and the accessibility of the hydrolytic agent to the cellulose.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.6. X-ray diffraction (XRD)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mussatto, Fernandes, Milagres, and Roberto (2008)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, the chemical method removed amorphous components more effectively and enhanced the crystalline content in the sample.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 4. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the ET-treated CNFs presented a peak in this region, at 1574 cm À1 , which attested that the sample contained lignin residues; i.e., ET did not remove lignin completely.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.7. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results allowed to state that both CT and ET effectively removed the amorphous components from the structure of the bran and permitted CNFs isolation.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 3.7. Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, both treatments successfully isolated cellulose nanofibers from the banana peel, encouraging the use of this agroindustrial residue as a renewable source of nanofibers.”
§ Cellulose nanofibers produced from banana peel by chemical and enzymatic treatment > 4. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Enzymatic treatment allows for milder hydrolysis conditions compared with acid hydrolysis.
“Enzymatic treatment has gained prominence and is developing rapidly: it allows for milder hydrolysis conditions as compared with acid hydrolysis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The omission of mechanical treatment does not prevent a valid comparison of the chemical and enzymatic treatments.
“However, because the main objective of this study was to determine how the chemical and enzymatic treatments affected the CNFs isolation, we decided to compare the samples without the mechanical treatment step.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The TEM images processed for diameter measurement are representative of the nanofiber population.
“To determine the diameters of the fibers, the TEM images were processed using processing analysis software (ImageJ).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The performance of cellulose nanofibers as reinforcing agents is associated with surface charge (zeta potential).
“The performance of the nanofiber as reinforcing agent is also associated with other features such as surface charge (zeta potential).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This is a way to utilize unripe fruit in Brazil, which are discarded as waste [137].”
From Potential Valorization of Banana Production Waste in Developing Countries: Bio-Engineering Aspects (2024) · cites this paper as [137]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Tibolla et al. [137] introduced a composite made with cellulose nanofibers from discarded banana peels. The diameter and length were 10.9 nm and 454.9 nm for the chemical process and 7.6 nm and 2889.7 nm for the enzymatic process, respectively.”
From Potential Valorization of Banana Production Waste in Developing Countries: Bio-Engineering Aspects (2024) · cites this paper as [137]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Unripe plantain peels may be used for nanofiber production.”
From Potential Valorization of Banana Production Waste in Developing Countries: Bio-Engineering Aspects (2024) · cites this paper as [137]
Citations
Cites
Official Methods of Analysis of
Helrick, K. (1980) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac50052a726 · Cited by 59,351
(2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197610145.002.001 · Cited by 28,136
Segal, L., Creely, J. J., Martin, A., & Conrad, C. M. (1959) · Textile Research Journal · doi:10.1177/004051755902901003 · Cited by 8,653
Characteristics of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin pyrolysis
Yang, H., Yan, R., Chen, H., Lee, D. H., & Zheng, C. (2007) · Fuel · doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.013 · Cited by 8,155
Determination of Structural Carbohydrates and Lignin in Biomass
Sluiter, A. D., Hames, B. R., Ruiz, R. O., Scarlata, C. J., Sluiter, J. B., Templeton, D. W., & Crocker, D. P. (2012) · Cited by 5,261
Pääkkö, M., Ankerfors, M., Kosonen, H., Nykänen, A., Ahola, S., Österberg, M., Ruokolainen, J., Laine, J., Larsson, P. T., Ikkala, O., et al. (2007) · Biomacromolecules · doi:10.1021/bm061215p · Cited by 1,962
Lavoine, N., Desloges, I., Dufresne, A., & Bras, J. (2012) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.05.026 · Cited by 1,883
Cellulosic Bionanocomposites: A Review of Preparation, Properties and Applications
Siqueira, G., Bras, J., & Dufresne, A. (2010) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym2040728 · Cited by 1,328
Rosa, M. F., Medeiros, E. S., Malmonge, J. A., Gregorski, K. S., Wood, D. F., Mattoso, L. H. C., Glenn, G., Orts, W. J., & Imam, S. H. (2010) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.01.059 · Cited by 1,099
Cellulosic nanocomposites: a review
(2008) · BioResources · doi:10.15376/biores.3.3.929-980 · Cited by 901
Isolation and characterization of cellulose from sugarcane bagasse
Sun, J., Sun, X. F., Zhao, H., & Sun, R. (2004) · Polymer Degradation and Stability · doi:10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2004.02.008 · Cited by 797
Siqueira, G., Bras, J., & Dufresne, A. (2009) · Biomacromolecules · doi:10.1021/bm801193d · Cited by 791
Xylanases in bleaching: From an idea to the industry
Viikari, L., Kantelinen, A., Sundquist, J., & Linko, M. (1994) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.1994.tb00053.x · Cited by 665
Biocomposites from wheat straw nanofibers: morphology, thermal and mechanical properties
Alemdar, A., & Sain, M. (2008) · Composites Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2007.05.044 · Cited by 661
Preparation and characterization of cellulose nanocrystals from rice straw
Lü, P., & Hsieh, Y. (2011) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.08.022 · Cited by 640
Cellulose whiskers extracted from mulberry: A novel biomass production
Li, R., Fei, J., Cai, Y., Li, Y., Feng, J., & Yao, J. (2008) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.09.034 · Cited by 538
Yu, Y., Lou, X., & Wu, H. (2007) · Energy & Fuels · doi:10.1021/ef700292p · Cited by 498
Sukumaran, R. K., Singhania, R. R., Mathew, G. M., & Pandey, A. (2008) · Renewable Energy · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.05.008 · Cited by 493
Zuluaga, R., Putaux, J. L., Cruz, J., Vélez, J., Mondragon, I., & Gañán, P. (2009) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.09.024 · Cited by 448
Cellulose microfibres produced from banana plant wastes: Isolation and characterization
Elanthikkal, S., Unnikrishnan, G. P., Varghese, S., & Guthrie, J. T. (2010) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.12.043 · Cited by 420
Abe, K., & Yano, H. (2009) · Cellulose · doi:10.1007/s10570-009-9334-9 · Cited by 379
Effect of hemicellulose and lignin on enzymatic hydrolysis of cellulose from brewer's spent grain
Mussatto, S. I., Fernandes, M., Milagres, A. M. F., & Roberto, I. C. (2007) · Enzyme and Microbial Technology · doi:10.1016/j.enzmictec.2007.11.006 · Cited by 372
Cherian, B. M., Pothan, L. A., Nguyen-Chung, T., Mennig, G., Kottaisamy, M., & Thomas, S. (2008) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf8003674 · Cited by 363
Isolation and characterization of cellulose nanofibers from banana peels
Pelissari, F. M., Sobral, P. J. D. A., & Menegalli, F. C. (2014) · Cellulose · doi:10.1007/s10570-013-0138-6 · Cited by 334
Self-citationBacterial cellulose nanocrystals exhibiting high thermal stability and their polymer nanocomposites
George, J., Ramana, K. V., Bawa, A. S., & Siddaramaiah (2011) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2010.09.013 · Cited by 319
Happi Emaga, T., Robert, C., Ronkart, S. N., Wathelet, B., & Paquot, M. (2008) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.030 · Cited by 318
Comparative study of organosolv lignins from wheat straw
Xu, F., Sun, J., Sun, R., Fowler, P., & Baird, M. S. (2005) · Industrial Crops and Products · doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2005.05.008 · Cited by 317
Cellulose micro/nanofibres from eucalyptus kraft pulp: preparation and properties
Tonoli, G. H. D., Teixeira, E. M., Corrêa, A. C., Marconcini, J. M., Caixeta, L. A., Pereira-da-Silva, M. A., & Mattoso, L. H. C. (2012) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.02.052 · Cited by 315
Sugarcane bagasse whiskers: Extraction and characterizations
Teixeira, E. D. M., Bondancia, T. J., Teodoro, K. B. R., Corrêa, A. C., Marconcini, J. M., & Mattoso, L. H. C. (2010) · Industrial Crops and Products · doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2010.08.009 · Cited by 308
Dispersion and characteristics of surfactant modified cellulose whiskers nanocomposites
Bondeson, D., & Oksman, K. (2007) · Composite Interfaces · doi:10.1163/156855407782106519 · Cited by 303
Satyamurthy, P., Jain, P., Balasubramanya, R. H., & Vigneshwaran, N. (2011) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.07.029 · Cited by 277
Isolation, preparation and characterization of cellulose microfibers obtained from bagasse
Bhattacharya, D., Germinario, L. T., & Winter, W. T. (2008) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2007.12.005 · Cited by 247
Zhu, J. Y., Sabo, R. C., & Luo, X. (2011) · Green Chemistry · doi:10.1039/c1gc15103g · Cited by 246
Sugar beet cellulose nanofibril-reinforced composites
Leitner, J., Hinterstoisser, B., Wastyn, M., Keckes, J., & Gindl, W. (2007) · Cellulose · doi:10.1007/s10570-007-9131-2 · Cited by 231
Siqueira, G. D. F., Bras, J., & Dufresne, A. (2010) · BioResources · doi:10.15376/biores.5.2.727-740 · Cited by 227
Wood cellulose biocomposites with fibrous structures at micro- and nanoscale
Sehaqui, H., Allais, M., Zhou, Q., & Berglund, L. A. (2010) · Composites Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2010.12.007 · Cited by 187
van Soest, J. J. G., Hulleman, S. H. D., de Wit, D., & Vliegenthart, J. F. G. (1996) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/0144-8617(96)00011-2 · Cited by 184
Prediction of Cassava Starch Edible Film Properties by Chemometric Analysis of Infrared Spectra
Vicentini, N. M., Dupuy, N., Leitzelman, M., Cereda, M. P., & Sobral, P. J. D. A. (2005) · Spectroscopy Letters · doi:10.1080/00387010500316080 · Cited by 177
Zeta potential of pectin-stabilised casein aggregates in acidified milk drinks
Tholstrup Sejersen, M., Salomonsen, T., Ipsen, R., Clark, R., Rolin, C., & Balling Engelsen, S. (2007) · International Dairy Journal · doi:10.1016/j.idairyj.2006.03.003 · Cited by 145
Physico-chemical and thermal characterization of cellulose from barley straw
Sun, J., Xu, F., Sun, X. F., Xiao, B., & Sun, R. (2005) · Polymer Degradation and Stability · doi:10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2004.12.013 · Cited by 143
Reinforcing potential of micro- and nano-sized fibers in the starch-based biocomposites
Soykeabkaew, N., Laosat, N., Ngaokla, A., Yodsuwan, N., & Tunkasiri, T. (2012) · Composites Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2012.02.015 · Cited by 116
Woehl, M. A., Canestraro, C. D., Mikowski, A., Sierakowski, M. R., Ramos, L. P., & Wypych, F. (2010) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.12.045 · Cited by 94
Sun, X. (2003) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2003.10.004 · Cited by 94
Hassan, M. L., Hassan, E. A., & Oksman, K. (2010) · Journal of Materials Science · doi:10.1007/s10853-010-4992-4 · Cited by 91
Villanova, J. C. O., Ayres, E., Carvalho, S. M., Patrício, P. S., Pereira, F. V., & Oréfice, R. L. (2011) · European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ejps.2011.01.005 · Cited by 79
Cellulose nanofiber-reinforced polycaprolactone/polypropylene hybrid nanocomposite
Lee, S. H., Teramoto, Y., & Endo, T. (2010) · Composites Part A Applied Science and Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2010.10.014 · Cited by 68
Pirani, S. I., & Hashaikeh, R. (2012) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.06.063 · Cited by 52
Meyabadi, T. F., & Dadashian, F. (2012) · Fibers and Polymers · doi:10.1007/s12221-012-0313-7 · Cited by 50
Effect of pretreatment of bagasse pulp on properties of isolated nanofibers and nanopaper sheets
Hassan, M. L., Mathew, A. P., Hassan, E. A., & Oksman, K. (2010) · Wood and Fiber Science (Society of Wood Science and Technology) · Cited by 41
FTIR spectroscopy applied to woodflour
Marcovich, N. E., Reboredo, M. M., & Aranguren, M. I. (1996) · Composite Interfaces · doi:10.1163/156855496x00209 · Cited by 22
Mechanical behavior of sheets prepared from sugar beet cellulose microfibrils
Dufresne, A., Cavaill�, J.-Y., & Vignon, M. R. (1997) · Journal of Applied Polymer Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4628(19970509)64:6
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nanocellulose, a Versatile Green Platform: From Biosources to Materials and Their Applications
Thomas, B., Raj, M. C., B, A. K., Rubiyah, M. H., Joy, J., Moores, A., Drisko, G. L., & Sánchez, C. (2018) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00627 · Cited by 1,752
Polylactic Acid (PLA) Biocomposite: Processing, Additive Manufacturing and Advanced Applications
Ilyas, R. A., Sapuan, S. M., Harussani, M. M., Hakimi, M. Y. A. Y., Haziq, M. F. M., Atikah, M. S. N., Asyraf, M. R. M., Ishak, M. R., Razman, M. R., Norizan, M. N., et al. (2021) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym13081326 · Cited by 519
Advances in cellulose nanomaterials
Kargarzadeh, H., Mariano, M., Gopakumar, D. A., Ahmad, I. B., Thomas, S., Dufresne, A., Huang, J. T., & Lin, N. (2018) · Cellulose · doi:10.1007/s10570-018-1723-5 · Cited by 519
Melikoğlu, A. Y., Ersus, S., & Cesur, S. (2019) · Carbohydrate Polymers · doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2019.03.103 · Cited by 301
Nanocellulose: Recent advances and its prospects in environmental remediation
Shak, K. P. Y., Pang, Y. L., & Mah, S. K. (2018) · Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology · doi:10.3762/bjnano.9.232 · Cited by 298
Metadata
- Authors
- Tibolla, H., Pelissari, F. M., & Menegalli, F. C.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) (BR)
- Corresponding author
- Pelissari, Franciele Maria
- Venue
- LWT - Food Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-12
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1311-1318
- ISSN
- 0023-6438 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1997398631
- Semantic Scholar
- 0c59345e28ecf4bf94dd89971106b8f42a2ebcfa
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 10
- FWCI
- 6.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- LWT (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (2952/2011)
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (477842/2011-9)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Advanced Cellulose Research Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Polysaccharides and Plant Cell Walls
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Polymers and Plastics › Natural Fiber Reinforced Composites
- Keywords
- cellulose nanofibers, banana peel, alkali treatment, xylanase hydrolysis, acid hydrolysis, bleaching, hemicellulose removal, lignin removal, crystallinity, zeta potential, colloidal stability, nanofiber morphology, composite reinforcement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
