The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Morphological and structural differences between glucose, cellulose and lignocellulosic biomass derived hydrothermal carbons
Open accessAbstract
Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) has demonstrated that it is an effective technique for the production of functionalized carbon materials from simple carbohydrates, such as monosaccharides and disaccharides. The chemical structure of the HTC carbon has been identified in detail by means of solid-state MAS 13C NMR investigations. However, it has not yet been clearly shown what the effects are of the processing temperature and time on the chemical structure and morphology of the generated HTC carbon. This study shows, with the help of SEM, elemental and yield analysis and solid-state MAS 13C NMR, the effects of these two key variables on the final nature of the produced material, allowing the development of a mechanistic model. According to the chosen set of processing parameters, the chemical structure of the HTC carbon can be tuned from polyfuran rich in oxygen containing functional groups to a carbon network of extensive aromatic domains. The same kind of investigation using lignocellulosic biomass as a carbon precursor shows a striking difference between the HTC mechanism of glucose and cellulose. The biopolymer, when it is treated under mild hydrothermal conditions (180–280 °C), tends to react according to a reaction scheme which leads to its direct transformation into an aromatic carbon network and which has strong similarities with classical pyrolysis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mesoporous carbon materials: Synthesis and modification
Liang, C., Li, Z., & Dai, S. (2008) · Angewandte Chemie International Edition · doi:10.1002/anie.200702046 · Cited by 1,935
Engineering carbon materials from the hydrothermal carbonization process of biomass
Hu, B., Wang, K., Wu, L., Yu, S., Antonietti, M., & Titirici, M. (2010) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.200902812 · Cited by 1,765
Self-citation
Cited by
Wang, T., Zhai, Y., Zhu, Y., Li, C., & Zeng, G. (2018) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.071 · Cited by 1,365
Hydrothermal conversion of biomass waste to activated carbon with high porosity: A review
Jain, A., Balasubramanian, R., & Srinivasan, M. P. (2016) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2015.08.014 · Cited by 1,199
van Zandvoort, I., Wang, Y., Rasrendra, C. B., van Eck, E. R. H., Bruijnincx, P. C. A., Heeres, H. J., & Weckhuysen, B. M. (2013) · ChemSusChem · doi:10.1002/cssc.201300332 · Cited by 624
A review on the current status of various hydrothermal technologies on biomass feedstock
Kumar, M., Olajire Oyedun, A., & Kumar, A. (2018) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.270 · Cited by 534
An overview of effect of process parameters on hydrothermal carbonization of biomass
Nizamuddin, S., Baloch, H. A., Griffin, G. J., Mubarak, N. M., Bhutto, A. W., Abro, R., Mazari, S. A., & Ali, B. S. (2017) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.122 · Cited by 514
Metadata
- Authors
- Falco, C., Baccile, N., & Titirici, M.-M.
- Venue
- Green Chemistry
- Publisher
- Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 3273
- ISSN
- 1463-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1463-9270
- OpenAlex
- W2139984930
- Cited by
- 810
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Morphological and structural differences between glucose, cellulose and lignocellulosic biomass derived hydrothermal carbons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/c1gc15742f
- The paper
- Falco, C., Baccile, N., & Titirici, M.-M. (2011). Morphological and structural differences between glucose, cellulose and lignocellulosic biomass derived hydrothermal carbons. Green Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1gc15742f
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.