Talk:Nanocellulose

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved as part of WikiConference North America, 2016.

Nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC)[edit]

I found this article in New Scientist. I seems to me it is the same thing. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturers[edit]

Is it appropriate for this article to have a list of selected manufacturers, some of whom appear to have edited this page to detail their process? It reads as self aggrandising advertising and I don't think it's relevant to the science. I would like to delete it or at the very least move it to the bottom of the article with some significant rewording. Bonks1 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a list of manufacturers (especially when sourced to press releases or company websites) is unecyclopaedic advertising. Based on WP:PROMO, I have removed that text, as well. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Manenitalam: @Iryanapinto: it is noted that you have not offered any explanation for reverting edits by myself and User:Bonks1. Rather than a possible edit war, please observe guidelines for discussion (see WP:BRD). I'd appreciate discussing your position. Thanks. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem likely that they are directly involved with these companies. If a defensible position for this information's presence isn't provided I'm inclined to remove it again. Bonks1 (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to give them an opportunity to respond. However, I do not currently see any clear defense. (And, yes, there does seem to be some obvious COI involved.) Given that there are many corporations, universities and government programs around the world involved in nanocellulose manufacture, including the names of a select few of them fails WP policy on neutrality: undue weight and advertising. The article also is need of citations. If there is no discussion here soon, than it's reasonable to give the article a good scrubbing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the material stiffness correct?[edit]

I wonder that in the section Mechanical Properties stiffness value of 140-220GPa is given for crystalline nanocellulose, said to be comparable with Kevlar. However, my sources give industrial Kevlar brands tensile modulus variation between 58 to 124 GPa, so nanocellulose would be a clearly stiffer fiber. In fact, its peak stiffness would be comparable with that of steel or many carbon fibre brands. What is the source for the given values for CNC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhyotyni (talk • contribs) 17:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]