Crystalline morphology of PLA/clay nanocomposite films and its correlation with other properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Polylactic acid (PLA)‐based composite films with four different loadings of nanoclay (2, 5, 10, and 15 wt %) were prepared using a solvent casting method and their crystalline morphology was investigated. The crystalline morphology was significantly different in the films depending on the clay content and its dispersion in the matrix. The clay platelets played the role of nucleating sites facilitating crystallization during solvent evaporation and this effect was most predominant in PLA 10. The % crystallinity and the crystallite size were determined by XRD analysis. The morphology was investigated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and by atomic force microscopy (AFM). A fibrillar pattern was evident in SEM micrographs, which were confirmed by AFM. The thermal properties were investigated with DSC and TGA. The glass transition temperature ( T g ) increased from 51.9 to 55–57°C in all the nanocomposite samples. The melting peak temperature (168°C) remained unaltered in the nanocomposites, but the melting enthalpy varied depending on the PLA/clay interaction. The rate of degradation was controlled by the dispersion of clay platelets in the matrix and was very low in low clay‐filled films. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2010
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".