Effect of Organoclay on the Morphology and Properties of Poly(propylene)/Poly[(butylene succinate)‐<i>co</i>‐adipate] Blends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effect of organically modified clay on the morphology and properties of poly(propylene) (PP) and poly[(butylene succinate)‐co‐adipate] (PBSA) blends is studied. Virgin and organoclay modified blends were prepared by melt‐mixing of PP, PBSA and organoclay in a batch‐mixer at 190 °C. Scanning electron microscopy studies revealed a significant change in morphology of PP/PBSA blend in the presence of organoclay. The state of dispersion of silicate layers in the blend matrix was characterized by X‐ray diffraction and transmission electron microscopic observations. Dynamic mechanical analysis showed substantial improvement in flexural storage modulus of organoclay‐modified blends with respect to the neat polymer matrices or unmodified blends. Tensile properties of virgin blends also improved in the presence of organoclay. Thermal stability of virgin blends in air atmosphere dramatically improved after modification with organoclay. The effect of organoclay on the melt‐state liner viscoelastic properties of virgin blends was also studied. The non‐isothermal crystallization behavior of homopolymers, virgin, and organoclay‐modified blends were studied by differential scanning calorimeter. The effect of incorporation of organoclay on the cold crystallization behavior of PP/PBSA blends is also reported. magnified image
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".