Properties of poly(ethylene terephthalate)–poly(ethylene naphthalene 2,6‐dicarboxylate) blends with montmorillonite clay
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The production and properties of blends of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) and poly(ethylene naphthalene 2,6‐dicarboxylate) (PEN) with three modified clays are reported. Octadecylammonium chloride and maleic anhydride (MAH) are used to modify the surface of the montmorillonite–Na + clay particles (clay–Na + ) to produce clay–C18 and clay–MAH, respectively, before they are mixed with the PET/PEN system. The transesterification degree, hydrophobicity and the effect of the clays on the mechanical, rheological and thermal properties are analysed. The PET–PEN/clay–C18 system does not show any improvements in the mechanical properties, which is attributed to poor exfoliation. On the other hand, in the PET–PEN/clay–MAH blends, the modified clay restricts crystallization of the matrix, as evidenced in the low value of the crystallization enthalpy. The process‐induced PET–PEN transesterification reaction is affected by the clay particles. Clay–C18 induces the largest proportion of naphthalate–ethylene–terephthalate (NET) blocks, as opposed to clay–Na + which renders the lowest proportion. The clay readily incorporates in the bulk polymer, but receding contact‐angle measurements reveal a small influence of the particles on the surface properties of the sample. The clay–Na + blend shows a predominant solid‐like behaviour, as evidenced by the magnitude of the storage modulus in the low‐frequency range, which reflects a high entanglement density and a substantial degree of polymer–particle interactions. Copyright © 2005 Society of Chemical Industry
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it