Wood–polymer composites prepared by the <i>in situ</i> polymerization of monomers within wood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wood–polymer composites (WPCs) were prepared from poplar wood (P. ussuriensis Komarov) in a two‐step procedure. Maleic anhydride (MAN) was first dissolved in acetone and impregnated into wood; this was followed by a heat process; and then, glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) and styrene (St) were further impregnated into the MAN‐treated wood, followed by a second thermal treatment. Finally, the novel WPC was fabricated. The reactions occurring in the WPC, the aggregation of the resulting polymers, and their interaction with the wood substrate were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, X‐ray diffraction, and dynamic mechanical analysis. The performance of WPC was also evaluated in terms of the mechanical properties and durability, which were then correlated with the structural analysis of the WPC. The test results show that MAN and GMA/St chemically reacted with the wood cell walls in sequence, and the quantity of hydroxyl groups in the wood cell walls was evidently reduced. Meanwhile, St copolymerized with GMA or MAN, and the resulting polymers mainly filled in the wood cell lumen in an amorphous form, tightly contacting the wood cell walls without noticeable gaps. As a result, the mechanical properties, decay resistance, and dimensional stability of the WPC were remarkably improved over those of the untreated wood, and its glass‐transition temperature also increased. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2011
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) | 0.001 | 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".