Recycled Polystyrene Composites Reinforced With Esterified and Non-Esterified Kraft Lignins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recycled polystyrene and Kraft lignins represent waste materials/by-products, generated in huge quantities worldwide, which remain inadequately valorized. In this study, unmodified and maleated Kraft lignins were used as fillers in recycled polystyrene (RPS) to produce composites at different concentrations (0, 10, 20 and 30%) via melt blending. Also, RPS composites with 20% of maleated Kraft lignins were prepared by applying a previous surface treatment to the maleated Kraft lignins with RPS in solution. A complete mechanical, thermal and morphological characterization was performed on the RPS based composites containing Kraft lignins. The morphological study revealed better compatibility with RPS for unmodified Kraft lignins than maleated Kraft lignins except for the composite where maleated lignins surface treatment was applied. In this case, the RPS was well incorporated in the porous structure of maleated Kraft lignins. The results also showed that addition of unmodified Kraft lignins led to better mechanical and thermal properties of the composites than when maleated Kraft lignins were added. For the composite formulated with 20% maleated Kraft lignins with a previous surface treatment, the properties were improved to become comparable to those of composites with unmodified Kraft lignins. The poor mechanical and thermal properties of RPS composites with maleated Kraft lignins could be related to the porous structure of the maleated Kraft lignins.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".