Effectiveness of silane monomer on chitosan films and PCL‐based tri‐layer films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chitosan films were prepared by casting from its 1% (w/w) solution. Tensile strength (TS), tensile modulus (TM), and elongation at break (Eb%) of chitosan films were found to be 30 MPa, 450 MPa, and 8%, respectively. Silane monomer (3‐aminopropyl tri‐methoxy silane) (1–7%, w/w) was added into the chitosan solution (1%, w/w), and films were casted. The highest TS (38 MPa) and TM (620 MPa) values were found at 5% (w/w) silane content films. Polycaprolactone (PCL) films were prepared by compression molding; the values of TS, TM, and Eb of PCL films were found to be 12 MPa, 226 MPa, and 70%, respectively. Using chitosan and silane containing chitosan films, PCL‐based tri‐layer films were prepared by compression molding. Chitosan (also silane‐incorporated chitosan) content in the tri‐layer films varied from 10 to 50% by weight. The values of TS and TM of the silane containing composites were found to be 21 and 410 MPa, respectively, which is significantly higher (40% TS and 34% TM) than control composites. Molecular interactions due to silane addition were supported by FT‐IR analysis. The surface of the films and the interface of the tri‐layer films were investigated by scanning electron microscope (SEM). © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2012
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".