Investigation of morphology and miscibility of isotactic polypropylene, ethylene‐butene copolymer and chlorinated polyolefin blends via LSCFM, SEM, WAXD, and DMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thermoplastic olefins (TPOs) are an important class of material used in the automotive industry. They are blends of isotactic polypropylene (iPP) and a polyolefin impact modifier. Chlorinated polyolefin (CPO) is a polymer used as an adhesion promoter to promote the paintability of TPO. The synthesis of a coumarin dye‐labeled chlorinated (21.8 wt% Cl) maleated polypropylene (CPO), HY dye‐labeled MEBR (maleated ethylene‐butene copolymer with 28 wt% butene), and CPO (21.8 wt% Cl) was described. They were introduced as tracers into iPP/EBR9 (ethylene‐butene copolymer with 9 wt% butene), iPP/CPO, EBR9/CPO binary, and iPP/EBR9/CPO ternary blends. The annealing effect on morphologies of the blends was examined by laser scanning confocal fluorescent microscopy (LSCFM). LSCFM revealed that the annealing caused phase coarsening in iPP/CPO and iPP/EBR blends, but had no obvious effect on the morphology of EBR/CPO blends, while in iPP/EBR/CPO ternary blends, iPP and EBR formed a completely separate domain, iPP and CPO formed their own domains EBR was distributed in the CPO domains. The morphology of iPP, EBR, and CPO binary blends was further investigated by SEM. SEM images showed that EBR and CPO interpenetrated each other on the nanometer scale in EBR/CPO blends, while obvious phase separation was observed in iPP/CPO and iPP/EBR blends. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and wide angle X‐ray diffraction (WAXD) results showed that iPP and EBR, iPP and CPO crystallized respectively in binary blends, while there was a new population of crystals formed in EBR/CPO blend. Further exploration by dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) revealed that there were two β relaxation transitions in iPP/CPO and iPP/EBR blends, and only one β relaxation transition with a small shoulder in EBR/CPO blends. Thus, we concluded that iPP/EBR and iPP/CPO blends are immiscible; the EBR/CPO blend is miscible in the melt and partially miscible in solid state, which is in agreement with the predictions based on calculations of the results by binary interaction energy density (Bij–Bc). Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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".