Plasticization effect of lignin in some highly filled vinyl formulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study evaluates the impact of partially replacing (vinyl chloride)‐(vinyl acetate) (VC‐VAc) copolymer with lignin (L) in a vinyl flooring formulation. Lignin is a natural polymer resulting in huge quantities from wood delignification in the pulp and paper industry. An organsolv lignin, Alcell lignin (AL), was utilized. Also examined is the impact of replacing the common diethylhexyl phthalate (DOP) with plasticizers having chemical compositions different from those of DOP, i.e., diethylene glycol dibenzoate (2–45), tricresyl phosphate (Lindol®), and phenol alkylsulphonic ester (Mesamoll®). The reason for using other plasticizers is the suspicion that during the service life of vinyl flooring, the attack of fungi and microorganisms leads to the degradation of DOP and to the release of some volatile organic compounds (VOC). For the same reason, in the new flooring formulations, the VC‐VAc copolymer was partially replaced with L. Besides its other functions in wood, L imparts resistance to the attack of most microorganisms. The efficiency in plasticizing AL was also taken into consideration in choosing the above‐mentioned plasticizers. The influence of the new plasticizers, their concentration, and the influence of the partial replacement of VC‐VAc copolymer with AL on the mechanical and thermal properties of the new formulations are discussed. Laboratory data indicated that at a level of 20 parts VC‐VAc copolymer reduction and 5 parts plasticizer reduction, some of the obtained VC‐VAc‐AL blends compare very favorably with VC‐VAc copolymer control plasticized with 35 phr of DOP, the formulation of choice in vinyl flooring materials. J. VINYL ADDIT. TECHNOL., 13:14–21, 2007. © 2007 Society of Plastics Engineers.
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".