Microstructure and properties of poly(ethylene terephthalate)/organoclay nanocomposites prepared by water‐assisted extrusion: Effect of organoclay concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET)/Cloisite 30B (C30B) nanocomposites containing different concentrations of the organoclay were prepared using two different twin‐screw extrusion processes: conventional melt mixing and water‐assisted melt mixing. The reduction of the molecular weight of the PET matrix, caused by hydrolysis during the water‐assisted extrusion, was compensated by subsequent solid‐state polymerization (SSP). X‐ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, and transmission electron microscopy analyses showed intercalated/exfoliated morphology in all PET/C30B nanocomposites, with a higher degree of intercalation and delamination for the water‐assisted process. Rheological, thermal, mechanical, and gas barrier properties of the PET nanocomposites were also studied. Enhanced mechanical and barrier properties were obtained in PET‐C30B nanocomposites compared to the neat PET. The nanocomposites exhibited higher tensile modulus and lower oxygen permeability after SSP. The elongation at break was significantly higher for SSP nanocomposites than for nanocomposites processed by conventional melt mixing. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 54:1879–1892, 2014. © 2013 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".