Polyamide 6‐wheat straw composites: Degradation kinetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Degradation kinetics of ground wheat straw (WS), polyamide 6, and a WS‐polyamide 6 composites obtained from extrusion were investigated. 15 wt% of ground WS was melt blended with other additives naming; lithium chloride salt (LiCl) and N ‐butylbenzenesulfonamide plasticizer ( N ‐BBSA) as matrix treatments. The additives were added to reduce the melting point of polyamide 6 and ease of composite processing (reduction in processing temperature and time). Two commonly used non‐isothermal kinetic models were used to investigate the degradation kinetics of WS and the composite. Thermal gravimetric analysis was utilized to measure the thermal stability and degradation kinetics of different composite formulation. The activation energy of WS was identified by iso‐conversional Friedman kinetic method. Through this method, WS activation energy was found to be around 141.4 kJ/mol. Composite kinetic studies were based on the Coats and Redfern procedure. It was concluded that the composite activation energy was correlated to the residual weight percentage of the composite at the maximum thermal degradation temperature. The onset of degradation of WS was dictated by the thermal stability of its lignin content and was found to be around 188°C. WS, however, did not go through a major degradation up to 245°C at which drastic decomposition starts. This temperature range overlaps with processing temperature of Polyamide 6 and required matrix/WS treatments. Addition of salt and plasticizer individually or with each other at any level decreased the onset of degradation temperature. Addition of plasticizer at 4 wt% level, however, shifted the degradation peak to higher temperature representing a more thermally stable composite. POLYM. COMPOS., 2012. © 2012 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".