Nylon 66/clay nanocomposite structure development in a twin screw extruder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nylon 66/clay nanocomposites were prepared in a Berstorff ZE25A UTX Ultra‐glide corotating twin screw extruder at 270°C. Two types of extruder configurations with different mixing sections were used. One comprised two kneading block sections in the screws (KB only) and the other had a combination of a multi‐process‐element (MPE) section and a kneading block section. Samples at eight different locations along the extruder screw were obtained and analyzed using scanning electron microscope and transmission electron microscope to examine the morphology development of clay inside nylon down the length of the extruder. It is found that the clay aggregates are quickly broken into smaller tactoids (micron size) and then even much smaller clay bundles (nanometer size) and single clay platelets in the first mixing section. The structure changes in the second mixing section are much less significant. X‐ray diffraction (XRD) analysis of the nanocomposite products showed small, or disappearance of, characteristic XRD (001) peaks, which indicates partial exfoliation, or complete exfoliation, respectively, of clay inside nylon matrix. Differential scanning calorimetry nonisothermal study shows that the crystallization temperature of the nanocomposites has increased around 17°C when compared with neat nylon 66. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 2009. © 2009 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".