Thermal, Electrical and Mechanical Properties of Blended and Solvent Cast PLA-MWNT Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares melt blending and solvent casting as processing routes for fabricating Polylactide (PLA)-Multiwall carbon nanotube (MWNT) composites. Composites with an MWNT content of 0, 0.5, 2 and 5 wt.% MWNT were fabricated using both processing techniques and their thermal, electrical and mechanical properties were evaluated. Two types of solvents, chloroform and 1,4-dioxane, were used to disperse MWNTs in PLA when preparing the solvent cast composites. Melt blended PLA-MWNT composites were prepared in a mini twin-screw compounder at a temperature of 165 °C. Samples from both processing techniques were characterized for thermal, electrical and mechanical attributes. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) results indicated that composites prepared using solvent casting had a better MWNT dispersion in PLA. In particular, 1,4-dioxane was considerably more effective in dispersing MWNT than chloroform. Composites prepared using melt blending contained large sized MWNT aggregates suggesting that greater shear mixing or more suitable MWNT surface functionalization is required.
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".