Effect of clay surfactant type and clay content on the rheology and morphology of uncured fluoroelastomer/clay nanocomposites prepared by melt‐mixing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fluoroelastomer/clay composites were prepared by melt mixing in an internal mixer using Cloisite® Nanoclays: NA, 15A, 20A, 30B, and 93A at three different concentrations viz. 2.5, 5.0, and 10.0 phr. Rheology, X‐ray diffraction (XRD), and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) were used to characterize the composites prepared. Dynamic rheological measurements showed significant increase in storage moduli (G′) in the terminal frequency region for the uncured composites prepared from Cloisite® 15A and 20A. At higher frequencies, organically modified nanoclays plasticize the polymer matrix leading to lower modulus values. Using all three characterization techniques, Cloisite® 15A and 20A were shown to have intercalated structure in the fluoroelastomer matrix, whereas other nanoclays were shown to have inferior dispersion. The storage modulus increases proportionally with increase in the clay loading and no clay aggregation was observed at higher loadings. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2009
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".