Thermorheological properties of LLDPE/LDPE blends: Effects of production technology of LLDPE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The thermorheological behavior of a number of LLDPE/LDPE blends was studied with emphasis on the effects of the production technology of the linear low‐density polyethylene (LLDPE) and the effects of long chain branching (LCB). Two Ziegler‐Natta LLDPE's (LL3001.32 and Dowlex2045G) and two metallocene LLDPEs (AffinityPL1840 and Exact 3128) were blended with a single low‐density polyethylene (LDPE), with all LLDPEs having distinctly different molecular weight. The weight fractions of the LDPEs used in the blends were 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 75%. DSC analysis has shown that the blends with metallocence LLDPEs are miscible in the crystal state, whereas for the Ziegler‐Natta, apart from the two distinct peaks of the individual components, a third peak appears which indicates the existence of a third phase that is created from the cocrystallization of components from the two blended polymers. The linear viscoelastic characterization was performed and mastercurves at 150 °C were constructed for all blends to check miscibility using the time temperature superposition principle. In addition, Van Gurp Palmen and zero‐shear viscosity versus composition were constructed to check the thermorheological behavior of all blends. In general, good agreement is found among these various methods. It was concluded that metallocene LLDPEs are more compatible with LDPE at all LDPE compositions when compared with their Ziegler‐Natta counterparts. Finally, the extensional properties of all blends were studied to examine the effects of different levels of LCB on their extensional rheological properties. It was concluded that extensional rheology is a sensitive tool capable of detecting subtle changes in the polyethylene macrostructure, that is, low levels of LCB. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part B: Polym Phys 46: 1669–1683, 2008
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".