Rheological, Mechanical and Barrier Properties of Multilayer Nylon/Clay Nanocomposite Film
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multilayer films consisting of a core layer of nylon 6 sandwiched between two linear low‐density polyethylene layers were produced using a semi‐industrial cast film extrusion line. The core film was produced at different draw ratios from neat nylon and nylon/clay nanocomposite resins. The objective was to assess the replacement of neat nylon with a nylon/clay nanocomposite for the core layer of a multilayer film. Rheological experiments were carried out to characterize the resins and study the aspects of the extrusion process. It was observed that clay platelets could restrict chain mobility and intensify thermal degradation in melt processing; however, that could be balanced to some degree with a polycondensation reaction that increases the chain length and molecular weight. The crystalline structure of the films was examined by X‐ray, differential scanning calorimetry, and Fourier transform infrared measurements. The clay inclusion favored the γ‐phase crystalline phase, which showed a lower melting point. Increasing the draw ratio from 6.5 to 13 during the extrusion process did not have a significant impact on the orientation of either nylon or nylon/clay in the core layer. The physical and mechanical properties of the films were studied and discussed. Replacement of nylon with the nylon/clay nanocomposite in the core layer did not yield a notable improvement in the tensile properties of multilayer films. However, the oxygen barrier property was improved by 48% when the nylon/clay nanocomposite was used as the core layer. The haze property was not affected by either changing the draw ratio or using the nanocomposite instead of nylon. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Adv Polym Techn 32: E53–E64, 2013; View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com . DOI 10.1002/adv.20270
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".