Effect of surface‐grafted ionic groups on the performance of cellulose‐fiber‐reinforced thermoplastic composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The influence of the surface chemistry of the cellulose fiber and polymer matrix on the mechanical and thermal dynamic mechanical properties of cellulose‐fiber‐reinforced polymer composites was investigated. The cellulose fiber was treated either with a coupling agent or with a coupling‐agent treatment followed by the introduction of quaternary ammonium groups onto the fiber surface, whereas the polymer matrix, with opposite polar groups such as polystyrene incorporated with sulfonated polystyrene and poly(ethylene‐co‐methacrylic acid), was compounded with the fiber. The grafting of the fiber surface was investigated with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Experimental results showed that an obvious improvement in the mechanical strength could be achieved for composites with an ionic interface between the fiber and the polymer matrix because of the adhesion enhancement of the fiber and the matrix. The improved adhesion could be ascribed to the grafted ionic groups at the cellulose‐fiber surface. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part B: Polym Phys 41: 2022–2032, 2003
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) | 0.001 | 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".