Effect of chain extension on the properties of PLA/TPS blends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multifunctional Epoxy‐based copolymers can be used as chain‐extender (CE) to increase the molecular weight and create branching in polylactides (PLA). In this study, the effect of a multifunctional epoxy‐acrylic‐styrene copolymer on the properties of PLA/Thermoplastic Starch (PLA/TPS) blends was investigated. The PLA/TPS blends were prepared by twin‐screw extrusion. The dry‐starch and plasticizers were mixed together in the first half of the extruder to complete starch gelatinization. Water was removed by devolatilization at midex‐truder and the PLA matrix was mixed with the water‐free TPS in the latter portion of the compounding process. The standard blends comprised 27% TPS in the PLA matrix. The TPS phase itself comprised 36% plasticizer in the form of glycerol or sorbitol. A maleic anhydride grafted PLA (PLAg) was also used in selected blends to examine the effect of interfacial modification on the morphology of chain‐extended blends. The blends were injection molded into standard test bars and their tensile properties were measured. Differential scanning calorimetry was carried out to examine the effect of chain extension on PLA's ability to crystallize. Oscillatory‐shear rheology was used to monitor changes in blend viscosity. Finally, scanning electron microscopy on microtomed and acid‐etched samples was carried out to assess the blend morphology. It was found that the combination of interfacial modification and chain‐extension strategies led to greatly improved ductility. The viscosity of the PLA/TPS blends was also dramatically increased by adding a small amount of epoxy‐based chain extender. This is of great interest for polymer processing techniques (such as foaming or film blowing) that require high melt strength. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2011
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) | 0.001 | 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".