Effect of interfacial strengthening in blends of reclaimed rubber and polypropylene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thermoplastic vulcanizates (TPVs) were prepared from polypropylene (PP) and reclaimed ground tire rubber crumbs. Three types of interfacial strengthening agents—degraded PP, hydrosilylated PP, and hydrosilylated PP grafted onto styrene–butadiene rubber—were prepared in melt via a stepwise series of reactions and employed to generate various degrees of interfacial adhesion in the aforementioned blends. The incorporation of the interfacial agents resulted in improvements in the mechanical properties of these TPVs, and the rubber particle size remained constant. The PP chain length and the functional groups present in the interfacial agents affected the magnitude of the improvement in the mechanical properties. The interfacial agents were primarily present on the surface of the rubber particles in the blends, as shown by energy‐dispersive X‐ray spectra. These interfacial agents in the PP/rubber crumb blends led to a unique preyield kink in their stress–strain curves, a plateau, or a sharp turning point in the region of approximately 3% elongation and approximately 4‐MPa stress. These kinks were interpreted similarly to the cold flow of semicrystalline polymers in tension. The addition of the interfacial modifiers decreased the shear viscosity and increased the entrance pressure drop in flow through capillary dies, and this was attributed to changes in the elongational viscosity of the blends. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2010
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".