Combination of Esterified Kraft Lignin and MAPE as Coupling Agent for Bark/HDPE Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refined black spruce bark fibers and high density polyethylene (HDPE) were used to produce wood plastic composites (WPC) while exploring for the first time the potential of using esterified Kraft lignin as a coupling agent. Two types of lignin esterification (succinic acid and maleic acid anhydrides) were examined alone or in combination with maleated polyethylene (MAPE), and compared with a commercial coupling agent: maleated polyethylene (MAPE). Three contents of coupling agents (2%; 5%; 10% by weight) were considered for esterified lignin and three combinations of lignin and MAPE (100:0; 50:50; 0:100), while bark fibers content was kept constant at 30%. Morphological (scanning electron microscopy - energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy [SEM-EDS]), thermal (thermogravimetric analysis [TGA] and differential scanning calorimetry [DSC]) and mechanical properties (tensile and flexural) of the composites were measured. Two optimum formulations were determined based on the best bark-matrix interface leading to highest mechanical properties: an equal content of maleic acid anhydride esterified lignin and MAPE at 5%, or an equal content of succinic esterified lignin and MAPE at 2%.
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".