Crystal structure and orientation of uniaxially and biaxially oriented PLA and PP nanoclay composite films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cast films of poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and polypropylene (PP) with 2.5 and 5 wt % organo modified nanoclay were prepared and then uniaxially and biaxially hot drawn at T = 90 and 155°C, respectively, using a biaxial stretcher. The orientation of PLA and PP crystal unit cells, alignment of clay platelets, as well as the extent of intercalation and exfoliation were studied using wide angle X‐ray diffraction (WAXD). The measurement of d‐spacing of the 001 plane (normal to platelets plane) of the clay tactoids indicated the intercalation of the silicate layers for the PLA nanocomposite films, whereas the PP nanofilled films showed only dispersion of the nanoparticles (i.e., neither intercalation nor exfoliation were observed). The intercalation level of the clay platelets in PLA was almost identical for the uniaxially and biaxially drawn films. Our finding showed that the crystallite unit cell alignments are appreciably dependent on uniaxial and biaxial stretching. Moreover, the incorporation of clay to some extent influenced the orientation of the crystal unit cell axes (a, b, and c) of the oriented films. The silicate layers revealed a much higher orientation into the flow direction in the uniaxially stretched films compared to the biaxially drawn samples. In addition, the orientation of the 001 plane of nanoclays was significantly greater in the PLA compared to the PP nanoclay composite films probably due to a better intercalation and stress transfer in the former. Morphological pictograms illustrating the effects of uniaxial and biaxial stretching on the clay orientation are proposed. © 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) | 0.000 | 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".