Influence of di‐functional versus multi‐functional chain extenders on the foamability of a potato starch‐based biopolymer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines the effectiveness of di‐functional versus multi‐functional glycidyl ether chain extenders (CE) for improving the foamability of a commercial blend of hydrolyzed potato starch and polylactic acid, Solanyl® 30R (Solanyl Biopolymers Inc.). The blend was reactively modified in bulk using CEs at concentrations ranging from 0.5–2.5 wt% within a twin‐screw extruder operating at 170°C and 150 RPM. Thermal and rheological analysis of the modified blends found that only one multi‐functional polymeric CE was effective for altering the molecular structure of the blend while both significantly improved the foamability of the material. The two di‐functional CEs did not produce detectable changes in melt elasticity for the blend but again had a notable influence on improved foamability. Foamability was evaluated based on improvements to the material that increased foam stability (i.e. higher cell densities and smaller bubbles), and the results in this study suggested that these CEs influenced bubble expansion in ways other than simply causing rheological change.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".