Phase behavior of binary blends of <scp>PP</scp>/<scp>PP</scp>‐<i>g</i>‐<scp>AA</scp>: limitations of the conventional characterization techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, miscibility/immiscibility issues of a binary blend consisting of polypropylene ( PP ) and acrylic acid grafted polypropylene ( PP ‐ g ‐ AA ) were investigated using rheometry, DSC , dynamic mechanical and thermal analysis ( DMTA ), AFM and time‐of‐flight secondary‐ion mass spectrometry ( ToF‐SIMS ). Phase separation analysis of such blend systems is a challenge and complex due to chemically similar components as well as the low value of acrylic acid groups in the graft copolymer. Thus, it is crucial to determine if the present blend shows some degree of miscibility or develops co‐continuous morphology between the components. The analysis of rheometrical, DSC and DMTA results indicated no sensitivity of these classical techniques for detecting the miscibility or immiscibility of such a system. However, AFM data effectively detected dispersed‐phase domains corresponding to the PP ‐ g ‐ AA rich phase. The results, for the first time, indicated that the start of phase separation occurs at a critical copolymer concentration between 2 and 5 wt%. Furthermore it was observed that, as the PP ‐ g ‐ AA content increases, the size and continuity of the dispersed phase increase and reach a highly continuous morphology. Additionally, ToF‐SIMS chemical imaging was carried out to aid in the interpretation of the AFM data. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".