A comparison of partially acetylated nanocellulose, nanocrystalline cellulose, and nanoclay as fillers for high‐performance polylactide nanocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Partially acetylated cellulose nanofibers (CNF) were chemically extracted from sisal fibers and the performance of those CNF as nanofillers for polylactide (PLA) for food packaging applications was evaluated. Three PLA nanocomposites; PLA/CNF (cellulose nanofibers), PLA/CNC (nanocrystalline cellulose), and PLA/C30B (Cloisite TM 30B, an organically modified montmorillonite clay) were prepared and their properties were evaluated. It was found that CNF reinforced composites showed a larger decrease on oxygen transmission rate (OTR) than the clay‐based composites; (PLA/CNF 1% nanocomposite showed a 63% of reduction at 23°C and 50% RH while PLA/C30B 1% showed a 26% decrease) and similar behavior on terms of water vapor barrier properties with 46 and 43%, respectively of decrease on water vapor transmission rate at 23°C and 50% RH (relative humidity). In terms of mechanical and thermomechanical properties, CNF‐based nanocomposites showed better performance than clay‐based composites without affecting significantly the optical transparency. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2016 , 133 , 43257.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".