Properties of Melt-Extruded vs. Solution-Cast Proton Exchange Membranes Based on PFSA Nanocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relationships between structure/morphology and properties of series of composite proton exchange membranes prepared using two processing techniques; solution-casting and melt-extrusion. Three families of inorganic fillers with different aspect ratios and specific areas have been used; spherical 60nm SiO2 nanoparticles, fiber-like sepiolite clay, and non-structured mesoporous silica. The results show that composite PEMs present in general higher water uptake than reference membranes; water uptake increases with the specific area of the filler, and translate to lower volume change and higher dimensional stability for the fillers with low specific area. Solution cast membranes show in general higher water uptake than extruded ones that translates to lower volume change and higher dimensional stability of extruded PEMs. Finally conductivity results show that at high levels of hydration, solution-cast membranes have in general higher conductivities than extruded samples, while at high temperature and reduced relative humidity conditions, melt extruded samples show higher conductivities.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".