Biocomposites based on poly(lactic acid)/willow-fiber and their injection moulded microcellular foams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural fiber reinforced biocomposites have recently attracted many researchers because of their biodegradability, cost effectiveness and ecofriendliness. The present study investigates the properties of willow-fiber reinforced poly(lactic acid) based composites and their foam processability. Microcellular foams of the composites were prepared by foam injection moulding using nitrogen gas as the blowing agent. The effects of willow-fiber addition on the morphology, mechanical properties, thermal stability, crystallization, and heat deflection temperature (HDT) were studied. At 30 weight percent [wt%] willow-fiber content, unfoamed composites showed good improvement in specific tensile and flexural moduli. Addition of willow-fiber increased crystallinity and the rate of crystallization and yielded narrow crystallite size distribution as observed by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) results of the foamed composites revealed that increase in willow-fiber content caused smaller average cell size and higher cell density. Specific notch impact strength of foamed composites at both 20 and 30 wt% willow-fiber content showed increasing trend compared to that of their unfoamed counterparts.
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".