Reactive compatibilization and performance evaluation of miscanthus biofiber reinforced poly(hydroxybutyrate‐co‐hydroxyvalerate) biocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Dicumyl peroxide (DCP) initiated reactive compatibilization of poly(hydroxybutyrate‐co‐hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV)/miscanthus fibers (70/30 wt %) based biocomposite was prepared in a twin screw extruder followed by injection molding. In the presence of DCP, both the flexural and the tensile strength of the PHBV/miscanthus composites were appreciably higher compared with PHBV/miscanthus composite without DCP as well as neat PHBV. The maximum tensile strength (29 MPa) and flexural strength (51 MPa) were observed in the PHBV/miscanthus composite with 0.7 phr DCP. The enhanced flexural and tensile strength of the PHBV/miscanthus/DCP composites are attributed to the improved interfacial adhesion by free radical initiator. Unlike flexural and tensile strength, the modulus of the PHBV/miscanthus/DCP composites was found to slightly lower than the PHBV/miscanthus composite. The modulus difference in the PHBV/miscanthus composite with and without DCP has good agreement with the observed crystallinity. However, the flexural and tensile modulus of all the prepared biocomposites was at least two fold higher than the neat PHBV. The storage modulus value of the PHBV/miscanthus and PHBV/miscanthus/DCP biocomposites follows similar trend like tensile and flexural modulus. The melting temperature and crystallization temperature of PHBV/DCP and PHBV/miscanthus/DCP samples were considerably lower compared with the neat PHBV and PHBV/miscanthus composites. The surface morphology revealed that the PHBV/miscanthus/DCP composites have good interface with less fiber pull‐outs compared with the corresponding counterpart without DCP. This suggests that the compatibility between the matrix and the fibers is enhanced after the addition of peroxide initiator. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2017, 134, 44860.
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) | 0.001 | 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".