Effect of Zeolite Treatment on the Blooming Behavior of Paraffin Wax in Natural Rubber Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The blooming behavior of paraffin wax in natural rubber (NR) composites was studied as function of zeolite treatment. Three types of zeolite treatment were treated as factors: acid activation using hydrochloric acid (HCl) solution, ion exchange using tetradecyldimethyl amine (TDA) chloride salt, and organic modification using glycerol monostearate (GMS). The zeolite was treated according to a 23 full factorial design of experiment. Attenuated total reflectance – Fourier transform infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy was used to characterize the chemical structure of treated zeolite. Treated zeolite was applied as filler to NR composites deliberately compounded with high amount of paraff in wax. The amount of bloomed wax in surface of NR composite sheets was monitored with time at 50oC. Results show the bloom amount to be linear with the square root of time. NR composites reinforced with untreated, acid-activated, and ion-exchanged zeolite fillers indicate reduction in wax blooming as compared to unfilled NR. The bloom rate (slope) and initial bloom (y-intercept) were determined from the experimental plots. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows the bloom rate to be signif icantly increased when zeolite fillers are treated with GMS. Meanwhile, initial bloom was significantly enhanced when zeolite fillers are treated with TDA chloride salt and GMS. The significant increase in bloom rate and initial bloom can be attributed to the softening of the NR matrix at high amounts of TDA chloride salt and GMS.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".