Biodegradable compatibilized polymer blends for packaging applications: A literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The majority of materials used for short‐term and disposable packaging application are non‐biodegradable which are not satisfying the demands in environmental safety and sustainability. Biodegradable polymers are an alternative for these non‐biodegradable materials. The biodegradable polymeric materials can degrade in a reasonable time period without causing environmental problems. However, biodegradable polymers possess some limitations such as comparatively high cost, insufficient mechanical performances, and inferior thermal stability to extend their widespread application in packaging industry. To overcome these limitations, one of the most commonly used strategies is melt blending of dissimilar biodegradable polymers. Unfortunately, most of the biodegradable polymer blends exhibit insufficient performance because they are thermodynamically immiscible as well as exhibit poor compatibility between the blended components. It has been established that the compatibilization is a well‐known strategy to improve the performances of the immiscible biodegradable polymer blends by enhancing the adhesion between the phases. As a result, recent studies focus on various compatibilizers to enhance the performances of the resulting biodegradable polymer blends. This review summarizes the recent developments on a variety of biodegradable polymer blends compatibilized by melt processing with a main focus of ex situ and in situ compatibilization strategies. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2018 , 135 , 45726.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it