Development of cellulose nanocrystal‐reinforced polylactide: A comparative study on different preparation methods
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
A masterbatch of polylactide (PLA) containing cellulose nanocrystals (CNCs) prepared via a solution‐cast method was further diluted with neat PLA in the melt state using either a twin‐screw extruder or an internal batch mixer to reach a final CNC content of 4 wt%. For the sake of comparison, a direct melt mixing method was employed to prepare PLA–CNC composites. Then, the efficiency of the preparation methods was assessed by comparing the morphological, rheological and thermomechanical properties of the compounded samples. Scanning electron microscopy showed the disappearance of large agglomerates when using the PLA–CNC masterbatch. Transmission electron microscopy revealed the existence of well‐dispersed CNCs within the PLA matrix at a nanoscale for masterbatch‐based nanocomposites. The rheological properties of the nanocomposites containing the PLA–CNC masterbatch were significantly increased for both steady and small‐amplitude oscillatory shear flow fields, compared to the composites prepared via direct melt mixing. In addition, the masterbatch‐based nanocomposites exhibited pronounced overshoots in the transient start‐up viscosity. The crystalline content of the PLA in the nanocomposites and the crystallization temperature increased when the CNCs were well dispersed, which showed the nucleating effect of the CNCs. In dynamic mechanical thermal analysis, the storage modulus of the nanocomposites increased up to 41 and 128% in the glassy and rubbery regions, respectively. These results show that hydrophilic CNCs can be well dispersed and reinforce PLA using efficient preparation methods. POLYM. COMPOS., 40:E342–E349, 2019. © 2017 Society of Plastics Engineers
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it