Polylactic acid–agave fiber biocomposites produced by rotational molding: A comparative study with compression molding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, the possibility to produce polylactic acid (PLA) and agave fiber biocomposites by dry‐blending and rotational molding was studied. The samples were also produced by compression molding to compare the effect of processing conditions on the biocomposites properties. In particular, the effect of fiber content (0–40 wt.%) on morphology, density, porosity, thermal (DSC) and mechanical properties (tension, flexion, impact and hardness) was studied. Also, a complete analysis of the internal air temperature profiles was performed to determine the thermal behavior of PLA during the rotational molding cycle. The results showed that rotomolded biocomposites were successfully produced but had higher porosity than compression molded ones due to the absence of pressure while forming. This led to different level of mechanical properties reduction as fiber content increases. Nevertheless, for compression‐molded biocomposites, crystallinity (30% at 30 wt.%), tensile modulus (14% at 30 wt.%) and impact strength (71% at 40 wt.%) improvements were obtained compared to neat PLA.
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".