Influence of maleated polypropylene coupling agent on mechanical and thermal behavior of latania fiber‐reinforced PP/EPDM composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of maleated polypropylene (MAPP) on the mechanical/thermal properties of short latania fiber‐reinforced poly(propylene)/ethylene‐propylene‐diene‐monomer (SLF/PP/EPDM) composites was investigated. Two different MAPP weight percentages (0 and 2wt%) and five different fiber weight contents (0, 5, 10, 20, and 30wt%) were considered, where the density of MAPP at the fiber surfaces progressively decreased. For a given fiber loading, addition of 2wt% MAPP led to roughly a 3–9% increase in tensile/flexural moduli and strengths over SLF/PP/EPDM composites with no MAPP. Moreover, composites containing MAPP displayed a profound improvement (37–78%) in impact energy absorption. In addition, composite heat deflection temperatures notably increased by 3–4°C with MAPP addition. Microscopic imaging suggested that matrix crazing, fiber pull‐out, and fiber fractures were key failure mechanisms. Hence, SLF/PP/EPDM composites modified with 2%wt MAPP may serve as a low cost alternative to other natural fiber thermoplastic composites. POLYM. COMPOS., 39:E1751–E1759, 2018. © 2018 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.
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".