Novel compatibilized nylon-based ternary blends with polypropylene and poly(lactic acid): morphology evolution and rheological behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
-MA grafting process was observed to have a dramatic effect on the compatibility of both the binary and ternary blends and while a drastic reduction of the PP dispersed phases particle size was observed, the affinity between PLA and PP was also highlighted. The surface tension of the homopolymers and the interfacial tension of the pairs of polymers were measured to characterize the interaction at their interfaces. The interaction of PA6/PLA appeared preferable to PLA/PP, explaining the thinner dispersion obtained for PLA phase. The morphologies observed were compared to the predictions of spreading coefficient and minimum free energy models. While both models predicted the encapsulation of PP by the PLA phase, disagreeing with the morphological results, the rheological measurement gave an explanation for this phase separation. Using rheology measurements, the interaction between the phases was further investigated and the viscosity ratios were measured for the different pairs of polymers, stressing the high interaction between PA6 and PLA with and without compatibilizer. The droplet size of the dispersed phases appeared to substantially influence the chain relaxations in the melt.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".