Ionic Liquid Platform for Spinning Composite Chitin–Poly(lactic acid) Fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the design of stronger chitin fibers reinforced with poly(lactic acid) (PLA), an ionic-liquid-based (IL-based) approach was developed in which both polymers were codissolved in an 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate ([C2mim][OAc]) and wet-jet spun into composite fibers. Chitin, directly extracted from shrimp shell, had a solubility in the IL of 2.75 wt %, while PLA of MW 700 000 g/mol had a solubility of 49 wt %. Keeping the IL saturated in chitin, homogeneous solutions of chitin and PLA could be obtained up to 27 wt % (relative to the IL) PLA. Spinning dopes were prepared by maintaining the chitin concentration relative to the IL at 1.75 wt % and adding PLA in chitin to PLA weight ratios of 1:0.1 through 1:1 (PLA concentrations of 0.175–1.75 wt % relative to the IL). Homogeneous chitin/PLA fibers could be spun when the chitin to PLA ratio was between 1:0.1 and 1:0.3. The tensile strength and plasticity of the fibers depended on the chitin to PLA ratio with the highest plasticity (8.8% vs 3.0% for pure chitin fibers), strength (112 vs 71 MPa), and stiffness (5.9 vs 4.2 GPa) observed for fibers with a chitin to PLA ratio of 1:0.3. Studies of the fracturing surface of the fibers indicated that fracturing occurred through an initial disruption of the interactions between polymer chains, followed by complete fiber breakage. The work not only demonstrates that homogeneous composite fibers can be spun using a biopolymer and PLA additive, but also suggests a versatile platform for preparation of multiple biopolymer–PLA materials using solution processing methods.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".