Effect of nanoclay orientation on oxygen barrier properties of LbL nanocomposite coated films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Layer by layer (LbL) film deposition is an efficient technique used to produce thin coatings with high gas barrier properties. In this study, multilayer composite coatings with hydrogen bonding inter-layer interactions were deposited by LbL on a PET substrate, with an alternate deposition of a nanoclay layer and different intercalating polymers layers, namely chitosan (CS), polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA). The investigated coatings had two different structures, quadlayers and bilayers which are different in the number of layers in the repetitive unit (four and two respectively). The alignment of nanoclay platelets and the extent of their intercalation were studied using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction (XRD). The results showed that the dispersion level and the orientation of nanoclay particles depend considerably on the molecular structure of intercalating polymers and their interactions with nanoclay. An oxygen permeability model, specific to high filler loading composites, was then developed by considering only the aspect ratio and the volume fraction of the nanoparticles.
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".