A comparative study on the mechanical, thermal, and water barrier properties of PLA nanocomposite films prepared with bacterial nanocellulose and cellulose nanofibrils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanical, thermal, and water barrier properties of poly(lactic acid) (PLA) film reinforced with cellulose nanofibrils (CNF) and bacterial nanocellulose (BNC) were studied and compared. The in-situ formation of sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) on the BNC surface may aid in reducing the interchain hydrogen bonding and agglomeration of BNC fibers. At optimum loading, both CNF/PLA and BNC/PLA nanocomposite films exhibited higher tensile strength and Young’s modulus than the neat PLA without sacrificing its toughness. The BNC/PLA nanocomposite films displayed lower water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) as compared to neat PLA and CNF/PLA films at 0.5 and 1.0 wt%. BNC was found to induce imperfect crystal structures and exhibited higher overall crystallinity than neat PLA and CNF/PLA composites at 0.5 wt%. The BNC/PLA showed higher mechanical properties than CNF/PLA nanocomposites. Nanocellulose derived from plants and bacteria could provide promising solutions to develop high performance biobased-nanocomposites film for packaging application.
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".