MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991989044 · doi:10.32628/ijsrset151141

Effects of Starch Content and Compatibilizer on the Mechanical, Water Absorption and Biodegradable Properties of Potato Starch filled Polypropylene Blends

2015· article· en· W2991989044 on OpenAlexaff
Obasi, Egeolu, Ezenwajiaku

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Scientific Research in Science Engineering and Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced Cellulose Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolypropyleneStarchAbsorption of waterMaterials sciencePotato starchComposite materialPolymer scienceFood scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tensile, water absorption and biodegradable properties of potato starch filled polypropylene blends have been investigated. Polypropylene grafted maleic anhydride (PP-g-MA) was used as compatibilizer. It was observed that the tensile strength and elongation at break are inversely related to the starch content but Young's modulus followed a direct relationship with the starch content. However, the addition of PP-g-MA to the blends improved the tensile strength and elongation at break even though they were still lower than the neat polymer but the Young's modulus increased progressively. This is as a result of the enhanced interfacial bonding between the starch and matrix which can be proved by the SEM images. The tensile strength and elongation at break of the compatibilized blends increased by 30.59%; 42.62% and 23.36%; 24.62% in comparison with the uncompatibilized blends at 10 wt.% and 50 wt.% respectively. The percent water absorbed and weight loss of the PS/PP were higher than the CPS/PP blends due to poor interfacial bonding. Biodegradation products of the blends showed no deleterious effects on the growth of plants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Scientific Research in Science Engineering and TechnologySame topicAdvanced Cellulose Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207