Dielectric Relaxation Dynamics of Clay‐Containing Low‐Density polyethylene Blends and Nanocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Series of clay‐containing nanocomposites have been prepared and investigated using frequency‐domain dielectric spectroscopy at different temperatures. Different matrix materials have been used: neat low‐density polyethylene (LDPE) with and without compatibilizer and co‐continuous blends of LDPE with two grades of polystyrene‐b‐poly(ethylene‐ co ‐butylene)‐b‐polystyrene (SEBS) copolymers. Two major relaxation modes were detected in the dielectric losses of all the nanocomposites and associated with Maxwell–Wagner–Sillars interfacial polarization and dipolar relaxation, respectively. Characteristic relaxation rates, activation energies, dielectric strength, and shape parameters of these relaxation mechanismes were calculated and discussed for the LDPE/clay nanocomposites. The addition of compatibilizer was found to slightly increase the dielectric loss of the nanocomposites while slowing the dynamics due to an improved dispersion. When combined with a high loading of nanofiller (15%), the compatibilizer addition led to low‐frequency dispersion. A new relaxation process was then observed for the nanocomposites with the blend matrix. Several speculations were made as to the origin of this phenomenon, all of which were related to the SEBS phase. POLYM. ENG. SCI., 60:968–978, 2020. © 2020 Society of Plastics Engineers
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".