Properties of Poplar Fiber/PLA Composites: Comparison on the Effect of Maleic Anhydride and KH550 Modification of Poplar Fiber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To improve the interfacial adhesion and dispersion of a poplar fiber in a polylactic acid (PLA) matrix, maleic anhydride (MA) and a silane coupling agent (KH550) were used to modify the poplar fiber. The poplar fiber/PLA composites were produced with different modifier contents. The mechanical, thermal, rheological, and physical properties of composites were investigated. A comparison of different natural fiber modifications on the properties of composites was also analyzed. The results showed that both MA and KH550 could improve the interfacial adhesion between the poplar fiber and PLA, resulting in the enhanced mechanical properties of the composite, with 17% and 23% increases of tensile strength for 0.5% MA and 2% KH550, respectively. The thermal properties of the composites were improved at 6% KH550 (a 9% enhancement of T90%) and decreased at 0.5% MA (a 6% decrement of T90%). The wettability of the composites obtained a 11.3% improvement at 4% KH550 and a 5% reduction at 4% MA. Therefore, factors such as mechanical properties, economic efficiency, and durability should be carefully considered when choosing the modifier to improve the property of the composite.
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".