On the effectiveness of the addition of milkweed floss fibers on processing and mechanical properties of PLA biocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aimed at investigating the reinforcement effect of milkweed (MW) floss, a smooth and homogeneous natural fiber with a wide hollow lumen, on bio‐based polymer composites. First, MW floss was thoroughly characterized in terms of morphology, surface roughness, and tensile and thermal resistance. Then, MW floss was compared to flax fibers, one of the most widely used natural fibers in the composite industry. Subsequently, bio‐based composites made of polylactic acid (PLA) and 1 wt% MW floss were produced by injection molding and compared to composites reinforced with 1 wt% of flax fibers. Finally, thermal behavior, mechanical properties, and impact resistance of composites were determined. Results showed that MW floss, with respect to flax fibers, exhibits lower tensile modulus, ultimate tensile strength, surface roughness as well as a shorter critical length. Nonetheless, and despite the lower intrinsic properties of MW floss, UTS and impact resistance of MW/PLA composites were found to be 60% and 15% higher than those of Flax/PLA composites, respectively. In addition, micrographs of MW/PLA interface revealed a lack of adhesion in MW/PLA, which should be overcome by surface treatment in upcoming work.
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".