Biodegradability and improved mechanical performance of polyhydroxyalkanoates/agave fiber biocomposites compatibilized by different strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, biocomposites made of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) with natural fibers were produced via compression molding. In particular, polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) and polyhydroxybutyrate‐co‐hydroxyvalerate (PHBV) were reinforced with 20 wt% of agave fibers. Different compatibilization strategies were investigated to improve the fiber‐matrix interaction: fiber surface treatment in PHA solution, fiber surface treatment in maleated PHA solution, fiber propionylation, and extrusion with maleated PHA. The biocomposites were characterized in terms of morphology, mechanical properties, water absorption, and biodegradability by CO2production tracking. In general, fiber propionylation was the best strategy for mechanical properties enhancement and water uptake decreasing. Biocomposites with propionylated fibers showed improved flexural strength (170% for PHB and 84% for PHBV). The flexural modulus was also enhanced with propionylated fibers up to 19% and 18% compared to uncompatibilized biocomposites (PHB and PHBV, respectively). Tensile strength increased by 16% (PHB) and 14% (PHBV), and the water absorption was reduced using propionylated fibers going from 6.6% to 4.4% compared with biocomposites with untreated fibers. Most importantly, the impact strength was also improved for all biocomposites by up to 96% compared with the neat PHA matrices. Finally, it was found that the compatibilization did not negatively modify the PHA biodegradability.
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) | 0.001 | 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".