Poly(lactic acid)/flax composites: effect of surface modification and thermal treatment on interfacial adhesion, crystallization, microstructure, and mechanical properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, unidirectional flax fabrics were used to reinforce poly(lactic acid) (PLA). Flax/PLA composites were produced by thermo-compression using as-received flax fibers and titanium dioxide (TiO2) coated flax fibers. The aim was to investigate the effect of annealing temperature and time, under quiescent or mechanical stress conditions, on the microstructure, interfacial adhesion, crystallization, and mechanical properties of composites. Results showed significant differences between oxidized-TiO2-coated flax fibers/PLA composites (oxi-TiO2-C) and as-received flax fibers/PLA composites (AR-C). Indeed, above the glass transition temperature (Tg) of PLA, the storage modulus (E’) of both composites significantly increased due to PLA crystallization. However, once E’ reached a maximum value, composites with treated flax fibers leveled off while the E’ of composites with untreated flax fibers dropped drastically. This peculiar result was explained by a partial destruction or damage of AR-C interface during PLA crystal growth. This phenomenon was not observed with oxi-TiO2-C, suggesting a good interfacial adhesion. Despite the presence of a trans-crystalline layer for both samples, it was shown that TiO2 coating of flax fibers strengthened the adhesion between flax fibers and the trans-crystalline structure. Interlaminar shear strength measurements revealed a 15% increase in the interfacial strength.
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".