Scalable Fabrication of Microcellular Open‐Cell Polymer Foams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open‐cell foams are foams with porous, interconnected cellular structure. This unique structure has given open‐cell foams the versatility to be used in different types of applications including acoustics, filtration, membranes, and bioscaffolds. Conventional open‐cell polymer foams comprise mainly thermosetting and/or crosslinked materials; such materials are difficult to process and have limited end‐product recyclability. This article presents a commercially viable molding process to fabricate open‐cell foams using noncrosslinked thermoplastic polypropylene (PP). Highly open‐cell and/or reticulated structures at an open‐cell content of 84% are attained. The strategies employed in molding of PP foam with high open‐cell degree include: 1) use of mold‐opening method to achieve high void fractions; 2) reduction of cell‐wall thickness through increasing the cell densities via controlled crystallization; and 3) use of low viscosity or low melt‐strength polymer resins to promote cell‐wall opening. The molding process proposed may be extended to other semicrystalline thermoplastic materials for fabricating recyclable open‐cell foams.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".