Impact of Dispersion Processes and Surfactant on Performance of Silica-Silicone Nanocomposites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, various silicone nanocomposites are studied to investigate the effects of filler treatments, such as calcination, use of surfactant, and mixing methods on filler dispersion and distribution. A two-part room temperature vulcanized silicone rubber is used as a base polymer and reinforcing nanofumed silica as a filler. A fixed filler concentration of 10 wt% has been selected for the comparative studies. The electrostatic disperser (ED) that is effective in mixing nanofillers is used to prepare the composites, with or without polyalkyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane, the surfactant. Comparisons are also made with some samples prepared using the conventional high shear (HS) mixer. Fillers were used as obtained and/or after calcination at 500 °C. The performances of prepared nanocomposites are evaluated by comparing their thermal, mechanical, morphological, and dielectric properties. The thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and mechanical properties, tensile strength and elongation at break, show that nanocomposites prepared using ED with calcined filler in the absence of surfactant have the highest thermal stability and tensile strength. Dielectric analyses, both at room temperature and elevated temperatures of 50 °C, 75 °C, and 100 °C, further show that those composites with calcined fillers in the absence of surfactant have lower relative permittivity and loss factor than those with surfactant. The observed differences in thermal, mechanical, and dielectric properties are related to the way fillers bond with the polymer matrix and additional interfaces created by the surfactant. The morphological analysis supports the empirical correlations derived.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".