Influence of the use of Renewable Compatibility Agent Wood Plastic Composite (WPC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing interest in using recycled and natural materials in the application of new composites in recent years implies ecological, economic and versatility benefits. Wood plastic composite (WPC) are considered very attractive materials, as they allow the use of polymers of recycled or virgin origin, associated with forestry by-products. The present work aims to investigate the influence on the mechanical, thermal and morphological resistance of WPC, using oleic acid and glycerol as renewable coupling agents. Composites were also prepared with a commercial compatibility agent in its formulation - maleic anhydride grafted polypropylene (MAPP) - under the same conditions. The composites were prepared in a single-screw extruder, with fixed contents of 5% sawdust with 95% virgin polymer, of this total, 2% were coupling agents: MAPP, oleic acid or glycerol, according to the desired composition. To be evaluated as changes in mechanical properties, tensile and impact strength tests were performed on specimens obtained through the injection molding process. The fracture surfaces of specimens tested in tensile tests were examined using images generated by scanning electron microscopy. The thermal stability of the composites was also investigated by thermogravimetric analysis. The use of glycerol and oleic acid improved the mechanical properties of the composite. An increase in tensile strength is observed when glycerol is added in composite. As for impact strength, the addition of glycerol or oleic acid was around 58% higher in impact strength when compared to without coupling agent. Glycerol and oleic acid are renewable, low-cost alternative to be a potential substitute for the commercial coupling agent MAPP, especially when the main requirement is to obtain better impact resistance properties.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".