The effect of alcoholic solutions on the thermomechanical properties of immersed poly(lactic acid) films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effects of aqueous and deuterium oxide (D2O) solutions of alcohols (methanol, ethanol, 1‐propanol, 2‐propanol, and 1‐butanol) on the thermomechanical properties of poly(lactic acid)—PLA—films were assessed by dynamic mechanical analysis. The glass transition temperature (Tg) of PLA films immersed in 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% (v/v) alcoholic solutions were compared with the Tg of films immersed in 100% water and D2O. The Tg of PLA films immersed in methanol and ethanol aqueous solutions decreased as the concentration of the alcohol solutions increased. For methanol and ethanol, the Tg decreased by 8.6 and 7.6°C per 25% (v/v) increase in alcohol, respectively. When the PLA films were immersed in propanol aqueous solutions and butanol, the Tg reached the lowest value at 75% (v/v) and 100% (v/v), respectively. Tg of PLA films immersed in 1‐propanol and 2‐propanol decreased by 8.6 and 8.9°C for every 25% increase in propanol before reaching the minimum value, respectively. Aqueous and D2O solutions had similar effects on Tg. Selective studies of crystallinity evolution, ethanol sorption, degree of swelling, and Hansen solubility parameters of PLA were conducted. This work assists in developing PLA films intended for contact with aqueous‐alcoholic solutions.
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".