Recycled Tire Fibers Used as Reinforcement for Recycled Polyethylene Composites
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study proposes a simple approach to separate most rubber particles from recycled tire fibers (RTFs) and to determine their rubber content using thermogravimetric analysis (TGA)/calcination. Furthermore, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDAX), and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analyses are used to investigate the separation process and materials compositions. Afterwards, a series of composites based on recycled post-consumer low-density polyethylene (rLDPE) with clean fiber (CF) and residual ground rubber particles (GR) is prepared at different filler concentrations (0–30%) via extrusion compounding before using compression molding and injection molding for comparison. In all cases, injection molding leads to higher strength and modulus but lower elongation at break. The results show that incorporating 30 wt.% of CF into rLDPE yields a remarkable improvement in tensile strength (15%), tensile modulus (192%) and flexural modulus (142%). On the other hand, the incorporation of up to 30 wt.% of GR results in a reduction in both tensile strength and flexural modulus by 15%, confirming the critical role of the cleaning process for RTF in achieving the best results.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it