Weathering of compatibilized poly(hydroxybutyrate)/agave fiber biocomposites produced by different mixing methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The continuous growth in the biopolymers market underscores the necessity to develop and characterize novel materials to replace conventional polymers. This study evaluated the effect of the processing method on the properties of poly(hydroxybutyrate)/agave fiber (PHB/AF) biocomposites with a coupling agent based on glycidyl methacrylate. The components were first blended using two methods (dry-blending and twin screw-extrusion) before being compression molded. Then, the biocomposites degradation was evaluated via accelerated weathering to determine its effect on the physico-mechanical properties. The results showed that adding AF to PHB increased the porosity (low density), but this effect was decreased by 60% for the extruded compatibilized biocomposites. Consequently, the level of degradation (loss of mechanical properties and dimensional stability) was less affected when a coupling agent was used. However, after weathering, the porosity similarly increased for both uncompatibilized biocomposites. Finally, the tensile, impact, and flexural strength were less affected by weathering when the compatibilizer was mixed via dry-blending.
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".