MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404386600 · doi:10.1115/1.4067165

A Study on the Influence of Polypropylene Melt Flow Index on Nonwoven Fibers Produced Through Hot Melt Centrifugal Spinning

2024· article· en· W4404386600 on OpenAlexafffund
Jason Gunther, Mélanie Girard, Martine Dubé, Ilyass Tabiai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureHôpital Notre-Dame
FundersMitacs
KeywordsPolypropyleneSpinningMaterials scienceComposite materialMelt flow indexMelt spinningNonwoven fabricFlow (mathematics)FiberMechanicsPolymerCopolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A hot melt centrifugal spinning process is used to manufacture polypropylene nonwoven textile such as those found in the filtering layers of medical masks. The fiber morphology and diameter distribution is influenced by the extrusion geometry and the polymer viscosity, often characterized by its melt flow index. These important geometric and physical aspects and their effects on the fiber quality are investigated in this work. The characteristics of the obtained nonwoven textile are also compared to those of the filtering layers found in a medical mask, usually made with the meltblown process. A custom-designed open-source lab-scale centrifugal spinning apparatus and the spinneret from a commercial cotton candy machine were used. This device was built at a very low cost while good quality fibers may be obtained compared to electrospinning. Its versatility allows to easily change the extrusion features. Here, a grid, nozzles, and a nozzlefree geometry, in which the polymer is extruded through a slit, were used. The behavior of five grades of polypropylene with five different melt flow indexes were compared in this process. Results show that fiber morphology improves when using the nozzle and nozzlefree geometries with a high melt flow index polymer, which were closer to the medical mask filtering layer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing Science and EngineeringSame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207