Understanding the influence of mixing on a solvent‐free emulsification process for highly viscous polymers using a twin‐screw extruder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Twin‐screw extrusion with its capacity to handle high‐viscosity polymers can be used to create a continuous emulsification process without solvents but presently this approach is challenging to make stable due to the uncertain role of mixing. To address this challenge, the influence of mixing was studied by examining several process‐ and material‐related factors in this work. From the results, the kinetics of interfacial area growth between the polymer and water phases was described in terms of nucleation, propagation and termination stages, with the latter stage ideally corresponding to the dilution zone where phase inversion occurs. The nucleation stage was found to be strongly dependent on early water solubilization in the polymer, controlled by the acid number of the polyester, to determine the initial water fraction feasibly dispersed within this oil‐like phase prior to the dilution zone (referred to as the emulsion boundary). Propagation was influenced by surfactant concentration and strongly affected by residence time, with a longer dispersion zone or lower feed rate allowing for higher cumulative shear strain and a greater chance to completely emulsify the polymer. Ideally, these kinetic stages correspond with the physical zones of the machine else varying degree of emulsification are shown to result. Highlights Early water solublization in the polyester is dependent on the acid number Higher residence time impacted mixing more than shear rate Water fraction dispersible in the melt was strongly affected by mixing Emulsion boundary was adjustable by amount of mixing and surfactant
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".