Effect of compatibilizer type on the properties of thermoplastic elastomers based on recycled polyethylene at high ground tire rubber content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, compatibilized thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) based on recycled high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and high ground tire rubber (GTR) content (70, 80 and 90 wt%) were prepared by twin-screw extrusion followed by injection molding. The main objective of the work was to use three different compatibilizers and to compare their efficiency: ethylene-octene copolymer (Engage 8180), styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene grafted with maleic anhydride (SEBS-g-MA) (Kraton FG1901X) and a trans-polyoctenamer (Vestenamer 8012). A morphological analysis showed that the addition of a compatibilizer produced more homogeneous structures, significantly improving mechanical performance compared with their uncompatibilized counterparts. This modification had a direct effect on all the properties, especially the tensile properties which were evaluated at different crosshead speeds (10, 50, 100 and 500 mm/min) to better see differences in the interfacial state. High elongations at break exceeding 100 % for highly filled recycled blends (up to 90 wt% of GTR) with Kraton FG1901X were obtained, highlighting superior compatibility efficiency. In general, adding GTR to recycled PE produced a more elastic TPE. Increasing the GTR concentration led to lower modulus (from 300 MPa for R-PE to 50 MPa for 70 % GTR). The main conclusion of the work was that injection molding of TPE with high GTR content (above 70 %) was only possible by adding compatibilizers. Nevertheless, the best performance to produce high GTR content TPE was obtained using Kraton FG1901X probably due to its grafted functionality (maleic anhydride, MA) leading to better interfacial interactions between the phases.
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) | 0.001 | 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".