Nonionic surfactants as zero-shear compatibilizing agents for polyethylene/polyamide blends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work explores the utility of low molecular weight, nonionic surfactants as compatibilizing agents to improve the physical properties of rotationally molded parts formed using a physical mixture of immiscible polymers, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyamide 11 (PA11). Selective control of melt-phase morphology during rotomolding motivated the selection of functionally dissimilar emulsifiers, Tween 20 (polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate; HLB 16.7) and Span 85 (sorbitan trioleate; HLB 1.8) at concentrations of 0.1–1.0 wt% to investigate a viable single-step alternative to the comparatively complex industry standard for manufacturing plastic fuel tanks (PFTs). Dry blends of HDPE and PA11 coated with Tween 20 showed the PA11 phase preferentially migrating bidirectionally towards the outer surfaces of the mold walls while also yielding an improvement in impact strength compared to a mixture of uncoated particles. Conversely, molded parts prepared with ground particles of extrusion-compounded Tween 20-coated HDPE/PA11 blends adversely affected impact properties while having a negligible difference on morphology. Span 85, albeit negatively affecting porosity, showed improved impact properties while having no characteristic influence on morphology. In all scenarios, compared to the 50/50 mixtures, the 75/25 HDPE/PA11 dry blends showed either inconsequential or poorer gains at similar concentrations for both surfactant species.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".