Effects of Liquid Contaminants on Heat Seal Strength of low‐density polyethylene Film
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heat sealing is commonly applied for making form‐fill‐seal packages fabricated from thermoplastic films. One of the challenges frequently faced by the industry is inadvertent contamination of film–film interface by the product during filling, which can compromise package seal strength. In this study, the effects of dwell time (0.5–1.5 s), jaw pressure (28–1860 kPa), jaw configuration (narrow versus wide contact area) and jaw temperature (150°C–180°C) on the interface temperature and seal strength of a linear low‐density polyethylene (LLDPE) film were investigated. Three different film–film interface conditions were studied: (1) no contaminant; (2) with water contaminant; and (3) with vegetable oil contaminant. In the presence of liquid contaminant, jaw pressure played an important role in displacing the liquid from the seal area to form intact seals. Short dwell time (0.3 s) and low jaw temperature (150°C) was not favourable for forming intact seals in both water‐contaminated and vegetable oil‐contaminated films. The optimum jaw temperature and dwell time required to produce intact seals for oil contaminated films was 180°C and 0.3 s, respectively, whereas a combination of 165°C jaw temperature and 1 s dwell time was required to form intact seals for water‐contaminated films. Within the experimental conditions investigated, interface temperatures of 130°C–140°C resulted in the most optimum seal strength for both water‐contaminated and clean film specimens. Above 140°C, a weakening of seal strength was observed, presumably because of the change in melt flow characteristics and possible initiation of thermal degradation of the polymer. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".