Surface degradation and hydrophobic recovery of polyolefins treated by air corona and nitrogen atmospheric pressure glow discharge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The surface degradation and production of low molecular weight oxidized materials (LMWOM) on biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) and low‐density polyethylene (LDPE) films was investigated and compared for two different dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) treatment types, namely air corona and nitrogen atmospheric pressure glow discharge (N2 APGD). Contact angle measurements, X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and atomic force microscopy (AFM) analyses were performed in conjunction with rinsing the treated films in water. It is shown that N2 APGD treatments of both polyolefins result in much less surface degradation, therefore, allowing for a significantly higher degree of functionalization and better wettability. Hydrophobic recovery of the treated films has also been studied by monitoring their surface energy (γs) over a period of time extending up to several months after treatment. Following both surface modification techniques, the treated polyolefin films were both found to undergo hydrophobic recovery; however, for N2 APGD modified surfaces, γs ceases to decrease after a few days and attains a higher stable value than in the case of air corona treated films. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 94: 1291–1303, 2004
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".