Contact angle measurements and interpretation: wetting behavior and solid surface tensions for poly(alkyl methacrylate) polymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-rate dynamic contact angles of a large number of liquids were measured on a poly(ethyl methacrylate) (PEMA) polymer using an automated axisymmetric drop shape analysis profile (ADSA-P). The results suggested that not all experimental contact angles can be used for the interpretation in terms of solid surface tensions: eight liquids yielded non-constant contact angles and/or dissolved the polymer on contact. From the experimental contact angles of the remaining four liquids, we found that the liquid-vapor surface tension times the cosine of the contact angle changes smoothly with the liquid-vapor surface tension, i.e. γlv cos ζ depends only on γlv for a given solid surface (or solid surface tension). This contact angle pattern is again in harmony with those from other methacrylate polymer surfaces of different compositions and side-chains. The solid-vapor surface tension of PEMA calculated from the equation-of-state approach for solid-liquid interfacial tensions was found to be 33.6 ± 0.5 mJ/m2 from the experimental contact angles of the four liquids. The experimental results also suggested that surface tension component approaches do not reflect physical reality. In particular, experimental contact angles of polar and nonpolar liquids on polar methacrylate polymers were employed to determine solid surface tension and solid surface tension components. Contrary to the results obtained from the equation-of-state approach, we obtained inconsistent values from the Lifshitz-van der Waals/acid-base (van Oss and Good) approach using the same sets of experimental contact angles.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".