Development of the scratch resistance on acrylic sheet with basic colloidal silica (SiO<sub>2</sub>)—methyltrimethoxysilane (MTMS) nanocomposite films by sol–gel technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The formation of scratch‐resistant coating film prepared from colloidal silica and a polysiloxane matrix was investigated. Methyltrimethoxysilane (MTMS) was hydrolysed and mixed with silica sol (SiO2) at various compositions to form the hybrid hard‐coating nanocomposite film. The hydrolysed MTMS (polysiloxane) acts as the polymeric binder that is covalently linked to the colloidal silica surface and provides adhesion for the scratch resistant coating film to the substrate. The ratio between the polymeric matrix and the SiO2 nanoparticles was found to play a major role in controlling the coating film appearance and its resistance to scratching. At a SiO2 content < 30 wt.%, the agglomeration of the hydrolysed polysiloxane was observed and caused the opacity of the coating film. At a SiO2 content >70 wt.%, there was not enough polysiloxane to act as a binder for the SiO2, therefore a shrinkage upon solidification of the coating film caused cracking within the nanocomposite film. The optimum ratio was found to be at 40 wt.% ≤SiO2 ≤60 wt.%, where the films had a transparent, crack free hard coating, with excellent scratch resistance, good adhesion and very good environmental resistance. The nanoindentation revealed that the nanocomposite film, at the optimum loading, possessed a higher strength with a higher SiO2 loading. Film properties, including hardness, scratch resistance, adhesion and environmental resistance were also examined. The morphology of nanocomposite films was identified by atomic force microscopy (AFM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
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".