Effects of oily contamination and decontamination on the flame resistance of thermal protective textiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reports an experimental study wherein flame resistance and limiting oxygen index of protective fabrics were determined before and after contamination with oil and after decontamination. Experimental variables were presence of contamination, laundry treatment, number of contamination/decontamination cycles, and fabric type. Although laundering with pre‐wash products alone was the most effective in removing oil, some product residues may have contributed to the increased flammability of some fabrics. Thus, use of that product was truly effective only if combined with detergent. For two fabrics higher flammability was noted after five contamination/decontamination cycles than after one. Of the three fabrics studied, aramid specimens retained the least oil, and although they had the highest flammability both before and after contamination, it increased the least with contamination. The FR cotton/nylon fabric retained the most oil after decontamination, but had better flame resistance than aramid. Much of the oil remained in the interior of cotton fibres making it difficult to remove but also less accessible for vaporization and combustion. For the aramid/FR viscose, energy from combustion of residual oil activated the FR additive, thereby reducing apparent fabric flammability, but this FR transference effect occurred only up to an optimum quantity of oil. Copyright © 2010 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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".