MONITORING THE SURFACE TENSION OF REACTIVE EPOXY-AMINE SYSTEMS UNDER DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two commercially available amine-cured epoxy resin formulations were studied under different environmental conditions with regard to the surface tension evolution using axisymmetric drop shape analysis (ADSA). By employing a new strategy, ADSA was used to monitor simultaneously the surface tension and the density of these reactive mixtures from sessile drops. The kinetics of the bulk reactions were quantified by Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, and the changes in the molecular composition of the surface region were studied by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). In both formulations, the surface tension values of the amine hardeners were lower than those of the epoxy resins. For one system, the surface tension of the mixture was similar to the surface tension of the hardener. In this case, the hardener migrates to the surface and determines the surface tension of the mixture, as could be proved by XPS measurements. In the other case, the surface region contained only a very small amount of nitrogen, indicating that the nitrogen-containing groups of the hardener were not enriched in the surface region of this mixture. Its surface tension was similar to that of the pure epoxy resin. In a controlled argon atmosphere, the surface tension of the reactive epoxy–amine systems considered here changed very little as the curing reaction proceeded. The time-dependent changes of the surface tension of the mixtures were caused by environmental factors, particularly the presence of carbon dioxide and water. Such factors can produce complicated surface tension responses due to surface reactions with the amine hardener. The extent of these changes can be controlled by the migration of the hardener to the surface region.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".