Permanent antistatic polypropylene based on polyethylene wax/polypropylene wax grafting sodium acrylate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two types of permanent antistatic agents, polyethylene wax grafted with sodium acrylate (PEW‐ g ‐AAS) and polypropylene (PP) wax grafted with sodium acrylate (PPW‐ g ‐AAS), were prepared using a solution grafting method and applied to PP for enhancing antistatic properties. The grafting degree was determined using back titration method and structures were confirmed by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. The antistatic properties of PEW‐ g ‐AAS/PP blends and PPW‐ g ‐AAS/PP blends were characterized by surface resistivities (ρ s ) and volume resistivities (ρ v ), and a combination of contact angle measurements, scanning electron microscope, permittivity, and dielectric loss were used to investigate the surface and inner structures of the blends. Results showed ρ s and ρ v of PEW‐ g ‐AAS/PP blends dropped significantly (4–7 magnitudes) above a critical addition at 10%, where a electrostatic dissipative network formed; PPW‐ g ‐AAS revealed an inferior antistatic performance than PEW‐ g ‐AAS due to its better compatibility and smaller dispersed phase in the matrix. Further, the antistatic blends treated in 80°C water, 80°C air, and room temperature were investigated, and the results were interpreted from surface energy. Moreover, the addition of antistatic agent had little impact on tensile strength of the PP matrix. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2012
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".