Vacuum Ultraviolet Photolysis of Hydrocarbon Polymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Summary: The wavelength‐dependent vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) photolysis of several polymers, low density polyethylene (LDPE), biaxially oriented poly(propylene) (BOPP), atactic polystyrene (PS), and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), was studied by irradiation in vacuum with the well‐characterized emissions from four different resonant or excimer VUV sources. These lamps comprise radiofrequency (r.f.) discharges in different noble gases, such as krypton, xenon (at low pressures, producing near‐monochromatic resonant line radiations), xenon excimer (at “high” pressure), and a deuterium/argon mixture (producing a broad‐band emission). VUV‐induced mass loss (ablation or etching) was monitored in situ by quartz crystal microbalance measurements. Following irradiation, samples were analysed by ATR‐FTIR and XPS, to evaluate near‐surface structural changes (e.g., creation of unsaturation, cross‐linking) resulting from the VUV‐initiated bond scissions and radical‐creation reactions. PMMA was the most readily ablatable polymer, whereas the mass loss of BOPP was higher than that of LDPE, regardless of the irradiation wavelength, λ. All polymers were found to form double bonds, with the exception of PS, which is rather stable, probably due to energy dissipation by fluorescence. Formation of double bonds in a) vinyl‐, b) vinylidene‐, and c) vinylene‐like unsaturated groups, as a function of the radiation dose, D, for KrL (▪), XeL (▴), and D2Ar‐irradiated (•) PMMA. magnified image Formation of double bonds in a) vinyl‐, b) vinylidene‐, and c) vinylene‐like unsaturated groups, as a function of the radiation dose, D, for KrL (▪), XeL (▴), and D2Ar‐irradiated (•) PMMA.
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".