Hydrophilicity Enhancement of High‐Density Polyethylene Film by Ozonation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High‐density polyethylene (HDPE) films were ozonated in the gas phase and in distilled water, respectively, to improve their surface hydrophilicity. The efficiency of ozonation conducted in the gaseous and aqueous phases was compared. The results indicated that the aqueous ozonation was more effective than its gaseous counterpart in terms of peroxide generation. The results also showed that the concentration of peroxides generated on the film surfaces increased with the applied ozone dose and ozonation time in both phases. It was found that the peroxides generated by aqueous ozonation were accessible to monomers for graft polymerization. The hydrophilicity of the HDPE films was significantly improved by graft polymerization of acrylamide (AAm) initiated by the peroxides. The contact angle reduction from 74.9° to 38.6° indicated the successful graft polymerization. The successful graft polymerization of AAm was further confirmed by the formation of new peaks corresponding to amide groups in FTIR spectra and by scanning electron microscope images.
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".