Sorption of Water/Methanol on Teflon and Hydrocarbon Proton Exchange Membranes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sorption of water and methanol droplets on Teflon films, as well as on various representative classes of hydrocarbon-based proton exchange membranes (PEMs) was investigated using contact angle measurement (drop shape method) during wetting under ambient open-air conditions. Teflon films exhibited constant hydrophobic surfaces when contacted with water, but a significant sorption of methanol. The PEMs showed slow sorption of water, and a significant sorption of methanol. The differences in sorption of water and methanol on Teflon and PEMs arose from the match/compatibility in the surface free energies as well as polarities between a liquid and a membrane. The significant discrepancies in surface free energies and polarities between water (72.0 mJ m(-2) and 70.1%, respectively) and Teflon film (14.0 mJ m(-2) and 4.9%, respectively) lead to a highly hydrophobic surface and no discernible sorption of water on Teflon films, while the relative similarity or minor discrepancy in surface free energies and polarities between methanol (22.5 mJ m(-2) and 17.0%, respectively) and Teflon film (14.0 mJ m(-2) and 4.9%, respectively) results in a significant sorption of methanol on Teflon. The surface free energies of PEMs were calculated using the harmonic-mean approach, based on contact angle measurements using both water and diiodomethane as probes. The results show that PEMs have initial surface free energies ranging from 44.1 to 54.0 mJ m(-2) along with polarities in the range of 20.8 to 29.1%, for a selection of typical sulfonated polymers. The surface free energies of ionomers were principally contributed to by the nonpolar component, but the presence of polar groups in the polymer increased the polar component, leading to an increase in surface free energy. Of the PEMs investigated, sulfonated poly(aryl ether ether nitrile) has a higher surface energy than those of other ionomers with similar sulfonate contents. The compatibility between water/methanol and PEMs was investigated on the aspect of surface free energies. The present study provides a plausible strategy to prescreen potential PEMs and optimize membrane electrode assembly (MEA) fabrication.
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".