Comparison between the Performance of Fluidized Bed and Barrel Rectors for the Plasma Activation of Polymer Particles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports on a comparison between two types of atmospheric plasma systems, a pulsed fluidized bed and a barrel reactor, for the plasma activation of silicone particles. Both helium and helium /oxygen gas mixtures were used to generate the plasmas in the two reactors. Both reactors are cylindrical in shape with internal dimensions of 100 mm in length and diameters of 30 mm. The two reactors were used to treat 0.5 g of silicone polymer particles. The effects of plasma treatment time, operating voltage and gas flow rate, on changes in the water contact angle of the treated polymer were investigated. Optical Emission Spectroscopy (OES) facilitated the monitoring of reactive plasma species during treatment. Subsequent to their treatment, the polymer particles were analysed using X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS). As expected this analysis demonstrated an increase in oxygen content on the polymer surface after plasma activation. For a helium only plasma treatment, the water contact angle of the silicone slowly decreased from 145° to approx. 75° after a treatment time of 2 hours. In contrast, the addition of a relatively small concentration of oxygen into the helium plasma formed in the barrel reactor, resulted in contact angle of <5° after only 2 minutes treatment. The pulsed fluidized bed reactor however was observed to be less effective using this gas mixture, achieving an average contact angle of only 26° after 2 minutes of treatment. The difference in the level of particle activation achieved using the two reactor types is attributed to the intensity and homogeneity of the plasma generated within the reactor designs.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".