Plasma Pre-treatments to Improve the Weather Resistance of Polyurethane Coatings on Black Spruce Wood
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We hypothesize that plasma treatments that increase the adhesion and penetration of transparent water, and solvent-borne polyurethane coatings into black spruce wood will improve the performance of coated wood exposed to accelerated weathering. We tested this hypothesis by modifying wood samples with plasma for 30, 180, 600, and 1200 s, and measuring coating penetration and adhesion using light microscopy and a mechanical pull-off test, respectively. Plasma treatment did not improve coating adhesion, but the solvent-borne coating showed deeper penetration into plasma-modified wood, and its resistance to accelerated weathering was better on plasma-modified wood than on untreated controls. Plasma treatments enhanced the penetration of water-borne polyurethane into wood, but the treatments did not improve weather-resistance of the coating. Plasma treatment increased the wettability of wood surfaces, and prolonged plasma treatment etched cell walls, increasing their porosity. These effects may explain the positive effect of plasma treatment on coating penetration, and the increased weather-resistance of the solvent-borne polyurethane on plasma-modified wood. In conclusion, our results indicate that the ability of plasma treatment to improve coating performance on black spruce depends on the coating type, and the effects of the treatment on the surface microstructure of wood.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it