Surfactants for Electrophoretic Deposition of Polyvinylidene Fluoride–Silica Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation is motivated by the numerous advantages of electrophoretic deposition (EPD) for the fabrication of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and composite coatings and the various applications of such coatings. It is demonstrated that gallic acid (GA), caffeic acid (CFA), cholic acid (CA) and 2,3,4 trihydroxybenzoic acid (THB) can be used as charging and dispersing agents for the EPD of PVDF. The deposition yield of PVDF increases in the following order: THB < CFA < CA < GA. Test results indicate that the chemical structure of the dispersants exerts influence on the deposition efficiency. Potentiodynamic and impedance spectroscopy studies show the corrosion protection properties of PVDF coatings. GA is used for the co-EPD of PVDF with nanosilica and micron-size silica. The silica content in the composite coatings is varied by the variation of silica content in the suspensions. The ability to use GA as a charging and dispersing agent for the co-EPD of materials of different types paves the way for the fabrication of advanced organic–inorganic composites using EPD.
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".