Electrostatic Interactions to Attach Latex to Pigment Surface to Reduce Binder Migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many paints, paper coatings, and other pigmented coatings, latex and soluble binders are used to impart mechanical properties. However, non-uniform latex binder distributions are often observed in the thickness direction during application and drying, leading to quality issues. While several publications have documented this issue, few solutions are offered in the literature. Here we report a simple process to use electrostatic interactions to attach latex binder to pigments. Coating suspensions are generated using cationic precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) pigments that are mixed with anionic styrene-butadiene (SB) latex binders resulting in latex-covered pigments. The migration of latex binder in coatings generated on various substrates under various drying conditions was measured using Raman spectroscopy and compared with reference coatings. The new system shows reduced latex binder migration for most situations than those obtained with the reference coating. The coated papers were also measured for strength, opacity, gloss, water drainage rate, and porosity. Little difference is seen in the picking strength of the coating and gloss compared to coatings prepared with standard formulations. Water drainage rate, opacity, and porosity were higher for latex-covered pigment (LCP) coatings than the reference standard coating; this increased porosity is likely due to the strong electrostatic attraction that exists between the cationic pigment and anionic latex binder that reduces the densification of the coating during drying.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".