Wetting and aging behaviors for several O<sub>2</sub> and NH<sub>3</sub> plasma treated nanofibrous and flat film polymer materials: A comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aging (or “hydrophobic recovery”) of plasma‐modified polymer surfaces has been known and documented in the literature over several decades; to the best of our knowledge, the present study appears to be the first in which this is done for two vastly different rough surface structures: (i) electrospun nanofibrous (NF) mats, and (ii) flat films (FF), for three polymers of well‐documented interest in biotechnological applications: poly(lactic acid); poly(urethane); and poly(caprolactone). Two different plasma treatments are applied: low‐pressure (LP) radio‐frequency (rf) glow discharges in flows of O 2 and NH 3 under mild power conditions. Measured time‐dependent surface compositions (from X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy survey spectra) and water contact angles (WCA) were found to tend toward asymptotic limiting values after ca. 30 days of storage in clean air, as previously reported by these and other authors. An entirely novel aspect of this work is to examine and compare time‐dependent WCA behaviors of NF and FF samples in terms of Wenzel (W) and Cassie‐Baxter (C‐B) model behaviors, including possible transitions from C‐B to W and their interpretation.
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".