Volumetric and Swelling Techniques for Studying the Permeation of Protective Gloves to Solvents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard test methods ASTM F 739 “Standard Test Method for Resistance of Protective Clothing Materials to Permeation by Liquids or Gases Under Conditions of Continuous Contact,” and F 1407 “Standard Test Method for Resistance of Chemical Protective Clothing Materials to Liquid Permeation-Permeation Cup Method,” are widely used to evaluate the chemical resistance of protective clothing materials. However, these techniques are not well adapted to solvents of low volatility. In this study, the chemical resistance of protective materials to solvents was investigated with volumetric and swelling techniques and compared with the standard permeation techniques. Swelling results were obtained by following the dynamic deformation of a piece of material immersed in the solvent in a specially designed cell. The volumetric technique evaluates precisely the amount of solvent that diffuses into the material over time. The polymeric membranes were neoprene, nitrile and butyl, and the solvents were acetone, cyclohexane, γ-butyrolactone, tetralin (1,2,3,4-tetrahydronaphthalene), nitrobenzene, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone and m-cresol. The advantages and limitations of these techniques for the evaluation of the breakthrough time and permeation rate will be discussed, especially with regard to their application to solvents of low volatility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".