ACCU DYNE TEST ™ Bibliography
Provided as an information service by Diversified Enterprises.
showing result page 43 of 76, ordered by
537. Morita, M., N. Tsurata, and K. Morita, “Activation of wood surface by corona treatment to improve adhesive bonding,” J. Applied Polymer Science, 49, 1251-1258, (Aug 1993).
785. Morra, M, and C. Cassinelli, “Acid-base characteristics of polymer surfaces: relevance to bioadhesion,” in Acid-Base Interactions: Relevance to Adhesion Science and Technology, Vol. 2, Mittal, K.L., ed., 497-512, VSP, Dec 2000.
743. Morra, M., C. Della Volpe, and S. Siboni, “The evaluation of acid-base properties of polymer surfaces by wettability measurements,” in Polymer Interfaces and Emulsions, Esumi, K., ed., 535-566, Marcel Dekker, Jul 1999.
245. Morra, M., E. Occhiello, L. Gilo, and F. Garbassi, “Surface dynamics vs. adhesion in oxygen plasma treated polyolefins,” J. Adhesion, 33, 77-88, (1990).
243. Morra, M., E. Occhiello, R. Marola, F. Garbassi, et al, “On the aging of oxygen plasma-treated polydimethylsiloxane surfaces,” J. Colloid and Interface Science, 137, 11-24, (1990).
241. Morra, M., E. Occhiello, and F. Garbassi, “Contact angle hysteresis on oxygen plasma treated polypropylene surfaces,” J. Colloid and Interface Science, 132, 504-508, (1989).
242. Morra, M., E. Occhiello, and F. Garbassi, “Contact angle hysteresis on oxygen plasma treated poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (letter),” Langmuir, 5, 872-876, (1989).
244. Morra, M., E. Occhiello, and F. Garbassi, “Surface characterization of plasma-treated PTFE,” Surface and Interface Analysis, 16, 412-417, (1990).
246. Morra, M., E. Occhiello, and F. Garbassi, “Chemical reactions on plasma-treated polyethylene surfaces,” J. Adhesion Science and Technology, 7, 1051-1063, (1993).
648. Morra, M., E. Occhiello, and F. Garbassi, “Dynamics of plasma treated polymer surfaces: mechanisms and effects,” in Polymer - Solid Interfaces, Pireaux, J.J., P. Bertrand, and J.L. Bredas, eds., 407-428, Institute of Physics Publishing, 1991.
833. Morra, M., E. Occhiello, and F. Garbassi, “Chemical reactions on plasma-treated polyethylene surfaces,” in Plasma Surface Modification of Polymers: Relevance to Adhesion, Strobel, M., C.S. Lyons, and K.L. Mittal, eds., 183-196, VSP, Oct 1994.
2280. Morra, M., E. Occhiello, and F. Garbassi, “Knowledge about polymer surfaces from contact angle measurements,” Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 32, 79-116, (Jun 1990).
538. Morris, B., “Factors influencing adhesion in coextruded structures,” TAPPI J., 75, 107-111, (Aug 1992).
2050. Morris, B.A., “Understanding why adhesion in extrusion coating decreases with diminishing coating thickness,” J. Plastic Film and Sheeting, 24, 53-88, (Jan 2008).
It is well known that in extrusion coating, the coating adhesion to the substrate decreases with decreasing thickness. The study on this phenomenon is divided into three parts. Part I explores the reduction in adhesion of LDPE to paper and other porous substrates. Several hypotheses are proposed for the origin of this decrease, including a reduction in oxidation time, faster cooling in the air gap, and more rapid quenching in the nip. A model of the molten polymer penetration into the substrate shows that the greatest effect is cooling in the nip; thinner coatings have less time to flow into the substrate interstices once the chill roll contact is made. The model results agree well with experimental adhesion data from the literature.
In Part II, adhesion to aluminum foil and other nonporous substrates is studied. Several hypotheses are proposed for why peel strength decreases in these structures, including a reduction in the air gap time, faster air gap cooling, more rapid nip quenching, and stress imposed during drawing. Modeling and experimental results show that cooling in the nip and imposed stress have the greatest impact.
In Part III, the peel test is analyzed to understand why the peel strength of better adhering adhesives are more sensitive to changes in coating thickness. The analysis shows that changes in the critical dimension of the deformation region at the peel front may be responsible.
1041. Morris, B.A., and N. Suzuki, “The case against oxidation as a primary factor for bonding acid copolymers to foil,” in ANTEC 2001 Conference Proceedings, 25-35, Society of Plastics Engineers, 2001.
247. Morrison, I.D., “On the existence of an equation of state for interfacial free energies,” Langmuir, 5, 540-543, (1989).
1238. Morrow, R., “The theory of positive glow corona,” J. Physics D: Applied Physics, 30, 3099-3114, (1997).
2525. Morsy, F.A., S.Y. Elsayad, A. Bakry, and M.A. Eid, “Surface properties and printability of polypropylene film treated by an air dielectric barrier discharge plasma,” Surface Coatings International, Part B: Coatings Transactions, 89, 49-55, (Mar 2006).
The effect of air dielectric barrier discharge plasma treatment on the chemical structure and morphology of polypropylene (PP)film was studied using UV-VIS (ultraviolet-visible),FT-IR,(Fourier transform infrared),SEM (scanning electron microscopy)and AFM (atomic force microscopy).Polypropylene samples were printed using solvent-based gravure ink.An evaluation of the print quality criteria of the treated PP films included measurement of print density and print gloss.SEM investigated the ink laydown on the modified PP film.The results showed that after a few seconds of plasma treatment,both the surface energy and the surface roughness of the treated PP film increased.There was an increase in the absorbance at the almost-visible range,and C=C and C=O bands were found after the air discharge plasma treatment.A short plasma treatment of 15 seconds was found to bring about a dramatic increase in the print density readings,but a decrease in print gloss.The time of the air discharge plasma treatment was found to have no effect on the print density or print gloss at a high ink film thickness.The results showed that air dielectric barrier discharge plasma treatment,for a few seconds,is effective in printing and is economical for industrial use (this will be studied in detail in future work).
1239. Morvov, M., “DC corona discharges in air and CO-air mixtures for various electrode materials,” J. Physics D: Applied Physics, 31, 1865-1874, (1998).
1240. Morvova, M., “The influence of water vapour and temperature on depletion of carbon monoxide in d.c. corona discharge,” Czechoslovak J. Physics, 49, 1703-1719, (Dec 1999).
248. Moshonov, A., and Y. Avny, “The use of acetylene glow discharge for improving adhesive bonding of polymeric films,” J. Applied Polymer Science, 25, 771-781, (1980).
1628. Mount, E.M., “Why is treatment such a poor indicator of surface quality?,” http://www.convertingmagazine.com/blog, Jan 2008.
249. Mount, E.M. III, “Plasma pretreatment for metalizing packaging film,” Converting, 19, 124-131, (Mar 2001).
684. Mount, E.M. III, “Aluminum adhesion of metallized films in lamination,” Converting, 21, 66-72, (Mar 2003).
1068. Mount, E.M. III, “Shelf life of metalized polyester film for packaging applications,” AIMCAL News, 26, (Apr 2004).
1108. Mount, E.M. III, “Review of metallized film adhesion testing: Test methods and interpretation of results,” Presented at 2004 AIMCAL Fall Technical Conference, Oct 2004.
1499. Mount, E.M. III, “Delamination problems,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Jun 2006.
1629. Mount, E.M. III, “Measuring treatment, part 1,” http://www.convertingmagazine.com/blog, Jan 2008.
1630. Mount, E.M. III, “Measuring treatment, part 2,” http://www.convertingmagazine.com/blog, Jan 2008.
1631. Mount, E.M. III, “Measuring treatment, part 3,” http://www.convertingmagazine.com/blog, Jan 2008.
1690. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: The best film optics for a particular application can be attained via rigid control of surface chemistry and internal and external light-scattering,” Converting, 26, 46-50, (Feb 2008).
2129. Mount, E.M. III, “Humidity's effect on treater rolls and film treatment,” http://www.empiretreaterrolls.com, 2007.
2131. Mount, E.M. III, “A study of energy savings in corona treatment of packaging films,” http://www.empiretreaterrolls.com, 2007.
2234. Mount, E.M. III, “PET film coatings for maintaining the surface energy of the films,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/2661/, Apr 2011.
2237. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: When to blame the corona treater,” Converting Quarterly, 1, 12, (Aug 2011).
2239. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: Delamination of adhesive lamination after several weeks,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/2995/, Jul 2011.
2262. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: Plasma treatment and treatment retention,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/3444/, Oct 2011.
2296. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: Priming metallized films,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/3462/, Nov 2011.
2430. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: Surface treatment and heat sealing OPP,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/3081/, Jan 2012.
2432. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: We are seeing differences in tape testing and lamination adhesion behavior,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/3877/, Feb 2012.
<-- Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | Next-->