Accudynetest logo

Products available online direct from the manufacturer

ACCU DYNE TEST ™ Bibliography

Provided as an information service by Diversified Enterprises.

3022 results returned
showing result page 17 of 76, ordered by
 

1187. Bhowmik, S., H.W. Bonin, V.T. Bui, and T.K. Chaki, “Physicochemical and adhesion characteristics of high-density polyethylene when treated in a low-pressure plasma under different electrodes,” J. Adhesion, 82, 1-18, (Jan 2006).

The present investigation studys the effects of different electrodes such as copper, nickel, and stainless steel under low-pressure plasma on physicochemical and adhesion characteristics of high-density polyethylene (HDPE). To estimate the extent of surface modification, the surface energies of the polymer surfaces exposed to low-pressure plasmas have been determined by measuring contact angles using two standard test liquids of known surface energies. It is observed that the surface energy and its polar component increase with increasing exposure time, attain a maximum, and then decrease. The increase in surface energy and its polar component is relatively more important when the polymer is exposed under a stainless-steel electrode followed by a nickel and then a copper electrode. The dispersion component of surface energy remains almost unaffected. The surfaces have also been studied by optical microscopy and electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis (ESCA). It is observed that when the HDPE is exposed under these electrodes, single crystals of shish kebab structure form, and the extent of formation of crystals is higher under a stainless-steel electrode followed by nickel and then copper electrodes. Exposure of the polymer under low-pressure plasma has essentially incorporated oxygen functionalities on the polymer surface as detected by ESCA. Furthermore the ESCA studies strongly emphasize that higher incorporation of oxygen functionalities are obtained when the polymer is exposed to low-pressure plasma under a stainless-steel electrode followed by nickel and then copper electrodes. These oxygen functionalities have been transformed into various polar functional groups, which have been attributed to increases in the polar component of surface energy as well as the total surface energy of the polymer. Therefore, the maximum increase in surface energy results in stronger adhesion of the polymer when the polymer is exposed under a stainless-steel electrode rather than nickel and copper electrodes.

1208. Dillingham, R.G., and B.R. Oakley, “Surface energy and adhesion in composite-composite adhesive bonds,” J. Adhesion, 82, 407-426, (Apr 2006).

In the absence of weak boundary layers, surface energy can be an excellent indicator of the suitability of a fiber-reinforced composite surface for adhesive bonding. Mechanical surface treatments such as grit blasting are effective and commonly used to prepare composite surfaces, but the roughness introduced by these treatments makes quantification of the surface energy by contact angle methods difficult. This paper shows that the diameter of a small drop of a low-viscosity fluid chosen to have surface tension characteristics very similar to the adhesive can be used as an effective predictor of adhesive bond fracture energy. This technique could form the basis of a sensitive quality assurance tool for manufacturing.

1224. Kovalchuk, V.I., E.K. Zholkovskiy, M.P. Bondarenko, and D. Vollhardt, “Ion redistribution near the polar groups in the Langmuir wetting process,” J. Adhesion, 80, 851-870, (Sep 2004).

The theoretical analysis of electrostatic interactions and ion redistribution in the close vicinity of the three-phase contact line shows their important role in the Langmuir wetting process. To provide a sufficient rate for the ion transfer, which is intended to neutralize the interfacial charge, the concentration and potential distributions deviate from the equilibrium. As a consequence, during the deposition process the adhesion work, and hence the contact angle, are defined by the local ionic concentrations near the three-phase contact line. The concentration profiles and the electro-diffusion ion fluxes induced during the Langmuir wetting process are strongly dependent on the subphase composition and on the monolayer properties. The results of the analysis are in a good agreement with the experiments.

1258. Tavana, H., R. Gitiafroz, M. Hair, and A.W. Neumann, “Determination of solid surface tension from contact angles: The role of shape and size of liquid molecules,” J. Adhesion, 80, 705-725, (Aug 2004).

Accurate surface tension of Teflon® AF 1600 was determined using contact angles of liquids with bulky molecules. For one group of liquids, the contact angle data fall quite perfectly on a smooth curve corresponding to γsv = 13.61 mJ/m2, with a mean deviation of only ±0.24 degrees from this curve. Results suggest that these liquids do not interact with the solid in a specific fashion. However, contact angles of a second group of liquids with fairly bulky molecules containing oxygen atoms, nitrogen atoms, or both deviate somewhat from this curve, up to approximately 3 degrees. Specific interactions between solid and liquid molecules and reorientation of liquid molecules in the close vicinity of the solid surface are the most likely causes of the deviations. It is speculated that such processes induce a change in the solid–liquid interfacial tension, causing the contact angle deviations mentioned above. Criteria are established for determination of accurate solid surface tensions.

1259. Tavana, H., N. Petong, A. Hennig, K. Grundke, and A.W. Neumann, “Contact angles and coating film thickness,” J. Adhesion, 81, 29-39, (Jan 2005).

The effect of film thickness and surface preparation techniques on contact angles of water, 1-bromonaphtalene, and n-hexadecane on Teflon® AF 1600 polymeric surfaces is studied. It was found that contact angles of water on different thicknesses of spin-coated films ranging from 27 nm to 420 nm are essentially constant. This is due to the homogeneity and smoothness of the coating layers as shown by the scanning force microscopy of the samples. Furthermore, the contact angle measurements with these three liquids on both dip-coated and spin-coated films suggested that the film preparation technique does not affect contact angles dramatically. Interestingly, slightly higher contact angles on dip-coated surfaces were measured. It is also argued that the anomaly of the water contact angle—in the sense that the measured contact angle is much higher than the expected ideal value—is due to specific interactions between water and Teflon®.

1317. Kwok, D.Y., C.N.C. Lam, A. Li, and A.W. Neumann, “Low-rate dynamic contact angles on poly(methyl methacrylate/n-butyl methacrylate) and the determination of solid surface tensions,” J. Adhesion, 68, 229-255, (1998).

1350. Liston, E.M., “Plasma treatment for improved bonding: a review,” J. Adhesion, 30, 199-218, (1989).

1397. Kusano, Y., “Atmospheric pressure plasma processing for polymer adhesion: A review,” J. Adhesion, 90, 755-777, (2014).

Atmospheric pressure plasma processing has attracted significant interests over decades due to its usefulness and a variety of applications. Adhesion improvement of polymer surfaces is among the most important applications of atmospheric pressure plasma treatment. Reflecting recent significant development of the atmospheric pressure plasma processing, this work presents its fundamental aspects, applications, and characterization techniques relevant to adhesion.

1445. Mathieson, I., D.M. Brewis, I. Sutherland, and R.A. Cayless, “Pretreatments of fluoropolymers,” J. Adhesion, 46, 49-56, (1994).

1448. Brewis, D.M., I. Mathieson, I. Sutherland, and R.A. Cayless, “Adhesion studies of fluoropolymers,” J. Adhesion, 41, 113-128, (1993).

1455. Kasemura, T., S. Ozawa, and K. Hattori, “Surface modification of fluorinated polymers by microwave plasmas,” J. Adhesion, 33, 33-44, (Nov 1990).

1633. Sapieha, S., J. Cerny, J.E. Klemberg-Sapieha, and L. Martinu, “Corona versus low pressure plasma treatment: Effect on surface properties and adhesion of polymers,” J. Adhesion, 42, 91, (1993).

1651. Eick, J.D., R.J. Good, J.R. Fromer, A.W. Neumann, and L.N. Johnson, “Influence of roughness on wetting and adhesion,” J. Adhesion, 3, 23, (1971).

1655. Good, R.J., and E.D. Kotsidas, “Contact angles on swollen polymers: the surface energy of crosslinked polystyrene,” J. Adhesion, 10, 17, (1979).

1801. Li, S.K., R.P. Smith, and A.W. Neumann, “Wilhelmy technique and solidification front technique to study the wettability of fibres,” J. Adhesion, 17, 105-122, (Aug 1984).

1804. Lee, L.-H., “Enhancement of surface wettability of adhesive silicone rubber by oxidation,” J. Adhesion, 4, 39-49, (May 1972).

1834. Sowell, R.R., N.J. Delollis, H.J. Gregory, and O. Montoya, “Effect of activated gas plasma on surface characteristics and bondability of RTV silicone and polyethylene,” J. Adhesion, 4, 15-24, (May 1972) (also in Recent Advances in Adhesion, L.-H. Lee, ed., p. 77-89, Gordon and Breach, 1973).

1921. Dillingham, R.G., B.R. Oakley, and D. Gilpin, “Wetting measurements for identification of specific functional groups responsible for adhesion,” J. Adhesion, 84, 1007-1022, (Dec 2008).

The relationship between adhesion and surface energy is well established for systems where specific chemical interactions are unlikely, such as pressure sensitive adhesives. However, the relationship of wetting to adhesion in chemically reactive systems is not well understood. This work used atmospheric pressure plasma treatment in air of high density polyethylene to obtain surfaces with a range of electron donor and acceptor character prior to bonding with an amine cured epoxy. Adhesion correlated strongly with the electron donating character of surface energy, and the likely functional groups responsible for this adhesion were amines created by the plasma treatment process. These results indicate that wetting measurements may be useful in detecting the specific chemical interactions important to adhesion in reactive systems.

1922. Guild, F.J., M.D. Green, R. Stewart, and V. Goodship, “Air plasma pre-treatment for polypropylene automotive bumpers,” J. Adhesion, 84, 530-542, (Jun 2008).

The effect of forced air-plasma pre-treatment, Lectro-treat (TM), on polypropylene has been investigated using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), angle-resolved XPS (AR-XPS), and atomic force microscopy (AFM). The pre-treatment process is found to induce both surface chemistry changes and topographical changes. The parameters of the pre-treatment process can be optimised from these observations. The Lectro-treat pre-treatment process has been used for adhesive bonding of a demonstrator component: a bumper assembly. The adhesively bonded bumpers performed successfully in standard automotive tests.

1923. Bousquet, A., G. Pannier, E. Ibarboure, E. Papon, and J. Rodriguez-Hernandez, “Control of the surface properties of polymer blends,” J. Adhesion, 83, 335-349, (Apr 2007).

We report on the preparation of amphiphilic diblock copolymers containing a hydrophilic segment, poly(acrylic acid)(PAA), and a polystyrene hydrophobic part. We analysed, by means of contact-angle measurements, how the hydrophilic segments usually bury themselves under the hydrophobic when exposed to air to reduce the surface free energy of the system. In contrast, in contact with water, the hydrophilic blocks have a tendency to segregate to the interface. We first describe the parameters that control the surface reconstruction when the environmental conditions are inversed from dry air to water vapour. Then, annealing time, temperature, composition and size of the diblock copolymers, and size of the matrix that influenced the surface migration process are the main parameters also considered. Finally, the density of the carboxylic functions placed at the surface was determined using the methylene blue method.

1924. Bhurke, A.S., P.A. Askeland, and L.T. Drzal, “Surface modification of polycarbonate by ultraviolet radiation and ozone,” J. Adhesion, 83, 43-66, (Jan 2007).

The effect of ultraviolet (UV) radiation in the presence of ozone as a surface treatment for polycarbonate is examined in regards to changes in the wettability, adhesion, and surface mechanical properties. Standalone, 175-µm-thick films of a commercially available polycarbonate were exposed to UV radiation from sources of different power with various treatment times in the presence of supplemental ozone. Significant decreases in the water contact angle were observed after exposure to UV radiation in the presence of ozone. After several variations in the experimental setup, it was determined that the change in water contact angle is a function of the UV irradiance and the work of adhesion follows a master curve versus UV irradiance. Nanoindentation experiments revealed that the modulus of the top 500 nm of the surface is increased following UV exposure, attributable to surface cross-linking. Adhesion tests to the surface (conducted by a pneumatic adhesion tensile test instrument) showed little change as a function of UV exposure. Analysis of adhesion test failure surfaces with X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) showed the locus of bond failure lay within the bulk polycarbonate and the measured bond strength is limited by the bulk properties of the polycarbonate and/or the creation of a weak boundary layer within the polymer.

1925. Brown, H.R., “The adhesion of polymers: Relations between properties of polymer chains and interface toughness,” J. Adhesion, 82, 1013-1032, (Oct 2006).

A review is presented of the adhesion between polymers with particular emphasis on the processes that occur during failure at the level of polymer chains and how these processes relate to the macroscopic interface toughness. The same processes at the chain level, pull-out and scission, occur in both glassy polymers and elastomers, but the two classes of material are considered separately because their deformation processes around a crack tip are so different. Emphasis is placed on the work in which the author has participated and so the review makes no attempt to be an unbiased survey of the field.

1926. Sedev, R., M. Fabretto, and J. Ralston, “Wettability and surface energetics of rough fluoropolymer surfaces,” J. Adhesion, 80, 497-520, (Jun 2004).

Hydrophobic solid surfaces with controlled roughness were prepared by coating glass slides with an amorphous fluoropolymer (Teflon® AF1600, DuPont) containing varying amounts of silica spheres (diameter 48 μm). Quasi-static advancing, θA, and receding, θR, contact angles were measured with the Wilhelmy technique. The contact angle hysteresis was significant but could be eliminated by subjecting the system to acoustic vibrations. Surface roughness affects all contact angles, but only the vibrated ones, θV, agree with the Wenzel equation. The contact angle obtained by averaging the cosines of θA and θR is a good approximation for θV, provided that roughness is not too large or the angles too small. Zisman's approach was employed to obtain the critical surface tension of wetting (CST) of the solid surfaces. The CST increases with roughness in accordance with Wenzel equation. Advancing, receding, and vibrated angles yield different results. The θA is known to be characteristic of the main hydrophobic component (the fluoropolymer). The θV is a better representation of the average wettability of the surface (including the presence of defects).

1927. Evieux, J., P. Montois, V. Nassiet, Y. Baziard, J.A. Petit, and R. Dedryv, “Study of bonded plasma-treated polyetherimide components for power integration: Durability in a hot/wet environment,” J. Adhesion, 80, 263-290, (Apr 2004).

This work deals with the study of the durability, in a hot/wet environment, of structural adhesively bonded polyetherimide (PEI) assemblies used in power electronics packaging technology. An overall approach is proposed, for which the epoxy joint-PEI substrates assembly on the one hand, and the adhesive system components (substrate surface and bulk adhesive) on the other hand, are studied separately with different analytical techniques. The first part of this work was devoted to the substrate surface state and to its modification using a cold plasma treatment of the PEI surface. Then for chosen parameters (power, duration) contact angle measurements indicated an increased surface tension resulting from surface decontamination (removal of release agent and carbon contaminants) and from the creation of polar species, such as esters or carboxylic acid groups, on the PEI surface (XPS analyses). The second part of this study concerned the bulk adhesive ageing in an ethylene glycol-water solution at 70°C. Mass uptake measurements versus time showed the liquid diffusion in the bulk adhesive associated with a microscopic damage of the epoxy system. An overall plasticizing of the adhesive with a considerable decay of the α-transition temperature of one of the two adhesive epoxy-amine networks (TGDDM-BAPP) was also highlighted using rheometry. However, in these ageing conditions, the adhesive glassy modulus decreases slighty because of the thermomechanical stability of the other epoxy network. In the third part, the asymmetric wedge test showed the beneficial effect of the cold plasma treatment on the epoxy/PEI interface durability in the aggressive medium.

1928. Weiss, C., and H. Muenstedt, “Surface modification of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) films for flexible printed circuit boards,” J. Adhesion, 78, 443-445, (May 2002).

1929. Leahy, W., V. Barron, M. Buggy, T. Young, A. Mas, F. Schue, T. McCabe, M. Bridge, “Plasma surface treatment of aerospace materials for enhanced adhesive bonding,” J. Adhesion, 77, 215-249, (Nov 2001).

1930. Li, L.-H., C. Macosko, G.L. Korba, A.V. Pocius, and M. Tirrell, “Interfacial energy and adhesion between acrylic pressure sensitive adhesives and release coatings,” J. Adhesion, 77, 95-123, (Oct 2001).

1931. Zenkiewicz, M., “Some effects of corona discharge treatment of biaxially-oriented polypropylene film,” J. Adhesion, 77, 25-41, (Sep 2001).

1932. Li, L.-H., M. Tirrell, G.A. Korba, and A.V. Pocius, “Surface energy and adhesion studies on acrylic pressure sensitive adhesives,” J. Adhesion, 76, 307-334, (Aug 2001).

1933. Lee, L.-H., “The unified Lewis acid-base approach to adhesion and solvation at the liquid-polymer interface,” J. Adhesion, 76, 163-183, (Jul 2001).

1934. Charbonnier, M., M. Romand, H. Esrom, and R Seebock, “Functionalization of polymer surfaces using excimer VUV systems and silent discharges: Application to electroless metallization,” J. Adhesion, 75, 381-404, (May 2001).

1935. Bismarck, A., D. Richter, C. Wuertz, M.E. Kumru, B. Song, and J. Springer, “Adhesion: Comparison between physico-chemical expected and measured adhesion of oxygen-plasma-treated carbon fibers and polycarbonate,” J. Adhesion, 73, 19-42, (May 2000).

1936. Lee, L.-H., “Adhesion and surface-hydrogen-bond components for polymers and biomaterials,” J. Adhesion, 67, 1-18, (May 1998).

1937. Nguyen, T.P., A. Lahmar, and P. Jonnard, “Adhesion improvement of poly(phenylene-vinylene) substrates induced by argon-oxygen plasma treatment,” J. Adhesion, 66, 303-317, (Mar 1998).

1938. Decker, E.L., and S. Garoff, “Contact angle hysteresis: The need for new theoretical and experimental models,” J. Adhesion, 63, 159-185, (Jun 1997).

1939. Good, R.J., and A.K. Hawa, “Acid/base components in the molecular theory of adhesion,” J. Adhesion, 63, 5-13, (Jun 1997).

1940. Feinerman, A.E., Y.S. Lipatov, and V.I. Minkov, “Interfacial interactions in polymers: The dependence of the measured surface tension of solid polymer on the surface tension of wetting liquid,” J. Adhesion, 61, 37-54, (Feb 1997).

1941. Kinning, D.J., “Surface and interfacial structure of release coatings for pressure sensitive adhesives, I: Polyvinyl N-alkyl carbamates,” J. Adhesion, 60, 249-274, (Jan 1997).

1942. Tingey, K., K. Sibrell, K. Dobaj, K. Caldwell, M. Fafard, and H.P. Schreiber, “Surface restructuring of polyurethanes and its control by plasma treatment,” J. Adhesion, 60, 27-38, (Jan 1997).

1943. Nakamura, Y., and K. Nakamae, “Adhesion between plasma-treated polypropylene films and thin aluminum films,” J. Adhesion, 59, 75-86, (Aug 1996).

 

<-- 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-->

 Build ID built-Jan 3 2011-13:54:18
 Page ID 4195680610
 MGI Version 3.2.3
 MGI Region Path /
 Virtual Host Name dev.accudynetest.com
 Parameter Count 0
 Parameter List 
 Tag Body 
 Page Variable Count 21
 Page Variable List mgiSBShippingTotal="0.00"
 bibVar_Page="17"
 tIndex="8"
 bibVar_ResultCount="3022"
 prevURL="bibliography2.html?pageID=16&bibsort=publisher"
 nextURL="bibliography2.html?pageID=18&bibsort=publisher"
 bibsort="publisher"
 bibVar_LastPage="76"
 token=""
 mgiSBSubtotal="0.00"
 bibVar_FirstIndex="641"
 bibVar_PrevPage="16"
 textURL="bibliography2.html?pageID=76&bibsort=publisher"
 bibVar_NextPage="18"
 searchstring="NOT auth='' ORDER BY publname"
 mgiSBTotal="0.00"
 numberURL="| <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=1&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">1</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=2&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">2</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=3&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">3</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=4&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">4</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=5&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">5</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=6&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">6</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=7&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">7</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=8&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">8</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=9&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">9</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=10&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">10</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=11&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">11</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=12&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">12</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=13&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">13</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=14&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">14</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=15&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">15</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=16&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">16</a> | 17 | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=18&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">18</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=19&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">19</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=20&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">20</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=21&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">21</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=22&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">22</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=23&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">23</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=24&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">24</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=25&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">25</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=26&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">26</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=27&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">27</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=28&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">28</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=29&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">29</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=30&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">30</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=31&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">31</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=32&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">32</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=33&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">33</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=34&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">34</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=35&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">35</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=36&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">36</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=37&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">37</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=38&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">38</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=39&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">39</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=40&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">40</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=41&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">41</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=42&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">42</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=43&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">43</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=44&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">44</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=45&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">45</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=46&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">46</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=47&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">47</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=48&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">48</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=49&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">49</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=50&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">50</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=51&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">51</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=52&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">52</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=53&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">53</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=54&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">54</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=55&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">55</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=56&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">56</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=57&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">57</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=58&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">58</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=59&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">59</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=60&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">60</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=61&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">61</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=62&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">62</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=63&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">63</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=64&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">64</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=65&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">65</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=66&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">66</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=67&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">67</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=68&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">68</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=69&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">69</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=70&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">70</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=71&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">71</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=72&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">72</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=73&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">73</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=74&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">74</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=75&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">75</a> | <a href="bibliography2.html?pageID=76&bibsort=publisher" class="numURL">76</a>"
 page="17"
 iatatest=""
 bibVar_LastIndex="680"
 searchString1="token = ''"
 HTML POST Argument Count 0
 HTML POST Argument List 
 URL Path Argument Count 2
 URL Path Argument List bibsort="publisher"
 pageID="17"
 CGI AUTH_TYPE 
 CGI CONTENT_LENGTH 
 CGI CONTENT_TYPE 
 CGI GATEWAY_INTERFACE CGI/1.1
 CGI HTTP_ACCEPT */*
 CGI HTTP_REFERER 
 CGI HTTP_USER_AGENT Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)
 CGI PATH_INFO 
 CGI QUERY_STRING bibsort=publisher&pageID=17
 CGI REMOTE_ADDR 18.117.230.101
 CGI REMOTE_HOST 
 CGI REMOTE_IDENT 
 CGI REMOTE_USER 
 CGI REQUEST_METHOD GET
 CGI SCRIPT_NAME /bibliography2.html
 CGI SERVER_PORT 80
 CGI SERVER_PROTOCOL 
 CGI SERVER_NAME dev.accudynetest.com
 CGI SERVER_SOFTWARE MGI Apache