ACCU DYNE TEST ™ Bibliography
Provided as an information service by Diversified Enterprises.
showing result page 42 of 76, ordered by
224. Lindsay, K.F., “Process surface-treats PP parts in line, opening market opportunities,” Modern Plastics, 69, 47-48, (Apr 1992).
328. Sewell, J.H., “Polymer critical surface tensions,” Modern Plastics, 48, 66-72, (Jun 1971).
2328. no author cited, “Guide to corona treatment,” Modern Plastics, 38, 199-202+, (Sep 1961).
523. Mapleston, P., “Plasma technology progress improves options in surface treatment,” Modern Plastics Intl., 20, 74-79, (Oct 1990).
610. no author cited, “Corona treatment tackles tough jobs,” Modern Plastics Intl., 17, 56-58, (Jan 1987).
616. no author cited, “Plasma treated plastics parts have improved paintability, bondability,” Modern Plastics Intl., 19, 4-6, (Mar 1989).
972. Gabriele, M.C., “Corona systems keep pace with end-use demands,” Modern Plastics Intl., 29, 28-29, (Feb 1999).
1043. Colvin, R., “Novel plasma method treats polymer rather than part,” Modern Plastics Intl., 29, 33-34, (Apr 1999).
1046. Gabriele, M.C., “'Cold-plasma' system takes on polyolefin parts,” Modern Plastics Intl., 28, 46, (Feb 1998).
1520. Rosato, D., “Plasma bonding polymer to polymer,” Molding Views, (Oct 2006).
1548. Manges, M., “Plasma treatment for medical device assembly,” Moll Medical, Seagrove Div., Apr 2006.
2796. Huber, M.L., “Models for viscosity, thermal conductivity, and surface tension of selected pure fluids as implemented in REFPROP v10.0,” NIST,
2604. Duncan, B., R. Mera, D. Leatherdale, M. Taylor, and R. Musgrove, “Techniques for characterising the wetting,. coating and spreading of adhesives on surfaces (NPL Report DEPC MPR 020),” National Physical Laboratory, Mar 2005.
25. Blake, T.D., and K.J. Ruschak, “A maximum speed of wetting,” Nature, 282, 489-490, (1979).
943. Ball, P., “Spreading it about,” Nature, 338, 624-625, (Apr 1989).
1523. Good, R.J., “Estimation of surface energies from contact angles,” Nature, 212, 276-277, (1966).
1650. Good, R.J., “On the estimation of surface energies from contact angles,” Nature, 212, 276-277, (1966).
1841. Schonhorn, H., “Dependence of contact angles on temperature: Polar liquids on polyethylene,” Nature, 210, 896-897, (1966).
2339. Weininger, J.L., “Reaction of active nitrogen with polyethylene,” Nature, 186, 546-547, (1960).
2964. Huhtamaki, T., X. Tian, J.T. Korhonen, and R.H.A. Ras, “Surface-wetting characterization using contact-angle measurements,” Nature Protocols, 13, 1521-1538, (Aug 2018).
Wetting, the process of water interacting with a surface, is critical in our everyday lives and in many biological and technological systems. The contact angle is the angle at the interface where water, air and solid meet, and its value is a measure of how likely the surface is to be wetted by the water. Low contact-angle values demonstrate a tendency of the water to spread and adhere to the surface, whereas high contact-angle values show the surface’s tendency to repel water. The most common method for surface-wetting characterization is sessile-drop goniometry, due to its simplicity. The method determines the contact angle from the shape of the droplet and can be applied to a wide variety of materials, from biological surfaces to polymers, metals, ceramics, minerals and so on. The apparent simplicity of the method is misleading, however, and obtaining meaningful results requires minimization of random and systematic errors. This article provides a protocol for performing reliable and reproducible measurements of the advancing contact angle (ACA) and the receding contact angle (RCA) by slowly increasing and reducing the volume of a probe drop, respectively. One pair of ACA and RCA measurements takes ~15–20 min to complete, whereas the whole protocol with repeat measurements may take ~1–2 h. This protocol focuses on using water as a probe liquid, and advice is given on how it can be modified for the use of other probe liquids.
974. Saito, D., “Surface modification by corona discharge,” Nippon Gomu Kyokaishi, 70, 333-339, (1997).
902. Rentzhog, M., and A. Fogden, “Rheology and surface tension of water-based flexographic inks and implications for wetting of PE-coated board,” Nordic Pulp & Paper Research J., 20, 399-409, (2005).
This study systematically characterises a matrix of water-based flexographic inks with respect to their rheology, surface tension and wetting of liquid packaging board, to provide a basis for interpretation and prediction of their printing performance. For all pigment and acrylate polymer vehicles and mixing proportions the inks were shown to be shear thinning and thixotropic, with plastic viscosity, yield stress and storage and loss moduli increasing strongly with content of solution polymer (at comparable solids contents). The solution polymer decreases the static surface tension of the inks, but generally leads to an increase in their equilibrium drop contact angle on the polyethylene- (PE-) coated board due to increase in the ink-board interfacial energy. The solution polymer also decreases the drop spreading rate, and a simple model is tested to express the spreading dynamics in terms of equilibrium contact angle and a rate parameter given by the effective ratio of surface tension to viscosity.
2577. Pykonen, M., H. Sundqvist, M. Tuominen, J. Lahti, J. Preston, et al, “Influence of atmospheric plasma activation on sheet-fed offset print quality,” Nordic Pulp and Paper Research J., 23, 181-188, (2008).
The objective of this paper was to understand the effects of plasma activation, and thus influence of the surface energy and chemistry changes on offset print quality. Pigment coated and surface sized papers were treated with corona and atmospheric plasma in pilot and laboratory scales. The surface energy and surface chemistry changes were evaluated by contact angle and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). Offset printing was performed in laboratory scale with an IGT unit with predampening and in a pilot scale sheet-fed offset printing press. In addition, the ink setting rate was measured using an ink on paper tack tester. Plasma activation increased the surface energy of the papers. Furthermore, the polarity of the paper surface increased due to formed polar oxygen containing molecular groups. Due to differences in treatment times laboratory scale plasma treatment formed mainly carboxyl and ester groups, whereas pilot scale treatment induced mainly alcohol, ethers, aldehydes and/or ketones on paper surfaces. Printing evaluation showed that plasma activation influences both ink and water absorption properties. According to print tack results plasma activation led to faster ink-setting. With hydrophobic surface-sized paper plasma activation influenced the ink transfer, print gloss and density by changing dampening water absorption properties. The difference in surface chemistry with laboratory scale plasma treated samples was also reflected in the print quality properties. SEM imaging showed that too intense plasma activation can cause topography changes in addition to of the surface chemistry changes.
2578. Pykonen, N., J. Preston, P. Fardim, and M. Toivakka, “Influence of plasma activation on absorption of offset ink components into pigment-coated paper,” Nordic Pulp and Paper Research J., 25, 95-101, (2010).
The objective of this paper was to understand the effects of plasma activation, and thus influence of the surface energy and chemistry changes on offset print quality. Pigment coated and surface sized papers were treated with corona and atmospheric plasma in pilot and laboratory scales. The surface energy and surface chemistry changes were evaluated by contact angle and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). Offset printing was performed in laboratory scale with an IGT unit with predampening and in a pilot scale sheet-fed offset printing press. In addition, the ink setting rate was measured using an ink on paper tack tester. Plasma activation increased the surface energy of the papers. Furthermore, the polarity of the paper surface increased due to formed polar oxygen containing molecular groups. Due to differences in treatment times laboratory scale plasma treatment formed mainly carboxyl and ester groups, whereas pilot scale treatment induced mainly alcohol, ethers, aldehydes and/or ketones on paper surfaces. Printing evaluation showed that plasma activation influences both ink and water absorption properties. According to print tack results plasma activation led to faster ink-setting. With hydrophobic surface-sized paper plasma activation influenced the ink transfer, print gloss and density by changing dampening water absorption properties. The difference in surface chemistry with laboratory scale plasma treated samples was also reflected in the print quality properties. SEM imaging showed that too intense plasma
1703. Tyner, D.W., “Evaluation of repellant finishes applied by atmospheric plasma,” North Carolina State Univ., 2007.
1768. Kondyurin, A., B.K. Gan, M.M.M. Bilek, K. Mizuno, and D.R. McKenzie, “Etching and structural changes of polystyrene films during plasma immersion ion implantation from argon plasma,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, B251, 413-418, (2006).
Polystyrene films of 100 nm thickness were modified using plasma immersion ion implantation (PIII) with argon ions of energy 20 keV and fluences in the range 2 × 10 14-2 × 10 16 ions cm -2. The structure and properties of the films were determined by ellipsometry and FTIR spectroscopy, as well as AFM, wetting angle measurements, profilometry and optical microscopy. The effects of oxidation, carbonization, etching and gel-formation were observed. The etching rate was found to decrease with PIII fluence. The rates of degradation with increasing fluence of the aromatic and aliphatic parts of the polystyrene macromolecule were found to be similar. Oxidation of the polystyrene film ceases at fluences greater than 10 15 ions cm -2. The surface morphology of the film did not change with PIII fluence. Washing with toluene produced surface wrinkling for low fluences up to 10 15 ions cm -2 while at high fluences the modified films were stable.
1769. Dejun, L., Z. Jie, G. Hanqing, L. Mozhu, D. Fuqing, and Z. Qiqing, “Surface modification of medical polyurethane by silicon ion bombardment,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, B82, 57-62, (1993).
1770. Fu, R.K.Y., I.T.L. Cheung, Y.F. Mei, et al, “Surface modification of polymeric materials by plasma immersion ion implantation,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, B237, 417-421, (2005).
Polymer surfaces typically have low surface tension and high chemical inertness and so they usually have poor wet-ting and adhesion properties. The surface properties can be altered by modifying the molecular structure using plasma immersion ion implantation (PIII). In this work, Nylon-6 was treated using oxygen/nitrogen PIII. The observed improvement in the wettability is due to the oxygenated and nitrogen (amine) functional groups created on the polymer surface by the plasma treatment. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) results show that nitrogen and oxygen plasma implantation result in C–C bond breaking to form the imine and amine groups as well as alcohol and/or car-bonyl groups on the surface. The water contact angle results reveal that the surface wetting properties depend on the functional groups, which can be adjusted by the ratio of oxygen–nitrogen mixtures.
2540. Hegemann, D., H. Brunner, and C. Oehr, “Plasma treatment of polymers for surface and adhesion improvement,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B, 208, 281-286, (Aug 2003).
2907. no author cited, “Contact angle: A guide to theory and measurement,” Ossila,
2155. Mark, J.E., ed., Polymer Data Handbook, 2nd Ed., Oxford Univ. Press, Apr 2009.
954. Owen, M.J., “Surface energy,” in Comprehensive Desk Reference of Polymer Characterization and Analysis, Brady, R.F. Jr., ed., 361-374, Oxford University Press, 2003.
2809. Hyllberg, B., “Dielectrics and their role with corona treaters,” PFFC, 25, 8-11, (Jan 2020).
2810. Gilbertson, T.J., “Hey buddy can you spare a dyne?,” PFFC, 25, 16-18, (Jan 2020).
2822. Robinson, K., “Static control for corona treaters,” PFFC, 25, 14-18, (Oct 2020).
2823. Eisby, F., “Surface treatment for labels: Evolving technology in a changing market,” PFFC, 25, 24, (Oct 2020).
2838. no author cited, “How to: Know what to look for when purchasing a corona treater,” PFFC, 25, 27, (Nov 2020).
2842. Plantier, M., “Corona or plasma? Which surface treatment technology is best for my application?,” PFFC, 26, 12-14, (Feb 2021).
2873. no author cited, “Q&A - Vetaphone: Know your films!,” PFFC, 26, 30-33, (Oct 2021).
2912. Lightfoot, T., “There's more than one way to treat a film,” PFFC, 27, 26-28, (Jul 2022).
<-- 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-->