Accudynetest logo

Products available online direct from the manufacturer

ACCU DYNE TEST ™ Bibliography

Provided as an information service by Diversified Enterprises.

3040 results returned
showing result page 44 of 76, ordered by
 

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.

2436. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: Maintaining the surface energy of PET films,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/4269/, Jun 2012.

2442. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: Why are PP and PE not compatible?,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/4266/, May 2012.

2443. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: Solubility parameters patent reference,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/4357/, Jun 2012.

2472. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: Metallized films - aluminum layer contamination in wound rolls,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/4623/, Aug 2012.

2474. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: Surface testing of a delamination,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/6008/, Sep 2013.

2598. Mount, E.M. III, “Help for lamination bonding,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/7084/, Jul 2014.

2600. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: How to recognize a corona-treated or plain PET film surface after metallization,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/6965/, Jul 2014.

2601. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: Extrusion-coating of woven HDPE cloth,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/7219/, Sep 2014.

2603. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: Treatment decay in metallized films - take two,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/blogs/substrate-secrets/id/7721/treatment..., Jan 2015.

2644. Mount, E.M. III, “Adhesion loss in metallized laminations,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/substrate-secrets/adhesion-loss-in..., May 2016.

2649. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: How do we test for invisible variations in film surface energy?,” Converting Quarterly, 6, 14-15, (May 2016).

2688. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: How can we optimize various substrate surfaces for proper adhesion?,” Converting Quarterly, 7, 16-17, (May 2017).

2799. Mount, E.M. III, “Substrate secrets: How do we design a substrate to have enhanced surface chemistry? Part 1,” Converting Quarterly, 9, 12, (Oct 2019) (also in http://www.convertingquarterly.com/substrates/how-do-we-design-a-substrate...).

2804. Mount, E.M. III, “How do we design a substrate to have enhanced surface chemistry? Part 2 of 2,” http://www.convertingquarterly.com/substrates/how-to-design-a-substrate-to-have-enhanced-surface-chemistry?, Feb 2020 (also in Converting Quarterly, V. 10, p. 12-13, Feb 2020).

692. Mount, E.M. III, and A.J. Benedict, “Metallisable heat-sealable, oriented polypropylene film has layer of copolyester to improve bonding to metal,” European Patent #444340, 1991.

An oriented, heat sealable polypropylene film is provided having a metallizable surface. The film includes a core layer derived from isotactic polypropylene containing an effective amount of adhesion promoting agent. A copolyester layer is bonded to the core layer, the adhesion promoting agent protecting against the delamination thereof. A heat sealable layer formed from an ethylene-propylene random copolymer is bonded to the opposite side of the core layer. The film is formed as a coextrudate and is biaxially oriented.

2808. Mount, E.M. III, and J.R. Wagner Jr., “Enhanced barrier vacuum metallized films,” U.S. Patent 5981079, Nov 1999.

A multi layer film having enhanced barrier properties against transmission of oxygen and water vapor is provided. The multi layer film includes a polypropylene base layer, with a high density polyethylene layer on at least one surface of the polypropylene base layer. The polyethylene layer includes a surface which has been subjected to plasma treatment with a hydroxyl-donating material such as a methanol. The film further includes a metal layer deposited on the plasma treated surface, such as a layer of vacuum deposited aluminum. Multi layer films according to the present invention are particularly useful as packaging films for food products.

860. Moussaif, N., and R. Jerome, “Modification of the polycarbonate/poly(vinylidene fluoride) interface by poly(methyl methacrylate). Effect on the interfacial adhesion and interfacial tension,” in Macromolecular Symposia 139: Macromolecules at Interfaces, Kahovec, J., ed., 125-135, Wiley-VCH, Aug 1999.

Polycarbonate (PC) and poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) are two immiscible polymers which form two‐phase blends with weak interfacial adhesion and high interfacial tension. This situation may be changed by the addition of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), which concentrates preferably in the PVDF‐rich phase, but also at the PVDF/PC interface. The interfacial activity of PMMA was estimated by the measurement of the interfacial adhesion and interfacial tension in relation to the PMMA content in the PVDF/PC blends. The interfacial adhesion between PC and homogeneous PVDF/PMMA blends of various compositions was measured by the dual cantilever beam technique. The imbedded fiber retraction method was used for the measurement of the interfacial tension. A very beneficial effect was observed when PVDF was premixed with PMMA amounts increasing up to ca. 35 wt.‐%. Beyond that content, the improvement tends to level off.

1307. Moy, E., F.Y.H. Lin, Z. Policova, and A.W. Neumann, “Contact angle studies of the surface properties of covalently bonded poly-L-lysine to surfaces treated by glow-discharge,” Colloid and Polymer Science, 272, 1245-1251, (1994).

Contact angle data, measured by using a sessile drop arrangement in conjunction with Axisymmetric Drop Shape Analysis-contact Diameter (ADSA-CD), were used to quantify the effects of ammonia gas plasma treatment on the surface properties of previously untreated polystyrene surfaces. The surface tension of treated polystyrene samples is considerably higher than that of untreated samples. The increase in surface tension following plasma treatment is attributed to the addition of amine groups to the surface.

Next, conformational changes following the attachment of poly-L-lysine to the untreated samples by simple adsorption and plasma treated samples by covalent bonding were investigated. Surface tension values obtained from contact angle data indicate that conformational changes to poly-L-lysine occur in both cases, because these values are lower than the surface tension of poly-L-lysine in solution. However, contact angle data show that covalently bonded poly-L-lysine undergoes less conformational changes than simply adsorbed poly-L-lysine.

1329. Moy, E., P. Cheng, Z. Policova, S. Treppo, D. Kwok, D.R. Mack, et al, “Measurement of contact angles from the maximum diameter of non wetting drops by means of a modified axisymmetric drop shape analysis,” Colloids and Surfaces, 58, 215-227, (1991).

A modified axisymmetric drop shape analysis approach, ADSA-MD (maximum diameter) was developed to measure the contact angles of non-wetting drops front top-view images of the drop. The approach numerically solves the Laplace equation of capillarity given the following input parameters: maximum diameter and volume of the drop, liquid surface tension, density difference between the two fluid phases and the gravity constant. The computed contact angles are in good agreement with those from ADSA-P, an approach which uses the profile of the drop to determine the contact angle. This new technique is particularly suited for systems where the quality of the solid substrate is poor, such as in the case of biological systems. For these situations contact angle determination from the profile is difficult, if not impossible, due to the difficulty in locating the three-phase contact line. The ADSA-MD approach was used to determine the contact angle of water sessile drops on colon sections of New zealand white rabbits.

721. Moy, E., and A.W. Neumann, “Theoretical approaches for estimating solid-liquid interfacial tensions,” in Applied Surface Thermodynamics, Neumann, A.W., and J.K. Spelt, eds., 333-378, Marcel Dekker, Jun 1996.

1300. Moy, E., and D. Li, “Solid/fluid interfacial tensions of solid-liquid systems: Corroboration by independent approaches,” Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 39, 257-297, (1992).

2425. Mrad, O., J. Saunier, C. Aymes-Chodur, V. Mazel, V. Rosilio, et al, “Aging of a medical device surface following cold plasma treatment: Influence of low molecular weight compounds on surface recovery,” European Polymer J., 47, 2403-2413, (2011).

The surface of medical devices is of great importance for biocompatibility. Surface properties can evolve with a material treatment, time, and storage conditions. In this work, poly(urethane) catheters sterilised by cold nitrogen plasma treatment, were subjected to air and temperature aging in order to evaluate the influence of humidity and temperature on surface recovery. The surface of catheters was analysed by contact angle measurements and XPS. Faster surface changes upon aging were observed at high temperature (45 °C) and relative humidity (90%). For the commercial poly(urethane) catheters analysed in this work, the importance of the nature and polymorphism of additives added to the polymer (lubricant, antioxidant) in the recovery process was demonstrated. Indeed, DSC and TSC showed that additive transitions (relaxation, melting…) could govern the aging process.

2716. Mui, T.S.M., L.L.G. Silva, V. Prysiazhnyi, and K.G. Kostov, “Polyurethane paint adhesion improvement on aluminum alloy treated by plasma jet and dielectric barrier discharge,” J. Adhesion Science and Technology, 30, 218-229, (2016).

The effect of atmospheric pressure plasma treatment on the adhesion between a protective coating and AA1100 alloy was investigated. Two plasma sources were used for surface modifications: atmospheric pressure plasma jet and dielectric barrier discharge. The surface roughness and water contact angle measurements were conducted in order to evaluate the changes on the aluminium surface after plasma processing. The paint coating was tested using the adhesion tape test (ASTM D3359). A significant improvement of surface wettability and adhesion was obtained after plasma treatments.

2737. Mukhopadhyay, S., and R. Fangueiro, “Physical modification of natural fibers and thermoplastic films for composites - a review,” J. Thermoplastic Composite Materials, 22, 135-162, (Mar 2009).

The article throws light on the physical methods to modify natural fibers to be used in composites. Physical methods in natural fiber processing are used to separate natural fiber bundles into individual filaments and to modify the surface structure of the fibers so as to improve the use of natural fibers in composites. Steam explosion and thermomechanical processes fall in the first category while plasma, dielectric barrier techniques and corona fall in the second. The physical treatments have also been used to modify the thermoplastic polymeric films like polyethylene and polypropylene in a bid to impart reactivity. Reviewing such developments, the areas for further research are suggested.

2163. Muller, M., and C. Oehr, “Surface tensions of polymers,” http://www.igb.fraunhofer.de/www/gf/grenzflmem/gf-physik/en/GFphys-PolymOberfl, Nov 2008.

2265. Muller. M., and C. Oehr, “Comments on 'An essay on contact angle measurement' by Strobel and Lyons,” Plasma Processes and Polymers, 8, 19-24, (Jan 2011).

The potential of contact angle measurements (CAM) as an analytical tool to characterize surface treatments or modifications is often not fully exploited. Agreeing with Strobel and Lyons, comparing contact angles is often much more reasonable than comparing deduced data like surface energies, because the latter are based on models, in turn involving the influence and knowledge of intermolecular forces at the respective interfaces. For a comprehensive picture, the measurement of contact angles itself has to be considered together with the appropriate model and the available techniques to carry out CAM. An appropriate measurement procedure will be given and a brief discussion of some models to derive free surface energy from CAM.

 

<-- 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-->