ACCU DYNE TEST ™ Bibliography
Provided as an information service by Diversified Enterprises.
showing result page 5 of 79, ordered by
1612. Birch, W., A. Carre, and K.L. Mittal, “Wettability techniques to monitor the cleanliness of surfaces,” in Developments in Surface Contamination and Cleaning: Fundamentals and Applied Aspects, R. Kohli and K.L. Mittal, eds., 693-723, William Andrew Inc., Dec 2007.
In the broad spectrum of contamination control, a major concern is the presence of organic contamination on various inorganic surfaces. In order to control surface contamination of materials, a rapid-detection method is required that does not adversely affect the surface. Wettability measurements provide a convenient and rapid method for probing the outermost surface of a material. The technique is highly surface specific, generally exceeding the sensitivity of electron spectroscopies and is sensitive to a fraction of a monolayer. The most widely used quantitative measure of wettability is the contact angle. When a drop of a liquid with a sufficiently small size is placed on a smooth, flat, homogeneous solid substrate, the drop takes the shape of a spherical cap. The shape of the drop approximates that of a spherical cap when the forces other than the surface tension become negligible. Each solid and liquid (and vapor phase) combination gives rise to a specific degree of wettability. The parameter defining the wettability is the observed contact-angle; the lower the contact angle, the higher the wettability. This angle is measured between a tangent to the liquid surface where it meets the solid substrate and the plane of the solid substrate. It is found that any test of surface cleanliness involving wettability by water cannot be used on metal surfaces that have an indeterminate oxide layer. It is tempting to assume that any clean metal oxide surface would be hydrophilic, but even this rule may have some exceptions.
745. Birdi, K.S., “Surface tension and interfacial tension of liquids,” in Handbook of Surface and Colloid Chemistry, 2nd Ed., K.S. Birdi, ed., 67-118, CRC Press, Sep 2002.
The liquid state of matter plays a very important role in everyday life, and the liquid surface has a dominant role in many phenomena. In fact, about 70% of the surface of Earth is covered by water. The most fundamental characteristic of liquid surfaces is that they tend to contract to the smallest surface area to achieve the lowest free energy. Whereas gases have no definite shape or volume, completely filling a vessel of any size containing them, liquids have no definite shape but do have a definite volume, which means that a portion of the liquid takes the shape of that part of a vessel containing it and occupies a definite volume, with the free surface plane except for capillary effects where it is in contact with the vessel. This is evident in rain drops and soap films, in addition to many other systems that will be mentioned later. The cohesion forces present in liquids and solids and the condensation of vapors to liquid state indicate the presence of much larger intermolecular forces than the gravity forces. Furthermore, the dynamics of molecules at interfaces are important in a variety of areas, such as biochemistry, electrochemistry, and chromatography. The degree of sharpness of a liquid surface has been the subject of much discussion in the literature.
1990. Birdi, K.S., “Contact angle hysteresis on some polymeric solids,” J. Colloid and Interface Science, 88, 290-293, (Jul 1982).
2910. Biresaw, G., and C.J. Carriere, “Surface energy parameters of polymers from directly measured interfacial tension with probe polymers,” J. Adhesion Science and Technology, 18, 1675-1685, (2004).
The surface energy parameters of polycaprolactone (PCL) were determined at 160 and 180°C from its interfacial tensions with probe polymers. The probe polymers were polystyrene (PS) and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). This method is based on the well-known relationship between blend interfacial tension and polymer surface energy parameters, and requires the use of at least two probe polymers, whose surface energy parameters at the temperature of interest have been independently determined. It also requires direct measurement of blend interfacial tension at the high temperatures of interest. The interfacial tensions were obtained from direct measurements by the imbedded fiber retraction method. The following results were obtained: (a) γP (polar component) values for PCL was within the range reported using other methods, (b) γD (dispersion component) values for PCL decreased with increasing temperature, consistent with expectations and (c) γD values for PCL were on the high end, but still within the rather broad range of reported values.
1049. Bishop, C.A., “Corona-treated RPVC,” AIMCAL News, 26, (Dec 2003).
1069. Bishop, C.A., “Shelf life of metalized polyester film for packaging applications,” AIMCAL News, 26, (Apr 2004).
1134. Bishop, C.A., “Ask AIMCAL: We are having a problem laminating polyester and polypropylene (PP),” AIMCAL News, 25, (Sep 2005).
1180. Bishop, C.A., “Lifetime of flame treatment,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, May 2006.
1181. Bishop, C.A., “More details re plasma treatments,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, May 2006.
1182. Bishop, C.A., “Surface treatment of polymers,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Feb 2006.
1183. Bishop, C.A., “Request: What is plasma?,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Sep 2005.
1184. Bishop, C.A., “Question: Re plasma treater,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Jan 2006.
1185. Bishop, C.A., “Troubleshooting adhesion - i.e., lack of adhesion,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Jul 2005.
1493. Bishop, C.A., “Choice of gases for vacuum plasma treatment,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Oct 2006.
1495. Bishop, C.A., “More on static/surface energy,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Jul 2006.
1496. Bishop, C.A., “Static charge and surface energy,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Jun 2006.
1497. Bishop, C.A., “Decay of surface energy for metallized OPP films,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Jun 2006.
1498. Bishop, C.A., “Loss of surface energy,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Jun 2006.
1500. Bishop, C.A., “Plasma treatment of PET,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Jul 2006.
1519. Bishop, C.A., “Good adhesion required for BOPP,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Jul 2007.
1531. Bishop, C.A., “Question re loss of dyne level,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Jan 2007.
1575. Bishop, C.A., “Problem of ink adhesion,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Jul 2007.
1590. Bishop, C.A., “Problems relating to surface energy,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk, Apr 2007.
1620. Bishop, C.A., “Choice of gases for vacuum plasma treatment,” http://www.webcoatingblog.co.uk, Aug 2006.
1621. Bishop, C.A., “Plasma treatment,” http://www.webcoatingblog.co.uk, Nov 2007.
1622. Bishop, C.A., “Adding nitrogen as third gas in plasma treater,” http://www.webcoatingblog.com, Dec 2007.
1623. Bishop, C.A., “Adhesion problems with metallized CPP,” http://www.webcoatingblog.com, Dec 2007.
1705. Bishop, C.A., “Good adhesion required for BOPP: The main characteristics that a BOPP film must have to present good UV ink adhesion or good lamination forces with UV adhesives,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.com, Jul 2007.
1706. Bishop, C.A., “Relationship between extractables and delamination,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.com, Sep 2007.
1707. Bishop, C.A., “Coefficient of friction (COF) of plain & metallized films,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.com, Jun 2008.
1708. Bishop, C.A., “Question re plasma treatment: Effect of distance of plasma target plates and substrate surface, and possibility of back treatment during plasma treatment,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.com, Jul 2008.
1709. Bishop, C.A., “Delamination problem in adhesive-laminated 3-ply structures of reverse-printed PET:metPET:LLDPE sealant web,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.com, Apr 2008.
1710. Bishop, C.A., “Problem with low bond strength of plasma treated metallized film,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.com, Apr 2008.
1711. Bishop, C.A., “Question re static: Will the presence of static on the face of a material affect its surface energy?,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.com, Apr 2008.
1712. Bishop, C.A., “Problem re ink adhesion to metallized film,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.com, Mar 2008.
2169. Bishop, C.A., “Question re backsurface treatment & starry film,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk/blog/2008/07/questions-re-ba.html, Jul 2008.
2170. Bishop, C.A., “Lifetime of surface treatment,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk/blog/2008/07/lifetime-of-sur, Jul 2008.
2171. Bishop, C.A., “A problem of poor adhesion,” http://www.vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk/blog/2008/10/a-problem-of-po, Oct 2008.
2172. Bishop, C.A., “Optimising plasma treatment,” http://vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk/2008/12/optimizing-plasma-treatment.html, Dec 2008.
2173. Bishop, C.A., “Polymers, surface energy, chemistry and adhesion,” http://vacuumcoatingblog.co.uk/2009/04/index.html, Apr 2009.
<-- 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 | 77 | 78 | 79 | Next-->