ACCU DYNE TEST ™ Bibliography
Provided as an information service by Diversified Enterprises.
showing result page 60 of 77, ordered by
2250. Simor, M., Y. Creyghton, A. Wypkema, and J. Zemek, “The influence of surface DBD plasma treatment on the adhesion of coatings to high-tech textiles,” J. Adhesion Science and Technology, 24, 77-97, (2010).
The surface of high-performance poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) fibers is difficult to wet and impossible to chemically bond to different matrices. Sizing applied on the fiber surface usually improves fiber wetting, but prevents good adhesion between a matrix and the fiber surface. The present study demonstrates that the plasma treatment performed by Surface dielectric barrier discharge (Surface DBD) can lead to improved adhesion between sized PET fabric and polyurethane (PU) or poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) coatings. Moreover, it points out that this plasma treatment can outperform current state-of-the-art adhesion-promoting treatment. Plasma treatment of sized fabric was carried out in various gaseous atmospheres, namely N2, N2 + H2O, N2 + AAc (acrylic acid) and CO2. The adhesion was assessed by a peel test, while wettability was evaluated using strike-through time and wicking rate tests. Changes in fiber surface morphology and chemical composition were determined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), respectively. Only the CO2 plasma treatment resulted in improved adhesion. As indicated by the analyses, increased surface roughness and the incorporation of specific oxygen-containing groups were responsible for enhanced adhesion. The results presented were obtained using a plasma reactor suitable only for batch-wise treatment. As continuous treatment is expected to provide higher homogeneity and, therefore, even better adhesion, a scaled-up Surface DBD plasma system allowing continuous treatment is presented as well.
2488. Simor, M., and Y. Creyghton, “Treatment of polymer surfaces with surface dielectric barrier discharge plasmas,” in Atmospheric Pressure Plasma Treatment of Polymers: Relevance to Adhesion, M. Thomas and K.L. Mittal, eds., 27-82, Scrivener, May 2013.
342. Siow, K.S., and D. Patterson, “The prediction of surface tensions of liquid polymers,” Macromolecules, 4, 26-30, (1971).
2559. Sira, M., D. Trunec, P. Stahel, V. Bursikova, Z. Navratil, and J. Bursik, “Surface modification of polyethylene and polypropylene in atmospheric pressure glow discharge,” J. Physics D: Applied Physics, 38, 621-627, (2005).
An atmospheric pressure glow discharge (APGD) was used for surface modification of polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP). The discharge was generated between two planar metal electrodes, with the top electrode covered by a glass and the bottom electrode covered by the treated polymer sample. The discharge burned in pure nitrogen or in nitrogen-hydrogen or nitrogen-ammonia mixtures. The surface properties of both treated and untreated polymers were characterized by scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy, surface free energy measurements and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The influence of treatment time and power input to the discharge on the surface properties of the polymers was studied. The ageing of the treated samples was investigated as well. The surface of polymers treated in an APGD was homogeneous and it had less roughness in comparison with polymer surfaces treated in a filamentary discharge. The surface free energy of treated PE obtained under optimum conditions was 54 mJ m-2 and the corresponding contact angle of water was 40° the surface free energy of treated PP obtained under optimum conditions was 53 mJ m-2 and the contact angle of water 42°. The maximum decrease in the surface free energy during the ageing was about 10%.
2751. Smallshaw, J., “Corona treating and the printing process,” in 1999 Polymers, Laminations and Coatings Conference Proceedings, TAPPI Press, Sep 1999.
1521. Smith, M., “Think ahead, treat it right,” Package Printing, 54, 28-30, (Jan 2007).
2701. Smith, P., and N. Strauss, “Best practices for painting plastics,” Plastics Decorating, 50-55, (Nov 2017).
343. Smith, R.E., “Testing the surface tension of substrates,” Converting, 8, 82, (Feb 1990).
344. Smith, R.E., “Substrate surface energy testing,” Diversified Enterprises, Feb 2002.
345. Smith, R.E., “UV inks + plastics = web/treater combo,” Screen Graphics, 4, 56-63, (Jul 1998).
1715. Smith, R.E., “Personal communication re Converting Magazine article ‘Precision of the surface energy test’,” Diversified Enterprises, Jun 1992.
2111. Smith, R.E., “ACCU DYNE TEST: Introduction and overview,” http://www.accudynetest.com/adt_introduction.html, Mar 2009.
2112. Smith, R.E., “Dyne testing - applications and tips,” http://www.accudynetest.com/adtusage.html, Mar 2009.
2113. Smith, R.E., “Using ACCU DYNE TEST Marker Pens to measure substrate surface energy,” http://www.accudynetest.com/pentest.html, 2003.
2114. Smith, R.E., “Substrate surface energy testing,” http://www.accudynetest.com/qctest.html, 2003.
2116. Smith, R.E., “Surface treatment discussion,” http://www.accudynetest.com/surface_treatment.html, Mar 2009.
2117. Smith, R.E., “Recommended treatment levels for various polymer/process combinations,” http://www.accudynetest.com/recommended_treat_levels.html, Mar 2009.
2118. Smith, R.E., “Polymer tables,” http://www.accudynetest.com/polymer_tables.html, Mar 2009.
2119. Smith, R.E., “Critical surface tension, surface free energy, contact angles with water, and Hansen Solubility Parameters for various polymers,” http://www.accudynetest.com/polytable_01.html, Mar 2009.
2120. Smith, R.E., “Surface free energy components by polar/dispersion and acid-base analysis, and Hansen Solubility Parameters for various polymers,” http://www.accudynetest.com/polytable_02.html, Mar 2009.
2121. Smith, R.E., “Critical surface tension and contact angle with water for various polymers,” http://www.accudynetest.com/polytable_03.html, Mar 2009.
2122. Smith, R.E., “Surface tension, Hansen Solubility Parameters, molar volume, enthalpy of evaporation, and molecular weight of selected liquids,” http://www.accudynetest.com/solubility_table.html, Jan 2009.
2123. Smith, R.E., “Viscosity, surface tension, specific density, and molecular weight of selected liquids,” http://www.accudynetest.com/visc_table.html, Jan 2009.
2124. Smith, R.E., “Surface tension components and molecular weights of selected liquids,” http://www.accudynetest.com/surface_tension_table.html, Jan 2009.
2125. Smith, R.E., “DuNouy tensiometer test method,” http://www.accudynetest.com/tensiometer_test_method.html, Apr 2009.
2126. Smith, R.E., “Introduction to tensiometry,” http://www.accudynetest.com/tensiometry_introduction.html, Apr 2009.
2187. Smith, R.E., “Suggested treatment levels (included on company's Infoboard),” Diversified Enterprises, 1994.
2519. Smith, R.E., “Reason for 2 second timeframe in dyne testing,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/reason-for-2-second-time-frame-in-dyne-testing, Nov 2018.
2622. Smith, R.E., “Dyne testing of materials to be processed in a dry room,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/dyne-testing-of-materials-to-be-processed-in-a-dry-room, Nov 2018.
2637. Smith, R.E., “Polymer surface energy vs. coefficient of friction (COF),” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/polymer-surface-energy-vs-coefficient-of-friction-cof/, Apr 2016.
2638. Smith, R.E., “Why not to use brush applicator caps for bottled dyne solutions,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/brush-applicator-caps-for-bottled-dyne-solutions/, Mar 2016.
2639. Smith, R.E., “Testing metals for cleanliness,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/testing-metals-for-cleanliness/, Feb 2016.
2640. Smith, R.E., “Polarity of corona-treated polymer film,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/polarity-of-corona-treated-polymer-film/, Feb 2016.
2641. Smith, R.E., “Low dyne level readings on epoxy coated steel,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/low-dyne-level-readings-on-epoxy-coated-steel/, Oct 2015.
2642. Smith, R.E., “Cleaning silicone treater sleeves,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/cleaning-silicone-treater-sleeves, Oct 2015.
2643. Smith, R.E., “Using the dyne test to evaluate the cleanliness of metals,” http://accudynetest.com/dyne_test_metal_cleanliness.html, Mar 2016.
2679. Smith, R.E., “Sample orientation for dyne testing,” http://www.accudynetest.com/blog/sample-orientation-for-dyne-testing/, Apr 2016.
2680. Smith, R.E., “Corona treater output vs. increase in dyne level,” http://blog.accudynetest.com/corona-treater-output-vs-increase-in-dyne-level/, Aug 2016.
2681. Smith, R.E., “Discrepant results from one test marker compared to others at the same dyne level,” http://blog.accudynetest.com/discrepant-results-from-one-test-marker-compared-to-others-at-the-same-dyne-level/, Sep 2016.
2682. Smith, R.E., “Using surface tension test fluids to calibrate a tensiometer,” http://blog.accudynetest.com/using-surface-tension-test-fluids-to-calibrate-a-tensiometer/, Sep 2016.
<-- 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 | Next-->