Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
PLASMA HYDROPHILIZATION AND SUBSEQUENT HYDROPHOBIC RECOVERY ARE STUDIED FOR TEN DIFFERENT POLYMERS OF MICROFABRICATION INTEREST: polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polymethylmethacrylate, polycarbonate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, epoxy polymer SU-8, hybrid polymer ORMOCOMP, polycaprolactone, and polycaprolactone/D,L-lactide (P(CL/DLLA)). All polymers are treated identically with oxygen and nitrogen plasmas, in order to make comparisons between polymers as easy as possible. The primary measured parameter is the contact angle, which was measured on all polymers for more than 100 days in order to determine the kinetics of the hydrophobic recovery for both dry stored and rewashed samples. Clear differences and trends are observed both between different polymers and between different plasma parameters.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3370401 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3673251 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!