Chemical Modification of Polyisobutylene Succinimide Dispersants and Characterization of Their Associative Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The secondary amines found in b-PIBSI dispersants prepared by attaching two polyisobutylene chains to a polyamine core via two succinimide moieties were reacted with ethylene carbonate (EC). The reaction generated urethane bonds on the polyamine core to yield the modified b-PIBSI dispersants (Mb-PIBSI). Five dispersants were prepared by reacting 2 molar equivalent (meq) of polyisobutylene terminated at one end with a succinic anhydride moiety (PIBSA) with 1 meq of hexamethylenediamine (HMDA), diethylenetriamine (DETA), triethylenetetramine (TETA), tetraethylenepentamine (TEPA), and pentaethylenehexamine (PEHA) to yield the corresponding b-PIBSI dispersants. Characterization of the level of secondary amine modification for the Mb-PIBSI dispersants with traditional techniques such as FTIR and (1)H NMR spectroscopies was greatly complicated by interactions between the carbonyls of the succinimide groups and unreacted secondary amines of the Mb-PIBSI dispersants. Therefore, an alternative procedure was developed based on fluorescence quenching of the succinimides by secondary amines and urethane groups. The procedure took advantage of the fact that the succinimide fluorescence of the Mb-PIBSI dispersants was quenched much more efficiently by secondary amines than by the urethane groups that resulted from the EC modification of the amines. While EC modification did not proceed for b-PIBSI-DETA and b-PIBSI-TETA certainly due to steric hindrance, 60 and 70% of the secondary amines found in the longer polyamine core of b-PIBSI-TEPA and b-PIBSI-PEHA had reacted with EC as determined by the fluorescence quenching analysis. Furthermore, the ability of the Mb-PIBSI dispersants to adsorb at the surface of carbon black particles used as mimic of the carbonaceous particles typically found in engine oils was compared to that of their unmodified analogues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".