Mobility, Miscibility, and Microdomain Structure in Nanostructured Thermoset Blends of Epoxy Resin and Amphiphilic Poly(ethylene oxide)-<i>b</i><i>lock</i>-poly(propylene oxide)-<i>b</i><i>lock</i>-poly(ethylene oxide) Triblock Copolymers Characterized by Solid-State NMR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid-state NMR methods were used to characterize the heterogeneous dynamics, miscibility, and microdomain structure in nanostructured thermoset blends of epoxy resin (ER) and amphiphilic poly(ethylene oxide)- block -poly(propylene oxide)- block -poly(ethylene oxide) triblock copolymers (PEO−PPO−PEO). NMR experiments show that there is a distinct dynamic difference between the block copolymer (both PEO and PPO) and cured-ER matrix indicating the presence of phase separation, which also confirms the existence of the interphase region including a considerable amount of immobilized PEO and mobilized partially cured ER. An improved method based on spin-diffusion experiments enabled a quantitative determination of the interphase thickness. It is shown that a large percentage of PEO were intimately mixed with ER in the interphase region of the blends, while the rest mobile PEO and all PPO segregated from the ER network. It is observed that the domain size and long period depend strongly on the PEO fraction in the copolymers, whereas the interphase thickness of the blends is not sensitive to the PEO fraction. These NMR results unambiguously demonstrated that PEO blocks were only partially miscible with cured-ER network. Upon curing, the cross-linked rigid ER formed a separated microphase, while some PEO were locally expelled out of the cured-ER network and forms another microphase with PPO. The residual immobilized PEO were intimately mixed with some partially cured-ER matrix and formed the interphase region.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".