CONTROLLED AGGREGATION OF POLYMER LATICES PART 2. MECHANISM AND HYDRODYNAMICS OF THE PROCESS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The possibility of obtaining narrowly dispersed particles through controlled aggregation of polymer latices has been investigated Concentrated polystyrene and poly(styrene-co-acrylic acid) latices were aggregated through the addition of tetradecyl tritnethyl ammonium bromide under stirring, A three-step mechanism for the aggregation process is proposed. This mechanism involves the formation of a 3-D network with a gel-like structure, formation of small, compact aggregates (termed primary aggregates) through the mechanical disruption of this network, and farther aggregation of the primary aggregates into larger structures, termed secondary aggregates. Experimental evidence in support of this mechanism is presented. The influence of stirring rate on the size and size distribution of secondary aggregates is discussed in conjunction with the mechanism proposed, The trends observed in the aggregation of these latices were explained through calculations of the fundamental forces involved in this process. The method under investigation has been effective in obtaining 5–15 µm particles with a narrow size distribution and a strong control on the average size.
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".