Reversible Addition−Fragmentation Chain Transfer Polymerization of <i>N</i>-Isopropylacrylamide: A Comparison between a Conventional and a Fast Initiator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reversible addition-fragmentation chain transfer (RAFT) polymerization of N-isopropylacrylamide (NIPAM) was studied to determine the reasons for deviation of experimental molecular weights to lower molecular weight at high monomer conversion when S-1-dodecyl-S-(alpha,alpha'-dimethyl-alpha' '-acetic acid)trithiocarbonate (CTAm) and S,S-bis(alpha,alpha'-dimethyl-alpha' '-acetic acid)trithiocarbonate (CTAd) were used as RAFT agents at 65 degrees C. For this purpose, experiments were performed in N,N'-dimethylformamide (DMF) at the NIPAM/CTA ratio of 200 with initiators capable of yielding fast and slow initiation, respectively by photochemical and thermal process, either at ambient temperature or at 65 degrees C. When the polymerization of NIPAM was conducted under these conditions with Irgacure-2959 (IRGC) as photoinitiator, a continuing supply of primary radicals by incremental initiator addition was required to achieve reasonably high conversion. This effect was also apparent by the loss of linearity of the first-order kinetic plot with a conventional initiator (4,4-azobis(4-cyanovaleric acid) (ACVA) as azo-initiator, 10h (t1/2) decomposition at 65 degrees C) indicating that steady-state concentration of the macroradical decreases significantly with the initiator consumption. Nevertheless, polymers with predictable number-average molecular weight Mn (i.e., based on [monomer]/([CTA] + [initiator]) ratio) and narrow polydispersities were obtained (PDIs << 1.2) with CTAm indicating that the process of chain growth was controlled. When CTAd was used, instead of CTAm, the polymers obtained were characterized by a larger polydispersity (1.2 < PDIs < 1.3). The so-called "living steady-state concentration" in chain equilibration together with the linear dependence of Mn vs conversion was observed only when the 200/1 NIPAM/CTA mixture in DMF was subjected to a permanent photoirradiation at 65 degrees C. With ACVA, the deviation of the experimentally measured molecular weights at high conversion was accounted for by the simultaneous self-initiated polymerization of NIPAM with the controlled process in the presence of CTA at 65 degrees C. Similar drift from the linear dependence Mn vs conversion was also observed at 65 degrees C when a significant number of low molecular weight polymer chains were generated intentionally by photodecomposition of IRGC.
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".