Routes to carboxylic acid functional acrylonitrile copolymers via <i>N</i>‐<i>tert</i>‐butyl‐<i>N</i>‐(1‐diethylphosphono‐2,2‐dimethylpropyl) free nitroxide based nitroxide‐mediated polymerization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Styrene (S)/acrylonitrile [AN; initial acrylonitrile molar feed compositions (fAN,0's) = 0.10–0.86) and tert‐butyl methacrylate (tBMA)/AN (fAN,0 = 0.10–0.80) copolymers were synthesized at 90°C in 50 wt % 1,4‐dioxane solutions with a unimolecular initiator, N‐(2‐methylpropyl)‐N‐(1‐diethylphosphono‐2,2‐dimethylpropyl)‐O‐(2‐carboxylprop‐2‐yl) hydroxylamine [BlocBuilder (BB)]. In the tBMA/AN copolymerizations, 8.0–8.5 mol % N‐tert‐butyl‐N‐(1‐diethylphosphono‐2,2‐dimethylpropyl) free nitroxide relative to BB was added. The S/AN copolymers exhibited narrow, monomodal molecular weight distributions (MWDs) with low polydispersities [weight‐average molecular weight (Mw)/number‐average molecular weight (Mn) = 1.14–1.26], and the Mn versus monomer conversion (X) plots were relatively linear (Mn = 18.1 kg/mol, X ≈ 0.7); this suggested that pseudo‐living behavior was approached. AN proved to be an effective controlling comonomer for tBMA because the tBMA/AN copolymers exhibited narrow monomodal MWDs with Mw/Mn = 1.17–1.50 and relatively linear Mn versus X plots to reasonably high X values (Mn = 15.6 kg/mol, X ≈ 0.6). The AN and S monomer reactivity ratios were rAN = 0.07 ± 0.01 and rS = 0.27 ± 0.02 (Fineman–Ross) and rAN = 0.10 ± 0.01 and rS = 0.28 ± 0.02 (Kelen–Tüdos), respectively; these values were in good agreement with conventional free‐radical polymerization. Error‐in‐variables model (EVM) analysis indicated that the use of cumulative composition S/AN data was more effective than typical approaches using low‐X data with the Mayo–Lewis model. The AN and tBMA reactivity ratios [rAN = 0.07 ± 0.01 and rtBMA = 1.24 ± 0.20 (Fineman–Ross) and rAN = 0.14 ± 0.01 and rtBMA = 0.89 ± 0.19 (Kelen–Tüdos)] were similar to those reported for related alkyl methacrylate/AN conventional radical copolymerizations. EVM analysis suggested significant experimental error was associated with the tBMA/AN system, and this warrants further investigation. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci, 2012
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".