Spacer-Free Ionic Dye−Polyelectrolyte Complexes: Influence of Molecular Structure on Liquid Crystal Order and Photoinduced Motion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of spacer-free ionic azobenzene-containing stoichiometric complexes was prepared from monosulfonated azo dyes and cationic polyelectrolytes [methylated poly(4-vinylpyridine) (PVP) and poly(dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate) (PDM)]. Their thermal and structural characteristics and optical responses, particularly photoinduced birefringence (PIB) and surface relief grating (SRG) inscription, were investigated as a function of selected molecular parameters. All of the complexes have high apparent T g values, 180−210 °C, and show liquid crystal (LC) order of the single-layer SmA type from ambient to very high temperature, usually to degradation. The range of LC order is greater in the complexes of chromophores with longer alkyl tails and shorter in the complex of the chromophore with an OH end group and the complex of methyl orange (MO) with PDM. PIB, SRG quality, and diffraction efficiency were all shown to depend in a similar way on molecular structural features: the more rigid the molecular structure, the higher the PIB, the better its thermal and temporal stability, and the greater the SRG amplitude. Thus, a flexible alkyl unit in the polyelectrolyte component or in the chromophore tail or spacer reduces the optical performance, with a clear dependence on alkoxy tail length (e.g., no SRG formation was observed for the complex with a hexoxy tail), whereas the most rigid complex, MO/PVP, provides the best performance, contrasting with many previous literature reports that suggest a beneficial role for flexible spacers. The present paper shows that flexible moieties increase relaxation of photoinduced orientation. The hydroxyl end group also provides much improved PIB and SRG performance, attributed to its rigid structure along with a (temperature-dependent) physical cross-linking effect of H-bonding interactions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".