Detection of Chiral Perturbations in Ferroelectric Liquid Crystals Induced by an Atropisomeric Biphenyl Dopant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The atropisomeric dopant 2,2',6,6'-tetramethyl-3,3'-dinitro-4,4'-bis[(4-nonyloxybenzoyl)oxy]biphenyl (1) induces a ferroelectric SmC phase when doped into the SmC liquid crystal hosts 2-(4-butyloxyphenyl)-5-octyloxypyrimidine (PhP1) and (+/-)-4-[(4-methylhexyl)oxy]phenyl 4-decyloxybenzoate (PhB). The propensity of dopant 1 to induce a spontaneous polarization (polarization power) is much higher in PhP1 than in PhB (1555 nC/cm(2) vs <35 nC/cm(2)), which is attributed to a greater propensity of 1 to undergo chirality transfer via core-core interactions with PhP1. In previous work, we postulated that a chiral perturbation exerted by 1 in PhP1 amplifies the polarization power of the dopant by causing a chiral distortion of the mean field potential (binding site) constraining the dopant in the SmC host, as described by the Chirality Transfer Feedback (CTF) model. To test the validity of the CTF model, and to provide a more direct assessment of the chiral perturbation exerted by dopant 1 on surrounding host molecules, we measured the effect of 1 on the polarization power of other chiral dopants acting as probes. In one series of experiments, (S,S)-5-(2,3-difluorooctyl)-2-(4-octylphenyl)pyridine (MDW950) and (S)-4-(1-methylheptyloxy)phenyl 4-decyloxybenzoate (4), which mimic the structures of PhP1 and PhB, were used as probes. In another series of experiments, the atropisomeric dopant 2,2',3,3',6,6'-hexamethyl-4,4'-bis[(4-nonyloxybenzoyl)oxy]biphenyl (2) was used as probe in PhP1. The results of the probe experiments suggest that dopant 1 exerts a much stronger chiral perturbation in PhP1 than in PhB. More significantly, the results of experiments using 2 as probe show that the chiral perturbation exerted by 1 can amplify the polarization power of another atropisomeric dopant, thus providing the first experimental evidence of the CTF effect.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".