Chemical Force Titrations of Amine- and Sulfonic Acid-Modified Poly(dimethylsiloxane)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical force titrations-measurements of the adhesive interaction between a pair of suitably chemically modified atomic force microscopy (AFM) tip and sample surfaces as a function of pH-have been carried out for various combinations of silanol, amine, carboxylic acid, and sulfonic acid functional groups on both tip and sample. The primary surface material studied was poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS). Surface modification was carried out using a plasma oxidation process to form silanol sites; further modification with amine or sulfonic acid sites was carried out by reaction of the silanol sites with the appropriate trialkoxysilane derivative. AFM tips were also modified using trialkoxysilane compounds. In the cases of tip/sample combinations with the same functional group on each, surface pK(1/2) values could be determined. In several "mixed" tip/sample combinations, a peak appeared in the titration curve midway between the surface pK(1/2) values of the tip and sample, consistent with an ionic H-bonding model for the interactions. The amine/sulfonic acid pair showed more complex behavior; the amine-terminated tip/sulfonic acid-terminated PDMS surface force titration curve consisted of two peaks centered at pH 4 and pH 8. Reversing the tip/sample pair resulted in the peak positions being shifted upward by 1.0 pH unit. The peak appearing at lower pH is assigned to electrostatic interactions between the two oppositely charged surfaces, whereas the higher pH peak is believed to arise due to ionic H-bonding interactions. AFM images show the effects on surface patterning of amine- and sulfonic acid-modified PDMS surfaces that have undergone two different oxidation methods (air plasma oxidation and Tesla coil oxidation). The surface morphologies of freshly prepared and 24 h aged air plasma oxidized PDMS are also discussed in this study.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".