Covalent vs Metallo-supramolecular Block Copolymer Micelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An amphiphilic metallo-supramolecular polystyrene- block -poly(ethylene oxide) diblock copolymer containing a bis(2,2‘:6‘,2‘ ‘-terpyridine)ruthenium(II) complex (PS 20 -[Ru]-PEO 70 ) as a supramolecular connection between the two constituting blocks has been compared to the covalently bonded counterpart (PS 22 - b -PEO 70 ). The two different copolymers have been used to prepare kinetically frozen aqueous micelles that consist of a glassy polystyrene core surrounded by a poly(ethylene oxide) corona. The micelles have been characterized by dynamic light scattering (DLS). In the case of the PS 22 - b -PEO 70 copolymer, micelles with a hydrodynamic diameter ( D h ) of 18 nm are observed while stable micelles with a D h of 65 nm and larger aggregates are formed for the PS 20 -[Ru]-PEO 70 sample. Addition of different salts during the initial stage of micelle formation has a deep effect on the final micellar characteristic features, which are now similar to the ones of the covalent system. This effect is attributed to a decreased electrostatic repulsion between the charged bis(2,2‘:6‘,2‘ ‘-terpyridine)ruthenium(II) complexes which are present at the interface between the immiscible polystyrene and poly(ethylene oxide) blocks. Furthermore, addition of different salts to solutions of the PS 20 -[Ru]-PEO 70 micelles, initially prepared in the absence of salt, caused a decrease of their size, although the packing of the charged bis(2,2‘:6‘,2‘ ‘-terpyridine)ruthenium(II) complexes could not be changed in these kinetically frozen micelles. A decrease in micelle size has also been observed as temperature increases. These effects have not been observed in the covalently connected counterpart and are thought to originate from stretched poly(ethylene oxide) chain segments. A model for metallo-supramolecular micelles is tentatively proposed that takes into account the experimental observations.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".