Barrier Capacity of Hydrophilic Polymer Brushes To Prevent Hydrophobic Interactions: Effect of Graft Density and Hydrophilicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of biomaterials in contact with biological systems can be greatly affected by hydrophobic interactions at the interface between the biomaterial surface and surrounding biomolecules. Polymer brushes can function as a protective layer, preventing such interfacial hydrophobic interactions. In this paper, a systematic study of the barrier properties of a hydrophilic polymer brush is made by investigating the influence of graft density and its chemical nature (hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity) on hydrophobic interactions with the surface. To achieve this, a series of novel thermoresponsive poly- N -[(2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxolane)methyl]acrylamide (PDMDOMA) polymer brushes were grown from silicon wafers via surface-initiated atom transfer radical polymerization. Without changing graft density or degree of polymerization, the hydrophilicity of the PDMDOMA brushes was manipulated by partial or complete hydrolysis of the pendent dioxolane moieties. A lower critical solution temperature (LCST) was observed at 22−24 °C, below which the PDMDOMA brush was found to be in a hydrated state (amphiphilic), while at temperatures above the LCST, the PDMDOMA brush formed a collapsed, more hydrophobic structure. A physical method was developed to analyze the ability of these brushes to act as a barrier against hydrophobic interactions based on AFM force−distance measurements. The adhesive forces between the Si 3 N 4 tip and the silicon wafer surface upon (a) modification with ATRP initiator, (b) grafting of PDMDOMA brushes, and (c) partial and complete hydrolysis of PDMDOMA were investigated. Hydrophobic interactions decreased after each modification, while graft density and the degree of hydrolysis increased the barrier function of the surface layer. In particular, when graft density was above 0.22 chains/nm 2, the barrier capacity completely counteracted the hydrophobic interactions, as evidenced from the disappearance of the adhesive force in AFM measurements. Further studies revealed that the barrier property as assessed by AFM correlated well with the wettability of the surfaces.
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) | 0.001 | 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".