Effect of Hydroplasticization on Polymer Diffusion in Poly(butyl acrylate-<i>co</i>-methyl methacrylate) and Poly(2-ethylhexyl acrylate-<i>co</i>-<i>tert</i>-butyl methacrylate) Latex Films
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compare the influence of humidity on the polymer diffusion rate in films formed from two different polymer latex samples whose polymers have the same glass transition temperature ( T g ≈ 12 °C) but different hydrophilicity: poly(butyl acrylate- co -methyl methacrylate), P(BA−MMA), and the more hydrophobic poly(2-ethylhexyl acrylate- co - tert -butyl methacrylate), P(EHA−tBMA). The diffusion process was monitored by fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) at 25 °C and at 0, 23, 54, 85 and 98% relative humidities. The results show that the polymers diffused more rapidly in films aged at higher humidities, and thus were characterized by higher apparent diffusion coefficients ( D app ). By performing a master curve analysis, we obtained humidity related shift factors ( a H ). Not all the water taken up by these latex films contributes to enhance diffusion rates. Some of the water absorbed at high humidities is present in the form of water pools and microcavities (free water) and does not actively contribute to plasticization. We used FTIR spectra to obtain information about how water resides in the copolymer films. Although water is poorly miscible with most polymers, our results show that water molecules dispersed molecularly among the chains are highly efficient as a plasticizer and a promoter of polymer diffusion in latex films.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".