The Influence of Deposition Solution pH and Ionic Strength on the Quality of Poly(<i>N</i>-isopropylacrylamide) Microgel-Based Thin Films and Etalons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poly(N-isopropylacrylamide)-co-acrylic acid (pNIPAm-co-AAc) microgel-based thin films and etalons were fabricated via "painting" a pNIPAm-co-AAc microgel monolayer on a Au-coated substrate, followed by the deposition of another Au overlayer. Herein, in situ observation of how the pH and ionic strength (I.S.) of the painting solution influenced microgel deposition and, ultimately, the optical homogeneity and pH sensitivity of the etalon was carried out. It was shown that microgels closely pack on the Au substrate when they are deposited at pH 3.0, leading to a good optical homogeneity. Additionally, increasing the painting solution I.S. leads to a slight decrease in microgel packing density on the substrate, but enhances the ability of the microgel layer to swell, exhibiting thicker polymer layers when immersed in pH 3.0 solutions. When painting at pH 7.5, the optical homogeneity of the etalon is improved at the expense of swellability, exaggerated high I.S. We also determined the device's sensitivity to pH changes and found a maximum sensitivity when the microgels were deposited at pH 7.5 with an I.S. of 10 mM.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".