CO<sub>2</sub>‐Redispersible Polymer Latexes with Low Glass Transition Temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, acrylic latexes are prepared through surfactant‐free emulsion polymerization of methyl methacrylate (MMA) and butyl acrylate (BA). CO2‐responsive 2‐(diethyl)aminoethyl methacrylate (DEAEMA) is used as a co‐monomer. The resulting latexes can be easily coagulated by adding a small amount of caustic soda. Once washed, coagulated particles could be redispersed into water to prepare stable latexes with CO2 and ultrasonication. CO2‐redispersibility of the latexes is examined as a function of glass transition temperature of the polymers having different MMA/BA ratios. It is found that, while high MMA content latexes are easily CO2‐redispersed, it is challenging to re‐disperse high BA content latexes. For latex particles with T g below ambient conditions, coagulation with caustic soda leads to the fusion of individual particles, and the particles are no longer redispersible. This work provides a mechanistic insight and practical guidance for the applicability of CO2‐responsive amine‐containing molecules (employed as comonomer, initiator, surfactant, and so on) in developing CO2‐redispersible latex products. image
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 | 0.001 |
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".