Kinetics and mechanisms in carbocationic polymerization: The quest for true rate constants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article is a critical analysis of kinetic dataavailable on carbocationic polymerizations. A survey of published propagation rate constant (kp) data revealed several orders of magnitude differences. In this article, an explanation of this apparent discrepancy is offered with a case study involving the carbocationic polymerization of 2,4,6‐trimethylstyrene (TMS). With the polymerization mechanism originally proposed for this system, kp = 1.35 × 104 L mol−1 s−1 was extracted from experimental data with the Predici polyreaction package. The alternative mechanism yielded kp = 1.01 × 107 L mol−1 s−1, close to that predicted by Mayr's Linear Free Energy Relationship (LFER). We propose that true rate constants can only be obtained from direct competition experiments or from kinetic interpretation based on independently proven mechanisms. The second part of this review discusses critical analysis of the temperature and concentration dependence of various living IB systems. Comparison of the temperature dependence in systems initiated with 2‐ chloro‐2,4, 4‐ trimethylpentane (TMPCl)/TiCl4 from various laboratories yielded of ΔH ∼−25 and −34.5 kJ/mol for high and low TMPCl/TiCl4 ratios, respectively. Aromatic (cumyl‐type) initiators show ΔH ∼ −40 kJ/mol, whereas H2O/TiCl4 in the presence of the strong electron‐ pair donor dimethylacetamide gave ΔH = −12 kJ/mol. The significant differences indicate different underlying mechanisms with complex elementary reactions. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 43: 5394–5413, 2005
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".