Comparison of PEM Properties of Copoly(aryl ether ether nitrile)s Containing Sulfonic Acid Bonded to Naphthalene in Structurally Different Ways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study represents a comparative investigation of three series of high molecular weight aromatic poly(aryl ether ether nitrile) copolymers (SPAEEN- n ), containing different sulfonated naphthalene groups, where n (in the range 0−80 mol %) refers to molar percentage of repeat units containing the sulfonic acid function. The three series of SPAEEN- n copolymers were synthesized via potassium carbonate-mediated nucleophilic polycondensation reactions of commercially available monomers: 2,6-difluorobenzonitrile (2,6-BFBN), one of three dihydroxynaphthalenesulfonate (DHNS) monomers, and unsulfonated 4,4‘-biphenol (BP), incorporated for the purpose of adjusting the sulfonic acid content. The incorporation of the sulfonated repeat unit into copolymers and their structures were confirmed by 1 H NMR and FT-IR spectroscopy. Products were solvent-cast into membranes of varying ionic content as proton exchange membrane (PEM) materials for fuel cells applications. Ion exchange capacity (IEC), thermal stabilities, swelling, and proton conducting properties of the membranes were investigated in relation to their structures and compared with those of perfluorinated ionomer (Nafion 117). Films of SPAEENH copolymers in acid form all showed high thermal stabilities with glass transition temperatures ( T g ) > 224 °C and decomposition temperatures ( T d ) > 264 °C. In general, the SPAEENH copolymers exhibited low moisture absorption and in some instances high proton conductivities (from 10 -2 to 10 -1 S/cm) comparable to that of Nafion 117 at similar water uptake, swelling, and H 2 O/SO 3 H ratio.
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".