Synthesis and characterization of poly(<scp>L</scp>‐lactide)s and poly(<scp>D</scp>‐lactide)s of controlled molecular weight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High molecular weight poly(L‐lactide)s (PLLAs) and poly(D‐lactide)s (PDLAs) were synthesized in toluene at 70 °C by ring‐opening polymerization of optically pure L‐lactide and D‐lactide, using tin(II) 2‐ethylhexanoate (SnOct2) and 2‐(2‐methoxyethoxy)ethanol as initiator and coinitiator, respectively. Under these conditions, polarimetry as well as 13C NMR spectroscopy indicated that the synthesized poly(lactide)s (PLAs) are more than 99% isotactic. The molecular weight was successfully controlled by adjusting the monomer‐to‐initiator molar ratio. Gel permeation chromatography and MALDI‐TOF mass spectrometry analyses showed that the polydispersity index of the PLAs is below 1.1. Moreover, MALDI‐TOF spectra showed two different chain distributions, one characterized by an even number of lactic acid repeat units and the other by an odd number of lactic acid repeat units. The second distribution, indicative of the presence of intermolecular transesterification reactions, appears at the very beginning of the polymerization and its intensity increases with the polymerization time. Finally, a reversible reaction kinetic model was used to determine the monomer equilibrium concentration ([M]eq = 1.4 ± 0.5%) and the propagation rate constant (kp = 14.4 ± 0.5 L mol−1 h−1) of the polymerization. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 45: 1944–1955, 2007
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".