Temperature Response of Self-Assembled Micelles of Telechelic Hydrophobically Modified Poly(2-alkyl-2-oxazoline)s in Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrophobically end-modified (HM) poly(2-ethyl-2-oxazolines) (PEtOx) and poly(2-isopropyl-2-oxazolines) (PiPrOx) bearing an n -octadecyl chain on both termini or on one chain end only were prepared by cationic ring-opening polymerization of 2-ethyl-2-oxazoline and 2-isopropyl-2-oxazoline, respectively, and subsequent end-group modification. The polymers had a molar mass ( M n ) ranging from 7000 to 13 000 g mol −1, a size distribution M w / M n < 1.20, and end-group functionality > 0.97. All polymers, except the semitelechelic sample C 18 -PiPrOx-OH 13K ( M n = 13 000 g mol −1 ), formed core−shell micelles in cold water with a hydrodynamic radius ( R H ), measured by dynamic light scattering, between 7 and 12 nm and a core of radius ( R c ), determined by analysis of small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) data, of ∼1.3 nm. Aqueous solutions of all polymers underwent a heat-induced phase transition detected by an increase in solution turbidity at a temperature ( T cp, cloud point) ranging from 32 to 62 °C, depending on polymer structure and size. Temperature-dependent light scattering (LS) measurements and fluorescence depolarization studies with the probe diphenylhexatriene (DPH) revealed that extensive intermicellar bridging takes place in solutions heated in the vicinity of T cp leading to large assemblies ( R H ≥ 1 μm). Further heating caused these assemblies to shrink into objects with R H ∼ 300−700 nm, depending on the size and structure of the polymer. The formation of H-bonds between water molecules and the main-chain amide nitrogen atoms imparts distinct features to the flower/star micelles formed by telechelic/semitelechelic PiPrOx and PEtOx, compared to the micelles formed by other hydrophobically end-modified water-soluble polymers, such as poly(ethylene oxide) or poly( N -isopropylacrylamide).
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".