Block copolymers as sequestering phases in two‐phase biotransformations: effect of constituent homopolymer properties on solute affinity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Block copolymers can be effective extractants in solid–liquid two‐phase partitioning bioreactors ( TPPBs ) when selected on the basis of their partition coefficient toward target solutes, and their thermo‐mechanical properties. A series of Pebax® block copolymers, containing varying proportions of soft poly(tetramethylene oxide) and hard poly(amide‐12), was evaluated to determine the effect of hard segment proportion on solute affinity toward two biotransformation target molecules, carveol and carvone. Subsequently, representative homopolymers comprising the copolymers' soft segment were examined individually for the effects of molecular weight, crystallinity, and polymer end group polarity on affinity . RESULTS Partition coefficients decreased with greater proportions of copolymer hard segments and homopolymer crystallinity, both of which act as non‐absorptive domains, but which impart mechanical strength to the polymer. Partition coefficients increased with decreasing homopolymer molecular weight, which was ascribed to increased entropy of mixing. Hydroxyl vs. ether end group functionality had a variable effect on the partitioning of polar and non‐polar solutes, providing a basis for the rational design of selective oligomeric absorbents . CONCLUSION Block copolymers can provide an attractive, low‐cost option for polymeric sequestering phases in TPPBs , but commercial grades of these materials are not optimized for these applications. TPPB performance can be improved by selecting/fabricating polymers that minimize the molecular weight of the soft component, the proportion of hard segment, and by considering the effects of end group composition. © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".