Grafting Acrylic Polymers from Flat Nickel and Copper Surfaces by Surface-Initiated Atom Transfer Radical Polymerization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acrylic polymers, including poly(methyl methacrylate), poly(2,2,2-trifluoroethyl methacrylate), poly( N,N'-dimethyaminoethyl methacrylate), and poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) were grafted from flat nickel and copper surfaces through surface-initiated atom transfer radical polymerization (ATRP). For the nickel system, there was a linear relationship between polymer layer thickness and monomer conversion or molecular weight of "free" polymers. The thickness of the polymer brush films was greater than 80 nm after 6 h of reaction time. The grafting density was estimated to be 0.40 chains/nm2. The "living" chain ends of grafted polymers were still active and initiated the growth of a second block of polymer. Block copolymer brushes with different block sequences were successfully prepared. The experimental surface chemical compositions as measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy agreed very well with their theoretical values. Water contact angle measurements further confirmed the successful grafting of polymers from nickel and copper surfaces. The surface morphologies of all samples were studied by atomic force microscopy. This study provided a novel approach to prepare stable functional polymer coatings on reactive metal surfaces.
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".