Confocal microscopy studies of shear‐induced coalescence in blends of poly(butyl methacrylate) and poly(2‐ethylhexyl methacrylate)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article reports the results of confocal fluorescence microscopy studies of shear‐induced coalescence in binary blends of poly(2‐ethylhexyl methacrylate) (PEHMA; 90 wt %) and poly(butyl methacrylate) (PBMA; 10 wt %). We prepared the blends by casting a mixture of latex dispersions of the components onto a substrate and allowing the film to dry under ambient conditions. The initial morphology of the film was a dispersion of 120‐nm PBMA spheres in a continuous PEHMA matrix. One‐fifth of the PBMA particles were labeled with anthracene, the emission of which we observed with confocal microscopy. The blends were sheared in a parallel‐plate rheometer at 80 and 100 °C for 1 and 10 h. Careful image analysis allowed us to estimate the mean size of the dispersed phase and the width of the size distribution. The results were compared with the theoretical limits of Wu and Taylor. After 10 h of shearing, the mean particle size decreased and the particle distribution became narrower in comparison with the results obtained after 1 h of shearing. We explain this result by inferring that before the sample reached steady‐state morphology, its rate of coalescence was greater than the rate of particle breakup. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Polym Sci Part B: Polym Phys 39: 2317–2332, 2001
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".