Development and characterization of homopolymers and copolymers from the family of polyphenylene oxides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Poly(2,6‐dimethyl‐1,4‐phenylene oxide), PDMPO, poly(2,6‐diphenyl‐1,4‐phenylene oxide), PDPPO, as well as their copolymers of different compositions, having both random and block structures, have been synthesized and characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, proton nuclear magnetic resonance, and gel permeation chromatography. Solution‐cast films were prepared from all synthesized polymers using chloroform as a solvent. The thermal properties of the resulting films were characterized by differential thermal analysis and differential scanning calorimetry, whereas their morphology was investigated using X‐ray diffraction. Ultimately, the potential of the synthesized polymers for gas separation was studied by examining gas permeation properties of the respective thin films in single gas permeation tests involving N2, O2, CH4, and CO2. In general, the O2 and CO2 permeability coefficients decrease with the PDPPO content. However, the largest drop in the permeability coefficients occurs between PDMPO and a copolymer having the lowest PDPPO content, and the permeability coefficients PDPPO are comparable or even lower than the permeability coefficients of the copolymers having the largest PDDPO content. On the basis of combination of the permeability coefficients and their ratios for CO2/CH4 and O2/N2, random copolymers appear to be a better candidate for gas separation membranes than their block counterparts. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Appl Polym Sci 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".