Mechanical Properties of Polyelectrolyte Complex Films Based on Polyvinylamine and Carboxymethyl Cellulose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homogeneous polyelectrolyte complex films were cast from mixtures of poly(vinylamine- co -vinylformamide) and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) in 50% formic acid aqueous solution with compositions varying between CMC blended with pure polyvinylamine (PVAm) and CMC blended with pure poly( N -vinylformamide) (PNVF). The tensile strength and tensile modulus of the complex films were measured as functions of polymer ratio, molecular weight, function group content, and water content. PVAm addition lowered the strength and modulus of dry CMC whereas PNVF did not; intermediate PVAm−PNVF copolymers gave intermediate results. Mechanical strength decreased with increasing molecular weight of CMC and carboxyl content, but was not affected by molecular weight of PVAm. The mechanical properties of all the films decreased with increasing water content. CMC:PVAm films were swollen gels in water, whereas CMC:PNVF films dissolved in water. Heating did not improve the mechanical strength, whereas cross-linking with 5% glutaraldehyde doubled the strength. It was proposed that hydrogen bonding was the predominant intermolecular force responsible for the strength of dry film blends whereas ionic bonds between CMC-carboxyl and PVAm-ammonium ions were responsible for the integrity of water swollen polyelectrolyte films.
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".