The effect of cosurfactants and the initiator concentration on the polymer to surfactant concentration in nanolatexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effect of cosurfactant and initiator concentration on the ab initio production of nanolatexes using low surfactant levels was investigated. While the use of cosurfactants (acrylic acid and pentanol) increased the amount of monomer that can be used in styrene‐SDS microemulsion formulations to 13 wt %, high surfactant concentrations are still required, resulting in polymer‐to‐surfactant ratios (Pol/Surf) <1. Latexes with particle size of 30 ± 5 nm were produced upon polymerization of these microemulsions. The Pol/Surf can be significantly increased by increasing the initiator concentration of emulsion polymerization recipes. Particle sizes are comparable with microemulsion latexes, however, less surfactant is required. The reduction in the particle size with higher initiator concentration is attributed to a higher efficiency of particle nucleation and to a higher nucleation rate relative to the rate of monomer transfer. Nanolatexes (particle size < 30 nm) were obtained with 19 wt % solids content and Pol/Surf of 3.6 in ab initio . © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem, 2012
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".