Using controlled radical polymerization to confirm the lower critical solution temperature of an N‐(alkoxyalkyl) acrylamide polymer in aqueous solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT N‐(3‐Methoxypropyl) acrylamide (MPAM) was polymerized by controlled radical polymerization (CRP) methods such as nitroxide‐mediated polymerization (NMP) and reversible addition–fragmentation chain‐transfer polymerization (RAFT). CRP was expected to yield well‐defined polymers with sharp lower critical solution temperature (LCST) transitions. NMP with the BlocBuilder (2‐([tert‐butyl[1‐(diethoxyphosphoryl)‐2,2‐dimethylpropyl]amino]oxy)‐2‐methylpropanoic acid) and SG1 ([tert‐butyl[1‐(diethoxyphosphoryl)‐2,2‐dimethylpropyl]amino] oxidanyl) initiating system revealed low yields and lack of control (high dispersity, Đ ∼ 1.5–1.6, and inhibition of chain growth). However, RAFT was far more effective, with linear number average molecular weight, , versus conversion, X, plots, low Đ ∼ 1.2–1.4 and the ability to form block copolymers using N,N‐diethylacrylamide (DEAAM) as the second monomer. Poly(MPAM) (with = 13.7–25.3 kg mol−1) thermoresponsive behavior in aqueous media revealed cloud point temperatures (CPT)s between 73 and 92 °C depending on solution concentration (ranging from 1 to 3 wt %). The and the molecular weight distribution were the key factors determining the CPT and the sharpness of the response, respectively. Poly(MPAM)‐b‐poly(DEAAM) block copolymer ( = 22.3 kg mol−1, Đ = 1.41, molar composition FDEAAM = 0.38) revealed dual LCSTs with both segments revealing distinctive CPTs (at 75 and 37 °C for poly(MPAM) and poly(DEAAM) blocks, respectively) by both UV–Vis and dynamic light scattering. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J. Polym. Sci., Part A: Polym. Chem. 2015, 53, 59–67
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".