Biomacromolecular engineering: design, synthesis and characterization. One‐pot synthesis of block copolymers of arborescent polyisobutylene and polystyrene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Novel arborescent block copolymers comprising of an arborescent rubbery polyisobutylene (PIB) midsegment and glassy polystyrene (PSt) end blocks were prepared by sequential addition of monomers. Synthesis was conducted by the use of 4‐(2‐methoxyisopropyl) styrene as an inimer‐type initiator in conjunction with titanium tetrachloride (TiCl4) in 60:40 (v/v) methylcyclohexane/methyl chloride solvent mixture. Isobutylene was polymerized for 1–2 hr and then prechilled styrene in the same solvent mixture was sequentially added with select additives to the reaction flask. The recovered block copolymers were purified and then characterized by 1H‐NMR, size exclusion chromatograph (SEC), tensile test, atomic force Microscopy (AFM) and X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). Samples with 16.4–32.8 wt% PSt and Mn = 47,600–125,900 g/mol (Mw/Mn = 2.02–4.45) displayed thermoplastic elastomeric properties with 5–9.2 MPa tensile strength and 490–920% elongation. The arborescent block copolymers showed surface morphologies ranging from spherical to cylindrical/lamellar nanometer‐sized discreet PSt phases dispersed in a continuous PIB matrix, with a 10 nm PIB layer on the surface. Drug release profiles of paclitaxel from two arborescent blocks were found to be similar to that measured from Translute®. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
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".