Effects of polymer architecture and composition on the interfacial properties of temperature‐responsive hydrophobically‐modified poly(<i>N</i>‐isopropylacrylamides)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The relationship between polymer structure and activity at the air/water interface was investigated as a function of temperature for various hydrophobically‐modified poly(N‐isopropylacrylamides) (HM‐PNIPAM). To examine the importance of several structural parameters, an unmodified PNIPAM was used as a reference polymer and two sets of HM‐PNIPAM were used (i) bearing an n‐alkyl chain at one or both terminal positions of the polymer backbone, and (ii) carrying n‐alkyl or n‐perfluoroalkyl chains randomly along the polymer backbone. The interfacial properties of HM‐PNIPAM, including the formation and the compression/expansion reversibility of the monolayers, at different subphase temperatures were studied by using the Langmuir film balance technique. The stability and dynamic nature of the HM‐PNIPAM monolayers were further studied by the time‐dependent surface pressure measurements. Within the studied temperature range (12–28°C), all polymers formed monolayers on the water surface, with the surface activity of polymers enhanced with increasing subphase temperature. Decreasing the monolayer compression/expansion rate enhanced the hysteresis between the compression and expansion isotherms. All results suggested a compression‐promoted temperature‐ and rate‐dependent conformational rearrangement of the polymer on the water surface. Increasing the level of hydrophobic modifications progressively improved the monolayer compressibility and stability, and reduced the hysteresis. Samples of HM‐PNIPAM bearing fluorocarbon chains formed more stable and compressible monolayers, comparing to their hydrocarbon analogs, and showed a less pronounced hysteresis. 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 | 0.000 |
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".