Syntheses and micellar properties of well‐defined amphiphilic AB<sub>2</sub>and A<sub>2</sub>B Y‐shaped miktoarm star copolymers of ε‐caprolactone and 2‐(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Well‐defined amphiphilic PCL‐b‐(PDMA)2and (PCL)2‐b‐PDMA Y‐shaped miktoarm star copolymers and PCL‐b‐PDMA linear diblock copolymer were synthesized via a combination of ring‐opening polymerization (ROP) and atom transfer radical polymerization (ATRP), where PCL is poly (ε‐caprolactone) and PDMA is poly(2‐(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate). All of these three types of copolymers have comparable PCL contents and overall molecular weights. The PCL block is hydrophobic while the PDMA block is hydrophilic, and they behave like polymeric surfactants and self‐assemble into PCL‐core micelles in aqueous media. The chain architectural effects on the micellization properties, including the aggregation number, size, polydispersity, and micelle densities of (PCL29)2‐b‐PDMA45, PCL61‐b‐(PDMA24)2, and PCL56‐b‐PDMA49in dilute aqueous solution, were then explored by dynamic and static laser light scattering (LLS). The intensity–average hydrodynamic radius, 〈Rh〉, the aggregation number per micelle,Nagg, and the core radius,Rcore, of the PCL‐core micelles all increased in the order PCL61‐b‐(PDMA24)2< (PCL29)2‐b‐PDMA45< PCL56‐b‐PDMA49. The surface area occupied per soluble PDMA block at the core/corona interface increased in the order PCL61‐b‐(PDMA24)2< PCL56‐b‐PDMA49< (PCL29)2‐b‐PDMA45. PCL61‐b‐(PDMA24)2micelles had the largest overall micelle density, possibly because of that the presence of two soluble PDMA arms at the junction point favors the bending of the core–corona interface and thus the formation of densely‐packed core‐shell nanostructures. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part A: Polym Chem 45: 1446–1462, 2007
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".