Simultaneous Coating of Silica Particles by Two Diblock Copolymers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Silica particles have been coated by two diblock copolymers, P1 and P2, through a one-pot reaction, and the resultant particles were characterized. The P1 and P2 used were synthesized by anionic polymerization and denote PIPSMA-b-PFOEMA and PIPSMA-b-PtBA, respectively. Here PIPSMA, PFOEMA, and PtBA correspond individually to poly[3-(triisopropyloxysilyl)propyl methacrylate], poly(perfluorooctylethyl methacrylate), and poly(tert-butyl acrylate). Catalyzed by HCl, the PIPSMA blocks of P1 and P2 co-condensed onto the surface of the same silica particles, exposing the PtBA and PFOEMA blocks. The relative amounts of grafted P1 and P2 could be tuned by changing the P1 to P2 weight ratio and were quantified by thermogravimetric analysis. The vertical segregation of the PFOEMA and PtBA chains could also be adjusted. Casting a dispersion of the coated particles in a solvent selective for either PFOEMA or PtBA onto glass plates or silicon wafers yielded films consisting of bumpy silica particles whose surfaces were enriched by the polymer that was soluble in the casting solvent. Particulate coatings with tunable surface wetting properties were obtained by changing either the proportion of grafted P1 and P2 or the casting solvent for coated silica. When a silica dispersion in perfluoromethylcychohexane (C(7)F(14)) was cast, films of coated silica that had P1 weight fractions of 25, 50, and 75% were all superhydrophobic because the particle surfaces were enriched by PFOEMA, which was selectively soluble in C(7)F(14).
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".