MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330828031 · doi:10.1021/la103287r

Complexation between α-Cyclodextrin and PEGylated-PAMAM Dendrimers at Low and High pH Values

2010· article· en· W2330828031 on OpenAlexaff
Salim Khouri, Kam Chiu Tam

Bibliographic record

VenueLangmuir · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicDendrimers and Hyperbranched Polymers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDendrimerChemistryZeta potentialProtonationCyclodextrinEthylene glycolAmine gas treatingTitrationPolymer chemistryDynamic light scatteringPEG ratioNuclear chemistryOrganic chemistryNanoparticleNanotechnologyMaterials scienceIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poly(ethylene glycol)-grafted-poly(amido amine) (PEGylated-PAMAM) dendrimers have attracted increasing amounts of attention because of their improved stability, toxicity, and better particle drug leakage property. The complexation of α-cyclodextrin (α-CD) with grafted PEG segments on the surface of PAMAM dendrimers was elucidated by light scattering and titration calorimetry. At pH 10, complexation between α-CD and PEGylated-PAMAM occurred once α-CD was titrated into the PAMAM solution. We observed for the first time a unique phenomenon at pH 2, where no binding took place until a critical α-CD concentration (C*) of ∼8.0 mM was reached. The size of the nanostructures increased from 6.7 to 57.6 nm when the α-CD concentration was increased from 0.5 to 15 mM at pH 2. The zeta potential of PEGylated-PAMAM at pH 2 was +6.7 mV. Thus, the dendrimers possessed positive charges attributed to the protonation of primary amine groups on PAMAM chains that impart electrostatic repulsive forces to the system. The morphology of the complex is expected to be different at two different pH values (2 and 10) because the former produces a clear solution and the latter forms a turbid solution with white precipitates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLangmuirSame topicDendrimers and Hyperbranched PolymersFrench-language works237,207