Surface Behavior of Boronic Acid-Terminated Silicones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Silicone polymers, with their high flexibility, lie in a monolayer at the air-water interface as they are compressed until a critical pressure is reached, at which point multilayers are formed. Surface pressure measurements demonstrate that, in contrast, silicones that are end-modified with polar groups take up lower surface areas under compression because the polar groups submerge into the water phase. Boronic acids have the ability to undergo coordination with Lewis bases. As part of a program to examine the surface properties of boronic acids, we have prepared boronic acid-modified silicones (SiBAs) and examined them at the air-water interface to better understand if they behave like other end-functional silicones. Monolayers of silicones, aminopropylsilicones, and SiBAs were characterized at the air-water interface as a function of end functionalization and silicone chain length. Brewster angle and atomic force microscopies confirm domain formation and similar film morphologies for both functionalized and non-functionalized silicone chains. There is a critical surface pressure (10 mN m(-1)) independent of chain length that corresponds to a first-order phase transition. Below this transition, the film appears to be a homogeneous monolayer, whose thickness is independent of the chain length. Ellipsometry at the air-water interface indicates that the boronic acid functionality leads to a significant increase of film thickness at low molecular areas that is not seen for non-functionalized silicone chains. What differentiates the boronic acids from simple silicones or other end-functionalized silicones, in particular, is the larger area occupied by the headgroup when under compression compared to other or non-end-functionalized silicones, which suggests an in-plane rather than submerged orientation that may be driven by boronic acid self-complexation.
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) | 0.002 | 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".