Mechanistic Insights into the Directed Assembly of Hydrogel Blocks Mediated by Polyelectrolytes or Microgels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we report the directed assembly of hydrogel blocks mediated by electrostatic interactions. We compared two different assembly mechanisms, one mediated by microgel particles and another mediated by direct interaction between oppositely charged blocks. The system consisted of hydrogel blocks made of an interpenetrated network of (hydroxyethyl)methacrylate-poly(ethylene glycol)dimethacrylate (HEMA-PEGDMA) and either positively charged polyethylenimine (PEI) or negatively charged hyaluronic acid (HA). Positively charged hydrogel blocks were pretreated with negatively charged microgel particles (MG) made of N -isopropylacrylamide-methacrylic acid. Both systems (PEI/HA and PEI/MG) demonstrated spontaneous directed assembly, meaning that positive blocks were systematically found in contact with oppositely charged blocks. Directed assembly in water of PEI/HA blocks resulted in large and open aggregates, while PEI/MG blocks exhibited more compact aggregates. Effects of salt and pH were also assessed for both systems. Inhibition of blocks aggregation was found to appear above a critical salt concentration ( C Salt * ) which was significantly higher for the PEI/HA system (80 mM) compared to the PEI/MG system (5–20 mM). The observed difference was interpreted in terms of the nanostructure of the contact area between blocks. Blocks aggregation was also found to be controlled by the content of negatively charged groups in the microgels as well as the concentration of MG in the suspension ( C MG ) used to treat the hydrogel block surfaces. Our results shine light on the subtle differences underlying the adhesion mechanisms between hydrogel blocks and suggest new routes toward the design of innovative complex soft materials.
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".