Hydrazide-Derivatized Microgels Bond to Wet, Oxidized Cellulose Giving Adhesion Without Drying or Curing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrazide-derivatized poly(N-isopropylacrylamide-co-acrylic acid) microgels gave strong adhesion to wet, TEMPO oxidized, regenerated cellulose membranes without a drying or heating step. Adhesion was attributed to hydrazone covalent bond formation with aldehyde groups present on the cellulose surfaces. This is one of only three chemistries we have found that gives significant never-dried adhesion between wet cellulose surfaces. By contrast, for cellulose joints that have been dried and heated before wet testing, the hydrazide-hydrazone chemistry offers no advantages over standard paper industry wet strength resins. The design rules for the hydrazide-microgel adhesives include: cationic microgels are superior to anionic gels; the lower the microgel cross-link density, the higher the adhesion; longer PEG-based hydrazide tethers offer no advantage over shorter attachments; and, adhesion is independent of microgel diameter. Many of these rules were in agreement with predictions of a simple adhesion model where the microgels were assumed to be ideal springs. We propose that the unexpected, high cohesion between neighboring microgels in multilayer films was a result of bond formation between hydrazide groups and residual NHS-carboxyl esters from the preparation of the hydrazide microgels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".