The Two Phase Transitions of Hydrophobically End-Capped Poly(<i>N</i>-isopropylacrylamide)s in Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High-sensitivity differential scanning calorimetry (HS-DSC) thermograms of aqueous poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM) solutions present a sharp unimodal endotherm that signals the heat-induced dehydration/collapse of the PNIPAM chain. Similarly, α,ω-di-n-octadecyl-PNIPAM (C18-PN-C18) aqueous solutions exhibit a unimodal endotherm. In contrast, aqueous solutions of α,ω-hydrophobically modified PNIPAMs with polycyclic terminal groups, such as pyrenylbutyl (Py-PN-Py), adamantylethyl (Ad-PN-Ad), and azopyridine- (C12-PN-AzPy) moieties, exhibit bimodal thermograms. The origin of the two transitions was probed using microcalorimetry measurements, turbidity tests, variable temperature 1H NMR (VT-NMR) spectroscopy, and 2-dimensional NOESY experiments with solutions of polymers of molar mass (Mn) from 5 to 20 kDa and polymer concentrations of 0.1 to 3.0 mg/mL. The analysis outcome led us to conclude that the difference of the thermograms reflects the distinct self-assembly structures of the polymers. C18-PN-C18 assembles in water in the form of flower micelles held together by a core of tightly packed n-C18 chains. In contrast, polymers end-tagged with azopyridine, pyrenylbutyl, or adamantylethyl form a loose core that allows chain ends to escape from the micelles, to reinsert in them, or to dangle in surrounding water. The predominant low temperature (T1) endotherm, which is insensitive to polymer concentration, corresponds to the dehydration/collapse of PNIPAM chains within the micelles, while the higher temperature (T2) endotherm is attributed to the dehydration of dangling chains and intermicellar bridges. This study of the two phase transitions of telechelic PNIPAM homopolymer highlights the rich variety of morphologies attainable via responsive hydrophobically modified aqueous polymers and may open the way to a variety of practical applications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".