The effect of hydrogen bonding on the copolymerization kinetics of 2‐methoxyethyl acrylate with 2‐hydroxyethyl methacrylate in alcohol and aqueous solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The influence of alcohol and alcohol/water solutions on the radical copolymerization kinetics of 2‐hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) with 2‐methoxyethyl acrylate (MEA) is studied using pulsed‐laser‐polymerization coupled with size exclusion chromatography. It is found that MEA incorporation into the copolymer is increased in butanol, methanol (MeOH), and MeOH/H 2 O solutions relative to the bulk system. Copolymer composition can be represented for solvent levels ≥50 vol.% by a single pair of reactivity ratios ( = 2.39 ± 0.16, = 0.28 ± 0.02) that differ from those in bulk ( = 3.14 ± 0.44, = 0.27 ± 0.04). MeOH as solvent slightly reduces the propagation rate coefficient of HEMA compared to the bulk system, in contrast to the increase in the MEA value. Thus, the value of is higher in MeOH for MEA‐rich systems compared to bulk, with the effect of the solvent reduced as the HEMA content in the comonomer mixture is increased. Adding water as cosolvent significantly increases values for both monomers, with in MeOH/H 2 O higher than bulk values over the complete composition range. Furthermore, for 50% monomer in the solvent systems studied can be represented by the implicit penultimate unit model using a single pair of radical reactivity ratios. It is concluded that the strongest influence of hydrogen‐bonding solvents compared to bulk is on the homopropagation values, rather than on copolymerization parameters, and that the difference in relative reactivity of non‐functional and functional monomers in bulk and aqueous solution should be accounted for when studying emulsion copolymerization.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".