Methacrylic acid‐based amphiphilic block‐random copolymer stabilizers for emulsion polymerization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The emulsion polymerization of styrene was investigated using polystyrene‐ b ‐[polystyrene‐ r ‐poly(methacrylic acid)] amphiphilic block‐random copolymers (BRCs) of different compositions as stabilizers. These stabilizers with molar masses <20,000 g/mol, which possess unique dispersion behaviour (i.e., self‐assembly with low aggregation numbers) when dissolved in aqueous medium at alkaline pH, were prepared by the nitroxide‐mediated bulk polymerization of styrene to achieve a desired molar mass followed by chain extension by batchwise addition of styrene and methacrylic acid monomers to obtain the stabilizing group. Emulsion polymerizations of styrene stabilized by these BRCs yielded stable latexes with particle diameters that range between 30 and 150 nm. When different concentrations of the stabilizer (2–3.5 mM) were utilized for emulsion polymerization of styrene, a similar novel emulsion polymerization mechanism observed previously by our group for the acrylic‐acid based amphiphilic BRCs was also seen, further validating the difference between this class of polymeric surfactants and conventional small molecule surfactants, block copolymers, or alkali soluble resins. The performance of methacrylic‐acid based BRCs was more efficient and yielded higher surface coverage of the polystyrene latexes when compared to the acrylic‐acid based BRCs as a result of the more hydrophobic nature of the former.
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".